Happy 4th of July!

Our closest friend in Berkeley is coming to our apartment for the traditional meal of hot dogs (probably other things too, but I care only about the hot dogs). So no real blogging today. I will say that having independence -- autonomy, sovereignty, the freedom to choose one's path as a people -- is a great gift. The United States is hardly unique in purchasing that gift at the expense of considerable pain and death, but nonetheless that does remain an indelible fact of our history. On the other hand, that is not and should not be the only fact of history either. It's up to each generation to justify the charge, by making this nation into something great.

Quote of the Day: What's in a Name?

From Aldous Huxley's Eyeless in Gaza (1936):

"What's in a name?" Anthony went on. "The answer is, practically everything, if the name's a good one. Freedom's a marvelous name. That's why you're so anxious to make use of it. You think that, if you call imprisonment true freedom, people will be attracted to the prison. And the worst of it is you're quite right."

Quoted in Charles Leslie Stevenson, Persuasive Definitions, 47 Mind 331, 335 (1938).

Hijacking History

Shorter Sean Hannity:

There once was a time when the Confederate Flag stood for something honorable, like treason in defense of slavery. But now it's been hijacked by racist white supremacists! In conclusion, Black people are the real racists, because of rap.

The Trump Card

As many of you know, there are a lot of people running for President on the Republican side. So many, that the first GOP presidential debate will not be able to feature them all. Only the top 10 candidates -- as measured by a composite of several national polls -- will make it in. So who's looking like they'll make that elite list? According to a recent CNN poll, the top 10 are (in order):

1. Jeb Bush
2. Donald Trump
3. Mike Huckabee
4(t). Ben Carson
4(t). Rand Paul
6(6). Marco Rubio
6(t). Scott Walker
8. Rick Perry
9(t). Chris Christie
9(t). Ted Cruz
9(t). Rick Santorum

On the outside looking in (but still within striking distance of the bottom tier) are Carly Fiorina, Bobby Jindal, and John Kasich.

Personally, I just adore learning that Donald Trump has 4x the support of Ted Cruz. Live by the crazy sword, die by the crazy sword. And how humiliating must it be for Bobby Jindal that he can't make even make it onto the big stage but Ben Carson can?

Oh, it's going to be a fun primary, I can tell.

Obergefell Solidifies the Nascent Alliance Between Obama and the Boko Haram! I am not a Crank!

I stated a few days ago my belief that Obergefell will be a Lawrence and not a Roe. By that I mean that I believe Obergefell effectively signals the end of gay marriage being a significant site of social controversy in the United States -- we will see a few months of sputtered opposition (ranging in tone from "impotent fury" to "half-hearted identity performance"), and then it will just be accepted.

But we still have time to enjoy the death rattles. Check, for example, the Federalist's 15-point argument against gay marriage. There are a lot of lovely entries: Gay marriage leads to human trafficking, gay marriage leads to licensing parents, gay marriage "promises a monolithic society of conformity" (what?), but by far my favorite has to be lucky #13:

The United States is already punishing countries and threatening to cut off aid if they don’t accept the LGBT agenda. This is especially true of developing countries, in which the whole idea is foreign to over 95 percent of the population. According to a report by Rep. Steve Stockman, corroborated by a Pentagon official, the administration held back critical intelligence from Nigeria which would have aided in locating girls kidnapped by Boko Haram. The new National Security Strategy recently released by the White House makes clear that the LGBT agenda is a global agenda. And it looks a lot like cultural imperialism of the worst kind.

I hope we've all learned a valuable lesson about listening to Steve Stockman. Anyway, it's off to wave a Boko Haram ISIS dildo-covered flag at a pride parade!

Executions and Their Alternatives

This past March, I commented on the Eighth Circuit's en banc decision in Zink v. Lombardi, which rejected a challenge to Missouri's execution protocol. My particular focus was on a strange statement offered by the dissent which said that, if the death penalty is constitutional in the abstract, it follows that there must be some form of execution which is constitutional as well. This, to me, clearly did not hold -- it is perfectly plausible to say that while the Constitution has no objection to capital punishment as such, it still must be the case that any particular form of execution must satisfy the demands of the Eighth Amendment -- and perhaps none will do so.

Of course, leave it to the Supreme Court to take an obvious truth and turn it on its head. Today, in Glossip v. Gross, the Court rejected a constitutional challenge to Oklahoma's lethal injection procedure. In doing so, it made one fateful and indefensible holding: the Court decided that a prisoner cannot solely show that the method of execution is excruciatingly painful, barbarous, even tantamount to torture. He must show it is all of those things compared to a "known and available alternative method of execution." In other words, just like the Eighth Circuit, the Supreme Court declares that there must be a legal form of execution (not just in theory, but "known and available" to the executing state). And as a consequence, the baseline for "cruel and unusual punishment" rests against the characteristics of the next-best alternative. If, as it turns out, all the methods seem to be brutal and inhumane in their application -- well, the Supreme Court just legalized torture.

There is irony here. For all of Justice Scalia's bleating in King v. Burwell about how the Supreme Court "is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites," that complaint would be far more appropriate if leveled here. The whole reason this "known and available alternatives" argument was an issue was because social movement actors have made it exceptionally difficult for states to access most varieties of execution drugs. If social circumstances dictate that otherwise lawful executions can't be carried out in a fashion concordant with constitutional demands, that would seem to be that (I explored a far more ambitious version of this hypothetical in my "perfect poison" story). But of course, that didn't satisfy the author of the Glossip opinion -- who complained at oral argument that this would represent a capitulation to the death penalty opponents' "guerrilla war" against capital punishment. So the doctrine stands in all of its cruel and unadorned glory: executions must be allowed. If that means subjecting human beings to "the chemical equivalent of being burned at the stake,"* so be it.

Seventy Years Later

Six million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust. It's easy to imagine just how horrific that was at the time. People also can understand how it might have had effects in the immediate aftermath. But it is hard to process just how extensive the impact really was. So maybe this headline gives a clue: Global Jewish Population Nears Pre-Holocaust Level.

