Towards a Medicaid Policy With Teeth

A Washington Post story about a Maryland boy who died of a toothache has lit the latest fire under the liberal blogosphere. As it should--the idea that in the richest country in the world, anyone should die because they did not receive an $80 tooth extraction is abhorrent.

While dental issues may not always be life-and-death (though tell that to Twelve-year-old Deamonte Driver's family), it is a really important concern. The Plank quotes from an old New Yorker article showing how bad teeth is both one of the more common ailments of the poor in society, and one of the largest barriers towards any upward social mobility. Think of the entry-level jobs one would never get hired for if you had rotted teeth--basically, anything where you interact with customers or serve as a company's public face. It's an expression of class privilege where we view dental care as a vaguely burdensome luxury rather than a necessity for navigating American society.

But lest we focus on the meta too much, let us recall that this is not some tragic but unpreventable problem. It isn't even something that we vaguely say shouldn't happen in the "richest country in the world." This is a direct result of Medicaid cutbacks and bureaucratic mazes which--as we love to forget--have real effects on real people's lives that cause real people to get sick and die.

One thing that's been noted is that dental care for the poor has been a longtime crusade for "socialist Senator" Bernie Sanders (I-VT). The hope is that a story like this can generate enough momentum for him to get some allies on the subject, perhaps an otherwise rock-ribbed conservative who nonetheless feels that 12-year olds need not die from toothaches. I'm always optimistic that stories like this will move the hearts of normally apathetic rightwingers, and I'm always disappointed. The National Review is offended that the death of the rabble even got ink in a paper as august as the Washington Post, and also is more concerned about "unanswered questions" about the mother, than the fact that a 12-year old died due to a completely preventable illness. The first conservative post I saw on the article was even more of a doozy. Not only does it tragically yet predictably blame the mother for not shelling out the $80 for the procedure, it goes so far as to call for her prosecution as a child abuser. This is one of the more spectacularly arrogant and malicious things I've ever read. We're talking about a family that was in homeless shelters. Is $80 worth it even for poor families if it would prevent the death of your child? Of course (though that doesn't mean even that small amount is able to be scrounged up). But that's not how any rational person in their position would have perceived the issue. Now let's all raise our hands--how many of us, upon having a toothache, think that putting off going to the dentist is gambling with our lives? How many of us, if that $80 was money we needed to eat, wouldn't try to just deal with the pain? For that matter--the mother was bit distracted here--she was busy trying to get dental coverage for her other son, who had six bad teeth. Of course, eventually doctors became aware that this toothache had turned into a much bigger and more threatening problem. But by that point, the price tag had risen slightly from $80--to $250,000. Yes, obviously, this mother acted in a completely irrational and malignant manner, and we should call her a child abuser. Philosophical rationalization strikes again.

It's amazing to me how perfectly this verifies Melvin Lerner's "Just World" hypothesis and how it leads people to both tolerate and rationalize even naked injustice.

Jon and Kathleen Hanson's "The Blame Frame: Justifying (Racial) Injustice in America" [41 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 413 (2006)]....hit[s on]...what's known as the "just world" mindset. People want to believe that the world is just. As a result, "people crave justice and, consistent with that craving, actively work to eliminate injustice" (419). That's the good news. The bad news is that instead of actually eliminating the injustice itself, we simply redefine the questionable event so that it seems "just." Hanson and Hanson continue "[W]e often satisfy the craving [for justice] through troubling means: when alleviating innocent suffering is at all difficult or complex, people reconceive the victim as deserving the suffering by assigning negative characteristics to her" (id.).

A study by Melvin J. Lerner & Carolyn H. Simmons elucidates how this happens. Test subjects were asked to observe a "learner" who appeared to be subjected to painful shocks when he got an answer wrong. One group of subjects was given the option to move the learner to a different study where she'd receive positive reinforcement for right answer instead of being shocked for wrong ones. Most took the offer. The second group of subjects was given no such option, and could only watch as the learner was shocked again and again [Melvin J. Lerner & Carolyn H. Simmons, The Observer's Reaction to the "Innocent Victim": Compassion or Rejection?, 4 J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. 203 (1966)].

The subjects were then queried as to their views of the learner. The first group, which was presented with an easy option to rectify the injustice, tended to describe the learners as "likeable, innocent victims of shocks who deserved to be reassigned to a positive reinforcement environment" (Hanson & Hanson, at 19). Those who had no easy option to end the suffering, by contrast, tended to describe the victim in negative terms, as blameworthy and deserving of what happened to them.

Further studies showed just how "easy" the option has to be before we'll concede injustice--even such a difficult and onerous burden like pushing a button could be too much to demand of people in the pursuit of justice.

Whatever. I suspect by next week, everyone will have forgotten, and universal healthcare will go back to be the crazy, radical, communist idea that we've convinced ourselves it is when we don't want to accept our share of the blame for the unnecessary deaths of children.

Rosenberg Responds

I blogged a little while back on Indiana Professor Alvin Rosenfeld's short piece on the link between certain progressive Jews and anti-Semitism with regards to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It was a good piece--and one I think was significantly distorted when it hit the public eye.

Rosenfeld has written a follow-up concerning the reaction. Recall that this was the sort of rhetoric Rosenfeld was condemning:

Among others on the left, though, an often strident anti-Zionism is part of the ideological package that gives them their political identity. Their inclination to liken Israel to Nazi Germany and white-ruled South Africa--and their frequent excoriations of the Jewish state as guilty of "racism," "apartheid," "ethnic cleansing," "war crimes," and "genocide" draw from a common lexicon of hyperbolically corrosive speech and have helped to fashion an intellectual and political climate that encourages the demonization of Israel and its supporters. Jacqueline Rose's reduction of Zionism to a form of collective lunacy and her attempt to link Theodor Herzl with Adolph Hitler; Joel Kovel's call for "true Jews" to "annihilate their particularism," "annihilate or transcend Zionism," and "annihilate the Jewish state"; Norman Finkelstein's claim that Israeli Jews are a "parasitic class" and that their "apologists" are comparable to the Gestapo; and Michael Neumann's equation of "Jewish complicity" in Israel's policies with German complicity in the Holocaust illustrate the extremity of such views.

Much of the response presumed that this represented a blanket attack on all critics of Israel. But these people only represent a sliver of "progressives." There is plenty of room between Likudism and calling to "annihilate the Jewish state." Trying to push the debate so that it falls between those poles is not silencing, shrieks of the extreme not withstanding.

The ubiquitous rubric "criticism of Israel," however, has also come to designate another kind of discourse--one that has almost become a politico-rhetorical genre unto itself, with its own identifiable vocabulary, narrative conventions, and predictable outcomes. At its ideational core is what the British scholar Bernard Harrison calls a "dialectical scam." It goes something like this: (1) Spot an Israeli action that can serve as the ground of "criticism of Israel" (e.g., Israel's military incursion into the area near Jenin in April 2002 in response to Palestinian terrorist massacres); (2) Then "dissent" in the strongest possible terms, for instance by likening the "razing of Jenin" to the destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto, while anticipating that "powerful" and "repressive" Jewish institutions will try to "silence" the critics by calling them anti-Semites; (3) When taken to task by more sober-minded critics who find that, contrary to your charge, there was no such thing as "the razing of Jenin" and that the IDF has nothing in common with the SS, cry "foul" and claim their censure perfectly illustrates the point that there really is a Jewish organizational conspiracy to silence "criticism of Israel" by branding the authors of such criticism "anti-Semites."

The scam only works if people will concede the last move--that protest of clear hyperbole constitutes "silencing" by the all-powerful Jewish lobby. We cannot concede that ground, less any Jewish voices beyond the select few deemed acceptable to this "progressive" sliver be permanently silenced themselves.

Blogroll Cleanup

I've pruned some deadwood from my blogroll. Even though all the blogs I eliminated appeared to be moribund, I still felt some pangs of nostalgia--Legal Fiction was one of my very favorite blogs (even though Publius is still blogging at Obsidian Wings), and Restless Mania goes pretty far back on the list of blogs that linked to me in my (more) obscure past.

I did, however, add one new blog--Feministing, which is a lot of fun to read (alas, the URL is too similar to Feministe for my liking, but what can you do?). The world of the blogosphere turns once more....

Terror State

I just wanted to save this link, because it is so astounding to me:

Those who think that Muslim countries and pro-terrorist attitudes go hand-in-hand might be shocked by new polling research: Americans are more approving of terrorist attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria.

The survey, conducted in December 2006 by the University of Maryland's prestigious Program on International Public Attitudes, shows that only 46 percent of Americans think that 'bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians' are 'never justified,' while 24 percent believe these attacks are 'often or sometimes justified'.

Contrast those numbers with 2006 polling results from the world's most-populous Muslim countries - Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria. Terror Free Tomorrow...found that 74 percent of respondents in Indonesia agreed that terrorist attacks are 'never justified'; in Pakistan, that figure was 86 percent; in Bangladesh, 81 percent.

Horrifying.

Guess Who I'm Talking About?

I'm running out of good titles for posts that are entirely devoted to Barack Obama.

Now, it's become pretty standard for idealistic young liberals like me to jump on the Obama bandwagon. You could find that demographic raving about Obama all day. But did you expect to see accolades by Condi Rice?

