Currency Manipulation

The Washington Post issues its endorsements for local Virginia House of Delegate seats. All four are currently occupied by Republicans, and there discussion of each race begins by observing that, in essence, the incumbent is a lunatic. There's the one who was one "of a handful of lawmakers to speak out against an otherwise highly qualified judicial nominee who happened to be gay." There's the one who "voted to study whether Virginia should develop its own currency as a hedge against financial chaos." There's the one whose "contempt for homosexuals is surpassed only by his disregard for women who have abortions; he suggested that God exacts vengeance on women who abort their fetuses by assuring that their next pregnancy will produce a disabled child." And finally there's the one "who has tormented gays, immigrants and women with his right-wing views."

Well, that makes life easy doesn't it? Not so fast! Two of these four somehow managed to get the Post's endorsement anyway. That's because it appears that the Post's only criteria for its endorsement was a vote for a transportation bill the paper thought was important. Two of the incumbents voted for the bill and garnered an endorsement, two opposed it and saw the nod go to their challenger. Simple as that.

In case you're curious, the lucky duo who got the endorsement were Mr. Won't Vote for the Gay and Mr. Create our own Currency (incredibly, the Post managed to call both "pragmatists" for their transportation vote in the same paragraph that they opened by detailing their extremism).

And They Never Saw a Latte Again

Some folks are buzzing about the fact that Conde Nast is ending its internship program after being sued for not paying its workers. This has led to some gloating from libertarian sorts, who are elated to inform us that when government forbids for-profit employees from working for free (or for pennies), sometimes the opportunity to work at starvation wages goes away!

Color me unconvinced. I'm truly unconvinced that nobody at Conde Nast will now be doing ... whatever it is that the interns did that allegedly kept them in the office 12 hours at day at $12 a day. The difference is now the person (a) won't be called an "intern" and (b) will get something approximating an entry-level worker's salary. This is not a bad thing. Indeed, it is kind of the point. Whatever wonderful experiences one gets by being one's own Devil Wears Prada extra is now available to people who actually need their jobs to pay money.

The 47%, Redux

Maine Governor Paul LePage (R) takes a page out of Mitt Romney's book (via):

Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) took a page from the Mitt Romney playbook when he told a conservative audience at an event last week that 47 percent of able-bodied people in the state don't work, the Bangor Daily News reported Tuesday.

[...]

"Number two, when you talk about workforce development, it really means that the people that -- about 47 percent of able-bodied people in the state of Maine don't work," LePage said. A woman can then be heard on the recording reacting to that figure, to which LePage reiterated "About 47 percent. It's really bad."

Politifact rates this statement "mostly true" because the real figure undoubtedly contains two digits followed by a percent symbol.

Sweet Home Alabamacare

One of the interesting points about Obamacare's supposed unpopularity is that it combines the people who don't like it because it's liberal socialist communist overreach, and the people who don't like it because they're holding out for single-payer. The GOP, naturally, really represents only the latter constituency. And while such persons do represent the majority of the loyal Obamacare opposition, breaking the numbers out is rather revealing. 41% of Americans support Obamacare, and another 12% oppose it because they wish it was more liberal. Only 38% of Americans oppose it on conservative grounds. To put that in perspective, 38% is roughly the vote share President Obama managed to win in Alabama in 2012.

Now this does raise the question of who exactly these 12% not-liberal-enoughers are. I, for example, might wish Obamacare was more liberal than it is, but I still won't say I oppose it. There are some Americans who really are left-wing enough so they oppose, on substance, mainstream liberal policy objectives, but I don't think they total 12%. There's probably some remnants of the firebagger wing of the party mixed in here. And there are probably some people who, unlike me, will vote "opposed" in a poll question of this sort of they can conceive of any policy they'd prefer to Obamacare, even if they don't find the law itself to be particularly objectionable.

In all cases, to say such people won't vote Republican is not to say they will vote Democratic, but obviously to the extent that 12% has a lean, it will lean in favor of the Democratic Party.

Quote of the Weekend

Talk radio host and far-right extremist Alex Jones hosted a gun rights rally at The Alamo, which concluded by raffling off various high powered firearms. Scott Eric Kauffman remarks:

Because nothing says “America is a meritocracy!” more than a game of chance in which the winner obtains enough firepower to take out the losers.

Things People Blame Jews For, Volume III: Rudeness of the French

I had an idea for this week's "things people blame Jews for" edition. It was solid, and thematic around a life event of mine. But sometimes, things just fall into your lap, and you can't bear to let them pass. So it is with this week's entry, wherein we discover that Jews are to blame for ... the rudeness of the French [http://henrymakow.com/2013/10/French-Rudeness-Due-to-Occult-Attack%20.html].

In general, the French are rude because as a people, we are under attack.

Most of people just reflect back the aggression they are suffering themselves.

We are under an occult attack from the Masonic Jewish cabal that controls France. Although the majority of French cannot identify this source, we are reacting to the evil we are being fed by the media, politics and culture as a whole.

We've been uprooted as a Christian people, and the loss of Christianity as religion, ethic, moral values, communication, education and so on, is what's turning us into reckless maniacs.

We do not know how to interact with others nicely because evil is being forced down our throat daily. This creates a deep sense of moral discomfort and insecurity. And when you add the constant influx of foreigners into the country, inspired by the Masonic Jewish cabal, you end up with a people that feels (the word is not too strong) terrorized.

I have to admit this one surprised even me. Typically, Jews are blamed for grand social calamities or massive disasters. Being blamed for a bad attitude is distinctly small ball -- even if it does come tied to our supposed control of an entire nation-state. On the other hand, at some level it also is demonstrative of our limitless reach and zeal for control. Any tyrannical cabal can control a banking system -- it takes a true attention to detail to be responsible for individual mood swings as well.

While the hat tip goes to Adam Holland, this post had to be dedicated to Phoebe Maltz Bovy, given that it is basically the bizarro version of her own blog.

Norm Geras, RIP

Norm Geras, writer of the famous NormBlog, has passed away. He was a superb writer, an incisive thinker on topics of political philosophy generally and Jewish experience particularly, and a valued member of the blogosphere. Though I only interacted with him a few times, he was unfailingly courteous and thoughtful in all of my interactions.

Rest in Peace, Norm. You'll be missed.

Followers

One of the nice things about being a politics junkie in DC is that everyone else is a politics junkie too. Even the muggers:

An attempted mugging on Capitol Hill was thwarted Monday night by a quick-thinking victim — one who apparently keeps an eye on national security news.

The victim was walking home to her Capitol Hill townhouse when she was violently confronted by a man in the dark, grassy area between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Heritage Foundation.

The assailant grabbed the victim's arm and demanded her wallet and phone. "I said the first thing I could think of," the victim, who asked to remain nameless, told the Washington Examiner.

The victim, who weighs a petite 95 pounds, explained to the assailant she was an intern with the National Security Agency. As an intern, she said, she had no cash to fork over (she is actually a staffer at a D.C. nonprofit, and in fact did have cash on her).

[...]

The victim elaborated further, warning the would-be mugger that the phone she held in her hand — complete with a pink-and-blue Lilly Pulitzer case — would be tracked by the NSA if she were to turn it over.

"I told him that the NSA could track the phone within minutes, and it could cause possible problems for him," the victim recounted.

The NSA has been in the spotlight this year due to controversial and far-reaching intelligence-gathering programs it had kept hidden from public knowledge.

Perhaps wary of just how far the NSA would go to keep its assets safe, the assailant just "looked at me and ran away," the victim said.

Well played. And good on the criminal too, for staying abreast of the news.

Sticky Slopes on the California Law Review Website

Here's a link to a PDF of Sticky Slopes on the California Law Review's website, as well as the final abstract:

Legal literature is replete with references to the infamous "slippery slope"-situations in which a shift in policy lubricates the path towards further, perhaps more controversial, reforms or measures. Less discussed is the idea of a "sticky slope." Sticky slopes manifest when a social movement victory acts to block, instead of enable, further policy goals. Instead of greasing the slope down, they effectively make it "stickier." Despite the lack of scholarly attention, sticky slope arguments show up again and again in legal argument, particularly in areas focused on minority rights. Formal legal doctrine can create sticky slopes insofar as it reduces legal protections for marginalized groups as they gain political power. Informally, sticky slopes can also develop through backlash, through legal arguments whose valences drift from their original intention, or through society's exhaustion with attempting to address the problem of inequality to seemingly little effect.


I argue that attentiveness to sticky slopes is important for three reasons. First, awareness of the prospect of a sticky slope can be important in long-term social movement strategizing. Where social movements are in pursuit of a cluster of related political ends, they will want to choose their tactics carefully so as to minimize the degree that their past accomplishments can be turned against them. Second, when deployed by legal actors, sticky slope arguments sometimes do not play true causal roles, but instead act as a mask for other, less tolerable justifications. Unmasking sticky slope logic can force legal policymakers to be more explicit about the rationales and implications of their decision. Third, sticky slopes reveal how prior victories are themselves sites of social conflict and controversy over meaning, which social movements will want to turn to their preferred ends.

David Schraub, Sticky Slopes, 101 Calif. L. Rev. 1249 (2013).

