Imagine that a small democratic body (a town, a county, a college campus, whatever) is holding two referendums. The first concerns whether the institution should build a new road. Out of 10,000 eligible voters, only 10% vote -- they break down 60% in favor, 40% opposed. The referendum passes.
The second referendum asks that the body officially boycott Coke products (a hobby-horse I remember from my own undergraduate days). Again, it turns out that only 1,000 of the 10,000 voters show up at the polls, and of those voting the referendum passes by a 60/40 margin.
In either case, the lack of participation could be thought to have a negative impact of the democratic legitimacy of the referendum -- it might constrain our ability to say "this is what the people want." However, my instincts tell me there is a significant difference between the two cases above.
In the road referendum, I don't have any intuitive thoughts on the views of the non-participants -- which is to say, I have no reason to think that their distribution of views on the road differ from the voting population. That might change if the road was particularly beneficial to a specific subset of the population who was motivated to get to the polls (and it puts aside any issues about differential access to the polls by various social groups, which is no small thing), but otherwise there doesn't seem to be anything in particular that I can infer about the non-participants. And that (to me at least) dissipates a good portion of the democratic legitimacy threat.
In the boycott Coke referendum, by contrast, my intuition strongly suspects that most of the non-voters would (if pressed) vote against. It seems to me (and maybe I'm just wrong here) that if you're the sort of person who supports something like boycotting Coke, then you're the sort of person who will be sufficiently motivated to go to the polls and vote for it. Likewise, of the group who thinks this issue isn't such a big deal (not enough of a motive to go to the polls), it's hard to imagine many of them lean in favor of boycotting Coke. If I'm right, in this case we can infer opposition (albeit not passionately felt opposition) from non-participation. And in that case, the vote tally doesn't necessarily stand in for the "what the people want."
What do we make of this? I'm not sure. It is not even intuitively obvious that it is a bad thing that a passionate minority beat out a largely indifferent majority. Maybe turnout gives us a proxy for preference-intensity that is valuable. If John cares strongly about building a new bridge and Jane doesn't really care but is mildly against it, and that disjuncture causes more John-types than Jane-types to head to the polls, is it bad if the bridge gets built notwithstanding there being more Janes than Johns amongst eligible voters? On the other hand, that is really the positive way of framing special interest capture. You can tell similar stories about why all sorts of small and well-organized groups beat out diffuse majorities, and in many cases the results will feel like democratic failings rather than success stories.
I don't have any big sweeping thoughts about this. I am curious about what circumstances or conditions cause us to believe that non-voters likely would fall on a particular side of a controversy versus those where their views can be assumed to roughly mirror those of the voting population.
Friday, February 13, 2015
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
The Train Has No Brakes
It's been a while since we last checked in on the state of Jews in South Africa. We've seen government officials pull out of an event hosted by the country's umbrella Jewish organization ("Celebrating 20 years of South Africa’s Freedom"), because the BDS movement does not target Jews. We saw another official call for "eye for an eye" retaliation against the Jewish community for deaths in Gaza, because the BDS movement does not target Jews. We saw yet another ANC official not even receive a reprimand for telling Facebook that "Hitler was right", because the BDS movement does not target Jews. And of course, there was the top COSATU official who was sanctioned by the South African Human Rights Commission for hate speech after he said he wished to "convey a message to the Jews in South Africa" and threatening them that it "will be hell", because the BDS movement does not target Jews.
And so it is today that we get another entry it what is becoming an increasingly dangerous pattern: the Student Representative Council at the Durban University of Technology, supported by the Progressive Youth Alliance, has submitted a demand that the University expel all of its Jewish students. Mqondisi Duma, Secretary of the Student Representative Council, was quite blunt: "As the SRC, we had a meeting and analysed international politics. We took the decision that Jewish students, especially those who do not support the Palestinian struggle, should deregister." Because the BDS movement does, in fact, target Jews.
There will be no calls to boycott DUT (and there shouldn't be; the University administration has made clear that the demands are "totally unacceptable"). There will be no resolutions in solidarity with the Jewish students targeted for expulsion. There will be no recognition of this as part of a pattern. There most certainly will be someone who complains that the Council is being unfairly maligned; it only wished to criticize Israel.
The train has no brakes. People climb aboard at their (which is to say, our) peril.
UPDATE: If you think you want to see the DUT student council's "apology," trust me, you don't (though I do wonder whether Fatima Hajaig ghost-wrote it). As in most of these "apologi[es] without reservation", there are quite a few reservations, and the amount of time reflecting on how they came to call for the expulsion of Jews qua Jews is nil (the time they spend reiterating their support for the global BDS movement is quite a bit more than nil). "Our campuses will not be breeding grounds for Apartheid" -- some might say "too late."
And so it is today that we get another entry it what is becoming an increasingly dangerous pattern: the Student Representative Council at the Durban University of Technology, supported by the Progressive Youth Alliance, has submitted a demand that the University expel all of its Jewish students. Mqondisi Duma, Secretary of the Student Representative Council, was quite blunt: "As the SRC, we had a meeting and analysed international politics. We took the decision that Jewish students, especially those who do not support the Palestinian struggle, should deregister." Because the BDS movement does, in fact, target Jews.
There will be no calls to boycott DUT (and there shouldn't be; the University administration has made clear that the demands are "totally unacceptable"). There will be no resolutions in solidarity with the Jewish students targeted for expulsion. There will be no recognition of this as part of a pattern. There most certainly will be someone who complains that the Council is being unfairly maligned; it only wished to criticize Israel.
The train has no brakes. People climb aboard at their (which is to say, our) peril.
UPDATE: If you think you want to see the DUT student council's "apology," trust me, you don't (though I do wonder whether Fatima Hajaig ghost-wrote it). As in most of these "apologi[es] without reservation", there are quite a few reservations, and the amount of time reflecting on how they came to call for the expulsion of Jews qua Jews is nil (the time they spend reiterating their support for the global BDS movement is quite a bit more than nil). "Our campuses will not be breeding grounds for Apartheid" -- some might say "too late."
Birthday: It's the Final Countdown
Happy birthday to me! I turn 29 today, for what I suspect will not be the last time. I have no real desire to experience being 30, I have to say.
But today has gone great so far. Jill got me a t-shirt featuring some of the best sayings of my internet boyfriend. We went out to lunch and I had a delicious breakfast burrito, then went used book shopping (I got two Emil Fackenheim books and one by Patricia Williams). Then we picked up a smoothie and started walking home, and wouldn't you know it if there is a stormtrooper standing outside a local comic book store. There will be some great pictures of me grinning like an idiot on Facebook soon. Tonight is a steak dinner (not the easiest thing to pull off in Berkeley) with friends, and then we'll probably just chill and binge-watch YouTube videos.
Year 29 is off to a pretty good start.
But today has gone great so far. Jill got me a t-shirt featuring some of the best sayings of my internet boyfriend. We went out to lunch and I had a delicious breakfast burrito, then went used book shopping (I got two Emil Fackenheim books and one by Patricia Williams). Then we picked up a smoothie and started walking home, and wouldn't you know it if there is a stormtrooper standing outside a local comic book store. There will be some great pictures of me grinning like an idiot on Facebook soon. Tonight is a steak dinner (not the easiest thing to pull off in Berkeley) with friends, and then we'll probably just chill and binge-watch YouTube videos.
Year 29 is off to a pretty good start.
Monday, February 09, 2015
Equal Opportunity Discrimination
An American-residing Israeli woman (with an Israeli passport) is suing Kuwait Airlines after it refused to board her on a flight from New York to London. Kuwaiti law prohibits allowing Israeli citizens to travel on the airline.
The airline's defense rang odd to me:
The airline's defense rang odd to me:
The airline’s attorney John Maggio told the newspaper that the suit has no merit because the policy is based on citizenship, not religion. He said that a Muslim with an Israeli passport also would not be allowed on the plane.I mean, okay, but then how is this not just an example of national origin discrimination instead? Am I just missing something obvious?
Saturday, February 07, 2015
The Platonic Ideal of Wrong
I just read a very short essay by Bruce Robbins that purports to respond to an article by Doron Ben-Atar relating the latter's attempt to fight back against the American Studies Association's boycott of Israel (he claimed the boycott was anti-Semitic; a fellow faculty member was so aggrieved by the suggestion that she filed a harassment complaint against him). Robbins is the Old Dominion Foundation Professor in the Humanities at Columbia University. I provide Robbins' title because my initial assumption on reading it was that it was the misbegotten work of a doomed graduate student (in which case I wouldn't be picking on the poor fellow, but Robbins is in the position to take a few lumps). Though I came across the article on academia.edu, I later discovered it had also been published on Mondoweiss. This is not remotely surprising.
Robbins has written an essay that really deserves to be read in the original crayon. If ever there was a crystelline encapsulation of the wrongs I've been trying to get at in Playing with Cards and my general writing on anti-Semitism, it would be here. It is just the gift that keeps on giving. Arguably, it's too perfect -- one might think that the only wrongdoers are those who embrace the mistakes with Robbins' gleeful abandon. But I can't help but share. There's a kind of beauty in its perfection.
For example, one of my arguments in Playing with Cards is that people elevate the gravity of racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, etc., as a defensive maneuver to remove actual extant cases from its ambit and impose heightened obligations on claimants who, after all, are leveling a very "serious" charge. Take it away Robbins!
What's next? Oh of course, our favorite old chestnut:
To his credit, though, Robbins doesn't rely on Ben-Atar's lack of qualification on matters of anti-Semitism. No, he proceeds to make a much bolder claim -- one I cannot help but applaud for its forthrightness:
Unsurprisingly, Robbins doesn't say, and one gets the distinct sense that the answer is that no one has the "right" to decide that anything is anti-Semitic. Gosh, how convenient. I've heard of folks saying that anti-Semitism is so serious that nothing can possibly be anti-Semitic; I had until now never heard the claim that anti-Semitism is so serious that nobody even has the right to adjudicate claims of anti-Semitism.