Seventy years later, we're almost back to where we were before Hitler's rise. Almost. Not there yet. That's how destructive the Holocaust was to the Jewish people.

History Will Be Heard

It's an interesting fact about history that nobody cares about process. If, say, the Constitution supplanted the Articles of Confederation while completely ignoring the latter's provision that it could only be amended via unanimous consent, that fact is lost on pretty much everyone. Likewise the "ratification" of the Reconstruction Amendments by southern states -- done at gunpoint following the civil war -- or for that matter the technical question about whether states had a right to secede from the union in the first place. There were many reputable legalistic critics of Brown v. Board when it came down in 1954, but today the importance of abolishing legal segregation completely overshadows any question over whether the decision was "technically" correct. This isn't to say that results are all that matters -- it is a good thing that we pay attention to process. We do care about it, and we're right to care about it. But it is a concern that fades very quickly once the decision has been made. For all the energy it takes up at the time, attention to process is not something that makes it into our historical memories.

It's interesting to think about this in terms of today's 5-4 decision striking down gay marriage bans. The dissenters -- Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito -- all have perfectly cohesive legalistic arguments on their side (though I'm ultimately not persuaded by any of them). But I am curious how they think history will view them. After the Court struck down parts of the Defense of Marriage Act, the Onion declared "Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito Suddenly Realize They Will Be Villains In Oscar-Winning Movie One Day." That's almost certainly true. Obergefell, I predict, will be a Lawrence and not a Roe. Public opposition to same-sex marriage will rapidly disappear, and in another generation this decision will be seen as an obvious forward step for the cause of justice; the dissenters clearly retrograde and in the wrong. And I think each of the dissenters know that, and thus know that history will not treat them kindly. They are staring history down.

I say this neither as a form of condemnation nor laudation. It's just an interesting question. Is that a conscious choice? Are they okay with the sacrifice? What is it that motivates them to make it, knowing that there is no vindication waiting for them at the end? It is one thing, after all, to stand against society secure in the knowledge that "history will be heard." It is another to do so while knowing that history, too, will pile on yet further; consigning even the exculpatory reasons for your dissent to obscurity and irrelevancy.

The GOP's Helpy Selfie

My old debate friend turned Republican pollster rising star Kristen Soltis Anderson has a new book out: The Selfie Vote: Where Millennials Are Leading America (and How Republicans Can Keep Up). Soltis' speciality as a pollster is trying to connect the GOP with younger voters (Soltis is only a few years older than me), and this looks to be her book-length manifesto on the subject. I haven't read it, but according to her Facebook I can get a decent idea of her proposals from this review. And if that's anything to judge by (and of course, the standard disclaimer here is that some or all of these objections may be addressed in the book itself), the GOP may have problems in the coming years.

It would be unfair to Kristen to say that her proposals for attracting millennial votes is for the GOP to become more liberal. Most of the issues she identifies have unclear or mixed ideological valences (gay marriage is the notable and conceded exception). The problem, though, is that in many of the cases Anderson identifies it is far from certain that Republicans will be more likely to jump aboard her policy prescriptions than Democrats. Many of them, as the reviewer notes, "feel like sensible ideas that many politicians, not just Republicans, can get behind." That's a problem, since presumably to win over currently left-leaning voters they need to differentiate themselves from Democrats. For example, Soltis cites pervasive overregulation as an area where Republicans can win the allegiance of urban voters. A good example might be the recent Texas bill which removes licensing requirements for traditional African hairbraiders. That law was shepherded through the legislature by a Republican and signed by a Republican Governor. But it also passed the Texas House unanimously -- it doesn't differentiate Republicans and Democrats. Matt Yglesias, for example, has long made the progressive case for reducing licensing requirements as an anti-poverty measure. There's a perfectly cohesive conservative rationale for adopting Soltis' proposal here, but then, that's a perfectly cohesive liberal one too.

The other problem I see relates to the cultural bonds that, under my understanding of political psychology, do far more to channel our policy opinions than does any sort of comprehensive abstract political theory. Far more than any unified worldview, being liberal or conservative is often about liking certain types of people (and favoring laws which aid them) and disliking other types of people (and trying to contain or suppress them). For example, conservatives like farmers ("backbone of America"), rural and white suburban/exurban residents ("real Americans"), gun owners ("patriots"), and business owners ("captains of industry"). They dislike racial minorities ("the real racists"), immigrants ("taking our jobs!"), urban dwellers ("latte-sipping elitists"), and the poor ("takers"). Liberals run close to the reverse: they like racial minorities ("heirs to MLK"), immigrants ("pursuing the American dream"), urban dwellers ("urbane, sophisticated"), and the poor ("hard-working Americans"). They dislike rural folk ("hicks"), gun owners ("NRA nuts"), and big business owners ("robber barons"). If we take a topic like "deregulation", it isn't really the case that Republicans favor it and Democrats oppose it. Republicans are happy to regulate the hell out of food stamps, for example. Democrats favor other sorts of regulations (those which fall primarily on the heads of big businesses or gun owners). Ditto government intervention in the economy - conservatives are perfectly happy to do so to give preference to income earned through capital gains versus that earned through labor, or to subsidize corporations that they have favorable feelings towards.

The problem for Kristen's analysis is that these cultural affinities (or disaffinities) seem to run in the wrong direction for many of her proposals. I think Republicans can absolutely get behind Uber, but what are their feelings towards increased mass transit? There's a visceral aversion there, that really isn't accounted for based on policy. Likewise for going "soft on crime", particularly when tho community in question consists of poorer African-Americans. It's not that they can't adopt these positions, it just will require a lot more cognitive effort than I think it would take for liberals (who are more predisposed to favor these policies).

