Good Friday Night Fights card tonight, including a nice juicy upset win for Jose Luis Herrera. Also, tomorrow we have the Ricky Hatton/Juan Lazcano fight, which I hope to catch on Versus, and an incredible trash talk sequence between Nate Campbell and Joan Guzman. Sorry "Joanie", but Nate's better at it than you are.
But anyway, back to tonight's action:
Jason Estrada (13-1, 3 KOs) TKO7 Moultrie Witherspoon (14-2, 8 KOs)
Estrada, a former US Olympian, may not have much pop, but he was able to do as he pleased against the over-matched Witherspoon, whose record was wildly inflated. Estrada was landing combinations, particularly ones that started with a right uppercut that couldn't miss. Witherspoon occasionally sneaked in upper-cuts of his own, but by and large was content to get hit. A lot. The best thing you could say about him is that he never went down even after absorbing a lot of punishment (the referee jumped into stop it while Witherspoon was still on his feet). As for Estrada, well, he's still no puncher, but he showing a little more offensive-mindedness that is good to see from a young heavyweight prospect. We'll see if it translates against fighters who are slightly more a threat than Moultrie Witherspoon.
The stoppage raised an interesting question for a referee. It was clear that Witherspoon was getting battered around all night, and nothing was changing. But there wasn't any point where he was defenseless or even particularly dazed, just an endless march of gradual sustained punishment. That, of course, can be the most dangerous thing for a boxer -- the accumulation of punches is far worse for a fighter's health than one big highlight reel haymaker. So even though there was nothing particular dramatic happening when the ref stepped in, it's hard to protest the decision (though Witherspoon did, very briefly).
Henry Lundy (11-0-1, 6 KOs) UD4 Esteban Almaraz (7-1, 4 KOs)
This is the second time I've seen Lundy on a ESPN2 fight card, and my thought upon seeing this match-up was much the same as it was the first time around: why only four rounds? Two unbeaten guys (same as the last time), good pedigrees, fun to watch -- four rounds hardly seems sufficient. And this was a fight which really could have used a few extra stanzas to really establish who earned the "W". Almaraz knocked down Lundy in the first, but Lundy returned the favor later on in the same round and seemingly had Almaraz more hurt. So I (and Teddy Atlas, whose scorecard mirrored my own) scored it 10-9 Lundy. Round two was competitive but I thought Lundy won it as well. Round three was far and away the closest round of the fight, and I scored it even -- but either fighter could make a case for it. And in the last round, Almaraz knocked down Lundy again. It was a bit of a flash knockdown, and the rest of the round was relatively evenly fought, but still -- that's 10-8 Almaraz.
So Teddy and I both have the fight a 38-38 draw (just like Lundy's first ESPN fight, incidentally). To my mind, only the third round was in doubt, making any score from 38-37 Lundy to 38-37 Almaraz also acceptable. Almaraz thus has the right to be at least a little upset that Lundy won by unanimous decision, and a lot upset at the bogus 38-36 card, which only could happen by giving Lundy a 10-8 round one when Almaraz also scored a knockdown. Not Kosher.
But you know what? As Brian Kenny said: Rematch! Who wouldn't want to see them again -- this was a really entertaining fight. Just schedule it for a bit longer next time.
Jose Luis Herrera (16-4, 16 KOs) TKO5 Aaron Williams (17-1-1, 12 KOs)
When Allan Green was scheduled to fight Edison "La Pantera" Miranda, he derided his gaudy knockout ratio as being built up against "Columbia cab drivers." He was made to eat his words as Miranda knocked him down twice to win a wide decision victory and hand "Sweetness" his first (and thus far only) career loss.
Herrera is also a Columbian fighter, also nicknamed "La Pantera", and also with a rather impressive knockout ratio: not only have all of his wins come inside the distance, but so have all of his losses. As Joe Tessitore remarked, "either you knock him out, or he knocks you out."
At the start of this bout, it looked like talented prospect Aaron Williams would accomplish the former, scoring a knockdown and simply battering Herrera around the ring for much of round one, so much so that the doctor stepped in and demanded to look at Herrera. That proved to be a blessing in disguise for the Columbian, giving him the breather he needed to get out of the first frame and get his legs back under him.
By round four, Herrera was beginning to get some confidence, though Williams was still in complete control. But Williams was leaving his hands low, and Herrera was looking to make him pay for his cockiness. And in round five, Herrera finally landed a huge overhand shot that sent Williams reeling. He chased him down and battered him against the ropes, scoring a knockdown. Williams got up and signaled he wanted to continue, but only a few seconds later he went down without a punch landing to try and buy more time. At that point, the doctor took a look at him, and after a short conversation, recommended the fight be stopped. Apparently, Williams kept calling him "ref", and the doctor (not being the referee) took that as a sign of disorientation. Williams did not look happy about the stoppage, but then, that might have been bravado.
It was a big upset, to be sure -- Williams was considered one of the brightest prospects in the cruiserweight division, and Herrera had been knocked out in three of his last four (admittedly against good competition). But Herrera has, as Teddy likes to say (and I can't believe he didn't say it here) that "big eraser" -- his power. It's genuine, and he made Williams pay for his neglect of defense.
Herrera will never be a big player in the division -- he's too raw and too chinny. But his power will give him a punchers chance against anybody. Who wants to see him against Darnell Wilson? I do!
Friday, May 23, 2008
Preference and Mistrust
An oft-heard argument against affirmative action is that the use of racialized preferences ends up hurting the beneficiaries because other people then question whether they're "really" qualified for the positions they've received, or are just "affirmative action hires." Even people who might have earned it "on their own" get caught up in this mistrustful sentiment, and by ultimately impugning the abilities of Black people everywhere, it shows that affirmative action, despite its good intentions, ultimately is harmful to the interests of Blacks.
This argument can come in several forms, and some would argue that even though the sentiment isn't just, it's there, and hence pragmatically affirmative action causes more problems than it solves. Unfair as that might be, it is a sentiment that needs to be grappled with in reality, not wished away by utopian hopes. This argument I think is at least a reasonable one, and though I don't think it ultimately shows that we should abolish affirmative action, it is one that needs to be addressed on its terms.
Another form, however, is to argue that the view really is just, and not racist. Blacks really are receiving a preference, this really does raise legitimate questions about their "actual" qualifications, which are masked by the use of preferences, and thus it is perfectly rational to have suspicions about the true ability of Black people hired in affirmative action practicing institutions.
This argument, to be blunt, is bogus. Even if we accept some rather shaky underlying assumptions that it rests on: that there is a stable, objective entity known as "merit" which can be measured, and affirmative action (or any sort of preference that is not explicitly "merit" based) means giving less meritorious applicants positions over more-qualified individuals, it would still be true that the way this argument plays out it racist.
How do I know? Simple. Nobody mistrusts the qualifications of White people even when there is significant evidence that they received their positions through non-merit based channels -- even and including race-based preference. The argument is only applied against Black people, and when a facially neutral argument only is applied in a manner harmful to Blacks, that's racism.
Now, I could argue that Whites today often gain significant advantages by virtue of White privilege that undoubtedly have some bearing on their current position, job, or class level. And I think that's true, and I think it's pretty clear that nobody wonders aloud about whether all White folks are "really" qualified for the positions they hold. But I don't even need to focus on the present, because we have a far more slam-dunk case: how White achievement was treated at the cusp of the civil rights movement.
Nobody, presumably, would disagree that prior to the civil rights movement, Whites had race-based "preferences" that gave them advantages in the workplace and society. And few would disagree (hopefully) that those preferences were immoral. But even during the civil rights era, there was not a broad based acceptance that individual Whites might not "deserve" to be where they are -- in their job, in their schools, in the neighborhoods, in their class, in their seniority rankings -- whatever. Insofar as the average White was referenced, it was to posit their "innocence"; that they hadn't done anything wrong, so all they had accomplished was perfectly meritorious. This belief was then used to block many integration efforts during the civil rights movement, as Blacks, paradoxically, were seen as taking positions from Whites who had "earned" them despite the fact that they clearly had been treated preferentially. That's why, from a personnel standpoint, very little changed after the civil rights "revolution". We often act like America had the equivalent of an oil change" after 1965, taking out our racist citizens and replacing them with purely color-blind people. But obviously, that didn't happen -- the same Whites who were benefiting from preferential treatment in 1960 had, by and large, their same jobs and same positions in 1970, and nobody considered asking whether or not they truly earned it.
So even though we concede those people got preferential treatment, and even though (unlike affirmative action) we universally agree that treatment was wrong, we still don't tell ourselves that their qualifications are suspect. Even retrospectively, we don't look back and wonder about whether they truly were the best men and women for their jobs. We don't ask ourselves whether our first 35 or so Presidents really were "qualified" for office. We don't ask whether or not the entire White middle class "earned" its place there. Clearly, preferential treatment does not have to entail mistrust about qualifications -- and it never has for any White person in the history of America. In fact, despite the theoretical neutrality of the argument, it is only applied against Blacks. That's racism, no matter how you slice it.
This argument can come in several forms, and some would argue that even though the sentiment isn't just, it's there, and hence pragmatically affirmative action causes more problems than it solves. Unfair as that might be, it is a sentiment that needs to be grappled with in reality, not wished away by utopian hopes. This argument I think is at least a reasonable one, and though I don't think it ultimately shows that we should abolish affirmative action, it is one that needs to be addressed on its terms.
Another form, however, is to argue that the view really is just, and not racist. Blacks really are receiving a preference, this really does raise legitimate questions about their "actual" qualifications, which are masked by the use of preferences, and thus it is perfectly rational to have suspicions about the true ability of Black people hired in affirmative action practicing institutions.