Well, not no one. Certainly, Bruce Robbins' right to make definitive declarations on the matter is unimpeachable:
And then we get to our inevitable conclusion. The real problem is not with anti-Semitism itself. It is that people are just too gosh-darn willing to believe Jews when they make obviously outrageous anti-Semitism claims:
Elsewhere, in his piece, Robbins makes his thesis quite clear: "The real issue here is anti-Semitism; that is, accusing people of it". Note he doesn't say "falsely" or "baselessly" or "groundlessly". These terms are, for him, redundant. Any accusation of anti-Semitism is a false one, an obviously false one, a so-clearly false one that it's irresponsible to even make the insinuation one. Normally, people making this argument at least have the grace to throw up a perfunctory cloud of dust to mask the obvious untenability of the claim. Robbins has done us all a great service in taking the quiet parts and blasting them out with a megaphone, and for that I am truly grateful.
Robbins has written an essay that really deserves to be read in the original crayon. If ever there was a crystelline encapsulation of the wrongs I've been trying to get at in Playing with Cards and my general writing on anti-Semitism, it would be here. It is just the gift that keeps on giving. Arguably, it's too perfect -- one might think that the only wrongdoers are those who embrace the mistakes with Robbins' gleeful abandon. But I can't help but share. There's a kind of beauty in its perfection.
For example, one of my arguments in Playing with Cards is that people elevate the gravity of racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, etc., as a defensive maneuver to remove actual extant cases from its ambit and impose heightened obligations on claimants who, after all, are leveling a very "serious" charge. Take it away Robbins!
But to call someone an anti-Semite is a very serious charge. It is an accusation that can produce a great deal of personal unhappiness, destroying friendships and careers. No one has the right to make such a charge lightly or irresponsibly. Whether or not it counts as harassment in a court of law, anyone falsely accused of anti-Semitism has a non-negligible claim to have been victimized. So there really is reason to ask: who is persecuting whom?It should be obvious to anyone why presenting discrimination claims (even ones we disagree with) as harassment (or, worse yet, "persecution") sets a dangerous precedent -- and if it's not obvious, plug in popular conservative discourse on false rape accusations or the dreaded "race card". That Robbins so merrily chirps along with this line of argument is astonishing; and the suggestion that it is even up for debate whether such claims should be viewed "as harassment in a court of law" puts him well past the outer bounds of all but the most delusional MRAs.
What's next? Oh of course, our favorite old chestnut:
In his article, Ben-Atar claims to possess professional competence on the issue of anti-Semitism. It is true that he has published on the subject. But the suggestion that any criticism of Israel can only be anti-Semitic casts some doubt on his scholarly acumen.Now I'll make a confession -- I'm unfamiliar with Ben-Atar's work on anti-Semitism, so I suppose that it is possible that he has in fact argued that "any criticism of Israel" is anti-Semitic. But Robbins does not provide any citation or quotation to this effect, in fact, he does not cite or link to anything at all. And given the pervasiveness of this particular assertion -- conflating calling particular instances of "anti-Israel criticism" anti-Semitic with saying that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic -- I feel confident that it's Robbins who's in the wrong here.
To his credit, though, Robbins doesn't rely on Ben-Atar's lack of qualification on matters of anti-Semitism. No, he proceeds to make a much bolder claim -- one I cannot help but applaud for its forthrightness:
And even if he [Ben-Atar] had all the acumen in the world, he would not have the right to decide who is and who is not an anti-Semite.Now that's a new one, even on me. Even Jews who are conceded experts on the matter do not "have the right to decide who is and who is not an anti-Semite." Which raises the question: who does? The Jewish community writ large, as expressed through our communal institutions? Presumably not; they agree with Ben-Atar on the moral status of the ASA resolution. The broader Fordham community? Because if there's anyone more qualified to opine on anti-Semitism than the Jews, it's the Jesuits.
Unsurprisingly, Robbins doesn't say, and one gets the distinct sense that the answer is that no one has the "right" to decide that anything is anti-Semitic. Gosh, how convenient. I've heard of folks saying that anti-Semitism is so serious that nothing can possibly be anti-Semitic; I had until now never heard the claim that anti-Semitism is so serious that nobody even has the right to adjudicate claims of anti-Semitism.
Well, not no one. Certainly, Bruce Robbins' right to make definitive declarations on the matter is unimpeachable:
Consider the fate of Steven Salaita and the Reverend Bruce Shipman. Their victimhood is not open to doubt. Real victims like them suffer every time someone cries victim when nothing has been done to them.I'll spot Robbins Salaita -- not because he's right, but because understanding why he's wrong at least requires thinking multiple thoughts (Salaita is a victim not because his tweets weren't anti-Semitic -- they were -- but because their anti-Semitism is irrelevant to the academic freedom question). But Reverend Shipman is no victim -- no matter how fervently Reverend Shipman believes he is. Not only did he not hold an academic position in the first place, the idea that there is something wrong with suggesting (as Shipman did) that the remedy for beating up Jews is for the Jews to behave better is not actually that hard of a call.
And then we get to our inevitable conclusion. The real problem is not with anti-Semitism itself. It is that people are just too gosh-darn willing to believe Jews when they make obviously outrageous anti-Semitism claims:
The fear of even appearing to tolerate anti-Semitism is so great that institutions will not always stop and check to see whether the particular grievances have any justification whatsoever. There are too many irresponsible charges of anti-Semitism out there, blackening the names of individuals and institutions as well as shutting down legitimate and much-needed debate about Israeli policies.Really? Really? Inquiring whether a boycott that targets the world's only Jewish state and nowhere else might be anti-Semitic lacks "any justification whatsoever"? Is not just contestable on its merits, but so clearly wrong as to be "irresponsible" to even entertain? Ditto, "Zionists, transforming 'antisemitism' from something horrible into something honorable since 1948"? And ditto Rev. Shipman's contention that the onus is on Jews to be more critical of Israel if they don't want to be beaten on the streets? These claims aren't just wrong, but obviously, flagrantly, unquestionably so? And we're the one's with the supposed inability to think critically?
Elsewhere, in his piece, Robbins makes his thesis quite clear: "The real issue here is anti-Semitism; that is, accusing people of it". Note he doesn't say "falsely" or "baselessly" or "groundlessly". These terms are, for him, redundant. Any accusation of anti-Semitism is a false one, an obviously false one, a so-clearly false one that it's irresponsible to even make the insinuation one. Normally, people making this argument at least have the grace to throw up a perfunctory cloud of dust to mask the obvious untenability of the claim. Robbins has done us all a great service in taking the quiet parts and blasting them out with a megaphone, and for that I am truly grateful.
Sunday, February 01, 2015
Blog of Ratings: Katy Perry's Halftime Set
I don't care what anybody says, I love me some Ms. Katy Perry (aka, Zooey Deschanel minus the bangs). And thinking about her beats thinking about why the Seahawks decided to throw the football on the one-yard line with downs and timeouts to spare for any reason whatsoever. But what elements of her halftime show sang, and which sunk? Let's find out.
Roar
I had two immediate problems with the divine Ms. Perry's opening act. First, her hair. Katy Perry has lovely hair. So why was it styled so that she looks like a Stasi agent from the gritty reboot of Rocky and Bullwinkle? Second, her outfit, which looked like someone gave a Kindergarten class a bunch of shiny orange construction paper and a staple gun.
Each of these problems, of course, is easily outweighed by the fact that she came in riding the lion from Voltron. B+.
Dark Horse
I kind of forgot about this, which is a shame when you think about it because it was quite visually striking. The chessboard motif was very nice, and I was impressed with Katy's dance troupe -- it's hard enough to do standing flips when you're not wearing a white knight headpiece that must throw one's entire sense of balance to hell. B.
I Kissed a Girl
This was Lenny Kravitz's appearance, and he was used to good effect to create a grimier reboot of Katy's original hit. The song doesn't quite work with a man singing it, unless it's a gay man and he sounds particularly mournful ("I kissed a girl and I liked it ... hope my boyfriend don't mind it."). B.
Teenage Dream/California Gurls
Much more of Katy's aesthetic, right down to the beach umbrella bra. Most people have focused on the dancing sharks, which are amusing until you remember that all of them probably attended Julliard. The overall visual effect for me resembled the opening to a Katamari game. I can't decide if that's a compliment or not. B-.
Get Ur Freak On
Missy Elliot kind of stole the show here. Her dance moves made Katy's team look like amateurs, and she seemed to know it -- I won't say she was half-hearted during this segment, she just knew well enough that trying to keep the spotlight on her would not turn out well. The main Katy-related takeaway from this segment was her oversized football jersey outfit, which made her look like she was doing a walk-of-shame after sleeping with the Oakland Raiders' offensive tackle. A.
Firework
Firework may be my favorite Katy Perry song (again, no shame here. Not one bit). But this felt a little too on the nose. Sparkly, star-laden dress? Floating on a shooting star? And the fireworks were in the air? Now if they had shot out of her chest like in the music video, then we might have had something. B.
Roar
I had two immediate problems with the divine Ms. Perry's opening act. First, her hair. Katy Perry has lovely hair. So why was it styled so that she looks like a Stasi agent from the gritty reboot of Rocky and Bullwinkle? Second, her outfit, which looked like someone gave a Kindergarten class a bunch of shiny orange construction paper and a staple gun.
Each of these problems, of course, is easily outweighed by the fact that she came in riding the lion from Voltron. B+.
Dark Horse
I kind of forgot about this, which is a shame when you think about it because it was quite visually striking. The chessboard motif was very nice, and I was impressed with Katy's dance troupe -- it's hard enough to do standing flips when you're not wearing a white knight headpiece that must throw one's entire sense of balance to hell. B.
