Once New York legalized gay marriage, I took a trip over to the Family Research Council, mostly out of pure schadenfreude. Tony Perkins was in typical form, fulminating about "political coercion" and improper "incentives" that swayed Republican votes. Yeah, I know -- what a crybaby.
But he also asserted that a "clear majority" of New York voters oppose legalizing gay marriage. Is there anything backing that up? A poll this past January gave gay marriage legalization 56% support in the Empire State. That jumped to 58% by the start of June. There's a clear majority, alright -- and it mimics the legislative majority that just secured marriage equality.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Friday, June 24, 2011
New Computer
I just got a new computer (a Dell XPS 15). Right now, I'm at the nexus of two independently aggravating stages: (1) Getting used to all the newness (e.g., Windows 7) and (2) migrating everything over from the old computer to the new one.
Also, at the risk of jumping the gun since I've literally had this thing open for all of 20 minutes, it doesn't seem noticeably faster than my three year old Latitude D630. And, more inscrutably, it appears to only have two USB ports (the Latitude has 4). Which, okay, I rarely ever use more than two, but still.
Also, at the risk of jumping the gun since I've literally had this thing open for all of 20 minutes, it doesn't seem noticeably faster than my three year old Latitude D630. And, more inscrutably, it appears to only have two USB ports (the Latitude has 4). Which, okay, I rarely ever use more than two, but still.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
SPLC's Top Ten Islamophobes
The Southern Poverty Law Center has put out its list of the ten people it considers to comprise the "inner circle" of anti-Muslim paranoia and conspiracy mongering. They are Bill French, Brigitte Gabriel, P. David Gaubatz, Pamela Geller, David Horowitz, John Joseph Jay, Terry Jones, Debbie Schlussel, Robert Spencer, and David Yerushalmi. The SPLC also notes three more names -- Steve Emerson, Daniel Pipes and Frank Gaffney -- as being borderline cases; they are well-connected with the ten names listed below and often work with them, but their personal views are just moderate enough to keep them off the list.
Anyway, the point being that if you start to make a judgment about Islam or Muslims based on something said by or sourced to the names on this list, run, don't walk, to the nearest sane person.
Anyway, the point being that if you start to make a judgment about Islam or Muslims based on something said by or sourced to the names on this list, run, don't walk, to the nearest sane person.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
A Private Shift, or Just a Crafty Gambit?
I am, to say the least, a Netanyahu-skeptic. This, in fact, is a reassuring constant in my life -- while my politics on Israel have shifted dramatically (both left and right) over the course of my lifetime, one of my earliest memories of Israeli politics was my synagogue reacting with horror when Netanyahu became Prime Minister the first time around the mid-1990s. The general consensus then was that he was a right-wing nutcase.
And indeed, when Jennifer Rubin wonders why most Jewish organizations aren't raising more hackles about Obama's alleged maltreatment of the Israeli government, it is that memory I return to -- to wit, it might because many American Jewish leaders and many Jewish synagogue-attendees never really liked Netanyahu in the first place, and blame him far more than President Obama for any diminution of Israel's standing with the US (not to mention worldwide). So, while Rubin declares that "self-deluded American Jewish communal leaders" are now part of the "unprecedented array of threats" facing Israel, many of these leaders may well believe that self-aggrandizing "leaders" like Netanyahu and right-wing enablers like Rubin who more deserve that label.
But anyway. The point is, I'm genuinely skeptical over whether PM Netanyahu has a serious commitment to forging a two-state solution with secured borders, one which would preserve Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. I don't know if, in his heart of hearts, he recognizes the gravity of the threat. And while he sometimes spouts the right lines in public, there is no urgency and very little tangible movement on his part -- making me worry it is just a platitude for public consumption.
However, Ha'aretz has an interesting report of proceedings at an Israeli cabinet meeting:
It's that last part which intrigues me, because it is evidence that Netanyahu is making these claims now in private, in cabinet meetings dominated by his right-wing allies -- i.e., in a forum where it explicitly not designed for public consumption, to the political allies who most needed to hear it. Of course, this could be naivety on my part -- Bibi may have been well aware that his statements would be leaked, and so it might be just as good as a public statement. It's a little 11-dimensional chess for my tastes, but it's hardly out of the question.
Still, it is heartening that even a hardcore irredentist like Netanyahu may finally be starting to get it, and be taking the first steps to whipping his cabinet into shape. I'm dubious about Bibi's ability to be a leader, but he's the leader Israel has, so we have no choice but to hope.
And indeed, when Jennifer Rubin wonders why most Jewish organizations aren't raising more hackles about Obama's alleged maltreatment of the Israeli government, it is that memory I return to -- to wit, it might because many American Jewish leaders and many Jewish synagogue-attendees never really liked Netanyahu in the first place, and blame him far more than President Obama for any diminution of Israel's standing with the US (not to mention worldwide). So, while Rubin declares that "self-deluded American Jewish communal leaders" are now part of the "unprecedented array of threats" facing Israel, many of these leaders may well believe that self-aggrandizing "leaders" like Netanyahu and right-wing enablers like Rubin who more deserve that label.
But anyway. The point is, I'm genuinely skeptical over whether PM Netanyahu has a serious commitment to forging a two-state solution with secured borders, one which would preserve Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. I don't know if, in his heart of hearts, he recognizes the gravity of the threat. And while he sometimes spouts the right lines in public, there is no urgency and very little tangible movement on his part -- making me worry it is just a platitude for public consumption.