This argument, to be blunt, is bogus. Even if we accept some rather shaky underlying assumptions that it rests on: that there is a stable, objective entity known as "merit" which can be measured, and affirmative action (or any sort of preference that is not explicitly "merit" based) means giving less meritorious applicants positions over more-qualified individuals, it would still be true that the way this argument plays out it racist.
How do I know? Simple. Nobody mistrusts the qualifications of White people even when there is significant evidence that they received their positions through non-merit based channels -- even and including race-based preference. The argument is only applied against Black people, and when a facially neutral argument only is applied in a manner harmful to Blacks, that's racism.
Now, I could argue that Whites today often gain significant advantages by virtue of White privilege that undoubtedly have some bearing on their current position, job, or class level. And I think that's true, and I think it's pretty clear that nobody wonders aloud about whether all White folks are "really" qualified for the positions they hold. But I don't even need to focus on the present, because we have a far more slam-dunk case: how White achievement was treated at the cusp of the civil rights movement.
Nobody, presumably, would disagree that prior to the civil rights movement, Whites had race-based "preferences" that gave them advantages in the workplace and society. And few would disagree (hopefully) that those preferences were immoral. But even during the civil rights era, there was not a broad based acceptance that individual Whites might not "deserve" to be where they are -- in their job, in their schools, in the neighborhoods, in their class, in their seniority rankings -- whatever. Insofar as the average White was referenced, it was to posit their "innocence"; that they hadn't done anything wrong, so all they had accomplished was perfectly meritorious. This belief was then used to block many integration efforts during the civil rights movement, as Blacks, paradoxically, were seen as taking positions from Whites who had "earned" them despite the fact that they clearly had been treated preferentially. That's why, from a personnel standpoint, very little changed after the civil rights "revolution". We often act like America had the equivalent of an oil change" after 1965, taking out our racist citizens and replacing them with purely color-blind people. But obviously, that didn't happen -- the same Whites who were benefiting from preferential treatment in 1960 had, by and large, their same jobs and same positions in 1970, and nobody considered asking whether or not they truly earned it.
So even though we concede those people got preferential treatment, and even though (unlike affirmative action) we universally agree that treatment was wrong, we still don't tell ourselves that their qualifications are suspect. Even retrospectively, we don't look back and wonder about whether they truly were the best men and women for their jobs. We don't ask ourselves whether our first 35 or so Presidents really were "qualified" for office. We don't ask whether or not the entire White middle class "earned" its place there. Clearly, preferential treatment does not have to entail mistrust about qualifications -- and it never has for any White person in the history of America. In fact, despite the theoretical neutrality of the argument, it is only applied against Blacks. That's racism, no matter how you slice it.
Obama the Zionist
In the wake of my rather radical post on the ability of non-Jews to defend the Zionist project, I suppose I should note this article in the Jerusalem Post, by a former Bush-supporting Jew who has come out for Obama, in part because of this interview in the Atlantic.
So basically, much the argument I alleged non-Jews likely would not make in public discourse about Zionism. Obama's interview is, in fact, fantastic -- it hits every base I could have asked for. He called Zionism "just". He related it to anti-Semitism -- not just as something in the past, but as something Jews need to worry about today. And he seemed to truly "get" why the Zionist idea has such a hold on Jews -- not just intellectually, but in his gut and soul.
So, to an extent, I was wrong (admittedly, Obama is still the exception it seems). But what motivates Obama to be different?
One explanation (the optimistic one) is that Obama's experience as a Black man (and thus, as someone who has experience with marginalization) makes him more likely to "get" the reasons why Jews support Israel, rather than lazily adopt the majoritarian framing of the issue that does not take account of Jewish subordination. I wrote that last post in a rather radical mood -- normally, I'm much more optimistic about the ability of empathic approximating experiences to be a route towards coalition-building amongst oppressed people. Obama's superior grasp of why Jews are Zionist may be a function of that. Certainly, his relation of his own experience as someone "uprooted" to the Jewish history of exile indicates this might be the case.
Another explanation, more cynical, is that Obama was pressed into making this statement in order to shore up nervous Jewish voters -- a bloc that remains quite important to the Democratic coalition. Because he was "under suspicion", in part because of his association with Jeremiah Wright, in part because of broader concerns (mostly, but not entirely, off-base) about the degree to which the Black community supports Israel, he had to come back with more than the standard pro-Zionist fare in order to assuage Jewish fears. Remarking on Zionism's fundamental justness was a way to allay those concerns -- particularly since so much of the anti-Zionist argument we hear nowadays is centered around how morally atrocious and inherently unjust Zionism is.
In any event, what I gather from the interview is that Obama is likely to be the most pro-Israel -- in the best sense of the word -- President in a long time. Because his support is rooted in what makes Jews Zionist, it take seriously the conflict on the terms that matter to Jews. What some of our putative friends do not understand is that keeping Israel looked in perpetual, apocalyptic conflict (either with its neighbors or the Palestinians) is not in Israel's interests. It's a concept they don't get because their people aren't the ones who end up in the body bags from it. Nor is it consistent with the progressive Zionist ideal to maintain the occupation forever and prevent Palestinians from achieving their own self-determination. Obama's support for Israel means getting it out of the ultimately untenable position it is now, in a manner that maintains its security, respects its dignity, and affirms its legitimate and just place in the world community as a Jewish state.
There's nothing more I could ask for.
SENATOR OBAMA's interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic represents some of the most reassuring words I have heard from the Democratic front-runner regarding his Middle East policy, and especially his support for Israel. Rather than only seeing Israel as a "strategic ally" or as the "only democracy in the Middle East" - the standard clichés of support - Senator Obama identifies with the "Zionist idea" and believes that a secure Jewish state is "fundamentally just."
Now, that is refreshing. When was the last time we had heard the word "Zionist" being used in a positive way and described as "fundamentally just" by a non-Jew? Senator Obama evoked the Zionist idea because he does not think of Israel only as a geopolitical ally, and does not base his support on a cost-benefit analysis of the "special relationship." Rather, his support for Israel is anchored in a true understanding of the need for the Jewish people to have a homeland where Jews "can take care of themselves no matter what happens," where we can feel rooted, where our culture can be preserved, and where the Jewish values of social justice can flourish. He especially identified with Zionism's quest "to start over and to repair the breaches of the past."
Obama's connection to Israel is much more personal and, therefore, much stronger, genuine and uncompromising than your traditional candidates. It is not a support based on interests, politics, or a quid pro quo with the Jewish state. It is a support based on identity, on a genuine understanding of the needs of a people to have self-determination, and a conviction that regardless of day-to-day policies, the idea of a Jewish state is fundamentally just.
This is much more reassuring than a candidate that repeats the traditional catch phrases of "strategic ally" and "only democracy in the Middle East." These phrases always make me feel like I constantly have to "make the case" for Israel because, if I cannot prove Israel's "worthiness" to the US, then support will diminish. On the other hand, Obama's rationale for supporting Israel is much simpler. He respects, understands and identifies with the desire of the Jewish people to be a fulfilled and independent nation in their own homeland. In his eyes, Israel and the Zionist idea are important and fundamentally just in their own right.
So basically, much the argument I alleged non-Jews likely would not make in public discourse about Zionism. Obama's interview is, in fact, fantastic -- it hits every base I could have asked for. He called Zionism "just". He related it to anti-Semitism -- not just as something in the past, but as something Jews need to worry about today. And he seemed to truly "get" why the Zionist idea has such a hold on Jews -- not just intellectually, but in his gut and soul.
So, to an extent, I was wrong (admittedly, Obama is still the exception it seems). But what motivates Obama to be different?
One explanation (the optimistic one) is that Obama's experience as a Black man (and thus, as someone who has experience with marginalization) makes him more likely to "get" the reasons why Jews support Israel, rather than lazily adopt the majoritarian framing of the issue that does not take account of Jewish subordination. I wrote that last post in a rather radical mood -- normally, I'm much more optimistic about the ability of empathic approximating experiences to be a route towards coalition-building amongst oppressed people. Obama's superior grasp of why Jews are Zionist may be a function of that. Certainly, his relation of his own experience as someone "uprooted" to the Jewish history of exile indicates this might be the case.
Another explanation, more cynical, is that Obama was pressed into making this statement in order to shore up nervous Jewish voters -- a bloc that remains quite important to the Democratic coalition. Because he was "under suspicion", in part because of his association with Jeremiah Wright, in part because of broader concerns (mostly, but not entirely, off-base) about the degree to which the Black community supports Israel, he had to come back with more than the standard pro-Zionist fare in order to assuage Jewish fears. Remarking on Zionism's fundamental justness was a way to allay those concerns -- particularly since so much of the anti-Zionist argument we hear nowadays is centered around how morally atrocious and inherently unjust Zionism is.
In any event, what I gather from the interview is that Obama is likely to be the most pro-Israel -- in the best sense of the word -- President in a long time. Because his support is rooted in what makes Jews Zionist, it take seriously the conflict on the terms that matter to Jews. What some of our putative friends do not understand is that keeping Israel looked in perpetual, apocalyptic conflict (either with its neighbors or the Palestinians) is not in Israel's interests. It's a concept they don't get because their people aren't the ones who end up in the body bags from it. Nor is it consistent with the progressive Zionist ideal to maintain the occupation forever and prevent Palestinians from achieving their own self-determination. Obama's support for Israel means getting it out of the ultimately untenable position it is now, in a manner that maintains its security, respects its dignity, and affirms its legitimate and just place in the world community as a Jewish state.
