Galindo Goes Down

There's plenty to talk about regarding tonight's election results in Texas. We won't have "Big John" Cornyn to push around for much longer, as he was smashed by hyper-corrupt Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. This maybe gives Democrats a shot at the Texas seat -- Paxton is generally viewed as a weaker candidate against Democratic nominee James Talarico -- but regardless I shed no tears over Cornyn's defeat. He was a far-right Republican for his entire career, and a leopard ate his face. And even though Paxton is (somehow) objectively "worse" than Cornyn in every respect, it also scarcely matters in the Senate -- either man would be a lockstep vote for the GOP agenda. Cornyn reaped what he sowed, and he career ended without dignity. He deserved nothing better.

But given my interests, I want to talk about the results of Democratic runoff in the San Antonio-area 35th district, where Johnny Garcia, a moderate Democrat and sheriff's deputy, defeated antisemitic extremist Maureen Galindo by about a 64/36 margin.

On the whole, this is good news. No margin is wide enough not to be a little disconcerting when it comes to a candidate who proposed creating "castration centers" for "American Zionists" and ranted about Jewish/Israeli/Zionist control of the world, but approaching a 2:1 margin (which has been widening over the course of the evening) is pretty emphatic for a candidate who won a plurality in the opening round and at least initially carried the endorsement of the other two runners-up. And one doesn't know how much of even Galindo's residual support came from people who still hadn't heard much about antisemitic views or assumed it was the usual contretemps over Israel. Galindo is orders of magnitude worse than Graham Platner, Nazi tattoo and all. But most of Galindo's most offensive remarks didn't really come to public attention until after the initial round of voting, and as much as coverage seemed ubiquitous to someone like me with my media diet, I cannot stress how much of an outlier I and every single person reading this blog is when it comes to the amount of attention we're paying to this race. That Garcia's margins have climbed over the course of the evening suggests that later-deciding voters -- who had more time to hear about what Galindo was about -- broke against her.

Overall, given the end results it seems clear that Galindo benefited from being seen as "the progressive fighter" in a context where many Democrats want that over all else (even as that presentation was aided by GOP money). Once people started learning about who this woman was with more specificity, a lot of that support melted -- and that's a good thing, since a big fear many of us have is if Democratic voters follow in the GOP footsteps of just voting for whatever avatar best is perceived as channeling incandescent "anti-establishment" rage. Where that sort of outlook drives voting behavior, antisemitism becomes not a burden but a boon -- further proof that one is sticking it to Power (where Jews are inherently associated with capital-P Power). The resounding rejection of Galindo suggests that is not where we are as a party, and that's a very good thing.

Credit also should go to the progressive elected establishment for being absolutely clear they'd have no truck with the likes of Galindo. The rapid mobilization against her from more moderate Jewish Democrats like Jared Moskowitz and Josh Gottheimer was one thing. But Talarico immediately disassociated himself from Galindo, AOC gave a no-holds-barred denunciation, and Greg Casar publicly backed Garcia. This matters because on his own merits Johnny Garcia, a Blue Dog sort, is not the type of Democrat these Democrats tend to promote, and one can imagine a universe where they just try to skate past Galindo's "rougher edges" given the overwhelming importance of kneecapping Democratic moderates. That didn't happen here. A few gadfly commentators aside, nobody was treating Galindo as anything other than despicable.

Having said all of that -- and all of that is reason for good cheer -- I think we would be foolish not to recognize that there is a real appetite in some progressive circles for what Galindo represents, which is to say, for overt and uncompromising antisemitism dressed in the barest fig leaf of "anti-Zionism". It is not a majority, it is not even a large minority, but it isn't entirely trivial either. Whether this appetite is first-order commitment to Jew hatred, or whether it flows indirectly from a more inchoate lashing out at anyone and anything associated with "the establishment", I'm not sure. But we shouldn't pretend that this is not a force moving through American politics, and we shouldn't pretend it has no traction in Democratic circles. It does, and that's why it was so important -- and again, so heartening -- to see the party rally against it without reservation and turn it back. 

Once again, the main difference between Democrats and Republicans isn't that they have cranks and we don't. The difference is that our cranks lose in our primaries, and theirs become presidential nominees. Let's keep it that way.