However, Ha'aretz has an interesting report of proceedings at an Israeli cabinet meeting:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu surprised many of the participants in the weekly cabinet meeting Sunday when he embarked on a monologue praising the idea of parting from the Palestinians and in relinquishing portions of the West Bank. Netanyahu said the number of Palestinians and Jews between the Jordan River and the sea "is irrelevant" and that it's more important to "preserve a solid Jewish majority inside the State of Israel."
The PM made these statements during a discussion on a report by the Jewish People Policy Institute on demographic changes among Jews and Palestinians in Israel and the West Bank.
Members of the institute presented the demographic data of Prof. Sergio DellaPergola, which show that, in a number of years, the demographic trends will result in a Palestinian majority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
Ministers Limor Livnat and Uzi Landau were surprised by the data and asked that the data of other experts be presented - for example, the data of Yoram Ettinger, who is affiliated with the right. The right argue that the demographic threat to the State of Israel is not so serious.
The prime minister cut short the discussion and surprised those present with previously unspoken sentiments about the future Israeli presence in the West Bank.
"The debate over how many Jews and how many Palestinians will be between the Jordan and the sea is irrelevant," Netanyahu said. "It does not matter to me whether there are half a million more Palestinians or less because I have no wish to annex them into Israel. I want to separate from them so that they will not be Israeli citizens. I am interested that there be a solid Jewish majority inside the State of Israel. Inside its borders, as these will be defined," Netanyahu explained.
Aides of the PM realized how politically explosive his statements were and asked all those present in the room to avoid disseminating the details.
It's that last part which intrigues me, because it is evidence that Netanyahu is making these claims now in private, in cabinet meetings dominated by his right-wing allies -- i.e., in a forum where it explicitly not designed for public consumption, to the political allies who most needed to hear it. Of course, this could be naivety on my part -- Bibi may have been well aware that his statements would be leaked, and so it might be just as good as a public statement. It's a little 11-dimensional chess for my tastes, but it's hardly out of the question.
Still, it is heartening that even a hardcore irredentist like Netanyahu may finally be starting to get it, and be taking the first steps to whipping his cabinet into shape. I'm dubious about Bibi's ability to be a leader, but he's the leader Israel has, so we have no choice but to hope.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Monday Roundup
I'm not feeling it today, dear readers.
* * *
Ex-Rep., current nutcase Cynthia McKinney and ANSWER host an event on NATO's Libya campaign, refuse to let in Libyans.
Gay Orthodox groups get their first float at the Tel Aviv gay pride parade.
I remember when this scandal broke, but I confess I didn't expect any criminal indictments to come from it: Aides of former Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich (R) charged with voter suppression crimes.
The "Anthony Weiner's secret Muslim agenda" conspiracy theory still has legs on the far-right.
Supreme Court rejects class certification for a giant sex discrimination case against Wal-Mart. Scott Lemiuex has good commentary up.
* * *
Ex-Rep., current nutcase Cynthia McKinney and ANSWER host an event on NATO's Libya campaign, refuse to let in Libyans.
Gay Orthodox groups get their first float at the Tel Aviv gay pride parade.
I remember when this scandal broke, but I confess I didn't expect any criminal indictments to come from it: Aides of former Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich (R) charged with voter suppression crimes.
The "Anthony Weiner's secret Muslim agenda" conspiracy theory still has legs on the far-right.
Supreme Court rejects class certification for a giant sex discrimination case against Wal-Mart. Scott Lemiuex has good commentary up.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
X-Men First Class: Random Thoughts
* Lots of actors in that movie either were, or reminded me of, other people. Sebastian Shaw looked like the Green Goblin from the first Spiderman. The unnamed mutant who threw tornados (Riptide, though unnamed in the film) I think guest-starred in a season of Dollhouse. And Banshee looked like Ron Weasley, except he actually contributed a useful skill to his fellows in a fight. So not that much like Ron Weasley.
* Bad guys always have superior tailors. Why is that?
* January Jones as a character named Emma Frost? Perfect casting.
* At this point, when Black guy actually does die first, I have to think they're doing it on purpose.
* Kind of weird that Angel had absolutely no compunction gunning at her ertswhile comrades. For a movie that is all about friend-against-friend and such, it rang a bit false.
* Mystique is still probably my favorite character in the movie franchise.
* I might be the only one who didn't think Magneto was a tour de force. I didn't think he was bad or anything -- quite solid, actually -- I just wasn't blown away.
* The scene where all the young mutants are goofing around and showing off their powers was very well-done. That is, in fact, exactly what would happen.
* Bad guys always have superior tailors. Why is that?
* January Jones as a character named Emma Frost? Perfect casting.
* At this point, when Black guy actually does die first, I have to think they're doing it on purpose.
* Kind of weird that Angel had absolutely no compunction gunning at her ertswhile comrades. For a movie that is all about friend-against-friend and such, it rang a bit false.
* Mystique is still probably my favorite character in the movie franchise.
* I might be the only one who didn't think Magneto was a tour de force. I didn't think he was bad or anything -- quite solid, actually -- I just wasn't blown away.
* The scene where all the young mutants are goofing around and showing off their powers was very well-done. That is, in fact, exactly what would happen.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Libyan Jews Reflect on Libyan Strife
Ha'aretz has an interesting piece up on the descendants of Libya's Jewish community and their thoughts about the ongoing unrest in their former homeland. The story of Libya's Jewish community is typical of Jews in the region -- a long (2,300 year old) history, marked by "periods of relative tolerance and bursts of hostility." In the 20th century, the "bursts of hostility" became more sustained, and huge numbers fled to Israel immediately prior to and after the War of Independence. The Libyan government itself instituted severe crackdowns on the Jewish population, confiscating property and stripping them of their citizenship.