Basically, if I were a liberal strategist seeking to counter Kristen's book, my advice would be simple: don't be an idiot. You can try to regulate Uber's employment practices (urban folk like Subway and Target too, but we like them to pay their workers respectable wages), but don't ban it outright. Be attentive to the changing tides on crime and be willing to decriminalize low-level drug offenses and reduce overpolicing and "war on the poor" policies. Invest in walkable urban areas and mass transit options. These are all doable objectives; there is no reason why Democrats should ever find themselves out-flanked by Republicans on these issues.

Now to be sure, I hope that Republicans take Kristen's advice -- not because it is bad advice, but because most of her ideas sound like good ideas that will make America better, and I'd rather more people support them rather than fewer. But as a strategy for winning over millennials, I'm not convinced -- not because they're bad ideas, but because they're ideas that won't make the GOP a distinctively better choice than the Democratic party.

Van Hollen and Edwards Go To Baltimore

With the retirement of longtime legend Barbara Mikulski (D), Maryland is facing a true rarity: a competitive Senate race. Well, competitive on the Democratic primary side, and right now it pits Montgomery County-based Rep. Chris Van Hollen against her Prince George's County counterpart Rep. Donna Edwards. Since both represent the DC suburbs, both are looking to reach out into the other big MD Democratic hotspot -- Baltimore (incidentally, the elephant in the room for this race continues to be whether Baltimore-area Rep. Elijah Cummings will jump in. But so far it looks like the answer will be no). But reports seem to be that Van Hollen is making more inroads.

This doesn't really surprise me. Chris Van Hollen is an extraordinary campaigner -- he came to office with an upset win over a Kennedy in a Democratic primary, followed by knocking off a popular 8-term Republican incumbent in a GOP wave year (2002). Edwards, for her part, rose to prominence by primarying out ex-Rep. Albert Wynn -- which, while not nothing, is less impressive given that Wynn was basically an uninspired party boss type and way out of line with the views of his very liberal district. Since then, Edwards has maintained a relatively prickly relationship with a lot of her constituents and various powers-that-be. Van Hollen, by contrast, is well-liked amongst his colleagues and has experience and connections from his successful tenure as head of the DCCC.

Edwards' main strategy has been to present herself as the progressive hero in the race. But while her lefty-bona fides are strong, Van Hollen is certainly no blue dog either, and I think it will be tough to substantially outflank him from the left. Given that, and given Van Hollen's superior skills as a politician and fundraiser, I think that he'll be the decided favorite to win the primary.

Also, while we're on the subject of Maryland, best wishes to Gov. Larry Hogan (R), who was recently diagnosed with an advanced and aggressive form of cancer. Here's hoping for a speedy recovery.

Onward to France!

A Spanish town whose name translates to "Camp Kill Jews" has elected to make a change.

Instead, the town’s new name, Castrillo Mota de Judios, translates to “Jews’ Hill Camp,” which was actually the town’s old name before it was changed in 1627 to “Camp Kill Jews.”

I have to say I appreciate the history behind this. Also "Jews' Hill Camp" sounds like a location I'd find in Skyrim.

With momentum now on our side, perhaps we can persuade the French hamlet of "Death to Jews" to change its name as well.

The JVP's Untenable Position

I must say, I find this twitter conversation between a (probably*) non-Jewish anti-Zionist and a Jewish Voice for Peace supporter darkly amusing. Basically, the non-Jew is unhappy with the JVP's decision to disassociate from Alison Weir (incidentally, JVP has finally released a public statement to this effect). His Jewish JVP-affiliated interlocutor protests that "JVP is making huge progress in changing the conversation and making it OK to criticize Zionism." The non-Jew, though, sees the Weir disavowal as part of a larger pattern of "gatekeeping, pulling the rug from under people, turning priorities to suit Jewish interests..." To this, the Jewish participant lamely replies that he "understand[s]" why JVP now refuses to work with Weir and that "I've met many Jews in JVP. None of them have some ulterior motive" (as opposed to other Jews?).

What makes this conversation amusing is that it shows the fundamentally untenable position the JVP finds itself in whenever it disagrees with its non-Jewish ideological cohorts. Like most minority organizations vis-a-vis surrounding majority actors, the JVP as a Jewish group is generally accepted by its non-Jewish "allies" only as far as it remains in agreement with them, and no further. This, in itself, does not distinguish them from any other Jewish organization, whose non-Jewish friends also turn with a vengeance whenever the Jewish parties suggest that their behavior may be inappropriate.

Now, the typical move for any minority organization in this position is to argue for a degree of deference or at least tolerance for the decisions of the minority group as part of a commitment to pluralism and respect for group autonomy. Anybody, after all, can like a group when it agrees with you -- the true test is what happens when the group wants to go a different route or offers a dissident voice. And these concerns are only amplified when the subject is oppressive conduct specifically directed at the group in question. Ideally, a true ally would seriously and charitably consider the possibility that their position is inconsistent with their proffered egalitarian commitments, including making a due accounting for the possibility of implicit and structural biases which may initially make such a conclusion seem preposterous or outrageous. After all -- to return yet again to the Christine Littleton well -- equal treatment of minorities starts "with the very radical act of taking [us] seriously, believing that what we say about ourselves and our experience is important and valid, even when (or perhaps especially when) it has little or no relationship to what has been or is being said about us."

But the JVP can't make that argument. It can't make it because, of course, demanding as a general principle that people take seriously Jewish political appraisals and accord them due consideration as part of our commitment to pluralism and autonomy means demanding as a general principle that people treat Zionism that way, because most Jews are Zionist. The last thing the JVP wants -- or is in any position to credibly assert given that they routinely argue that mainstream Jewish institutions are untrustworthy, opportunistic, paranoid or delusional -- is to promote the sentiment that we should believe "what [Jews] say about ourselves and our experience is important and valid, even when (or perhaps especially when) it has little or no relationship to what has been or is being said about us."