We Hate To Do The Number Limbo

I was just a bit too old to have ever been into Barney. It came out in 1992; I was born in 1986 -- six years old is right at the edge of its target audience. For some reason, though, the opening riff to "The Number Limbo" has stuck with me as I round forty years old, periodically popping into my head at random intervals like a parasitic ear worm. I actually didn't even know it was a "Barney" song until I googled it last night. It is a mystery how it burrowed into my subconscious, but it has found its place and it will not be dislodged.

I was born too late to be into Barney itself, but I was also old enough to remember the absolutely mass social hatred people had for Barney. I'm not talking about six- and seven-year-olds performatively rejecting Barney to prove they're not babies. That's at least developmentally appropriate -- though the dirty secret they don't tell you is that this sort of performative rejection is actually a sure-shot indicator you're still a kid. One of my firmest beliefs about human development is that teenagers reject all their "kids" interests to prove they're adults because they're nervous they're not -- then they go off to college and realize the one thing they can be sure they have in common with their new roommate is that they both loved Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles as a kid. Actual adulthood is reached when one doesn't feel the need to prove it.

Anyway, I digress. The Barney-hate we all saw was not the kid-appropriate version; it was society-wide and very much an adult phenomenon. And this practice -- I dunno. I don't like it. A society-wide propensity towards hating things whose primary sin is that they make a lot of people -- here, small children -- happy is not a phenomenon we should be proud of.

Perhaps with Barney young parents have an excuse for the haterade. Nathaniel isn't quite at the age where he's consuming children's media, but I can imagine in a few years after hearing the theme song to Bluey or whatever for the 9554th time I will laugh bitterly at my "who is it hurting" naivete. But this phenomenon is larger than Barney or children's media. The exhausted young parents story doesn't explain why we all decided to hate Anne Hathaway for awhile. Or Guy Fieri. Or Richard Simmons (okay, homophobia can explain that last one pretty easily).

The reality is, we do seem to pick out random pop culture figures who've done nothing wrong but be too earnest in making people happy and decide we're going to enjoy ourselves by collectively hating them. It is a society-wide digression towards adolescence and bullying behavior, styled (just as with actual adolescence) as a form of sophistication. We should be much more ashamed than we are of indulging in it.

The Honorable Jo Perini-Abbott

 

There are bigger electoral fish to fry tonight, but I do want to give a congratulations to my friend and colleague Jo Perini-Abbott, who looks set to win a seat on the Multnomah County Circuit Court. While we'll be sad to be losing her at Lewis & Clark, she will make a fine addition to the bench.

I also want to give a quick shoutout to her opponent, John Casalino. By all accounts (including Jo's), he is a fine attorney and also would have made a solid judge. While I supported Jo, I cannot tell you how nice it is to fill out a ballot when the race isn't "Norma Reasonabola versus Dixie McRapist in a nail-biter!" There are three other local contested judicial elections this cycle, and in at least two of them there were a multitude of really strong candidates to choose from (those two races are heading to a run-off). 

The third race is a bit of an odd duck with an incumbent facing controversy (it's ... a long story), but the challenge to her doesn't seem especially ideologically-motivated. The incumbent, Judge Adrian Brown, has clashed with our local DA, but her challenger is a public defender who suggested that frustration with Judge Brown is present on all sides of the bar. In any event, Brown appears to be losing by a very wide margin.

But I don't want to focus on that. I want to focus on a great candidate notching a win, in an election that speaks to the depth of respected and diligent public servants we have in our community. How lucky I am to live in such a place.

Congratulations!

Magic Words in Malign Times

You've probably heard of the shooting at a San Diego Islamic center that killed three people, along with the two shooters (who reportedly killed themselves). Early reports suggest that this was a White Supremacist attack.

I have little to say about this save the obvious -- that this is a despicable act of Islamophobic terror and that it flows directly from the cavalcade of anti-Muslim rhetoric and action that has emanated from the top levels of our government and society. That the perpetrators will never face true justice only underscores their monstrosity. Whatever comfort and support I can give to the victims and their loved ones, I extend it, even as I know I can do little.