Identifying the Problem

Seventh Circuit Judge and noted polymath Richard Posner has come out and stated that he was "absolutely" wrong to have voted to uphold voter ID laws. Posner authored a 2-1 opinion in Crawford v. Marion County, later upheld by the Supreme Court, which affirmed the constitutionality of Indiana's voter ID requirement.

Yes [I got the Crawford case wrong. Absolutely. And the problem is that there hadn't been that much activity with voter identification. And ... maybe we should have been more imaginative ... we ... weren't really given strong indications that requiring additional voter identification would actually disfranchise people entitled to vote. There was a dissenting judge, Judge Evans, since deceased, and I think he is right. But at the time I thought what we were doing was right.

It is interesting that the majority opinion was written by Justice Stevens, who is very liberal, more liberal than I was or am.... But I think we did not have enough information. And of course it illustrates the basic problem that I emphasize in book. We judges and lawyers, we don’t know enough about the subject matters that we regulate, right? And that if the lawyers had provided us with a lot of information about the abuse of voter identification laws, this case would have been decided differently.

I don't necessarily disagree that there were, in fact, plenty of people who had the knowledge and imagination to understand how voter ID laws would act primarily to disenfranchise selcted classes of voters while doing virtually nothing to staunch the voter fraud non-issue. Nonetheless, Judge Posner deserves a nod of approval for admitting that he was wrong on such a high-profile issue. Between this and A Failure of Capitalism, Judge Posner has shown an admirable willingness to revisit his positions when new facts warrant it, and that is laudable.

Things Jews Are Blamed For, Volume II: New York City

Greetings, blog readers! I'm in New York City for a wedding, and what better place to do the weekly "Things Jews Are Blamed For" series than the Big Apple? Now, I thought about just doing 9/11 for this entry but, come on, that's a gimme. The point of this series is to stretch our horizons a bit -- really reach down into that primordial id.

So instead of doing New York's greatest tragedy in living memory, I decided to go even bigger: New York. All of it. The entire city and state. Jews' are to blame. The site is "Incog Man" ("Sick of the BS" is the tag, right above a link to "The Rela Holocaust Deal"), the article is titled "Like They Say: It Really is 'JEW York City'" [link if you dare: http://incogman.net/2010/11/it-really-is-jew-york-city/]. Here's how it begins:

New York (City) is a place that is heavily influenced, and in the majority of instances, utterly controlled by the obscenely wealthy Zionist elite. The governorship is currently occupied by David Paterson, who replaced the disgraced Zionist Eliot Spitzer. Just two days after Spitzer stepped down, New York’s Zionist leaders fully endorsed Paterson, who had been well known for his charity activities in the Zionist community even prior to becoming governor (1). His lieutenant governor, who controls the state senate, is Richard Ravitch. Though his ascension to the position was ruled unlawful (2), he remains in power. Ravitch is a powerful Zionist whose construction company built Manhattan Plaza and Waterside Plaza and who has been involved in Zionist fund-raising for half of a century (3). The speaker of New York’s State Assembly is Zionist Sheldon Silver, and earlier this year, he made a request that Ravitch, and not Paterson, should take control of New York’s budget crisis (4).

New York’s US Senate members include the junior official, Kirsten Gillibrand, who stated that she will be an ‘unwavering supporter’ of the Zionist entity and ‘continue to assure Israel’s strategic military advantage in the region (5),’ and the senior official, long-familiar Zionist politician Chuck Schumer, who made it known that he thinks it makes sense to strangle Gaza economically (6). New York City’s representatives in the US House are entirely Zionist. Anthony Weiner, Jerrold Nadler, Nita Lowey, Steven Israel, Eliot Engel, and Gary Ackerman all support Israel unabashedly. New York City’s mayor is 9/11 criminal, the Zionist billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who regularly donates to pro-Israel charities (7). New York’s Department of Education is headed by Zionist Joel Klein, selected to serve by Bloomberg. Klein and Bloomberg finalized an agreement with the United Federation of Teachers’ President, Zionist Randi Weingarten, to have total dominion over New York’s school system (8).

The diamond industry in New York has always been a ‘Jewish’ establishment since the city’s inception (9), and once the plot to create Israel was hatched, the diamond district began funneling dollars to the Zionist power brokers. The Diamonds Dealers Club (DDC), the elite ‘club’ within the diamond district that makes all of the important decisions, has a board of directors and an arbitrators’ committee comprised of several Israeli-born Zionists, and is owned and operated by Zionists Moshe Mosbacher, who serves as President, and Martin Hochbaum, who serves as Managing Director (10). The former president of DDC, Jacob Banda, who recently died, was a staunch Zionist who contributed substantial amounts to Hatzalah, a Jews-only ambulance service that is prominent in Israel (11). New York’s diamond district is going through a renovation process that will model it after Israel’s Diamond Exchange (12). All of Israel’s top diamond exporters have offices within the New York diamond district. The transactions being processed represent billions of dollars for the Zionist entity (13).

The most famous, and most influential New York city paper is the New York Times, owned by the Ochs-Sulzberger family, a wealthy Zionist creed that has donated to pro-Israel causes for more than 100 years despite outwardly opposing the usurping entity at times so the family appears ‘non-Zionist’ (14). To this very day, it operates with a strong bias for the Zionist state and reinforces the negative portrayal of Arabs and Muslims in accordance with the other mainstream media outlets (15). The NASDAQ is controlled by Zionist Robert Greifeld, who signed an agreement with Ester Levanon, the CEO of the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange to formalize a ‘closer relationship’ between the two markets (16). The Dow Jones is controlled by the CME Group, owned by Christian Zionists Terrence Duffy and Craig Donohue. Duffy and Donohue purchased the stock exchange from News Corp, owned by infamous Zionist Rupert Murdoch. Duffy and Donohue were honored by Hebrew University earlier this year for their ‘strong support of the state of Israel,’ with Duffy receiving the Zionist school’s National Scopus Award (17). Hebrew University is built on illegally occupied land in Jerusalem. Wall Street is crawling with Zionists, and every company involved in the recent criminal bailout of the banking industry had deep loyalties to the illegitimate terror state. Several of the financial giants were also connected to the 9/11 false flag attack (18).

It goes on (and on and on), but the upshot is apparently this: "It is perfectly reasonable to hypothesize, considering how much financial clout and political power the Zionists possess, that any project, structure, or event going against their interest in New York wouldn't be able to come to fruition." I'd like to make a crack about the size of my hotel room, but I've actually been pleasantly surprised. Then again, I am Jewish, so presumably the Sheraton bent over backwards to give me this 6th floor masterpiece.

In any event, the verdict is clear: If it happens in New York, it's the Jews' fault. Tune in next week, for more exciting adventures in "Things Jews Are Blamed For"!

Quote of the Day

Johann Gottlieb Fichte previously gained mentioned on this blog for advocating that, as a prerequisite for their getting civil rights, Jewish "heads should be cut off in one night and replaced with others not containing a single Jewish idea." This quote, while equally revealing, is somewhat less revolting:

"What sort of philosophy one chooses depends, therefore, on what sort of [person] one is; for a philosophical system is not a dead piece of furniture that we accept or reject as we wish; it is rather a thing animated by the soul of the person who holds it."

Johann Gottlieb Fichte, The Science of Knowledge (Wissenschaftslehre) 16 (Heath and Lachs, trans., Appleton-Century Crofts 1970) (1797).

To some extent, our philosophies act as constraints on what sorts of behaviors we're willing to engage in, but to a much larger extent what behaviors we feel are important or valuable or worthwhile constrain the philosophies we are willing to accept. When last I made this point (with respect to our judicial interpretative philosophies), I illustrated it by a conversation in Firefly between River Tam and the bounty hunter Jubal Early:

River: You hurt people.

Early: Only when the job requires it.

River: Wrong. You're a bad liar. [...] You like to hurt folk.

Early: It's part of the job.

River: It's why you took the job.

Sometimes the fruits of our philosophical positions are just "part of the job." More often though, I suspect, they're why we adapted the philosophy in the first place.

Get This

Here's something you don't see everyday:

Two Orthodox rabbis and two others were arrested for allegedly kidnapping and beating men in order to force them to grant their wives religious Jewish divorces.

The men were arrested Wednesday night in a monthlong sting operation in which a female FBI agent posed as an Orthodox woman trying to get a religious divorce, or “get,” from her husband.

The problem whereby Jewish men do not give their wives a get, and thus prevent them from remarrying, is a well-known issue in the Orthodox Jewish community. They've come up with a variety of different responses, most of which are variations on social shaming techniques. This is the first I've heard of vigilante beatings, though.

The simple solution, of course, is to allow either party to file a get. Gender egalitarianism -- is there any problem it can't solve?

Private Eyes, Public Lies

A Texas high school teacher was discovered to have had nude photos of her taken while she was in college. Some parents are calling for her to be fired. Students, by contrast, are reallying to save her job (via). At the Texas Monthly, Dan Solomon asks if we're entering a new era where having some old naked photos crop up isn't a big deal. Naked selfies are becoming so common, he argues, that people will soon no longer be able to muster up any outrage about them.

