Don't Rank Cuomo, and Other Less Important Thoughts

The Democratic primary for the NYC mayoral race is today. The front-runner has been former Governor Andrew Cuomo, but he's facing a stiff challenge from a surging Zohran Mamdani, who's aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America.

I don't live in New York, obviously. But I've been casually following the race, and I do have some thoughts.

1) Don't rank Cuomo. That's the mantra of nearly all the progressives in the race, and it is correct. It's not just that Cuomo is a sex pest (though, dayenu). He was also an awful governor who actively sabotaged Democratic prospects in New York in order to promote his own presidential ambitions -- and yet was so manifestly incompetent he ended up wrecking his presidential ambitions too! Personally mendacious, hostile to his own party, and piss-poor political instincts? No. Get this guy out of here. And honestly, "don't rank Cuomo" is, far and away, the most important thought.

2) David endorses Lander. Not that it matters, but if I had a vote in New York I'd probably rank Brad Lander first. I always liked him. And with ranked choice voting, I could do it without worrying that I was tossing my vote away and/or involuntarily supporting Cuomo.

3) The NYT's cowardly Cuomo quasi-endorsement is nauseating. The NYT recently said it would stop issuing endorsements in local races (why?). But that makes this editorial, where it twisted itself in knots to not-expressly-say it is endorsing Cuomo while effectively endorsing Cuomo because Mamdani is just too lefty and scary, the most spineless thing I've seen in opinion journalism since everything the Washington Post has done over the past 8 months.

4) I'd rank Mamdani. But... I think there is a lot to like about Mamdani. He's clearly better than Cuomo (see #1, above). And I don't think he's antisemitic. But people are allowed to not like his evasive defense of the phrase "globalize the intifada". His response to that question is a reasonable source of criticism, and he can take those lumps.

5) It's not cheating when they don't roll over. On that note, one of the single most annoying habits of the Bernie/DSA wing of the left is how they act as if it's cheating when more centrist candidates don't just roll over and let them win. "The DNC conspired to defeat Bernie Sanders and coronate Joe Biden" -- no it didn't. Biden ran a campaign and beat Sanders, fair and square. That's how democracy works. In any given race, I hope my preferred candidate or faction wins, but I don't expect the opponent to not try (see also: Democrats are responsible for MAGAism because Barack Obama inexcusably refused to just concede the 2012 race to Mitt Romney). We're already seeing similar moaning about how "the Democratic establishment" apparently moved heaven and earth to anoint Cuomo and defeat Mamdani. Again, I think Cuomo is scum, and there are absolutely things he's done in his campaign which aren't kosher. But yes, the left-wing of the Democratic Party is going to have to actually win races where their opponents show up -- it's not going to have things handed to them. Grow up. 

6) If Mamdani does win, he should get a chance to govern. That's the perquisite of winning, and he deserves a fair shot. And I'm still curious how DSA domestic policies will play out if implemented (though I still wish we had gotten a test-run a bit further from spotlight in Buffalo). That said, the fact that he won't have a perfectly pliant city council and agreeable municipal bureaucracy putting his policies on a glide path is not sabotage, it's city politics. Much like having to actually win an election against an opposition that's actively campaigning, one is not being sabotaged when one faces the same basic set of obstacles and frictions that are inherent features of local governance in a large city with diverse stakeholders

Calculated Deaths

One of the macabre realities of developing self-driving cars is that someone, somewhere, has to program them to kill people.

I don't mean that in a nefarious or conspiratorial way. What I mean is that the car's algorithm must have a decision tree governing how it will respond to unavoidable tragedies -- say, a person suddenly jumping into the road, and the only choice is for the car to strike the pedestrian or swerve into oncoming traffic. Someone is (likely) going to be seriously hurt, the car's manufacturer has to decide who that will be.

Human drivers, of course, also periodically face these situations. But in most cases, they don't "decide" who they're going to strike -- at least, not in the same way. A human driver faced with a sudden and unavoidable calamity is likely to make a "decision" based on some mix of instinct, reflex, and random chance. Some will hit the pedestrian, some will hit oncoming traffic, but virtually none of it is based off of any sort of real consideration or calculation.

In the abstract, this seems worse, philosophically-speaking. Philosophers might disagree on the right resolution to various trolley problems, but I can't imagine they don't think that it'd be better if we didn't think up an answer at all. Yet in this case, my instinct is that knowing someone was killed by operation of a programmed algorithm feels worse, somehow, than knowing they were killed by what is essentially thoughtless chance. The former invites a sort of "who tasked you with playing God" response. The latter, by contrast, is clearly tragic, but is a tempered one. We understand the driver could not have reasonably even made a decision, so we can't hold him or her accountable for it. What happened, happened.