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice finds Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama appealing and says it won't be much longer before race isn't a barrier to becoming president.
[...]
Rice noted that Obama is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where the secretary often testifies.

"I think he's very appealing and a great person. He's on my committee. And we've always had good exchanges. I think he's an extraordinary person," she said.

Rice declined to say whether she thought he had enough experience, especially in foreign policy, to be president.

"Oh, I'm not going to make that choice. The American people are going to make that choice," she said.

Intriguing.

Meanwhile, a new Zogby poll has Obama running ahead of all three top Republican contenders for the 2008 GOP nomination (Giuliani, McCain, and Romney). Hillary Clinton and John Edwards only beat Romney (whom Obama smokes). Polls this early are practically worthless of course, and even with the supposed demise of the "Wilder effect" (Black candidates run a few points behind the last polls because some White voters don't want to admit they won't vote for a candidate because he's Black), it probably has some saliance when voters are still forming early impressions. Also, I've seen polls that have all three Democrats every-which-way with regards to their Republican counterparts, so I don't know why this one is special. Still, it's better news for Obama than if it weren't released.

Ackerman on Beinart on Iraq

Former TNR writer Spencer Ackerman comments on Peter Beinart's explanation for why he supported the Iraq war, calling it "one of the most honest, reflective, and insightful things I've read in a good long while."

Peter explains his support for the war through his admiration for the Iraqi dissident Kanan Makiya. Kanan, one of the most guileless and brave people I've ever been privileged to meet, is someone I hold in similar esteem. (It probably says something about the times we live in that Cruelty and Silence -- an overview of Iraqi desperation and its apologists -- appears more apt and poignant than Republic of Fear does.) If there's anything I'd add to Peter's column, it would be this: it wasn't Kanan's fault that anyone supported the Iraq war -- wait, wait, hang on, let's make this more personal. It wasn't Kanan's fault that I supported the Iraq war. It was for wanting to believe so badly in the righteousness of America's terrible swift sword. I wanted to be worthy of the respect of such a brave man as Kanan that I ended up unworthy of it by abandoning rigor.

One final thing. Many of you out there really, really dislike Peter Beinart. I hope you'll read his column and see him as I see him: a scrupulous, honest writer who doesn't stop challenging himself. If he falls short, he acknowledges it and tries to learn from the mistake.

Ackerman's blog is titled "toohotfortnr," which points to the circumstances of his departure from the magazine. Both Ackerman and Beinart speak for me on this issue, and I urge everyone to read both of their pieces.

Poor Captain Needa

Kos' response to the recent buy-out of TNR is very troublesome to me, in that it shows that--regardless of what the magazine does, what it says, or where it goes--Kos is hell-bent on turning them into a scalp on his wall.

In attacking TNR, Kos refers back to their support for the Iraq war (in from 2002 to 2003), and their ill-advised endorsement of Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Primary (in early 2004). In other words, nothing that's happened in the past three years. But yet, TNR has backtracked on all of these positions--something Kos has refused to acknowledge. TNR has harshly critiqued Bush administration policy on all number of issues, including foreign policy--something Kos has refused to acknowledge. TNR has engaged in repeated introspection and self-critique on the Iraq war--something Kos has refused to acknowledge. And under its new leadership, TNR has persistently moved in a more liberal direction, such that there is surprisingly little gap between the positions held by TNR writers and Kos front-pagers on the vast majority of political issues. Kos, of course, does not acknowledge this either.

With regard to Iraq, we can thus critique TNR's horrible misjudgment (which is perfectly fair); but 81 House Democrats and 29 Democratic Senators made the exact same mistake. Like some other liberals (e.g., John Edwards) who voted in favor of this ill-advised war, TNR has since apologized and recanted for its stance--as Editor Franklin Foer stated, "the question mark is gone," as to whether the magazine was wrong on the war in Iraq. So the question is whether or not Kos is willing to readmit liberals who have strayed (but have now seen the light) on an issue that a) he was right on and b) is very important to him. If the answer is no, so be it--but that means putting targets on every one of those 110 Democrats still serving in elected office and trying to run them from the party. That's not just Joe Lieberman, that's John Edwards, that's Harry Reid, that's Jack Murtha, that's Chris Dodd, and ultimately, that's fratricide. Of course, Kos hasn't called for the scalps of these Democrats--but that's because the vendetta against TNR has gotten personal for him--it is not an expression of any privilege, it is merely white hot fury that is ultimately irrational and self-destructive. If TNR proves anything, it isn't that Democrats who support President Bush will be punished, it's that apologies are useless.

This is personal to me, because I am one of the heretics--not just because I read TNR, but because I supported the Iraq war. If my repentance is futile and falls on deaf ears to the left, then where can I go? Ultimately, Kos does not want to see me converted back into the fold of liberal politics. He wants my head put on stake on the front lawn as a warning to others.

I Approve This Metaphor

The Wall of Separation blogs on the supposed death of the "Religious Right":

Like a vampire from a schlocky drive-in horror movie, the Religious Right is often staked but never truly finished off. There is always another sequel. Pundits said the Religious Right would die after Falwell shut down the Moral Majority in 1989. Others said the election of President Bill Clinton in 1992 was a mortal blow. Still others opined that the movement was finished when the Christian Coalition began to lose influence about five years ago.

Shades of Scalia, anyone? From his opinion in Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches School District, 508 U.S. 384 (1993):

As to the Court's invocation of the Lemon test: Like some ghoul in a late night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried, Lemon stalks our Establishment Clause jurisprudence once again, frightening the little children and school attorneys of Center Moriches Union Free School District...Such a docile and useful monster is worth keeping around, at least in a somnolent state; one never knows when one might need him.

Good rhetoric makes strange bedfellows, I suppose.

Sold!

The New Republic has been sold, and will now operate under new, more liberal ownership. This should help resolves some tensions centered around it being a liberal publication with conservative ownership. Editor Franklin Foer explicitly tagged this shift as being in keeping with TNR's shift to the left, which I think is a positive development and necessary for its continued viability. It also is reassuring to me, because in the aftermath of Spencer Ackerman's departure, I was worried about the magazine moving in the other direction (something I felt like I was observing on The Plank).

TNR has worked hard to shake the perception that it is merely liberal cover for neo-conservatism. Peter Beinart has a piece in the latest issue on How He Got the Iraq War Wrong, which struck a chord with me, because I was wrong on Iraq for much the same reasons (Beinart is a writer I respect immensely). There are those on the left who wish to see TNR dead and buried--a view I think is vindictive and unhelpful. But regardless of whether we think they've strayed or not, we should wish them luck in getting on the right track. There are precious few opportunities for sharp liberal writers to get into print without one of the oldest being cannibalized from within.

UPDATE: Can I smile at Marty Peretz's description of his outlook towards blogging?

Mr. Peretz, 67, has himself become a blogger. He said he was "not enjoying it exactly," but that he had found it addictive.

"When I used to see something irritating, I would typically call a friend," he said. "Now I just go to the blog." He said he is often surprised at how quickly readers will post a response. "It’s as if they’re waiting for something,” he said. "Then they say, 'Ah, here he is. I'm going to pounce.'"

I don't have readers poised to pounce on me (if only....), but I definitely relate to the addiction metaphor for blogging.

Women's Oasis or Transphobic Spaces?

I really, really, really, really like this post by PG on women-born-women spaces and how they discriminate against Male-to-Female transsexuals. I've talked about exclusivist spaces before (in blogging, actually), and I've also discussed the plight of internal minorities, that is, people who are a marginalized minority within yet another marginalized minority group (e.g., transgendered women, Black conservatives, lesbian Jews). There are extraordinarily thorny questions involved in how the super-minority group (in PG's post, women) treat the sub-minority group (transsexuals). PG's treatment of those issues, and her reminder that internal suppression of sub-minority groups hurts both the movement as a whole as well as coalition-building with outsiders, is very well argued and essential reading.

Iran and al-Qaeda

I thought that Christiane Amanpour's article, citing a top Iranian official as declaring that the US and Iran were "natural allies", was quite interesting. Obviously, the Powerliners, who are quite invested in America and Iran being perpetually locked in mortal combat, was significantly less favorable. For my part, I think that there are forces that both push in favor and against the US and Iran allying. On the one hand, Iran's fanatical desire to obliterate Israel is something that cuts against a partnership (I don't mean to be glib here, this is obviously a major sticking point). And the gap between the Iranian and American government's conception of what our universal values should consist (a gap that, admittedly, is larger for some than for others) is also something that will pose barriers. On the other hand, America's main opponent in the global sphere, in terms of military threat, is Sunni Jihadists, who are also a natural enemy of the Shi'ite dominated Iran. Mutual enemies can make for strange allies (consider the persistent murmering of Israel and Saudi Arabia working together to check against their mutual threat--the growing Shi'ite Crescent stretching from Iran through Syria, Lebanon and Hezbollah).

But Powerline's analysis, I thought, was rather pecuilar:

Amanpour's breathless report implies that only the belligerence of the President Bush, who unaccountably included Iran in the "Axis of Evil," frustrates a full alliance between these nations, both of whom, she says, are bitterly opposed to al Qaeda.