I do want to note one other thing. I read the statement on the attack from my local Jewish Federation. It is, of course, horrified -- there was never any doubt of that. But it does not say the word "Islamophobia" or "Islamophobic".  In fact, other than naming the site of the shooting, it doesn't mention "Islam" or "Muslim" at all. The shooting is presented as emblematic of "the threat facing religious communities in America"; it underscores the need for "security funding to help protect all houses of worship and faith-based institutions nationwide."

I am not one to police statements such as these to see whether they have or omit certain "magic words". The tenor of the JFed's statement is clear enough; and if it speaks in universal language, well, I'm not a cheerleader for the overextension of the "all lives matter-ing" complaint. However, there are others out there who do make a habit out of scouring for magic words, and who work themselves up into very high dudgeon when a statement that seems on face perfectly appropriate doesn't use a certain specific word or phrase or framing. 

If such individuals wish to be truly equal opportunity in their critique, then they should have no problem with anyone who rakes the JFed over the coals for its omission. But if they think that would be unreasonable, and that the JFed deserves better than that, then I hope they'll consider extending similar grace to others in turn.

Of Course Dobbs Didn't Completely "Return Abortion to the States"

After a brief delay, the Supreme Court stayed (over dissents from Justices Thomas and Alito) the latest Fifth Circuit gambit to try and take mifepristone off the market. There's plenty to talk about, and plenty of others will talk about it. But I did want to flag one talking point in the dissent that stood out to me for its hackishness.

Justice Alito described the Dobbs decision as having "restored the right of each State to decide how to regulate abortions within its borders." Allowing mifepristone to be sent through the mail, consequently, "undermine[s]" the Dobbs ruling insofar as it permits abortion medication to be sent to states that have sought to ban it. The immediate problem with this logic is obvious: Dobbs did not completely "return abortion to the states." Dobbs held that there was no federally-protected constitutional right to an abortion. But there could be myriad ways the federal government might pass regulations on abortion -- for example, via its power to regulate the safety and distribution of pharmaceuticals.

This point is not novel. Scott Lemieux wrote today that "making mifepristone available through telehealth 'undermines' Dobbs only if the holding was not that the Constitution was silent on abortion but that the Constitution is hostile toward abortion. Louisiana has never had any jurisdiction over the federal drug approval process."

But what I haven't seen flagged yet is just how quickly the dissenters abandon this farkakteh position that they obviously don't believe in the first place. Because you know far you'll have to look in U.S. Reporter to find a Dobbs Justice emphasizing ongoing federal authority on the subject of abortion? Approximately one page, to Justice Thomas' dissent, where he contends that the mailing of mifepristone is illegal nationwide under the Comstock Act! Whatever else one might say about that argument, it is precisely an assertion that federal law continues to have a say on abortion. Which -- of course conservatives believe! There's never been any doubt of that! Or more precisely, there's no doubt of that in circumstances where the federal government might seek to assert authority to limit abortion access, rather than protect it.

As always, the actual meaning of any Supreme Court precedent for the Court's conservatives is whatever they want it to mean, for however long it is convenient for it to carry that meaning. When the Supreme Court in Callais confirmed the continued vitality of the Allen precedent, that commitment lasted approximately two weeks. That's an anemic showing, but it is no match for the one page the ultra-right faction took to travel from insisting that Dobbs forecloses federal regulations on abortion to insisting that federal regulation already makes the distribution of abortion drugs illegal.

Fighting AI Slop in Academic Publishing

The prominent academic pre-print repository arXiv has reportedly announced stiff new penalties for authors who submit papers with AI-generated hallucinations (e.g., fake citations). Violators will be subject to a one-year outright ban on submissions, and an indefinite requirement that any future uploads must have been accepted by a "reputable peer-reviewed venue".

This is as good a prompt as any for why I am slightly -- slightly -- more optimistic about the ability of academia to fend off the tsunami of AI slop compared to other entities in the business of generating texts. One problem with AI slop in, say, the news space is that it's essentially impossible to impose meaningful sanctions on violators. It's essentially spam bots -- if one site gets delisted, another springs up in its place. The spammers don't care specifically about the reputation of this website or that (usually fake) author. The main goal is to get their text out in the world; it doesn't matter so much who it's attributed to (except insofar as that can aid the text getting more readers or otherwise embedding itself in the algorithm).