This is something I've thought of a lot -- less from the naked selfie perspective than from the more general fact that far more of our lives (and particularly our young lives) are documented for posterity than ever before. As a society, we are forgetting how to forget -- everything you do is part of your permanent profile. Young people are constantly warned that those Facebook pictures of themselves at the kegger in high school could have serious consequences when they try to apply for jobs. Old transgressions can come back to shame people years later with a few well-placed google searches.

And that may be true, in the short-term. But in the long-term, I suspect it's more likely that we will systematically recalibrate our expectations. The shock value of a picture showing a guy passed out on the couch surrounded by PBR cans is dramatically diminished when the HR director has the same photos floating around. If everyone has embarrassing photos, dumb teen angsty poetry, and nude self-portraits scattered throughout the internet, then nobody does.

This has more profound consequences than I think are typically acknowledged. We talk about the dangers of the internet's limitless memory as if I current conceptions of shame, guilt, condemnation, and even personal continuity will survive intact. But it's at least as likely that the fact that a documented past is now the norm rather than the exception will cause significant alterations to all of these things. The regulation of underage drinking, for example, occurs now even though it is exceptionally likely that virtually every state and federal politician drank while underage. We know that, but we don't know that, and if a picture surfaced of Congressman John Doe drunk while in college would still be news. It's a different thing when the existence of these photos is commonplace and mainstream -- it prevents us from even maintaining the facade to shield ourselves from charges of hypocrisy -- or so I think.

The result, I hope, is a more forgiving society. If everyone's dirty laundry is out there for the rest to see, there's no sense preserving its status as reputation-annihilating. Reputation is a collective action problem, and the share-everything mentality of the internet helps resolve it. Or so I think.

A War of All Against All

Some gamers usee Scribblenauts to answer the ultimate question: Who would win a fight (everybody edition)? The ultimate champion may be a surprise.

Better Than Newt

This strikes me as a reach:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) told his Republican colleagues that the shutdown has improved the GOP's position in a closed-door lunch on Wednesday, according to the Washington Examiner.

Cruz paid for a poll conducted by Chris Perkins, of Republican polling firm Wilson Perkins Allen. The poll found results similar to those run by national firms this week, which showed Republicans taking the majority of blame for the shutdown. Only 28 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, according to findings from Gallup released Wednesday.

However, Cruz argued that because the shutdown resulted from a disagreement over Obamacare, not spending in general, Republicans are in a better position now than they were in 1995, according to the Examiner.

Cruz's poll found that 46 percent blame the 2013 shutdown on Republicans, while 51 percent blamed the 1995 shutdown on Republicans, according to the Examiner.

The public hates us, but not as much as they hated Newt Gingrich does not an effective rallying cry make.

Roadspierre

Well this will certainly brighten the grim DC mood:

On October 11th, a group of right-wing truckers is planning to drive to DC to shut down the major commuter highway that circles the city. They’ll continue to block traffic, they say, until they see the arrest of elected officials who have “violated their oath of office.”

Organizers of the event, which is titled “Truckers Ride for the Constitution,” say they are fed up with a variety of headaches caused by the government: Fuel efficiency standards enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency, Obamacare, state and local laws over idling their trucks, and “insurance companies purportedly requiring technological updates,” according to US News and World Report.

They say that to demonstrate against violations of the constitution, they plan to circle interstate 495 — known widely as the beltway — and not allow through any traffic. If police try to stop them, they’ll park their trucks right on the highway.

Originally, reports from US News and World Report indicated the truckers were looking to impeach President Obama. But Earl Conlon, an organizer of the event, told US News, “We’re not asking for impeachment, we’re asking for the arrest of everyone in government who has violated their oath of office.” These include House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), both for purportedly arming al Qaeda linked Syrian rebels.

Oh joy. But wait! I take the Communist Socialist Metro for my commute! Joke's on them!

When Friends Get Too Close

Poor Ken Cuccinelli -- his friends are his worst enemy. First one of his supporters makes an anti-Semitic joke while introducing him at a rally (to Cuccinelli's credit he immediately condemned the remark). Now he's taking great steps to avoid being associated with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) -- a goal with which Cruz is not exactly cooperating:

In the clearest sign yet of the potent effect of the government shutdown on the Virginia governor’s race, Republican Ken Cuccinelli avoided being photographed with Ted Cruz at a gala they headlined here Saturday night—even leaving before the Texas senator rose to speak.
[...]
For his part, Cruz heaped praise on his “friend” Cuccinelli and argued passionately in a 54-minute speech that their party can still win the messaging fight over the shutdown if the people just speak out loudly enough.

“Ken is smart, he’s principled and he’s fearless,” said Cruz, in a line that may give the left fodder for attack ads, given how the campaign has gone. “And that last characteristic in particular is a rare, rare commodity in elected life. There are so many elected officials in both parties that desperately crave the adulation of the media and the intelligentsia.”

That sequence honestly made me laugh out loud -- I can just imagine Cooch backstage muttering "shutupshutupshutup!"

Cruz, of course, does not shut up.

Things Jews Are Blamed For: Inaugural Fukushima Edition

I'm tempted to start an ongoing weekly series entitled "things Jews are blamed for" (it could be daily or hourly content-wise, but I have my sanity to think). It will feature various things going on the world and how somebody, somewhere, is convinced the Jews are at fault.

Today's entrant: Jews caused the Fukushima disaster. [http://firstlightforum.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/jews-sabotage-fukushima-power-plant-as-payback-for-japans-support-of-an-independent-palestinian-state/ -- in general I won't be directly linking to the sites in question for obvious reasons].

The Only Thing We Have To Fear....

Kevin Drum links to an interesting study (summarized here; full-text is here for people who, unlike me, have access to these sorts of things) about why people listen to talk radio. The answer is it provides an affirming space where they can express their political opinions in a welcoming environment without fear of social sanction. And the reason conservative talk radio is so much more popular than its liberal counterpart is that conservatives are far more fearful of a particular type of social sanction: being called a racist.

In conversation with conservatives, liberals risk being called naïve or willfully blind to potential threats—not very pleasant labels, but not especially damaging ones, either. In contrast, conservatives risk accusations of racism—and “being called a racist carries a particular cultural force,” the researchers write.

“The experience of being perceived as racist loomed large in the mind of conservative fans (we interviewed),” they report. Every single conservative respondent raised the issue of being called racist, and did so without even being asked.

“What makes accusations of racism so upsetting for respondents is that racism is socially stigmatized, but also that they feel powerless to defend themselves once the specter is raised,” the researchers add. “We suspect that this heightened social risk increases the appeal of the safe political environs provided by outrage-based programs, and may partially explain the overwhelming conservative dominance of outrage-based political talk media.”

I think any White person at least feels a ping of recognition here. I didn't always have the views of race and racism that I do now, and I remember when I viewed the charge of "racism" in much the same way -- a bolt of lightening, wanton and capricious, impossible to predict, and terribly destructive. I try to remember that outlook because I remember who I was then: I wasn't some monster or Klansman in training, and (obviously) I was still in a position where I could eventually be persuaded to think more critically about the role of racism in contemporary American life.

That being said, one thing that I think often gets lost in these discussions is who is benefitted by viewing racism this way. Let's use Drum's discussion as an example:

It's obvious that race infuses a tremendous amount of American discourse. It affects our politics, our culture, and our history. Racial resentment is at the core of many common attitudes toward social welfare programs; our levels of taxation; and the current occupant of the White House. There's no way to write honestly about politics in America without acknowledging all this on a regular basis.

At the same time, it's also obvious that, in many ways, a liberal focus on race and racism is just flatly counterproductive. When I write about, say, the racial obsessions displayed by Fox News (or Drudge or Rush Limbaugh), it's little more than a plain recitation of obvious facts, and liberals applaud. Ditto for posts about the self-described racial attitudes of tea partiers. But conservatives see it as an attack. And why wouldn't they? I'm basically saying that these outlets are engaged in various levels of race-mongering, and by implication, that anyone who listens to them is condoning racism. That's such a uniquely toxic accusation that it makes any real conversation hopeless. Cognitively, the only way to respond is to deny everything, and that in turn forces you to believe that liberals are obviously just lying for their own partisan ends. This feeds the vicious media-dittohead circle, and everyone withdraws one step more.

Drum identifies a paradox: We have to talk about racism, but talking about racism renders conversation impossible. Racism is a "such a uniquely toxic accusation that it makes any real conversation hopeless."

But here's the thing: there's no reason why that has to be true. When we talk about homelessness, for example, and I argue that a particular political position is unfair to the homeless, it doesn't have this effect. Racism is different: to talk about racial justice at all is automatically translated into a personal attack on the target's moral character. And once that's the terrain of the discussion, we've insulated the underlying policy differences from critical review. All conversations about racism are converted into inquisitions into whether or not someone is a conscious bigot. Since they know they're nothing of the sort, the "accusation" is dismissed and the "accuser" is labeled a race-baiter. One may have noticed that even if one takes great pains to frame an argument such that it does not call anybody a racist, the stock response nevertheless will be "are you calling me a racist?!!?" Why are they so eager to make the debate about something so "toxic"? It's because that's actually very easy terrain to deal with.