This persecution accelerated with Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi's rise to power in 1969, though by this point there were only 100 Jews left in the country (the very last Jew left in 2003). In recent years, Colonel Gaddafi had discussed compensating these refugees, but notably appeared to exclude those who had fled to Israel. Other Libyan officials discussed a "right of return" for descendants of these refugees, though it appears few (at least in the Israeli community) are inclined to take up the offer -- both because it would transition them from part of a governing majority to a historically persecuted minority, and because they would almost certainly be forced to forfeit their Israeli citizenship.
This persecution accelerated with Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi's rise to power in 1969, though by this point there were only 100 Jews left in the country (the very last Jew left in 2003). In recent years, Colonel Gaddafi had discussed compensating these refugees, but notably appeared to exclude those who had fled to Israel. Other Libyan officials discussed a "right of return" for descendants of these refugees, though it appears few (at least in the Israeli community) are inclined to take up the offer -- both because it would transition them from part of a governing majority to a historically persecuted minority, and because they would almost certainly be forced to forfeit their Israeli citizenship.
Quote of the Weekend
Christopher Hitchens, reviewing David Mamet's The Secret Knowledge: "It has a long way to go before it can even be called simplistic."
Friday, June 17, 2011
"The Liberty To Do What We Ought."
New York state appears on the verge of recognizing gay marriage, and that has put opponents of LGBT equality in a bit of a panic. Take New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan:
Legalizing gay marriage is precisely akin to living under North Korean totalitarianism -- of course. But I'm more interested in that last line, that "true freedom" is not "license to do whatever we want, but the liberty to do what we ought."
Can you think of a more Orwellian definition of freedom? It is a definition of liberty that could only appeal to a tyrant. Indeed, it bears far more in common with the standards of "liberty" in places like North Korea than marriage equality ever could. After all, Articles 62-86 of the North Korea constitution contain many putative protections for human freedom and liberty, but all are circumscribed by various restrictions which demand that any such "liberty" be in furtherance of the normative principles of North Korean socialism (see, e.g., Articles 63, 64, 68, 81, 82, 84, and 85). The effect, of course, is that they don't have freedom or liberty at all.
In North Korea, they have only "the liberty to do what they ought." In America, we've charted a different path.
Dolan equated the move to allow same-sex marriage to life in China or North Korea, where "government presumes daily to 'redefine' rights, relationships, values and natural law."
"Please, not here!," Dolan wrote. "We cherish true freedom, not as the license to do whatever we want, but the liberty to do what we ought."
Legalizing gay marriage is precisely akin to living under North Korean totalitarianism -- of course. But I'm more interested in that last line, that "true freedom" is not "license to do whatever we want, but the liberty to do what we ought."
Can you think of a more Orwellian definition of freedom? It is a definition of liberty that could only appeal to a tyrant. Indeed, it bears far more in common with the standards of "liberty" in places like North Korea than marriage equality ever could. After all, Articles 62-86 of the North Korea constitution contain many putative protections for human freedom and liberty, but all are circumscribed by various restrictions which demand that any such "liberty" be in furtherance of the normative principles of North Korean socialism (see, e.g., Articles 63, 64, 68, 81, 82, 84, and 85). The effect, of course, is that they don't have freedom or liberty at all.
In North Korea, they have only "the liberty to do what they ought." In America, we've charted a different path.
Not To Be Confused with the Shofar Note
Justin Elliott has a good glossary of terms from Islamic law that tend to be badly misused by right-wing anti-Muslim zealots (his source is Islam expert John Esposito of Georgetown University). We recently saw a sterling example of this courtesy of the Washington Times, which invoked the doctrine of "Taqiyya" in support of a bizarre theory that Anthony Weiner may have secretly converted to Islam.
"Taqiyya" is often described by the ignorant as a blanket dispensation to lie to nonbelievers; in reality, it is a limited Shi'ite Islam doctrine that permits one to deny being a Muslim where one's life is in danger or it would otherwise lead to severe persecution. In this, its closest historical parallel is probably to Marranos -- Spanish Jews who faked a conversion to Christianity in order to escape persecution during the Inquisition.
"Taqiyya" is often described by the ignorant as a blanket dispensation to lie to nonbelievers; in reality, it is a limited Shi'ite Islam doctrine that permits one to deny being a Muslim where one's life is in danger or it would otherwise lead to severe persecution. In this, its closest historical parallel is probably to Marranos -- Spanish Jews who faked a conversion to Christianity in order to escape persecution during the Inquisition.
The UNHRC Gay Rights Resolution
The UNHRC passed today a South Africa-sponsored resolution supporting equal rights for all without respect to sexual orientation. The vote tally was 23-19, with three abstentions. I'm having trouble finding a precise listing of which countries voted in what way, but the line seems to be that most of the support came from Europe and the Americas (including the USA), while most of the opposition was concentrated in African and Islamic countries.
UN Watch quotes some excerpts from speeches by various UNHRC members -- South Africa apparently received criticism from other African states for its sponsorship of the resolution, which Nigeria asserted "90% of South Africans do not support". Mauritania wondered if this issue was really on par with such important issues as the rights of women, while Saudi Arabia -- currently facing widespread protests by women seeking the right to drive cars -- complained that it "is not acceptable and reasonable to impose views on other countries and that this is not only contrary to Sharia but also to all other monotheistic religions" (of course, many denominations of many monotheistic religions have no problem with gay equality).
As pleased as I am that the normally-repellent UNHRC managed to squeak past a worthwhile resolution, I have to ask why folks even care. In New York, there is a razor-thin vote coming up in the state Senate on whether to legalize gay marriage. That's an important vote, because the consequence will be the enactment of real rights for the gay and lesbian community.