That non-intuitive intuition intrigues me. It suggests there are cases where it is better that decisions -- including critical life-or-death ones -- be made thoughtlessly and without advance consideration. Obviously, the first question to ask is whether I'm alone in holding this intuition in this case. But assuming I'm not, the next question is where else this intuition extends to. Notably, I don't think I'd feel better if the self-driving car was programmed to essentially randomly choice who to kill or maim in one of these situations. But why not?

Anyway, that's my thought of the evening. Further thoughts welcome.

What Turned Jonathan Greenblatt?

The widely-reported loud resignation of an ADL regional board member, specifically criticizing Jonathan Greenblatt's disastrous leadership decisions, gives me occasion to explore a question I suspect many have wondered about: what the hell happened to Jonathan Greenblatt? 

It's not as if Greenblatt was ever the best civil rights leader. But he certainly wasn't always like this. So what happened? What zombie bit him?

I have two stories to explain this, which are not competitive but rather I think are complementary. Moreover, these accounts are explanatory, not exculpatory. In fact, I would hope that someone with the self-awareness to recognize they're falling into these patterns -- however understandable they might seem -- would recognize that they probably aren't currently suited to lead the world's preeminent Jewish civil rights organization.

Story #1 is that Greenblatt is simply following in the footsteps of other tech magnates (remember, that's his pre-ADL background). A lot of these tech bros -- Jeff Bezos is a really obvious template what with his Washington Post trajectory, but it's a pattern one can see in folks like Mark Zuckerberg or even, in extremis, Elon Musk -- went through an arc where they adopted (at least to some extent) various liberal causes and shibboleths yet did not receive the adulation and hero-worship they thought was their due, and so bitterly rebelled.

The ADL (and Greenblatt) certainly went through this -- in many ways, a more intense version of it than did Bezos or any of his ilk. From 2016 when it took a leading role in resisting MAGA predations (particularly against the Muslim ban), the ADL really did try to adopt itself to the changing progressive patterns on civil rights issues. It took a ton of heat on this from the right, which accused it of being Marxist and America-hating and not even a Jewish organization at all. That experience did not see the ADL become beloved on the left; it continued to endure the usual flack it's always faced of the "Drop the ADL" variety. I'm not here debating whether the latter is or was justified, but I think it's pretty clear that the conjunction of the two engendered a lot of bitterness, and some of that motivated Greenblatt's rightward pivot that began in earnest during the Biden admin.

Story #2, though, relates more specifically to what I imagine it's like to be the head of the ADL and the trauma that must come with the job. We talk a lot about how individuals whose job it is to see awful things -- e.g., social media content moderators -- really can get messed up from the experience (this is one reason why people in the know recommend not mainlining graphic images of whatever violent atrocity is currently in the news; it's not "bearing witness", it's just soul-destroying). Well, I have to think that being the head of the ADL means that one is constantly being exposed to the worst moments in Jewish life, over and over again, without respite or break. Every traumatized Jewish student harassed on the way to class, every fearful Jewish parent wondering if their child's school is a safe place to attend, every terrified business owner with a brick through their window -- it is your job for all of that trauma to flow through you. And it really doesn't matter if not every one of the cases is "technically" antisemitic under whatever definition you prefer. The point is the head of the ADL is just a magnet for Jewish trauma, and I have to think that going through that will eventually mess you up.

So yes, my suspicion is that over the past few years, Jonathan Greenblatt has had to absorb way, way too much in the way of Jewish trauma, and going through that has put him in a very bad headspace. This, too, is a trajectory I've seen from many other people in the civil rights/non-profit space; they're asked to endure too much and eventually it frankly breaks their brains and leads them to one extreme or another.

But again, this isn't an exoneration project for Greenblatt. However "normal" his response is in terms of being a not-unpredictable reaction to the stimuli he's faced, it doesn't change the fact that he's not the right man to lead the ADL in this moment. But I do think these stories can help explain what went on, and hopefully provide some guidance on how to guard against it in the future (even if the guidance is simply "don't let one guy hold the reins of your Jewish organization for longer than most eastern European dictators").

A Day of Milestones

Today is a pretty big day.

For starters, it's my blog's birthday! It is a whopping 25 years old today, with over 7,400 posts. That's a lot of writing!