I Kissed a Girl
This was Lenny Kravitz's appearance, and he was used to good effect to create a grimier reboot of Katy's original hit. The song doesn't quite work with a man singing it, unless it's a gay man and he sounds particularly mournful ("I kissed a girl and I liked it ... hope my boyfriend don't mind it."). B.
Teenage Dream/California Gurls
Much more of Katy's aesthetic, right down to the beach umbrella bra. Most people have focused on the dancing sharks, which are amusing until you remember that all of them probably attended Julliard. The overall visual effect for me resembled the opening to a Katamari game. I can't decide if that's a compliment or not. B-.
Get Ur Freak On
Missy Elliot kind of stole the show here. Her dance moves made Katy's team look like amateurs, and she seemed to know it -- I won't say she was half-hearted during this segment, she just knew well enough that trying to keep the spotlight on her would not turn out well. The main Katy-related takeaway from this segment was her oversized football jersey outfit, which made her look like she was doing a walk-of-shame after sleeping with the Oakland Raiders' offensive tackle. A.
Firework
Firework may be my favorite Katy Perry song (again, no shame here. Not one bit). But this felt a little too on the nose. Sparkly, star-laden dress? Floating on a shooting star? And the fireworks were in the air? Now if they had shot out of her chest like in the music video, then we might have had something. B.
Friday, January 30, 2015
The Missing Element
British Jewish journalist David Aaronovitch has an interesting column about a meeting he had with a young man interested in becoming a columnist. In the course of the discussion, Aarnovitch mentioned he sometimes wrote for the Jewish Chronicle, but that it did not pay a particularly large sum of money for its columns.
This, in some sense, is more worrisome. The young man in question does not seem to be unreachable, or even particularly malign. He holds anti-Semitic views simply because he had never before encountered a situation where they would be challenged. Three years of university experience, and nothing. That's a problem. It's one thing to accept that some people are simply going to be attracted to hateful ideologies. It's another thing when regular people maintain such ideologies simply because no countervailing narrative was ever presented. That speaks to a gap; one that probably can't be cured but by exposure to actual Jews who are in a position to take control of their own narrative. Hopeful in circumstances a little less shocking than that which Mr. Aaronovitch found himself.
And this is what he then said. "It's not surprising is it? I mean, they're notoriously tight-fisted." Eh? What was that? "They"? He might as well have produced a platypus from his trousers. So, astonished and hoping I might have misinterpreted him but fearing that I had not, I checked. "Who is tight-fisted?" And he replied, in a mildly baffled voice, "Jews. They're known to be stingy and miserly with money." If my face registered my feelings it must have been quite a sight. "Are you serious?" I asked. "It's what everyone says," he protested. "It's well known." Not trusting myself to any further conversation and needing to calm down I sent him away. Later he returned to apologise. He had not meant, he told me, to be in any way offensive. He was very sorry if he had been. And I could tell he had almost no idea of why I had reacted as I did. For him the sentiment that Jews were money-grubbing misers was not just commonplace, it appeared that he had never even heard it contradicted. Perhaps in his part of the country (rural East Anglia, I discovered) it was what everyone thought. But you might have expected a three year degree course at a new university to produce at least one challenge to this medieval stereotype.This is striking, and striking on a couple of levels. One can be shocked that the stereotype was blurted so openly (and to someone named "Aaronovitch", no less). But I'm more amazed at the bafflement. I take Aaronovitch at his word when he says his interlocutor seemed genuinely confused that this would be seen as offensive. It seems from his description that the young man is not wedded to a hateful view of Jews. He just accepted this stereotype as part of the world, not as something particularly malicious (though obviously not favorable), but simply the way things were.
This, in some sense, is more worrisome. The young man in question does not seem to be unreachable, or even particularly malign. He holds anti-Semitic views simply because he had never before encountered a situation where they would be challenged. Three years of university experience, and nothing. That's a problem. It's one thing to accept that some people are simply going to be attracted to hateful ideologies. It's another thing when regular people maintain such ideologies simply because no countervailing narrative was ever presented. That speaks to a gap; one that probably can't be cured but by exposure to actual Jews who are in a position to take control of their own narrative. Hopeful in circumstances a little less shocking than that which Mr. Aaronovitch found himself.
Thursday, January 29, 2015
The War Within
In Texas, the state's Muslim community is trying to organize a day of lobbying, where the come to the state capitol and present their views on issues that matter to the community. One Republican state lawmaker, Molly White, has prepared the following greeting for any Muslim visitors which might stop by her office:
Representative White no doubt thinks of herself as a supporter of Israel. But she isn't -- not really. When she presents Israel in this fashion --as a weapon against America's Muslim population -- she does violence to Israel's values and damage to its secure standing in the world. Does it matter to her? I doubt it -- she doesn't care about the country or its inhabitants (Jew, Muslim, or otherwise). She cares about her tool. She cares about her weapon.
Just this week Israeli President Reuven Rivlin went to the UN to deliver an emphatic defense of Islam, noting Muslim victims of terrorism and violence and proclaiming that "“neither the West, nor the Christians nor the Jews are at war with Islam." That's how Israel's President presents Israel. It is a presentation that reflects not just the view of the country's head of state, but the view of all of us who care deeply about Israel's future and passionately believe in its ability to protect the rights and respect the lives of all of its citizens. It is a view that doesn't get heard enough -- not because people like President Rivlin refuse to air it, but because people like Representative White drown it out. They rather have Israel be understood the way they want it to be understood -- ignorant (if not in defiance) of what Israelis and Jews around the world have to say on the subject.
UPDATE: The ADL has blasted Rep. White: "this kind of rhetoric and bigotry is antithetical to our cherished American values."
I did leave an Israeli flag on the reception desk in my office with instructions to staff to ask representatives from the Muslim community to renounce Islamic terrorist groups and publicly announce allegiance to America and our laws. We will see how long they stay in my office.The whole thing is patronizing (to say the least) and gross, but I want to focus on her decision to drag in the Israeli flag, apparently on the view that the "Israeli flag works on Muslims like Kryptonite to Superman."
Representative White no doubt thinks of herself as a supporter of Israel. But she isn't -- not really. When she presents Israel in this fashion --as a weapon against America's Muslim population -- she does violence to Israel's values and damage to its secure standing in the world. Does it matter to her? I doubt it -- she doesn't care about the country or its inhabitants (Jew, Muslim, or otherwise). She cares about her tool. She cares about her weapon.
Just this week Israeli President Reuven Rivlin went to the UN to deliver an emphatic defense of Islam, noting Muslim victims of terrorism and violence and proclaiming that "“neither the West, nor the Christians nor the Jews are at war with Islam." That's how Israel's President presents Israel. It is a presentation that reflects not just the view of the country's head of state, but the view of all of us who care deeply about Israel's future and passionately believe in its ability to protect the rights and respect the lives of all of its citizens. It is a view that doesn't get heard enough -- not because people like President Rivlin refuse to air it, but because people like Representative White drown it out. They rather have Israel be understood the way they want it to be understood -- ignorant (if not in defiance) of what Israelis and Jews around the world have to say on the subject.
UPDATE: The ADL has blasted Rep. White: "this kind of rhetoric and bigotry is antithetical to our cherished American values."
Monday, January 26, 2015
In Your Guts You Know He's Nuts
In 1964, Barry Goldwater ran on a fervent and unapologetically conservative platform under the slogan "In your heart you know he's right." The Johnson campaign responded with the instantly classic retort: "In your guts you know he's nuts."
Election season is heating up in Israel, and Bibi Netanyahu's governing Likud party is facing its stiffest challenge to date from a unified center-left that includes both Labor as well as Tzipi Livni's Hatnuah Party. The combined list has dubbed itself "the Zionist camp" and is running an energetic (and to my mind sorely needed campaign) to cast itself as the true heirs of Israel's social democratic and egalitarian tradition.
The Israeli right's main strategy seems to be casting itself as standing up against the all-encompassing tide of Israel's adversaries -- a term which at this point includes most of Israel's friends. Naftali Bennett's extreme-right Jewish Home Party is running on the straightforward slogan "We don't apologize." And Likud has elected to go with the even more on the nose "It's us or them." Which is paired up against the Zionist camp's pitch-perfect "It's us or him."
The latest polls are showing a narrow plurality for the Zionist camp (Labor-Hatnuah), which currently is projected to pull in 26 MKs to Likud's 23. That doesn't tell the whole story, though -- as there are the usual smattering of smaller parties that are necessary for any coalition to reach a sixty-one person majority.
Most of the descriptors I've seen of the lay of the land give the right a sizeable advantage, but they do so under some contestable assumptions regarding the center of the political map (you'll note in the above link that "right" is defined as anyone who has "not ruled out a coalition" with Bibi). Certainly, they are stronger than one might think given Labor/Hatnuah's leading score. Of the unabashedly "left" parties (not counting the Arab list, which I'll get to in a moment), things drop off considerably once one gets past the dynamic duo leading the pack. Meretz is projected at 6 MKs, which is more or less normal for them, and Yesh Atid has seen its support slashed in half to just 9 MKs. That's 41 MKs, a far cry south of sixty.
The big story of these elections has been the unification of the long-feuding Arab parties into a single list. These parties are too diverse to be called part of the "left" per se (the unified list includes Communist, secular nationalist, and religious parties), but they certainly aren't going to join a right-wing government. With a projected 12 MKs, that pops the center-left bloc up to 53 MKs.