Many others, of course, believe that top al Qaeda leaders are now inside Iran. And it is not hard to argue that from 1979 to the present, the foreign power that has most consistently been at war with the U.S. is Iran.

Now, aside from who these "many others" are (hint--if they've got names like "curveball", run), and aside from the problem that we've yet to have been at war with Iran since 1979 (in contrast to Iraq and Serbia), this is a rather odd point. It seems unlikely that Shi'ite Iran is harboring top leaders of Sunni al-Qaeda. If they are not, then Powerline's argument kind of falls apart, obviously, and the non-presence of al-Qaeda in Iran lends credance to the idea that we should ally with them against al-Qaeda, and that the Bush administration has been foolish in not pursuing that avenue. But if Powerline is right, then we're faced with the fact that our foreign policy has done something to spook Iran so much that they're willing to support their bitter enemy in a fight against us. I don't really expect the Powerliners to have a particularly intricate grasp of the Sunni/Shi'ite split, but suffice to say a hardline Sunni group will consider Shi'ites to be heretics, and vice versa. It can only be a failure on our part that we've managed to allow what should have been an impossible alliance to manifest itself, because we insist on playing macho cowboy or whatever.

So either way, we're faced with a failure of foreign policy that can be chalked up to the Bush administration. No surprise over here, I know, but it amuses me that this flows so precisely from Powerline's own analysis of the Iranian situation.

Enemy At The Gates

Via Obsidian Wings, it appears there is a new equipment shortage for US troops:

"“We’re behind the power curve, and we can’t piddle around,” Maj. Gen. Harry M. Wyatt III, commander of the Oklahoma National Guard, said in an interview. He added that one-third of his soldiers lacked the M-4 rifles preferred by active-duty soldiers and that there were also shortfalls in night vision goggles and other equipment. If his unit is going to be sent to Iraq next year, he said, “We expect the Army to resource the Guard at the same level as active-duty units.” (...)

Capt. Christopher Heathscott, a spokesman for the Arkansas National Guard, said the state’s 39th Brigade Combat Team was 600 rifles short for its 3,500 soldiers and also lacked its full arsenal of mortars and howitzers."

Too few rifles? I seem to recall this problem cropping up before...for the Russian army in World War II!

Race Talk = Race Card

I need help from someone who is more attuned to conservative race discourse to help explain this to me.

Okay, so there has been a bit a flare-up between the camps of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, over statements by a former Clinton-camper (David Geffen) who now is supporting Obama. During the dueling press releases, Obama's camp argued:

"We aren't going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons and someone who was once one of their biggest supporters," Obama communications director Robert Gibbs said. "It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom. It is also ironic that Senator Clinton lavished praise on Monday and is fully willing to accept today the support of South Carolina State Sen. Robert Ford, who said if Barack Obama were to win the nomination, he would drag down the rest of the Democratic Party because he's black."

Gibbs is not exaggerating, Senator Ford (who is himself Black) most certainly did say just that:

"It's a slim possibility for him to get the nomination, but then everybody else is doomed . . . . Every Democrat running on that ticket next year would lose - because he's black and he's top of the ticket. We'd lose the House and the Senate and the governors and everything."

Now, merits of the political analysis aside, Ford is basically saying "don't nominate Obama because he's Black."

Picking up the story, Powerline gleefully notes that "Barack Obama is playing the race card against Hillary Clinton!"

My question is: Is there any possible way for a Black public figure in America to talk about race in a manner that is not immediately tarred as "playing the race card"? Up until today, I'd have said, "when they're protesting the argument that Black people shouldn't be nominated for President," but apparently our horizon as been pushed yet further back.

And so, this whole line of argument remains incomprehensible to me.

Abandoned

Is there anything else to say?

Mike Luckovich for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Kidnapped

Sometimes, two stories strike very uncomfortable chords with each other.

For example, Joshua Kurlantzick has an excellent article up detailing the fate of Uigher detainees in Guantanamo Bay. They've pretty much all been found to be non-threats to the United States by our military commissions (a determination, it's worth noting, we only came to after detaining them for years on a secluded island prison, probably allowing Chinese interrogators to torture them in the process). So what are we doing with them? We have no idea. We can't send them back to China, they'll be tortured. No other country wants to take them. We can't allow them into the US, because, well, I assume because it would embarass us.

So, the upshot is that we've simply kept detaining some, while others we shipped off to Albania, a country which has virtually no Uigher community and does not speak a language remotely similar to Uigher. But I'm sure they'll do fine.

Meanwhike, Peggy McGuiness points to a rather forgotten part of the Japanese Internment saga: the people of Japanese descent we forcibly extracted from Latin American countries so we could snd them to desolate internment camps and, sometimes, use them as bargaining chips in POW exchanges.

Art Shibayama is an American who served in the Army during the Korean War. Like many veterans, Cpl. Shibayama was not born in the United States. He was born in Lima, Peru, to Japanese Peruvian parents. Until 1942, Shibayama, his two brothers and three sisters lived comfortably with their parents and grandparents, all of whom had thriving businesses. However, after America entered World War II, his family was forcibly removed from Peru, transported to the United States and held in a government-run internment camp in Crystal City, Tex.

Like many Japanese American families, Shibayama's family lost everything they owned. But the greater injustice occurred when his grandparents were sent to Japan in exchange for American prisoners of war. Their family never saw them again.

Shibayama and his family were among the estimated 2,300 people of Japanese descent from 13 Latin American countries who were taken from their homes and forcibly transported to the Crystal City camp during World War II. The U.S. government orchestrated and financed the deportation of Japanese Latin Americans for use in prisoner-of-war exchanges with Japan. Eight hundred people were sent across the Pacific, while the remaining Japanese Latin Americans were held in camps without due process.

In the case of the Uighers, we essentially kidnapped them, interned them without due process, and then sometimes shipped them off to a random country. In the case of these Japanese detainees, we also essentially kidnapped them, interned them without due process, and then shipped them off to another country.

Those who forget the past....

The Maryland Rape Case

This was kicked around the blogosphere earlier, but I'll give it some new life as a way of introducing Jon Siegel's new blog, Law Prof on the Loose. A court in my home state of Maryland ruled that a woman can not withdraw consent in the middle of sex--if she does, then it's not rape.

[T]he English common law . . . view[ed] the initial "de–flowering" of a woman as the real harm or insult which must be redressed by compensating, in legal contemplation, the injured party - the father or husband. This initial violation of the victim also provided the basis for the criminal proceeding against the offender. But, to be sure, it was the act of penetration that was the essence of the crime of rape; after this initial infringement upon the responsible male's interest in a woman's sexual and reproductive functions, any further injury was considered to be less consequential. The damage was done. It was this view that the moment of penetration was the point in time, after which a woman could never be "re-flowered," that gave rise to the principle that, if a woman consents prior to penetration and withdraws consent following penetration, there is no rape. Maryland adheres to this tenet.

As I told my friends upon hearing this, normally I'm quite proud to hail from Maryland, but this is shameful and appalling.

Now, as Siegel notes, the facts of this case are somewhat complex--apparently, the man stopped intercourse within five seconds of being asked. It is not clear to me whether that should count as rape--that seems like a reasonable amount of time between being told to stop, and stopping. But the categorical holding that rape cannot happen after the original penetration is shocking.

On Their Heads

I don't have time to read the entire opinion in Boumediene v. Bush, holding 2-1 that the Military Commissions Act precludes Guantanamo Bay detainees from pressing Habeas Claims. I agree with the court that the goal of the MCA was to strip the courts of jurisdiction from hearing such claims. I'm not sure whether such an action is constitutional, and I don't really know enough about the law to forward an educated opinion, though my gut says it isn't.

But in a sense it doesn't matter. There is only so much the courts can resist against a united congressional and executive assault on our core constitutional and human rights. This sin is on the head of the Bush administration, yes, for so aggressively working to undermine the rule of law and civil protections due to humankind. But it is also a sin we can ascribe to congress, for passing the MCA and gutting what little protection may have fallen to the detainees in the wake of Rasul.

Apologies

Sorry for the slow pace of blogging. I've been typing a rough draft of my Constitutional Law seminar paper ("When Separation Doesn't Work: The Religion Clauses as an Anti-Subordination Principle"), as well as preparing to present heresy before my Contemporary Jewish Theology class tomorrow. Heresy is no exaggeration, I'm arguing that God has and can be an abuser, and that humans must proactively protest against divine injustices.

Know-Nothing Candidate

Continuing on the theme of why are we giving Rudy Giuliani a pass on the "experience" issue, when his Presidential resume consists of two terms at the Municipal level of government, Jon Chait points out that there is nothing in Giuliani's background that would remotely suggest he knows anything about foreign policy. Given that America's foreign policy stance likely will remain an important issue come 2008, this, to say the least, should be a problem.

Know Thyself

Gary Younge in The Nation has a really great article up about the need for Whites to come to terms with their history with regards to Jim Crow oppression. Now, obviously, in the school system today we are (or, at least most of us are) taught about the horrors of America's racial caste system. But, as Younge notes, so much of it is taught in the passive voice.

Leaders "get assassinated," patrons "are refused" service, women "are ejected" from public transport. So the objects of racism are many but the subjects few. In removing the instigators, the historians remove the agency and, in the final reckoning, the historical responsibility.

