I still think Anna Breslaw will hold the honor, but John Cook is making a late season run for the coveted "most anti-Semitic article published in a mainstream outlet" award. The piece is titled "Israel Names Its New War After Biblical Story About God Terrorizing Egyptians," referring to the Israeli operation "Pillar of Cloud" (translated into English as "Pillar of Defense").
The reference is to a Biblical story where God protects Israelites fleeing Egyptian slavery via a "pillar of cloud" which deflects Egyptian arrows and stones. Or, as Cook calls it, "God terrorizing Egyptians." Because nothing is more terrible than Jews not being enslaved.
That's what's truly bizarre -- of all the objectionable Bible stories (and there are many) -- freeing Jews from slavery isn't typically considered one. And this particular story, which is nonviolent and defensive (the cloud blocks enemy projectiles) is especially unobjectionable. Yet Cook not only slots it into "angry Old Testament God" territory, he actually views Jewish emancipation as an example of injustice to the Egyptians.
This doesn't even go into the dark murmurings that Israel's campaign is part of "a broader agenda rooted in ancient mysticism." I mean, come on. And Cook only digs in deeper on twitter, where he's basically delivering a live lecture on why you shouldn't opine on the meaning of another culture's stories without any actual knowledge.
Of course, I saw the link from someone who was telling Cook to rock on, so there's still work to be done. If you want the actual Biblical meaning of "pillar of cloud", this Tablet Mag article is a good primer.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Great Moments in Juxtaposition: Bobby Jindal Edition
Bobby Jindal tells the GOP they need to "stop being the stupid party":
Specks and logs, Governor Jindal. Specks and logs.
"It is no secret we had a number of Republicans damage our brand this year with offensive, bizarre comments - enough of that," he said, according to Politico. "It's not going to be the last time anyone says something stupid within our party, but it can't be tolerated within our party. We've also had enough of this dumbed-down conservatism. We need to stop being simplistic, we need to trust the intelligence of the American people and we need to stop insulting the intelligence of the voters."Sound advice, Governor! But look at the next paragraph:
Jindal initially backed the presidential bid of his western neighbor Gov. Rick Perry, then campaigned for and alongside Mitt Romney.Ah, Rick Perry -- the man who actually managed to prove you could be too dumb to win the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.
Specks and logs, Governor Jindal. Specks and logs.
Friday, November 09, 2012
Free Speech as Good Speech
I'm less interested in the particular story that Spanish Jews are pushing for stronger "hate speech" laws (though anti-Semitism in Spain is rampant, including mainstream embrace of the vicious extremist Gilad Atzmon) than I am in this accompanying anecdote:
But the point is that "it's free speech!" has come to mean "it's good, salutary (or at least unobjectionable) speech." I suppose one could blame the passage of "hate speech" laws for this phenomenon on the grounds that they imply that "bad" speech will be censored, so speech that is outside the purview of the hate speech statute presumably carries the implied sanction of the polity, but the problem is that this same rhetoric occurs in the US too. A person who is being criticized for saying hateful or bigoted things will almost invariably cry "free speech!" This displays not only a colossal misunderstanding of First Amendment doctrine, but is a complete non-sequitur to boot. Something can very much be "free speech" and still an awful, awful thought. It's like an even more sophomoric version of Tablet's defense of Anna Breslaw, if one can imagine such a thing.
In 2009, the Spanish daily El Mundo interviewed Holocaust denier David Irving, listing him as an “expert” on World War II. The paper’s editors said the interview was constitutionally protected free speech. The Anti-Defamation League called the interview “an embarrassment to Spain.”I read that paragraph and think to myself "people, people: it can very easily be both."
But the point is that "it's free speech!" has come to mean "it's good, salutary (or at least unobjectionable) speech." I suppose one could blame the passage of "hate speech" laws for this phenomenon on the grounds that they imply that "bad" speech will be censored, so speech that is outside the purview of the hate speech statute presumably carries the implied sanction of the polity, but the problem is that this same rhetoric occurs in the US too. A person who is being criticized for saying hateful or bigoted things will almost invariably cry "free speech!" This displays not only a colossal misunderstanding of First Amendment doctrine, but is a complete non-sequitur to boot. Something can very much be "free speech" and still an awful, awful thought. It's like an even more sophomoric version of Tablet's defense of Anna Breslaw, if one can imagine such a thing.
Thursday, November 08, 2012
That Can Be Arranged
From White People Mourning Romney, we get this poor fellow: 
I shouldn't laugh. And I shouldn't make fun. But all I could think of when I saw this was "have we got a health care mandate for you!"
Contraception and reproductive health: it's not just for liberals!
Contraception and reproductive health: it's not just for liberals!
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
Four More Years! The Post-Election Recap
Nowadays, virtually nobody gets to read this. But I still like writing it. So here goes.
* Obviously, congratulations to newly re-elected President Barack Obama, who ended up winning by a decently comfortable electoral vote margin. I'm pretty confident he will win Florida, thus giving a final electoral tally of 332 to 206 for Romney. Not half bad (and a perfect call by Nate Silver, incidentally). After all this rigmarole, only two states changed sides (both blue-to-red): Indiana and North Carolina. Coming down from a pretty high tide in 2008, that's impressive work.
* Laura Ingraham thinks the problem here was that the GOP didn't nominate "a conservative". Interesting theory! Let's compare Mitt Romney's performance in Minnesota to that of no-questions-asked conservative Rep. Michele Bachmann. Bachmann represents Minnesota's reddest seat, but barely squeaked out a victory over Jim Graves. In suburban Anoka County -- Bachmann's base -- she ran 2 points behind Romney. Benton County, 10 points behind. Carver County, 8 points back. Sherbourne county, 12 points back. In Wright County, Bachmann was 14 points behind Romney's base. Romney won Stearns County by 12 and Bachmann lost by 12 -- a 24 point swing. By all means, run a Bachmann in a swing state and see what happens.
