An interesting letter from Zionist Organization of America hit the mailboxes of various Jewish media outlets. In it, one Robert I. Lappin declares that "Western Civilization is at war with Islam", which is "not a religion of peace". "Saying that we are at war with terror, or radical Islam, or Islamic extremists, provides American Muslims with a rationale to do nothing."
Now, it isn't exactly surprising to see ZOA descend into Islamophobia (hell, it's no longer surprising to see them endorse anti-Semites willing to sign onto their destructive, anti-Israel agenda). But contacted by the media, Mort Klein -- well, distanced himself doesn't seem quite right. He says that the email was not intended to be "from" ZOA, but that he had allowed a prominent donor (Lappin) access to it "as a favor". ZOA, he said, was neither "endorsing" nor "condemning" the letter's contents.
Oh come on, that's just weak sauce. If you're going to allow someone to send a bigoted email through to your mailing list, either stand behind it or disavow it. This whole, "it was a favor, it doesn't mean anything" nonsense isn't persuading anyone.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Attackerman Attacked for Attacking Anti-Semitism
Spencer Ackerman has up a very sensible, bordering on mundane, article objecting to the use of the term "Israel-firster". The point is simple: "Israel-firster" has a sharp anti-Semitic pedigree (not to mention it might be conceptually incoherent if we're to accept the premise that even minorities are allowed to construct and forward their own conception of American "interests") and should be abandoned. It's not like it plays some critical role in buttressing the progressive argument regarding the proper US/Israel relationship or the best policies for securing a safe, democratic, Jewish state of Israel. That's a debate progressives are well-positioned to win on the merits, what with the GOP going all one-stater.
Of course, left-wing purveyors of "Israel-firster" can't possibly comprehend that there might be a progressive critique of anti-Semitism that nonetheless sometimes implicates fellow progressives. So, for example, M.J. Rosenberg of Media Matters proclaimed that Ackerman "put your rightist buddy & your career over principle". For those of you who don't recall the circumstances of Ackerman's departure from The New Republic (he sardonically offered to "skull-fuck a terrorist" to counter charges he was squishy on foreign policy), I think it is fair to say that Ackerman's problem has not historically been that he is too deferential to conservative sensibilities in pursuit of his career ambitions. But as Rosenberg aptly demonstrates, the problem here is simply that some people think there is no such thing as anti-Semitism when it used for "noble" reasons, and will react with all the fury and indignation of a Heritage Foundation staffer who's just been condemned for racist dogwhistles (it's a distraction from "real racism", dontcha know?).
Of course, left-wing purveyors of "Israel-firster" can't possibly comprehend that there might be a progressive critique of anti-Semitism that nonetheless sometimes implicates fellow progressives. So, for example, M.J. Rosenberg of Media Matters proclaimed that Ackerman "put your rightist buddy & your career over principle". For those of you who don't recall the circumstances of Ackerman's departure from The New Republic (he sardonically offered to "skull-fuck a terrorist" to counter charges he was squishy on foreign policy), I think it is fair to say that Ackerman's problem has not historically been that he is too deferential to conservative sensibilities in pursuit of his career ambitions. But as Rosenberg aptly demonstrates, the problem here is simply that some people think there is no such thing as anti-Semitism when it used for "noble" reasons, and will react with all the fury and indignation of a Heritage Foundation staffer who's just been condemned for racist dogwhistles (it's a distraction from "real racism", dontcha know?).
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Gingrich Scores the Coveted Duke Cunningham Endorsement
Newt Gingrich -- who, let us recall, was forced to resign from Congress in disgrace after a slew of ethics scandals -- has just won the endorsement of a prominent former Congressman. Unfortunately, both the reason he's "prominent" and the reason he's "former" is because ex-Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) is currently in prison after being convicted of bribery.
Cunningham also said Gingrich enjoyed the support of "80%" of the inmates who watched the debate. And while they can't themselves vote (being in jail and all), Cunningham thinks they might be able to sway their extended families.
(Note: This post does not reflect a change in my underlying belief that prisoners probably should be allowed to vote).
Cunningham also said Gingrich enjoyed the support of "80%" of the inmates who watched the debate. And while they can't themselves vote (being in jail and all), Cunningham thinks they might be able to sway their extended families.
(Note: This post does not reflect a change in my underlying belief that prisoners probably should be allowed to vote).