On the right, Bennett's Jewish Home is polling third with a projected 15 MKs, and he's a solid right-wing vote, so right there you have as much as the main two secondary left parties combined. But after that, things get dicier. Of the religious parties UTJ (7 projected MKs) is much more solidly right-wing than Shas (also 7 MKs). While I think it's is fair to say that UTJ will caucus right, Shas can and has joined with a left government. Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beitenu is pulling in 7 MKs, and while he is certainly properly viewed as a member of the right he has demonstrated a bit of an iconoclastic streak in recent years (not always for the good). Still, I think it is reasonable to slot him in with the right bloc too -- but it isn't out of the question that it could be brought into a more left-wing government. If the wind is blowing in that direction, I think it could happen. Call it my crazy prediction of the season. But, my crazy prognostications notwithstanding, we can give the right bloc a solid 52 MKs.
This leads to something very interesting. Even if it grabs Shas, the right bloc would need another party. In fact, functionally both camps can't rely on Shas to put them over the top (Shas + left = 60 MKs). And that gets us to the final party in play, the newly-arrived Kulanu. Kulanu is one of Israel's perennial centrist parties (Yesh Atid was the last one, Kadima was the one before that, Shinui was the one before that). They appeal to people disaffected from the same-old same-old, usually enter government, usually accomplish much less than they promise, and usually fade out after one or two election cycles. Kulanu's roots lie in in center-right politics, and so many people have slotted them into the right camp, but I think that's too quick. Most of these centrist parties have had right-ish roots, and most of them have proven quite amenable to working with the left (why else are they splitting off from Likud in the first place?). I mean, look at Livni, who has crossed all the way over from her Likudnik beginnings to join a slate with Labor. Kulanu's political program is almost entirely economic in focus, and it is an economic program that is not inherently in conflict with either side. It's relative silence on security issues, likewise, leaves it open to working with either side. I don't see it as anything close to a foregone conclusion that it will elect to side with Bibi.
Basically, as it stands Kulanu will hold the balance of power. And if the Zionist Camp is given the chance to form a government, I think it very well could put together a package that brings Kulanu into the fold. In that case, we could have something fascinating indeed -- a liberal Israeli government for the first time in a half-decade, anchored by a new and unknown centrist party and a unified and newly influential Arab bloc.
It could be a very interesting trip we're all in for.
Election season is heating up in Israel, and Bibi Netanyahu's governing Likud party is facing its stiffest challenge to date from a unified center-left that includes both Labor as well as Tzipi Livni's Hatnuah Party. The combined list has dubbed itself "the Zionist camp" and is running an energetic (and to my mind sorely needed campaign) to cast itself as the true heirs of Israel's social democratic and egalitarian tradition.
The Israeli right's main strategy seems to be casting itself as standing up against the all-encompassing tide of Israel's adversaries -- a term which at this point includes most of Israel's friends. Naftali Bennett's extreme-right Jewish Home Party is running on the straightforward slogan "We don't apologize." And Likud has elected to go with the even more on the nose "It's us or them." Which is paired up against the Zionist camp's pitch-perfect "It's us or him."
The latest polls are showing a narrow plurality for the Zionist camp (Labor-Hatnuah), which currently is projected to pull in 26 MKs to Likud's 23. That doesn't tell the whole story, though -- as there are the usual smattering of smaller parties that are necessary for any coalition to reach a sixty-one person majority.
Most of the descriptors I've seen of the lay of the land give the right a sizeable advantage, but they do so under some contestable assumptions regarding the center of the political map (you'll note in the above link that "right" is defined as anyone who has "not ruled out a coalition" with Bibi). Certainly, they are stronger than one might think given Labor/Hatnuah's leading score. Of the unabashedly "left" parties (not counting the Arab list, which I'll get to in a moment), things drop off considerably once one gets past the dynamic duo leading the pack. Meretz is projected at 6 MKs, which is more or less normal for them, and Yesh Atid has seen its support slashed in half to just 9 MKs. That's 41 MKs, a far cry south of sixty.
The big story of these elections has been the unification of the long-feuding Arab parties into a single list. These parties are too diverse to be called part of the "left" per se (the unified list includes Communist, secular nationalist, and religious parties), but they certainly aren't going to join a right-wing government. With a projected 12 MKs, that pops the center-left bloc up to 53 MKs.
On the right, Bennett's Jewish Home is polling third with a projected 15 MKs, and he's a solid right-wing vote, so right there you have as much as the main two secondary left parties combined. But after that, things get dicier. Of the religious parties UTJ (7 projected MKs) is much more solidly right-wing than Shas (also 7 MKs). While I think it's is fair to say that UTJ will caucus right, Shas can and has joined with a left government. Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beitenu is pulling in 7 MKs, and while he is certainly properly viewed as a member of the right he has demonstrated a bit of an iconoclastic streak in recent years (not always for the good). Still, I think it is reasonable to slot him in with the right bloc too -- but it isn't out of the question that it could be brought into a more left-wing government. If the wind is blowing in that direction, I think it could happen. Call it my crazy prediction of the season. But, my crazy prognostications notwithstanding, we can give the right bloc a solid 52 MKs.
This leads to something very interesting. Even if it grabs Shas, the right bloc would need another party. In fact, functionally both camps can't rely on Shas to put them over the top (Shas + left = 60 MKs). And that gets us to the final party in play, the newly-arrived Kulanu. Kulanu is one of Israel's perennial centrist parties (Yesh Atid was the last one, Kadima was the one before that, Shinui was the one before that). They appeal to people disaffected from the same-old same-old, usually enter government, usually accomplish much less than they promise, and usually fade out after one or two election cycles. Kulanu's roots lie in in center-right politics, and so many people have slotted them into the right camp, but I think that's too quick. Most of these centrist parties have had right-ish roots, and most of them have proven quite amenable to working with the left (why else are they splitting off from Likud in the first place?). I mean, look at Livni, who has crossed all the way over from her Likudnik beginnings to join a slate with Labor. Kulanu's political program is almost entirely economic in focus, and it is an economic program that is not inherently in conflict with either side. It's relative silence on security issues, likewise, leaves it open to working with either side. I don't see it as anything close to a foregone conclusion that it will elect to side with Bibi.
Basically, as it stands Kulanu will hold the balance of power. And if the Zionist Camp is given the chance to form a government, I think it very well could put together a package that brings Kulanu into the fold. In that case, we could have something fascinating indeed -- a liberal Israeli government for the first time in a half-decade, anchored by a new and unknown centrist party and a unified and newly influential Arab bloc.
It could be a very interesting trip we're all in for.
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Sunday Roundup: Jan. 25, 2015
Just because I'm a big Jewish media star doesn't mean that I don't have time for the little people my loyal readers. Here are some stories I've found interesting that have crossed my browser.
* * *
A powerful story about a lesbian couple in Oklahoma planning their (suddenly legalized) wedding.
I honestly have no idea how someone who presumably identifies as a progressive can write this without it being immediately, blaring, obvious that it is identical to conservative mockery/dismissal of racism claims. Someone get the author a copy of Darren Lenard Hutchinson's Racial Exhaustion, stat.
Interesting piece (to me, at least!) by David Roberts on the proposed Exelon/Pepco merger.
An Israeli Druze student was beaten by a Jewish mob who overheard him speaking Arabic. The student, who recently finished his service in the IDF, had been posted at the Presidential Residence and received a call of support from Israeli President Reuven Rivlin.
As much as "WhatAboutTheMenz" annoys me, no Ruby Tuesday's, you can't just restrict posted bartender positions to women.
* * *
A powerful story about a lesbian couple in Oklahoma planning their (suddenly legalized) wedding.
I honestly have no idea how someone who presumably identifies as a progressive can write this without it being immediately, blaring, obvious that it is identical to conservative mockery/dismissal of racism claims. Someone get the author a copy of Darren Lenard Hutchinson's Racial Exhaustion, stat.
Interesting piece (to me, at least!) by David Roberts on the proposed Exelon/Pepco merger.
An Israeli Druze student was beaten by a Jewish mob who overheard him speaking Arabic. The student, who recently finished his service in the IDF, had been posted at the Presidential Residence and received a call of support from Israeli President Reuven Rivlin.
As much as "WhatAboutTheMenz" annoys me, no Ruby Tuesday's, you can't just restrict posted bartender positions to women.
Friday, January 23, 2015
Reveal Yourselves To Me!
I've been getting a flurry of hits recently from this Metafilter thread, where folks are offering up my blog as an exemplar of how to think about and respond to the issue of anti-Semitism. This is gratifying to hear (pro-tip -- most of my posts on the subjects can be found under the anti-Semitism label!). But a few folks in the course of this conversation have been talking about how they've been reading the blog for years, and I'm like, "who are you people? You don't sound familiar at all!" Either they are using different handles when they comment on my blog, or (more likely) they don't leave comments period.
So consider this a thread for lurkers ancient and new to introduce themselves (with as much or as little anonymity as they like). I'm always genuinely interested in who actually takes the time to read my little corner of the internet.
Incidentally, this blog now is automatically cross-posted onto Tumblr (under the title "A Multitude of Commitments"). If you are a tumblr reader of mine, please feel free to participate as well! Either send me a message, or hope on over to the blogspot site and leave a comment with everyone else.
So consider this a thread for lurkers ancient and new to introduce themselves (with as much or as little anonymity as they like). I'm always genuinely interested in who actually takes the time to read my little corner of the internet.
Incidentally, this blog now is automatically cross-posted onto Tumblr (under the title "A Multitude of Commitments"). If you are a tumblr reader of mine, please feel free to participate as well! Either send me a message, or hope on over to the blogspot site and leave a comment with everyone else.
Thursday, January 22, 2015
"Jews Lose": Big Media David Edition
Tablet Magazine invited me to write an essay on the "Jews Lose" doctrine I wrote about previously on this blog. It's obviously exciting to see my name in the big lights, and as an academic I am quite intrigued by this whole "being paid for my articles" concept.
