Everybody around here is sniffly and stuffy -- myself included. Apparently, it's not a virus. Rather, it's the ongoing corn harvest, which supposedly sets off allergies left and right. Including, it seems mine -- worse even than I had in Minnesota (where I believe my New Student Week group was worried I would actually keel over and die while working in St. Paul).
Now, I'm allergic to many things. Some of them (grass, cats) I've even managed to nail down. Mostly, it's a mystery when my eyes suddenly start running water or my skin breaks out in hives. But I'm pretty sure I'm not allergic to corn. I mean, I eat corn all the time. Corn syrup is in literally 85% of the food I eat. How could a corn harvest set off an allergic reaction.
Oh whatever. At least it will be over in ... a month? It takes a month to harvest all the corn.
God damnit. I miss Chicago.
Friday, October 07, 2011
Thursday, October 06, 2011
RIP Derrick Bell
Derrick Bell -- civil rights warrior, pathbreaking law professor, founder of critical race theory, and tireless advocate for justice, has passed away at age 80.
I never met Derrick Bell. I had the opportunity once when he came to speak at Carleton, but I was going out of town. I remember pulling aside my roommate -- a Math major with zero interest in politics, law, race, or anything primarily expressed via words -- handing him my copy of And We Are Not Saved, and informing him that he was going to Professor Bell's talk and he was getting my book autographed. Which my (quite saintly) roommate proceeded to do, and I still have that book on my desk to this day.
Bell was a model to generations of students. He accomplished more in one lifetime than the average person could hope to do in three. I was introduced to him as an academic writer -- progenitor of "interest-convergence theory" and CRT founder -- but it is worth remembering that academia was really Bell's second career. He started off as an in-the-trenches warrior in the fight for civil rights, leading the NAACP in dozens of successful anti-segregation suits in the Jim Crow south. After a brief stint at the University of Southern California, Bell became the first tenured Black professor at Harvard. He eventually left Harvard in protest of their failure to hire a Black woman. The claim, as always, was that they couldn't find a "qualified" one. How they said that with a straight face to Bell -- who graduated from the decidedly non-elite University of Pittsburgh law school and proceeded to become one of the most influential scholars of the last quarter century -- is beyond me.
Rest in peace, professor. Be assured that your legacy lives on.
I never met Derrick Bell. I had the opportunity once when he came to speak at Carleton, but I was going out of town. I remember pulling aside my roommate -- a Math major with zero interest in politics, law, race, or anything primarily expressed via words -- handing him my copy of And We Are Not Saved, and informing him that he was going to Professor Bell's talk and he was getting my book autographed. Which my (quite saintly) roommate proceeded to do, and I still have that book on my desk to this day.
Bell was a model to generations of students. He accomplished more in one lifetime than the average person could hope to do in three. I was introduced to him as an academic writer -- progenitor of "interest-convergence theory" and CRT founder -- but it is worth remembering that academia was really Bell's second career. He started off as an in-the-trenches warrior in the fight for civil rights, leading the NAACP in dozens of successful anti-segregation suits in the Jim Crow south. After a brief stint at the University of Southern California, Bell became the first tenured Black professor at Harvard. He eventually left Harvard in protest of their failure to hire a Black woman. The claim, as always, was that they couldn't find a "qualified" one. How they said that with a straight face to Bell -- who graduated from the decidedly non-elite University of Pittsburgh law school and proceeded to become one of the most influential scholars of the last quarter century -- is beyond me.
Rest in peace, professor. Be assured that your legacy lives on.
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Who Gave Steve King a Magic Lamp?
Ah, Steve King. The Republican from Iowa has graced the pages of my blog at several points as among the dumbest members of Congress -- defending the "mendacity" of Republican leaders, worrying that women will never have babies if we allow them access to birth control, and referring to America as a nation of slackers. And today, we get a new entry: pining for a return to 19th century voting rules, where only propertied (White) men could vote. You think I'm exaggerating:
King was making a "skin in the game" argument, and we'll put aside my general objections to that argument. I'm not 100% convinced that the only reason voting was restricted to white male property owners was that they, unlike the rest of the population, had "skin in the game". Call me a skeptic if you like.
But if the goal is to see America return to pre-Voting Rights Act electoral rules, King may be getting his wish. Check out this story from Tennessee, where a 96-year old Black woman who was able to vote during Jim Crow is facing disenfranchisement due to the state's draconian new voter ID requirement. The woman actually has a photo ID, just not one that counts under the law. So she went to get one that would qualify, but showing the clerk her (a) rent receipt, (b) lease copy, (c) voter registration card and (d) birth certificate wasn't enough to satisfy the clerk and get the card.
“[T]here was a time in American history when you had to be a male property owner in order to vote. The reason for that was, because they wanted the people who voted — that set the public policy, that decided on the taxes and the spending — to have some skin in the game."
King was making a "skin in the game" argument, and we'll put aside my general objections to that argument. I'm not 100% convinced that the only reason voting was restricted to white male property owners was that they, unlike the rest of the population, had "skin in the game". Call me a skeptic if you like.
But if the goal is to see America return to pre-Voting Rights Act electoral rules, King may be getting his wish. Check out this story from Tennessee, where a 96-year old Black woman who was able to vote during Jim Crow is facing disenfranchisement due to the state's draconian new voter ID requirement. The woman actually has a photo ID, just not one that counts under the law. So she went to get one that would qualify, but showing the clerk her (a) rent receipt, (b) lease copy, (c) voter registration card and (d) birth certificate wasn't enough to satisfy the clerk and get the card.
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
Rape and the Man on the Street
You know, I like the Harry's Place blog, but for whatever reason they are consistently terrible on the topic of rape. Today, HP co-blogger Libby T calls out as "hate speech" the following passage from Cath Elliot:
Libby claims that Elliot is saying that all men are rapists-in-the-closet -- awaiting only the right opportunity. This, to me, is a misreading so egregious one wonders if it is willful.
The italicized portion of Elliot's quote references the empirically true claim that rapists are not demographically different from the population at large. In our heads, we have a vision of the rapist as this sort of sociopathic, damaged person with wild eyes and unkempt hair. But that isn't the case. The fact is there is little distinguishing him from the average person on the street (other than, of course, that he's a rapist). This is the case with most other "moral monsters" -- the banality of evil, so to speak. This doesn't mean that most men secretly harbor a desire to rape. What it does mean is that those men who do rape do so not because they scarred, diseased, or otherwise marked off from the general population in any noticeable way. The explanation for their conduct has to come from elsewhere.
This leads to Elliot's bigger point. The advantage of reframing the image of the rapist into one of this deviant soul is that it absolves the community of any responsibility for creating what is sometimes called by feminists "rape culture". Instead, under this view, rapists rape because they are pure evildoers so committed to malice that they will overcome society's strongest taboos and proscriptions to satisfy their depravity.
What Elliot is arguing, though, is that many rapists lack the sense that they are doing anything wrong in the first place. They think that the dominant sexual ethos of our society in fact sanctions their behavior (compare my post on Jewish extremist violence from earlier today) -- and this belief, of course, runs stronger when we remember that most rapes are not of the archetypical "stranger in a dark alley" variety. Armed with a belief that "no means yes" or pushing away is just playing "hard to get", they think that they are engaging in normal, uncontroversial social action. They might recognize the existence of some technical or formal bar against rape, but probably don't conceive of themselves as violating it. And in terms of social stigma, they are quite confident that nobody will stand in their way. They see themselves, at worst, as ordinary men in extraordinary situations (if they even see themselves as wrongdoers at all).