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Minnesota Poll: Klobuchar Annhilates Everyone, Franken Does Well
PPP has some new polling out, with the main emphasis on Sen. Amy Klobuchar's (D) 2012 reelection. And, no surprise, the insanely popular senior senator throttles everyone who could conceivably challenge her, including a whopping 15 point lead against former governor and presidential-wannabe Tim Pawlenty (who hasn't expressed any interest in the race). One might think that Klobuchar's sponsorship of SOPA might have dimmed her star a little, but apparently not.
Possibly more surprising is some early numbers for Sen. Al Franken (D), who isn't up for re-election until 2014. Franken squeaked past Norm Coleman in a 2008 nailbiter, and for that reason has long been viewed as vulnerable given his polarizing public figure and the high-water nature of 2008. But he's actually looking pretty decent, sporting a six point lead over Pawlenty (his most dangerous potential challenger) and a 15 point margin over Michele Bachmann.
I've mentioned before that, while Franken is kind of a dick, he's also been a stellar Senator. And I think a lot of Minnesotans have seen that he's serious about his job and serious about being a legislator, and that's what has him in such a strong political position even as Democratic political fortunes have taken generally taken a turn for the worse since 2008.
Possibly more surprising is some early numbers for Sen. Al Franken (D), who isn't up for re-election until 2014. Franken squeaked past Norm Coleman in a 2008 nailbiter, and for that reason has long been viewed as vulnerable given his polarizing public figure and the high-water nature of 2008. But he's actually looking pretty decent, sporting a six point lead over Pawlenty (his most dangerous potential challenger) and a 15 point margin over Michele Bachmann.
I've mentioned before that, while Franken is kind of a dick, he's also been a stellar Senator. And I think a lot of Minnesotans have seen that he's serious about his job and serious about being a legislator, and that's what has him in such a strong political position even as Democratic political fortunes have taken generally taken a turn for the worse since 2008.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Jewish Newspaper Editor Who Called for Obama's Assassination Resigns
Obviously good riddance. The editor, Andrew Adler of the Atlanta Jewish Times, faced a torrent of criticism from all quarters for his repulsive column, including from the AJC and ADL, as well as finding his paper cut loose by the Jewish Federation of Greater Atlanta until Adler left the paper. Adler, who owned as well as managed the newspaper, is also looking to sell it to another owner to complete his withdrawal.
Oh, and since I've been hearing murmurings that Adler isn't being investigated by the Secret Service because Jew Jew special treatment Jew, it's worth noting that he is, in fact, being investigated by the Secret Service. Which is appropriate, but it is almost certainly the case that he didn't do anything illegal -- just repulsive (abstract advocacy of violence, particularly against public figures, is protected by the First Amendment. Unless he had an actual conspiracy in motion, which seems more than a little far-fetched, his column falls into that category).
Oh, and since I've been hearing murmurings that Adler isn't being investigated by the Secret Service because Jew Jew special treatment Jew, it's worth noting that he is, in fact, being investigated by the Secret Service. Which is appropriate, but it is almost certainly the case that he didn't do anything illegal -- just repulsive (abstract advocacy of violence, particularly against public figures, is protected by the First Amendment. Unless he had an actual conspiracy in motion, which seems more than a little far-fetched, his column falls into that category).
Washington Ready To Legalize Gay Marriage
The announced support of state Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen (D) provides the crucial 25th vote that will put gay marriage over the top (it already has sufficient support in the House, and Governor Christine Gregoire (D) has likewise come out in favor). Like a fellow Marylander friend of mine, I'm pouting that they beat my state to it -- and for that matter, Maryland also provides a cautionary tale to not count your chickens before they hatch. But still, things are looking good right now.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Gabby Giffords Stepping Down
Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ), still recovering from brain injuries after being shot by a deranged constituent, has announced she is stepping down as Congresswoman in order to focus on her recovery. She promises, however, that she will return to public life in the future.
Obviously, best wishes to Rep. Giffords as she continues her remarkable recovery.
Obviously, best wishes to Rep. Giffords as she continues her remarkable recovery.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
J Street and the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" Theory of Anti-Semitism
As the debate over whether "Israel-firster" is anti-Semitic language flares up again, J Street's Jeremy Ben-Ami appears to have stepped in it:
Ouch. Ben-Ami immediately backtracked, calling "Israel-firster" a "bad choice of words" and saying it was a "conspiracy theory that American Jews have dual loyalty [which] must be refuted in the strongest possible way." (Headline notwithstanding, this is not "expanding" on his morning comments so much as it is reversing them, but still, it is welcome).