That avenue being closed off, the JVP must instead make a plea for special treatment. They're the good Jews -- those rare and special few who should be exempted from the (wholly reasonable and salutary) general rule that Jews are generally irrational, delusional, and/or sociopathic. In effect, this is an appeal to "respectability politics". The JVP cites its long history as not just Israel-critics but also (to quote their statement) a group which "know[s] full well that the Israel lobby uses false and misleading accusations of anti-Semitism to silence critics of Israeli policies" and which has "called out that tactic time and time again and stood in defense of those who have been wrongly maligned with this accusation", and demands that it be rewarded for its good behavior.

In their defense, it's understandable why the JVP might expect to receive such special dispensation. The folks they are appealing to often do trot them out as being the rare Jews you can trust; indeed, their status as Jews-who-criticize-other-Jews gives them superstanding and enhanced credibility. But superstanding is a fickle thing -- it lasts only as long as the critic remains critical. Superstanding only applies as against the JVP's fellow Jews; it does not come with any general grant of authority or deference. It is unsurprising that once the JVP tried to draw upon the "credibility" they earned as ideological fellow-travelers to take a position not favored by their non-Jewish allies, they'd find that the well of goodwill suddenly went dry. Superstanding isn't a signal of egalitarian attitudes, its simply the nod of approval when Jews behave in accordance to non-Jewish wishes. When push comes to shove -- that is, when we return to the key case of differentiation and dissent -- there remains no room for Jews to step out of line. Which is why I argued that respectability politics is a doomed strategy.

Because they fail to actually acknowledge anti-Semitism as a serious and systematic problem -- indeed, because they encourage it insofar as they promote the general sentiment that Jews normally can't be trusted -- the JVP falls into a trap of its own devise. It cannot actually advocate against epistemic anti-Semitism because that would require giving credence to the bulk of the Jewish community which adopts positions they wish to see delegitimized. But having helped normalize Jewish status as epistemically unreliable, they find their pleas for a special exception (in recognition of their respectable selves) will fall on deaf ears. It turns out that, in actuality, "good behavior" doesn't in any way diminish the perceived entitlement non-Jews have to dictate Jewish behavior.

That's all I have to say about the JVP. The only thing I want to address before closing is the conclusion some right-wingers draw from this analysis: that because efforts to end the occupation and craft a solution that respects the democratic and self-determination rights of Jews and Palestinians alike won't end anti-Semitism, we shouldn't do it. If the JVP's "respectability politics" position is delusional, then this retort is just pathetic. It snivels that Jews shouldn't make decisions of our own accord, but solely based on what reaction it draws from others. This is nonsense, and peculiarly at odds with the entire point of Zionism as a project of Jewish self-determination -- the historically near-unprecedented ability of Jews to make decisions about ourselves for our own reasons, rather than with an eye towards averting the next massacre.

I don't support Palestinian equality and national aspirations because I think being nice to Palestinians will make people like Jews more. I do it because, well, the whole point of being an autonomous agent is that we get to make the choices, and I want to choose to do the right thing. People who say that we can't create a Palestinian state because of this or that thing Palestinians do or refuse to do drive me nuts: what's the point of Zionism if Jews are going to sit on their hands and complain while waiting for someone else give us permission to make a decision? .... As the black nationalist saying goes: "do for self."

The JVP's position is untenable because it can neither unequivocally oppose anti-Semitism (by demanding that Jewish voices -- all Jewish voices -- be given credence when speaking on Jewish experience) nor can it exempt itself from the system of anti-Semitism (discrediting Jewish perspectives where they differ from those of non-Jews) it tacitly endorses. But for the rest of us, the fact that "criticizing Israel" won't end anti-Semitism is not a relevant objection. We should pursue a just solution for Jews and Palestinians not because of what we expect to gain from it out of others. We should do it for self.

* "Probably" because at one point he asks "What makes you assume I have no Jewish heritage?" But elsewhere he refers to Jews as an external group (literally invoking "I have Jewish friends") and he never actually says he is Jewish. So the whole bit just screams "troll".

Terrorist Strike at Charleston Church

As you all are no doubt aware, yesterday a young white supremacist entered an African-American Church in Charleston, South Carolina and opened fire, killing nine people. The massacre has been labeled a "hate crime". I have little to add to that except that I do not see the distinction between hate crimes and terrorism, and so I prefer to use the latter appellation. When people engage in acts of violence as a political expression of hatred towards the targeted group -- regardless of whether that group is "Americans" or "Jews" or "Muslims" or "Blacks" -- we call them terrorists. And we should.

Things People Blame the Jews For, Volume XXI: Missing Shoes

We've all been there. You're going through the laundry and a sock just seems to have vanished. Or your jacket -- which you know you brought home! -- isn't on its hanger. Or your favorite shirt is nowhere to be found. It's a part of life. It's also part of a grand Zionist conspiracy. From the Facebook page of Asghar Bukhari, founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK:

ARE ZIONISTS TRYING TO INTIMIDATE ME: Someone came into my home yesterday, while I was asleep. I don't know how they got in, but they didn't break in - the only thing they took was a single shoe - they left one shoe behind to let me know someone had been there.

Of course I can't prove anythng and that's part of the intimidation. The game is simple - to make me feel vulnerable in ym own home. It's Psychological. Neither can I do much about it.

It is not the first time I have heard this happening. I have had another Muslim leader call me a year or so ago, in tears - she told me they had been coming into her house and re-arranging things - just to let her know they had been there.

There is one good thing that comes out of all oppression however - for those who are smart from my misfortune, others can learn how they operate. Share this widely, for if it is happening to me, I am sure it is happening to many, many others who have not exposed it.

I am delighted to do my part to share this widely. The royalty-shoe I am entitled to as a Member of the Tribe has not been forthcoming, so what good does it do me to keep the secret any longer?

Methodist Official Calls For Boycott of Holocaust Memorials (Among Other Things)

Methodists, it seems, have a problem with the Holocaust. Not so much with the event itself, but rather with all the trouble it gives to the Palestinian cause. For example, in 2011 I wrote about a Methodist Church report which complained that "Peace groups in Israel have to work against this backdrop", the "backdrop" being Yad Vashem. The old saying is that "the Germans will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz", apparently the Methodists also would like an apology from the masses of dead Jews for inconveniences caused.