The argument against this sort of historical reckoning is that "it wasn't us." Do not stone the sons for the sins of the father. But this is not adequate. First, we don't make that argument when taking collective pride in our accomplishments: We" won World War II, "we" developed the greatest democracy on earth, "we" invented the lightbulb and the steamboat and the internet. Second, it does not account for the manner in which past sins yield present privileges. Insofar as some tragedies still matter, ignoring our history in this case means that we also ignore present inequities that stem from that history.

So we do not need more white history, we need it better told. Settlement, slavery and segregation--propelled by economic expansion and justified by white supremacy--inform much of what the United States is today. The wealth they created helped bankroll its superpower status. The poverty they engendered persists. But white history does not mean racist history any more than black history means victim's history. Alongside Blake, Milam and Bryant, any decent White History Month would star insurrectionist John Brown; the Vanilla Ice of the Harlem Renaissance, Carl Van Vechten; civil rights workers Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman, murdered near Philadelphia, Mississippi, during the Freedom Summer of 1964; and Viola Liuzzo, murdered during the Selma to Montgomery march. It would explain why Ronald Reagan kicked off his presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, why George W. Bush chose Bob Jones University to revive his presidential hopes. It would tell the story of how Ruby Bates recanted her rape accusation in a bid to save the Scottsboro boys from the noose and how the [family of Rosa Parks bus driver James Blake] never did reconcile themselves to the event that brought them infamy. "None of that mess they said was true," said his wife, Edna. "Everybody loved him. He was a good, true man and a churchgoer."

This is who we were. To a large extent, it remains who we are. It is not who we have to be. But our past--for good and for ill--must be told, lest it not become our future as well.

Juevos Grandes, Amigos

I'm not sure how reliable it is as a general defense against airplane hijackings, but I have to say this was pretty baller:

A cunning pilot thwarted a hijacking by discreetly warning the passengers in French - a language the gunman didn't speak - that he would knock the attacker off-balance with a rough landing, and that they should be ready to pounce.

The plan worked.

As Capt. Ahmedou Mohamed Lemine landed the Air Mauritania Boeing 737, he slammed on the brakes, then abruptly accelerated, throwing the hijacker to the floor, officials said Friday. The forewarned passengers and crew threw boiling water from a coffee maker on the man's face and chest, then beat him into submission.

Nice.

The Great Texas Sodomy Debate

Andrew Sullivan has a great YouTube clip on Texas' sodomy and anti-dildo laws. Far and away, the best part is the debate in the Texas House on an amendment to ban heterosexual sodomy. The exchange is between Rep. Warren Chisum (R) and Rep. Debra Danberg (D) (it starts with about 4:41 to go), and it is breath-taking, in one of those senses where it would be horrifying if it wasn't so funny.

Don't Backslide!

No! Regress! Regress! After his crazy comments on Keith Ellison, I congratulated Virginia Representative Virgil Goode for expressing a willingness to meet with representatives from the Muslim community, commenting that "If nothing else comes out of this controversy, hopefully it will be one Congressman broadening his horizons a little bit." Apparently, I spoke too soon, as Goode apparently got up on the House floor to say that America is in danger of coins that say "In Muhammad We Trust" if we don't stop the raging Muslim hordes attempting to immigrate to America. Or don't approve the Iraq surge. Or something like that. It's also amusing to hear Rep. Goode lecture on the virtues of religious toleration and the First Amendment, but we'll let that lie for now. Goode also appears to oppose the "Save Whomever We Can" option, by which we allow the Iraqis who bravely worked with the CPA and assisted our efforts to bring democracy to the region to gain refugee status in America. The alternative, of course, is for all of them to be brutally slaughtered as a thank you for assisting us. But that doesn't really seem to bother Goode that much. Having read recently of Otto Frank's desperate and futile attempts to get to America and escape the Nazi genocide, I'm a bit more sympathetic, but that same history makes me quite pessimistic. People with immigration views like Goode's have some of Anne Frank's blood on their hands as well. When we turn away people who are attempting to reach our borders (our friends, no less, in Iraq), knowing that they will be killed in their homes, our conscience is stained and our souls are tainted. But apparently, Virgil Goode can live with that. Moral values, I suppose. All in all, a large step backwards for Representative Goode. (And my God, is his voice annoying or what?)

Whiteness and Journalism

I'm a bit confused about this case.

In September, the [Center for Individual Rights] filed the class-action lawsuit on behalf of Emily Smith, 16, who said she was accepted last spring to the Urban Journalism Workshop at Virginia Commonwealth University. One week later, she said, she was rejected after program sponsors learned she was white.

The program settled out of court and agreed to no longer use race in its decision processes. But there are certain very relevant facts that I think matter in how we view what happened here.

My intuitions on this case hinge very strongly on several facts which are unclear. First, was the program explicitly limited to minority students, or was their just a preference? If it's the latter, than I think Smith has a far stronger claim. Basically, if the program is explicitly labeled as being for minority students, then Smith should have seen this coming--indeed, if that was the case, then I'd almost suspect that she was applying just to sue. If, however, this was not clear, then my sympathies lie with Smith a lot more strongly--randomly receiving a letter a week after getting into a program saying "sorry, you're White, so you can't come" is pretty traumatizing if there was no reason to see it coming. The other question, of course, is whether or not there are available Urban Journalism programs out there that are not race-linked. My support for programs which are specifically targeted at minority students hinges on the fact that there are also plenty of programs that are available to the general student population. For example, at Carleton we have the Mellon-Mays fellowship, which is targeted at prepping minority students for graduate level academic research, and that's fine because we have lots of other fellowships available to the broader student body which White ol' me can pursue. But if these programs are filling a unique niche in Urban Journalism, such that Ms. Smith really didn't have any other options available to her, I think that's a different matter entirely.

Via Volokh

Extemp

I had my radio show today. Normally, it has at least one other contributor on, who comes with a list of topics to discuss. Today, however, he decided not to show up. I realized he wasn't coming with about one minute before air-time. Since I done no preparation and had no notes, I was in a bit of a bind. And so I then proceeded to spontanously speak off the cuff on a variety of political topics--for 30 minutes straight. The Iraq surge debate, US/Iran, Global Warming, Presidential Endorsements (Kaine & Rush for Obama, Swift for McCain), and GOP candidates all running to the right.

It wasn't the best show, but under the circumstances I'm quite pleased.

And also, I have to say thank you, because had I not browsed through some blogs prior to walking to the radio station, I'd have been utterly lost.

Kill Hannah

It's the new band I'm listening to (found via my Birthday Music Bleg). They're pretty good--not spectacular, but definitely worth listening too. I have to admit, though, I feel guilty. I know several Hannah's, and by and large they are very good people. Certainly, I don't want any harm to come to them.

So, to clarify to the Hannah's I know: I don't want you to die!

This reminds me of something my cousin said to me once while looking through my iPod:

"You know, for someone so mellow you listen to some angry music."

Test Message

I'll admit that I fear change, and so this move to the new blogger is rather scary. I don't like having to login with a gmail address I never use. Aside from that, nothing seems to be different but some minor stylistic issues. Which I don't like. Because they're different.

But since I need to write a post to confirm that this new version truly is the blogger cataclysm, here we go. A Washington Post article on Barack Obama's message man, David Axelrod, contained the following blurb:

Campaigns are narratives annotated with policy discursions.

True? I think so. And unfortunately, nobody reads the annotations. On the other hand, Obama's strength--fairly or no--is in the packaging more than the substantive content. So even though I think Obama could and should win on a policy race alone, in the political campaigns we get stuck with, he's pretty well positioned too.

Liberals Say....

Apropos a class discussion more than anything else, I want to reveal one of my pet peeves. Basically, it involves arguing against a strawman of some liberal bogeyman (feminists, the "political correct") as a justification for opposing a certain group or claim. For example, my roommate once lamented the manner in which politically correct speech has made discourse ridiculous. I asked him for an example, and he cited calling short people "vertically challenged." I then queried if ever, in his life, he had met someone who had demanded he refer to short people as "vertically challenged."

He hadn't, because virtually no one, including the feared arbiters of politcal correctness, is that insane. And when pressed for examples he had actually had experienced, my roommate couldn't think of one directly. Thus we have a problem--a parade of horribles which exists only in the mind somehow gets transfered as a key policy of a group that advocates nothing of the sort. So we hear about how feminists hate men (which ones?), or Democrats want us to lose in the war on terror (name names?). It's not that there are no people who believe spectacularly stupid things out there--and yes, I have encountered self-declared "feminist" writers who really do hate men. But these people are tiny, tiny fringes--completely marginal to the movement at large, with no institutional support and no relative power. Alternatively, you'll have a single position get ascribed to a whole group that really is having an uproarious internal debate on the subject. For example, I can't tell you how many times I hear feminists get blamed for creating our contemporary raunchy, sex obsessed culture, and yet there are plenty of feminists who have been at the forefront of opposing these developments, including the ultimate feminist bogey(wo)men, Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, who went as far as to call pornography a civil rights violation. Nearly every time I read a conservative "critique" of post-modernism, I am left more convinced than ever that these people don't have the foggiest idea what post-modernism entails--and I suspect some of the more honest ones would admit that they have not read any of the major works. Yet somehow that doesn't stop them from launching into long diatribes about how the post-modern worldview is devilish and evil.