* The real impressive story for me tonight was superb Democratic defense in the Senate. Democrats were defending more than twice as many seats as Republicans, many won during the 2006 Democratic wave year. And yet, big blue is going to come out in the Senate ahead of where they started: picking up Indiana, Massachusetts, and Maine (assuming, as I believe very likely, that King will caucus with Democrats) while only losing Nebraska. Some of this comes down to Republicans shooting themselves in the foot with awful candidates (Indiana, Missouri, Michigan, Florida), but not all. Scott Brown ran a very good campaign in Massachusetts, but Elizabeth Warren is no Martha Coakley, and that state's blue roots shone through. Rick Berg was a fine candidate in North Dakota, but Heidi Heitkamp was absolutely stellar and scored a huge upset. Montana was an even-odds fight between two candidates with state-wide recognition, in which incumbent Democrat Jon Tester prevailed.
* Both Nevada and Arizona ended up being tantalizing close, but I have different views on them. In Nevada, the Democratic candidate (Shelley Berkley) underperformed -- this is a state where Democrats can and should be competing in right now, so that was a disappointment. In Arizona, though, Richard Carmona wildly overperformed expectations for a novice candidate. I think Arizona has only a cycle, maybe two, before it is a true swing state. The Latino charge there is going to overwhelm Republicans.
* Speaking of Latinos, man, that is really going to be a problem for Republicans in coming years. Give Bush and Rove credit -- they saw this coming and really tried to neutralize the demographic threat by trying to make their party the one of immigration reform and thus a viable choice for Latino voters. But they couldn't get it through Congress, and now they're reaping the rewards. Each year, it becomes harder and harder for Republicans to win with a virtually all-White base -- they need to make inroads with non-White voters to even have a prayer. And each year, the Republican base contracts into a more and more pure angry White core which will flip out and any non-trivial gesture in that direction. It will be interesting to see how that shakes out.
* Speaking of Latinos, part II: Puerto Ricans voted in favor of statehood yesterday! This has been a long controversy on the island, as residents have been divided as to whether they want independence, statehood, the status quo, or "sovereign free association" (basically, more autonomy). Statehood had never gotten more than 50% of the vote until today. I don't know the precise procedures that come next, but assuming they go and formally apply for statehood, this has the potential to be a massive headache for the GOP. My understanding is that the island of Puerto Rico isn't as "blue" as mainland Puerto Ricans are (from 2005-2009 their non-voting resident commissioner in Congress was a Republican, for example), but it still definitely would lean left. If I'm the Democratic Party, I immediately welcome them with open arms, and then watch as the GOP commits fratricide between the section that screams "brown brown Spanish-speaking brown!" and the section that understands exactly what message that sends to Latinos nationwide.
* House-wise, the story here is excellent redistricting work by Republicans that basically made this election a wash -- pretty amazing, given the big GOP gains last time around. For all the great recruiting they did Senate-side, Democrats often were a little more scattershot with their House work, and it showed.
* Still, there were some excellent scalps taken last night. By far my favorite was the throttling of (soon-to-be-ex-!) Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) at the hands of Tammy Duckworth. Among his many, many sins, Walsh's support for a one-state solution makes him, in my view, the automatic most anti-Israel member of Congress. So I'm thrilled. Also, war criminal Allen West is down in the FL-18, though that looks to be headed to recount land.
* Gubernatorial races were basically a wash -- Republicans netted one in North Carolina, and that was it. I have to say, statewide Democratic candidates in the upper plains (Dakotas and Montana) are showing impressive resiliency.
* The state legislative picture also sounds good for Democrats, though things are a bit spottier there. The DFL has taken over both chambers in Minnesota, giving them the trifecta. They also took over both houses in Maine, and, in a pretty sizable upset given the ferocious gerrymander they were up against, the New York State Senate. Democrats also made some critical holds onto razor-thin margins in the Iowa Senate and the Nevada Senate, among others. I'll want to look into the full lay of the land a bit more, but it seems downballot this was a very, very good day.
* In 2008, I noted that there was something especially wounding about the losses we incurred on the gay marriage front that year, given that voters were primed to see it as a "historic" election and yet still made a conscious decision to exclude gay and lesbian citizens from that promise. Today, at least some of the demons have been exorcised. Gay marriage votes ran the table nationwide, with it earning legalization in Maine, Maryland, and Washington, and defeating an anti-gay marriage amendment in Minnesota. And, to be blunt, every year more of their voters die, and more of ours come of age. This is a battle where the tide might have finally turned for good.
* Beyond the gay marriage front, it was a pretty good ballot measure day too. Maryland also passed a state level DREAM act giving in-state tuition to resident illegal alien children. That's the first time one of those laws has passed through a popular ballot. Meanwhile, Minnesota somewhat surprisingly rejected the voter ID amendment -- I'd basically resigned myself to the idea that voter ID was a terrible policy idea that was too intuitively appealing to ever be defeated, so truly stellar work by the "no" campaign there to knock it down.
* And that's a wrap, everyone! Still a few outstanding races to decide, probably some recounts to manage, but we're done for another two years. Best of luck to the President on his second term!
* Obviously, congratulations to newly re-elected President Barack Obama, who ended up winning by a decently comfortable electoral vote margin. I'm pretty confident he will win Florida, thus giving a final electoral tally of 332 to 206 for Romney. Not half bad (and a perfect call by Nate Silver, incidentally). After all this rigmarole, only two states changed sides (both blue-to-red): Indiana and North Carolina. Coming down from a pretty high tide in 2008, that's impressive work.