None of this implies most men think this way. That isn't the problem. The problem is that the minority of men who do think this way are not being informed that their behavior is intolerable. Rather, the message (e.g., from the rape jokes that are Elliot's target) is that they're a hilarious, endearing embodiment of mainstream masculinity.
[R]apists don’t rape because they’re somehow evil or perverted or in any way particularly different from than the average man in the street: rapists rape because they can. Rapists rape because they know the odds are stacked in their favour, because they know the chances are they’ll get away with it. (Emphasis added by Libby)
Libby claims that Elliot is saying that all men are rapists-in-the-closet -- awaiting only the right opportunity. This, to me, is a misreading so egregious one wonders if it is willful.
The italicized portion of Elliot's quote references the empirically true claim that rapists are not demographically different from the population at large. In our heads, we have a vision of the rapist as this sort of sociopathic, damaged person with wild eyes and unkempt hair. But that isn't the case. The fact is there is little distinguishing him from the average person on the street (other than, of course, that he's a rapist). This is the case with most other "moral monsters" -- the banality of evil, so to speak. This doesn't mean that most men secretly harbor a desire to rape. What it does mean is that those men who do rape do so not because they scarred, diseased, or otherwise marked off from the general population in any noticeable way. The explanation for their conduct has to come from elsewhere.
This leads to Elliot's bigger point. The advantage of reframing the image of the rapist into one of this deviant soul is that it absolves the community of any responsibility for creating what is sometimes called by feminists "rape culture". Instead, under this view, rapists rape because they are pure evildoers so committed to malice that they will overcome society's strongest taboos and proscriptions to satisfy their depravity.
What Elliot is arguing, though, is that many rapists lack the sense that they are doing anything wrong in the first place. They think that the dominant sexual ethos of our society in fact sanctions their behavior (compare my post on Jewish extremist violence from earlier today) -- and this belief, of course, runs stronger when we remember that most rapes are not of the archetypical "stranger in a dark alley" variety. Armed with a belief that "no means yes" or pushing away is just playing "hard to get", they think that they are engaging in normal, uncontroversial social action. They might recognize the existence of some technical or formal bar against rape, but probably don't conceive of themselves as violating it. And in terms of social stigma, they are quite confident that nobody will stand in their way. They see themselves, at worst, as ordinary men in extraordinary situations (if they even see themselves as wrongdoers at all).
None of this implies most men think this way. That isn't the problem. The problem is that the minority of men who do think this way are not being informed that their behavior is intolerable. Rather, the message (e.g., from the rape jokes that are Elliot's target) is that they're a hilarious, endearing embodiment of mainstream masculinity.
"We Call Them Terrorists", Part II
A "price tag" attack by suspected Jewish extremists on an Israeli mosque has drawn condemnation from across the Israeli political spectrum. As well it should -- it is a despicable act that is an insult to Judaism as much as it is vicious to Muslims.
But the fact remains, the attack happened. And it is not a one-off: the "price tag" campaign is just that -- a campaign, promoted by extremist Jews who have decided "there are no innocents" and view the entire Muslim world as their targets. Jewish Hamasniks, in other words. And, like Hamas, they view themselves as authentic representatives of the faith and of their people. So the question is how to disabuse them of that notion.
A few years back, I wrote in defense of hate crimes laws that the perpetrators of anti-gay violence are morally indistinguishable from terrorists. Both are attacking not just to harm the particular victim, but also to send a message of hate to the group the victims are a part of (Jews, Muslims, Americans, or what have you). And part of the reason we have anti-terrorism laws is our recognition that this motivation is particularly malign and dangerous, and needs to be countered in the most forceful way possible.
In that post, I also talked about another reason why hate crimes laws are important: preventing the perpetrators from believing, even post-incarceration, that they were really speaking for the silent anti-gay majority. I drew the analogy to lynch cases, where, even if the perpetrators were prosecuted (and that was rare enough),
Crafting special legislation for that problem (the ban on lynching that failed so many times in Congress) was such a signal.
So returning to Israel. It is clear that the extremists who enact "price tag" policies are willing to go to jail. That, indeed, is something they're proud of -- something they say with strength. But what if, instead of just calling them criminals (which they are), Israeli political leaders also called them terrorists?
It's a perfectly apt descriptor: surely, if a Palestinian set fire to a Jewish synagogue with the stated desire for vengeance against Israel's Palestine policy, nobody would hesitate to append the label. But in Israel, "terrorist" has a particular moral weight -- it represents the crystalline distillation of the threats and perils Israel and Israelis face on a daily basis. It is the emblem of all it means to be "against Israel". One can go to jail and still be a civil disobedient, boldly defending the silent Israeli majority via one's courageous acts of arson. It is difficult to maintain that sense of communal backing when the community has given you the label terrorist.
UPDATE: I see the "terror" label has in fact started to come out amongst Israeli institutions: the Shin Bet referred to it as "Jewish terror", and Sephardic Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar also called the attack an act of "terrorism".
But the fact remains, the attack happened. And it is not a one-off: the "price tag" campaign is just that -- a campaign, promoted by extremist Jews who have decided "there are no innocents" and view the entire Muslim world as their targets. Jewish Hamasniks, in other words. And, like Hamas, they view themselves as authentic representatives of the faith and of their people. So the question is how to disabuse them of that notion.
A few years back, I wrote in defense of hate crimes laws that the perpetrators of anti-gay violence are morally indistinguishable from terrorists. Both are attacking not just to harm the particular victim, but also to send a message of hate to the group the victims are a part of (Jews, Muslims, Americans, or what have you). And part of the reason we have anti-terrorism laws is our recognition that this motivation is particularly malign and dangerous, and needs to be countered in the most forceful way possible.
In that post, I also talked about another reason why hate crimes laws are important: preventing the perpetrators from believing, even post-incarceration, that they were really speaking for the silent anti-gay majority. I drew the analogy to lynch cases, where, even if the perpetrators were prosecuted (and that was rare enough),
nothing was done to breakdown the notion that the motivation, too, was immoral. In such a context, it is so important to be very explicit in sending the opposing message. The South needed to be told--in the clearest possible way--that not only was murder wrong, but that the entire desire to force Black Americans into submission was reprehensible and rejected by the broader community.
Crafting special legislation for that problem (the ban on lynching that failed so many times in Congress) was such a signal.
So returning to Israel. It is clear that the extremists who enact "price tag" policies are willing to go to jail. That, indeed, is something they're proud of -- something they say with strength. But what if, instead of just calling them criminals (which they are), Israeli political leaders also called them terrorists?
It's a perfectly apt descriptor: surely, if a Palestinian set fire to a Jewish synagogue with the stated desire for vengeance against Israel's Palestine policy, nobody would hesitate to append the label. But in Israel, "terrorist" has a particular moral weight -- it represents the crystalline distillation of the threats and perils Israel and Israelis face on a daily basis. It is the emblem of all it means to be "against Israel". One can go to jail and still be a civil disobedient, boldly defending the silent Israeli majority via one's courageous acts of arson. It is difficult to maintain that sense of communal backing when the community has given you the label terrorist.
UPDATE: I see the "terror" label has in fact started to come out amongst Israeli institutions: the Shin Bet referred to it as "Jewish terror", and Sephardic Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar also called the attack an act of "terrorism".