There's nothing more I could ask for.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Principal Resigns Rather Than Allow Gay/Straight Alliance Club
The principal of Irmo High School in South Carolina (a school I'm familiar with -- I used to debate against them back in the day) has resigned after being order to allow a chapter of the gay/straight alliance to form in his school. The principal cited his "religious and professional beliefs" as demanding he oppose the group's formation. He was not threatened, terminated, or otherwise forced out -- it was a voluntary decision after the district ruled that the GSA had to be allowed in his school.
Obviously, I find the principal's argument against the GSA very wrong-headed -- particularly his apparent belief that the GSA is equivalent to a sex club. The inability of many people to separate homosexuality from homosexual sex remains very disconcerting and a major barrier to equalization efforts. However, I will refrain from judging too harshly, because I think the principal made the right move in resigning. In the debates over "conscience exemptions" for pharmacists who don't want to dispense birth controls, one of the arguments I heard (and agree with) is that if your religious convictions prevent you from doing your job, you have to get a new job. I believe in accommodation to some extent (indeed, a larger extent than most people) but at the end of the day you have to be able to do your job.
This principal decided that, because of his religious beliefs, he could not perform his job as a principal. That is his prerogative, and I respect him for it -- far more than if he had tried to stay in his position and corrupted it to harass the GSA and other people/groups that he would like to see marginalized.
Holy Bullies has more -- making roughly the same point.
Obviously, I find the principal's argument against the GSA very wrong-headed -- particularly his apparent belief that the GSA is equivalent to a sex club. The inability of many people to separate homosexuality from homosexual sex remains very disconcerting and a major barrier to equalization efforts. However, I will refrain from judging too harshly, because I think the principal made the right move in resigning. In the debates over "conscience exemptions" for pharmacists who don't want to dispense birth controls, one of the arguments I heard (and agree with) is that if your religious convictions prevent you from doing your job, you have to get a new job. I believe in accommodation to some extent (indeed, a larger extent than most people) but at the end of the day you have to be able to do your job.
This principal decided that, because of his religious beliefs, he could not perform his job as a principal. That is his prerogative, and I respect him for it -- far more than if he had tried to stay in his position and corrupted it to harass the GSA and other people/groups that he would like to see marginalized.
Holy Bullies has more -- making roughly the same point.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Boxing Blogging: 5/21/08
It's been awhile, but I feel like it's worth commenting on tonight's edition of Wednesday Night Fights. The event, hosted at a Marine base in Jacksonville, Florida, featured three ex-champions trying to see how much they had in the tank. It was not a great night for the old lions, two taking knockout losses and one winning a dominating decision over a nothing foe.
Johnnie Edwards (14-2-1, 8 KOs) TKO7 Freddie Norwood (42-3-1, 23 KOs)
This, to my mind, was the most intriguing fight on the card. Norwood was unbeaten in his first 39 fights, winning the WBA featherweight title twice (he was once stripped for failure to make weight) until he was stopped in the 11th round by Derrick Gainer. After that fight, he took a six year layoff (including some time in prison) before launching a comeback in 2006. He won his first four fights against mediocre competition before facing off against Edwards, losing for only the second time in his pro career via disqualification (low blows).
Edwards, for his part, is a former Marine who won the gold medal in the armed services boxing tournament before turning pro (so fighting in front of the home crowd tonight). When we last saw him (in the fight immediately after his first bout with Norwood), he was blitzed by super-prospect Yourkis Gamboa in one round -- a fight in which Edwards seriously damaged his knee. Wearing a knee brace, he came back just three months later to fight this rematch against Norwood. A bona fide prospect (lots of very good fighters are going to be obliterated by the force that is Gamboa) against a former champ who had only been decisively beaten once before -- count me excited.
But at first, the fight was ugly. Lots of clinching, grabbing, wrestling -- you name it, this fight saw it. Norwood went down in round three, but it didn't seem too bad, and then it was back to the wrestling match. But in the seventh, Edwards went downstairs/upstairs with a gorgeous left hook combination that left Norwood sprawling. He couldn't beat the count, and Edwards has far and away the best victory of his young career. Unlike the other two old hands in the ring tonight, Norwood had not shown himself to be shot yet. This was a very good win, and I'd be quite happy to see Edwards again in the near future.
Arthur Williams (44-15-1, 30 KOs) UD6 Clarence Moore (5-4-1, 5 KOs)
The 43-year old "King" Arthur certainly reigned tonight against an opponent tailor made for him in Clarence Moore. Moore, who himself is 33, got a late start to the game and his folks have been putting him right in the wolf's den early in his career. He's no world-beater, but he wasn't quite the soft touch that folks were making him out to be. His last six opponents prior to Williams had a combined record of 38-3-1 (he fought one of them twice), and he had a respectable 3-2-1 record against them. So no push over, and at least some pop with all his wins coming by knockout.
That being said, he was no match for the former champion Williams, who knocked Moore down twice in the second and arguably should have garnered a stoppage at that point. Williams looked like he was genuinely having fun in the ring, showing movement and hand speed that belied his age. Much of this, of course, is due to him being in front of guy like Moore, and I don't deny that. Teddy Atlas was right that these are the sort of fights that are dangerous for older guys like Williams, because they make them believe they can still do things that they can't. But there was one statistic that I think belies that analysis, and that was punch output -- Williams threw over 100 per round. Older veterans who use their wiles to win fights, but don't have much left in the tank, do not through punches in bunches. Some of Williams punches were range finding jabs, but he maintained a healthy clip of activity, and that's a good sign. It's more than enough to beat Clarence Moore's, but we know from Williams' recent activity it isn't enough to win at anything approaching an elite level. But as far as I'm concerned, his skills have not retrograded to the point where he needs to retire. Maybe put him in fights that are at least a little more competitive, though?
Edner Cherry (24-5-2, 14 KOs) TKO10 Stevie Johnston (42-6-1, 18 KOs)
Johnston, on the other hand, needs to quit. He has not looked good in recent fights, particularly when he was torn apart two years ago by Vivian Harris. Cherry is not a particularly big puncher, but he put down Johnston three times this fight, and the knockout blow was devastating. Johnston has a heart for ages and was a great champion in his time, but the time clearly has come for him to quit. Always a smaller man, "Lil' but bad" looked tiny in comparison to Cherry, and was muscled around the ring all night long. He simply doesn't have the body, chin, or legs to overcome that size disadvantage anymore, and he never was exactly iron-fisted.
Johnston career was a great one, including 4 years spent at the top of the lightweight division. But he's lost three of his last six, all under the distance, and he's running the risk of getting seriously injured. Like Chris Byrd last week, I really regret that we had to watch him go out this way. But it is time for him to retire.
Cherry, for his part, did his thing, and certainly has come back nicely from his loss to now-titlist Paulie Malignaggi. Don't let his record deceive you -- Cherry has been matched very aggressively as a young pro, and has proven he can hang with the best. He has victories over Daniel Alicia, Wes Ferguson (twice, the second by knockout), Monty Meza Clay (his first loss), and former title challengers Jamie Rangel and Antonio Davis. Two of his losses were early in Cherry's career, the other three were to Malignaggi, former title challenger Ricky Quiles, and uncrowned lightweight champion Jose Armando Santa Cruz. Cherry can fight, and his new found aggressive streak suits him very well.
Johnnie Edwards (14-2-1, 8 KOs) TKO7 Freddie Norwood (42-3-1, 23 KOs)
This, to my mind, was the most intriguing fight on the card. Norwood was unbeaten in his first 39 fights, winning the WBA featherweight title twice (he was once stripped for failure to make weight) until he was stopped in the 11th round by Derrick Gainer. After that fight, he took a six year layoff (including some time in prison) before launching a comeback in 2006. He won his first four fights against mediocre competition before facing off against Edwards, losing for only the second time in his pro career via disqualification (low blows).
Edwards, for his part, is a former Marine who won the gold medal in the armed services boxing tournament before turning pro (so fighting in front of the home crowd tonight). When we last saw him (in the fight immediately after his first bout with Norwood), he was blitzed by super-prospect Yourkis Gamboa in one round -- a fight in which Edwards seriously damaged his knee. Wearing a knee brace, he came back just three months later to fight this rematch against Norwood. A bona fide prospect (lots of very good fighters are going to be obliterated by the force that is Gamboa) against a former champ who had only been decisively beaten once before -- count me excited.
But at first, the fight was ugly. Lots of clinching, grabbing, wrestling -- you name it, this fight saw it. Norwood went down in round three, but it didn't seem too bad, and then it was back to the wrestling match. But in the seventh, Edwards went downstairs/upstairs with a gorgeous left hook combination that left Norwood sprawling. He couldn't beat the count, and Edwards has far and away the best victory of his young career. Unlike the other two old hands in the ring tonight, Norwood had not shown himself to be shot yet. This was a very good win, and I'd be quite happy to see Edwards again in the near future.
Arthur Williams (44-15-1, 30 KOs) UD6 Clarence Moore (5-4-1, 5 KOs)
The 43-year old "King" Arthur certainly reigned tonight against an opponent tailor made for him in Clarence Moore. Moore, who himself is 33, got a late start to the game and his folks have been putting him right in the wolf's den early in his career. He's no world-beater, but he wasn't quite the soft touch that folks were making him out to be. His last six opponents prior to Williams had a combined record of 38-3-1 (he fought one of them twice), and he had a respectable 3-2-1 record against them. So no push over, and at least some pop with all his wins coming by knockout.