* Laura Ingraham thinks the problem here was that the GOP didn't nominate "a conservative". Interesting theory! Let's compare Mitt Romney's performance in Minnesota to that of no-questions-asked conservative Rep. Michele Bachmann. Bachmann represents Minnesota's reddest seat, but barely squeaked out a victory over Jim Graves. In suburban Anoka County -- Bachmann's base -- she ran 2 points behind Romney. Benton County, 10 points behind. Carver County, 8 points back. Sherbourne county, 12 points back. In Wright County, Bachmann was 14 points behind Romney's base. Romney won Stearns County by 12 and Bachmann lost by 12 -- a 24 point swing. By all means, run a Bachmann in a swing state and see what happens.
* The real impressive story for me tonight was superb Democratic defense in the Senate. Democrats were defending more than twice as many seats as Republicans, many won during the 2006 Democratic wave year. And yet, big blue is going to come out in the Senate ahead of where they started: picking up Indiana, Massachusetts, and Maine (assuming, as I believe very likely, that King will caucus with Democrats) while only losing Nebraska. Some of this comes down to Republicans shooting themselves in the foot with awful candidates (Indiana, Missouri, Michigan, Florida), but not all. Scott Brown ran a very good campaign in Massachusetts, but Elizabeth Warren is no Martha Coakley, and that state's blue roots shone through. Rick Berg was a fine candidate in North Dakota, but Heidi Heitkamp was absolutely stellar and scored a huge upset. Montana was an even-odds fight between two candidates with state-wide recognition, in which incumbent Democrat Jon Tester prevailed.
* Both Nevada and Arizona ended up being tantalizing close, but I have different views on them. In Nevada, the Democratic candidate (Shelley Berkley) underperformed -- this is a state where Democrats can and should be competing in right now, so that was a disappointment. In Arizona, though, Richard Carmona wildly overperformed expectations for a novice candidate. I think Arizona has only a cycle, maybe two, before it is a true swing state. The Latino charge there is going to overwhelm Republicans.
* Speaking of Latinos, man, that is really going to be a problem for Republicans in coming years. Give Bush and Rove credit -- they saw this coming and really tried to neutralize the demographic threat by trying to make their party the one of immigration reform and thus a viable choice for Latino voters. But they couldn't get it through Congress, and now they're reaping the rewards. Each year, it becomes harder and harder for Republicans to win with a virtually all-White base -- they need to make inroads with non-White voters to even have a prayer. And each year, the Republican base contracts into a more and more pure angry White core which will flip out and any non-trivial gesture in that direction. It will be interesting to see how that shakes out.
* Speaking of Latinos, part II: Puerto Ricans voted in favor of statehood yesterday! This has been a long controversy on the island, as residents have been divided as to whether they want independence, statehood, the status quo, or "sovereign free association" (basically, more autonomy). Statehood had never gotten more than 50% of the vote until today. I don't know the precise procedures that come next, but assuming they go and formally apply for statehood, this has the potential to be a massive headache for the GOP. My understanding is that the island of Puerto Rico isn't as "blue" as mainland Puerto Ricans are (from 2005-2009 their non-voting resident commissioner in Congress was a Republican, for example), but it still definitely would lean left. If I'm the Democratic Party, I immediately welcome them with open arms, and then watch as the GOP commits fratricide between the section that screams "brown brown Spanish-speaking brown!" and the section that understands exactly what message that sends to Latinos nationwide.
* House-wise, the story here is excellent redistricting work by Republicans that basically made this election a wash -- pretty amazing, given the big GOP gains last time around. For all the great recruiting they did Senate-side, Democrats often were a little more scattershot with their House work, and it showed.
* Still, there were some excellent scalps taken last night. By far my favorite was the throttling of (soon-to-be-ex-!) Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) at the hands of Tammy Duckworth. Among his many, many sins, Walsh's support for a one-state solution makes him, in my view, the automatic most anti-Israel member of Congress. So I'm thrilled. Also, war criminal Allen West is down in the FL-18, though that looks to be headed to recount land.
* Gubernatorial races were basically a wash -- Republicans netted one in North Carolina, and that was it. I have to say, statewide Democratic candidates in the upper plains (Dakotas and Montana) are showing impressive resiliency.
* The state legislative picture also sounds good for Democrats, though things are a bit spottier there. The DFL has taken over both chambers in Minnesota, giving them the trifecta. They also took over both houses in Maine, and, in a pretty sizable upset given the ferocious gerrymander they were up against, the New York State Senate. Democrats also made some critical holds onto razor-thin margins in the Iowa Senate and the Nevada Senate, among others. I'll want to look into the full lay of the land a bit more, but it seems downballot this was a very, very good day.
* In 2008, I noted that there was something especially wounding about the losses we incurred on the gay marriage front that year, given that voters were primed to see it as a "historic" election and yet still made a conscious decision to exclude gay and lesbian citizens from that promise. Today, at least some of the demons have been exorcised. Gay marriage votes ran the table nationwide, with it earning legalization in Maine, Maryland, and Washington, and defeating an anti-gay marriage amendment in Minnesota. And, to be blunt, every year more of their voters die, and more of ours come of age. This is a battle where the tide might have finally turned for good.
* Beyond the gay marriage front, it was a pretty good ballot measure day too. Maryland also passed a state level DREAM act giving in-state tuition to resident illegal alien children. That's the first time one of those laws has passed through a popular ballot. Meanwhile, Minnesota somewhat surprisingly rejected the voter ID amendment -- I'd basically resigned myself to the idea that voter ID was a terrible policy idea that was too intuitively appealing to ever be defeated, so truly stellar work by the "no" campaign there to knock it down.