There was one chunk of the article which was cut for space reasons that I wanted to share with you on this space (consider it the "director's cut"). One prominent theme I tried to explore in my essay was this prevailing sense that Jews are the quintessential anti-discrimination "winners". Unfortunately, this label (not accurate to begin with, as my essay demonstrates) isn't always viewed magnanimously, but rather often is presented as an example of unfairness -- why are Jews given so much when other groups have so little? As a result, we get this weird phenomenon where alleged injustices perpetrated against Muslims by non-Jewish institutions (e.g., satirical cartoons mocking Islam) are met with attacks against Jews. A few years ago, we saw this in Holland, where Muslims angry that authorities dropped a hate crimes prosecution against (non-Jewish) Geert Wilders (whose filmed allegedly mocked Mohammed) responded by putting up cartoons mocking the Holocaust.
The broader issue is that presenting Jews as anti-discrimination "haves" often comes in the form of resentment and almost invariably washes away the actual particularities of the Jewish experience. Consider Falguni Sheth’s Salon article exploring the history of Muslim vilification in the context of the recent Paris massacres. She notes that “terrorism” is a “loaded term” that often seems to arbitrarily include only Muslim acts of mass murder. Clearly she has a point, one strikingly illustrated when a former CIA Deputy Director seemingly forgot about Anders Breivik’s massacre in Norway as an example of terrorism in Europe. She also makes the accurate observations that Muslims face considerable pressure to “assimilate” into French society rather than maintain a conspicuous identity as a separate minority group, and that while Charlie Hebdo did satirize Christianity, those cartoons are hardly analogous to those which mock Muslims. Why? Because unlike Muslims, “Christians are neither religious nor ethnic minorities. Christians are not politically vulnerable in the Republic of France; they are the opposite — secure and fully capable.”
All valid points. But then we get to Professor Sheth’s concluding question: “What if the Charlie Hebdo massacre had been committed by Catholic or Jewish extremists?” Wait, what? How did we get roped into this? Are Jews not a distinctive religious group who have faced considerable pressure to assimilate into an unmarked “French” identity? Are they not a religious and ethnic minority experiencing considerable vulnerability, not the least of which is their propensity to be targeted in precisely these sorts of massacres?
The belated appearance of Jews at the end of Professor Sheth’s article does little to advance her argument—it would have just as much force if it solely compared Muslims against a social class that actually was “secure” in its French status. Rather, Professor Sheth seems to include Jews as a means of emphasizing the unjustness of Jews supposedly possessing something other minorities don’t—they apparently do not experience and are not at risk of experiencing the mass vilification and bigotry that Muslims must endure when individual Muslims commit acts of violence. This assertion seems difficult to back up. While thankfully we have not seen a Jewish-initiated mass murder in the West in quite some time, it is notable that we need not wait that long to refute Professor Sheth’s prediction.
Jews don’t have to perpetrate a murderous strike against a vulnerable minority in order for the spotlight to shine on alleged Jewish bad behavior—such rhetoric is a standard part of the conversation any time Jews are the victims of mass political violence. Sometimes it is a BBC reporter lecturing a French Jew at a rally commemorating her murdered peers that “many critics of Israel’s policy would suggest that the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well,” sometimes it is a British parliamentarian whose idea of solidarity with those slaughtered at a Kosher market was to tweet “Je suis Palestinian”, And that does not even get into those who are convinced that Jews are actually responsible for the terror in France—a group that includes the mayor of Ankara, leaders of the Free Gaza movement, the International Business Times (since taken down), and the Ron Paul Institute. My twitter feed may be right that a murder commented by a white guy will be attributed to a “disturbed loner” while a Muslim killer is invariably a “terrorist.” But it is also true that regardless of whether the finger on the trigger is white, black, Asian, Arab, or Polynesian, someone will always be there to insist that the Mossad really did it.
I don't think Professor Sheth wishes that people would attack Jews as a group for individual Jewish sins. But the fact that she doesn't recognize that we do experience this, regularly, for sins real and imagined is worrisome. It demonstrates the power of the assumption that Jews win; even coming in the face of a very high-profile loss of Jewish life that was nonetheless met with the usual discussions about bad behavior by other Jews elsewhere.
There was one chunk of the article which was cut for space reasons that I wanted to share with you on this space (consider it the "director's cut"). One prominent theme I tried to explore in my essay was this prevailing sense that Jews are the quintessential anti-discrimination "winners". Unfortunately, this label (not accurate to begin with, as my essay demonstrates) isn't always viewed magnanimously, but rather often is presented as an example of unfairness -- why are Jews given so much when other groups have so little? As a result, we get this weird phenomenon where alleged injustices perpetrated against Muslims by non-Jewish institutions (e.g., satirical cartoons mocking Islam) are met with attacks against Jews. A few years ago, we saw this in Holland, where Muslims angry that authorities dropped a hate crimes prosecution against (non-Jewish) Geert Wilders (whose filmed allegedly mocked Mohammed) responded by putting up cartoons mocking the Holocaust.
The broader issue is that presenting Jews as anti-discrimination "haves" often comes in the form of resentment and almost invariably washes away the actual particularities of the Jewish experience. Consider Falguni Sheth’s Salon article exploring the history of Muslim vilification in the context of the recent Paris massacres. She notes that “terrorism” is a “loaded term” that often seems to arbitrarily include only Muslim acts of mass murder. Clearly she has a point, one strikingly illustrated when a former CIA Deputy Director seemingly forgot about Anders Breivik’s massacre in Norway as an example of terrorism in Europe. She also makes the accurate observations that Muslims face considerable pressure to “assimilate” into French society rather than maintain a conspicuous identity as a separate minority group, and that while Charlie Hebdo did satirize Christianity, those cartoons are hardly analogous to those which mock Muslims. Why? Because unlike Muslims, “Christians are neither religious nor ethnic minorities. Christians are not politically vulnerable in the Republic of France; they are the opposite — secure and fully capable.”
All valid points. But then we get to Professor Sheth’s concluding question: “What if the Charlie Hebdo massacre had been committed by Catholic or Jewish extremists?” Wait, what? How did we get roped into this? Are Jews not a distinctive religious group who have faced considerable pressure to assimilate into an unmarked “French” identity? Are they not a religious and ethnic minority experiencing considerable vulnerability, not the least of which is their propensity to be targeted in precisely these sorts of massacres?
The belated appearance of Jews at the end of Professor Sheth’s article does little to advance her argument—it would have just as much force if it solely compared Muslims against a social class that actually was “secure” in its French status. Rather, Professor Sheth seems to include Jews as a means of emphasizing the unjustness of Jews supposedly possessing something other minorities don’t—they apparently do not experience and are not at risk of experiencing the mass vilification and bigotry that Muslims must endure when individual Muslims commit acts of violence. This assertion seems difficult to back up. While thankfully we have not seen a Jewish-initiated mass murder in the West in quite some time, it is notable that we need not wait that long to refute Professor Sheth’s prediction.
Jews don’t have to perpetrate a murderous strike against a vulnerable minority in order for the spotlight to shine on alleged Jewish bad behavior—such rhetoric is a standard part of the conversation any time Jews are the victims of mass political violence. Sometimes it is a BBC reporter lecturing a French Jew at a rally commemorating her murdered peers that “many critics of Israel’s policy would suggest that the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well,” sometimes it is a British parliamentarian whose idea of solidarity with those slaughtered at a Kosher market was to tweet “Je suis Palestinian”, And that does not even get into those who are convinced that Jews are actually responsible for the terror in France—a group that includes the mayor of Ankara, leaders of the Free Gaza movement, the International Business Times (since taken down), and the Ron Paul Institute. My twitter feed may be right that a murder commented by a white guy will be attributed to a “disturbed loner” while a Muslim killer is invariably a “terrorist.” But it is also true that regardless of whether the finger on the trigger is white, black, Asian, Arab, or Polynesian, someone will always be there to insist that the Mossad really did it.
I don't think Professor Sheth wishes that people would attack Jews as a group for individual Jewish sins. But the fact that she doesn't recognize that we do experience this, regularly, for sins real and imagined is worrisome. It demonstrates the power of the assumption that Jews win; even coming in the face of a very high-profile loss of Jewish life that was nonetheless met with the usual discussions about bad behavior by other Jews elsewhere.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
Meanwhile, Back in Northfield...
I had a lovely conversation with some of my students yesterday during office hours. It was quite wide-ranging, but one thing we talked about was the Jewish cultural-shock of moving from (very Jewish) Bethesda, Maryland, to (very not-Jewish) Northfield, Minnesota for college. Northfield was, by and large, a perfectly fine place to be a Jew. Still, it was markedly different from Bethesda if only because there were so much fewer of us. And going from a place where everyone was intimately familiar with Jews (even if not Jewish themselves, they had a year-long crash course in synagogue practices from riding the Bar and Bat Mitzvah circuit), to a place where many people had never met any Jews at all, does change things. For example, I noted that unlike in Bethesda, at Carleton I did have to contend with people who believed that "the Jews killed Christ". Now technically, I heard that once in Bethesda too. Someone said it in 9th grade social studies, and the entire class burst out laughing. But that, to me, emphasizes the difference all the more -- it's not that there is nobody with anti-Semitic beliefs in Bethesda, it's just that the community culture is such that any such views are going to be marginalized and ridiculed. The difference in Northfield is not that I thought any large proportion of Carls thought I was a Christ-killer, but I didn't think that such views would be immediately understood as transparently ludicrous the way that they were back home.
All of this is a segue to my collegiate town reentering the news in the worst way possible. The local watering hole, The Contented Cow, is hosting a series of talks by a prominent conspiracy theorist of the "Holocaust-denial, Israel is responsible for 9/11" sort. Because nothing goes with a pint like a side of HoloHoax1!!11!.