Framing racism as a "toxic" accusation benefits the status quo racial hierarchy. Most obviously, it does so by insulating policies which have racial impacts from meaningful scrutiny. More subtly, it allows proponents of maintaining racial hierarchy to maintain their self-perception as anti-racist. This whole gambit depends on asserting the exceptional moral seriousness of racism (else how could it be so "toxic"?). One often hears the claim that a given charge of racism is spurious coupled with the assertion that such frivolous accusations "make it harder to oppose real racism" -- a reassertion of racism as something that is serious and does need to be opposed. The net result is that racism is so serious that nothing ever actually can be racist -- a neat equilibrium, for those who want to identify as non-racist but don't want to actually change anything about themselves.

For this reason, in Sticky Slopes I warn that ratcheting up the moral condemnation associated with "racism" isn't necessarily a good thing -- as we increase the seriousness of the norm, we decrease the range of behaviors people are willing to accept may be in violation of it. Racial liberals probably had a great role to play in giving "racism" its toxic reputation; but racial conservatives have powerful cognitive incentives to continue perceiving it this way.

Pieces of the Pie

The latest Republican gambit to extract themselves out of their own self-destructive shutdown technique (other than blaming federal employees for the GOP's own decision to refuse to pass a clean budget bill) is to pass piecemeal bills that fund certain high profile federal programs, like national parks and cancer research on sick kids. It is of course breathtakingly cynical, and Democrats are right not to take the bait.

But my question is this: why can't Democrats volley this back the same way they've done to the House "defund Obamacare" packages? Take the House bill which funds just parks and research and veterans programs, amend it to add back every other program, pass that, and then send it right back to the House? It seems like that would neutralize the gambit pretty effectively. Hell, add back in some money to food stamps and leave out farm subsidies. If we're going to fund the government "piecemeal", well, an entire pie is technically a "piece"; especially if you shave off a few crumbs of corporate welfare.

Be Bold!

When I first posted Sticky Slopes onto SSRN (way back in 2009), Larry Solum gave it his coveted blue stamp of approval. It was the pale blue version, and as every reader of the Legal Theory blog knows, his endorsement comes in levels. Today, Unsuspecting made its appearance on Solum's blog, and it got the bold blue seal of approval. Ladies and gentlemen, I am moving up in the world!

(And of course, my thanks to Larry for the recommendation and kind words! He really is one of a kind in the legal marketplace, and his Legal Theory blog is an indispensable resource for anyone working in ... well, any area of law, really. It's really quite amazing).

I'm a Bad Man

I believe it was PG who complained that characterizing the Republican gambits regarding the debt ceiling and government shutdown as "hostage taking" was unfair and hyperbolic -- akin to the famed "Bushitler" extremism we'd all do better without. In rebuttal, here's former Bush speechwriter Marc Theissen, embracing the label:

Obama has accused Republicans of hostage taking. Let’s be clear: I’m all for taking hostages. Both sides do it all the time. But one of the first things they teach you in Hostage Taking 101 is that you have to choose a hostage the other side cares about saving.

Hence, Theissen argues for swapping the government shutdown hostage for the debt ceiling hostage. The former doesn't hurt the country enough, and people are blaming Republicans for it anyway. Not raising the debt ceiling, by contrast, now that will do some damage!

There's this weird trend whereby the media seems intent on characterizing Republican tactics in language far milder than do the Republicans themselves. So while the media is intent on "can't we all just get along" whines, Republicans are gleefully characterizing themselves a curled-mustached villains demanding we reverse the 2012 election lest they put two in the head of that pretty little economy of ours.

In Praise of Miserable Judges

Senior United States District Judge (D. Neb.) Richard Kopf talks about what it means to be a judge in today's criminal law environment:

The best way to think about it [becoming a federal judge] is to ask yourself this question: “Am I a willing judicial executioner, a person who consciously does great harm to other human beings by faithfully executing the extraordinarily harsh national criminal laws?” Those who covet a federal trial judgeship should think hard about this truth before pursuing the job.

I doubt they will. Instead, they will say to themselves, “I’m different. I am not weak. I am strong-minded.” Or, “I’m just doing what the law requires.” Or, “They did it to themselves. They deserve it.” Or, “Someone has to do it, and maybe I can improve things.” The rationalizations are endless.

But stripped of the BS that allows good people to do bad things, here is the essential truth: When sentencing people, federal trial judges literally and consciously destroy lives and most do so on a daily basis. So, I have a bit of advice for those who wish to replace Judge Bataillon. Be careful what you ask for. You have no idea what the hell you’re getting into.

Will Baude and I had the exact same instinct, which was that this sounds a lot like Robert Cover's famous declaration that "judges deal pain and death." I doubt Judge Kopf, a Reagan appointee, has typically been mistaken for Professor Cover, which makes this all the more striking.

Judge Kopf's sense is one I shared when I was clerking. For the most part during my clerkship, I did not feel like I was "doing justice" in any real sense, particularly in criminal law. This was not a knock on my judge or co-clerks, or anybody else on the Eighth Circuit. But doing law the way law is done, I felt like I was ruining far more lives than I was validating. At many times, it felt to me like I was making the world a worse place. It was not a good feeling.

On the other hand, I also cringe at Judge Kopf's suggestion that candidates for judgeships "think hard" about the truth of federal sentencing. Not because I oppose hard thought, but because however hard it is to be a judge who is miserable in her role as a "judicial executioner," I think it would be far worse if the only judges we had are those who ask themselves if they're willing to take on that role, and answer with a hearty "hell yeah, I am!"

Could Be!

Anita Perry, wife of Texas Governor Rick Perry (R), doesn't appear to share his view on abortion:

Speaking to Evan Smith at the 2013 Texas Tribune Festival, Perry said that abortion, an issue that Governor Rick Perry has made the cornerstone of his entire reign as Texas’s most important ten-gallon hat wearer, “could be a women’s right.” ....

In front of a visibly surprised Smith, Perry tried to elaborate her opinion about why abortion in particular is a uniquely women’s rights issue, saying, “That's really difficult for me, Evan, because I see it as a women's right. If they want to do that, that is their decision; they have to live with that decision.”

Smith then asked the blunt (and exceedingly generous) follow-up everyone else was probably itching to ask: “Mrs. Perry, I want to be sure you didn't just inadvertently make news. Are you saying that you believe abortion is a women's right, to make that choice?"

... [Perry responded:] “Yeah, that could be a women's right. Just like it's a man's right if he wants to have some kind of procedure. But I don't agree with it, and that's not my view."

Republicans will no doubt be appalled at this gross breach of party orthodoxy -- specifically, a woman who has an opinion different from that of her husband.

Generation Grift

Jill and I blundered into a fair today while walking to the Post Office (side note: Jill and I have wandered into many fairs in our day, and I don't think we've ever done so intentionally). It was fun -- there was a chili cook off and we registered to vote. And as we were walking, we saw a booth for an outfit called "Generation Opportunity." It rang a very faint bell, but it sounded like one of those neat non-profits that helps empower underprivileged high school students, so we decided to check it out.

They described their mission as surveying young people to find out what their priorities were, then advocating for those values. They gave an example of a proposed sales tax which I didn't know much about, then suggested we fill out one of their surveys. Jill, good quantitative researcher that she is, immediately asked what methods they had for ensuring that their surveys were actually representative of our generation by including low-income young people and people of color. The mumbled response about how there were other people who did that might have served as a red flag.

But then we took the survey, and it took one question for me to say "This is a push poll!" ("uhh ... yeah, the questions are worded terribly, I've talked to them about that."). "Do you think jobs are created by lowered taxes or bigger government?" "Do you think we should improve the economy and lower the debt by increasing government spending or decreasing it?" "Do you want to exercise your right to opt out of Obamacare?"

That last one was a subject near and dear to the staffer's heart -- he was very keen on informing us that we could decide not to participate in the Affordable Care Act. "I thought if I didn't participate Obama would, like, throw me in jail, but it's really just a fee you pay." I wanted to ask him if, given that his old sources were so terrible he thought he'd be imprisoned if he didn't get health insurance, if maybe he had thought about turning elsewhere for information on Obamacare, but I didn't. After turning down the offer of various swag emblazened with "opt out" (surely, a slogan our generation will get behind), I walked away.

Jill was actually a pretty happy camper -- she says she enjoys push polls because you know exactly what answers will piss the pollsters off ("why yes, I think larger government is the key to a healthy economy"). But I found myself very annoyed. These guys were basically grifters. The "opt out" movement is terrible -- it encourages people to go without health insurance to prove a political point, but you can bet dollars to donuts that if any of these kids actually get sick their erstwhile allies will do nothing but encourage them to die quickly. And even if they stay healthy, the goal of the program -- to deprive the health insurance market of healthy people to make it unaffordable for sick people -- is unspeakably evil. Frankly, I found it quite disgusting.

Standing Against the Tide

Ted Cruz's filibuster of futility has come to a close, but his office claims that the people are behind him: nearly 3,000 phone calls, as of late last night, mostly supportive.

I'm not saying I doubt the figure or the distribution, but I'm curious if a Senate office has ever released figures that said their boss got "almost 3,000 phone calls, mostly calling for his head on a spike."