Resolutions at the UNHRC don't do that. They don't have force of law, and they have no impact on anyone's rights or responsibilities. What they provide, at least nominally, is moral force. And moral force is only as powerful as the moral credibility of the body making the statement. This, the UNHRC lacks. And I see no reason to ascribe it any.
Why should the LGBT community hinge the moral credibility of their case on the beliefs of the UNHRC? Why should they care about the perspective of a body in which a significant minority believes their equality constitutes "contempt to human rights" (Nigeria) or that they "jeopardize the entire human rights framework" (Pakistan)? Where tangible rights are on the line, one has to deal with repugnant minorities who have such views (presumably, some of the nay votes in New York have a similar perspective to that forwarded by Nigeria and Pakistan). But if all we're talking about is moral force, what has the UNHRC done to deserve the right to speak on the question?
Don't get me wrong: I'm happy this resolution passed. It's a good thing when any body (however narrowly) can commit itself on the record to supporting the equal rights and human dignity of all persons. But in terms of marking some sort of milestone or important accomplishment -- I don't see it. I don't believe in ascribing to the UNHRC that sort of normative legitimacy -- a legitimacy it has yet to, and I doubt will ever, earn.
UN Watch quotes some excerpts from speeches by various UNHRC members -- South Africa apparently received criticism from other African states for its sponsorship of the resolution, which Nigeria asserted "90% of South Africans do not support". Mauritania wondered if this issue was really on par with such important issues as the rights of women, while Saudi Arabia -- currently facing widespread protests by women seeking the right to drive cars -- complained that it "is not acceptable and reasonable to impose views on other countries and that this is not only contrary to Sharia but also to all other monotheistic religions" (of course, many denominations of many monotheistic religions have no problem with gay equality).
As pleased as I am that the normally-repellent UNHRC managed to squeak past a worthwhile resolution, I have to ask why folks even care. In New York, there is a razor-thin vote coming up in the state Senate on whether to legalize gay marriage. That's an important vote, because the consequence will be the enactment of real rights for the gay and lesbian community.
Resolutions at the UNHRC don't do that. They don't have force of law, and they have no impact on anyone's rights or responsibilities. What they provide, at least nominally, is moral force. And moral force is only as powerful as the moral credibility of the body making the statement. This, the UNHRC lacks. And I see no reason to ascribe it any.
Why should the LGBT community hinge the moral credibility of their case on the beliefs of the UNHRC? Why should they care about the perspective of a body in which a significant minority believes their equality constitutes "contempt to human rights" (Nigeria) or that they "jeopardize the entire human rights framework" (Pakistan)? Where tangible rights are on the line, one has to deal with repugnant minorities who have such views (presumably, some of the nay votes in New York have a similar perspective to that forwarded by Nigeria and Pakistan). But if all we're talking about is moral force, what has the UNHRC done to deserve the right to speak on the question?
Don't get me wrong: I'm happy this resolution passed. It's a good thing when any body (however narrowly) can commit itself on the record to supporting the equal rights and human dignity of all persons. But in terms of marking some sort of milestone or important accomplishment -- I don't see it. I don't believe in ascribing to the UNHRC that sort of normative legitimacy -- a legitimacy it has yet to, and I doubt will ever, earn.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Masterchef Bullet Points
Jill and I have caught up on Masterchef (we were about a day behind), so now I can share the thoughts we had as the beginning of Season 2 has wrapped up.
* I thought that the producers did a decent job with misdirection in the audition stage. Edgardo seemed like a lock to go through, between his Joe endorsement and his oh-so-cute elementary school students. But it was a no. Other surprises were the firefighter and the other (sweet meatballs) women for whom Joe was the only "yes" (and whom Gordon made beg for her spot before unceremoniously turning her down).
* Speaking of Joe, I spent most of the audition episodes hoping he'd start cutting on Graham (or as Jill and I have nicknamed him, Fluffy). Alas.
* I was rooting for an all-gator final between the Mississippi truck driver and the Florida construction foreman with an ailing wife. Alas, neither made it through day one of the competition.
* I'm sure editing has a lot to do with it, but Max is really shaping up to be an obnoxious villain. I hope he and Suzy go head-to-head soon. I also think it's funny how they're setting him up as the anti-Whitney (both very young, but while she was eager and bright-eyed, he's cocksure and arrogant).
* Speaking of Suzy, she's one of my favorites so far. I loved her mom impression ("You mean you want to be a servant!?"). I don't know what a neural engineer is, and find it a little conceptually creepy, but I'll say it's cool if it stops her from turning me into an android. She seems to have a talent. And, right after I remarked to Jill about how I hoped we'd have another Sheetal moment where she had to learn how to kill, she brightly announced her hope that she'd get to slaughter a live animal, which I thought was hilarious.
* Two other early favorites of mine: Alvin and Giuseppe. I could imagine classical chefs finding Alvin's fusion of science into the "art" of cooking to be blasphemous, but I found it really cool and the judges seemed to like it too. It's a skill that doesn't really lend itself to this style of competition though. Giuseppe just seems like a very genuine, likable fellow.
* Jury is still out on pumpkin hat. He's not as annoying as I thought he'd be, but I'm not quite willing to say he's in the clear yet. I've got my eye on him.
* I thought that the producers did a decent job with misdirection in the audition stage. Edgardo seemed like a lock to go through, between his Joe endorsement and his oh-so-cute elementary school students. But it was a no. Other surprises were the firefighter and the other (sweet meatballs) women for whom Joe was the only "yes" (and whom Gordon made beg for her spot before unceremoniously turning her down).
* Speaking of Joe, I spent most of the audition episodes hoping he'd start cutting on Graham (or as Jill and I have nicknamed him, Fluffy). Alas.