* And that's a wrap, everyone! Still a few outstanding races to decide, probably some recounts to manage, but we're done for another two years. Best of luck to the President on his second term!
Thursday, November 01, 2012
This is not Jewish (but it kinda is. Awesomely)
It's a shame this blog isn't public right now, because I'd love to give a more public shout out to This is Not Jewish. Tagline: "Calling out ignorance, appropriation, stereotyping, and general anti-Semitic bullshit since 5773."
It looks quite good. Every time I see a list titled something like How to Criticize Israel without Being Anti-Semitic my heart skips a beat, because I'm worried I'll get something like "Even though Israel is a raging hellbeast of demonic satanism, referencing the Holocaust is only sometimes permissible." But this one actually seemed to impose serious obligations on people, while not remotely closing the door on legitimate criticism of Israel. So hurray! And hurray for the blog, generally!
It looks quite good. Every time I see a list titled something like How to Criticize Israel without Being Anti-Semitic my heart skips a beat, because I'm worried I'll get something like "Even though Israel is a raging hellbeast of demonic satanism, referencing the Holocaust is only sometimes permissible." But this one actually seemed to impose serious obligations on people, while not remotely closing the door on legitimate criticism of Israel. So hurray! And hurray for the blog, generally!
Monday, October 29, 2012
Project Lemonade
Sharia law meets abstinence-only education:
(Actually, the study -- at least as reported in Jezebel which, in fairness, is a considerable caveat -- doesn't seem to have a great answer for why the rate for Hindus is so much lower than the rate for Muslims. As for its Jewish findings -- well, it's good to be a Chosen One sometimes).
. A new study in the American Sociological Review found that evangelical virginity-pledgers could learn a thing or two from Muslims and Hindus, who are the most likely to actually abstain from premarital and extramarital sex instead of just lying about what went down in the basement over the weekend. What's their secret? Really pretty "True Love Waits" t-shirts? Nope: legal and religious coercion, gender segregation, and never showing any lady skin, ever.So rather than complaining about how Islamic law is taking over, why not get on that action to actually make a tent on premarital sex rates?
[...]
Those looking for casual sex partners online should try "advanced search"ing for Chosen Ones: a whopping 94 percent of Jews who participated in the study reported having premarital sex, followed by 79 percent of Christians, 65 percent of Buddhists, 43 percent of Muslims and 19 percent of Hindus.
(Actually, the study -- at least as reported in Jezebel which, in fairness, is a considerable caveat -- doesn't seem to have a great answer for why the rate for Hindus is so much lower than the rate for Muslims. As for its Jewish findings -- well, it's good to be a Chosen One sometimes).
Friday, October 26, 2012
Project Runway All-Stars (Season 2)!
Fresh off the heels of a Project Runway, season 10, we get Project Runway All-Stars, Season 2! Looking over the cast, it's not immediately apparent that every competitor on here meets the definition of an "all-star". I'm not saying they're all losers, but the ratio of Elisas to Mondos is not what one would hope. But hey -- people change, and underdogs emerge, and I'll have plenty of opportunities to snipe at these poor souls based on their work over the next few weeks.
So let's use the first episode to give a bit of a preview! The theme of last night's episode was people claiming they have more range than the one signature thing they're known for (e.g., Uli's flowing print dresses, Kayne's pageant wear), and then doing something that is scarcely different at all. The results were decidedly mixed, but some people definitely inspired more confidence than others.
Althea: Althea manages to beat even Wendy Pepper in the "bears no physical resemblance to her original appearance" competition. Based on past performance she is one of the stronger designers, and I think this look bore that out -- it was interesting, unique, and very sexy. Front was much better than the back, though.
Andrae: So, what's been happening to Andrae? I actually didn't hate this look -- it was a little garbled and sloppy, but there was a neat concept in there. I liked the crossing blue sashes, both on their own and as a cohesive tie to the rest of the collection. I would have been sad if he had gone home.
Anthony Ryan: A sleeper this season, I think. He made some beautiful clothes his season, and really I think left before his moment. This piece was very well-done -- simple and classic in the front, with a unexpected sexy pop in the back. I really liked it a lot, and have no complaints of it being given the win.
Casanova: Playing with fire, I think. Casanova was known on his season for extremely tight, often tacky pieces. This was an extremely tight leather dress that wasn't tacky at all and was actually quite nice. So good job! But it still raises a big alarm bell for me going forward. I don't have the confidence that if he keeps using those materials and that shape, he'll be able to thread the needle again.
Emilio: Another front-runner (I thought he should have won his season). I thought his dress was very cool. The bare midriff thing is a bit played out, but I thought the way he did it was novel and unexpected, which is doubly impressive given (a) the dress is pretty simple and (b) bra + sheer fabric over model's stomach = all of Season 10's Dmitry's fashion week collection.
Ivy: She's poised for a redemption arc. We'll see if that lasts. I thought the concept behind Ivy's look was really cool, which is fortunate for her, because an off-white base and dark circular splotches is universal language for "cow". It's forgiven this time because it was cool and innovative, but be more careful.
Joshua: I remember liking this look more on the runway. Looking at the photos -- I don't know. It looks pretty messy and I'm not sure what the idea is behind it. Fabric just seems gushing out from random spots without thought. The more I see of it, the less I like. And I thought Joshua was pretty hit-or-miss on his own season too. This makes me think he'll be exiting earlier than one might expect.
Kayne: Kayne wanted us to know that he doesn't just do pageant wear. He also can do swimsuits, and jewelry, and apparently he can do Goth pageant wear too. The lace top and the trailing gown and the pants and the neck -- if there were ever a time we needed Michael Kors on the show instead of Isaac Mizrahi to exclaim "it's a lot of look", this was it. Of course, we'd always be far better off if Isaac Mizrahi was replaced as a judge by Michael Kors. Or Michael Costello. Or Michael Vick.