In any event, I am pleased to see that the community has, apparently, risen up in protest (the conspirator in question, James Fetzer, is complaining that Northfield has not accorded him the "powerful, positive response" he is used to). And in a sense there is nothing more that should be said on this. The pub proprietor's response is to change the format from a "lecture" to a "debate", but I agree with my former Professor Louis Newman that there are some ideas that are better off ignored.
Yet, I can't resist one more comment. The pub, you see, wants to make one thing very clear about its Holocaust-denying, 9/11-was-a-Mossad-operation guest. Can you guess what it is?
All of this is a segue to my collegiate town reentering the news in the worst way possible. The local watering hole, The Contented Cow, is hosting a series of talks by a prominent conspiracy theorist of the "Holocaust-denial, Israel is responsible for 9/11" sort. Because nothing goes with a pint like a side of HoloHoax1!!11!.
In any event, I am pleased to see that the community has, apparently, risen up in protest (the conspirator in question, James Fetzer, is complaining that Northfield has not accorded him the "powerful, positive response" he is used to). And in a sense there is nothing more that should be said on this. The pub proprietor's response is to change the format from a "lecture" to a "debate", but I agree with my former Professor Louis Newman that there are some ideas that are better off ignored.
Yet, I can't resist one more comment. The pub, you see, wants to make one thing very clear about its Holocaust-denying, 9/11-was-a-Mossad-operation guest. Can you guess what it is?
“Fetzer is critical of the Israeli government. Does that make him an anti-Semite? No."Like clockwork.
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Downton Dreaming
Three episodes into Downton Abbey this season, and I have come to the conclusion that I have greatly wronged Cora in my heart. I had always thought of her as dopey, simpering, and obviously not the brightest bulb in the ceiling. In my defense, there was no point where I didn't recognize her as the smarter of her couple -- Lord Grantham has always been dumb as a post -- but I just thought the two were made for each other. Now I see that I've misestimated Cora greatly. The trick to Cora is that, as an American, she doesn't play the game. It's not that, as I thought, she's oblivious to all the political machinations that surround her. It's that she just doesn't care. In contrast to Ms. Bunting or (sometimes) Tom, Cora isn't actively antagonistic to the trappings of Edwardian nobility. But neither is she defined by her role in it. Cora cares about what Cora cares about, and for the most part she seems happy and content because she happily and contentedly pursues her own interests (and is quite successful in doing so). You'll note that on the rare occasions where she seems to be stymied in her goals, she is quite good at marshaling her power to get what she wants. You'll also note that true power and influence does not lie in constantly overcoming adversity; true power exists where it just wouldn't occur to anyone to be adverse to you.
Cora's influence on the house is subtle but obviously salutary. She's liberal, pragmatic, and modern -- in fact, I think she's very quintessentially "America" her in manner. She generally intervenes on the side of "outsiders" like Tom and Ms. Bunting, and does not seem particularly invested in her daughters following a hidebound and traditional life path. This isn't to say she's opposed to that either; indeed, that remains the default option. It's only that when the girls seem to be taking a different path, Cora rarely seems perturbed by it.
This past episode Cora mentioned that she was half-Jewish (on her father's side). I had my suspicions -- her last name was "Levinson" and she was from Cincinnati, which had a significant Jewish population -- but now it's confirmed and I really want the show to explore this aspect of Cora's identity. I'm not asking that she start fasting on Yom Kippur or hang a Mezuzzah outsider her door (though A Downton Seder would immediately supplant Rugrats as the iconic television Passover of my generation). But there was (and is) a lot of anti-Semitism in England at the time, including a very particular and virulent ("genteel") variety in the upper-crust; it would astound me if Cora never encountered that. Jewishness was highly racialized in England at the time, so it is not as if this quantum of "Jewish blood" would have gone unremarked upon. There's another angle to this too -- when Gregson announced he was going to Germany there was a suspicion that Edith might eventually turn into a Nazi-sympathizer. I don't know if that would have made sense from a character arc perspective, and in any event Gregson has since fallen off the radar. Nonetheless, the coming events in Germany (and Edith's tenuous German connection) makes the family's Jewish background quite salient.
That being said, I honestly wonder if the girls are even aware of their (partial) Jewish heritage. When mentioning it to Bricker Cora didn't act as if it is was something hidden or secret. Still, it is notable that it has never come up before. Cora obviously doesn't seem to be particularly invested in it, though just based on her general character I can't imagine she isn't sympathetic to the Jewish people and their struggles at the time.
In any event, there is a lot to be done here, and I want the show to do it. Cater to my desires, damn it! Where's my hotline to the Jewish-controlled media when I need it?
Cora's influence on the house is subtle but obviously salutary. She's liberal, pragmatic, and modern -- in fact, I think she's very quintessentially "America" her in manner. She generally intervenes on the side of "outsiders" like Tom and Ms. Bunting, and does not seem particularly invested in her daughters following a hidebound and traditional life path. This isn't to say she's opposed to that either; indeed, that remains the default option. It's only that when the girls seem to be taking a different path, Cora rarely seems perturbed by it.
This past episode Cora mentioned that she was half-Jewish (on her father's side). I had my suspicions -- her last name was "Levinson" and she was from Cincinnati, which had a significant Jewish population -- but now it's confirmed and I really want the show to explore this aspect of Cora's identity. I'm not asking that she start fasting on Yom Kippur or hang a Mezuzzah outsider her door (though A Downton Seder would immediately supplant Rugrats as the iconic television Passover of my generation). But there was (and is) a lot of anti-Semitism in England at the time, including a very particular and virulent ("genteel") variety in the upper-crust; it would astound me if Cora never encountered that. Jewishness was highly racialized in England at the time, so it is not as if this quantum of "Jewish blood" would have gone unremarked upon. There's another angle to this too -- when Gregson announced he was going to Germany there was a suspicion that Edith might eventually turn into a Nazi-sympathizer. I don't know if that would have made sense from a character arc perspective, and in any event Gregson has since fallen off the radar. Nonetheless, the coming events in Germany (and Edith's tenuous German connection) makes the family's Jewish background quite salient.
That being said, I honestly wonder if the girls are even aware of their (partial) Jewish heritage. When mentioning it to Bricker Cora didn't act as if it is was something hidden or secret. Still, it is notable that it has never come up before. Cora obviously doesn't seem to be particularly invested in it, though just based on her general character I can't imagine she isn't sympathetic to the Jewish people and their struggles at the time.
In any event, there is a lot to be done here, and I want the show to do it. Cater to my desires, damn it! Where's my hotline to the Jewish-controlled media when I need it?
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Good Lawyers Make Good Results
This morning, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, involving the exercise of a borrower's "right of rescission" under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). TILA requires that a bank provide its borrowers r with certain disclosures; if it fails to do so the borrower may elect to rescind the loan for three years after the date of closing. The question in Jesinoski was what the borrower needs to do to effectuate the rescission -- did they need only to notify the bank that they were electing to rescind, or did they need to actually file a lawsuit within the three year period. In a 9-0 decision, the Court held that only notification was necessary.
This is a case near and dear to my heart, because I worked on it as a clerk for Judge Murphy (I normally wouldn't reveal my involvement, but Judge Murphy emailed me this morning to "advertise your role in this widely," and far be it from me to ignore an order from a federal judge). Technically, the case I worked on was Keiran v. Home Capital, Inc., 720 F.3d 721 (2013), but they're the same case -- Jesinoski was a per curium opinion by the 8th Circuit bound by Keiran; the only reason that the former was the SCOTUS case was because for a variety of technical reasons it presented a cleaner case to review. The majority in Keiran had held that a lawsuit must be filed within the three year timeline; Judge Murphy dissented and took the (now-vindicated) position that only notification was required.
Not to put to fine a point on it, but we were clearly in the right, and the five page Scalia opinion (shortest of the year, according to SCOTUSblog) explaining why is all the time this question really deserved. The statutory text (15 U.S.C. 1635(a)) is crystal clear: "[T]he obligor shall have the right to rescind the transaction . . . by notifying the creditor, in accordance with regulations of the [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau], of his intention to do so." The implementing regulations say the same thing ("To exercise the right to rescind, the consumer shall notify the creditor of the rescission by mail, telegram or other means of written communication."), and pretty much any other tool of statutory interpretation (the view of the implementing agency, the canon of construction for a remedial statute like TILA) points in favor of that outcome.
But if it was so obvious, why did it come out the other way in the 8th Circuit? And not just there -- the Supreme Court was resolving a deep circuit split that pitted (off the top of my head) the 8th, 9th, and 10th Circuits against the 3rd and 4th Circuits. I don't think it's a left/right divide -- unanimity of the Supreme Court aside, following the decision in Keiran two Republican appointees on the 8th Circuit (Judges Colloton and Melloy) went out of their way to express their view that the majority had gotten it wrong and Judge Murphy's dissent was correct. Rather, it seems clear to me that it was simply a case of an attorney mismatch.
I watched the oral arguments in Keiran, and the disparity in talent was quite evident. The lenders were represented by a former Scalia clerk who was simply superb -- one of the best advocates we saw all year. The homeowners were represented by a random mortgage foreclosure defense attorney, who was decidedly mediocre (the CFPB also had an attorney who argued briefly on behalf of the homeowner -- my coclerks and I divided in our appraisal of her -- I found her average at best, my colleagues thought she was pretty solid). One side had eloquent and polished presentation with well-crafted, sophisticated arguments; the other was bumbling and disjointed and did little to give the court guidance as to the right outcome (which could start and end with the clear statutory language). The mismatch in talent canceled out the mismatch in legal justification, and so the result was a deep divide in the lower courts. Once the case went to the Supreme Court, by contrast, the homeowners got much better representation -- plenty of firms are willing to take a prestigious SCOTUS case for little or no fee, simply for prestige -- and when that imbalance was rectified the outcome of the case was assured.