Yet I think that account pales in comparison to this piece by Janet Lahr Lewis, the Methodist Church's Advocacy Coordinator for the Middle East. You see, Lewis thinks that everybody needs to stop memorializing the Holocaust (via):

Don't participate in Holocaust Remembrance Day without participating in Al Nakba Remembrance Day. Don't visit a Holocaust museum until there is one built to remember the other holocausts in the world: the on-going Palestinian holocaust, the Rwandan, the Native American, the Cambodian, the Armenian ... You could be waiting a long time!

How lovely. In fairness to her, I'm not exactly keen on Lewis visiting a Holocaust memorial either -- primarily because I'd worry she'd use it as a how-to guide.

I'm sure that it comes to the surprise of no one that Holocaust memorials aren't the only Jewish things Lewis thinks we should boycott. Even better is her citation to Alison Weir's If American's Knew organization in support. It's like the last few days are all just coming together.

As is always the case in circumstances like these, I am left to marvel at why the Christian community thinks it has any thing useful to say on this subject. What makes it think it has reliable instincts? What, as I asked before, "makes Christian organizations think we will read such a message and think 'by golly, they must be right, because if there's one group I trust to issue accurate assessments about moral questions in general and Jewish experience in particular, it's institutional Christianity!'" And forget about me: what makes Christians think that about themselves? What bizarre voice in their head is telling them "this is something you'd be good at. Your thoughts on this subject are good thoughts, and most certainly are not infected by an unbroken multi-millenia streak of anti-Semitism that literally laid the foundation for the entire worldview you're drawing from"?

It boggles the mind. It really, really does.

Things People Blame the Jews For, Volume XX: Hitting for the Cycle

Unfortunately, this post is not about Jews being literally "blamed" for hitting for the cycle (though Ian Kinsler did do it in 2009 while playing for the Rangers). Rather, this post is about a particular entry in the "blame the Jews" corpus by one Mark Dankof. Dankof weighed in in defense of Alison Weir after the latter was condemned by by none other than Jewish Voice for Peace. His argument was, shall we say, sprawling, but it included this gem:

The Zionist Alliance with the Frankfurt School and the LGBT Agenda: Destroying the Christian West, Russia, and the Islamic World With Cancer.

I ... wow. That just hits every note. Left-wing academic movements? Check. Sex? Check. Cancer? Check. And elsewhere in the article we get one of my favorite chestnuts -- Pearl Harbor! It's all of your favorites packed into a convenient one-stop-shop of Jew-blaming.

Reading this really makes me want to update this blog's caption to read "Destroying the World with Cancer since 2004." And for the record, that block quote wasn't even from the main text of the article. It was a photo caption (the photo was a rainbow flag with a Star of David in the middle).

Must We Do This Every Time?`

I had really hoped that "frivolous conspiracy theories over citizenship" segment of American presidential races would be a Barack Obama one-off. I should have known that was too optimistic, especially with a Jew making waves. Apparently, an NPR host was convinced that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has dual American and Israeli citizenship:

Diane Rehm: Senator, you have dual citizenship with Israel.

Bernie Sanders: Well, no I do not have dual citizenship with Israel. I'm an American. I don't know where that question came from. I am an American citizen, and I have visited Israel on a couple of occasions. No, I'm an American citizen, period.

[Diane] Rehm: I understand from a list we have gotten that you were on that list.

Sanders: No.

Rehm: Forgive me if that is—

Sanders: That's some of the nonsense that goes on in the internet. But that is absolutely not true.

Rehm: Interesting. Are there members of Congress who do have dual citizenship or is that part of the fable?

Sanders: I honestly don't know but I have read that on the internet. You know, my dad came to this country from Poland at the age of 17 without a nickel in his pocket. He loved this country. I am, you know, I got offended a little bit by that comment, and I know it's been on the internet. I am obviously an American citizen and I do not have any dual citizenship.

Note how she just asserts it as an established fact (not "there are rumors on the internet" but "you have dual citizenship"). There are indeed "lists" on the internet that claim Sanders has dual-citizenship, but they are the usual anti-Semitic crackpottery. Rehm, though, seems genuinely surprised that Sanders is solely an American citizen -- and her follow-ups (asking whether claims that other American legislators are dual citizens is "part of the fable") evince skepticism. I can't wait to hear NPR comment on where this garbage came from.

A Tribe's Sovereign Authority To Exploit Workers

One of my favorite cases to teach is Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978). Martinez involved an ordinance by the Santa Clara Pueblo tribe which granted tribal membership to the children of men -- but not women -- who married out of the tribe. A suit challenging the ordinance was brought by a a Santa Clara Pueblo woman married to a Navajo man and their daughter, who would not be deemed a citizen of the Santa Clara Pueblo nation under the ordinance. It's fun to teach because it pits two deeply-held liberal commitments -- gender equality and political autonomy for indigenous communities -- against one another. Even Catherine MacKinnon wrote that she found the case "difficult" (adding "and I don't usually find cases difficult."). The law seems manifestly misogynist, but it is difficult to think of a more fundamental element of tribal sovereignty than the authority to determine who qualifies as a member of the tribe -- and in any event, respecting tribal autonomy means nothing if it doesn't include allowing them to do things you don't like. The case never fails to make my students squirm (the Court, for its part, held that the suit could not be maintained).