I've noted before that, my general affinity for J Street notwithstanding, one thing I do not like is their "mushiness" on anti-Semitism. They really seem either uninterested or incapable of taking a strong stand on the issue, and it is really alienating. I've written about the serious problems with the "dual loyalties" charge even on a conceptual level, but in a sense I'm even more concerned about Ben-Ami's demand that Jewish groups "tread lightly" in talking about anti-Semitism.
This returns us back into How Would You Like Me To Raise It Territory, of course. As usual, I think it is wrong to imply that most claims of anti-Semitism are done in bad faith or otherwise are instances of crying wolf. But beyond that, I think that there's a descriptive misapprehension here -- simply put, there is no reason to believe that "anti-Semitism" is taken any more seriously when groups adopt narrow definitions and raise the alarm only in extreme cases, than when the definition is broader and more encompassing. Aside from being victim-blaming, it's not like these groups find themselves aroused from their slumber even in the "clear" cases (like Gilad Atzmon). Rather, it just turns out that nothing counts as "clear", and thus nothing is ever anti-Semitic. It becomes a wholly abstract concept (and thus quite easy to oppose, since opposition never has to be anything more than a theoretical commitment).
Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street, a left-leaning voice on Israel issues, said he had no problem with “Israel-firster.”
“If the charge is that you’re putting the interests of another country before the interests of the United States in the way you would advocate that, it’s a legitimate question,” Ben-Ami said.
Ben-Ami added that Jewish groups “should tread lightly” when they make accusations of anti-Semitism. “Because when they do need to use that word, people won’t take you seriously,” he said.
Ouch. Ben-Ami immediately backtracked, calling "Israel-firster" a "bad choice of words" and saying it was a "conspiracy theory that American Jews have dual loyalty [which] must be refuted in the strongest possible way." (Headline notwithstanding, this is not "expanding" on his morning comments so much as it is reversing them, but still, it is welcome).
I've noted before that, my general affinity for J Street notwithstanding, one thing I do not like is their "mushiness" on anti-Semitism. They really seem either uninterested or incapable of taking a strong stand on the issue, and it is really alienating. I've written about the serious problems with the "dual loyalties" charge even on a conceptual level, but in a sense I'm even more concerned about Ben-Ami's demand that Jewish groups "tread lightly" in talking about anti-Semitism.
This returns us back into How Would You Like Me To Raise It Territory, of course. As usual, I think it is wrong to imply that most claims of anti-Semitism are done in bad faith or otherwise are instances of crying wolf. But beyond that, I think that there's a descriptive misapprehension here -- simply put, there is no reason to believe that "anti-Semitism" is taken any more seriously when groups adopt narrow definitions and raise the alarm only in extreme cases, than when the definition is broader and more encompassing. Aside from being victim-blaming, it's not like these groups find themselves aroused from their slumber even in the "clear" cases (like Gilad Atzmon). Rather, it just turns out that nothing counts as "clear", and thus nothing is ever anti-Semitic. It becomes a wholly abstract concept (and thus quite easy to oppose, since opposition never has to be anything more than a theoretical commitment).
It's Official: Republicans are One-Staters
Here's the text of the latest RNC resolution on Israel:
This is arguably a little vague, but between the claim that Israel is not "an occupier of the lands of others" and the call for a "united Israel under one law for all people", I really don't think it admits of any other interpretation. The Republican Party has officially entered the one-state camp. To be sure, this isn't really surprising -- the GOP's anti-Israel slant has been bursting through for some time now, with folks like Huckabee and Santorum explicitly joining the one-state camp. But now we have an official resolution that, in essence, calls for the dissolution of Israel as a Jewish, democratic state.
In other words, with respect to Israel, voters now have a clear choice between a party which supports the perpetuation of a Jewish, democratic state, and one that wishes to see that state abolished. Not a difficult call, in my book.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the members of this body support Israel in their natural and God-given right of self-governance and self-defense upon their own lands, recognizing that Israel is neither an attacking force nor an occupier of the lands of others; and that peace can be afforded the region only through a united Israel governed under one law for all people.
This is arguably a little vague, but between the claim that Israel is not "an occupier of the lands of others" and the call for a "united Israel under one law for all people", I really don't think it admits of any other interpretation. The Republican Party has officially entered the one-state camp. To be sure, this isn't really surprising -- the GOP's anti-Israel slant has been bursting through for some time now, with folks like Huckabee and Santorum explicitly joining the one-state camp. But now we have an official resolution that, in essence, calls for the dissolution of Israel as a Jewish, democratic state.