Monday, October 03, 2011
Herman Cain and the Legacy of Booker T. Washington
Ta-Nehisi Coates has a characteristically excellent post on Herman Cain and ill-conceived comparisons to Booker T. Washington. The claim is that Washington, unlike more "protest" modeled Black leaders, emphasized a program of self-uplift which is absent amongst dependency-minded Black leaders today. That's descriptively so wrong on every level as to be insulting, but Coates also observes that Washington's defining characteristic was that he was a leader in the Black community. "He built a black institution, that educated black people, and took his message to black audience. In short, Washington was a legitimate organic black conservative, rooted in the black community, propelled forth by his relationship to that community."
Cain, on the other hand, targets his message not to Blacks but to White populists largely hostile to Blacks. Coates thus draws a different analogy, to one William Hannibal Thomas, who once wrote the following:
Thomas (who fought for the Union in the Civil War and was wounded in combat) had great appeal to White populists at the turn of the century, but his support within the Black community was virtually nil even as Washington was at his apex. The problem isn't that there is no Washingtonian tradition in the Black community (if anything, it is found more in quasi-nationalists like Rev. Jeremiah Wright). The problem is that Black people don't like to be lectured out by "leaders" whose only connection to the Black community writ large is to harangue them.
Cain, on the other hand, targets his message not to Blacks but to White populists largely hostile to Blacks. Coates thus draws a different analogy, to one William Hannibal Thomas, who once wrote the following:
The negro not only lacks a fair degree of intuitive knowledge, but so dense is his understanding that he blindly follows weird fantasies and hideous phantoms. So great is his predilection in this direction, that he appears incapable of understanding the difference between evidence and assertion, proof and surmise. These facts warrant the conclusion that negro intelligence is both superficial and delusive, because, though such people excel in recollections of a concrete object, their retentive memories do not enable them to make any valuable deductions, either from the object itself, or from their familiar experience with it.
Thomas (who fought for the Union in the Civil War and was wounded in combat) had great appeal to White populists at the turn of the century, but his support within the Black community was virtually nil even as Washington was at his apex. The problem isn't that there is no Washingtonian tradition in the Black community (if anything, it is found more in quasi-nationalists like Rev. Jeremiah Wright). The problem is that Black people don't like to be lectured out by "leaders" whose only connection to the Black community writ large is to harangue them.
Saturday, October 01, 2011
Boxing Roundup: 10/2/11
I didn't watch the cards from last night, so this only a recap of tonight's HBO action, plus two of the fights earlier today in Germany.
Yoan Pablo Hernandez (25-1, 13 KOs) TD6 Steve Cunningham (24-3, 12 KOs)
Poor Cunningham. He can't catch a break (even the AP article mislabels its photo -- Cunningham is landing the punch, not eating it). He's got the building blocks to be a star: he's charismatic, has a good back story, a cool nickname ("U.S.S." -- he's a Navy guy), has a physique like Conan the Barbarian, and tends to be in exciting fights despite not having the most pop on the block. But of course, he isn't a star, because he's a cruiserweight, and Americans don't care about cruiserweights. So he fights in Europe, where bad things happen.
And tonight, a bad thing happened against Hernandez. In the first round, Cunningham was dropped, hard. He barely made it to his feet before the count was up (in fact, Hernandez's corner protested the count was long), and was out of it even when he did rise. It could have been stopped there, but Micky Vann let it continue, and Cunningham escaped the round.
After that, though Cunningham steadied himself and took over the rest of the fight. However, there was a headbutt that opened up a gash high on Hernandez's forehead. It wasn't a bad cut -- while it was bloody, it wasn't in a particularly dangerous location and didn't seem to be affecting Hernandez's vision. But inexplicably, the fight was stopped after six. And that cut short Cunningham's rally, where he was starting from behind on the cards but picking up momentum. Even accounting for that, I had the fight 57-56 (four rounds to two) for Cunningham. 57-56 Hernandez also would have been acceptable. But 58-55? 59-54? Outrageous.
And let's return to the stoppage again. What was that about? Here's the ring doctor:
Umm...what? The cuts weren't dangerous. They could have run into the eyes (but apparently were not). Hernandez was "at a disadvantage" -- which is not the standard for stopping the fight. And it isn't the doctor's job to determine whether the clashes were "accidental" or not (I think the announcers had it right in saying it was "reckless"). This is just a textbook case of a doctor completely botching his role, and it turned what was shaping up to be a dramatic comeback into a controversial victory for the wrong fighter.
Grzegorz Proksa (26-0, 19 KOs) RTD3 Sebastian Sylvester (34-5-1, 16 KOs)
A star fades, a star is born. Sylvester, a long-time German veteran last seen losing his middleweight title to Daniel Geale, was now facing rising prospect Grzegorz Proksa. Proksa picked him a part until Sylvester quit on his stool (a mix of accumulated punishment and an actual, factual, serious cut).
Proksa definitely impressed tonight. He was cocky, particularly for an Eastern Europe fighter, boxing with his hands down and moving with a fluidity one does not associate with fighters from that region. A little Sergio Martinez-esque. But in any event, one can say Sylvester is past his prime, and maybe. But he was a titlist the fight before this, and this is still a definite feather in Proksa's hat. Count me as one who wants to see more.
Andy Lee (27-1, 19 KOs) UD10 Bryan Vera (19-6, 12 KOs)
A rematch of Lee's first professional loss, a slugfest which I recall watching as one of the great upsets of 2008. I did think, however, that the stoppage in the fight was premature. And the fact remains that Lee still had the tools to be a blue-chip prospect, while Vera is Vera -- a game but exceedingly limited brawler.
Tonight, Lee seemed more concerned with exorcising the demon than with dazzling the crowd, boxing his way to a wide decision. Anyone who fights with a modicum of skill -- and can avoid being muscled around -- can beat Vera, and Lee certainly meets both of those qualifications. He certainly looked better than he did in the first Vera fight, or even than he did against Craig McEwan (where he needed a come from behind knockout to win). But he didn't look great, and I'm still left wondering how high his ceiling is.
Sergio Martinez (48-2-2, 27 KOs) KO11 Darren Barker (23-1, 14 KOs)
Darren Barker got no respect entering this fight. Hell, even Michael Buffer mispronounced his name. But he certainly earned one by exceeding expectations, even though all that meant in this case was that he was soundly beaten instead of obliterated.
Though Martinez won by knockout and was in control, this was not his most scintillating performance (of course, it was the fight I elected to introduce my non-boxing fan dad to Martinez). He seemed a little tentative, and rather unwilling to lead. Martinez remains a natural counterpuncher, and Barker took away that part of his game by keeping a high guard and just walking in without throwing punches. Martinez didn't want to let go until Barker did, but Barker closed the gap enough where it largely neutralized Martinez's speed advantage. Unfortunately, Barker didn't throw many punches either, so Martinez's pot shots were winning the early rounds.
As the fight progressed, Barker began to open up more, and Martinez was happy to oblige. Still, little was landing flush and the fight looked headed to a decision. A combination in the 10th wobbled Barker, however, and Martinez kept up the pressure in the 11th. The final punch that ended the fight did not appear to connect flush -- grazing Barker's glove before landing behind the ear -- but it was an accumulation of punishment that saw Darren Barker go down and out for the count.
Martinez continues to be in a situation where there just aren't that many fights for him. Middleweight is a wasteland -- Andy Lee is a top 10 guy at this point, and Martinez would tear him apart. Junior middleweight isn't all that much better, though Cotto or Margarito lurk there, it's not clear Martinez brings enough coin to get them to the table. Larry Merchant asked about fighting Bernard Hopkins at 170 lbs, but Martinez (correctly) demurred, noting that weight was simply too high for him (he's comfortable at middleweight, but certainly not particularly big for the 160 lbs division). It's unfortunate, because he really does have star potential. He's just the wrong body size at the wrong time.