That being said, he was no match for the former champion Williams, who knocked Moore down twice in the second and arguably should have garnered a stoppage at that point. Williams looked like he was genuinely having fun in the ring, showing movement and hand speed that belied his age. Much of this, of course, is due to him being in front of guy like Moore, and I don't deny that. Teddy Atlas was right that these are the sort of fights that are dangerous for older guys like Williams, because they make them believe they can still do things that they can't. But there was one statistic that I think belies that analysis, and that was punch output -- Williams threw over 100 per round. Older veterans who use their wiles to win fights, but don't have much left in the tank, do not through punches in bunches. Some of Williams punches were range finding jabs, but he maintained a healthy clip of activity, and that's a good sign. It's more than enough to beat Clarence Moore's, but we know from Williams' recent activity it isn't enough to win at anything approaching an elite level. But as far as I'm concerned, his skills have not retrograded to the point where he needs to retire. Maybe put him in fights that are at least a little more competitive, though?
Edner Cherry (24-5-2, 14 KOs) TKO10 Stevie Johnston (42-6-1, 18 KOs)
Johnston, on the other hand, needs to quit. He has not looked good in recent fights, particularly when he was torn apart two years ago by Vivian Harris. Cherry is not a particularly big puncher, but he put down Johnston three times this fight, and the knockout blow was devastating. Johnston has a heart for ages and was a great champion in his time, but the time clearly has come for him to quit. Always a smaller man, "Lil' but bad" looked tiny in comparison to Cherry, and was muscled around the ring all night long. He simply doesn't have the body, chin, or legs to overcome that size disadvantage anymore, and he never was exactly iron-fisted.
Johnston career was a great one, including 4 years spent at the top of the lightweight division. But he's lost three of his last six, all under the distance, and he's running the risk of getting seriously injured. Like Chris Byrd last week, I really regret that we had to watch him go out this way. But it is time for him to retire.
Cherry, for his part, did his thing, and certainly has come back nicely from his loss to now-titlist Paulie Malignaggi. Don't let his record deceive you -- Cherry has been matched very aggressively as a young pro, and has proven he can hang with the best. He has victories over Daniel Alicia, Wes Ferguson (twice, the second by knockout), Monty Meza Clay (his first loss), and former title challengers Jamie Rangel and Antonio Davis. Two of his losses were early in Cherry's career, the other three were to Malignaggi, former title challenger Ricky Quiles, and uncrowned lightweight champion Jose Armando Santa Cruz. Cherry can fight, and his new found aggressive streak suits him very well.
The War on Dumb Acronyms
Whatever else there is to say about Justice Scalia, I can't not approve of this:
It won't stop them, of course, but at least someone is fighting the good fight.
1) Justice Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion [in United States v. Williams], was apparently unamused by Congress's penchant for titling statutes with an eye towards descriptive acronyms (compare the USAPATRIOT Act). He said that Congress "produced legislation with the unlikely title of the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003, 117 Stat. 650. We shall refer to it as the Act."
It won't stop them, of course, but at least someone is fighting the good fight.
Can Zionism Be Defended By Proxies?
Zionism is, at its essence, the national liberation project for Jews as applied to creating a Jewish nation-state in Israel. Its object and purpose centers around Jews. Since Israel has been established, Zionism today means just that one thinks creating Israel was a pretty good move and it should stick around (a definition inspired by, if not outright plagiarized from by virtue of not being able to find a link, Phoebe Maltz). Consequently, being a Zionist doesn't mean supporting any given Israeli policy. It does, however, mean affirming Israel's right to exist, be treated fairly and equally in the global community, and be secure.
In America (and throughout the world, but let's just stick with America) most defenders of Zionism as I define it are not Jews. This is not because Jews aren't Zionists (by and large, they are), but just because because most figures with a national audience are not Jews. With the possible exception of Joe Lieberman (who spends most of his time today talking about how peachy things are in Iraq), pretty much of all the national figures who explain why America should support Zionism are non-Jewish. These people -- Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, George W. Bush, whomever -- are what I mean by proxies. They are non-Jews who are all out there in the public arena defending Zionism.
My thesis is that Zionism cannot be (or at least, is not) effectively defended by proxies. This is not meant to be churlish towards these supporters. Jews tend to accept help when they can get it, and with some exceptions I don't disagree. I just mean that the type of discourse employed by non-Jewish figures tends to differ dramatically from the reasons Jews themselves support Israel, and that disjuncture leads to problems. There are, I think, three major arguments the proxies use when trying to explain their support for the Zionist project (the right uses all three, the left only the latter two). All are problematic, though some more than others, and none really grasps why Zionism is important for Jews.
The first argument is the evangelical Christian perspective that wants Jews in Israel so we can hasten the coming of the Messiah (and then all convert/die, but that part is usually left off the brochure). This argument is growing in influence as the Christian Zionism continues to flourish and increase its ties with several mainstream Jewish organizations. It is on its terms not a "Jewish" argument (as its conclusion indicates), but it does give Israel a very powerful ally in the Christian religious right.
The second argument is the strategic claim that "Israel is America's strongest ally", either in the world or in the region. I have no idea if that's true as a technical matter (are we actually more important than England or Saudi Arabia?), but no matter -- it's clearly true that Israel contributes material things (trade, technology, intelligence) that are important to America. It is, however, once again not all that concerned with the Jewish perspective -- I'm glad that Israel's relationship with America isn't parasitic, but it's not why I wanted Israel established in the first place.
The third argument is the moral claim that Israel is a beacon of democracy in the Middle East -- sometimes described in religious terms as Israel being a "light unto nations". With the possible exception of Turkey, this is true, at least relatively: Israel certainly is more liberal and democratic than the Arab states around it. As a Jew, I'm proud of that fact, and certainly don't want Israel to cease being liberal or democratic (and indeed, could do an even greater commitment to both). But again, this is not quite getting at why I, as a Jew, wanted Israel to be around.
The missing justification, the one that both actually motivated Israel's creation and still explains its support amongst Jews today, is quite simple: safety. Jews didn't try and establish Israel so that we could die in the rapture, or so we could share neat-o technology with America, or even to prove that we can build a better nation than everyone else. Jews founded Israel because Jews understood -- through painful experience -- that we needed a place where we weren't at the mercy of others, where we were in charge of our own destiny, where we would be the ones who got to decide whether to let fleeing refugees in. In short, we needed a place to flee in case the world decided to start Pogroming again.
This is the defining feature of Jewish Zionist discourse. But it is largely absent from the proxy discussion. This is not surprising. Barack Obama can't get up and give a speech justifying his support for Israel because "at any moment, I might start killing you folks again." That would be absurd. But it would cut to the heart of the matter, and reveal the essential truth that undergirds Jewish Zionism: our insecurity in a gentile world.
The shift of the discourse away from actual Jews and to proxies has several negative effects. Each of the preceding three arguments I think recasts the Zionist question in an ultimately harmful way. The first argument is the one I find most despicable, because the relationship between Jewish Zionists and Christian evangelicals is one based on mutual contempt. The evangelicals think we're deluded hell-bound sinners who will get what's coming to us during the apocalypses. The Jews think the evangelicals are illiterate country bumpkins, and honestly take delight in taking advantage of it (if Christians are going to go crazy in favor of Jews for once, hey, why not?). It's unseemly all around, and it should abandoned. But more generally the Christian Zionist argument, like the other two, emphasizes ultimately marginal elements of the Jewish experience to the detriment of the community as a whole. It exaggerates the Jewish link with Christianity in the west, making easy pickings for those who want to lump Jews as part of a broad "Judeo-Christian" oppressive colonialist movement running roughshod over the rest of the world.
The second argument does much the same thing: it over-emphasizes Jewish power and encourages the view that Israel, despite being the size of Vancouver Island, is really this titanic behemoth that can be America's best friend (and the Arab World's worst nightmare). Moreover, shifts the debate away from remedying anti-Semitic oppression (indeed, by making Israel out to be a hyperpower, it violently lurches it away from that field by making it seem absurd that Jews could be oppressed) in favor of simple cost-benefit analysis about whether Israel (and by extension Jewish lives) is really giving us enough to make it worth it. And from there, we get folks like Walt and Mearshimer who say, no, it isn't. Since I don't believe that the marginalized have to earn their lives through trade, I don't find this line of reasoning compelling, but its where we go when we make Zionist advocacy center around whether Israel is a good ally or not for the United States.
The third argument is the most complicated. Again, I'm very happy that Israel is a relatively liberal democracy. I support efforts to make it yet more liberal and yet more democratic. At the same time, I recall Irving Greenberg's telling statement: "If Israel proves to be 10 percent better ethically than the rest of the world, it will be 'a light unto the nations.' If it proves to be 25% better, it will bring the Messiah. If it is 50% better, it will be dead." Hinging Zionism on Israel being awesome means holding it to higher standards than everyone else. I don't object to higher standards per se, although as Greenberg notes, the risk is that setting them too high means that we get killed trying to leap the bar.
The argument also strikes me kind of as an extension of the "politics of respectability" efforts by Blacks in the Civil Rights era -- if we just act good and pure enough, then people will have to accept us. The problem is threefold: first, there's no guarantee of that, second, while we're waiting for people to make that determination our commitment to "purity" makes us very vulnerable, and third, it does nothing for the people who aren't Gandhi-like superhumans, but just regular Joes (or Josephs). Jewish liberation means that all Jews, not just our Gandhis, have a right to be safe. Jews shouldn't be allowed to get away with unjust activity any more than anyone else, but even the human members of our community have a right to be treated fairly and equitably. When Israel commits a wrong, it deserves to be called on it, but not subject to the hyperbolic screaming fits and flagellations that come its way from the international community.