* I was rooting for an all-gator final between the Mississippi truck driver and the Florida construction foreman with an ailing wife. Alas, neither made it through day one of the competition.
* I'm sure editing has a lot to do with it, but Max is really shaping up to be an obnoxious villain. I hope he and Suzy go head-to-head soon. I also think it's funny how they're setting him up as the anti-Whitney (both very young, but while she was eager and bright-eyed, he's cocksure and arrogant).
* Speaking of Suzy, she's one of my favorites so far. I loved her mom impression ("You mean you want to be a servant!?"). I don't know what a neural engineer is, and find it a little conceptually creepy, but I'll say it's cool if it stops her from turning me into an android. She seems to have a talent. And, right after I remarked to Jill about how I hoped we'd have another Sheetal moment where she had to learn how to kill, she brightly announced her hope that she'd get to slaughter a live animal, which I thought was hilarious.
* Two other early favorites of mine: Alvin and Giuseppe. I could imagine classical chefs finding Alvin's fusion of science into the "art" of cooking to be blasphemous, but I found it really cool and the judges seemed to like it too. It's a skill that doesn't really lend itself to this style of competition though. Giuseppe just seems like a very genuine, likable fellow.
* Jury is still out on pumpkin hat. He's not as annoying as I thought he'd be, but I'm not quite willing to say he's in the clear yet. I've got my eye on him.
Caring About Dead Non-White Americans is so PC
Adam Serwer has a good column up about recent House hearings on radicalization occurring in American prisons. The House Republicans who called the hearings wanted to focus on Islamic radicalization in prison. The problem, though, is that the evidence seemed to suggest this wasn't a serious problem at all. Only one terrorism plot since 9/11 has involved individuals who became radicalized Muslims in prison; by and large Islamic radicals tend to be middle-class and relatively educated.
What is a problem is radicalization of White prisoners who fall in with far-right hate groups like the Christian Identity movement. And so, Democrats on the committee wanted to talk about that for awhile. But Republicans were less than cooperative: Committee chair Rep. Peter King (R-NY) dismissed concerns about far-right radicalization because such groups were not "allied with a foreign power", despite the fact that (a) al-Qaeda is, of course, a non-governmental terrorist organization and (b) modern terrorism hardly requires an alliance with a foreign power to wreak massive havoc in America. Like their radical Islamic counterparts, right-wing terrorists in the United States also have an agenda of bringing down our government and instilling a new regime hostile to the very ideas of American liberty and equality. It's unclear why this threat is less serious simply because it's "homegrown". Indeed, it was Rep. King himself who originally launched the highly criticized hearings investigating homegrown Islamic radicalization (despite little evidence here as well that this was a serious problem).
Meanwhile, Rep. Dan Lungdren (R-CA) was even more blunt, deriding the "political correctness" of those who thought that recruitment success by violent White supremacist groups in prison was a valid area of congressional concern. Apparently, it's "politically correct" to think that terrorism targeting Americans who are non-White, or non-Christian, or otherwise don't resemble Dan Lungdren, is something Congress might want to know about. Glad to know Rep. Lungdren has my back on this.
What is a problem is radicalization of White prisoners who fall in with far-right hate groups like the Christian Identity movement. And so, Democrats on the committee wanted to talk about that for awhile. But Republicans were less than cooperative: Committee chair Rep. Peter King (R-NY) dismissed concerns about far-right radicalization because such groups were not "allied with a foreign power", despite the fact that (a) al-Qaeda is, of course, a non-governmental terrorist organization and (b) modern terrorism hardly requires an alliance with a foreign power to wreak massive havoc in America. Like their radical Islamic counterparts, right-wing terrorists in the United States also have an agenda of bringing down our government and instilling a new regime hostile to the very ideas of American liberty and equality. It's unclear why this threat is less serious simply because it's "homegrown". Indeed, it was Rep. King himself who originally launched the highly criticized hearings investigating homegrown Islamic radicalization (despite little evidence here as well that this was a serious problem).
Meanwhile, Rep. Dan Lungdren (R-CA) was even more blunt, deriding the "political correctness" of those who thought that recruitment success by violent White supremacist groups in prison was a valid area of congressional concern. Apparently, it's "politically correct" to think that terrorism targeting Americans who are non-White, or non-Christian, or otherwise don't resemble Dan Lungdren, is something Congress might want to know about. Glad to know Rep. Lungdren has my back on this.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Happy Birthday, Blog!
This blog just turned seven years old today! I started it just before I entered college, and now it has gotten me past my graduation from law school! More than a little amazing, I think.
Every once in awhile, I browse through my old archives and read what I wrote 2 or 4 or 6 years ago. It's always quite a trip -- sometimes I can't believe how stupid I was, other times I can see the germination of some of my most important beliefs unfolding before me. It's actually really nice having this record of my thoughts available to me -- it's like my own personal, searchable memory bank.
In any event, a happy birthday to the blog, and a big thank you to my readers!
Every once in awhile, I browse through my old archives and read what I wrote 2 or 4 or 6 years ago. It's always quite a trip -- sometimes I can't believe how stupid I was, other times I can see the germination of some of my most important beliefs unfolding before me. It's actually really nice having this record of my thoughts available to me -- it's like my own personal, searchable memory bank.
In any event, a happy birthday to the blog, and a big thank you to my readers!
Pro-Israel Americans Find Obama Just Right
Greg Sargent reports on new polls indicating that most Americans think Obama is on-target with respect to his Israel/Palestine policy. Specifically, 50% of Americans think that Obama is "striking the right balance" in the conflict, while 21% say he shows too much favoritism to the Palestinians and 6% say he's unduly partial to the Israelis.