Yoan Pablo Hernandez (25-1, 13 KOs) TD6 Steve Cunningham (24-3, 12 KOs)
Poor Cunningham. He can't catch a break (even the AP article mislabels its photo -- Cunningham is landing the punch, not eating it). He's got the building blocks to be a star: he's charismatic, has a good back story, a cool nickname ("U.S.S." -- he's a Navy guy), has a physique like Conan the Barbarian, and tends to be in exciting fights despite not having the most pop on the block. But of course, he isn't a star, because he's a cruiserweight, and Americans don't care about cruiserweights. So he fights in Europe, where bad things happen.
And tonight, a bad thing happened against Hernandez. In the first round, Cunningham was dropped, hard. He barely made it to his feet before the count was up (in fact, Hernandez's corner protested the count was long), and was out of it even when he did rise. It could have been stopped there, but Micky Vann let it continue, and Cunningham escaped the round.
After that, though Cunningham steadied himself and took over the rest of the fight. However, there was a headbutt that opened up a gash high on Hernandez's forehead. It wasn't a bad cut -- while it was bloody, it wasn't in a particularly dangerous location and didn't seem to be affecting Hernandez's vision. But inexplicably, the fight was stopped after six. And that cut short Cunningham's rally, where he was starting from behind on the cards but picking up momentum. Even accounting for that, I had the fight 57-56 (four rounds to two) for Cunningham. 57-56 Hernandez also would have been acceptable. But 58-55? 59-54? Outrageous.
And let's return to the stoppage again. What was that about? Here's the ring doctor:
Ring doctor Walter Wagner said he recommended the fight be stopped.
"The cuts weren't dangerous but the blood could have run into the eyes and affected his vision. I think the head clashes that the referee felt were accidental weren't entirely accidental. You can have different opinions there. Hernandez was at a disadvantage from the cuts, so I gave the recommendation," Wagner said.
Umm...what? The cuts weren't dangerous. They could have run into the eyes (but apparently were not). Hernandez was "at a disadvantage" -- which is not the standard for stopping the fight. And it isn't the doctor's job to determine whether the clashes were "accidental" or not (I think the announcers had it right in saying it was "reckless"). This is just a textbook case of a doctor completely botching his role, and it turned what was shaping up to be a dramatic comeback into a controversial victory for the wrong fighter.
Grzegorz Proksa (26-0, 19 KOs) RTD3 Sebastian Sylvester (34-5-1, 16 KOs)
A star fades, a star is born. Sylvester, a long-time German veteran last seen losing his middleweight title to Daniel Geale, was now facing rising prospect Grzegorz Proksa. Proksa picked him a part until Sylvester quit on his stool (a mix of accumulated punishment and an actual, factual, serious cut).
Proksa definitely impressed tonight. He was cocky, particularly for an Eastern Europe fighter, boxing with his hands down and moving with a fluidity one does not associate with fighters from that region. A little Sergio Martinez-esque. But in any event, one can say Sylvester is past his prime, and maybe. But he was a titlist the fight before this, and this is still a definite feather in Proksa's hat. Count me as one who wants to see more.
Andy Lee (27-1, 19 KOs) UD10 Bryan Vera (19-6, 12 KOs)
A rematch of Lee's first professional loss, a slugfest which I recall watching as one of the great upsets of 2008. I did think, however, that the stoppage in the fight was premature. And the fact remains that Lee still had the tools to be a blue-chip prospect, while Vera is Vera -- a game but exceedingly limited brawler.
Tonight, Lee seemed more concerned with exorcising the demon than with dazzling the crowd, boxing his way to a wide decision. Anyone who fights with a modicum of skill -- and can avoid being muscled around -- can beat Vera, and Lee certainly meets both of those qualifications. He certainly looked better than he did in the first Vera fight, or even than he did against Craig McEwan (where he needed a come from behind knockout to win). But he didn't look great, and I'm still left wondering how high his ceiling is.
Sergio Martinez (48-2-2, 27 KOs) KO11 Darren Barker (23-1, 14 KOs)
Darren Barker got no respect entering this fight. Hell, even Michael Buffer mispronounced his name. But he certainly earned one by exceeding expectations, even though all that meant in this case was that he was soundly beaten instead of obliterated.
Though Martinez won by knockout and was in control, this was not his most scintillating performance (of course, it was the fight I elected to introduce my non-boxing fan dad to Martinez). He seemed a little tentative, and rather unwilling to lead. Martinez remains a natural counterpuncher, and Barker took away that part of his game by keeping a high guard and just walking in without throwing punches. Martinez didn't want to let go until Barker did, but Barker closed the gap enough where it largely neutralized Martinez's speed advantage. Unfortunately, Barker didn't throw many punches either, so Martinez's pot shots were winning the early rounds.
As the fight progressed, Barker began to open up more, and Martinez was happy to oblige. Still, little was landing flush and the fight looked headed to a decision. A combination in the 10th wobbled Barker, however, and Martinez kept up the pressure in the 11th. The final punch that ended the fight did not appear to connect flush -- grazing Barker's glove before landing behind the ear -- but it was an accumulation of punishment that saw Darren Barker go down and out for the count.
Martinez continues to be in a situation where there just aren't that many fights for him. Middleweight is a wasteland -- Andy Lee is a top 10 guy at this point, and Martinez would tear him apart. Junior middleweight isn't all that much better, though Cotto or Margarito lurk there, it's not clear Martinez brings enough coin to get them to the table. Larry Merchant asked about fighting Bernard Hopkins at 170 lbs, but Martinez (correctly) demurred, noting that weight was simply too high for him (he's comfortable at middleweight, but certainly not particularly big for the 160 lbs division). It's unfortunate, because he really does have star potential. He's just the wrong body size at the wrong time.
Friday, September 30, 2011
What's Scary and Not About Anwar Al-Awalki
Anwar Al-Awalki, an American citizen affiliated with al-Qaeda, has been killed in a drone strike. This has set off a torrential debate about the legality of such strikes.
What's odd is that there is something worrisome about Al-Awalki -- but not what's getting most of the attention. It's not that he's a citizen. It's not that he was killed. It's rather a deeper lacuna in the laws of warfare and how they work (and don't work) in international conflicts against an enemy like al-Qaeda.
Let's start at the beginning, though. The argument being put out by folks like Glenn Greenwald is that liberals who were deeply concerned about President Bush's detainment policies should be apoplectic now that Obama has killed a man. There's obviously something intuitively plausible about this (killing is more serious than even indefinite imprisonment), but as a matter of law I think it's rather obviously wrong. In an armed conflict, the right of a party to kill opposing combatants is not controversial (it is subject to many restrictions, but none relevant here); however, if the combatant is captured, a plethora of new legal obligations open up.
Take a very uncontroversial example: The United States and Germany are engaged in a conventional war. An American soldier sees a German soldier. He shoots and kills him. Obviously, there is no legal problem with that. That's just war. One doesn't need a warrant or a trial, or even give an opportunity to surrender. On the other hand, if the soldier is captured, then a great many legal protections open up. One cannot, for example, summarily execute the person whom 10 minutes ago one would have had every legal right to kill. In fact, if one wants to charge them with a crime or impose any sort of punitive sanctions (POW confinement is considered non-punitive and for that reason standards attached to it are relatively generous), one has to afford considerable procedural protections. This, of course, is reflective of the peculiar status of war: it's legally sanctioned killing of individuals who have probably not committed (much less been convicted of) a crime.