The light unto nations argument thus corrupts the discourse again by shifting the discussion away from Israel's purpose as a haven for Jews and over to a very specific and exacting critique of its behavior. To critics, this makes any ethical failing by the state a facial indictment of its existence -- a standard under which no nation could survive. To defenders, this same dynamic forces them to be overly-zealous in defending Israeli policies. Because Israel only deserves defense insofar as it is perfect, defending Israel means not conceding that it can do any wrong doing. This is a terrible debate for those of us in the Jewish community -- the vast majority of us -- who want Israel to do right, recognize that it can do wrong, but have realistic expectations about what it can do at all.
Even beyond the shortcomings of the specific arguments made by the proxies, there are other problems caused by the absence of the distinctly Jewish voice in defending Zionist ideology. For one, it obviously diminishes the public consciousness of the degree to which Jews still feel and are marginalized in American and worldwide, leading people to think that the problem of anti-Semitism has been solved and stifling discussion on its persistence. The difficulty so many people have in accepting that Jews aren't just paranoid maniacs, that there really are folks out to get us, and that there really are barriers to our full inclusion in society (Western and otherwise), is proof positive of this dynamic.
Second, our silence occurs as part of a broader paradigm of exclusion by which Jews are presumed to be spoken for and hence Jewish inclusion is unnecessary. Even if the proxies could perfectly defend Zionism from a Jewish perspective, it is not at all clear they could do the same on other issues that are of importance to Jews. Again, the hegemony of the "Judeo-Christian" acts to marginalize Jewish voices and block our full participation in the public arena. On a great many issues (most notably Church/State, but also any normative discussion that deals with the values of the Jewish community), it's very important that Jews have an independent platform to articulate our needs, wants, and arguments free from outside domination. That goal is undermined when the public does not feel the need to hear the Jewish voice because it wrongly assumes it is already part of the deliberative stream.
Third, the lack of a consciousness about what Jews actually think about Zionism breeds mistrust about our motives and allows anti-Semitic theories to run rampant. When the real Jewish motivation behind Zionism -- as a response to oppression in Europe and in the Muslim world -- is not heard, people replace it with their own theories -- inevitably negative ones. Zionism is an extension of European colonialism, or is a recasting of the crusades, or is the natural extension of an unquenchable Jewish thirst for power. It is only by stripping Zionism from its foundation rooted in the actual lived experience of the Jewish community that these theories can gain sustenance.
The upshot is not that Jews need to be more vocal as to why they're Zionist. Jews are already speaking on the subject, at length. It's the world that is not listening; that does not see our contribution to the discourse as relevant, "objective", or meaningful. This is the failing that needs to be acknowledged, and that needs to be remedied. The proxies only have to speak for us because nobody cares to listen to the Jews. So long as that continues to be the case, Zionism -- insofar as it is defended at all -- will continue to be defended from a vantage point that ultimately does not act against Jewish subordination.
In America (and throughout the world, but let's just stick with America) most defenders of Zionism as I define it are not Jews. This is not because Jews aren't Zionists (by and large, they are), but just because because most figures with a national audience are not Jews. With the possible exception of Joe Lieberman (who spends most of his time today talking about how peachy things are in Iraq), pretty much of all the national figures who explain why America should support Zionism are non-Jewish. These people -- Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, George W. Bush, whomever -- are what I mean by proxies. They are non-Jews who are all out there in the public arena defending Zionism.
My thesis is that Zionism cannot be (or at least, is not) effectively defended by proxies. This is not meant to be churlish towards these supporters. Jews tend to accept help when they can get it, and with some exceptions I don't disagree. I just mean that the type of discourse employed by non-Jewish figures tends to differ dramatically from the reasons Jews themselves support Israel, and that disjuncture leads to problems. There are, I think, three major arguments the proxies use when trying to explain their support for the Zionist project (the right uses all three, the left only the latter two). All are problematic, though some more than others, and none really grasps why Zionism is important for Jews.
The first argument is the evangelical Christian perspective that wants Jews in Israel so we can hasten the coming of the Messiah (and then all convert/die, but that part is usually left off the brochure). This argument is growing in influence as the Christian Zionism continues to flourish and increase its ties with several mainstream Jewish organizations. It is on its terms not a "Jewish" argument (as its conclusion indicates), but it does give Israel a very powerful ally in the Christian religious right.
The second argument is the strategic claim that "Israel is America's strongest ally", either in the world or in the region. I have no idea if that's true as a technical matter (are we actually more important than England or Saudi Arabia?), but no matter -- it's clearly true that Israel contributes material things (trade, technology, intelligence) that are important to America. It is, however, once again not all that concerned with the Jewish perspective -- I'm glad that Israel's relationship with America isn't parasitic, but it's not why I wanted Israel established in the first place.
The third argument is the moral claim that Israel is a beacon of democracy in the Middle East -- sometimes described in religious terms as Israel being a "light unto nations". With the possible exception of Turkey, this is true, at least relatively: Israel certainly is more liberal and democratic than the Arab states around it. As a Jew, I'm proud of that fact, and certainly don't want Israel to cease being liberal or democratic (and indeed, could do an even greater commitment to both). But again, this is not quite getting at why I, as a Jew, wanted Israel to be around.
The missing justification, the one that both actually motivated Israel's creation and still explains its support amongst Jews today, is quite simple: safety. Jews didn't try and establish Israel so that we could die in the rapture, or so we could share neat-o technology with America, or even to prove that we can build a better nation than everyone else. Jews founded Israel because Jews understood -- through painful experience -- that we needed a place where we weren't at the mercy of others, where we were in charge of our own destiny, where we would be the ones who got to decide whether to let fleeing refugees in. In short, we needed a place to flee in case the world decided to start Pogroming again.
This is the defining feature of Jewish Zionist discourse. But it is largely absent from the proxy discussion. This is not surprising. Barack Obama can't get up and give a speech justifying his support for Israel because "at any moment, I might start killing you folks again." That would be absurd. But it would cut to the heart of the matter, and reveal the essential truth that undergirds Jewish Zionism: our insecurity in a gentile world.
The shift of the discourse away from actual Jews and to proxies has several negative effects. Each of the preceding three arguments I think recasts the Zionist question in an ultimately harmful way. The first argument is the one I find most despicable, because the relationship between Jewish Zionists and Christian evangelicals is one based on mutual contempt. The evangelicals think we're deluded hell-bound sinners who will get what's coming to us during the apocalypses. The Jews think the evangelicals are illiterate country bumpkins, and honestly take delight in taking advantage of it (if Christians are going to go crazy in favor of Jews for once, hey, why not?). It's unseemly all around, and it should abandoned. But more generally the Christian Zionist argument, like the other two, emphasizes ultimately marginal elements of the Jewish experience to the detriment of the community as a whole. It exaggerates the Jewish link with Christianity in the west, making easy pickings for those who want to lump Jews as part of a broad "Judeo-Christian" oppressive colonialist movement running roughshod over the rest of the world.
The second argument does much the same thing: it over-emphasizes Jewish power and encourages the view that Israel, despite being the size of Vancouver Island, is really this titanic behemoth that can be America's best friend (and the Arab World's worst nightmare). Moreover, shifts the debate away from remedying anti-Semitic oppression (indeed, by making Israel out to be a hyperpower, it violently lurches it away from that field by making it seem absurd that Jews could be oppressed) in favor of simple cost-benefit analysis about whether Israel (and by extension Jewish lives) is really giving us enough to make it worth it. And from there, we get folks like Walt and Mearshimer who say, no, it isn't. Since I don't believe that the marginalized have to earn their lives through trade, I don't find this line of reasoning compelling, but its where we go when we make Zionist advocacy center around whether Israel is a good ally or not for the United States.
The third argument is the most complicated. Again, I'm very happy that Israel is a relatively liberal democracy. I support efforts to make it yet more liberal and yet more democratic. At the same time, I recall Irving Greenberg's telling statement: "If Israel proves to be 10 percent better ethically than the rest of the world, it will be 'a light unto the nations.' If it proves to be 25% better, it will bring the Messiah. If it is 50% better, it will be dead." Hinging Zionism on Israel being awesome means holding it to higher standards than everyone else. I don't object to higher standards per se, although as Greenberg notes, the risk is that setting them too high means that we get killed trying to leap the bar.
The argument also strikes me kind of as an extension of the "politics of respectability" efforts by Blacks in the Civil Rights era -- if we just act good and pure enough, then people will have to accept us. The problem is threefold: first, there's no guarantee of that, second, while we're waiting for people to make that determination our commitment to "purity" makes us very vulnerable, and third, it does nothing for the people who aren't Gandhi-like superhumans, but just regular Joes (or Josephs). Jewish liberation means that all Jews, not just our Gandhis, have a right to be safe. Jews shouldn't be allowed to get away with unjust activity any more than anyone else, but even the human members of our community have a right to be treated fairly and equitably. When Israel commits a wrong, it deserves to be called on it, but not subject to the hyperbolic screaming fits and flagellations that come its way from the international community.
The light unto nations argument thus corrupts the discourse again by shifting the discussion away from Israel's purpose as a haven for Jews and over to a very specific and exacting critique of its behavior. To critics, this makes any ethical failing by the state a facial indictment of its existence -- a standard under which no nation could survive. To defenders, this same dynamic forces them to be overly-zealous in defending Israeli policies. Because Israel only deserves defense insofar as it is perfect, defending Israel means not conceding that it can do any wrong doing. This is a terrible debate for those of us in the Jewish community -- the vast majority of us -- who want Israel to do right, recognize that it can do wrong, but have realistic expectations about what it can do at all.