So, moral of the story: When critiquing a group for arguing X, a) make sure that they've actually said it, b) make sure that it's all or most of the group that said it, rather than a point of contention within the group, and c) know exactly what the group is talking about when it says it supports X.

In other words, don't be ignorant. Sheesh.

Obama Report

Paul Mirengoff forwards the claim that "The fact is that, but for his race, no one would even consider Barack Obama presidential material in 2008." I refer the Powerline blogger back to Cass Sunstein's thoughts on the matter:

I have no idea how Obama would be regarded if he were white. (He might be regarded as this generation's Jack Kennedy; the two have a similar quickness, youth, charisma, and capacity for humor.) But for any successful politician, there are many necessary conditions for their success. Would George W. Bush be president if his last name were not Bush? Would Al Gore have become vice-president if his last name had not been Gore? Would Senator McCain be a serious candidate for the presidency if he had not been held prisoner in Vietnam? Would Bush, Gore, or McCain be where they are today if they were African-American or Hispanic? (What kinds of questions are these?)

Of course, as I've noted, the experience issue should not be solely thrown at Obama. Indeed, if I recall correctly, of the major players in the '08 race, Obama has more elected experience than all the other top candidates save John McCain (comparing to Romney, Giuliani, Edwards, and Clinton). Indeed, if you want to talk about a candidate who we should be hitting on experience grounds, how about Rudy Giuliani, whose electoral experience is two terms as mayor. Yes, I know New York City is really big, but still--I don't think one can credibly say that Obama doesn't have enough national experience to become President when you're seriously considering a candidate whose never even risen to the level of state government.

Meanwhile, in this list of early '08 endorsements, I noticed that Obama had picked up the support of Illinois Democratic Representative Bobby Rush. Rush, of course, faced a primary challenge from Obama in 2000, which he beat back by labeling Obama "not Black enough" for the district. I would have thought there would still be some bad blood from that. But it's all for the best--it would be highly embarrassing if Obama had a defector from his home congressional delegation.

Busy Day

Busy day today. I was on BBC radio to talk about the surge in Iraq. I preceded Maryland Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R), who was mistakenly identified as my own representative. This must have been one of the more confusing parts of the show. I mentioned to the hosts that I too was from Maryland, and they took that to mean I lived in his district, which isn't true (Gilchrest represents the eastern shore, while I live in a D.C. suburb represented by Chris Van Hollen (D)). Plus, they identified me as calling in from Minnesota. Anyway, I noted that while I didn't think the surge would work, the real test for those of us (including myself) who supported the war, as politicians or as statesmen, is to recognize that we made a mistake, and that we'll have to leave recognizing that our operation was a failure. To Gilchrest's credit, he did not reject the formulation of the war as a "mistake", though he did not wholeheartedly endorse it either, and went on to hedge about successes we've had preventing Iraq from getting WMDs or harboring al-Qaeda training camps (!?!). But Gilchrest does appear to be voting against the surge, and is calling for an orderly withdrawal, preferably within the year.

Next, I had an interview with Chalmers Johnson, head of the Japan Policy Research Institute, and author of the acclaimed Blowback trilogy, which recently concluded with the publication of Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic. For those of you who don't know, Johnson wrote Blowback in 2000, arguing that US meddling in global affairs will inevitably lead to a backlash against us by people who feel crushed under the weight of a virtual American empire. It was met with a crushing wave of indifference until September 11th, 2001, when his hypothesis went from radical to prophetic. Since then, Dr. Johnson has become ever more pessimistic about the state of the American Republic, culminating in his latest book, where he literally claims that the US is faced with the choice between its democracy and its empire.

This interview will appear in a few days exclusively on The Debate Link, and then will be published in the Spring 2007 edition of The Lens Magazine.

Prison Rape and Extra-Legal Violence

Ezra Klein wrote a series of posts on Prison Rape that are really worth reading. As it happens, my roommates were busy cracking jokes about prison rape while I was reading them, and I kind of flew off at them. Accuse me of having no sense of humor, if you will (and they did), but when the conceptualization of a problem as a popular joke is one of the key barriers to fixing it, I don't think it's a neutral action to play right into that structure (this distinguishes it from ironic humor designed to show the absurdity of a given practice--a joke about racism that derives its humor from the fundamental ridiculousness of racial hierarchy is different from one which thinks racism itself is funny).

The post series itself is important, because this shouldn't be a joke and this shouldn't be a problem that we allow to fester any longer. The issue isn't even that we ignore the occurrence of prison rape. Much the opposite, as Robert Farley noted, "the public at large has simply concluded that a) rape is an integral part of prison life, such that a five year prison sentence automatically includes five years of rape, and b) that anyone who goes to prison is irredeemably besmirched, and thus deserving of constant rape." Klein says that in a very real sense, the rights violations we tacitly approve and sanction in our own prison system are qualitatively worse than what occurs in Guantanamo Bay. Indeed, a New Republic article from 2004 made precisely that point, noting that the abuses that captivated the public eye when shown from Abu Gharib would have been just another day in a Texas penitentiary.

The irony is that if you ask it very bluntly, most people won't put their money where their mouth is. While a great many people will say that we should kill killers, far fewer would agree that we should rape rapists, much less drunk drivers or money launderers. Of course, this creates a legal fiction that allows us to dodge our own complacency in the abuse--because we don't specifically authorize rape as a punishment, we can dodge accounting for it even as it occurs under our watch, our jurisdiction, our mandate. I imagine that even the most oppressive governments don't have laws specifically designating rape and torture as punishments--and as a democracy, we don't have the excuse of not being at least partially responsible for the actions of our governments. The fact that it happens, and it shouldn't, is enough to justify demanding the government at least pretend to care about it.

Farley continues to offer an explanation for why we're so disturbingly sanguine about prison rape in our borders: that in American discourse, there is a "conviction that society requires extra-legal violence in order to hold together." The Making Light blog expands on this theme, arguing that its most pernicious form is when it goes on to argue that this something all wise people just know. If you believe that society can exist without extra-legal violence, you're deluding yourself. This is what brings together the heroic torture in 24, the wink-and-nod attitude towards lynching in the early 20th century, and the idea that whatever prisoners get while in prison--even if nominally not sanctioned by the law--is their just deserts. It's a sick view, and if left unchecked it will spell the end of rule of law in this country--as it did in the lawless post-reconstruction South, as it did in the lawless Jim Crow America, as it's doing in lawless Black sites we've established around the world.

UPDATE: This topic actually got a lot more play, from a far more diverse array of bloggers, than I would have expected.

James Joyner:

That homosexual rape is routine in our prison system is so widely acknowledged that it is part of our pop culture humor. Yet there seems little outcry. I don't have any sympathy per se for complaints about "overcrowding" of convicted felons but the jungle atmosphere that pervades our penitentiary system is a national disgrace and rather clearly violates the letter and spirit of the 8th Amendment.

Professor Bainbridge notes that "[Convicted Tyco Executive] Dennis Kozlowski faces spending the rest of his life worrying about prison rape," and argues that this very real prospect should factor into our larger debates about corporate fraud. While I don't particularly like the idea that prison rape will only become an issue because rich White men are threatened, he's not wrong.

Booman Tribune, on prisoner abuse more generally:

[G]iving someone HIV and subjecting them to rape, assault, and torture is inhumane, it's illegal, it's immoral, and, in this case [a DUI conviction], it is completely incommensurate with the offense. It's appalling what goes on in our prisons. I saw another piece on American prisons on 60 Minutes last night. A prisoner with mental problems was allowed to die of thirst in a Michigan prison. They were strapping him to his bed for 18 hours a day. They caught his death on tape.

Shakespeare's Sister observes a distinct difference in the discourse employed regarding these rapes--specifically, "No one is suggesting that rape victims in prison are 'crying rape' for ulterior motives."

Reason Magazine on why the 2003 Prison Rape Elimination Act does not do enough to solve the problem--rather than criminalizing prison rape, it simply adds another oversight bureaucracy (hooray!). Having passed it, we're back to the norm of making fun of prison rape:

We were funding [the act] because the shame of prison rape had finally boiled over to the point where people wanted to feel like they were "doing something" about it. Having "done something" about it, we are back to the norm of wanting to beat up bad guys and lock people in prison. Sean Hannity, who ruthlessly mocked Abner Louima after he was sodomized by New York City police, has two TV shows. Bill Lockyer, who gleefully talked about Ken Lay getting raped in prison, left the office of California attorney general... and became California treasurer. Here's his 2010 campaign site. Smugness about prison rape is to looking "tough on crime" as smugness about torture is to looking "tough on terror." It is easy, and there are no repercussions.

Echidne also articulates the "put the money where the mouth is" by saying we should explicitly write into law all the punishments one can expect (and that we'll tolerate) when you are sent to prison:

What is it that the inmates are stripped of? What rights do we think they should no longer have? Note how many states have decided that ex-felons should never be allowed to vote again or not for a long time at least. Perhaps we should list all the different types of punishments in a legal form so that everybody knows what it means to go to prison. It's not just the restraints on a person's freedom of movement.