Notably, nothing in the above argument turns on whether the German soldier was an American citizen or not. And it's not clear why it should -- a citizen who is engaged in armed conflict for a foreign party should, in the midst of such hostilities, be treated as a member of that armed group. And that seems reflected in both the letter and structure of the relevant law. First, as Matt Yglesias observes, one can lose one's citizenship already by "Entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S." (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3)) -- it is more or less a failure of updating that this doesn't encompass non-governmental military actors engaged in hostilities against the U.S.. Second, in Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), the Supreme Court in fact directly dealt with a situation where a German belligerent was also an American citizen.* Third, the Fifth Amendment doesn't restrict itself to citizens anyway (rather encompassing "persons") -- and that's good, for (as I'll explain below), the real worries about operations like this don't really become any less significant if the target is a non-citizen.
Andrew of Coffee House Talks tries to argue that because the Constitution carves out a specific crime of treason, an American citizen effectively can't be a military belligerent but must be charged with that particular crime. This is simply wrong: one can both be a combatant subject to the rules of warfare and a traitor. As explained above, once captured a person who has allegedly committed treason must be afforded constitutionally required procedural protections; but that does not mean they are somehow exempted from the normal (non-criminal) rules of war (the upshot of Andrew's argument is that every shot fired by the Union in the Civil War was illegal).
So the problem isn't that Al-Awalki was killed. And the problem isn't that Al-Awalki's a citizen. So what is the problem?
Two spring to mind. The first is whether Al-Awalki actually was a belligerent. Recall that this is basically the same worry that was most salient about the Bush administration's detainee policy -- there is no problem detaining actual enemy belligerents and neither is there a problem killing them, but there is a huge problem about doing those things to random innocent schmoes. But with Al-Awalki the controversy isn't really about that: nobody seems to dispute he was part of al-Qaeda, rather, the controversy seems to stem from his supposedly non-combat role. Now, as I understand it one can be part of an armed group while serving in a non-armed capacity (e.g., a radio operator or a quartermaster) and still be a valid target. But this is an area, though, where I simply don't know the relevant facts about Al-Awalki's role.
In any event, at best I can say that while Al-Awalki may not be the troublesome case, we can easily imagine a situation where the target denies being involved with al-Qaeda at all. And then we have a problem. In normal war, you know who the enemy is -- they wear a uniform. In fact, it's a breach of the laws of war not to. And that's because we want to make sure we can easily distinguish valid military targets from bystanders. But of course, al-Qaeda does not operate like that, and that makes things considerably more complex. We can say this is one more thing dickish about al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations who do not distinguish themselves from civilian populations, but (while that's 100% true), it doesn't actually resolve the problem.
The second problem is that the above analysis does not have a spatial restriction. It could easily apply to alleged al-Qaeda belligerents on American soil. And this is difficult. On the one hand, it can't be the case that once someone reaches American soil, we have to treat them as a criminal and not a belligerent (see, e.g., the Civil War, and Quirin for that matter). On the other hand, if Al-Awalki had stepped off the plane in New York City, I think we'd all agree the proper response is to try and arrest him, not shoot him in the face.
The best answer I can give is that in areas where America exercises police power (i.e., American soil), there should an extremely high presumption in favor of using the police power to arrest alleged enemy belligerents, excepting only if they are currently engaged in hostilities. I don't know if a presumption of that variety is encoded in current positive law (the Posse Comitatus Act comes closest). But there are certainly excellent prudential reasons to prefer this -- aside from the importance above of ensuring we get the right guy, where do get said guy there's more intelligence to be gained from a live mind than a dead body.
* The citizen (Haupt) was executed. I think Quirin is problematic, not because Haupt was a citizen, but because once the belligerents were confined the procedural protections accorded were too lax.
What's odd is that there is something worrisome about Al-Awalki -- but not what's getting most of the attention. It's not that he's a citizen. It's not that he was killed. It's rather a deeper lacuna in the laws of warfare and how they work (and don't work) in international conflicts against an enemy like al-Qaeda.
Let's start at the beginning, though. The argument being put out by folks like Glenn Greenwald is that liberals who were deeply concerned about President Bush's detainment policies should be apoplectic now that Obama has killed a man. There's obviously something intuitively plausible about this (killing is more serious than even indefinite imprisonment), but as a matter of law I think it's rather obviously wrong. In an armed conflict, the right of a party to kill opposing combatants is not controversial (it is subject to many restrictions, but none relevant here); however, if the combatant is captured, a plethora of new legal obligations open up.
Take a very uncontroversial example: The United States and Germany are engaged in a conventional war. An American soldier sees a German soldier. He shoots and kills him. Obviously, there is no legal problem with that. That's just war. One doesn't need a warrant or a trial, or even give an opportunity to surrender. On the other hand, if the soldier is captured, then a great many legal protections open up. One cannot, for example, summarily execute the person whom 10 minutes ago one would have had every legal right to kill. In fact, if one wants to charge them with a crime or impose any sort of punitive sanctions (POW confinement is considered non-punitive and for that reason standards attached to it are relatively generous), one has to afford considerable procedural protections. This, of course, is reflective of the peculiar status of war: it's legally sanctioned killing of individuals who have probably not committed (much less been convicted of) a crime.
Notably, nothing in the above argument turns on whether the German soldier was an American citizen or not. And it's not clear why it should -- a citizen who is engaged in armed conflict for a foreign party should, in the midst of such hostilities, be treated as a member of that armed group. And that seems reflected in both the letter and structure of the relevant law. First, as Matt Yglesias observes, one can lose one's citizenship already by "Entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S." (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3)) -- it is more or less a failure of updating that this doesn't encompass non-governmental military actors engaged in hostilities against the U.S.. Second, in Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), the Supreme Court in fact directly dealt with a situation where a German belligerent was also an American citizen.* Third, the Fifth Amendment doesn't restrict itself to citizens anyway (rather encompassing "persons") -- and that's good, for (as I'll explain below), the real worries about operations like this don't really become any less significant if the target is a non-citizen.
Andrew of Coffee House Talks tries to argue that because the Constitution carves out a specific crime of treason, an American citizen effectively can't be a military belligerent but must be charged with that particular crime. This is simply wrong: one can both be a combatant subject to the rules of warfare and a traitor. As explained above, once captured a person who has allegedly committed treason must be afforded constitutionally required procedural protections; but that does not mean they are somehow exempted from the normal (non-criminal) rules of war (the upshot of Andrew's argument is that every shot fired by the Union in the Civil War was illegal).
So the problem isn't that Al-Awalki was killed. And the problem isn't that Al-Awalki's a citizen. So what is the problem?
Two spring to mind. The first is whether Al-Awalki actually was a belligerent. Recall that this is basically the same worry that was most salient about the Bush administration's detainee policy -- there is no problem detaining actual enemy belligerents and neither is there a problem killing them, but there is a huge problem about doing those things to random innocent schmoes. But with Al-Awalki the controversy isn't really about that: nobody seems to dispute he was part of al-Qaeda, rather, the controversy seems to stem from his supposedly non-combat role. Now, as I understand it one can be part of an armed group while serving in a non-armed capacity (e.g., a radio operator or a quartermaster) and still be a valid target. But this is an area, though, where I simply don't know the relevant facts about Al-Awalki's role.
In any event, at best I can say that while Al-Awalki may not be the troublesome case, we can easily imagine a situation where the target denies being involved with al-Qaeda at all. And then we have a problem. In normal war, you know who the enemy is -- they wear a uniform. In fact, it's a breach of the laws of war not to. And that's because we want to make sure we can easily distinguish valid military targets from bystanders. But of course, al-Qaeda does not operate like that, and that makes things considerably more complex. We can say this is one more thing dickish about al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations who do not distinguish themselves from civilian populations, but (while that's 100% true), it doesn't actually resolve the problem.