Even beyond the shortcomings of the specific arguments made by the proxies, there are other problems caused by the absence of the distinctly Jewish voice in defending Zionist ideology. For one, it obviously diminishes the public consciousness of the degree to which Jews still feel and are marginalized in American and worldwide, leading people to think that the problem of anti-Semitism has been solved and stifling discussion on its persistence. The difficulty so many people have in accepting that Jews aren't just paranoid maniacs, that there really are folks out to get us, and that there really are barriers to our full inclusion in society (Western and otherwise), is proof positive of this dynamic.
Second, our silence occurs as part of a broader paradigm of exclusion by which Jews are presumed to be spoken for and hence Jewish inclusion is unnecessary. Even if the proxies could perfectly defend Zionism from a Jewish perspective, it is not at all clear they could do the same on other issues that are of importance to Jews. Again, the hegemony of the "Judeo-Christian" acts to marginalize Jewish voices and block our full participation in the public arena. On a great many issues (most notably Church/State, but also any normative discussion that deals with the values of the Jewish community), it's very important that Jews have an independent platform to articulate our needs, wants, and arguments free from outside domination. That goal is undermined when the public does not feel the need to hear the Jewish voice because it wrongly assumes it is already part of the deliberative stream.
Third, the lack of a consciousness about what Jews actually think about Zionism breeds mistrust about our motives and allows anti-Semitic theories to run rampant. When the real Jewish motivation behind Zionism -- as a response to oppression in Europe and in the Muslim world -- is not heard, people replace it with their own theories -- inevitably negative ones. Zionism is an extension of European colonialism, or is a recasting of the crusades, or is the natural extension of an unquenchable Jewish thirst for power. It is only by stripping Zionism from its foundation rooted in the actual lived experience of the Jewish community that these theories can gain sustenance.
The upshot is not that Jews need to be more vocal as to why they're Zionist. Jews are already speaking on the subject, at length. It's the world that is not listening; that does not see our contribution to the discourse as relevant, "objective", or meaningful. This is the failing that needs to be acknowledged, and that needs to be remedied. The proxies only have to speak for us because nobody cares to listen to the Jews. So long as that continues to be the case, Zionism -- insofar as it is defended at all -- will continue to be defended from a vantage point that ultimately does not act against Jewish subordination.
Libertarian Feminism
A really interesting essay that seeks to reinterpret libertarianism in a feminist (really, radical feminist) light. I wouldn't say I agree (after all, I'm not a libertarian), but I approve of the instinct -- the authors engage with feminist theory in a genuine and respectful fashion.
Via
Via
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Spam Phone Call
*Brrring*
"Hello?"
"Hello, this is Michelle calling about your current credit card account. There is no problem, but we would like to steal money-." [click]
They didn't actually state that last part, but it was implied. What is with the rise in phone phishing that I've been experiencing lately?
"Hello?"
"Hello, this is Michelle calling about your current credit card account. There is no problem, but we would like to steal money-." [click]
They didn't actually state that last part, but it was implied. What is with the rise in phone phishing that I've been experiencing lately?
Corker and Alexander Decry Attack on Obama's Wife
A short while back, I predicted that Michelle Obama would become the latest target for GOP attackers desperate to slow her husband's momentum. The Tennessee GOP quickly verified that hypothesis by running an attack ad questioning her patriotism.
To their credit, both of Tennessee's Republican Senators, Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander, have come out against the ad. Corker explicitly calls for it to be taken down, Alexander is more tepid, merely saying that "There are probably better ways to communicate our pride in America, and we need to focus on those."
Corker already has had run-ins with controversial GOP ads, particularly the infamous "call me" ad put out by the RNC in his 2006 senate race against Harold Ford (an ad which he also opposed). And this the second foray the Tennessee GOP has already made this cycle into sleazy campaign tactics: the first being a mailer entitled "anti-Semites for Obama" featuring him in "Muslim" (actually traditional Somali) garb. That ad was taken down only after repeated efforts by Senator Alexander.
To their credit, both of Tennessee's Republican Senators, Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander, have come out against the ad. Corker explicitly calls for it to be taken down, Alexander is more tepid, merely saying that "There are probably better ways to communicate our pride in America, and we need to focus on those."
Corker already has had run-ins with controversial GOP ads, particularly the infamous "call me" ad put out by the RNC in his 2006 senate race against Harold Ford (an ad which he also opposed). And this the second foray the Tennessee GOP has already made this cycle into sleazy campaign tactics: the first being a mailer entitled "anti-Semites for Obama" featuring him in "Muslim" (actually traditional Somali) garb. That ad was taken down only after repeated efforts by Senator Alexander.
The Tragedy of Left-Wing Zionist Advocacy
I identify as a progressive Zionist. This means both that I try to support Zionist ideals in a manner consistent with broader progressive obligations (particularly the need to be fair to groups not my own -- Palestinians being the obvious ones), but also that my support for Zionism itself stems out of left-wing, anti-subordination theory.
The argument that Zionism is ultimately a theory "of the left", and that, more importantly, we have to analyze anti-Zionism from a perspective that takes account of the subordinated status of Jews and the entrenched nature of structural anti-Semitism world-wide, is a claim I often make in the comments of the various feminist blogs I read, such as Alas, a Blog and Feministe. Recently, the latter had a post up on Israel's 60th birthday, and I went to work in the comments.
I comment at Feministe because I feel like, by and large, I'll get a respectful hearing and that most of my interlocutors, though not necessarily agreeing with me, will make good, meaningful points and grapple with my analysis (some are idiots, but you get that anywhere). This session wasn't different -- in fact, it was more successful than most. I got Jill to put a disclaimer at the top of this post noting that the claim that an Israeli official was threatening Palestinians with a new Holocaust was based off a mis-translation of the Hebrew. I also got a nice message from Feminist Gal basically telling me to keep up the great work. So that felt good.
But I still can't shake the feeling that there is a sense in which I struggle in vain. My goal in these threads is to argue from an aggressively and self-consciously progressive standpoint to defend Israel and the Zionist project (conceptually -- not always as applied) from their attackers on the left. In my head, I see it almost territorially: I'm not willing to cede the terrain of anti-subordination to those who I think would do my people harm, and reify my oppressed status. The hope is that, by showing how Zionism actually flows from progressive principles, I can convert them to the light: you're a progressive, Zionism is progressive, hence, you should be Zionist.
But yet, it doesn't work that way. People rarely allow ideology to trump deep-seated moral or political beliefs -- and the belief that Jews should be permanently barred from joining them family of nation-states certainly qualifies as deep-seated. Even if I did manage to make a facial case that Zionism is part of the progressive panoply of ideas, I'm not sure it would do much good. Theory doesn't trump practice, and I suspect that my argument is more likely to cause my targets to disavow leftism than to disavow anti-Zionism.
What I mean by that isn't that the folks I'm talking to are so committed to Jew-hatred that, when faced with the prospect of supporting Zionism, they'll run screaming all the way back to neo-conservatism. What I mean is that they'll use this opportunity to prove that they're iconoclastic. "I may be a leftist, but I'm not one of those types of leftists." Ideology bends to experience, and experience tells these people that they can never support the Zionist project. If Zionism is of the left, then it's the left that has to give way.
I'm not saying I'm making that perfect, uber-argument that forces people into this position. But if that's the horizon of my efforts, it hardly seems to be a fight worth continuing.
On the other hand, there is still my "cede the terrain" point. Even if I can't convince folks to give up anti-Zionism, I sure as hell don't want them claiming their position is the progressive one. The ground of anti-subordination is ground that matters to me. I will not be driven off it by fundamentally illiberal, reactionary, anti-Jewish forces without a fight.
The argument that Zionism is ultimately a theory "of the left", and that, more importantly, we have to analyze anti-Zionism from a perspective that takes account of the subordinated status of Jews and the entrenched nature of structural anti-Semitism world-wide, is a claim I often make in the comments of the various feminist blogs I read, such as Alas, a Blog and Feministe. Recently, the latter had a post up on Israel's 60th birthday, and I went to work in the comments.
I comment at Feministe because I feel like, by and large, I'll get a respectful hearing and that most of my interlocutors, though not necessarily agreeing with me, will make good, meaningful points and grapple with my analysis (some are idiots, but you get that anywhere). This session wasn't different -- in fact, it was more successful than most. I got Jill to put a disclaimer at the top of this post noting that the claim that an Israeli official was threatening Palestinians with a new Holocaust was based off a mis-translation of the Hebrew. I also got a nice message from Feminist Gal basically telling me to keep up the great work. So that felt good.
But I still can't shake the feeling that there is a sense in which I struggle in vain. My goal in these threads is to argue from an aggressively and self-consciously progressive standpoint to defend Israel and the Zionist project (conceptually -- not always as applied) from their attackers on the left. In my head, I see it almost territorially: I'm not willing to cede the terrain of anti-subordination to those who I think would do my people harm, and reify my oppressed status. The hope is that, by showing how Zionism actually flows from progressive principles, I can convert them to the light: you're a progressive, Zionism is progressive, hence, you should be Zionist.
But yet, it doesn't work that way. People rarely allow ideology to trump deep-seated moral or political beliefs -- and the belief that Jews should be permanently barred from joining them family of nation-states certainly qualifies as deep-seated. Even if I did manage to make a facial case that Zionism is part of the progressive panoply of ideas, I'm not sure it would do much good. Theory doesn't trump practice, and I suspect that my argument is more likely to cause my targets to disavow leftism than to disavow anti-Zionism.
What I mean by that isn't that the folks I'm talking to are so committed to Jew-hatred that, when faced with the prospect of supporting Zionism, they'll run screaming all the way back to neo-conservatism. What I mean is that they'll use this opportunity to prove that they're iconoclastic. "I may be a leftist, but I'm not one of those types of leftists." Ideology bends to experience, and experience tells these people that they can never support the Zionist project. If Zionism is of the left, then it's the left that has to give way.