In addition, Nathaniel turns five months old today. You wouldn't know it by looking at him, though -- he's 20 and a half pounds and over 27 inches long! We've already got him in nine-month old clothing, and he stretches some of that.

And of course, related to the above, it is my very first Father's Day as a father. I am so lucky to have the best baby in the world, co-parented by the best wife in the world.

I cannot express how lucky, grateful, and blessed I feel.

"Personal Liberty Laws" for the MAGA Era

Earlier today, in response to the violent detention of California Senator Alex Padilla for the sin of asking an intemperate question of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, someone quipped that "We have entered the 'caning of Charles Sumner' stage of historical parallels."

I've been thinking of antebellum precedents myself recently, albeit in response to a different issue: the new propensity of ICE and other federal police agencies to refuse to clearly identify themselves before purporting to make immigration-related arrests, and the corresponding rise in "ICE impersonator" events where criminals and scammers impersonate the agency to victimize vulnerable communities. What we are seeing, again and again, are police actions that to an immediate observer look indistinguishable from a kidnapping, abduction, or carjacking. On the one hand, this indistinguishability heightens Americans' vulnerability to violent crime; on the other hand, the adoption of these thuggish tactics by the police is itself rightly seen as an attempt to leverage terror against the population. Responsible states and cities should not cooperate in this project, and indeed they should take whatever steps they can to resist it.

In the antebellum era, many northern states passed "Personal Liberty Laws" to blunt the effect of a different exercise of state-sponsored abductions: the Fugitive Slave Act. My proposal is for a new "Personal Liberty Law", that takes the form of directing how state and local police should respond* if they witness what appears to be a kidnapping, abduction, or the like. In essence, the policy should be as follows: 

• Where the police witness what appears to be an abduction, they should assume it is an unlawful abduction and respond accordingly (including with use of appropriate force) unless they have actual knowledge that the detention is occurring under lawful authority (i.e., is an actual police operation).
• "Actual knowledge" can include advance knowledge (in cases of coordination), or conspicuous display of law enforcement identification (such as a badge, or the use of marked police vehicles).
• "Actual knowledge" does not include mere verbal or written declarations (including clothing labels) that the putative kidnapper is a member of any particular police agency, as such declarations are too easily fabricated.

Absent such "actual knowledge", the police should act as they would if someone conducted a street abduction before their eyes, up until the point they are satisfactorily given "actual knowledge" (which again, requires more than simply the raw assertion "we're with ICE"). If that means physically interceding to protect the individual at risk of abduction, so be it.

Now, I can already hear the MAGA howls: "this would put ICE agents at risk!" Whether or not that complaint moves you or not, I would humbly submit in reply that what's actually putting ICE agents at risk is that their behavior is indistinguishable from that of violent criminals, and that the proper remedy to ameliorate that risk is for ICE to avail itself of the many unique police resources -- such as badges, marked vehicles, and warrants -- that would serve to separate themselves from violent criminals. If they insist on forgoing such resources, then they take on the risk that other law enforcement officers will assume they are exactly who they appear to be. Responsible states and cities are under no obligation to leave their residents vulnerable to being targeted for kidnappings and abductions simply because Stephen Miller wants to impersonate his favorite street gangs.

* I'm bracketing the important, if not potentially fatal, issue of whether state and local police would ever follow this guidance even if it were issued. To be honest, I don't know how practically effective the original "Personal Liberty Laws" were when enacted, but the symbolism was important.

Back in the USA

If you're wondering why I've been silent around these parts over the past week, it's for a generally happy reason: I was in England, attending a conference at Oxford on "Religion, Speech, and Vulnerability." The whole family attended -- me, Jill, and Nathaniel, and my parents met us as well -- and so we stretched the trip into a family vacation spending time in both London and Oxford.

The trip was amazing -- first and foremost because Nathaniel was an absolute rockstar who had no trouble with the nine-hour flight and is apparently immune to jet lag (unlike his parents). Highlights of the trip include going to Tate Modern, doing a gallery walk in Mayfair, and seeing Operation Mincemeat in the West End. It really is the sort of trip that will be a lifelong memory.

But now that I'm back, I do want to temper that happiness with a bit of a dark cloud.

Before I left, I found myself thinking -- seriously -- about information security. Do I bring my normal cellphone? Do I bring my laptop? If so, do I delete any sensitive files, or refrain from posting controversial content while I'm away?