In other words, with respect to Israel, voters now have a clear choice between a party which supports the perpetuation of a Jewish, democratic state, and one that wishes to see that state abolished. Not a difficult call, in my book.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Con Law I Roundup
I taught my first class of Constitutional Law today (thus, as one of my colleagues put it, making me officially a "professor of constitutional law"). I think it went well -- particularly the part where we had a vibrant discussion about the merits and demerits of what they did not know to be the North Korean constitution's equivalent of a bill of rights.
* * *
In shocking, shocking news, new research shows that people aren't actually any more upset when decisions they dislike come from the courts rather than the legislature.
The tide has turned: opposing the Voting Rights Act may be the new GOP consensus position.
Buy Newt, get Palin along for the ride. What could be better?
Supreme Court blocks an Alabama execution of a man who missed an appeal deadline because, unbeknownst to him, all his attorneys had stopped representing him without telling anybody (the client, the courts, the family ... anyone at all, really). Scalia and Thomas dissented. Incidentally, the elite NYC law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell does not come off looking good in all of this.
Eugene Volokh asks a fair question, which is what critics of the "corporations have First Amendment rights" folks have to say about the actions of Google, et al, in vociferously protesting SOPA.
Massive protest by Ethiopian Jews against racism in Israel.
* * *
In shocking, shocking news, new research shows that people aren't actually any more upset when decisions they dislike come from the courts rather than the legislature.
The tide has turned: opposing the Voting Rights Act may be the new GOP consensus position.
Buy Newt, get Palin along for the ride. What could be better?
Supreme Court blocks an Alabama execution of a man who missed an appeal deadline because, unbeknownst to him, all his attorneys had stopped representing him without telling anybody (the client, the courts, the family ... anyone at all, really). Scalia and Thomas dissented. Incidentally, the elite NYC law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell does not come off looking good in all of this.
Eugene Volokh asks a fair question, which is what critics of the "corporations have First Amendment rights" folks have to say about the actions of Google, et al, in vociferously protesting SOPA.
Massive protest by Ethiopian Jews against racism in Israel.
Wikipedia's "Corporate Pawns"
Large portions of the internet -- most notably Wikipedia -- have announced a "black out" today in protest of SOPA (the "Stop Online Piracy Act"), a proposed bill which they say would do massive damage to the basic infrastructure of a free internet, paving the way towards enhanced copyright trolling, reduced innovation, and even outright censorship. If you go to Wikipedia, you'll find that the site is mostly offline except for information about SOPA and why it needs to be stopped.
The social media driven backlash has begun to take its toll, as two former supporters of the bill (Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and John Cornyn (R-TX)) are now backing off, and momentum definitely seems to be in the corner of the anti-SOPA crowd (incidentally, the debate over SOPA really does seem to cross ideological borders -- while SOPA's main architects are Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the primary alternative to SOPA on the floor, the OPEN Act, is cosponsored by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)).
And so we get this response from former Senator and current MPAA Chris Dodd (D-CT):
Ah yes, the famously "corporate" wikipedia -- especially in comparison to the well-known altruists at the MPAA. This is, to say the least, impressively tone deaf. And I can't help but comment that the design of the MPAA's blog would have look dated in 2004. Is it any wonder that they're getting their heads handed to them in the public debate?
The social media driven backlash has begun to take its toll, as two former supporters of the bill (Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and John Cornyn (R-TX)) are now backing off, and momentum definitely seems to be in the corner of the anti-SOPA crowd (incidentally, the debate over SOPA really does seem to cross ideological borders -- while SOPA's main architects are Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the primary alternative to SOPA on the floor, the OPEN Act, is cosponsored by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)).
And so we get this response from former Senator and current MPAA Chris Dodd (D-CT):
Only days after the White House and chief sponsors of the legislation responded to the major concern expressed by opponents and then called for all parties to work cooperatively together, some technology business interests are resorting to stunts that punish their users or turn them into their corporate pawns, rather than coming to the table to find solutions to a problem that all now seem to agree is very real and damaging.
It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information and use their services. It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today. It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests.
A so-called “blackout” is yet another gimmick, albeit a dangerous one, designed to punish elected and administration officials who are working diligently to protect American jobs from foreign criminals. It is our hope that the White House and the Congress will call on those who intend to stage this “blackout” to stop the hyperbole and PR stunts and engage in meaningful efforts to combat piracy.