I'm not saying I'm making that perfect, uber-argument that forces people into this position. But if that's the horizon of my efforts, it hardly seems to be a fight worth continuing.
On the other hand, there is still my "cede the terrain" point. Even if I can't convince folks to give up anti-Zionism, I sure as hell don't want them claiming their position is the progressive one. The ground of anti-subordination is ground that matters to me. I will not be driven off it by fundamentally illiberal, reactionary, anti-Jewish forces without a fight.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Freedom For All
An oldie but goodie from Fareed Zakaria:
That was back in 2004. It's still true.
This is the party's dilemma -- it wishes to spread liberty to people whom it doesn't really like.
That was back in 2004. It's still true.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Von Spakovsky Withdraws
"Controversial" nominee for a seat on the Federal Elections Commission Hans von Spakovsky has withdrawn his name from consideration for the position after a 6-month stand-off between President Bush and Congressional Democrats. It was a battle worth fighting -- von Spakovsky is a GOP partisan and committed to the project of voter suppression -- but one I wasn't convinced we could win. Kudos to the Senate leadership for not blinking and winning a round for the light.
Domain of Losses
As exciting as the California Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage is, I have to admit I'm worried. Not about the backlash problem, which I don't think is that big a deal. Rather, the fact that the decision likely will be challenged by a citizen initiative. And most folks seem to think that bigotry will squeak out a victory.
This will be crushing -- far more so than losing a vote to constitutionalize gay marriage bans in states which already bar them statutorily will be. It'll snatch away a victory that gays enjoyed, even if for only a short while, in a very high-profile fashion, and will undoubtedly give equality opponents momentum in an era where the tide had seemed to be turning against them.
This will be crushing -- far more so than losing a vote to constitutionalize gay marriage bans in states which already bar them statutorily will be. It'll snatch away a victory that gays enjoyed, even if for only a short while, in a very high-profile fashion, and will undoubtedly give equality opponents momentum in an era where the tide had seemed to be turning against them.
Holy Flip-Flop, Batman!
In the wake of the on-going Bush/Obama/McCain three-way fist-fight over the President's comparison of Barack Obama to "appeasers" in WWII because of his willingness to talk to Iran, we saw an interesting CNN headline: " McCain denies 'flip-flop' on Hamas, blasts Obama". Apparently, some State Department officials have alleged that two years ago, McCain was quite in favor of diplomatic engagement with Hamas -- the precise position he's now attacking Obama for putatively holding.
I say the headline is interesting because it may be one of the first times I've seen the mainstream media even hint that straighty-McStraighttalk could possibly have flip-flopped about anything. It's a veritable milestone in media reporting about John McCain! Could we finally be seeing the end of his eight-year long honeymoon with the media? We -- by which I mean American democracy -- can only hope.
I say the headline is interesting because it may be one of the first times I've seen the mainstream media even hint that straighty-McStraighttalk could possibly have flip-flopped about anything. It's a veritable milestone in media reporting about John McCain! Could we finally be seeing the end of his eight-year long honeymoon with the media? We -- by which I mean American democracy -- can only hope.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Sticky Slopes
Blogging on California's ruling striking down bans on same-sex marriage, Eugene Volokh argues that the case proves true the fears by gay marriage opponents that the extension of legislative protections for gay couples acts as a "slippery slope" towards eventually legalizing the unions. The ultimate effect of enacting policy reforms to equalize the status of minority groups is, I suspect, complex. They can encourage further reforms via the bandwagon effect, increasing morale amongst activists, or showing that the sky isn't falling. But they also can smother political action by convincing the majority that they've "addressed the problem" and that further demands are pushiness or requests for "special rights." But Volokh's argument is that, as a a legal matter, these policies often end up appearing in later court opinions which push us to the bottom of the slope. He notes that in both California and Massachusetts, the high courts used these policies as evidence of liberalizing attitudes with regards to gay couples -- crucial components to their decision.
I don't disagree with Professor Volokh's documentation of this phenomenon per se. But oddly enough, it seems to cut both ways. When Maryland's high court upheld our state's prohibition of gay marriage, it also relied on the increasing legislative protection for gay couples -- but to the opposite effect. It claimed that these policies proved that homosexuals did not need additional protections by the courts -- that they were now fully capable of participating equally in the democratic arena (Conaway v. Deane, 401 Md. 219, 286-90 (Md. Ct. App. 2007)). The enactment of policy protections for gay couples, in this case, served as a barrier to further reform. It made the slope "stickier." Justice Scalia has made similar (albeit unsuccessful) arguments in his own dissents in gay rights cases, using the legislative accomplishments of the gay rights lobby to undermine the case for legal intervention.
The problem seems to be adequately encapsulated by Jack Balkin in his wonderful article, "What Brown Teaches us about Constitutional Theory":
As Massachusetts and California appear to demonstrate, some demonstration of political power -- showing that attitudes towards homosexuals have "liberalized", in this case -- appears to be necessary in order to "grease the slope" towards gay marriage. But, as Maryland demonstrates, this is a move fraught with peril: courts can just as easily use legislative gains as an excuse to hamper or delay pleas for judicial reform -- to make the slope "stickier."
There is irony to this, of course: disempowered groups shouldn't have to demonstrate political power in order to see their rights vindicated (though, it should be said, this is precisely what Critical Legal Theorists predict we should see in such cases). If limiting marriage to heterosexual couples is a violation of gay rights, it is just as much so when they are a totally marginalized class as it is when they are only somewhat reviled. But if we are going to demand political clout as a precondition for rights, it's perverse to turn around and use their new-found (limited) influence in legislatures as an excuse to deny them those same rights. Once again, either the marriage equality is a right or it isn't. If it is, then the fact that they can't secure it legislatively is proof that -- regardless of how successful they are on other priorities -- they hold insufficient political power to vindicate all of their rights in that arena. If it isn't, then courts should say so and explain why.
But what we're seeing right now is absurd. At best, it appears that there is a very narrow "band" of relative political inclusion upon which minority groups can launch claims for judicial protection: too little inclusion and the courts won't pay attention, too much and they'll claim their intervention is unnecessary. At worse, it appears that the rules of the game change so as to permanently preclude meaningful judicial protection for minority groups -- any amount of political power (lots, some, none) can be used as a reason to reject their claims.
Ultimately, as in most cases where the facts lead to indeterminate legal outcomes, my suspicion is that the amount of power possessed by a given minority group will likely be interpreted in a way that is most amenable to judicial policy preferences. Judges who want to increase protections of gays and lesbians will use their increased influence as proof that discrimination against them is archaic, while judges who oppose such reform will use that same evidence as an argument against viewing gays and lesbians as marginalized at all.
I don't disagree with Professor Volokh's documentation of this phenomenon per se. But oddly enough, it seems to cut both ways. When Maryland's high court upheld our state's prohibition of gay marriage, it also relied on the increasing legislative protection for gay couples -- but to the opposite effect. It claimed that these policies proved that homosexuals did not need additional protections by the courts -- that they were now fully capable of participating equally in the democratic arena (Conaway v. Deane, 401 Md. 219, 286-90 (Md. Ct. App. 2007)). The enactment of policy protections for gay couples, in this case, served as a barrier to further reform. It made the slope "stickier." Justice Scalia has made similar (albeit unsuccessful) arguments in his own dissents in gay rights cases, using the legislative accomplishments of the gay rights lobby to undermine the case for legal intervention.
The problem seems to be adequately encapsulated by Jack Balkin in his wonderful article, "What Brown Teaches us about Constitutional Theory":
In general, courts will protect minorities only after minorities have shown a fair degree of clout in the political process. If they are truly politically powerless, courts may not even recognize their grievances; and if they have just enough influence to get on the political radar screen, courts will usually dismiss their claims with a wave of the hand. Conversely, as a reform movement for minority rights gains prominence through political protest and legislative lobbying, courts will increasingly pay attention to minority rights and take their claims more seriously." [Jack Balkin, What Brown Teaches us about Constitutional Theory, 90 Va. L. Rev. 1531, 1552 (2004)]
As Massachusetts and California appear to demonstrate, some demonstration of political power -- showing that attitudes towards homosexuals have "liberalized", in this case -- appears to be necessary in order to "grease the slope" towards gay marriage. But, as Maryland demonstrates, this is a move fraught with peril: courts can just as easily use legislative gains as an excuse to hamper or delay pleas for judicial reform -- to make the slope "stickier."
There is irony to this, of course: disempowered groups shouldn't have to demonstrate political power in order to see their rights vindicated (though, it should be said, this is precisely what Critical Legal Theorists predict we should see in such cases). If limiting marriage to heterosexual couples is a violation of gay rights, it is just as much so when they are a totally marginalized class as it is when they are only somewhat reviled. But if we are going to demand political clout as a precondition for rights, it's perverse to turn around and use their new-found (limited) influence in legislatures as an excuse to deny them those same rights. Once again, either the marriage equality is a right or it isn't. If it is, then the fact that they can't secure it legislatively is proof that -- regardless of how successful they are on other priorities -- they hold insufficient political power to vindicate all of their rights in that arena. If it isn't, then courts should say so and explain why.
But what we're seeing right now is absurd. At best, it appears that there is a very narrow "band" of relative political inclusion upon which minority groups can launch claims for judicial protection: too little inclusion and the courts won't pay attention, too much and they'll claim their intervention is unnecessary. At worse, it appears that the rules of the game change so as to permanently preclude meaningful judicial protection for minority groups -- any amount of political power (lots, some, none) can be used as a reason to reject their claims.