Laura Kathleen: I didn't see what the judges saw in her in her season. I don't see it this time either. A boring top that maybe has a bit of architecture to it, mixed with a boring dress that has no interesting qualities at all. Best of the worst collection? Really? I guess I'm in for another 8 weeks of being utterly baffled by her continued success.
Peach: No, Peach doesn't got it. Look, Peach seems really nice. Everyone seems to like Peach. I like Peach. But I never saw anything in her own season that remotely impressed me. She finished 11th -- that's in the bottom half, not "all-star". This piece was sloppily made and not remotely bold. It also wasn't really ambitious -- if a garment like this is going to overwhelm you ... I mean, just how narrow is your range? She had to go after this.
Suede: This didn't look quite as wretched on the runway as it did in the workroom. I'm not saying it was good, but the skirt at least read a little more interesting as it walked, though I still wasn't wild about how it moved. Maybe it was interesting in how it didn't move? Anyway, the most interesting thing about Suede is the evolution of his signature third-person speech. When he talks to the camera, it's all "Suede is doing...." When he talks to Joanna Coles, or the judges? "I" "I" "I". Heh.
Uli: Uli, famous for flowing dresses with great prints, takes a step in a completely new direction by giving us a flowing dress without any print at all. Bold (or was it confident?)! Anyway, the dress was nice enough, and the stuff around the neck (well, really around the chest -- the stuff holding the dress up) was kind of interesting, but if the goal was demonstrate range or creativity, it did neither. Still, Uli is capable of such gorgeous clothes that I still think she has a great shot this season.
Wendy: "The word that springs to mind is hooker." I don't remember if it was Wendy to whom Joanna said that, but if not, it fits. Yikes.
So let's use the first episode to give a bit of a preview! The theme of last night's episode was people claiming they have more range than the one signature thing they're known for (e.g., Uli's flowing print dresses, Kayne's pageant wear), and then doing something that is scarcely different at all. The results were decidedly mixed, but some people definitely inspired more confidence than others.
Althea: Althea manages to beat even Wendy Pepper in the "bears no physical resemblance to her original appearance" competition. Based on past performance she is one of the stronger designers, and I think this look bore that out -- it was interesting, unique, and very sexy. Front was much better than the back, though.
Andrae: So, what's been happening to Andrae? I actually didn't hate this look -- it was a little garbled and sloppy, but there was a neat concept in there. I liked the crossing blue sashes, both on their own and as a cohesive tie to the rest of the collection. I would have been sad if he had gone home.
Anthony Ryan: A sleeper this season, I think. He made some beautiful clothes his season, and really I think left before his moment. This piece was very well-done -- simple and classic in the front, with a unexpected sexy pop in the back. I really liked it a lot, and have no complaints of it being given the win.
Casanova: Playing with fire, I think. Casanova was known on his season for extremely tight, often tacky pieces. This was an extremely tight leather dress that wasn't tacky at all and was actually quite nice. So good job! But it still raises a big alarm bell for me going forward. I don't have the confidence that if he keeps using those materials and that shape, he'll be able to thread the needle again.
Emilio: Another front-runner (I thought he should have won his season). I thought his dress was very cool. The bare midriff thing is a bit played out, but I thought the way he did it was novel and unexpected, which is doubly impressive given (a) the dress is pretty simple and (b) bra + sheer fabric over model's stomach = all of Season 10's Dmitry's fashion week collection.
Ivy: She's poised for a redemption arc. We'll see if that lasts. I thought the concept behind Ivy's look was really cool, which is fortunate for her, because an off-white base and dark circular splotches is universal language for "cow". It's forgiven this time because it was cool and innovative, but be more careful.
Joshua: I remember liking this look more on the runway. Looking at the photos -- I don't know. It looks pretty messy and I'm not sure what the idea is behind it. Fabric just seems gushing out from random spots without thought. The more I see of it, the less I like. And I thought Joshua was pretty hit-or-miss on his own season too. This makes me think he'll be exiting earlier than one might expect.
Kayne: Kayne wanted us to know that he doesn't just do pageant wear. He also can do swimsuits, and jewelry, and apparently he can do Goth pageant wear too. The lace top and the trailing gown and the pants and the neck -- if there were ever a time we needed Michael Kors on the show instead of Isaac Mizrahi to exclaim "it's a lot of look", this was it. Of course, we'd always be far better off if Isaac Mizrahi was replaced as a judge by Michael Kors. Or Michael Costello. Or Michael Vick.
Laura Kathleen: I didn't see what the judges saw in her in her season. I don't see it this time either. A boring top that maybe has a bit of architecture to it, mixed with a boring dress that has no interesting qualities at all. Best of the worst collection? Really? I guess I'm in for another 8 weeks of being utterly baffled by her continued success.
Peach: No, Peach doesn't got it. Look, Peach seems really nice. Everyone seems to like Peach. I like Peach. But I never saw anything in her own season that remotely impressed me. She finished 11th -- that's in the bottom half, not "all-star". This piece was sloppily made and not remotely bold. It also wasn't really ambitious -- if a garment like this is going to overwhelm you ... I mean, just how narrow is your range? She had to go after this.
Suede: This didn't look quite as wretched on the runway as it did in the workroom. I'm not saying it was good, but the skirt at least read a little more interesting as it walked, though I still wasn't wild about how it moved. Maybe it was interesting in how it didn't move? Anyway, the most interesting thing about Suede is the evolution of his signature third-person speech. When he talks to the camera, it's all "Suede is doing...." When he talks to Joanna Coles, or the judges? "I" "I" "I". Heh.