But academics are differently situated. True, an academic might have an incentive to look super-productive, and so an unscrupulous version of me might be tempted by the prospect of being to produce dozens of (low-quality, but cross-cited) papers in a short-period of time. But crucially, it's important that I be the one credited for all this productivity and all these citations. If I'm blacklisted from a bunch of journals, that's a genuine deterrent in a way that banning a spam bot is not for your typical spammer. Penalties like those that arXiv proposed exact meaningful costs that draw (ironically enough) on the self-interested nature of academics (if the only thing we cared about was getting our research into the world, without worrying about the credit, this deterrent wouldn't work). Academics need to put our own name on articles to get credit for articles, and that means that where we are found out to be misbehaving, there can be punishments which stick to us. For my part, I am generally a strong proponent of strong punishments -- including blacklists -- for academic authors who submit AI slop to journals.

This isn't to say there are no abusive uses of AI that wouldn't circumvent these reputational deterrents. I can think of two in particular.

The first is papers with fake authors which over-cite other articles by a real academic. Banning the fake authors would not exact costs on the real-world wrongdoer (the real academic whose presumably using some mill to generate the fake articles to goose his or her own citation counts). That said, where one can credibly ascertain that the over-cited scholar is the "real" author and that they've created a Potemkin article as a means of abusing a citation racket, they still can be subject to meaningful sanctions.

The second possible problem is articles which falsely claim to be authored by a real academic (who actually had no affiliation with the piece), hoping to trade on his or her genuine reputation to boost the reach of the slop article. This practice is especially dangerous because -- consistent with the above promotion of punishing the authors for bad AI practices -- it risks engendering false accusations. It appears that John Smith wrote a bogus AI-generated slop piece, so blacklist John Smith -- except John Smith actually had nothing to do with the piece; some scammers slapped his name on it. This could be a significant problem, though I'll note its scope is limited again by the fact that the main benefits of publishing a "bad" AI-generated article have to at some point accrue to a "real" author, and so eventually whichever co-author is the actual malign actor behind the charade should be able to be sussed out.

Hillel International Forbids Middlebury Chapter From Staying, Leaving

The Jewish students involved in Middlebury College's Hillel want to disaffiliate from Hillel International, citing (among other things) disagreement over implementation over the latter's "partnership policies."

Middlebury College’s Hillel student board made the decision last week after a yearlong consultation process with active participants in the campus organization, university administrators and Hillel International leadership, according to the student group’s co-presidents. The board also voted to disaffiliate from Hillel International, but were told by Middlebury’s administration that they lacked the authority to take that action, the co-presidents told the Middlebury campus newspaper.

The student group, renamed to Jewish Association of Middlebury, will continue to perform similar functions as Hillels do on hundreds of campuses around the world — holding events around Shabbat and Jewish holidays and other Jewish religious and social programming. The board says it will maintain an on-paper link with Hillel without adhering to its guidelines, and it will not receive any funding from the organization.

The response from Hillel International has been ... interesting:

Hillel International, which does not employ a rabbi or any professional staff at Middlebury, said in a statement that it was currently reviewing Hillel’s affiliation status with the college to confirm it will ensure that JAM “adheres to our mission and standards.”

“Hillel is committed to supporting all Jewish students — from all types of backgrounds and with a diversity of views and beliefs on a range of issues including Israel,” the statement in part read. “At the same time, we are a proudly Zionist organization, and do not provide a platform for programming that denies Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state within secure borders.

“All campus Hillels — even those that are just a student group without dedicated professional Hillel staff — are expected to operate in line with our mission, vision, values, and policies.”

[....] 

At the university’s behest, the students then met virtually with Hillel International, whose representative reiterated that the board members must universally adopt Hillel International’s political views and values about Israel, according to the Campus. But the representative also conceded that it couldn’t stop the students from changing the organization’s name.

“We said we want to disaffiliate, and they said you can’t. And we said, well, we’re going to change the name anyway. And they said, we can’t stop you,” Jaffe said.

So to recap: the Middlebury Jewish students object to following the partnership guidelines. Hillel says campus chapters have to follow the partnership guidelines. So the students say they want to disaffiliate from Hillel. They're told they can't. So the students say they won't follow the partnership guidelines. And Hillel says ... they're reviewing the chapter's affiliation status?