These thoughts, of course, were triggered by the high-profile stories of the USCBP's new MAGA marching orders, which have captured U.S. citizens in their draconian talons. Even among citizens, I certainly knew I wasn't the most likely target, but there were certainly elements of my profile (anti-Trump, academic, Jewish but averse to Trump's putative anti-antisemitism initiatives) that at least mildly elevated my risk factors.

Ultimately, I didn't do much differently -- packed my laptop in my checked bags, turned off my phone on arrival, and mostly refrained from social media posting while I was gone. And, unsurprisingly, my reentry into the U.S. was entirely unremarkable and smooth aside from an annoying long line -- no odd questions (to say nothing of detention).

But even still, I think I can fairly say that it is a bad thing I'm even thinking along those lines -- that my own government might snatch me away for no other reason than my political opinions and drop me off to fester in a lawless pit. And I can honestly say that this is a thought I've never had before in any prior administration, including Trump I (to say nothing of Biden, Obama, or Bush). Of course, there are those who have had these worries with far more grounded basis for far longer than I have; I'm not trying to minimize that. My point is only that we should identify the spread of these sentiments as a klaxon warning sign that the democratic freedoms we take for granted are fading. And even if you don't think of yourself as among the "usual" targets, your mundanity will not save you.

Even in fascist states, for the most part most people aren't being snatched off the street most of the time. When typifies the oppressive regime is not the experience of being snatched, but the constant ambient worry that it's a possibility. That worry is not one I have experienced until now -- indeed, not experiencing it is something I had taken for granted until now -- and it's not a good or healthy sign of the vitality of our democracy that I'm feeling it now.

In Defense of Government Waste

It's a pretty common refrain, particularly among the people who have recently found themselves leopard chow: "I support cutting government waste, but ...."

The "but" usually is something like ".... but my job really is valuable" or ".... but this program really is important to the community" or ".... but they're going about it all wrong."

And of course, my first thought when reading that is "who supports 'government waste'?"

Well, here I will. Sort of.

The easiest point to make is that one person's "waste" is another person's "valuable job" or "program important to the community." How much of what people imagine to be "waste" actually is quite valuable? A lot, I'd wager. We're already seeing how frequently people could use of dose of Chesterton's fence -- the fact that they don't understand why there's a government program doing X does not mean that there is no good reason why there's a government program doing X. Bring back small-c conservatism!

But I'll take a bigger swing. Let's stipulate that there is some amount of actual, undeniable government waste: money being spent inefficiently, savings that could be obtained with better processes, programs that serve no valuable purpose other than make-work, etc. I'm sure that's true. So who could oppose trying to root that undisputedly wasteful activity out?

Well, I might. Might is the operative word. It depends on how much waste there is. Because ferreting out wasted dollars ... costs dollars. And runs the risk of false positives, either of which can make the "anti-waste" program end up costing more money than it saves. DOGE might end up being an example even as it took a chainsaw to a huge range of government programs. And while DOGE may be distinctive in just how idiotically it is being run, the broader principle holds: there is, in any system, some amount of inefficiency that it is paradoxically more efficient to ignore, because the time, energy, and cost of trying to uproot it will dwarf any potential savings.

One area we see this a lot is in the management of entitlement programs that are "means-tested" or have other barriers and hoops to jump through for recipients to prove their eligibility. The goal is to ensure that no one who is, say, not actually poor or not actually unable to work gets a share of government money they shouldn't. But the usual result of creating these hoops is actually a large drop off in enrollment by eligible families, who find the requirements too confusing or onerous to navigate, even as it creates extra layers of bureaucracy and administration that are expensive to run. We'd almost certainly be better off just swallowing the fact that some "undeserving" people will enroll -- "waste" -- in exchange for better and more streamlined service for the people we are trying to target. It's not soft-heartedness. It's both more empathic and more efficient -- a win-win.

Now again, this is dependent on how much waste we're dealing with. Where waste, fraud, and abuse are rampant, then tamping down on them probably is both necessary and cost-effective (in part because where these things are rampant, there's also a lot of low-hanging fruit that can be picked without much effort). The point, though, is that "cutting waste" isn't self-evidently a good thing; it needs to be cost-justified. And my sense is that the story of widespread of government waste is just that -- a story -- and that in most cases "anti-waste" activity does more harm than good.

You Can’t Theorize a Hand

When we last left off my artist's journey, I was making mediocre (and that's okay!) renditions of a fruit stand. But since then, I've started taking an introductory drawing class at the Multnomah Arts Center (good news -- it looks like we saved it!), and I'm actually very pleasantly surprised by my progress!