Ah yes, the famously "corporate" wikipedia -- especially in comparison to the well-known altruists at the MPAA. This is, to say the least, impressively tone deaf. And I can't help but comment that the design of the MPAA's blog would have look dated in 2004. Is it any wonder that they're getting their heads handed to them in the public debate?
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Guilty Minds
I think The Economist has got the concept of mens rea wrong:
I'm no criminal law expert, but I'm pretty sure this is not the correct definition of mens rea. Mens rea doesn't ask if you knew you were breaking a law. It merely asks if you knew you were undertaking the activity that is legally proscribed.
To borrow from the example in the article, let's say it's a crime to "knowingly feed whales", and you threw some substance in the water and the whales gobbled it up. "Knowingly" is the mens rea term.* The article implies that if you didn't know it was a crime to feed the whales, you should go free. But that's not what mens rea means (indeed, it cuts against another common law tradition that has reached the point of cliche: "ignorance of the law is no excuse"). Rather, "knowingly" means that if you didn't know you were feeding whales (e.g., because you didn't realize whales were present, or you didn't realize whales would eat what you threw into the water), then you're not guilty.
* There are other mens rea standards, for example "intentionally", "recklessly", or "negligently". If there is no requirement of mens rea at all, then the crime is one of "strict liability" -- statutory rape is the most well-known example, where even an honest and reasonable belief that your sexual partner was above the age of consent will not serve as a defense.
[F]ederal law has been moving away from mens rea (“guilty mind”), a common-law tradition that suggests that a person who had no idea he was breaking a law should not be accused of doing so.
I'm no criminal law expert, but I'm pretty sure this is not the correct definition of mens rea. Mens rea doesn't ask if you knew you were breaking a law. It merely asks if you knew you were undertaking the activity that is legally proscribed.
To borrow from the example in the article, let's say it's a crime to "knowingly feed whales", and you threw some substance in the water and the whales gobbled it up. "Knowingly" is the mens rea term.* The article implies that if you didn't know it was a crime to feed the whales, you should go free. But that's not what mens rea means (indeed, it cuts against another common law tradition that has reached the point of cliche: "ignorance of the law is no excuse"). Rather, "knowingly" means that if you didn't know you were feeding whales (e.g., because you didn't realize whales were present, or you didn't realize whales would eat what you threw into the water), then you're not guilty.
* There are other mens rea standards, for example "intentionally", "recklessly", or "negligently". If there is no requirement of mens rea at all, then the crime is one of "strict liability" -- statutory rape is the most well-known example, where even an honest and reasonable belief that your sexual partner was above the age of consent will not serve as a defense.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Huntsman Ends His Presidential Campaign
Former Utah Governor and Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, an otherwise intelligent man who thought that a man who held relatively reality-based policy positions and served in the Obama administration could win the Republican nomination for President, has dropped out of the race and endorsed Mitt Romney.
By my lights, it amazing just how little noise this tree is going to make as it falls. Start with the effect on Romney -- does Huntsman's endorsement matter? Nope. Romney already has the nomination all but locked up, and in any event where else are Huntsman voters going to go? At least with Romney one of the innumerable answers on the Multiple Choice Mitt scantron is going to be a sane one, which is more than you can say about Gingrich, or Santorum, or Perry.
Does it help Huntsman get an appointment? Maybe, though he can't possibly be Romney's VP -- Romney needs someone to help soothe a base that widely detests him, and Huntsman is the antithesis of red meat to the far-right. Maybe he could be Ambassador to the UN or even, possibly, Secretary of State, but the latter is a long-shot and the former is barely an upgrade over what Obama gave him, ironically enough.
Does it help Huntsman in 2016? I always said that was a much clearer shot for him, but I don't think this helps either. Given that he's spent most of the past few months savagely attacking Romney it reeks of cynicism, and Huntsman just can't seem to refrain from attacking the Republican base (I sympathize). And it's not clear why endorsing Romney helps cure any of Huntsman's shortfalls -- he's barely seen as a real Republican, and neither is Romney. If Romney loses in 2012, the cry will go up yet again that it's because a RINO was nominated, and that's an environment where Huntsman is dead in the water.
By my lights, it amazing just how little noise this tree is going to make as it falls. Start with the effect on Romney -- does Huntsman's endorsement matter? Nope. Romney already has the nomination all but locked up, and in any event where else are Huntsman voters going to go? At least with Romney one of the innumerable answers on the Multiple Choice Mitt scantron is going to be a sane one, which is more than you can say about Gingrich, or Santorum, or Perry.