Forgive me, but what exactly is Hillel endgame here? Disaffiliation? That's what the students wanted to begin with! It's just a farce at this point: "We're leaving" "You can't leave" "Well we're not following your rules" "Then we'll kick you out!"

I'm a general opponent of campus witch hunts targeting Hillel, which often does essential work as a center for Jewish life on campus. But it is a case that the national office of Hillel has a tendency to forget that it ultimately serves Jewish students, not the other way around, and this is yet another instance of Hillel resisting its badly needed dose of democracy. The reason why Hillel constantly steps in it when it comes to applying the partnership guidelines (among other issues) is that it lacks meaningful democratic accountability to its students. If the Jewish students of Middlebury involved in Hillel want to raise money for World Central Kitchen's relief efforts in Gaza (the incident which apparently set this whole train in motion), that's their prerogative, and it's outrageous that the national body thinks it should be entitled to intercede against it. 

Finally, it would be easy to connect the Middlebury students' decision with broader campaigns aimed at boycotting or rejecting Hillel as a "Zionist" or "Israel-connected" institutions. However, while their problems with Hillel International are certainly related to that organization's narrowness on Israel and Zionism, it's important to stress that the Middlebury students are very much not framing their decision as a general rejection of "Israel" or "Zionism":

“Let us be clear: this decision is not a rebuke of Zionism, Zionist students, or the importance of Israel to many in the Jewish community,” a Dec. 2025 email to JAM membership read. “Rather, it reflects a desire to create the most welcoming and pluralistic space possible.”

This choice, in other words, was not made by a group of radical purists who couldn't countenance brushing up against anything associated with the "Zionist entity." Rather, it was forced by a national office made up of, well, radical purists who couldn't countenance brushing up against anything associated with support for Palestinians. The latter category includes many Jews who most certainly do not see Israel as a dirty word, but nonetheless find themselves personae non gratae in too many Jewish spaces.

How Parenting Changes Politics

It's a cliche to say that becoming a parent changes your politics. But maybe not in the same way for everyone. Parenting, I think, amplifies one's protective instincts. It accentuates vulnerability -- there's this tiny baby, who you want all the best things for, but whom you are painfully aware is dependent on not just you but the whole world to determine the trajectory of his or her life. You want to keep your child safe, and yet you know that it's not ultimately all up to you (or your child, for that matter). It's one of those banalities that feels ridiculous but is true; that it's almost impossible to imagine loving and caring about someone more than the baby in your arms.

There are some people for whom that protectiveness manifests in a form of conservatism -- suddenly becoming a lot less willing to "risk" harms befalling their child (where "risk" is less "letting them climb a tree" and more "letting them attend school with the riff-raff"). But for me, at least, this overwhelming, almost painful sense of protectiveness unlocked a new level of empathy. That feeling of terror at the thought of something terrible happening your baby -- the omnipresent Geiger counter of fear? Every parent has that. Every child (and I include here adult children) has loved ones who feel that way about them too. To see something bad happen to another person -- for them to be in a position where they need help and can't get it -- it hits me like a tidal wave; oddly, not fully on their own behalf, but on behalf of those who love them. I both can't and can imagine how that would feel if it happened to Nathaniel. And all the clever rationalizations and political machinations that explain why this suffering or deprivation or injustice or explosion is the just one wither in the face of that crushing wall of empathy.

The other day I had an idea for a painting series (that is, if I were a talented artist, which I am not), which was to take classic depictions of war and battle and replace all the faces of the soldiers with those of babies. The thought of the painting makes me want to shut my eyes to and run away from my own imagination (which, from an artistic standpoint, is a good sign -- good art makes you feel things after all -- but is less pleasant when one can't create and just has to live with it in your own mind). Each man charging, rearing, falling, crying, in agony, lying still -- they are all someone's baby. No matter what side they're on, they have loved ones grieving for them. How can we not do everything in our power to avert such grief? It is an awful experience even to imagine it, much less to live through it. Even if the rational part of me can fathom -- barely -- that this cannot always be the absolute number one priority, boy should it put one hefty thumb on the scale.