But Santa Clara Pueblo is nearing 40 years old. Maybe it's time for some fresh blood. And in today comes the Sixth Circuit in NLRB v. Little River Band of Ottawa Indians. The case involves a challenge to a tribal ordinance governing labor and employment rules, which primarily impact the tribe's multi-million dollar casino (most of whose employees and customers are non-tribal members, but whose revenue makes up the lion's share of the tribe's budget). From how it is described in the court opinion, the ordinance at issue would make Scott Walker blush:

[The ordinance] grants to the Band the authority to determine the terms and conditions under which collective bargaining may or may not occur; prohibits strikes, work stoppage, or slowdown by the Band’s employees and, specifically, by casino employees; prohibits the encouragement and support by labor organizations of employee strikes; prohibits any strike, picketing, boycott, or any other action by a labor organization to induce the Band to enter into an agreement; subjects labor organizations and employees to civil penalties for strike activity; subjects employees to suspension or termination for strike activity; subjects labor organizations to decertification for strike activity; subjects labor organizations to a ban on entry to tribal lands for strike activity; and requires labor organizations doing business within the jurisdiction of the Band to apply for and obtain a license. [It] also precludes collective bargaining over the Band’s decisions to hire, lay off, recall, or reorganize the duties of its employees; precludes collective bargaining over any subjects that conflict with the Band’s tribal laws; exempts the Band from the duty to bargain in good faith over the terms and conditions under which the Band’s employees may be tested for alcohol and drug use; limits the duration of collective bargaining agreements to three years or less; provides that decisions by the Band, through its Tribal Court, over disputes involving the duty to bargain in good faith or alleged conflicts between a collective-bargaining agreement and tribal laws shall be final and not subject to appeal; and limits the period of time during which employees may file a deauthorization petition. Further, [it] prohibits the requirement of membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment. It also prohibits the deduction of union dues, fees, or assessments from the wages of employees unless the employee has presented, and the Band has received, a signed authorization of such deduction. [It] prohibits Band employers, such as the casino, from giving testimony or producing documents in response to requests or subpoenas issued by non-tribal authorities engaged in investigations or proceedings on behalf of current or former employees, when such employees have failed to exhaust their remedies under the [tribal ordinance].

Yowzers. Labor groups complained, alleging the ordinance was unlawful under the federal National Labor Relations Act. And they're almost certainly right ... if the NLRA applies to the tribe -- a question that the statute is silent on. That was the question before the Sixth Circuit, and in a 2-1 decision the court agreed with the National Labor Relations Board that the statute did apply as against the tribe.

Having read the opinions though, I'm inclined to think that the dissent got the better of it. This law seems repulsive to me, and its enactment is enough to convince me that the NLRA should apply to tribes. But the statute is silent on that question, and the real question is what we should infer from that silence. The majority opinion draws the sweeping conclusion that, subject to a few exceptions, when Congress crafts a generally-applicable law we should assume that they intended to divest tribes of their sovereignty over that area. This is a 180 to how I understand tribal sovereignty, which is that we assume that tribes maintain most if not all of their sovereign powers unless Congress takes some specific step to demonstrate it intends to strip that sovereignty away. Here, there is no indication that Congress thought it was applying the NLRA to Indian tribes, and the extraordinarily belated attempt by the NLRB to assert such authority makes that inference even more dubious as a matter of congressional intent.

Incidentally, for all you folks who think all contested legal questions boil down to politics, the panel consisted of -- you guessed it -- two Republicans and one Democrat. What you might not have guessed is that it was the Republicans who split: George W. Bush appointee Julia Smith Gibbons wrote the opinion, joined by Carter appointee Gilbert Stroud Merritt. The dissent was authored by fellow GWB appointee David McKeague.

The case may feel like a good outcome, but I think it creates a bad rule. Respect for tribal sovereignty and autonomy means our default should be to preserve their sovereign authority unless Congress makes evident its intent to do the contrary. Ordinances like this certainly heighten the appeal of "the contrary" in the labor law context. But ultimately, that's a decision for Congress to make. Allowing Courts to make it for them, and in the process make tribal sovereignty the exception rather than the rule, would have devastating consequences for the autonomy and independence of Indian tribes and runs counter to the basic principle of Indian sovereignty.

Polarized Black Attitudes Towards Jews

Today I came across a short but very interesting study (unfortunately pay-walled) exploring the difference between White and black attitudes towards Jews. The thrust of it was that American Blacks are not more anti-Semitic than White people, they're just more polarized. Specifically, there are unique social threads pulling Black persons in both philo-Semitic directions (e.g., views of Jews as fellow victims or as liberal allies) and anti-Semitic directions (e.g., economic tensions or nationalistic scapegoating). The result is that while in the aggregate Black and White attitudes towards Jews are similar, Black views are more likely to be either strongly favorable or strongly unfavorable (whereas Whites tend to cluster in the middle).

The authors tested this along two dimensions: residential social distance (non-Jewish respondents asked if they would like to live in a neighborhood where the majority of residents were Jewish), and marital social distance (non-Jewish respondents asked if they would approve or disapprove of a close relative marrying a Jew). For both questions, Whites and Blacks in the aggregate had basically similar attitudes. But Black respondents were more likely to cluster at the poles (either strongly approving or strongly disapproving).

I've written several times on this blog against the notion that the Black community is particularly prone to anti-Semitism (which is not to say that there are no anti-Semitic Black people). This study, in addition to reinforcing that sentiment, also perhaps helps explain why some people seem to think that the Black community is particularly problematic in the respect. Sharp expressions of negativity probably stand out and stick in the mind more than strong positive feelings; hence, it is likely that in terms of recollection the two poles don't "wash out" and is more available than the other.

The study citation is David Raden, American Blacks' and Whites' Preferred Social Distance from Jews, 138 J. Soc. Psych. 265 (1998).

Interviewing My Friends: Michelle Deeter

Michelle Deeter and I met at Carleton College, where she was a member of the class of 2009 and earned a degree in International Relations. At Carleton she was a member of the Exit 69 a capella group, wowing the campus with some truly killer pipes and singing the definitive version of “Put Your Records On”. After graduation she lived in China and later received a Masters in Translation and Interpreting from Newcastle University. She then became a professional Chinese translator. Michelle’s first translated book, Beijing, Beijing, was published this past March. She now lives in Manchester, England.

[See other entries in the series here]

Me: Let's start with the basic bio -- where were you born and raised?

Michelle:  I was born and raised in California. Neither of my parents are from California though, so we spent a lot of summer visiting my family in Indiana (on my dad's side) and my family in Germany (on my mom's side). I have one younger brother, and we get along really well. We played Legos as kids for hours on end.