Does it help Huntsman get an appointment? Maybe, though he can't possibly be Romney's VP -- Romney needs someone to help soothe a base that widely detests him, and Huntsman is the antithesis of red meat to the far-right. Maybe he could be Ambassador to the UN or even, possibly, Secretary of State, but the latter is a long-shot and the former is barely an upgrade over what Obama gave him, ironically enough.
Does it help Huntsman in 2016? I always said that was a much clearer shot for him, but I don't think this helps either. Given that he's spent most of the past few months savagely attacking Romney it reeks of cynicism, and Huntsman just can't seem to refrain from attacking the Republican base (I sympathize). And it's not clear why endorsing Romney helps cure any of Huntsman's shortfalls -- he's barely seen as a real Republican, and neither is Romney. If Romney loses in 2012, the cry will go up yet again that it's because a RINO was nominated, and that's an environment where Huntsman is dead in the water.
Atzmon and Friends
Apparently the Friends Seminary in New York City is inviting notorious anti-Semite Gilad Atzmon to come and have a visit again ("again" because apparently he's stopped by before).
I've hung out in left circles enough to know the standard response to such an action (organize some sort of letter-writing campaign or petition urging them to withdraw the invitation); I've also hung out in left circles enough to know such response will not be forthcoming in a case like this. But honestly, I'm okay with that. Why? Because cases like this demonstrate, to me, just how impoverished that response is to those of us victimized when bigotry of this sort is sanctioned.
Suppose that such a campaign was organized, and that Friends did change its mind. What's the result? Well, aside from the inevitable carping and crowing about how "the Zionists" (or "the Jews", since Atzmon tends to at least be more honest than many of his fellows in not abiding by the charade -- if, as Martin Luther King put it, "when you criticize Zionism, you mean Jews", then Atzmon has taken that message to heart in exactly the opposite of how it was intended) have "silenced" him, all we'd have proven is that given enough pressure and bad PR, Friends will not act in an overtly anti-Semitic manner.
But that's not what I want. I don't want Friends to be vulnerable to a pressure campaign. I want Friends to not have invited Atzmon in the first place. I want it to have never occurred to them that it was remotely acceptable for them to allow in an anti-Semitic bigot within their walls. Of course, it's too late for that now -- the key battle has already been lost. So now I want them to, on their own, come to the epiphany that such hatred is wrong, that Jews are equal and valued members of the political community, and to treat us accordingly even when nobody is watching; even when nobody seems to care. I'm not optimistic, but any other "victory" is hollow and without meaning.
I've hung out in left circles enough to know the standard response to such an action (organize some sort of letter-writing campaign or petition urging them to withdraw the invitation); I've also hung out in left circles enough to know such response will not be forthcoming in a case like this. But honestly, I'm okay with that. Why? Because cases like this demonstrate, to me, just how impoverished that response is to those of us victimized when bigotry of this sort is sanctioned.
Suppose that such a campaign was organized, and that Friends did change its mind. What's the result? Well, aside from the inevitable carping and crowing about how "the Zionists" (or "the Jews", since Atzmon tends to at least be more honest than many of his fellows in not abiding by the charade -- if, as Martin Luther King put it, "when you criticize Zionism, you mean Jews", then Atzmon has taken that message to heart in exactly the opposite of how it was intended) have "silenced" him, all we'd have proven is that given enough pressure and bad PR, Friends will not act in an overtly anti-Semitic manner.
But that's not what I want. I don't want Friends to be vulnerable to a pressure campaign. I want Friends to not have invited Atzmon in the first place. I want it to have never occurred to them that it was remotely acceptable for them to allow in an anti-Semitic bigot within their walls. Of course, it's too late for that now -- the key battle has already been lost. So now I want them to, on their own, come to the epiphany that such hatred is wrong, that Jews are equal and valued members of the political community, and to treat us accordingly even when nobody is watching; even when nobody seems to care. I'm not optimistic, but any other "victory" is hollow and without meaning.
If one only has protections because one devotes every spare vote, dollar, resource and minute to secure them, one can hardly be said to be an equal. Equality comes when equality is normal — so normal, that you don’ t have to be perpetually on your guard to defend it. So normal that it wouldn’t occur to anyone to try and take it away.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Afghanistan's Women's Boxing
Cool little story on Saudi TV about women's boxing in Afghanistan, including the threats they face from the Taliban and their commitment to keep going.
One young woman is looking for gold at the 2012 Olympics in London. Best of luck!
One young woman is looking for gold at the 2012 Olympics in London. Best of luck!