Most Americans in general sympathize more with Israel than with Palestine (a 48/11 split in favor of Israel), and if we restrict the poll to those persons, 49% still say he's striking the right balance (with 38% saying he's too favorable to Palestinians).
Most Americans in general sympathize more with Israel than with Palestine (a 48/11 split in favor of Israel), and if we restrict the poll to those persons, 49% still say he's striking the right balance (with 38% saying he's too favorable to Palestinians).
Notes After Not Watching the GOP Debate
I didn't watch the GOP debate, so I'm mostly forming these thoughts from reading the conventional wisdom that is floating around the blogosphere. The consensus seems to be that the big winners last night were Romney and Bachmann, and the loser was Tim Pawlenty. To me, that means there is one winner: Mitt Romney. And, much to my surprise, he seems to be committing to the "one sane man" strategy, hoping that the rest of the GOP field shreds itself apart appealing to the Tea Party and Romney ends up shooting up the middle on the strength of the remaining moderates plus folks who still understand that electability is a thing.
Folks keep saying that Bachmann is like Sarah Palin, but with actual campaign skills and the ability to not constantly shoot herself in the foot on television. My comparison, of course, was that Bachmann was like Palin if you injected a metric ton of LSD straight into her eyeballs. The word is that Bachmann managed to acquit herself quite well on stage, sounding professional and well-briefed. And if so, hey, good for her. But I still am dubious she can maintain a gaffe-free campaign, particularly in the general. There's no way she'll win her own state (Minnesota) -- she currently trails President Obama by a landslide 56/35 margin, and her favorables in that state are 33/59. She's not just unproven at winning beyond her conservative suburban Minnesota district, she is proven to be massively alienating to the broader center -- in fact, last year 56% of Minnesotans said they were "embarrassed" by her.
Ultimately, then, while I do think Bachmann could be a primary player, I can't see her actually taking the prize. And that gets us back to where we started -- who else but Romney? If T-Paw can't gain any traction -- and it looks like he can't -- there just doesn't seem to be any other remotely viable candidate in the Republican primary who could bring him down.
Folks keep saying that Bachmann is like Sarah Palin, but with actual campaign skills and the ability to not constantly shoot herself in the foot on television. My comparison, of course, was that Bachmann was like Palin if you injected a metric ton of LSD straight into her eyeballs. The word is that Bachmann managed to acquit herself quite well on stage, sounding professional and well-briefed. And if so, hey, good for her. But I still am dubious she can maintain a gaffe-free campaign, particularly in the general. There's no way she'll win her own state (Minnesota) -- she currently trails President Obama by a landslide 56/35 margin, and her favorables in that state are 33/59. She's not just unproven at winning beyond her conservative suburban Minnesota district, she is proven to be massively alienating to the broader center -- in fact, last year 56% of Minnesotans said they were "embarrassed" by her.
Ultimately, then, while I do think Bachmann could be a primary player, I can't see her actually taking the prize. And that gets us back to where we started -- who else but Romney? If T-Paw can't gain any traction -- and it looks like he can't -- there just doesn't seem to be any other remotely viable candidate in the Republican primary who could bring him down.
Monday, June 13, 2011
YIISA Shuts Down
The Yale Interdisciplinary Initiative for the Study of Antisemitism (YIISA) is shutting down after Yale University decided not to renew the program, citing low course enrollment and a dearth of quality, high-placing scholarship produced from the Initiative. The decision has engendered some controversy, with people insinuating that YIISA is actually closing down because academics want to suppress the study of anti-Semitism (and particularly anti-Semitism in the Muslim world).
I mentioned once that one of my scholarly ambitions was to do work at YIISA, so I'm obviously disappointed it is closing. That being said, I'm inclined to accept Yale's explanation for not renewing the program. As I wrote over at Engage:
The fact of the matter is that a lot of the scholarship I've read in this field has not been of particularly high quality. Professor Hirsh is a notable exception, and his article Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism: Cosmopolitan Reflections is simply magnificent. But when I had browsed YIISA site I had found myself seriously disappointed in their overall product. And ultimately, Yale isn't going to keep funding a center that isn't world-class. It's up to those of us who do work in this field to start producing good work, and get ourselves noticed for the quality of our scholarship.
I mentioned once that one of my scholarly ambitions was to do work at YIISA, so I'm obviously disappointed it is closing. That being said, I'm inclined to accept Yale's explanation for not renewing the program. As I wrote over at Engage:
I’m not happy that YIISA is closing — I was very much an admirer of their project, and in particular I thought David Hirsh produced some stellar work for them. But I, too, recall being surprised at how little published scholarship was coming out of the institution. It seemed to be punching academically well beneath its weight, and I can’t be too surprised it isn’t being renewed as a result.
Is there a solid claim that the inability of scholars of anti-Semitism to place their work in top journals is in part a function of academic norms whereby anti-Semitism isn’t seen as a “real” topic worthy of study? Yes, perhaps. But I don’t think this is the whole story. For one, we’ve definitely seen a fair number of scholarly monographs being published on the topic, giving an opportunity to bypass perhaps biased journal editors. For two, Hirsh’s great work notwithstanding, a lot of the published academic work on anti-Semitism I have read has not been particularly impressive in quality. Reading the contents of the Journal for the Study of Anti-Semitism, I haven’t been blown away by many of the pieces, or wondered why the pieces haven’t been placed in more reputed journals.