The second problem is that the above analysis does not have a spatial restriction. It could easily apply to alleged al-Qaeda belligerents on American soil. And this is difficult. On the one hand, it can't be the case that once someone reaches American soil, we have to treat them as a criminal and not a belligerent (see, e.g., the Civil War, and Quirin for that matter). On the other hand, if Al-Awalki had stepped off the plane in New York City, I think we'd all agree the proper response is to try and arrest him, not shoot him in the face.
The best answer I can give is that in areas where America exercises police power (i.e., American soil), there should an extremely high presumption in favor of using the police power to arrest alleged enemy belligerents, excepting only if they are currently engaged in hostilities. I don't know if a presumption of that variety is encoded in current positive law (the Posse Comitatus Act comes closest). But there are certainly excellent prudential reasons to prefer this -- aside from the importance above of ensuring we get the right guy, where do get said guy there's more intelligence to be gained from a live mind than a dead body.
* The citizen (Haupt) was executed. I think Quirin is problematic, not because Haupt was a citizen, but because once the belligerents were confined the procedural protections accorded were too lax.
Vicente Fox News
I think Mitt Romney has to be the odds-on favorite to win the GOP nomination. And when he does, this ad will guarantee that he'll be throttled amongst Latino voters.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Never Before Has the Supreme Court Been Asked To Uphold The Acronym "PPACA"....
Commenting on the United States' cert petition in the PPACA litigation, the Justice Department wrote:
Randy Barnett replies:
For starters, I'm not sure what the argument is here. Does the Constitution change because Republicans threw a temper tantrum about this bill that was ... wait for it ... unprecedented in American legislative history? For that matter, I don't even know what it means to pass a law in a "partisan manner". It's hardly the case that Democrats acted to specifically prevent Republicans from joining the legislation, or locked them out of negotiations. Indeed, given the scope and breadth of GOP intransigence, I'd say they made (wait for it!) unprecedented efforts to include Republican voices. There are laws which were drafted specifically so as to "box out" the other party so they couldn't join on to an otherwise salutary policy accomplishment (e.g., The Unborn Victims of Violence Act). But PPACA wasn't anything like that.
But the entire subtext here is misleading. The Civil Rights Act was "bipartisan" primarily because America hadn't undergone the massive realignment whereby the South shifted from Democratic to Republican. But the fact that Southern Dixiecrats split ranks with their soon-to-be-ex-colleagues hardly implies anything about that law being less controversial at the time of passage. It just illustrates that we live in a political climate where party label more accurately reflects polarization.
Throughout history, there have been similar challenges to other landmark legislation such as the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act, and all of those challenges failed. We believe the challenges to Affordable Care Act — like the one in the 11th Circuit — will also ultimately fail and that the Supreme Court will uphold the law.
Randy Barnett replies:
Each of those laws enjoyed bipartisan support when enacted; none were passed on a straight-line party vote. In fact, enacting so massive a social-welfare measure that affects every man, woman, and child in the United States in so partisan a manner was ... wait for it ... unprecedented.
For starters, I'm not sure what the argument is here. Does the Constitution change because Republicans threw a temper tantrum about this bill that was ... wait for it ... unprecedented in American legislative history? For that matter, I don't even know what it means to pass a law in a "partisan manner". It's hardly the case that Democrats acted to specifically prevent Republicans from joining the legislation, or locked them out of negotiations. Indeed, given the scope and breadth of GOP intransigence, I'd say they made (wait for it!) unprecedented efforts to include Republican voices. There are laws which were drafted specifically so as to "box out" the other party so they couldn't join on to an otherwise salutary policy accomplishment (e.g., The Unborn Victims of Violence Act). But PPACA wasn't anything like that.
But the entire subtext here is misleading. The Civil Rights Act was "bipartisan" primarily because America hadn't undergone the massive realignment whereby the South shifted from Democratic to Republican. But the fact that Southern Dixiecrats split ranks with their soon-to-be-ex-colleagues hardly implies anything about that law being less controversial at the time of passage. It just illustrates that we live in a political climate where party label more accurately reflects polarization.
Play Little Dumplings
This was a proposal to use recycled tires to create a children's playground for refugee children from Myanmar. As you can see, it appears to represent a terrifying squid-beast that the already-traumatized children are attempting to flee from as fast as their little legs can carry them.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
DOMA Repeal Goes Bipartisan
The bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (Freudian slip -- I started to write "Defense Against Marriage Act) has obtained its first Republican co-sponsor -- and she ain't no backbencher. It's Rep. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and two decade House veteran. Certainly, this is a far more joyous occasion then the last time I talked about Rep. Ros-Lehtinen on my blog!
Kudos to the Floridian, and congratulations to the gay rights movement for this significant step forward.
Kudos to the Floridian, and congratulations to the gay rights movement for this significant step forward.
Race-Baiting is the Most Post-Racial Act of All
Shorter Roger Simon: The relevant locus point for thinking about race in America is a Black politician whose support amongst the Black community hovers around the Planck Constant. And you know he's "post-racial" because he likes to tell largely White audiences that most Black people can't think for themselves and remain "on the plantation."
Incidentally, Simon's general criticism of ethnically-affiliated institutions for historically marginalized groups (the column calls for the disbandment of the Congressional Black Caucus, which has "no justification any more, if [it] ever did.") would equally apply to, among other things, Cain's alma mater (Morehouse College) and the state of Israel.
Incidentally, Simon's general criticism of ethnically-affiliated institutions for historically marginalized groups (the column calls for the disbandment of the Congressional Black Caucus, which has "no justification any more, if [it] ever did.") would equally apply to, among other things, Cain's alma mater (Morehouse College) and the state of Israel.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Sunday Punch Roundup
A bit of a rough weekend here, and unfortunately Jill is out of town.
* * *
Melissa Harris-Perry on why (some) White liberals are turning on Obama.
An interesting retrospective by the participants in the notorious "Stanford Prison Experiment."
After a Palestinian stone-thrower apparently caused a car accident which killed a Jewish settler and his infant child, settler militants are vowing revenge, with one extremist Rabbi proclaiming "There are no innocents in war."
Convicts told: Go to church or go to jail. It's not an Establishment Clause violation, the police chief argues, because you've got a choice!
The Marine Times cover on the repeal of DADT is, indeed, fantastic.
I thought the Herman Cain fad had passed, but apparently nobody thought to tell Florida.
This is from a few days back, but the new Union of Jewish Students (UK) campaign for a two state solution respecting the rights and dignity of Israelis and Palestinians alike looks very cool. I'm dubious that it will have any impact on campus radicals, but hopefully it can make a dent on the middle.
US gives high-powered military equipment to Mid-East ally fighting terrorist organization which seeks an independent homeland for a stateless, oppressed people.
Looks like Congressional Republicans have been reading my Comment.
* * *
Melissa Harris-Perry on why (some) White liberals are turning on Obama.
An interesting retrospective by the participants in the notorious "Stanford Prison Experiment."
After a Palestinian stone-thrower apparently caused a car accident which killed a Jewish settler and his infant child, settler militants are vowing revenge, with one extremist Rabbi proclaiming "There are no innocents in war."
Convicts told: Go to church or go to jail. It's not an Establishment Clause violation, the police chief argues, because you've got a choice!