In related news, just 14% of Americans support defunding Obamacare via government shutdown, versus 65% opposed.

Auto-Filibuster

On Friday, Kevin Drum stated that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) was in a bit of pickle due to the particular procedural posture of the government funding bill. Cruz, of course, wants to stop the funding of the Affordable Care Act. Now, the normal Republican tool to stop anything they don't like is a filibuster. But procedurally Cruz can only filibuster the bill before cloture is called, and before cloture is called the bill is still the House bill -- which is to say, still defunds Obamacare. Once cloture passes, then Harry Reid will offer an amendment restoring funding to the ACA, but both the amendment and the final bill itself will only require 50 votes to pass. Oh no! Whatever will Cruz do?

I wish I had the foresight to put this on paper, because I promise I predicted the right answer: he'll filibuster his own bill, the one that actually does defund Obamacare. This may mark the first time a Senator has filibustered a bill that he fervently supports, but many things about this debate have been unprecedented.

Once he heard about that possibility, Drum thought it would come off as "ridiculous". I'm not exactly sure that's true -- the niceties of Senate procedure won't interest the average tv viewer, who will generally view the matter as Cruz trying to stop Obamacare from being refunded. The wonky procedural posture that leads Cruz to be filibustering what is essentially his own bill will be chalked up to that strange institution the Senate, just as Harry Reid often is seen voting against his own bills in order to preserve a later motion for reconsideration.

Of course, that doesn't mean the ploy will work -- it still would result in a government shutdown for which Republicans would assuredly be blamed, and they do not want that (and resent Cruz for foisting it upon them). But that Cruz was nutty enough to try this gambit I had no doubt about.

UPDATE: And now he just voted to consider the bill he just spent 20 hours railing against.

Clarity of Rescue

Israeli security forces have reportedly been on the scene in Nairobi, possibly because some of the businesses at the targeted mall may have been Israeli-owned. Thus we get this story:

Two Kenyans who survived and escaped the terror attack at the partially Israeli-owned Westgate Mall, in Nairobi, told the Guardian they were rescued by “a man they believed was an Israeli security officer,” according to live postings on the Guardian website.

The extent of Israeli involvement in the rescue operation remained unclear on Sunday, as official sources in Jerusalem declined to comment beyond saying that Israel is advising the Kenyan government on rescue initiatives.

If you're feeling a bit of cognitive dissonance, just chant "this proves it was a Zionist plot all along!" over and over until it goes away.

He Said She Said

UC-Irvine Law Dean and noted constitutional law scholar Erwin Chemerinsky critiques originalism, and several prominent originalists including Ilya Somin, Michael Ramsey, and Mike Rappaport respond. The argument they are most disdainful of is Chemerinsky's assertion that the constitution's exclusive use of "he" to refer to the President and Vice President indicates that only men can hold those positions under the original meaning of the document. "Uncharacteristically weak," declares Somin, while Ramsey labels the claim "preposterous," an argument "so poor I wonder if someone else wrote it and attached his name to it." They both contend that until quite recently "he" was used as a gender-neutral pronoun, so it is impossible to infer that its usage in the constitution was meant to render the executive branch gender exclusive.

While they may ultimately be correct, I think Chemerinsky's argument has more heft to it than they admit. It was of course common practice to use "he" as a general pronoun, though whether that was because it was understood to include women or because it was understood that women were not relevant to the conversation is less obvious. "He" in relation to political positions could just as easily stem from a widely shared understanding that women were not political subjects. Ramsey musters some intertextual evidence to support his position -- that when Article II, Section 1 delineates the necessary qualifications for a President it speaks of a "person" rather than a "man." And that has some persuasive force, but the problem is that the same archaic convention which allowed "he" to stand in for men and women also allowed for "person" to refer only to men. There are plenty of occasions where dead white men spoke of humanity or people with the assumption and understanding that it was only men about which they spoke.

More broadly, while it may be true that "he" could at the time have been understood to include both men and women, it also certainly could be used to refer only to men (how else would one do it?). Whether or not it was taking the former meaning or the latter is an exercise in interpretation, and one that depends on context. "Men" was similarly generic in character to "he" at the dawn of our nation, yet it is hard seriously contend that the phrase "all men are created equal" was meant to include women. Would citizens during the framing era have understood "he", in the context of who the Constitution contemplated could be President, to be inclusive of men and women alike, or just men? I would wager the latter.

Now arguably this doesn't close the door on originalist analysis of the clause's meaning. Arguably, the popular belief that "he" in this context referred to men and men alone was only the original expected application of the clause, not its original semantic meaning. This is a distinction Jack Balkin draws, and not all originalists accept his typology. But working off it for a moment, it's unclear. Words and phrases often can have very different semantic meanings at the same time period (for example, "hot dog" can mean either a tubular meat or a show-off). Where multiple meanings exist at a given time, is a generally understood consensus that one particular definition attaches in a particular context a case of "expected application" or "semantics"? Not an easy question, in my view.

This is not to say that Chemerinsky is necessarily right and his critics wrong. I'm not an originalist, so I hesitate to make definitive pronouncement on what results originalism yields (in part because I think they're often more indeterminate than its proponents would care to admit). But I think his point has more gravity than its given credit for, and citing the linguistic convention that "he" could have been in that era a gender-neutral pronoun does not actually get us that far.

UPDATE: Relevant to this discussion is an interesting history of gendered pronouns in the English language. Apparently the use of "he" as a gender neutral pronoun was first proposed in 1745, so it was certainly accepted by the time of the Constitution's drafting and probably understood as a possible meaning in the abstract, though again not necessarily in the context of who could serve as president.

YOLO?

I have a question for my readers: Do you feel a sense of continuity in your life, or do you feel disconnected from your self of 5 or 10 or 15 years past? As for me, I don't feel any strong disconnect between my 15-year old self and my 27-year old self. I think I think the same way, I have many of the same interests, and similar shortcomings (whether that means I was a very mature 15-year old or am a very immature 27-year old I leave to others). It's not that nothing has changed at all, but it feels like change within a single continuity, not like the younger me was a different person at altogether.

But I often hear people talk about how they were "a totally different person at 15," how that apparently separate human was "such an idiot." Sometimes it comes in the form of supporting more paternalistic protections for younger persons -- "when I was 15, I thought I was an adult and in control, but I actually had no idea what I was doing." When I hear someone say that at 25, I always assume they will say the same thing about their 25 year old self at 35. Somewhere I imagine an eighty-year old woman telling others at a nursing home how at 70 she was such an ignorant little tart.

In any event, that's my vantage point, but I gather it's not the only one. So -- do you feel a sense of continuity with your younger self, or do you view him or her as a distinct and separate entity from who you are today?

More Than One Star

Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) has been doing a nationwide swing to promote the virtues of his policies in the Lone Star state. Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley (D) reminds him that being 49th in high school graduation rates and 50th in health insurance coverage is nothing to brag about.

[W]hile Perry likes to promote the job creation in Texas during his time in office, he leaves out a critical point: The jobs “miracle” he touts is driven by low-paying, non-sustainable jobs. This year, Texas — tied with Mississippi — leads the nation for the percentage of hourly paid workers earning equal to or less than the minimum wage. More than one in 10 workers nationwide earning at or below the minimum wage works in Texas.

The fallacies of his argument don’t end there. Even on Perry’s preferred metric for comparison — taxes — businesses fare quite well in Maryland. According to the Anderson Economic Group, Maryland’s businesses have the seventh-lowest business tax burden, while Texas ranks 17th. Additionally, both established firms and new investments do well in Maryland. The conservative Tax Foundation ranks Maryland as having the eighth-lowest tax burden on mature firms, while Texas ranks 12th. Ernst and Young ranks Maryland as having the 12th-lowest tax burden on new investment; Texas has the 20th-lowest burden.

My administration has made Maryland a better place to do business by focusing on middle-class and sustainable jobs. In addition to being No. 1 in median income, the median wage for hourly workers in Maryland is $14.17 vs. $12.00 in Texas, which lags the national median of $12.80. And while Texas leads the nation in minimum-wage workers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ranks Maryland first in the nation in innovation and entrepreneurship, second in concentration of science, technology, engineering and math jobs and third for its “talent pipeline.”

How did we make this possible? By investing in our schools, which Education Week has ranked No. 1 in the nation since 2007. Maryland did more than any other state to hold down rising college tuition costs. We modernized infrastructure and invested in growing sectors such as biotechnology and life science, green technology and clean energy, aerospace and advanced manufacturing.

These investments didn’t come without a price. First, my administration cut more in state spending than any governor in Maryland history. We also had to ask the wealthiest Marylanders to pay a bit more by making income taxes progressive for the first time in state history.

Even though I now live in Virginia, I'm still a Marylander at heart (and a product of those top-ranked public schools, to boot). Governor Perry might not want to be so eager to put his state side-by-side with mine. Some states deserve more than a single, lone star.

Song of Songs

I've often joked that the Cantor is my ultimate synagogue nemesis -- were it not for Cantors showing off, the service would end in half the time and I'd be that much closer to the delicious bagels at the reception. To be fair, I'm a tough critic to please -- were it up to me, every song would be sung exactly as it was when I was growing up, with no alterations whatsoever. This may run in the family -- at my old synagogue, I distinctly recall that anytime the Cantor experimented with a new melody, my dad would start loudly singing the old one in reprimand. It never caused the tune to be changed, but perhaps it served as a deterrent.