The fact of the matter is that a lot of the scholarship I've read in this field has not been of particularly high quality. Professor Hirsh is a notable exception, and his article Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism: Cosmopolitan Reflections is simply magnificent. But when I had browsed YIISA site I had found myself seriously disappointed in their overall product. And ultimately, Yale isn't going to keep funding a center that isn't world-class. It's up to those of us who do work in this field to start producing good work, and get ourselves noticed for the quality of our scholarship.
Muslim Heterosexual Agenda
Much like Barack Obama, it turns out that Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) is a secret Muslim.
The Washington Times went a pretty deep on this one, even for them. And you have to wonder what was so far off target that they were forced to remove it even as they breathlessly wonder about whether Taqiyya is prompting everybody to lie about Weiner's secret conversion (because who has ever heard of an interfaith couple?).
When looking broadly at the Anthony Weiner-Huma Abedin union, we have to wonder if the coupling of a Jewish American man and a Muslim woman of her pedigree was fostered by love or by a socialist political agenda.
[...]
It is also important, when looking at this situation, to remember that observant Muslims practice Taqiyya , an element of sharia that states there is a legal right and duty to distort the truth to promote the cause of Islam.
(Correction: Paragraph removed for inaccuracies. Apologies are issued and we regret the error. The Communities)
Given the defense articulated by the Imam, which would be offered only for a Muslim man, we must believe this opportunity to remove this Muslim woman from a union with an non-believer would be quickly taken. Therefore we must consider that Mr. Weiner *may* have converted to Islam, because if he did not, we have to consider the unlikely, that being that Ms. Abedin has abandoned her Muslim faith, even while she still practices.
The Washington Times went a pretty deep on this one, even for them. And you have to wonder what was so far off target that they were forced to remove it even as they breathlessly wonder about whether Taqiyya is prompting everybody to lie about Weiner's secret conversion (because who has ever heard of an interfaith couple?).
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Oh, Hi: Part II
Again, blogging a bit sparer than normal, and again, what I think is a decent excuse.
As of today, I am an officially minted J.D., with high honors and Order of the Coif, from the University of Chicago Law School. Sticky Slopes also pulled its weight, winning the Casper Platt Award for Most Outstanding Paper by a law student.
It was a lovely day and a lovely ceremony -- my parents, brother, and Jill all came out, and I got to introduce them to a bunch of my friends and professors (whom I have to start getting used to calling by their first names). All in all, it was just a great capstone to a great three years. And thanks to all of y'all for riding along with me.
As of today, I am an officially minted J.D., with high honors and Order of the Coif, from the University of Chicago Law School. Sticky Slopes also pulled its weight, winning the Casper Platt Award for Most Outstanding Paper by a law student.
It was a lovely day and a lovely ceremony -- my parents, brother, and Jill all came out, and I got to introduce them to a bunch of my friends and professors (whom I have to start getting used to calling by their first names). All in all, it was just a great capstone to a great three years. And thanks to all of y'all for riding along with me.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Famous Ray's Original Defense of Syria
This is an extremely disappointing post by Ray Hanania, a Christian Arab writer whom I've written favorably about due to his important work combating Arab extremism and working towards Israeli and Palestinian peace.
In this piece, though, Hanania takes on criticism faced by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) for canceling a performance by a Syrian singer which was seen as referencing the ongoing protests by Syrians against President Bashar al-Assad. Hanania is on the board of the ADC, and some of the ADC's top leadership are known to be very close with Assad's inner circle. But many in the American Arab committee are furious that the ADC seems to be taking the side of Syria's tyrannical regime rather than that of the protesters fighting their own rendition of the broader "Arab Spring".
Hanania's contribution is so garbled as to be almost incoherent -- it reads as a sort of mutated mad libs combining his own general stock in trade (attacking Arab extremists) and the classic "Israel is at the root of it all" conspiracy theories that are typically more characteristic of those very extremists. He strongly insinuates that the protesters are working against Assad at the behest of Israel, and accuses the protesters of acting only "tearing things down" -- despite the fact that across the Arab world their actions have given many states their first true glimpse of a democratic future in decades. Take a taste:
This is just riddled with crazy. I'm dubious to the extreme that the American Arab community is all that ambivalent about whether or not Syria should remain under the thumb of Assad, whose brutality has hardly restricted itself merely to the current batch of protesters. And I know of many of the people who have been at the forefront in pressing for democratic reform -- Hanania disgraces himself to label them as "fanatics" and "extremists". They are liberals with unimpeachable credentials and, unlike the actual extremists Hanania normally opposes, they know better than to make the sine qua non of their political life "standing up to Israel". As bizarre as it is to suggest that the Arab world's problem is that it is insufficiently attentive to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, one of the things that most impresses me about the figures I have in mind who have been pressing for democracy in Syria (and Egypt and Tunisia and Yemen), people like Hussein Ibish and Rebecca Abou-Chedid, is that their commitment to liberalism and justice is not so provisional, neither providing a blank check to Israel (or Palestine), nor cynically deploying them as a distraction from internal conflicts elsewhere in the Middle East.
Meanwhile, the dark insinuation of an Israeli or American conspiracy at the root of this controversy is utterly unfounded and perhaps the signature move of the true extremists in the Arab community that Hanania is so obviously echoing. Congress has been mostly silent about Syria (possibly due to fatigue over Libya). The Israeli government is certainly no friend of Syria, and has publicly voiced support for democratic reform their (as they did in Egypt). But Israel's foreign policy also tends to prefer the devil it knows to the devil it doesn't -- the last thing it desires out of its neighbors is rampant instability and strife. That gets you Lebanon. So they've mostly stayed out of the revolt as well, except for when Assad starts sending off protesters to storm the Israeli border and draw media attention away. Which, of course, is what Hanania is doing in media form: Folks drawing attention to an Arab regime's oppression? Look, Israel! American imperialism! If you don't jump to the tune, you're just another lap-dog of the oppressor. Yeah, that's not reminiscent of extremist movements at all.