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Yes, EEOC, There is a Ministerial Exception
The Supreme Court has just issued its opinion in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC. In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the 6th Circuit and held that Cheryl Perich, a "called" teacher at the Hosanna-Tabor school, was a "minister" and thus her suit was barred under the so-called "ministerial exception" (which generally exempts religious organizations from anti-discrimination laws in employment decisions relating to persons who serve in a "ministerial" role). Though the ministerial exception had universal acceptance amongst the lower courts, this actually marked the first time the Supreme Court had officially ratified its existence.
The opinion itself (written by Chief Justice Roberts) is extremely, almost comically, narrow, refusing to go much beyond a determination that Ms. Perich was a "minister" for purpose of the exception, and thus that her suit was barred. It didn't give much, if any, of a standard for how to determine if a given person counts as a minister, and even was cagey over which sorts of suits are barred by the exception. Justice Thomas' concurrence was a little more concrete, saying that courts should simply defer to a religious body's good-faith determination regarding who was playing a ministerial role, and Justice Alito (joined by Justice Kagan) cautioned against relying too heavily on whether a person went through any formal ordination process (as many religions do not have such procedures).
Faithful readers may remember I gave a brief talk on this case as part of a panel at the law school. I am pleased to report that, like any self-respecting constitutional law professor, my prediction (an affirmance on narrow grounds) was completely off the mark.
The opinion itself (written by Chief Justice Roberts) is extremely, almost comically, narrow, refusing to go much beyond a determination that Ms. Perich was a "minister" for purpose of the exception, and thus that her suit was barred. It didn't give much, if any, of a standard for how to determine if a given person counts as a minister, and even was cagey over which sorts of suits are barred by the exception. Justice Thomas' concurrence was a little more concrete, saying that courts should simply defer to a religious body's good-faith determination regarding who was playing a ministerial role, and Justice Alito (joined by Justice Kagan) cautioned against relying too heavily on whether a person went through any formal ordination process (as many religions do not have such procedures).
Faithful readers may remember I gave a brief talk on this case as part of a panel at the law school. I am pleased to report that, like any self-respecting constitutional law professor, my prediction (an affirmance on narrow grounds) was completely off the mark.
Speaking of Traitors ....
The scandal over right-wing involvement in the "price tag" attack on an IDF base continues grow. First it was a National Union MK who said "If a person who transfers information about IDF movements is a spy, then I am a spy" (and hey, no argument from me). Now we get this charming profile of the IDF soldier who leaked much of the information (he's since been arrested), a paratrooper who likes to post about "killing" and "burning" all the leftists and Arabs in Israel. He has a propensity to refer to them as "traitors" and bemoan their presence in the IDF, which if you ask me is a bit rich coming from someone who apparently gave out confidential information to a paramilitary group which used it to attack Israel.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
A Stirring Tribute
There is something profoundly depressing about this:
It's not as if members of the tripartite alliance haven't flirted with radical reactionary extremism before, but still, demoralizing.
The ANC [African National Congress -- South Africa's main political party and anti-apartheid organization] Youth League wishes to send its heartfelt condolences on the passing away of the Great leader Comrade Kim Jong Il. As we remember this revolutionary we call upon the Korean people to forge ahead with the struggle to reunify their country, to free it completely of a legacy of Colonialism left to its people by imperialists represented by the United States of America.
May the undying spirit of Comrade Kim Jong Il continue to inspire the Korean people to defend the Songhun, the idea that it is possible for the people of Korea, Asia and the world to live well alongside each other in an egalitarian society, free from poverty, joblessness, hatred of each other and the oppression of one country by another.
…
In commemorating this Great Leader we sent warnings to traitors of the people, led by Lee Myung Bak, who deliberately sunk his Cheonoan war ship and blamed it on the government of the Democratic People’s republic of Korea, to desist from an unsustainable offensive against the North of Korea and the Korean peninsula in general. His continued assault on the image of the DPRK in collaboration with the United States will not continue unabated. In this regard we support the just cause of the Korean people to defend themselves, using whatever means at their disposal, to continue struggling for a just and equal world order and to defeat Capitalism in all its facets.
…
In technology to save our climate you also excelled, as we saw the successful introduction of an air steriliser, to curb emission and related hazards from the climate, and this shows the effectiveness of the Korean nuclear technology, and this equally shames the Western and Imperialist Propaganda, that the DPRK nuclear programme is aimed at creating war in the world. “Korea is right, do not retreat”.