Uli: Uli, famous for flowing dresses with great prints, takes a step in a completely new direction by giving us a flowing dress without any print at all. Bold (or was it confident?)! Anyway, the dress was nice enough, and the stuff around the neck (well, really around the chest -- the stuff holding the dress up) was kind of interesting, but if the goal was demonstrate range or creativity, it did neither. Still, Uli is capable of such gorgeous clothes that I still think she has a great shot this season.
Wendy: "The word that springs to mind is hooker." I don't remember if it was Wendy to whom Joanna said that, but if not, it fits. Yikes.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
I'm Your Wing, Vector One
One of the stranger things about my time in Champaign was the phonecalls I'd receive aimed at former denizens of my office. One of my colleagues, for example, had an apartment in Chicago, and so ADT was constantly calling me to say the alarm had gone off.
I'm not in Champaign anymore, but my voicemail is still linked to my email address and so I'm still forwarded the messages. Only now these emails come with an attempt to transcribe the message into text. The results are glorious.
I'm not in Champaign anymore, but my voicemail is still linked to my email address and so I'm still forwarded the messages. Only now these emails come with an attempt to transcribe the message into text. The results are glorious.
Good afternoon this is ADT SECURITY everything is in regards to berg alarm we received only room ocean front [name, almost gotten right!] residents [phone number] yeah I got that they have provided to be sunset divide it up 40 they've and I wanted 3 foot notified them if you have any question please and take it easy vector one."Take it easy, Vector One" is my new AALS motto. It makes me feel like an X-Wing pilot going off on a mission.
Monday, October 08, 2012
Making Race an Issue
The Star-Tribune today reported on the election contest in my new district with the headline Fifth District rival makes race an issue. The incumbent is Rep. Keith Ellison (D), an African-American and the first Muslim elected to Congress. His opponent, Chris Fields, is also Black and is trying to argue that Ellison has failed his Black constituents (the 5th district is the most diverse in Minnesota, encompassing much of Minneapolis, ranging from urban professionals to impoverished slums).
Now, there is a large sense in which this is futile -- the 5th District is one of the most liberal in the country, and nobody thinks Fields has a prayer of unseating Ellison. But I don't object to Fields effort in theory. This, of course, is how politics works -- one tries to win by seeking to persuade key constituencies that your policies are better than your opponent's. There is nothing I find intrinsically objectionable about politicians seeking to appeal to Black voters, compared to the status quo amongst Republicans wherein it seems they think there is something illegitimate in a politician being liked by racial minorities.
To be sure, it hardly seems like Fields is making a particularly sophisticated appeal to Black voters (at least, the Strib doesn't give any examples of what his argument is other than a generic "he doesn't care about you"). If Republicans are going to appeal to Blacks, they'll have to do better than run Black candidates and make bare assertions that they care. It takes real legwork. But the ambition, itself, is a positive sign.
Now, there is a large sense in which this is futile -- the 5th District is one of the most liberal in the country, and nobody thinks Fields has a prayer of unseating Ellison. But I don't object to Fields effort in theory. This, of course, is how politics works -- one tries to win by seeking to persuade key constituencies that your policies are better than your opponent's. There is nothing I find intrinsically objectionable about politicians seeking to appeal to Black voters, compared to the status quo amongst Republicans wherein it seems they think there is something illegitimate in a politician being liked by racial minorities.
To be sure, it hardly seems like Fields is making a particularly sophisticated appeal to Black voters (at least, the Strib doesn't give any examples of what his argument is other than a generic "he doesn't care about you"). If Republicans are going to appeal to Blacks, they'll have to do better than run Black candidates and make bare assertions that they care. It takes real legwork. But the ambition, itself, is a positive sign.
Wednesday, October 03, 2012
You Shell Me and I Shell You Back
Turkey struck at Syrian targets today in retaliation for Syria shelling a Turkish border town. The Syrian attack killed five civilians.
Honestly, how could Syria have known Turkey would be so barbaric as to fire back at an entity engaging in cross-border shelling? Who do they think they are -- Israelis?
Honestly, how could Syria have known Turkey would be so barbaric as to fire back at an entity engaging in cross-border shelling? Who do they think they are -- Israelis?
Tuesday, October 02, 2012
Ethics Before Ethnics
This is an interesting, if banal, sum up of Ohio GOP Senate candidate Josh Mandel's utter failure to appeal to the Jewish vote. What it boils down to is that Jews, being liberal, ended up being none-too-keen about voting for Mandel, who is very conservative. Add on to that Mandel's reputation for being a bit of a skeeze on the campaign trail, and, well, why would you expect Jews to vote for him?
The presumed answer, as it always is, is "Mandel is Jewish". But ethnic affinity simply has not been demonstrated to trump ideological affiliation in the voting behavior of minority or other marginal groups. Women didn't flock to Sarah Palin despite their shared possession of breasts. Steve Cohen keeps easily turning back challenges in his majority-minority district because his opponents continue to assume that the only thing they need to do to win is remind voters that they're Black and Cohen is a White Jew.
It just doesn't work that way. If anything, it's White men who have historically displayed more ... reticence at casting a ballot for candidates outside their own group.
The presumed answer, as it always is, is "Mandel is Jewish". But ethnic affinity simply has not been demonstrated to trump ideological affiliation in the voting behavior of minority or other marginal groups. Women didn't flock to Sarah Palin despite their shared possession of breasts. Steve Cohen keeps easily turning back challenges in his majority-minority district because his opponents continue to assume that the only thing they need to do to win is remind voters that they're Black and Cohen is a White Jew.
It just doesn't work that way. If anything, it's White men who have historically displayed more ... reticence at casting a ballot for candidates outside their own group.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Dershowitz the Honest Broker
Some would find it laughable. But if this Ha'aretz report is to be believed, Dershowitz has just scored a major breakthrough with Palestinian PM Mahmoud Abbas: an agreement on a settlement freeze formula that would bring the PA back to the table. The agreement is based on Dershowitz's proposal in the Wall Street Journal back in June, so it's good that he's actually following up on that. Kudos there.