Clerking is an interesting experience. It gives you an inside look at how the sausage is made, which, like most sausage-production, can be equal parts fascinating and horrifying. It also does wonders to alleviate the sense of imposter syndrome -- because a lot of lawyers are bad. Nothing did more to make me feel qualified to be a lawyer -- a good lawyer, even -- than reading the submitted briefs during my clerkship. But while this did wonders for my self confidence, and emphasized that yes I could make a difference, it was also quite sobering. Good representation matters. A lot. And it is no mystery and no coincidence that for the most part it is the big banks that get the former Supreme Court clerks and the poor homeowners who get the remains (or worse, the grifters). Judges, no more than any one else, are not superhuman, and they can be swayed by good advocacy even where the law unadorned seems to obviously suggest another result. Here, the right outcome was reached in the end. It isn't always.
This is a case near and dear to my heart, because I worked on it as a clerk for Judge Murphy (I normally wouldn't reveal my involvement, but Judge Murphy emailed me this morning to "advertise your role in this widely," and far be it from me to ignore an order from a federal judge). Technically, the case I worked on was Keiran v. Home Capital, Inc., 720 F.3d 721 (2013), but they're the same case -- Jesinoski was a per curium opinion by the 8th Circuit bound by Keiran; the only reason that the former was the SCOTUS case was because for a variety of technical reasons it presented a cleaner case to review. The majority in Keiran had held that a lawsuit must be filed within the three year timeline; Judge Murphy dissented and took the (now-vindicated) position that only notification was required.
Not to put to fine a point on it, but we were clearly in the right, and the five page Scalia opinion (shortest of the year, according to SCOTUSblog) explaining why is all the time this question really deserved. The statutory text (15 U.S.C. 1635(a)) is crystal clear: "[T]he obligor shall have the right to rescind the transaction . . . by notifying the creditor, in accordance with regulations of the [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau], of his intention to do so." The implementing regulations say the same thing ("To exercise the right to rescind, the consumer shall notify the creditor of the rescission by mail, telegram or other means of written communication."), and pretty much any other tool of statutory interpretation (the view of the implementing agency, the canon of construction for a remedial statute like TILA) points in favor of that outcome.
But if it was so obvious, why did it come out the other way in the 8th Circuit? And not just there -- the Supreme Court was resolving a deep circuit split that pitted (off the top of my head) the 8th, 9th, and 10th Circuits against the 3rd and 4th Circuits. I don't think it's a left/right divide -- unanimity of the Supreme Court aside, following the decision in Keiran two Republican appointees on the 8th Circuit (Judges Colloton and Melloy) went out of their way to express their view that the majority had gotten it wrong and Judge Murphy's dissent was correct. Rather, it seems clear to me that it was simply a case of an attorney mismatch.
I watched the oral arguments in Keiran, and the disparity in talent was quite evident. The lenders were represented by a former Scalia clerk who was simply superb -- one of the best advocates we saw all year. The homeowners were represented by a random mortgage foreclosure defense attorney, who was decidedly mediocre (the CFPB also had an attorney who argued briefly on behalf of the homeowner -- my coclerks and I divided in our appraisal of her -- I found her average at best, my colleagues thought she was pretty solid). One side had eloquent and polished presentation with well-crafted, sophisticated arguments; the other was bumbling and disjointed and did little to give the court guidance as to the right outcome (which could start and end with the clear statutory language). The mismatch in talent canceled out the mismatch in legal justification, and so the result was a deep divide in the lower courts. Once the case went to the Supreme Court, by contrast, the homeowners got much better representation -- plenty of firms are willing to take a prestigious SCOTUS case for little or no fee, simply for prestige -- and when that imbalance was rectified the outcome of the case was assured.
Clerking is an interesting experience. It gives you an inside look at how the sausage is made, which, like most sausage-production, can be equal parts fascinating and horrifying. It also does wonders to alleviate the sense of imposter syndrome -- because a lot of lawyers are bad. Nothing did more to make me feel qualified to be a lawyer -- a good lawyer, even -- than reading the submitted briefs during my clerkship. But while this did wonders for my self confidence, and emphasized that yes I could make a difference, it was also quite sobering. Good representation matters. A lot. And it is no mystery and no coincidence that for the most part it is the big banks that get the former Supreme Court clerks and the poor homeowners who get the remains (or worse, the grifters). Judges, no more than any one else, are not superhuman, and they can be swayed by good advocacy even where the law unadorned seems to obviously suggest another result. Here, the right outcome was reached in the end. It isn't always.
Wednesday, January 07, 2015
Rate That Apology, Part 3: Kirby Delauter
I posted on Facebook, though not on the blog, about Kirby Delauter, the Frederick County councilman who became an internet sensation when he angrily told a local journalist that she was prohibited from using his name "without permission." The (above linked) Frederick News-Post editorial in response was a classic, and I highly encourage you to read it.
In any event, after a brief radio silence, councilman Delauter has issued the following statement:
So good job, Kirby. I think this hits all the right notes. 9/10.
In any event, after a brief radio silence, councilman Delauter has issued the following statement:
“The first amendment is alive and well in Frederick County. As a public figure working to maintain and improve the county, it can be very frustrating to feel misrepresented or misinterpreted by a local media outlet.Honestly, I think that's pretty solid. Kind of hangs his colleague Billy Shreve out to dry ("I think The News-Post is extremely biased and someone should sue them"), but that's on Shreve. This one takes responsibility for the wrong and admits that it was a wrong unequivocally. I don't take the notation of how "frustrating" it is to "feel misrepresented" to be an excuse, but simply a point of a context and one we can all relate to, particularly since he doesn't return to it (e.g., with some sly construction about how "everyone should strive to be fair" or like language that suggests there was mutual fault here). The closing sentence is appropriately conciliatory and stresses the right note, which is that the media can and should cover him as an elected official and that's part of what makes our democracy thrive.
“Over my career I have fired off my fair share of angry e-mails, which in hindsight I wish I hadn't. I can't think of one that had a positive effect. Usually, they only served to escalate the conflict. I thought I had long ago learned the lesson of waiting 24 hours before I hit the send key, but apparently I didn't learn that lesson as well as I should have.
“Of course, as I am an elected official, the Frederick News-Post has the right to use my name in any article related to the running of the county -- that comes with the job. So yes, my statement to the Frederick News-Post regarding the use of my name was wrong and inappropriate. I'm not afraid to admit when I’m wrong.
“I got elected to serve all the citizens of northern Frederick County, Democrats as well as Republicans. I look forward to the local papers covering my effort in that regard.”
So good job, Kirby. I think this hits all the right notes. 9/10.
Things People Blame the Jews For, Volume XIV: Charlie Hebdo
A few days ago, there was a bombing at a Colorado NAACP branch office. Some folks noted that this event seemed undercovered in the news media. Today, a dozen people were killed after terrorists stormed the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical magazine. This has gotten plenty of coverage, and Phoebe Maltz Bovy immediately picks up on the inevitable:
In any event, assuming there is a Jewish conspiracy to overcover Charlie Hebdo at the expense of the NAACP bombing, well, be careful what you wish for -- we might not want too much attention to be put upon the former event. Greta "Reading Gilad Atzmon makes me awfully glad I was raised a Methodist" Berlin knows who really was behind the French strike. Two guesses as to who!
It's the Mossad. I gave you two guesses because "Shin Bet" was also a live possibility.
I do want to give Berlin credit for her celerity. When Ellie Merton won the prize for being the first to blame the Jews for the Anders Breivik massacre in Norway, it was a full two days after the event. Berlin was already pumping her conspiracy theory out in a matter of hours. That's the type of rapid-reaction anti-Semitism that today's on-the-go social media consumers deserve.
Yes, the NAACP attack should get more coverage. No, the fact that the Paris attack (killing 12, as vs thankfully zero, and with major international implications) is more in the news isn't unreasonable. Nor (ahem, Twitter) should it be interpreted as evidence that The Zionists control the media.To be fair, I didn't actually find any examples of this myself -- Phoebe says she read such claims on this thread but that they've apparently been taken down. I trust Phoebe, so I'm running with it, but if you'd like we can devote this comment section to "Things People Blame the Jews For: Making Up Sources."
In any event, assuming there is a Jewish conspiracy to overcover Charlie Hebdo at the expense of the NAACP bombing, well, be careful what you wish for -- we might not want too much attention to be put upon the former event. Greta "Reading Gilad Atzmon makes me awfully glad I was raised a Methodist" Berlin knows who really was behind the French strike. Two guesses as to who!
It's the Mossad. I gave you two guesses because "Shin Bet" was also a live possibility.
I do want to give Berlin credit for her celerity. When Ellie Merton won the prize for being the first to blame the Jews for the Anders Breivik massacre in Norway, it was a full two days after the event. Berlin was already pumping her conspiracy theory out in a matter of hours. That's the type of rapid-reaction anti-Semitism that today's on-the-go social media consumers deserve.
Tuesday, January 06, 2015
How the "Jews Lose" (in the UK)
I got my hands on a copy of Didi Herman's An Unfortunate Coincidence: Jews, Jewishness, and English Law (referenced in this post). It is excellent so far. I'm about 50 pages in, and the myriad of ways English judges have of demeaning Jews and Jewish claims is just a joy to behold.