I mean, read that last sentence: "So if I had to chose between destroying Syria to make the Israelis happy, or bringing Democracy to Syria, I have to ask, having lived in the corrupted form of Democracy practiced in the United States, why would we want American-controlled Democracy to takeover Syria?" That sentence is just a classic example of someone whose mind has been ripped apart by conspiracy. First, I hardly think those are the two options on the table. Second, doesn't it imply heavily that Hanania prefers "destroying Syria to make the Israelis happy"? The alternative is "bringing Democracy to Syria", but apparently Hanania isn't wild about democracy in the first place. So door #1 it is! I can't imagine that's actually what Hanania means, given the bulk of the column as a wild-eyed rant against Israeli depravity and the benefits Assad provides to Syrian Christians -- but this is what happens when you just let the id take over.
In this piece, though, Hanania takes on criticism faced by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) for canceling a performance by a Syrian singer which was seen as referencing the ongoing protests by Syrians against President Bashar al-Assad. Hanania is on the board of the ADC, and some of the ADC's top leadership are known to be very close with Assad's inner circle. But many in the American Arab committee are furious that the ADC seems to be taking the side of Syria's tyrannical regime rather than that of the protesters fighting their own rendition of the broader "Arab Spring".
Hanania's contribution is so garbled as to be almost incoherent -- it reads as a sort of mutated mad libs combining his own general stock in trade (attacking Arab extremists) and the classic "Israel is at the root of it all" conspiracy theories that are typically more characteristic of those very extremists. He strongly insinuates that the protesters are working against Assad at the behest of Israel, and accuses the protesters of acting only "tearing things down" -- despite the fact that across the Arab world their actions have given many states their first true glimpse of a democratic future in decades. Take a taste:
I’m conflicted over the controversy involving Syria. On the one hand, the government of Bashar al-Assad has been brutal towards the protestors. On the other hand, I don’t know who these protestors really are. Most American Arabs feel the way I do about Syria. They are conflicted. Why fan the flames of one side over the other, just to make Israel and the rightwing U.S. Congress happy?
[...]
Whether Jandali does or doesn’t perform at the ADC conference means nothing to me and probably the majority of American Arabs who are silenced in fear by the activism of a small group of fanatics who brow beat and threaten anyone who challenges their extremist agenda.
But it does raise an issue about the disturbing trend in the American Arab community where it is easier to bash other Arabs than it is to standup to Israel. Maybe that’s what happens to victims, because Arabs and especially Palestinians are victims of more than a century of oppression. Victims find it is easier to beat up on themselves rather than to stand up to the real oppressors.
So if I had to chose between destroying Syria to make the Israelis happy, or bringing Democracy to Syria, I have to ask, having lived in the corrupted form of Democracy practiced in the United States, why would we want American-controlled Democracy to takeover Syria?
This is just riddled with crazy. I'm dubious to the extreme that the American Arab community is all that ambivalent about whether or not Syria should remain under the thumb of Assad, whose brutality has hardly restricted itself merely to the current batch of protesters. And I know of many of the people who have been at the forefront in pressing for democratic reform -- Hanania disgraces himself to label them as "fanatics" and "extremists". They are liberals with unimpeachable credentials and, unlike the actual extremists Hanania normally opposes, they know better than to make the sine qua non of their political life "standing up to Israel". As bizarre as it is to suggest that the Arab world's problem is that it is insufficiently attentive to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, one of the things that most impresses me about the figures I have in mind who have been pressing for democracy in Syria (and Egypt and Tunisia and Yemen), people like Hussein Ibish and Rebecca Abou-Chedid, is that their commitment to liberalism and justice is not so provisional, neither providing a blank check to Israel (or Palestine), nor cynically deploying them as a distraction from internal conflicts elsewhere in the Middle East.
Meanwhile, the dark insinuation of an Israeli or American conspiracy at the root of this controversy is utterly unfounded and perhaps the signature move of the true extremists in the Arab community that Hanania is so obviously echoing. Congress has been mostly silent about Syria (possibly due to fatigue over Libya). The Israeli government is certainly no friend of Syria, and has publicly voiced support for democratic reform their (as they did in Egypt). But Israel's foreign policy also tends to prefer the devil it knows to the devil it doesn't -- the last thing it desires out of its neighbors is rampant instability and strife. That gets you Lebanon. So they've mostly stayed out of the revolt as well, except for when Assad starts sending off protesters to storm the Israeli border and draw media attention away. Which, of course, is what Hanania is doing in media form: Folks drawing attention to an Arab regime's oppression? Look, Israel! American imperialism! If you don't jump to the tune, you're just another lap-dog of the oppressor. Yeah, that's not reminiscent of extremist movements at all.
I mean, read that last sentence: "So if I had to chose between destroying Syria to make the Israelis happy, or bringing Democracy to Syria, I have to ask, having lived in the corrupted form of Democracy practiced in the United States, why would we want American-controlled Democracy to takeover Syria?" That sentence is just a classic example of someone whose mind has been ripped apart by conspiracy. First, I hardly think those are the two options on the table. Second, doesn't it imply heavily that Hanania prefers "destroying Syria to make the Israelis happy"? The alternative is "bringing Democracy to Syria", but apparently Hanania isn't wild about democracy in the first place. So door #1 it is! I can't imagine that's actually what Hanania means, given the bulk of the column as a wild-eyed rant against Israeli depravity and the benefits Assad provides to Syrian Christians -- but this is what happens when you just let the id take over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