Megan McArdle rehashes her old post:

I do not believe the state is morally allowed to do that which individuals are not morally allowed to do; I do not believe that prison sentences should have "off label" uses; and I think that if you are willing for the state to impose a sentence in your name, you should be willing to carry it out. I am not willing to execute a prisoner, or to rape one. Therefore, I don't authorise the state to do things for me. Nor do I want those tasks delegated to some fiendish thug in order to give myself plausible moral deniability.

If you do think that rape is an appropriate punishment for securities law violations, then you should say so. You should pressure your representatives to write these penalties into law. And when volunteers are needed to carry out the sentence, you should be willing to put your name in the hat.

And she adds this capper: "I do not think that there is any crime for which the appropriate punishment is rape."

Amen.

Giuliani/Lieberman '08

Jon Chait comments on the prospect of a Giuliani/Lieberman ticket in 2008. It's an interesting possibility, and not inconceivable. Basically, this ticket would mean the GOP is doubling down on the security issue after getting thrashed on it in 2006. In normal circumstances, I'd say this is a losing proposition--for very good reasons, the GOP has been running scared of Iraq and like issues, knowing that they will be hung like a weight around their neck in 2008. Could a Giuliani/Lieberman neutralize the CW on this issue? Giuliani reminds America of the time immediately after 9/11--scary, to be sure, but they associate it generally with the moral clarity and focus we're missing now, and him specifically with leadership and vision bringing NYC together in the wake of the attack. Maybe a self-deceptive recollection, but it's what's out there.

Chait elaborates:

Lieberman strikes me as both a shrewd choice for Veep and a likely candidate to get it. Republicans have been largely discredited, so their best chance is to persuade the public that the Democrats are not a legitimate alternative. Lieberman, as a nominal Democrat, would have the best chance of making the case that his party has been taken over by a left-wing fringe. Indeed, that's pretty much what he's saying now. In fact, I think he's trying to set himself up to run on the GOP ticket in 2008.

I want to say that, as someone who supported Jim Jeffords' party conversion in 2001, I think Lieberman has every right to leave the Democratic Party and run on a GOP ticket if he sees fit. But we shouldn't delude ourselves--him and Giuliani on a ticket would represent an endorsement of the Bush foreign policy in which Americans have largely lost faith. The only question is whether or not Americans will know what they're voting for. And that will require the media to resist the easy narrative about a "moderate" GOP ticket, and point out that on arguably the most important issue facing the electorate in 2008, Giuliani/Lieberman would represent the status quo. If they're going to run that ticket, Americans deserve to know what they're being presented with.

My Old Firm In The News

Donald Rumsfeld has been spotted in the offices of Williams & Connelly, a top-caliber DC law firm.

Your host worked in the library at WC in the summer and winter of 2005, an experience I liken to interning at Wolfram & Hart. Very nice people, you understand--but very much in the service of evil. WC does a lot of things (some of them quite innocuous, like agent work), but it tends to be called into service by people who are a) very rich and b) very much in trouble. Reading the press clippings around the office, the phrase that popped up most often was "scorched earth tactics."

But hey, maybe he was there to get a book agent.

TNR Blog Rolls

I'm unfortunately too sick to really add anything substantive today, but I wanted to call attention to three stellar items which all showed up on various TNR blogs today.

The first is by David Greenberg on the media's sheep-like insistance on calling Rudy Giuliani a "moderate". Wrong, wrong, wrong. While Giuliani may indeed be "moderate" on the issues of abortion and gay rights (and it is unclear whether those stances will survive the GOP primary), these are not the only issues by which one's moderation is judged. Greenberg notes that in governing philosophy, Giuliani has displayed a frankly disturbing affinity for near-authoritarianism--silencing dissent, purging critics, and even trying to extend his own term in the wake of 9/11 chaos. It's worth noting that this form of conservatism, while perhaps not as viscerally infuriating as radical right positions on the culture war issues, is really the biggest threat currently coming out of the right. This has been the signature aspect of President Bush's conservatism--not social issues, where the Christian Right feels betrayed. Americans deserve to know if their vote will be a referendum on this "style" of governance.

The second is about Pat Buchanan, who continues to intrigue me as one of the few conservatives who outwardly seems to dislike Jews more than Blacks. So many conservatives have made it their mission to convert the Jews to Christ the GOP that it's very rare to see one who is so overt in suspicion towards us.

The third is by the incomparable Sacha Zimmerman, who details how the US is refusing to let in refugees who are fleeing from sexual violence (specifically, from countries whose governments don't provide adequate protection against sexual and spousal violence), apparently because it would mean we'd have to...let in refugees. And "huddled masses" takes yet another step towards historical trivia.

Excuses

Professor Farnsworth adequately sums up my feelings towards playing floor hockey tonight:

Farnsworth: Forget it, I'm not going! I have my reasons! Shut up, all of you! My hip hurts! I'm in the middle of cooking a turkey! I have warranty cards to fill out! I am not just making excuses! Alright, I'll go!

Objectively speaking, there is no reason I should be playing tonight with my headcold. Subjectively speaking, I love floor hockey. And it just wouldn't be my 21st Birthday if I didn't do something that is both fun and recklessly dangerous in the evening. Since floor hockey is both more fun and less dangerous (to me anyway) than drinking, floor hockey it is.

Calypso

Today, at 6 AM on my 21st Birthday, I achieved a dream I've been pursuing for several years--identifying and then acquiring the song "Calypso" by Spiderbait. It's from the movie "10 Things I Hate About You," but it's not on the official soundtrack. So I only knew it by the 25 second clip it got in the movie.

Sunshine, on my window, makes me happy, like I should be
Outside, all around me, really sleazy, then it hits me....

It's also not on iTunes, which meant I had to acquire it through less...scrupulous means. But I did request that iTunes add it to their library, so future patrons will pay retail.

The upshot? Disappointing, as a whole. But the first 25 seconds rock as much as ever.

21

It's my birthday weekend (I turn 21 on Sunday). So if I seem to blog less frequent then usual over these next few days, rest assured it's a complete coincidence.

Noblesse Oblige

Mike Crowley on the media's discovery that John Edwards is actually rich:

The weirdest emerging theme, as seen in the lede of this AP story, is the implication that having money and a fancy house somehow exists in tension with Edwards's concentration on poverty in America. To the contrary, I say. If only every millionaire with a mansion in the Hamptons or Malibu gave more of a damn about poverty, and less about tax cuts or the availability of a good helicopter pilot, we might make some progress towards eliminating the American underclass.

Amen. Rich people have a particularly important responsibility to fight against poverty, because they are the key beneficiaries of the capitalist system which put them at the top, and others at the bottom. White people have a particular obligation to remedy racism, because they are the key beneficiaries of the racist system which gives them undue advantage.

Or, to state it broadly: "Human beings have a moral obligation to try and remedy unjust systems of which they are the beneficiary."

As I clarified in that post, this is not saying that said beneficiaries are responsible for the unjust state of affairs. White people are, by and large, not responsible for the web of White privilege which gives them their advantage. Rich people should not be looked upon as evil because they amassed wealth. This is not a guilt/innocence issue. This is about fairness and distributional justice. If you believe it is unfair for children to grow up in grinding, hopeless poverty simply because of their parents, or that a laid off mill worker is not at fault when his factory got outsourced to China, then you're admitting that the Capitalist system creates losers who do not "deserve" to be there, and the people who are winners in the same system have to fight against that.

So, good for Edwards. The fact that he's wealthy means we should expect him to fight on behalf of the American underclass. It's sad that we appear to be surprised at the prospect instead.

Bias Within Bias

Talking with a friend today after class, I remarked that much of my thinking on Israel/Palestine issues had moved away from the nuts and bolts of the conflict itself, and towards the meta-issue of how we talk about the conflict. This is the instinct that prompted my narrative frames post, for example. To a large extent, I truly do not believe that our society has figured out the ground rules of a conversation on this issue that allow all parties to participate while feeling like they are given equal consideration and due treatment. Because of this, the discussion on the discussion holds considerable importance to me--until we get that debate resolved, I believe the policy issues will indefinitely loop around and never actually be resolved.

In that vein, David Adnesik has a great post examining the claim that the media is more likely to report Israeli civilian casualties than their Palestinian counterparts. The subject of his inquiry is a report by FAIR that claims to have found this trend in NPR reporting on the conflict. This is FAIR's conclusion:

An Israeli civilian victim was more likely to have his or her death reported on NPR (84 percent were covered) than a member of the Israeli security forces (69 percent). But Palestinians were far more likely to have their deaths reported if they were security personnel (72 percent) than if they were civilians (22 percent). Of the 112 Palestinian civilians killed in the Occupied Territories during the period studied, just 26 were reported on NPR. Of the 28 Israeli civilians killed in the Territories--mostly settlers--21 were reported on NPR.