Whenever I go to a new synagogue, I'd always grouse about how I preferred the singing at my home congregation. As I grow older, even the tunes at my home synagogue grow more unfamiliar, which I don't like. Our new Aleinu sounds like a funeral dirge, for example. But hearing that new tune (and others) made me wonder -- just how old are the songs we sing? Not the words, but the music? Are they hundreds of years old, recognizable in the Shetls of Europe or the villages of the Middle East? Or are they all reinvented anew by each generation of Hazzans? Do we have any way of knowing? I doubt songs such as these were ever committed to a score. It seems like one of those mysteries that may be unknowable. But maybe not -- historians have sussed out stranger facts.

One More Fast

It has been a busy few weeks hasn't it? Packing for my move, driving from Minneapolis to DC, Rosh Hashanah, moving into the new apartment, trip to Vegas, unpacking boxes ... it goes on. Today was supposed to be cable and internet installation, but, you know, it's Comcast, so obviously that didn't happen (I'm using the internet in the resident lounge, which was its own special saga). Tomorrow is Kol Nidre and Yom Kippur is on Saturday. I'm hoping to duck out of the break fast to watch the Mayweather/Alvarez PPV -- I bet a total of $80 on that fight ($40 on Mayweather and $40 on it to go 12 rounds).

How was Vegas? Well, on the gambling side, let's just say that I'm suddenly very glad to be starting work at a big DC law firm. But the food was magnificent. In addition to Gordon Ramsay steak, we also ate at Central (I'd been to the one in DC and knew I liked it), Noodles (the penang fried kway teow needed some soy sauce and sriracha, but was fantasstic once I mixed those in), Gordon Ramsay's BurGR (delicious, even it did take me way too long to recognize the play on the spelling -- we're going to try to make our own devil dogs), Julian Serrano's Tapas (awesome), and D.O.C.G. (excellent homemade pasta).

Still, I'm quite tired, and ready for all the chaos to end. We probably have to do some shopping on Sunday (our dresser didn't survive the move), but after that it's clear skies ... I hope.

Review: Gordon Ramsay Steak - Paris Las Vegas

In my life I have been to many nice steakhouses. The Palm, Morton's, the Prime Rib, the Capital Grill, Manny's, Chicago Chop House, Ray's the Steaks, BLT Steak, J & G Steakhouse, among many others. Back when Jill was a vegetarian, we actually used to go to steakhouses relatively regularly, since we discovered that steakhouses had the best vegetables. They'd invariably give you a massive baked potato and a forest of broccoli, making Jill a very happy camper. We even had an idea for a book where we would drive across the country visiting America's great steakhouses, where Jill would do an anthropological study from a vegetarian perspective (I'd provide comic relief as the dumb, carnivorous boyfriend). It was to be called Meat and Potatoes. Unfortunately, Jill is back on the meat train so the concept's gimmick is gone. But we still liked the idea.

Anyway, the point is that while I'm normally not much of a foodie, steakhouses are one area I do feel qualified to talk about.

We're in Las Vegas for my brother's 24th birthday, but Gordon Ramsay Steak was my dinner selection. Jill and I are huge fans of Chef Ramsay -- we religiously watch Hell's Kitchen and Masterchef, and have checked out his other shows too. Ramsay has three restaurants in Vegas: the Pub and Grill at Caesar's, Burgr at Planet Hollywood (where we're going for lunch today -- incidentally, it wasn't until the airport until I got the play on words), and Gordon Ramsay Steak at the Paris. The latter was the easy choice -- in addition to the aforementioned love of steak, the head chef is HK Season 10 winner Christina Wilson. Unfortunately, she's on vacation this week, so we didn't get the chance to meet her. But it was still neat to be in her restaurant.

GR Steak is right on the floor of the Paris casino. As we were walking up, a troupe of showgirls in tight football-inspired outfits came marching past blowing whistles and waving at the crowd. Though probably a coincidence, I choose to believe this is how they greet all incoming reservations. The restaurant is separated from the casino by a short tunnel (chunnel?) which represents the move from Paris to London. Thematically the decor is heavily based on red and black -- my two favorite colors -- so I already had warm feelings. The restaurant is two stories high -- a bottom floor which is wide open to the kitchen and very boldly designed, and a top floor which has a balcony and some more private, quieter rooms (we ate in the latter). The layout will be quite familiar to Hell's Kitchen fans.

On the way up, our hostess pointed out an art piece on the ceiling that she said "was inspired by the way Chef Ramsey moves his hands while creating his famous beef wellington". I thought the piece was pretty cool, but I couldn't begrudge my dining companions a bit of an eye roll. At first, this looked to be a running gag for the evening -- the folks at GR Steak were very anxious to highlight Chef Ramsay's personal involvement. There was Chef Ramsay's "personal" five course tasting menu, which was "personally designed" by Chef Ramsay, and if we got it we would get a photograph "personally signed" by Chef Ramsay. The times "Chef Ramsay" came within three words of "personally" rapidly started to reach a breaking point, and I couldn't decide if they were offensively trying to impress the rubes or defensively trying to assure us that Chef Ramsay lent more than his name to the establishment. I was actually mildly intrigued by the tasting menu, as it was clearly inspired by the Hell's Kitchen menu. Unfortunately, being unable to eat either a lobster risotto or scallops, it wasn't worth it. I'll have to get an autographed photo personally signed by Chef Ramsay some other way.

Now to the important part: the food. The opener was a variety of complimentary artisanal breads, which were all quite good. Appetizer-wise, I tried the ale onion soup and a caesar salad. The soup was, as my brother put it, very "beery" and thus more bitter than your typical onion soup. The caesar was delicious but simple, save for the included scotch egg. Overall, the appetizers were perfectly good, but did not distinguish themselves from any other nice steakhouse which does the same thing. I should also mention here the beer, wine, and cocktail list, which came on an iPad. We're not a big drinking family (and Jill hit her limit when we found a bar earlier that afternoon that offered BOGO cosmopolitans), so only my mom and my brother got drinks. My mom's Vodka Martini was a fine if normal example of the genre, but my brother confirms his red wine (I believe a Malbec) was superb.

We all ordered steak (except my mom, who foraged off the rest of us): one filet (I got American prime beef, they also offered American Kobe), one beef wellington (Jill), and two ribeyes (my dad and brother -- dad got his Pittsburgh-style). But before I talk about the steaks, let's talk about sides. Typically, steakhouse sides are massive, but, with the exception of a loaded baked potato the size of a landmine, these weren't. Our other three sides: sauteed spinach, sauteed mushrooms, and potato puree, were all reasonably portioned, but definitely not "family style" (which is to say, they were perfectly able to be spread out amongst the whole family, because "family style" usually seems to assume the Duggars are dining out). The table consensus was that the baked potato and sauteed mushrooms were amazing, the spinach okay, and the potato puree good but a little difficult to eat given how gloopy it was. Again, judging on appetizers and sides, thus far GR Steak is well within the wheelhouse of a nice steakhouse, but doesn't distinguish itself.

But then we get to the steak. Oh, the steak. All four of our steaks were ordered medium rare. All four came out a perfect medium rare. Seriously, these were basically the platonic ideal of medium rare. It might not be an exaggeration to say this was the best cooked steak I've ever had. The filet had a peppery glaze on top which would not have been my personal choice (I'm very no-frills when it comes to my steak), but was nonetheless delicious. I also got to try the wellington and the ribeye, and both were exceptional. The ribeye, in particular, seemed to be somehow almost as tender as the filet, which is a remarkable accomplishment. All four of us easily polished off our entire plate. Literally our only complaint was the oddly-shaped steak knives (the handles are perpendicular to the blade), which were hard to hold (especially it seemed for lefties).

At that point myself, my brother, my dad, and Jill were all prepared to happily enter a food coma. My mother, however, had not gotten her own entree and thus was interested in dessert. Since we were nominally celebrating Jason's birthday, we acquiesced, and the waiter was quite emphatic that we get the the Sticky Toffee pudding, which is apparently their signature dessert. It was great -- I'm not usually a fan of toffee, and the "brown butter ice cream" served to look like a stick of butter initially raised an eyebrow, but everything came together beautifully and topped off a delicious meal.

So to sum up: For me, my top two steakhouses have always been The Palm and Manny's in Minneapolis. The question is whether GR Steak could topple these venerable institutions from their perch. And for me, it's too close to call. On the one hand, I definitely prefer the sides, soups, and salads at Manny's and the Palm (if GR steak showed off the platonic ideal of a medium rare, the Palm offers the platonic ideal of a caesar salad). And as noted with respect to the filet I'd rather have it without the pepper glaze. On the other hand, ribeye-for-ribeye I think GR Steak smokes anywhere else I've ever been. And again, each steak was cooked so absolutely perfectly I was left in awe.

But who needs to choose? Manny's is delicious, the Palm is delicious, and Gordon Ramsay Steak - Paris is delicious. Any one of them will leave you going home happy, and all of them should get a spot on your must-try list.