We've drawn something different each week. For example, in week two we did self-portraits -- mine would haunt your nightmares insofar as it makes me look like a serial killer. But I do think it's clearly a rendition of me as a serial killer, so that's something.

Last week, we focused on drawing hands, which I know are the bane of every artist. But I think mine turned out pretty good! A little meaty, but to by honest my hands are chonky boys. So good job me!

Moreover, while I was drawing, I think I said something quite profound (in the sense that I said something very obvious, but in a manner that wraps around into being profound). Namely:

You can't theorize a hand.

What does that mean?

I know what a hand looks like. If you asked me to describe it, I'd start with the palm, thumb, and four additional fingers. Going into more detail, there are the fingernails, the knuckles, and the palm lines. And so it's easy to think, when you're trying to draw a hand, to just take the parts of the hand that you know a hand has, and try to render them onto a page.

But that's not actually how one draws a hand.

To draw a hand, you can't just have in your mind the theoretical components of a hand. You have to actually look at your hand, and draw what you see. Not "a fingernail" or "a knuckle", but a darker spot here against a lighter spot there. When you think not in terms of a theoretical hand, but in terms of what you're actually seeing, a lot of what you see actually won't seem to line up with your theoretical image of a hand. The dark shadow here isn't a knuckle or a fingernail, it's just present. It's there whether you imagine it being there or not. So you actually have to resist the part of you that's only looking to draw the theoretical hand, and draw what's actually in front of you.

This is really quite bracing, since for awhile it looks like you're just drawing random lines and dark spots that don't correspond to anything. It takes a lot of trust in the process to believe that, when it all comes together, you'll have a hand. But you will! Whether or not you think the above hands are "good", they are a lot better than if I tried to just draw what my mind's eye imagines a "hand" to look like.

A good lesson for me to learn. Onward!

Obtuse Corneal Hydrops

Well, my corneal hydrops are back. And just in time for me to get on a nine-hour flight to London with a four-month-old baby!

I've done some of my own research, which I know are among the scariest words a non-medical professional can speak (but like being a mad, ignorant voter, it's so fun!), but really I don't think I was able to do much damage, because it doesn't seem like much is known about the condition by anyone. 

Corneal hydrops occur when a layer of your cornea called Descemet's membrane rips, letting fluid leak where it shouldn't and resulting in extreme tearing and eye swelling. It is an uncommon side-effect of my already uncommon keratoconus -- don't I feel special -- and nobody really seems to know what causes it or how to prevent it. Likewise, in terms of treatment the prevailing medical opinion seems to be summarized as "suck it up, buttercup". There are some saline drops to draw out the fluid, and you can take Tylenol for the pain, and other similar OTC medications for other secondary symptoms (e.g., Sudafed for sinus congestion) but that's about it.

There was one interesting thing I did find, though. Virtually every source on corneal hydrops appends "acute" in front of it ("acute corneal hydrops"). The "acute" means that it presents suddenly and without warning. But that doesn't describe mine -- in my case, I start noticing symptoms progressively over the course of a week or so. In fact, even that's a bit misleading, since the "symptoms" that correlate with hydrops for me -- essentially, sinus-like symptoms on the left side of my face -- are not as far as I can tell normally associated with hydrops at all. But for me, they always go hand-in-hand, and they predict a forthcoming hydrops event with alarming accuracy.

So a week ago I started noticing those symptoms start to appear and wrote my doctor asking if there was anything I could do to forestall the hydrops before my trip. He replied, in so many words, "nope -- good luck!" I was able to manage the sinus-symptoms with OTC medication, but last night my eye finally -- for lack of a better word -- exploded. Have you ever woken up feeling dehydrated because of the amount of fluid you've lost leaking out of your eyeball? Because I have!

This is the third time I've had hydrops in the past year. The first time occurred while I was on a plane from Portland to Tallahassee, and it was deeply unpleasant (as in, the flight attendants who saw me asked if I needed paramedics to meet me at the gate). I think the dry airplane air exacerbates the effects dramatically. So you can imagine how excited I am to get on a nine-hour international red-eye flight with an infant while ailing with this particular condition.

We leave on Wednesday evening. Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday ... basically, four and a half days for my condition to improve.  I'll stock up on eye drops and other palliative interventions, but still -- pray for me. (And remember, all of this could have been averted if we had a functioning health care system).