My narrative theory can account for this--indeed, on my earliest pieces on narrative dealt specifically with Journalistic Narratives. The narrative that creates this "bias" could be one of many things--it could be an implicit view that Israeli lives are more valuable than those of Palestinians. It could be that a desire for evenhandedness makes the media attempt to report casualties at a 1:1 rate, which yields the bias because there are far more casualties on the Palestinian side during the measured time period. It could be the manner in which Israeli deaths occur makes them more "reportable"--Adnesik notes that many of the Israeli deaths occur from massive suicide bombings that kill large numbers of civilians at once, while Palestinian deaths tend to happen in more isolated incidents. Any of these or other potential narratives, or any mix of these, could cause the disparity FAIR sees.

FAIR offered a spreadsheet to buttress its analysis, and Adnesik argues that it shows that the disparity is explainable by factors that are not related to any implicit devaluing of Palestinian life. The data apparently verifies my aforementioned point that Israelis tend to die in bunches, while Palestinians die one-by-one. He also points out that the status of many of the Palestinians FAIR labels as civilians is quite ambigious--FAIR does not seem to account for the presence of armed militants who aren't part of the official Palestinian Security apparatus, which seems like an elementary mistake--and the breakdown of what type of people are dying fits "the demographic profile of a fighting force." If NPR was more willing than FAIR to examine the prospect that some of these "civilians" were actually militants, it may then have decided that a battle that resulted in one death in a longstanding civil war is not worth its ink.

Thus, Adnesik concludes that

What NPR covered most was terrorism -- the intentional murder of civilians, especially when more than one was killed at a time. One might argue that a focus on terrorism is not the best way to cover the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but that is very different from arguing that the US media devalue Palestinian life and fear the retribution of the Jewish lobby.

So what do we draw from this? Well, as Adnesik says, one can argue that the focus on terrorism ends up biased towards Israel because the types of deaths it suffers are far more likely to meet the moniker than the deaths it inflicts. Or one could argue that NPR's decision calculus is perfectly acceptable, as there is a qualitative difference between civilians being delibertely targeted for death, and "civilians" who are possibly militants dying (or alternatively, civilians dying as collateral damage during operations against militants, which we've sort of internalized as one of the necessary tragedies of war).

Ultimately, then, the question of whether the media really is showing "bias" towards Israel is determined by whether its facial reasons for reporting disparity are coherent and meaningful conceptual categories, or are merely serving as a facade for the slant. That's not resolvable without getting inside people's psyches (again, back to the narrative frames issue), but at the very least, the reporting is not inarguably biased in favor of Israel.

Blogroll Moves

Some new additions to my blogroll:

Faux Real Tho has been linking to me reasonably consistently in her round-ups, which pleases me. More pleasing is that she links to the posts I actually find interesting--it seems that many of my links go to some of my least favored posts.

Black at Michigan is erudite and always worth reading. It's a recent discovery of mine through Rachel's Tavern, and I've been impressed by what I've seen so far.

To both of those two, I'd also be honored to be placed on your blogroll (however, I don't really believe in quid pro quo trades on that respect, so if you don't want to, that's entirely okay).

Wall of Separation, blog of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, also makes its debut.

Finally, That Black Lesbian Jew doesn't really blog frequently enough to get on the 'roll, but I think that if she ever starts cranking those gears, her perspective would be a fascinating one, so I'll keep my eye on it.

Congratulations to the newly inducted!

Glenn Beck's Race Problem

Since the very first time I saw him, I've always been keenly aware that Glenn Beck is a nut. So the following will not break any shattering new paradigms in that regard. But Steve Benen's analysis on why Beck justifies having so few Black friends is worth saving, simply because it shows the severe infirmities of a "color-blind" outlook at remedying racism. Here's Beck (talking with conservative Black author Shelby Steele):

"You know, I -- Shelby, I don't know if anybody else in the audience -- oh, this is just going to be a blog nightmare over the next few days -- but let me just be honest and play my cards face up on the table.

"I was thinking about this just last week. I don't have a lot of African-American friends, and I think part of it is because I'm afraid that I would be in an open conversation, and I would say something that somebody would take wrong, and then it would be a nightmare."

There are obvious things to say about this comment (starting with the fact that Beck seems utterly oblivious to the possibility that he might learn something from his would-be Black friends offense about race), but I want to bracket them for now. I just want to note that Beck, if pressed, probably would not admit that this is a racist action on his part. He's not not friends with Blacks because they're Black, he's not friends because he doesn't want to hang with people who will make him feel uncomfortable (which just happens to track being Black). Obviously, this is quite transparent to the folks observing at home. But it does show the infinite malleability of "color-blindness" to justify nearly any racial inequity (and it's been serving in that capacity since Jim Crow).

Is Beck's instinct shared by many White Americans, who also seem unreasonably skittish about interacting with Blacks because they're afraid they'll screw up and get tarred with the label, "racist"? Yes, I believe it is, and I believe it is something that needs to be addressed seriously and remedied (rather than simply chided from afar). But that won't happen as long as we delude ourselves into thinking that it is "color-blind" thinking on the part of White Americans. It isn't, and it can't be treated that way.

Assortment

If you've noticed, I've been a bad blogger the last few days. The reason is that I'm trying to kick a rather nasty cough/cold before the weekend, when my birthday is. And it just took a turn for the worse.

So part one of this post asks the question: What do the following symptoms signify? A few days of a wracking cough, followed by really stuffy sinuses (but the coughing has stopped), and now the sinuses plus a sore and somewhat swollen throat?

People who don't have anything valuable to add to that conversation can instead debate their favorite Futurama episode. I think I'd probably have to say Love and Rocket, either of the two Xmas Stories, or Crimes of the Hot. But right now (this changes all the time) my favorite line in the show comes from I Dated a Robot, featuring the "Erotic Assassin" style Lucy Liu-bot saying, in a robotic voice: "I am Lucy Liu, give me your spines."

Devoted Lucy Liu fan that I am, I laughed uncontrollably.

Israel's Silence on Darfur

Martin Peretz rips into Israel for its anemic response to the Darfur genocide. The country founded on "never again" simply cannot stand idly by while, two countries over, genocide rages on.

I've noted that Israel has somewhat of an excuse not to be more vocal on the Darfur issue--the Sudanese government is already labeling the anti-genocide push as a Zionist Plot, and it seems foolish to play into their hands. However, as Peretz notes, Israel is also refusing to take in Sudanese refugees seeking asylum in its country. There is no excuse for that.

Narrative in the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict

Narrative is an inescapable condition of our lives. We organize and interpret reality through the lens of narrative spheres, taking otherwise discordant, unverifiable, or incomprehensible events and reinterpreting them so they represent order, meaning, and reality. This clashes rather harshly with the prevalent view that our perceptions reflect (more or less accurately) something "real" and that our perceptions are shaped solely by reality (rather than any influence in the other direction). But, popularity notwithstanding, it still remains true that--in the words of a fictional debate coach--"reality isn't."

Different narratives can coexist, but often they compete and sometimes they completely nullify each other. Indeed, the adaptation of one narrative necessarily involves the suppression of others. This is problematic, because the undeniably pluralism of reality makes it more than likely that even suppressed narratives contain grains of truth inside of them, and their marginalization thus operates as a cognitive shortcut to simplify (but distort) our perception of the world. Yet it is unavoidable--it is impossible to function while simultaneously affirming every possible narrative existent in the wide world.

I think this offers an important qualifier to discussions on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. There are many narratives clashing here: Jewish restoration of homeland versus Palestinian naqba, Binational versus unitary states, terrorism or resistance. People adopt a favored narrative and then interpret events through that lens. So, in the comments to the last post we discussed the shooting death of a young Palestinian teenager by the IDF. As usual, there are conflicting stories as to what happened--the IDF says he was trying to cut through the security barrier, his friends and family say he was riding a horse near the barrier but was not attempting to cross it. Whom one believes is largely a function of how one more broadly conceptualizes the narrative of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. My internal narrative frame emphasizes anti-Jewish oppression, of which Israel is supposed to be a haven from. In this context, Palestinian attacks on Israel is simple a localized version of a global trend. Israel's actions are understood in the context of preventing another Auschwitz--never again will we meekly march to our own graves. This narrative has a supporting super-structure of news reports, historical anecdotes, stories, polls, etc., which buttress the idea that much of the violence stems from Palestinian and Arab anti-Semitism and their illegitimate inability to come to terms with having Jewish neighbors on "their" land. And Israel, for its part, qualifies its behavior based on Jewish experience and ethics, which desire to minimize civilian casualties and have an ultimate desire to live in harmony with its neighbors. Civilians still die, of course, but these are seen as mistakes, tragedies, or products of Palestinian terror groups basing their operations within civilian populations.

Of course, even within this narrative, it is quite obvious that in any given case (or in this case) the Palestinian teenagers and their families may be telling the truth. All armies contain brutes who like inflict suffering, and the hierarchal nature of occupation make exploitation easy to cause and easier to cover up. But since I have no way to independently verify what happened in any particular case, I mentally categorize the events as what they are "most likely," which is accordance with the dominant narrative. The net effect is suppress instances of illegitimate Palestinian suffering that I theoretically "know" happen but never actually grapple with because I can derail their entry into my consciousness at the level of the particular event.