The Marine Times cover on the repeal of DADT is, indeed, fantastic.
I thought the Herman Cain fad had passed, but apparently nobody thought to tell Florida.
This is from a few days back, but the new Union of Jewish Students (UK) campaign for a two state solution respecting the rights and dignity of Israelis and Palestinians alike looks very cool. I'm dubious that it will have any impact on campus radicals, but hopefully it can make a dent on the middle.
US gives high-powered military equipment to Mid-East ally fighting terrorist organization which seeks an independent homeland for a stateless, oppressed people.
Looks like Congressional Republicans have been reading my Comment.
Spain Recognizes Israel as Jewish State
In what is seen as a shocking turnaround, Spain -- traditionally considered one of the most pro-Palestinian EU states -- has announced that it recognizes Israel "as the embodiment of the project to create a homeland for the Jewish people." In accordance with this, Spain also asserted that the Palestinian refugee problem should be resolved in a way that does not threaten Israel's Jewish demographic character.
This comes in the midst of an aggressive push by the Palestinian Authority for statehood recognition at the UN. One of the reasons the UN bid bothers me is that the UN -- being institutionally biased -- is a forum in which Palestinians don't have to concede anything to be given everything they want. It is an end-run around negotiations, because a considerable portion of the UN membership body doesn't think Israel has rights in the first place. It's effectively cost-free for Palestine, as it garners a huge (albeit symbolic) victory in exchange for nothing on their end.
But Spain's action suggests that some of the more prominent states supporting Palestinian statehood are going to tell the PA what it needs to hear -- that is, that a final status agreement is going to include concessions that respect Jewish and Israeli rights too. In others words, if the PA is going to press the issue, every issue has to be pressed -- including those Palestinians would like not to think about.
This comes in the midst of an aggressive push by the Palestinian Authority for statehood recognition at the UN. One of the reasons the UN bid bothers me is that the UN -- being institutionally biased -- is a forum in which Palestinians don't have to concede anything to be given everything they want. It is an end-run around negotiations, because a considerable portion of the UN membership body doesn't think Israel has rights in the first place. It's effectively cost-free for Palestine, as it garners a huge (albeit symbolic) victory in exchange for nothing on their end.
But Spain's action suggests that some of the more prominent states supporting Palestinian statehood are going to tell the PA what it needs to hear -- that is, that a final status agreement is going to include concessions that respect Jewish and Israeli rights too. In others words, if the PA is going to press the issue, every issue has to be pressed -- including those Palestinians would like not to think about.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Deep in the Amazon
Stellar local journalism by the Allentown Morning Call reveals rather brutal working conditions at the local Amazon.com warehouse. Things are rough in that section of Pennsylvania right now, which means Amazon.com is perfectly happy to plow through an ever-rotating mass of temporary workers lured with the promise of a full-time job, then put through a blistering pace until they can't keep up and are fired or quit (or simply are injured).
Friday, September 23, 2011
UCI Students Convicted for Disrupting Speech
Last year we talked about an incident at UC-Irvine where various students affiliated with the university's Muslim Student Union disrupted a speech being given at the school by Israeli ambassador Michael Oren. UCI ended up suspending the MSU (the suspension was originally for a year, but this was reduced on appeal). But the students were also criminally charged under a California statute which prohibits "willfully disturb[ing] or break[ing] up any assembly or meeting that is not unlawful in its character", and have just been convicted.
Eugene Volokh analyzes the statute and its application against First Amendment doctrine and thinks it is constitutionally permissible as a legitimate time, place, and manner restriction.
Eugene Volokh analyzes the statute and its application against First Amendment doctrine and thinks it is constitutionally permissible as a legitimate time, place, and manner restriction.
Project Runway Power Rankings!
Oliv(i)er's departure last night left us with seven designers remaining. And while many are excited to see him go, let's be fair -- the last few challenges have not played to his strengths. I mean, that was two straight weeks with models who project into three-dimensional space!
Anyway, roughly halfway through the season, where do the designers stand in this viewer's humble opinion? Read on to find out!
(1) Viktor: After an iffy start, he's found his groove and become one of the strongest and most consistent designers on the show. A few of designs (particularly the gown which should have won the prints challenge) have been nothing short of stunning, although much of the time he's simply standing out amongst a weak field. Still, he seems to be in excellent shape to make Fashion Week.
(2) Anya: The fan favorite (as well as my own), I firmly believe that if this was Project Runway: Season 11 she'd be running away with it. Anya clearly has the most natural eye for design of any of the designers, and the strongest point of view that has lead to some truly beautiful garments. But while her sewing skills have mostly held up, we saw the first stumble this past challenge, and remains possible she could unravel (figuratively and literally).
(3) Josh M.: I know, I know -- I find him obnoxious too (though his too-obvious crush on Anya is adorable). And frankly, I don't think he's that good. But he does have some intriguing ideas, it's just an inability to edit that does him in. The cynic would say that if you throw enough details and features and flaps and pockets on a garment, of course some of them will be interesting (if only by accident). I say that I see some genuinely neat stuff on his outfits that signal a real point of view.
(4) Anthony Ryan: Another fan favorite, but annoyingly inconsistent, and a lot of times too safe. In client-challenges, Anthony Ryan seems to excel in giving the customer what he or she wants, which is a mixed-blessing, since clients often don't want something too cutting edge.
(5) Kimberly: Another extremely inconsistent designer. She's had several looks that demonstrate a real flair for design, but others that were just "wtf" moments. What's odd about Kimberly is that even though she typically does have good construction, I often don't feel like that's a strong suit, probably because sometimes the concept is so off-kilter that even making it "well" will still look bad.
(6) Bert: Bert started this season as the loveable curmudgeon, transitioned into a pure villain, and has since swung back to being (mostly) loveable. Good for Bert for showing genuine character growth! Unfortunately, Bert's design aesthetic doesn't lend itself to this show. He knows how to sew, and he knows how to work with clients (surprisingly enough, given his crotchety attitude), but he rarely makes looks that have any "pop", and that's going to catch up with him sooner rather than later.
(7) Laura Kathleen: Ugh. I don't see what the judges see in her. Laura Kathleen thinks she is so hot, and she's so not. Her designs are unified in being boring and off-the-rack; her avant-garde look was basically a dull prom dress. She doesn't have any major strengths as a designer that I can see, and she's exceptionally catty to boot. I hope she goes home and soon.
Anyway, roughly halfway through the season, where do the designers stand in this viewer's humble opinion? Read on to find out!
(1) Viktor: After an iffy start, he's found his groove and become one of the strongest and most consistent designers on the show. A few of designs (particularly the gown which should have won the prints challenge) have been nothing short of stunning, although much of the time he's simply standing out amongst a weak field. Still, he seems to be in excellent shape to make Fashion Week.
(2) Anya: The fan favorite (as well as my own), I firmly believe that if this was Project Runway: Season 11 she'd be running away with it. Anya clearly has the most natural eye for design of any of the designers, and the strongest point of view that has lead to some truly beautiful garments. But while her sewing skills have mostly held up, we saw the first stumble this past challenge, and remains possible she could unravel (figuratively and literally).
(3) Josh M.: I know, I know -- I find him obnoxious too (though his too-obvious crush on Anya is adorable). And frankly, I don't think he's that good. But he does have some intriguing ideas, it's just an inability to edit that does him in. The cynic would say that if you throw enough details and features and flaps and pockets on a garment, of course some of them will be interesting (if only by accident). I say that I see some genuinely neat stuff on his outfits that signal a real point of view.