Me: What was your Lego style of choice?

Michelle:  We had these flat tile type things that had green "grass" on the edges and streets, so you could put them in a loop or whatever and build a whole town. We liked to make restaurants and houses and stuff for the town.

Me:  I was about to ask "do they have Legos in Europe", but of course they do -- it's a Danish company, isn't it? Typical American chauvinism.

 Michelle:  Yeah they have Lego stores here like they have Disney stores in the U.S. I have been to both the Legoland in Billund and the one in Carlsbad, CA, I am proud to say.

 Me:  What about the one in Minneapolis?

Michelle:  I haven't been to that one, sadly. Have you?

Me:  Yes -- it was basically my first stop when I came out to Carleton. The Mall of America is a surprisingly fun place.

Michelle:  I would agree! And even though shopping can seem really shallow, a good friend of mine said you can learn a lot about a country by looking at how they shop. Especially supermarkets.

Me:  I've never shopped abroad, but I hear American supermarkets blow people's minds.

Michelle:  Yeah and I have reverse culture shock or something because they blow my minds now. So many different jams and jellies! So many different EVERYTHING.

Me:  So I've been doing some research in preparation for resuming the interview, and in particular, listening to your rendition of "Put Your Records On", which for me is the definitive version of the song. When did you get into singing?

Michelle:  I always loved singing but never did it competitively. When I was about nine or ten I sang with the school choir and I also went to German School on Saturdays where we had to sing too

Me:  When did you decide to join a Carleton a capella group? We're no St. Olaf [our neighboring school with a famous music program], but those are still pretty serious.

 Michelle:  My Dad bought me a CD of the Knightingales, and I thought that their a cappella was so amazing that I signed myself up for a few singing lessons and then just prayed that loving singing plus a background in piano would be enough to get me into one of the groups at Carleton.

Me:  What was it like to get a big solo performance?

Michelle:  Nerve wracking. I like blending in a cappella, so basically making my voice not noticeable. But it is kind of cool, I had so many supportive friends so when I had a solo in my freshman year. I think half of the front row was filled with my buddies eager to cheer me on. That makes it all worthwhile.

Me:  I remember watching you perform "Put Your Records On" and thinking "Man, for a tiny person she has some booming pipes."

Michelle:  Haha you must have mistaken me for Maia [Rodriguez]. I distinctly remember Aaron Kaufman telling me I had to sing as loud as I could and make sure that Maia didn't steal my song at the end. Although I guess when I'm excited I can get pretty loud.

That group [Exit 69] was pretty amazing--Aaron and Hannah [Button-Harrison] still do gigs, and David Lonoff had such a deep understanding of music theory.

My first year I just lived in awe of them and then I started contributing.

Me:  Now speaking of "tiny girl with the big pipes," I have to ask: Were you always the shortest girl in class?

Or was there a time in your life where you towered over your fellow first graders?

Michelle:  Always the shortest girl in class, definitely. I remember lining up by height for pictures and being right at the front.

Me:  At what point in your life did you realize "well, this is as high as I go?"

Michelle:  Pretty early. My mom made jokes that the doctor told us neither of her kids would be tall because both my dad and my mom are relatively short.

But I don't know I must have read a bunch of stories about tiny children being awesome (think Matilda) and mice being warriors (the Redwall series) so I never thought it was something to be bummed about.

Me:  It sounds like you were pretty well-travelled even as a kid. Was that normal in your neighborhood -- were folks pretty cosmopolitan, or were you the worldly and sophisticated one in class growing up?

Michelle:  Yeah I guess [it was pretty cosmopolitan]. I remember growing up with a lot of kids that spoke different languages at home--Chinese, Farsi, Korean--and that just seemed normal. I've always been proud of being half German. I think the Germans have great public transit and great environmental policies, so I am glad to be able to say I'm German.

Me:  I'm actually a quarter German myself ("Schraub"), though I don't have any family there anymore.

Michelle:  Have you visited any parts of Germany?

Me:  No. My grandparents were of the "never visit Germany, never buy a German car" generation of Jews. I don't think my parents were quite that dogmatic, but they had no interest in ever going. We did hit Denmark and Poland (among other places) in my one trip to Europe.

Michelle:  Oh I see. Well it's always there and you can visit by yourself whenever you feel like it. And I'm happy to play tour guide if I'm free.

Me:  I've heard nothing but good things about it from those who have visited, so I might take you up on that. I'm guessing you speak German, then? How many languages do you speak?

Michelle:  I speak English, Chinese, German and French. My Chinese is better than my German now because I use Chinese every day. My French is super rusty but I can watch a film and know what's happening most of the time. 

I definitely think languages follow the principle of "use it or lose it" so I have to work really hard to keep my Chinese up. But with the internet I can listen to Chinese radio, read a bunch of articles, or ask friends for help when I have questions.

Me:  I have an incredible admiration for people who can speak multiple languages -- I was a failed Spanish student in high school and a failed Hebrew student in college. When did you start learning French and Chinese (I assume you learned German from childhood)?

Michelle:  Yes I learned German at home, with my mom (and my dad, who speaks pretty amazing German considering he started in high school). My mom believed that it would be good for me to learn a language "from the textbook" instead of just getting language credit for German. She said if I chose French (instead of Spanish, the only other option at the time) she would let me go to France and stay with a family that she knew there. And that was enough for me to pick French!

It has come in handy a few times. I did an internship in Geneva, which is the French speaking part of Switzerland, and I could read all the signs and take yoga classes taught by a French instructor.

But now that I work using languages, I'm hyper aware of the actual proficiency you need to reach to use it in a business environment versus using it as a tourist. So I would never apply to a job in Paris, because I can't write a nice business email in French. 

Me:  When did you start learning Chinese?