Of course, the next question is whether the Israeli government will agree. One hopes that Dershowitz still has enough sway with the current right-wing government to get them to listen; but given Bibi's track record one worries. To turn a phrase from Abba Eban, now it seems that he is the one who never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Dershowitz says his next stop is to pitch the proposal to the Israeli government. Obviously, I hope they say yes -- but I'm curious how Dershowitz will react if they say no.
Of course, the next question is whether the Israeli government will agree. One hopes that Dershowitz still has enough sway with the current right-wing government to get them to listen; but given Bibi's track record one worries. To turn a phrase from Abba Eban, now it seems that he is the one who never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Dershowitz says his next stop is to pitch the proposal to the Israeli government. Obviously, I hope they say yes -- but I'm curious how Dershowitz will react if they say no.
Monday, September 17, 2012
The Right Argument for the Wrong Reason (and vice versa)
Hussein Ibish has an interesting piece up castigating the way in which the issue of Jewish refugees from Arab lands has recently emerged. Ibish does not deny that these people have valid claims, but he says that the Israeli government's recent embrace of the issue is being done in bad faith -- it isn't really about protecting these person's interests, but rather about neutralizing the potency of Palestinian refugees ("I'll see your refugee claims with one of my own!").
There isn't really any doubt that much of the Israeli usage of this issue has this tactical, political component. This is not really surprising: this is an issue that Mizrachi and Sephardic Jews have been trying to raise for years with little success, so it's hardly the case that the largely Ashkenazi Israeli political elite can claim to have always been possessed with a burning indignation over the issue. And Ibish is only helped by framing his piece in response to a Ben Cohen column which, as Ibish puts it, "systematically proves every point I make."
Nonetheless, I can't help but read Ibish's article and think "so what?" Ibish concedes that the Jewish refugees have valid claims; he only argues that the way the Israeli political elite is currently deploying these claims is cynical and not really calculated to actually vindicate these refugee's legitimate interests. The problem is that if one takes the set of legitimate issues Israelis and Palestinians might have, then subtract those which are deployed in a tactical fashion aimed primarily at scoring transient political advantage or otherwise making the other side look bad, you're left with ... zero issues. Every issue in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is deployed cynically for short-term tactical purposes. Does Ibish really think that most of the people talking about Palestinian refugee rights are primarily concerned with what rhetoric and stylings are most likely to actually give them some degree of recompense in their lifetime? Of course not. If we're going to commit ourselves to try and facilitate just outcomes to plethora of issues dissecting Israel and Palestine, the fact that these issues are often used by political elites in a cynical fashion simply can't be disqualifying. We'd be left with absolutely nothing. And what ends up happening is that arguments like this become ways of indefinitely shunting aside any discussion of these peoples' claims as "political".
But I'd tentatively go even a step further. I'm inclined to think that decision to use Jewish refugees as a counterweight to Palestinian refugees is not per se wrong. Part of compromise is recognizing that one's adversary, like oneself, has legitimate interests that deserve consideration and accommodation. If one doesn't believe that, the only reason one would compromise is because one is over the barrel. The issue of Palestinian refugees, for example, is important in part because of the tangible things they lost, but also in part because it cuts against the narrative of 1948 being about nothing more than a genocidal Arab pogrom that fortunately failed. Likewise, elevating the stature of Jewish refugees matters in part because they deserve compensation, but also because it checks the narrative of 1948 being about marauding Jews seizing land that previously was held in harmony by the indigenous people. In this way, the narrative of the underlying conflict is enriched and parties are less inclined to view compromise as akin to capitulation or an implicit guilty plea to the charge of being the villain.
There isn't really any doubt that much of the Israeli usage of this issue has this tactical, political component. This is not really surprising: this is an issue that Mizrachi and Sephardic Jews have been trying to raise for years with little success, so it's hardly the case that the largely Ashkenazi Israeli political elite can claim to have always been possessed with a burning indignation over the issue. And Ibish is only helped by framing his piece in response to a Ben Cohen column which, as Ibish puts it, "systematically proves every point I make."
Nonetheless, I can't help but read Ibish's article and think "so what?" Ibish concedes that the Jewish refugees have valid claims; he only argues that the way the Israeli political elite is currently deploying these claims is cynical and not really calculated to actually vindicate these refugee's legitimate interests. The problem is that if one takes the set of legitimate issues Israelis and Palestinians might have, then subtract those which are deployed in a tactical fashion aimed primarily at scoring transient political advantage or otherwise making the other side look bad, you're left with ... zero issues. Every issue in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is deployed cynically for short-term tactical purposes. Does Ibish really think that most of the people talking about Palestinian refugee rights are primarily concerned with what rhetoric and stylings are most likely to actually give them some degree of recompense in their lifetime? Of course not. If we're going to commit ourselves to try and facilitate just outcomes to plethora of issues dissecting Israel and Palestine, the fact that these issues are often used by political elites in a cynical fashion simply can't be disqualifying. We'd be left with absolutely nothing. And what ends up happening is that arguments like this become ways of indefinitely shunting aside any discussion of these peoples' claims as "political".