Hence, the dominant narrative of Israel attempting to defend itself from its enemies, while trying to do so as ethically as possible, suppresses a counter-narrative that I also know to be legitimate--that Palestinians, many of whom are innocent, are dying or are otherwise harmed by Israeli policies, that they face suffering which is illegitimate. My narrative also obliterates (i.e., refuses to recognize the legitimacy of) still other counter-narratives, ones that might challenge whether Israel legitimately exists at all, or whether it has any particular ties to ethical behavior constraining its action.

I focused this piece on critiquing my own narrative, because the point of the post is to be cognizant of the manner in which our internal proceedings construct and constrain our political horizons, and it would be hypocritical to try and deny this in ourselves. But it is important to note that the exact same analysis applies going in the other direction. A narrative which assumes Israeli mal intent, for example, might theoretically be aware that any individual IDF soldier is responding to a genuine threat, but subsumes that narrative into the dominant one suggesting Israeli brutalism as the primary precipitation of violent activity. This narrative obliterates the counter-narrative (i.e., the element of my narrative) that says Israeli institutions do care about such ethical boundaries. Still more radical narratives, such as the one that says Israel had no right to exist in the first place, forcibly exclude counter-narratives about Jewish history in the region, Israel as a haven for oppressed Jews, and other sundries which are part of my reality and my existence.

As I said, to some extent this is unavoidable, as no narrative can necessarily be complete or all-encompassing of reality. Yet, I don't ask of that impossibility. Rather, I use this example to ask us to be cognizant of our narratives, and recognize that by defaulting to particular views of the world, we are necessarily depriving ourselves of the full extent of the reality out there. A little humility is in order.

Leland's Grave

The Wall of Separation blog (arm of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State) has an interesting post on George W. Bush winning the Southern Baptist Convention's John Leland Religious Liberty award. The post points out that, given the history of Mr. Leland, awarding it to someone like President Bush is a sick joke. Leland was a firm advocate for separationism, and he actually spoke out against "toleration" because he said it did not go far enough:

The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence; whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians.

Leland also wrote that "the fondness of magistrates to foster Christianity has done it more harm than persecutions ever did," and maintained suspicion of politicians who wore their faith on their sleeve.

It is a well-documented historical irony that the Baptists, some of the most stalwart defenders of religious liberty (for minorities especially) at the time of the founding, have now become associated with an aggressive drive to mix Church and State into as indistinguishable a blend as possible. In fact, this is somewhat unfair, as it is more the Southern Baptist Church, which broke away from the larger Baptist movement in the mid 19th century (largely over slavery issues) that has really been driving for Church/State unification. My impression is that the original Baptists remain reasonably committed to a separationist standpoint. Leland had already died by the time of this schism, but his legacy is most certainly not expressed by the SBC award recipients.

The Case for The Case for Israel

David Adnesik is going to read and comment as he works through Alan Dershowitz's The Case for Israel. The stated point of comparison is to Norman Finkelstein, which seems to give Dershowitz an advantage from the start. I read The Case for Israel a few years back, and thought it was pretty good (not spectacular), however, I wasn't really in a stage of my intellectual development where I could cast a truly critical eye on it.

Adnesik's thoughts so far? Dershowitz wildly overestimates his own abilities, and his use of courtroom stylistic motifs is obnoxious and unhelpful. That being said, Adnesik appears to be convinced that Dershowitz is at least somewhat openminded, nuanced in argumentation, and does not qualify as a "loon."

Transition

I didn't know this:

As a retired judge, O'Connor maintains an office at the Supreme Court, still draws a salary and fills in as a judge on the federal appeals courts.

I know that retired judges got to take "senior status" and would sit by designation on appellate panels, but somehow it never occurred to me that Supreme Court judges would do it too. That's got to be a little bit of a letdown. What if she's on the bottom of a 2-1 decision? "I used to own you people!" It would just be a bit rough on the ego, I think.

Da Bears

I was leaning towards rooting for them anyway, and this post was enough to convince me.

Plus it means I can put this picture on my blog.














As Stephen Colbert might say: The Bears are "godless killing machines without a soul." And what more could you want from a football team?

Ball Tribulations

I had a wonderful time at the Ball last night. But there was a problem. At the end of the night, as my date was getting ready to board the shuttle to go home, I leaned in to give her the ceremonial peck on the cheek. Alas, I did not get her cheek. Rather, I hit the ear-flap on her warm winter hat (it was, after all, probably -10 degrees outside). This is not the first time this has happened. The last time I recall attempting to give a kiss on the cheek, I ended up swallowing a mouthful of hair instead. I think I'm aiming too far back. I just hope this is the sort of thing that is endearingly awkward, rather than sad.

The night wasn't a total loss. I progressively learned how to dance from pretty much a cold start at the beginning of the evening. By the end, I had cobbled together a half-respectable West Coast Swing. When I told a friend (who does know how to dance), she said "Congratulations! West Coast is hard!" This leads me to suspect that I wasn't actually dancing West Coast, but rather a mutant hybrid formed from half-baked Bar Mitzvah memories. But whatever it was, it was actually pretty good.

So, in conclusion, balls are fun. And don't lean too far forward.

Palestine's Civil War

The brutal civil war between Hamas and Fatah continues to rage throughout Palestine, as several attempts at creating a cease-fire have collapsed.

From a humanitarian standpoint, obviously I want the violence to end. There has been too much bloodshed in this region even without this latest conflagration, the last thing we need is more gunfire. But I'm not sure who has the leverage to stop it.

Israel potentially could intervene in some form (I'm not sure what), but is it clear they even want to? From a purely self-interested perspective, it could go either way. On the one hand, a destablizied Palestine is a Palestine that will not be able to make any progress towards a lasting peace with Israel. As long as this internal conflict festers, the peace process is on an indefinite hiatus, which is not good for the Jewish state. On the other hand, Israelis cannot help but notice that as long as Palestinians are shooting at each other, they're not shooting at Israelis. Indeed, one of the key lines media reports have brought out from the Palestinian street is people calling for an end to the civil war so they can concentrate on attacking the Zionists. It is unsurprising that Israel may not be too keen on assisting them in the process.

I don't know how much influence surrounding Arab states have on the Palestinian miltia groups. Maybe they can put a stop to the violence. Of course, even aside from Israel's interests in the matter, Seth Weinburger forwards that the conflict may be a textbook scenario of "Give war a chance". Maybe we just have to wait for the dispute to burn itself out (always a great strategy in Middle East conflicts).

Branching Out

I'm doing a radio show in a half hour. A music radio show (a friend of mine is tired, and wants me to stand in for him).

I'll try not to make it suck too much.

UPDATE: Here was my playlist, if you're interested.

1) Le Disko -- Shiny Toy Guns
2) Cosmopolitan -- Nine Black Alps
3) Stupify -- Disturbed
4) Animal I Have Become -- Three Days Grace
5) Blow Me Away -- Breaking Benjamin
6) Innervision -- System of a Down
7) Infected -- Bad Religion
8) We Still Kill the Old Way -- Lostprophets
9) The New Transmission -- Lostprophets
10) Bruises -- Unloco
11) Downfall -- Trust Company
12) Girl in a Box -- 76
13) Objects in Space -- 76

I Can Give Props

Virgil Goode announces he'd attend a Muslim gathering (if invited).

Good for him. If nothing else comes out of this controversy, hopefully it will be one Congressman broadening his horizons a little bit.

Reb of the Rings

In my Jewish Theology class today, we were talking about how Orthodox Jews "cheated" with regards to not turning on lights on Shabbat by having automatic timers. It was actually part of an interesting and substantive class discussion. Still, the only thing running through my sleep-deprived mind for the entire proceedings was a Gollum-voice going "tricksy Hobbitses...."

Fortuntately, I still had enough sense in me not to say that aloud (though I was sorely tempted). Even still, I imagine that this had something to do with my Professor's decision to "let us out early" (read: let us out only five minutes late) so we could go take naps (or, in my case, go to my next class).

It's mid-term break this weekend!

Turnabout (Part II)

Following up on yesterday's post, two things worthy of note. First, Dina Porat writes in Ha'aretz on "What makes an anti-Semite"?

"Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."

In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collective.

Anti-Semitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for "why things go wrong." It is expressed in speech, writing, in visual forms. and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Porat gives some concrete examples of anti-Semitism as related to Israel:

* Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor

* Applying double standards by requiring Israel to behave in a manner not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation

* Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis

* Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis

* Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel

However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.

I actually think Porat's definition is too narrow, and don't really encompass all of the examples that she gives (examples which I think should be included under any real definition of anti-Semitism).

Meanwhile, David Bernstein offers some historical perspective on Jews "turning against themselves," noting that being particularly aggressive towards Jewish symbols and institutions can be a way for Jews wishing to incorporate themselves into organizations hostile to Judaism to prove their bona fides and disclaim any lingering loyalty to their community. The examples he gives are Jewish conversos in the Inquisition and ethnically Jewish party officials in the USSR. Today, leftist Jews may feel that attacking Israel is a "rite of passage," showing that they are truly part of the left-wing community (and--implicitly by extension--no longer wedded to the Jewish community).

Again, it's important to make a distinction here (and Bernstein does at the top) between "love it so change it" Jews, and Jews who seem appalled at the very existence of Israel, the latter being the topic of discussion.

Down with the Sickness

...and I'm Disturbed.

And with Mid-Winter Ball coming Saturday, a bit frustrated.