Ambience/Decor -- 9
Service -- 8.5
Appetizers -- 8.5
Sides -- 9
Steak -- 10
Dessert -- 9
Overall -- 9

Appeal to Procedure

Some of you may have heard that a Montana judge imposed a thirty-day sentence in a statutory rape case where s teacher slept with a 14 year old student. Some of you may have then read that the judge was planning to revisit that sentence. And then finally some of you may have read today's headline, which states that "Montana high court blocks hearing on resentencing rapist of girl". And you might have every right to be upset -- except this headline is misleading.

The ruling here does not necessarily mean that the original sentence will stand. Rather, it is a very mundane point of procedure: the trial court can't revisit the sentence at this stage; rather, the remedy is for the appellate courts to review the sentence. As both the prosecution and the defense argued, allowing the trial court to redo its sentencing would dramatically muddy the legal waters on appeal and make it far harder for the appellate courts to provide a full and fair review of the original (or revised) sentence.

So boo to misleading headlines, but everybody else take a deep breath. You may need to save your outrage for later, but at least keep it in the pocket for now.

Two Tablets

L'shana tova, everyone. Two article on Tablet caught my eye. The first is a joint review by David Mikics of two books on anti-Semitism: David Nirenberg's "Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition" and Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's "The Devil That Never Dies." The former I have and am now even more inclined to read, the latter I do not own and now know I need not intend to. And that's what book reviews are for, are they not? Check it out.

The second article is by Yair Rosenberg, responding to Peter Beinart's recent essay on the Jewish cocoon. I don't dislike Peter Beinart per se, but I agree with Jon Chait that he tends to take good points a step to far. In particular, he is far to enamored with the idea that he is a solo Jeremiah who is the first (and thus far only) prophet to notice the doom approaching the Jewish people. In any event, Rosenberg notes that while it is perfectly true that many Jewish organizations have historically been closed off from Palestinian narratives, that is becoming less true every year. At the same time, the burgeoning "anti-normalization" wing of Palestinian solidarity politics means that Jewish/Palestinian dialogue can't occur even if Jews want it to, because such talks are considered to be endorsements of the basic legitimacy of Jewish national aspirations. Hence we see how the BDS movement has made organizations like One Voice its public enemy number one, precisely because such organizations could provide the momentum for a grassroots settlement that would respect Jewish and Palestinian rights alike -- the anti-thesis of the maximalizt position taken by the BDS campaigners. As Rosenberg stresses, this is not to denigrate the obligation of Jewish groups to engage in dialogue; it is merely to stress -- as it is regrettably often necessary to do -- that the reason such dialogue is not proceeding is not simply because of intransigence on the Jewish side.

Ronald Coase RIP

University of Chicago Law Professor and Nobel Laureate Ronald Coase died yesterday at age 102. Coase was hired by the University of Chicago in 1964, despite not having a law degree. While such hires are not uncommon today, this was basically unheard of at the time. It was definitely a risk that paid off, however, as Coase is credited with basically inventing the Law & Economics movement (a feat all the more impressive given that he did it in what was basically a throwaway paragraph in a piece otherwise about telecommunications law).

Coase's two best known works were "The Nature of the Firm," first published in 1937 (though based on a lecture he delivered in 1932), and "The Problem of Social Cost," published in 1960. The latter is the most-cited law review article of all time. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1991, in substantial part because of the massive impact of these articles. The delay in recognition was not lost on him. As he remarked at the time: "It is a strange experience to be praised in my eighties for work I did in my twenties." Speaking of bons mots, Coase is also credited with coining the popular statistics maxim: "If you torture the data long enough, it will confess."

The "Coase Theorem" (he didn't name it), derived from his body of work, is perhaps Coase's most enduring contribution. In a nutshell, the theory holds that if a right to avoid a harm is tradeable and there are zero transaction costs, the market process will result in an efficient allocation of rights regardless of their initial distribution. The Coase theorem is often described as one of the most misunderstood and misapplied concepts in law. Cognizant of these risks, I resolved to not try to apply it at all -- a bold decision for a University of Chicago law student. Nonetheless, based on my classroom recollections I think Wikipedia's illustration of the concept is solid:

For example, two property owners own land on a mountainside. Property Owner #1's land is upstream from Owner #2 and there is significant, damaging runoff from Owner #1's land to Owner #2's land. Four scenarios are considered:

(1) If a cause of action exists (i.e. #2 could sue #1 for damages and win) and the property damage equals $100 while the cost of building a wall to stop the runoff equals $50, the wall will probably exist. Owner #1 will build the wall, or pay Owner #2 between $1 and $50 to tolerate the runoff.

(2) If a cause of action exists and the damage equals $50 while the cost of a wall is $100, the wall will not exist. Owner #2 may sue, win the case and the court will order Owner #1 to pay #2 $50. This is cheaper than actually building the wall. Courts rarely order persons to do or not do actions: they prefer monetary awards.

(3) If a cause of action does not exist, and the damage equals $100 while the cost of the wall equals $50, the wall will exist. Even though #2 cannot win the lawsuit, he or she will still pay #1 some amount between $51 and $99 to build the wall.

(4) If a cause of action does not exist, and the damage equals $50 while the wall will cost $100, the wall will not exist. #2 cannot win the lawsuit and the economic realities of trying to get the wall built are prohibitive.

Importantly, the legal allocation of rights does affect the distribution of who has to pay how much.

Coase continued to write well past the century mark -- his last book, How China Became Capitalist, was published only last year. He was a giant in his field, a giant in academia in general, and his contributions will be missed. As a friend of mine said: "May there be no transaction costs in heaven."

Greetings from (near) the District!

Happy Labor Day! We're in DC (well, technically Bethesda), staying at my parents house for the next few days as the moving truck catches up. But soon we'll be moving into our DC (well, technically Arlington) apartment. This, of course, is the first time I've really "lived" in the DC area (not counting some stints of summer employment) since I left for college. I'm very excited.

Go East, Young Man

My nine-year midwestern sojourn is coming to an end, as I move from Minnesota back to the DC area today. "Today" is a slight misstatement, since we're driving -- we'll go Minnesota to Chicago tonight, Chicago to Pittsburgh tomorrow, and a short hop from Pittsburgh to Washington Sunday morning.

Anyway, I'll be mostly out of contact during this time, but when I emerge, I'll be an east coaster once more.

"I am happy about this participation in words of Torah"

I read about this speech when it occurred, but I never was able to find an English translation until now. The speaker is Ruth Calderon, MK from the Yesh Atid party and a secular Talmudic scholar. For her inaugural speech before the Knesset, she decided to deliver a lesson on Talmud. That Calderon, a secular woman, would deliver such a speech was bold enough (and it even included a brief interplay with the head of the ultra-Orthodox Shas faction). But the speech itself, it turns out, was also a thing of beauty. I highly encourage you to click through and read it for yourself.

UPDATE: Now includes real link!

Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

The township of Southampton, New York, recently denied a request by the local Jewish community to put up an Eruv. For those of you who don't know, an Eruv is an enclosure, generally made through wire or string, which permits Orthodox Jews to do certain activities on Shabbat that would otherwise be forbidden to them (the fiction is that within the Eruv one has one cohesive "space", so carrying objects is characterized as carrying them within the Eruv, rather than between, say, two houses). I generally support accommodations such as these -- they cost little, and signal respect and accommodation toward minority communities. At the same time, American law is generally does not require such accommodations -- it is generally a legislative prerogative as to whether to grant or withhold the accommodation, and don't need to give much of a reason why. While the federal government and some states (I don't know if New York is one) have heightened protections for religious minorities, the baseline is basically that so long as the motive itself isn't unconstitutional (such as hostility towards a particular faith) and isn't wholly arbitrary or capricious, a decision to deny even a relatively minor accommodation such as this would stand.

So basically, Southampton is playing the game on easy. Just give a reason that isn't utterly ludicrous and doesn't openly flout the Constitution. You can do it right?

The zoning board had ruled that the eruv — PVC poles on 15 of Southampton Township’s telephone poles — would “alter the essential character of the neighborhood.”

In addition, the board took theological issue with the concept of the eruv itself, calling it a “loophole” that is “motivated by the personal desire … to be freed from the proscriptions of Jewish law,” the New York Post reported.

The "change the character of the neighborhood" argument ... I dunno. It might fly, given the deference that "arbitrary and capricious" implies. But the second argument about an eruv being a theological "loophole" is a huge mistake by the city that may doom their defense strategy.

It's not that their theology is wrong per se -- I've often joked that Orthodox Jews devote half their creative energies to coming up with ever-more restrictive religious proscriptions, and the other half to inventing increasingly creative ways to circumvent them. The problem, rather, is that they were doing theology at all. And that is a huge First Amendment no-no. Perhaps the clearest and most obvious Establishment Clause violation is the state taking it upon themselves to decide what tenets are valid aspects of a religious faith and which ones are "loopholes."

Without that statement, I'd guess Southampton would have had a fighting chance in court. With it -- good luck.

People I Don't Listen To

I don't have strong feelings regarding what we should be doing regarding Syria. People who I trust are similarly ambivalent, which makes me feel more secure in my own uncertainty. But there are several classes of person who I definitely don't trust:

* People who are similarly unsure regarding what we should be doing in Syria, but are quite certain that Obama should be impeached over whatever we do (or don't do).