…
We say to all the Korean people fighting for peace and justice, Victory is Certain. Amandla, Awethu!!
All Power to the People
It's not as if members of the tripartite alliance haven't flirted with radical reactionary extremism before, but still, demoralizing.
Monday, January 09, 2012
You've Got a Deal
A second Israeli MK has admitted to divulging troop movement information to right-wing extremists who used the knowledge to disrupt IDF activities.
Sure, I'll take you up on that. Someone who gives information about his own government's troop movements to paramilitary group that is trying to disrupt those movements seems pretty spy- (and traitor-)like to me.
National Union MK Uri Ariel confessed last week to giving Israeli settlers information on the Israel Defense Forces' movements, even before it was discovered Sunday that Likud MK and coalition chairman Ze'ev Elkin divulged similar information.
Ariel, during a Knesset committee meeting last Thursday, said that numerous times he had transferred information to settlers on IDF movements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
"If a person who transfers information about IDF movements is a spy, then I am a spy," Ariel said during a discussion on law enforcement in the settlements. "If others were arrested, I should be arrested as well.
Sure, I'll take you up on that. Someone who gives information about his own government's troop movements to paramilitary group that is trying to disrupt those movements seems pretty spy- (and traitor-)like to me.
Notice a Trend?
The closest thing Israel has to a major fascist party is Yisrael Beiteinu.* Using "fascist" to describe YB isn't just my schtick -- it was applied by none other than Martin Peretz, who certainly is not unsympathetic to right-wing Israeli outlooks generally. YB is strong amongst Russian immigrants, and essentially wants to bring Putin-style "democracy" to the Jewish state -- that is to say, it wants to wreck Israeli democracy. And while Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is perhaps YB's most prominent member, nobody exemplifies its "values" better than MK Anastassia Michaeli.
A former "Miss St. Petersburg", Michaeli converted to Judaism upon marrying her husband and made aliyah to Israel in 1997. While she was listed on the Kadima slate in 2006, she did not earn a seat in the Knesset; however, after jumping ship to Yisrael Beiteinu in 2009, she was given their 9th slot and entered the Israeli parliament.
Since then, she has "distinguished" herself by informing the entire Israeli populace that they needed a lesson in "patriotism" that only she and her Russian colleagues could provide, by virtue of the infamous "NGO probe" bill. And just the other day, she tossed a cup of water at an Israeli-Arab MK during an argument about an Arab principal who had taken her students to a human rights rally in Tel Aviv (like any good Putin acolyte, Michaeli declared this "marching against the state"). This isn't even the first time that Michaeli has physically assaulted an Israeli-Arab MK -- last June she was reprimanded for trying to physically remove a colleague from the Knesset floor as the latter attempt to speak about the Gaza flotilla raid.
I mean, violent fascist racism -- it's the Yisrael Beiteinu trifecta. What could be more "patriotic" than that?
* A few minor parties -- most notably National Union -- manage to stray even further into extremism, and effectively are the official representatives of anti-Israel "price tag" terrorists.
UPDATE: Michaeli has been suspended from the Knesset for one month -- an extremely harsh sanction (normally, suspensions last only a day or two).
A former "Miss St. Petersburg", Michaeli converted to Judaism upon marrying her husband and made aliyah to Israel in 1997. While she was listed on the Kadima slate in 2006, she did not earn a seat in the Knesset; however, after jumping ship to Yisrael Beiteinu in 2009, she was given their 9th slot and entered the Israeli parliament.
Since then, she has "distinguished" herself by informing the entire Israeli populace that they needed a lesson in "patriotism" that only she and her Russian colleagues could provide, by virtue of the infamous "NGO probe" bill. And just the other day, she tossed a cup of water at an Israeli-Arab MK during an argument about an Arab principal who had taken her students to a human rights rally in Tel Aviv (like any good Putin acolyte, Michaeli declared this "marching against the state"). This isn't even the first time that Michaeli has physically assaulted an Israeli-Arab MK -- last June she was reprimanded for trying to physically remove a colleague from the Knesset floor as the latter attempt to speak about the Gaza flotilla raid.
I mean, violent fascist racism -- it's the Yisrael Beiteinu trifecta. What could be more "patriotic" than that?
* A few minor parties -- most notably National Union -- manage to stray even further into extremism, and effectively are the official representatives of anti-Israel "price tag" terrorists.
UPDATE: Michaeli has been suspended from the Knesset for one month -- an extremely harsh sanction (normally, suspensions last only a day or two).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