Michelle:  I started at Carleton. The summer before I arrived at Carleton, my dad and I were looking at classes and I almost went with Japanese, just for a lark. But I thought that Chinese would be more useful (based on some advice given to me by someone working in the State Department) and then I fell in love after one lesson. It was a great beginner lesson taught by Mark Hansell, so who wouldn't want to learn Chinese after that?

Me:  Well, me, because I would fail at it miserably. But I'm glad it worked out for you! It's amazing that you're so proficient -- basically, a professional Chinese speaker -- starting so late in the game. The stereotype is that you should learn it at age 3 or whatever to really get it natural.

Michelle:  Yeah, and I understand where people get that idea. Apparently in Switzerland you're supposed to start learning how to ski when you're 3 otherwise you'll never get it right.

The reality is, is that apart from learning how to copy sounds, adults are really great learners compared to kids. They have a lot of experience, they can understand complex grammar and learn rules and exceptions to rules...and they can even tell a teacher exactly what is confusing them.

I guess for anybody who is thinking of studying languages or doesn't know what to do with their life, I highly recommend living abroad for a year and seeing what happens. It's more common in the UK and Australia (students take a gap year between high school and college) and it might result in a lot of fooling around but it might help someone realize their real passion.

So if you are desperate to get a perfect accent, you need to learn the language early. But if you want to master a language, all you need is to put in the time. That's my philosophy.

That being said, I get that some people feel like they can never learn a language no matter how hard they try. So it's not that everyone can follow the same formula for learning a language and then get the same result. I sometimes get really shy about my language abilities, because some people will say "I've been learning language x for ten years, and I can't speak it as well as you speak Chinese!"

It's hard to pinpoint why that person hasn't reached a certain level even though they really wanted it. So I give them three or four answers and hope that it makes them feel better.

Me:  I think you can be justly proud. I mean, you have a book out! Which is an excellent segue -- how did you get into the translation game?

Michelle:  Mostly through volunteering. I think translation is kind of like solving a puzzle, especially with Chinese because it uses a completely different writing system and grammar conventions and everything. So when I can create an English version that means just about the same thing, I get an immense feeling of achievement.

I'm motivated by a curiosity so I always take on new jobs that sound interesting. I did subtitling for a kung fu film last year, tried some patent translation (hardest thing of my life) and dabbled in some contract stuff as well. It's all rewarding in different ways.

Me:  So tell me about your book! What is it, what is it about, how did you come to be its translator?

Michelle:  The book [Beijing, Beijing] is semi-autobiographical, written by a guy who used to study medicine in Beijing and later became a consultant and finally became an author.

In a way he reminds me of the typical American freshman college student--likes to party, likes to eat as much food as possible for as cheap as possible, and can't get the right girl at the right time.

Yet there were all these things that are just quintessentially Chinese, from the snacks to the architecture to the special little idioms sprinkled everywhere. So when you read the book you feel like you're in China, but it's easy to relate to him or at least kind of know what he's going through.

Me:  I imagine one of the more difficult parts of translation is when you're dealing with idioms and other very culturally-specific points of knowledge. How do you approach getting those parts across to an Anglophone audience?

Michelle:  My basic approach was using my family and friends as guinea pigs. So I would sit and think about if a certain phrase or cultural phenomena would make sense to your average American reader, and then test it out on my family, and then tweak accordingly.

For example, there were all these place names, and for almost all of them I used pinyin, so you can't tell the meaning of the name but it's systematic. Google Maps does this for almost all of Beijing, so that meant that it was kind of a standard.

But then there are these special alleys in Beijing called hutong. They don't have them in Southern China, and they're quite special. The editor said I wasn't allowed to use footnotes (because it's fiction, you want to get swept away in the story!) so I had to start with alleys, or hutong in the first mention of it, and then hope that the reader remembered what a hutong  was for the rest of the book.

Character names are the hardest. All of the character names were nicknames or had some joke involved, and it's generally accepted that humor is hard to translate.

At the end of the day, I think my friend's advice was the most helpful: don't underestimate the reader, and don't over-explain for them. If they want more info they'll find it on Wikipedia.

Me:  Did you get to do a book launch party? Were there any fancy soirees?

Michelle:  Unfortunately no. The publisher is based in the US and they didn't have the money to fly me out. But in future that might happen with other books. Fingers crossed!

The other thing you  have to consider is that translated fiction doesn't normally get best-seller status. One exception is the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. But generally the translations serve a very tiny niche audience.

Me: [You went directly from Carleton to China, and then directly from China to England]. What brought you to England originally? I assume there are other masters programs in translation work?

Michelle:  Yeah I almost went to the Monterrey Institute in California, which would be close to my parents and very well regarded. Then Newcastle ended up being slightly cheaper and more interesting. Also the program is really highly regarded.

Although if I had gone to Monterrey I would have enjoyed more delicious Mexican food and taken advantage of a really good career center designed for translator types. Newcastle was not quite as helpful because they were busy helping undergraduates, finance people, law students, etc.

Ultimately I have no regrets, but it is one of those decisions where I went to a really odd place to learn just because I heard the teaching was top-notch. Just like Carleton!

Me:  Did you have any intention of staying in England long-haul?

Michelle:  I guess when I first applied I thought I would go straight back to China and work with better qualifications. At that point I had a Chinese boyfriend, and my mom seemed resigned to the fact that her daughter would live on the other side of the world

That all changed when I met Fred (my boyfriend) in Geneva. He's very international, likes languages, and is a great person to be with. So I thought it would be a good idea to change course completely and see what living in England was life, mostly to make sure our relationship stayed strong.

Basically I'm keeping my options open, and I am likely to stay in the UK for the next five to ten years. But I might move too.

Me:  What do you think childhood Michelle would say if she found out she would be a professional translator when she grew up?

Michelle:  I think she would be over the moon.

When I was a kid I said I wanted to do something "international" which doesn't really mean anything

But now that's exactly what I'm doing...living abroad, working with people from different countries, and using my language skills

The other way to put it, as my friend said is "I want to live in as many countries as I can before I settle down." So far I have three! And that feels pretty awesome.