But I'd tentatively go even a step further. I'm inclined to think that decision to use Jewish refugees as a counterweight to Palestinian refugees is not per se wrong. Part of compromise is recognizing that one's adversary, like oneself, has legitimate interests that deserve consideration and accommodation. If one doesn't believe that, the only reason one would compromise is because one is over the barrel. The issue of Palestinian refugees, for example, is important in part because of the tangible things they lost, but also in part because it cuts against the narrative of 1948 being about nothing more than a genocidal Arab pogrom that fortunately failed. Likewise, elevating the stature of Jewish refugees matters in part because they deserve compensation, but also because it checks the narrative of 1948 being about marauding Jews seizing land that previously was held in harmony by the indigenous people. In this way, the narrative of the underlying conflict is enriched and parties are less inclined to view compromise as akin to capitulation or an implicit guilty plea to the charge of being the villain.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Millionaire Quality Work
Jewish groups are, rightfully, upset at early credulous media reports claiming that the anti-Islam movie "Innocence of Muslims" was financed by Jewish donors (it turns out the chief producer appears to be Coptic Christian). But I had to smile when I read that its amateur stylings proved it "could not be backed by millionaires of any faith."
I'm sorry, but having seen ads trying to get Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) reelected has permanently barred me from asserting a necessary connection between "lots of money to draw on" and "high quality production values."
I'm sorry, but having seen ads trying to get Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) reelected has permanently barred me from asserting a necessary connection between "lots of money to draw on" and "high quality production values."
Thursday, September 13, 2012
No Daylight
Remember that whole thing about how, if Israel and America have differences, they should be expressed privately? Bibi doesn't. As Jeffrey Goldberg puts it "You just don't do that. Which is to say, you do it privately."
Sunday, September 09, 2012
Building the Shining City
Honduras appears set to create a series of privately-run cities, complete with their own police, laws, government, tax systems, and immigration policy. They'll even be empowered to sign their own international economic agreements. Todd Zywicki is elated. I'm terrified.
It's not entirely clear who will be establishing and overseeing these new governmental institution but, if as appears likely, they are either formally or de facto under the control of the cities' investors, the possibility of abuse appears rampant. The body of government not only will be entirely unaccountable to the majority of its constituents (the persons working in the cities), but may have a duty of loyalty to the outside investors. Meanwhile, if anyone is expecting the project to refrain from abusing the little guy, it's off to a rough start -- local indigenous tribes are already alleging that the project is taking their land without their consent.
It's not entirely clear who will be establishing and overseeing these new governmental institution but, if as appears likely, they are either formally or de facto under the control of the cities' investors, the possibility of abuse appears rampant. The body of government not only will be entirely unaccountable to the majority of its constituents (the persons working in the cities), but may have a duty of loyalty to the outside investors. Meanwhile, if anyone is expecting the project to refrain from abusing the little guy, it's off to a rough start -- local indigenous tribes are already alleging that the project is taking their land without their consent.
Monday, September 03, 2012
Akin's Return
Like Kevin Drum, when Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" brouhaha broke, I was of the opinion that it would eventually blow over and Akin would continue to be favored to win his Senate race in red-leaning Missouri. Simply put, between the folks who secretly (or not-so-secretly) agreed with Akin, and the folks who are just really good at rationalizing, Akin would undoubtedly suffer a short-term dip and eventually recover as Republicans rallied back to his side.
I was pleasantly surprised to see that, at first blush, the GOP seemed to be coming down much harder on Akin than I had anticipated. Maybe my cynicism was unwarranted?
Unfortunately, Akin appears to be making a comeback, and along precisely the lines Drum and I predicted. He'd ride the storm, Republicans would eventually start returning to him, and the state's red lean would assert itself. And now,, less than a month later, Missouri is back in toss-up territory.
Of course, there is still time to prove me wrong. So get on that, Missouri! Show me that I'm far, far too cynical for my own good.
I was pleasantly surprised to see that, at first blush, the GOP seemed to be coming down much harder on Akin than I had anticipated. Maybe my cynicism was unwarranted?
Unfortunately, Akin appears to be making a comeback, and along precisely the lines Drum and I predicted. He'd ride the storm, Republicans would eventually start returning to him, and the state's red lean would assert itself. And now,, less than a month later, Missouri is back in toss-up territory.
Of course, there is still time to prove me wrong. So get on that, Missouri! Show me that I'm far, far too cynical for my own good.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Posner on Scalia's "Textualism"
This is a devastating review of Justice Scalia's rather inconsistent and meandering commitment to "textualism" (whatever that means -- and it appears to mean, "whatever Justice Scalia feels like").
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Ban Ki-Moon Rebukes Iranian Leadership
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon sharply rebuked the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for delivering a speech at the non-Aligned Movement conference that lambasted Israel, the UN, the US, and the west. Ban, who was in attendance at the Tehran-hosted conference, accused Khamenei of describing Israel "in racist terms" after Khamenei, among other tidbits, said Israel was comprised of "bloodthirsty wolves".
Depending on one's view of things, folks are happy that Ban made the statement or unforgiving that he attended the conference in the first place (or, I suppose, angry that he dared criticize those who want to see Israel obliterated). As for me, I don't envy the sort of balancing that Ban has to do as part of his role as UN Secretary General, and I guess he does it about as well as one might hope. On the other hand, I don't actually find the UN as an institution to be all that useful except as a convenient forum for hearing the collective views of the community of nations. These views, more often than not, turn out to be repellant, but it's still useful information to know I guess -- so long as one does not make the mistake of actually according them normative weight as well.
Depending on one's view of things, folks are happy that Ban made the statement or unforgiving that he attended the conference in the first place (or, I suppose, angry that he dared criticize those who want to see Israel obliterated). As for me, I don't envy the sort of balancing that Ban has to do as part of his role as UN Secretary General, and I guess he does it about as well as one might hope. On the other hand, I don't actually find the UN as an institution to be all that useful except as a convenient forum for hearing the collective views of the community of nations. These views, more often than not, turn out to be repellant, but it's still useful information to know I guess -- so long as one does not make the mistake of actually according them normative weight as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