* People who support bombing Syria because their entire foreign policy could be summed up in a Michael Bay movie.

* People who aren't sure what's going on in Syria, but are absolutely sure that the Jews are behind it.

Fortunately, this significantly narrows down the class of persons whose opinions I need to consider.

History's Top Shot

Poor Chris Cerino. In addition to having a name that's its own elementary school nickname ("Chris Cerino ... the Chris-inator ... Chris-man...."), he was runner-up on Top Shot again. It was a little hard to watch, given that you could see he really wanted it a lot more than the younger, more laid-back Phil. But so it goes. Congratulations to Phil and all the competitors on a great season. Anyway, now that Top Shot may well have fired its own "last shot," I endorse this Slate post whole-heartedly, especially the part where it serves as an introduction a non-gun-owning liberal like me to healthy gun culture. It really is a great show and a ton of fun to watch. My full recommendation.

The Qualified Candidate

Eugene Volokh points to an interesting LA Times piece about a Black student struggling at UC-Berkeley, saying it is a good illustration of Rick Sander's "mismatch" hypothesis (Volokh also links to Heather MacDonald's discussion of the piece, but I don't view MacDonald as a serious writer so I'll confine my discussion to Volokh). Volokh notes, correctly, that the plural of anecdote is not data, and that this story is merely an illustration of an alleged phenomena whose veracity is dependent on the legitimacy of Sander's arguments. And as a story, it is an interesting one -- but Volokh's read of it seems rather motivated to me, if I do say so.

The two main characters in the LA Times story are Kashawn Campbell and his best friend at Berkeley, Spencer Simpson. Campbell's struggles at Berkeley -- despite herculean efforts, he can't pass his Freshman writing course, and narrowly avoids flunking out entirely -- frame the piece and are said to exemplify the "mismatch" problem created by racial affirmative action programs. The mismatch hypothesis, stated broadly, is that allegedly non-meritocratic admissions programs end up hurting their supposed beneficiaries by placing them at institutions where they're destined to fail. In Campbell's case, for example, Volokh argues that he's clearly a bright, talented kid who would do great at Cal State but instead is almost failing out of Berkeley (I've discussed the mismatch hypothesis more generally here and here).

On closer examination, though, the analogy falters quite a bit. To begin, as the LA Times notes, Berkeley cannot actually use race-based affirmative action due to California's Proposition 209, which bans the practice. Instead, Berkeley has a program that seeks to admit students from "every California high school." This does have the effect of increasing racial diversity, due to substantial continued segregation in high schools. But it is not in itself a racial affirmative action program, and no student is advantaged on basis of race. Rather, it advantages students from impoverished, traditionally underperforming schools -- but this sort of "affirmative action", favoring students who are from bad neighborhoods and overcame rough backgrounds -- is often touted as the preferred and legitimate alternative to racial affirmative action (I don't know if Volokh approves of such alternatives to race-based affirmative action, and it's notable that Sander's mismatch arguments would seemingly apply just as strongly to such a program or other more explicitly "class-based" affirmative action initiatives, but I've never heard it used against such programs. Volokh does make reference to "white students who graduated from high school without the academic preparation needed to succeed at Berkeley" implying that they wouldn't benefit from this sort of program -- to the extent their lack of preparation was because they excelled at an underperforming school, as did Campbell, it's unclear why they wouldn't also be a valid candidate).

Moreover, even putting race aside, Campbell appears to be a conventionally attractive admissions candidate. Straight-A student, second in his high school class, impoverished background, overcame considerable adversity, (probably, given what his high school teachers said about him) superlative letters of recommendation. Volokh assumes that his SAT scores weren't that good -- only because they weren't mentioned -- but even stipulating that, unless we're going "SAT score or bust" (which nobody actually advocates) he still looks pretty good. That he's struggling is obviously unfortunate, but it seems less a product of affirmative action and more a problem of the normal indicators not telling the whole story. Indeed, from what we know it seems that Campbell's admissions profile is little different from that of Simpson, who is also Black and also grew up in an impoverished neighborhood, but is reportedly breezing through Berkeley. What distinguishes the two (other than Volokh's hypothesis about SAT scores) is that Simpson's family, despite being from a rough neighborhood, had considerably more cultural capital than did Campbell's -- something that's important, but doesn't show up on the average college application.

There are also hints in the story that more is going on here than Campbell being "unqualified." It is very evident that he's suffering from cultural shock. He feels pressure to emulate a particular style of writing he doesn't have a good grasp on, which exacerbates his general struggles with long essays. He has a very thin support structure. He's using his scholarship money to support his mother. And he reports that he doesn't feel welcome as a Black student on campus:

"Sometimes we feel like we're not wanted on campus," Kashawn said, surrounded at a dinner table by several of his dorm mates, all of them nodding in agreement. "It's usually subtle things, glances or not being invited to study groups. Little, constant aggressions."

I highlight the part I highlight because of they way Volokh responds to this claim:

I wish all the best for Campbell, who, as I said, sounds studious and excited about learning. But would you be more likely to invite to your study group (1) someone who is in danger of failing out because he’s academically unprepared for the classes he’s taking (and who might be signaling this lack of preparation based on his comments, in-class or outside), or (2) someone who you think is roughly at your level of skills or higher? I don’t think it’s exactly “aggression,” “little” or otherwise, for people to choose option 1.

This would be uncharitable even if were just Campbell making the claim. But it isn't -- it is a sentiment apparently widely shared amongst Black students at Berkeley, which makes it difficult to attribute to not wanting to study with a particular struggling student.

As for the remaining culture shock problems, they are undoubtedly issues that retard the progress of students from nontraditional backgrounds. But they're not an issue of qualifications, and unless the solution here is "elite universities should only admit students from elite prep schools and suburban public high schools", it's a problem that top universities are going to have to address.

Finally, let's turn to Volokh's suggestion that Campbell would be a better "fit" at Cal State because that school "is more likely to spend more time remedying the gaps in Campbell’s education." But if Campbell isn't the average UC-Berkeley student, he isn't the prototypical Cal State student either. Cal State-Los Angeles admits over two-thirds of its applicants, who have an average GPA of 3.14 and an average SAT (math plus critical reading) of 880. Campbell had a GPA of 4.06 in high school and graduated second in his class. With all due respect to CSLA, the remedial education programs at that school are designed to turn bad students into passable ones. Campbell is not a bad student -- by all accounts he is bright, intellectually curious, and exceptionally hard-working. The "gaps" in his education are not the same as those typically remedied by CSLA. And CSLA certainly can't provide the job opportunities, alumni networking, or intellectual stimulation that Berkeley can. The "mismatch" problem, it seems to me, is that there aren't schools "matched" to someone fitting Campbell's profile -- someone who I bet could in terms of natural talent keep up with his Berkeley peers were it not for the deficits he incurred from his background and from being such a clear cultural outlier at his university. The solution to shunt all people like Campbell into the Cal State system is not a solution at all.

I've often remarked that we don't think in mismatch terms in any context except affirmative action. Nobody ever warns the wealthy suburban kid straining to get into his "reach" school that he may be setting himself up for failure. In general, we believe that more rigorous schools are better and that its a benefit rather than a curse to be academically challenged. Campbell, of course, could no doubt transfer to Cal State if he thought it would be a better fit for him. Clearly, though, he sees value in his experience at Berkeley. And what's more, I've seen people at Carleton who were similarly situated to Campbell -- bright, talented individuals from low-performing schools who came in for a huge shock when they got to Northfield. These people had something in common -- they tended to get hammered their freshman year. And then often they had something else in common: the same talent, and fortitude, and will and skill that got them to Carleton caused them to claw back. They might not have graduated summa, but they learned and grew and became strong, successful students. Campbell, who managed to scratch out an A- when he took a course he felt comfortable in, strikes me as the sort of person who can follow a similar trajectory.

What we have in Keshawn Campbell, it seems to me, is an exceptionally bright, talented, hard-working individual who due to his background has obstacles in his path that other otherwise similarly situated students don't have. To the extent that Berkeley is supposed to identify outstanding young people and serve as a signal and pipeline to their entry into leadership roles in our society, he's exactly the right sort of candidate for admission. That it requires more intensive work on Berkeley's part to assist him doesn't strike me as a failing of the system on Berkeley's part (though perhaps of the educational system that got him there), but rather a necessary corollary to their meritocratic ambition of identify future leaders from all walks of life, proverbial "diamonds in the rough" included.

Book It for Later

As a Carleton graduate, I of course harbor a soft spot for fellow alum Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ). That said, I never got the recent spate of liberal antipathy towards Cory Booker, whose alleged sins seem to be little different from other young ambitious politicians.

"Nor Do They Have Any White Children"

Wait, what?:

"A Portuguese Water Dog can range in cost wildly. On average, one will pay between $1,400 and $2,000. President Barack Obama has this breed of animal," according to an answer on Ask.com.

With the addition of Sunny, the Obamas now have two black Portuguese water dogs.

The Obamas do not have any white dogs.

Not a parody. Just the Daily Caller.