(4) Anthony Ryan: Another fan favorite, but annoyingly inconsistent, and a lot of times too safe. In client-challenges, Anthony Ryan seems to excel in giving the customer what he or she wants, which is a mixed-blessing, since clients often don't want something too cutting edge.
(5) Kimberly: Another extremely inconsistent designer. She's had several looks that demonstrate a real flair for design, but others that were just "wtf" moments. What's odd about Kimberly is that even though she typically does have good construction, I often don't feel like that's a strong suit, probably because sometimes the concept is so off-kilter that even making it "well" will still look bad.
(6) Bert: Bert started this season as the loveable curmudgeon, transitioned into a pure villain, and has since swung back to being (mostly) loveable. Good for Bert for showing genuine character growth! Unfortunately, Bert's design aesthetic doesn't lend itself to this show. He knows how to sew, and he knows how to work with clients (surprisingly enough, given his crotchety attitude), but he rarely makes looks that have any "pop", and that's going to catch up with him sooner rather than later.
(7) Laura Kathleen: Ugh. I don't see what the judges see in her. Laura Kathleen thinks she is so hot, and she's so not. Her designs are unified in being boring and off-the-rack; her avant-garde look was basically a dull prom dress. She doesn't have any major strengths as a designer that I can see, and she's exceptionally catty to boot. I hope she goes home and soon.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Will Palestine Be a State For All Palestinians?
This is a distressing interview published in Lebanon's Daily Star. Abdullah Abdullah, Palestine's ambassador to Lebanon, informs us that Palestinian refugees will not be given automatic citizenship in any newly created Palestinian state. This applies to Palestinians living in surrounding countries (including Lebanon), but also to Palestinians living in refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza (that is, in the territory that comprises the to-be-created Palestinian state):
Of course, PA policy on this matter is not set by their Ambassador to Lebanon. Still, this is extremely troublesome on several levels. In terms of the desire to resolve the conflict, it is notable that the Ambassador explicitly is disclaiming that as an objective or a result of attaining statehood. In this, he echoes right-wing Israeli sentiment that the Palestinian movement is not fundamentally about attaining self-determination, but about obliterating Israel as well. Meanwhile, from a human rights framework, the Ambassador's position maintains and ratifies the stateless status of millions of Palestinians, including many which would be under the jurisdiction of the new Palestine. That sort of callousness should give everyone pause.
The ambassador unequivocally says that Palestinian refugees would not become citizens of the sought for U.N.-recognized Palestinian state, an issue that has been much discussed. “They are Palestinians, that’s their identity,” he says. “But … they are not automatically citizens.”
This would not only apply to refugees in countries such as Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and Jordan or the other 132 countries where Abdullah says Palestinians reside. Abdullah said that “even Palestinian refugees who are living in [refugee camps] inside the [Palestinian] state, they are still refugees. They will not be considered citizens.”
Abdullah said that the new Palestinian state would “absolutely not” be issuing Palestinian passports to refugees.
[...]
The right of return that Abdullah says is to be negotiated would not only apply to those Palestinians whose origins are within the 1967 borders of the state, he adds. “The state is the 1967 borders, but the refugees are not only from the 1967 borders. The refugees are from all over Palestine. When we have a state accepted as a member of the United Nations, this is not the end of the conflict. This is not a solution to the conflict. This is only a new framework that will change the rules of the game.”
Of course, PA policy on this matter is not set by their Ambassador to Lebanon. Still, this is extremely troublesome on several levels. In terms of the desire to resolve the conflict, it is notable that the Ambassador explicitly is disclaiming that as an objective or a result of attaining statehood. In this, he echoes right-wing Israeli sentiment that the Palestinian movement is not fundamentally about attaining self-determination, but about obliterating Israel as well. Meanwhile, from a human rights framework, the Ambassador's position maintains and ratifies the stateless status of millions of Palestinians, including many which would be under the jurisdiction of the new Palestine. That sort of callousness should give everyone pause.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Different Speeches for Different Audiences
Apparently, "the left" is disappointed with President Obama's UN speech, which focused primarily on chastising the international community for its obsessive focus on Israel and its deliberate apathy towards that state's security and legitimacy needs. They wanted to see a more aggressive push by the President towards restarting negotiations.
Whatever. First, the Obama administration has hardly been quiet about pushing for a return to the negotiating table. I'm not sure why it was particularly important that he lay out a 12-point plan before this particular body. Much like how the President's pressure on Palestinians apparently doesn't count because it wasn't sufficiently public, apparently it is valid practice to ignore the administration's tireless efforts to return the two parties to the negotiating table because it is merely being plastered over the front page of every newspaper in America, rather than at the UNGA.
But more importantly, forums matter, and this was a speech that the UNGA diplomats needed to hear. The fact of the matter is that one of the major obstacles to a just peace between Israel and Palestine is that a substantial portion of the international community rejects in principle basic things like "Israel shouldn't be destroyed" or "it's bad when suicide bombers blow up cafes in Tel Aviv". That norm has been for too long unchallenged, and it is a great thing that the President took it upon himself to break that streak. While Avigdor Lieberman's approval fills me with shame, it is notable that President Obama gave what Ha'aretz is calling "probably the warmest pro-Israel speech ever given at an annual UN General Assembly meeting by any U.S. president, bar none." This is a body that doesn't hear many such speeches, and it needs to.
Not every forum is like the UN, of course. Not every relevant location to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a place where Israeli concerns are systematically marginalized and the Jewish people are routinely denigrated. In other places, it is the Palestinians who are marginalized and ignored, and in those places people need to be informed of the legitimate aspirations and true suffering of the Palestinian people. And in other locations, the problem isn't really lack of awareness of either side's plight, but a simple need to get people back in a room together. And in those places, that's the message that should be sent.
But the UN is a specific audience, with a specific character flaw that needed to be picked out. It's not the only thing President Obama should do, but in this forum, before this audience, it was the right speech at the right time.
Whatever. First, the Obama administration has hardly been quiet about pushing for a return to the negotiating table. I'm not sure why it was particularly important that he lay out a 12-point plan before this particular body. Much like how the President's pressure on Palestinians apparently doesn't count because it wasn't sufficiently public, apparently it is valid practice to ignore the administration's tireless efforts to return the two parties to the negotiating table because it is merely being plastered over the front page of every newspaper in America, rather than at the UNGA.
But more importantly, forums matter, and this was a speech that the UNGA diplomats needed to hear. The fact of the matter is that one of the major obstacles to a just peace between Israel and Palestine is that a substantial portion of the international community rejects in principle basic things like "Israel shouldn't be destroyed" or "it's bad when suicide bombers blow up cafes in Tel Aviv". That norm has been for too long unchallenged, and it is a great thing that the President took it upon himself to break that streak. While Avigdor Lieberman's approval fills me with shame, it is notable that President Obama gave what Ha'aretz is calling "probably the warmest pro-Israel speech ever given at an annual UN General Assembly meeting by any U.S. president, bar none." This is a body that doesn't hear many such speeches, and it needs to.
Not every forum is like the UN, of course. Not every relevant location to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a place where Israeli concerns are systematically marginalized and the Jewish people are routinely denigrated. In other places, it is the Palestinians who are marginalized and ignored, and in those places people need to be informed of the legitimate aspirations and true suffering of the Palestinian people. And in other locations, the problem isn't really lack of awareness of either side's plight, but a simple need to get people back in a room together. And in those places, that's the message that should be sent.
But the UN is a specific audience, with a specific character flaw that needed to be picked out. It's not the only thing President Obama should do, but in this forum, before this audience, it was the right speech at the right time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