Some of these cases feel a bit archaic -- early 20th century remarks that are so obvious in the construction of Jews are dirty and untrustworthy foreigners. Herman opens with a 1922 insurance case where a policy was held to be validly canceled because the policyholder had not provided his birth name (upon moving to England at age 12, "Euda Gedale" changed his name to "Harry Horne") or revealed that he was born in Romania. This was held to be a material fact that might have legitimately affected the insurance company's decision to issue the policy. Lest we even preserve a modicum of neutrality, the judge hastened to clarify that not every occasion where such facts (national origin, birth name) would they be material -- but in this case, with these facts (Jew, from Eastern Europe), they certainly were. Quoting the court:
Other cases hit upon one of my favorite themes, the idea of the Jew who is far too sensitive about anti-Semitism and is making it up where it does not exist. But the first one that made my jaw hit the floor was a 1987 decision in Simon v. Brimham Associates.* In Brimham, a Jewish man was being interviewed by an employment agency. The interviewer told the man that the employers for the job were Arab and that they would not hire any Jews. They asked the man what his religion was, and he instead walked out of interview. The court found no religious discrimination, because the interviewer did not "know" the man was Jewish and asked all of their interviewees what their religion was. Hence, there was no discrimination, even though the interviewer admitted that he did suspect that the man "might be a Jew" and even though the "religion" question could have served no legitimate purpose other than to effectuate the discrimination the interviewer admitted to in the interview itself. Mind-boggling.**
In any event, thus far the theme of Herman's book seems to be that if you're a Jew in English courts, you will lose, badly, and probably be humiliated in the process. Cheery!
* I should note, by way of caveat, that I have not read the decision myself (I'm working on obtaining a copy) and am no expert on English law, discrimination or otherwise. I am relying on Professor Herman's account, but she is a law professor and so there is no reason to think she is convoying the facts of the case or the opinion inaccurately. UPDATE: I've now read the opinion and Professor Herman was entirely accurate in her description. The decision is absolutely appalling.
** I'd say that in American law this would be an open-and-shut case, since the agency admitted to a "no Jews" policy for the position in question and that's direct evidence of discrimination. But then I remembered that I'm perpetually underestimating the capacity of American courts to avoid making discrimination findings, so I'll back off the conclusion.
Some of these cases feel a bit archaic -- early 20th century remarks that are so obvious in the construction of Jews are dirty and untrustworthy foreigners. Herman opens with a 1922 insurance case where a policy was held to be validly canceled because the policyholder had not provided his birth name (upon moving to England at age 12, "Euda Gedale" changed his name to "Harry Horne") or revealed that he was born in Romania. This was held to be a material fact that might have legitimately affected the insurance company's decision to issue the policy. Lest we even preserve a modicum of neutrality, the judge hastened to clarify that not every occasion where such facts (national origin, birth name) would they be material -- but in this case, with these facts (Jew, from Eastern Europe), they certainly were. Quoting the court:
One can easily think of cases in which [foreign origin] could not affect the mind of a reasonable underwriter. The assured might have come here from a state where the business and social habits, the training and education that a child or young person received, and the view taken as to the observance of legal and other obligations might be notoriously exacting, the same as those prevailing here . . . . Each case must depend upon its own circumstances. The circumstances here are that the plaintiff came from Eastern Europe . . . . It is impossible to say that matters such as nationality, caste and early domocil cannot be of importance in judging as to the risk that underwriters run . . . . To say that is to say that there are no racial differences, no national differences as regards to training and education and the other matters I have mentioned. I say nothing, of course, against the national characteristics of the race to which the plaintiff belongs." (quoted in Herman at 34)Of course you don't.
Other cases hit upon one of my favorite themes, the idea of the Jew who is far too sensitive about anti-Semitism and is making it up where it does not exist. But the first one that made my jaw hit the floor was a 1987 decision in Simon v. Brimham Associates.* In Brimham, a Jewish man was being interviewed by an employment agency. The interviewer told the man that the employers for the job were Arab and that they would not hire any Jews. They asked the man what his religion was, and he instead walked out of interview. The court found no religious discrimination, because the interviewer did not "know" the man was Jewish and asked all of their interviewees what their religion was. Hence, there was no discrimination, even though the interviewer admitted that he did suspect that the man "might be a Jew" and even though the "religion" question could have served no legitimate purpose other than to effectuate the discrimination the interviewer admitted to in the interview itself. Mind-boggling.**
In any event, thus far the theme of Herman's book seems to be that if you're a Jew in English courts, you will lose, badly, and probably be humiliated in the process. Cheery!
* I should note, by way of caveat, that I have not read the decision myself (I'm working on obtaining a copy) and am no expert on English law, discrimination or otherwise. I am relying on Professor Herman's account, but she is a law professor and so there is no reason to think she is convoying the facts of the case or the opinion inaccurately. UPDATE: I've now read the opinion and Professor Herman was entirely accurate in her description. The decision is absolutely appalling.
** I'd say that in American law this would be an open-and-shut case, since the agency admitted to a "no Jews" policy for the position in question and that's direct evidence of discrimination. But then I remembered that I'm perpetually underestimating the capacity of American courts to avoid making discrimination findings, so I'll back off the conclusion.
W.E.B. Du Bois and Albert Einstein
Check out this neat bit of correspondence between W.E.B. Du Bois and Albert Einstein. Du Bois was already familiar with Einstein's reputation (and, having studied in Berlin, was fluent in German), and asked if Einstein might write a short letter of support for The Crisis (house magazine of the NAACP). Einstein agreed, and Du Bois introduced his statement has follows:
The author, Albert Einstein, is a Jew of German nationality. He was born in Wurttemburg in 1879 and educated in Switzerland. He has been Professor of Physics at Zurich and Prague and is at present director of the Kaiser-Wilhelm Physical Institute at Berlin. He is a member of the Royal Prussian Academy of Science and of the British Royal Society. He received the Nobel Prize in 1921 and the Copley Medal in 1925.And here is what Einstein wrote:
Einstein is a genius in higher physics and ranks with Copernicus, Newton and Kepler. His famous theory of Relativity, advanced first in 1905, is revolutionizing our explanation of physical phenomenon and our conception of Motion, Time and Space.
But Professor Einstein is not a mere mathematical mind. He is a living being, sympathetic with all human advance. He is a brilliant advocate of disarmament and world Peace and he hates race prejudice because as a Jew he knows what it is. At our request, he has sent this word to THE CRISIS with “Ausgezeichneter Hochachtung” (“Distinguished respect”).
It seems to be a universal fact that minorities, especially when their Individuals are recognizable because of physical differences, are treated by majorities among whom they live as an inferior class. The tragic part of such a fate, however, lies not only in the automatically realized disadvantage suffered by these minorities in economic and social relations, but also in the fact that those who meet such treatment themselves for the most part acquiesce in the prejudiced estimate because of the suggestive influence of the majority, and come to regard people like themselves as inferior. This second and more important aspect of the evil can be met through closer union and conscious educational enlightenment among the minority, and so emancipation of the soul of the minority can be attained.Very cool.
The determined effort of the American Negroes in this direction deserves every recognition and assistance.
Albert Einstein
Sunday, January 04, 2015
The First Roundup of 2015
A new year, a new roundup. For whatever reason, a bunch of really interesting articles popped up today, and I just don't have time to give them all the attention they deserve.
* * *
Hadash (a joint Jewish-Arab party with Communist affiliations) has voted to join a unified Arab list, on the condition that the list include Jews and women (Hadash currently has four MKs, three Arab and one Jewish). Also of note is that former Israeli Knesset Speaker and Labor MK Avraham Burg appears to be considering a return to politics under Hadash's banner. He traveled to Hadash's conference on Shabbat because "because advancing solidarity between Jews and Arabs was 'a matter of life and death' that trumped the ban [on traveling during the Sabbath]."
A very good piece by Laurie Penny on the traumas faced by nerdy men growing up, and how they compare to those faced by nerdy women.
Brief reports to the contrary notwithstanding, Saudi Arabia denies that it will begin allowing Jews to work in the country. Israelis (and those with Israeli passport stamps) are barred from the country outright, Jews can (with some difficulty) obtain tourist visas.
The African Studies Association offers its first panel on African Jews (naturally, the first insight was that the term "African Jews" is too broad to do much useful work, but still).
Nothing too new for those in the know, but this short piece summarizing the empirical research on implicit racial bias may be useful for those looking for a quick-and-dirty introduction.
I am actually stunned by some of the findings in this poll of Israeli political attitudes. More Israeli Arabs have trust in their government than Israeli Jews (43% versus 37%). Strong majorities of both groups declare themselves to be proud to be Israeli (86% of Jews and 65% of Arabs). A bare majority of Israeli-Arabs say they trust the IDF (51%, the Israeli Supreme Court is the most trustworthy institution amongst Israeli Arabs at 60%).
* * *
Hadash (a joint Jewish-Arab party with Communist affiliations) has voted to join a unified Arab list, on the condition that the list include Jews and women (Hadash currently has four MKs, three Arab and one Jewish). Also of note is that former Israeli Knesset Speaker and Labor MK Avraham Burg appears to be considering a return to politics under Hadash's banner. He traveled to Hadash's conference on Shabbat because "because advancing solidarity between Jews and Arabs was 'a matter of life and death' that trumped the ban [on traveling during the Sabbath]."
A very good piece by Laurie Penny on the traumas faced by nerdy men growing up, and how they compare to those faced by nerdy women.
Brief reports to the contrary notwithstanding, Saudi Arabia denies that it will begin allowing Jews to work in the country. Israelis (and those with Israeli passport stamps) are barred from the country outright, Jews can (with some difficulty) obtain tourist visas.
The African Studies Association offers its first panel on African Jews (naturally, the first insight was that the term "African Jews" is too broad to do much useful work, but still).
Nothing too new for those in the know, but this short piece summarizing the empirical research on implicit racial bias may be useful for those looking for a quick-and-dirty introduction.
I am actually stunned by some of the findings in this poll of Israeli political attitudes. More Israeli Arabs have trust in their government than Israeli Jews (43% versus 37%). Strong majorities of both groups declare themselves to be proud to be Israeli (86% of Jews and 65% of Arabs). A bare majority of Israeli-Arabs say they trust the IDF (51%, the Israeli Supreme Court is the most trustworthy institution amongst Israeli Arabs at 60%).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