Ultimately, as in most cases where the facts lead to indeterminate legal outcomes, my suspicion is that the amount of power possessed by a given minority group will likely be interpreted in a way that is most amenable to judicial policy preferences. Judges who want to increase protections of gays and lesbians will use their increased influence as proof that discrimination against them is archaic, while judges who oppose such reform will use that same evidence as an argument against viewing gays and lesbians as marginalized at all.
The Peril of the Tempting Target
In the wake of California's recent ruling legalizing gay marriage, Rick Hasen wonders if the state supreme court might have done John McCain a favor (via Volokh). The ruling almost definitely will place an initiative on the ballot seeking to overturn the decision. Hasen argues that
And I admit, this was my first thought too.
But thinking about it more, this might actually prove dangerous for McCain and his cash-strapped campaign. California is, as was mentioned, a very expensive state to campaign in. Under normal circumstances, it wouldn't surprise me to see McCain write it off entirely as a waste of resources. The gay marriage ruling might mobilize conservatives enough so as to convince McCain to make a play there. But if he does, he'll have to devote resources too -- and he has far less to spare than the Democrats do.
I'm reminded of Republicans investing in the 2006 New Jersey Senate race in a year where they also had their backs against the wall. Like California, New Jersey is pretty blue and very expensive to campaign in. Republicans were convinced that Robert Menendez was a beatable Democratic candidate though, so they decided to contest it. They ended up losing (just as they still likely will in California), and the resources they put into the Garden State would have been invaluable in states that were objectively much closer fights: Virginia, Missouri, and South Dakota. Had they not been tempted by New Jersey, they might well still have control of the Senate today. Similarly, if the gay marriage ruling tempts McCain to make a play for California, he might regret if it draws desperately needed campaign resources away from true battleground states. Democrats can afford to play the 50-state field -- Republicans this year can't.
This helps John McCain because those conservative voters may not have come out in great numbers for him, but they will come out now to vote for this amendment, and they are more likely to vote for McCain than for the Democrat once they are already voting. That's not to say that California will go red, but it is to say that the Democratic nominee will have to devote more resources to this very expensive to campaign in state.
And I admit, this was my first thought too.
But thinking about it more, this might actually prove dangerous for McCain and his cash-strapped campaign. California is, as was mentioned, a very expensive state to campaign in. Under normal circumstances, it wouldn't surprise me to see McCain write it off entirely as a waste of resources. The gay marriage ruling might mobilize conservatives enough so as to convince McCain to make a play there. But if he does, he'll have to devote resources too -- and he has far less to spare than the Democrats do.
I'm reminded of Republicans investing in the 2006 New Jersey Senate race in a year where they also had their backs against the wall. Like California, New Jersey is pretty blue and very expensive to campaign in. Republicans were convinced that Robert Menendez was a beatable Democratic candidate though, so they decided to contest it. They ended up losing (just as they still likely will in California), and the resources they put into the Garden State would have been invaluable in states that were objectively much closer fights: Virginia, Missouri, and South Dakota. Had they not been tempted by New Jersey, they might well still have control of the Senate today. Similarly, if the gay marriage ruling tempts McCain to make a play for California, he might regret if it draws desperately needed campaign resources away from true battleground states. Democrats can afford to play the 50-state field -- Republicans this year can't.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Forgetfulness and Denial
In a long post a few weeks ago, I explored the problems with denial -- specifically, denying one's role in the commission of mass atrocity (such as American support for Central American "death squads"). A similar topic has arisen thanks to some of the more unsavory associations of John McCain's chief adviser, Charlie Beck. Today, Hilzoy of Obsidian Wings explores Beck's (and the conservative movement writ large) relationship to Jonas Savimbi and the UNITA rebel movement in Angola, which for awhile was the darling child of the Reagan administration and their intellectual cohorts. Beck was one of Savimbi's chief lobbyists in Washington, and was instrumental in America re-establishing our support for his forces.
I'll leave to Hilzoy to document the atrocities that we knew we were supporting (and in a real sense intentionally supporting) when we assisted Savimbi. Suffice to say, they are appalling. But our current relationship with regards to Beck seems less one of denial and more of forgetfulness. Beck's role in assisting a hideous thug should, by all rights, exile him from public service. But we don't. And we don't not because we've consciously decided that it is alright to drum up support for torturers.* We don't do it not because we've consciously decided that what Savimba did was okay. We don't do it not because we've forced Beck to reckon for his actions and undergo some sort repentance or reintegration into the public space. We allow Beck to maintain his public position because we essentially have no consciousness that Angola ever happened.
We forget that which was never important enough to deny. If Angola suddenly became a political issue, Beck would undoubtedly switch from forgetfulness to denial -- not that he supported UNITA, but denying that UNITA was all that bad, or denying that he knew of whatever bad things they did. Denial and forgetfulness serve essentially the same purpose, because both allow for the people and projects which crafted the original injustice to proceed forth without punishment or remorse. Nothing checks their saga. Often times, injustice occurs precisely because the perpetrators assume that their victims aren't important enough to warrant consideration -- ultimately, to be remembered. When we invite Beck back into a critical part of America's democratic operation, without forcing him to confront this element of his past, we ratify that belief, and ultimately, ratify oppression.
***
* While I was writing this, I had a thought: what's the difference between being a private criminal defense attorney (representing people who likely committed murder), and being a lobbyist for murderers like Savimbi? We don't say that criminal defense attorneys should be barred from public service (although, I suspect that if one ran for office it would be used against them), because we believe that everyone has the right to have representation in legal proceedings. But in a democracy, shouldn't everyone also have the right to have representation and have their voice heard in the democratic arena? Isn't that the essence of public deliberation?
There are a few differences, of course. One is that while there is no deficit of lawyers, and the poor are guaranteed representation if they can't afford it, political representation is highly stratified -- perhaps choosing to increase the voice of thugs, while there are so many good people who are marginalized in the system, is not a legitimate moral move. Likewise, even though a criminal defense attorney might defend a murderer, he does not defend the act of murder -- his defense is usually either that the defendant didn't do it, or that the killing was not murder (was in some way justified). Aside from securing the release of his client, nothing the lawyer does promotes more killing. By contrast, while lobbyists too rarely concede that their clients are murderers (or also claim that their acts are justified), the lobbyist project is specifically to direct resources to enable his clients acts (in this case, murdering) to continue. Maybe in this way, the lobbyist is akin to a lawyer on retainer by an organized crime family (a person who I think is in a considerably more morally ambigious situation than the average defense attorney)?
It's a tough question. I'd appreciate help.
I'll leave to Hilzoy to document the atrocities that we knew we were supporting (and in a real sense intentionally supporting) when we assisted Savimbi. Suffice to say, they are appalling. But our current relationship with regards to Beck seems less one of denial and more of forgetfulness. Beck's role in assisting a hideous thug should, by all rights, exile him from public service. But we don't. And we don't not because we've consciously decided that it is alright to drum up support for torturers.* We don't do it not because we've consciously decided that what Savimba did was okay. We don't do it not because we've forced Beck to reckon for his actions and undergo some sort repentance or reintegration into the public space. We allow Beck to maintain his public position because we essentially have no consciousness that Angola ever happened.
We forget that which was never important enough to deny. If Angola suddenly became a political issue, Beck would undoubtedly switch from forgetfulness to denial -- not that he supported UNITA, but denying that UNITA was all that bad, or denying that he knew of whatever bad things they did. Denial and forgetfulness serve essentially the same purpose, because both allow for the people and projects which crafted the original injustice to proceed forth without punishment or remorse. Nothing checks their saga. Often times, injustice occurs precisely because the perpetrators assume that their victims aren't important enough to warrant consideration -- ultimately, to be remembered. When we invite Beck back into a critical part of America's democratic operation, without forcing him to confront this element of his past, we ratify that belief, and ultimately, ratify oppression.
***
* While I was writing this, I had a thought: what's the difference between being a private criminal defense attorney (representing people who likely committed murder), and being a lobbyist for murderers like Savimbi? We don't say that criminal defense attorneys should be barred from public service (although, I suspect that if one ran for office it would be used against them), because we believe that everyone has the right to have representation in legal proceedings. But in a democracy, shouldn't everyone also have the right to have representation and have their voice heard in the democratic arena? Isn't that the essence of public deliberation?
There are a few differences, of course. One is that while there is no deficit of lawyers, and the poor are guaranteed representation if they can't afford it, political representation is highly stratified -- perhaps choosing to increase the voice of thugs, while there are so many good people who are marginalized in the system, is not a legitimate moral move. Likewise, even though a criminal defense attorney might defend a murderer, he does not defend the act of murder -- his defense is usually either that the defendant didn't do it, or that the killing was not murder (was in some way justified). Aside from securing the release of his client, nothing the lawyer does promotes more killing. By contrast, while lobbyists too rarely concede that their clients are murderers (or also claim that their acts are justified), the lobbyist project is specifically to direct resources to enable his clients acts (in this case, murdering) to continue. Maybe in this way, the lobbyist is akin to a lawyer on retainer by an organized crime family (a person who I think is in a considerably more morally ambigious situation than the average defense attorney)?
It's a tough question. I'd appreciate help.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
But Why?
A recently released poll indicates that most Americans oppose lowering the drinking age to 18, and likewise believe that we should tighten restrictions on underage alcohol consumptions.
This, to my mind, is ridiculous. Like with drugs, virtually everyone knows folks who drank prior to turning 21 (perhaps -- or perhaps not! -- like drugs, most people themselves drank prior to turning 21). We do not feel like they got away with something they shouldn't have. We do not believe they are bad people. All of which gets tacked onto the fact that our prohibitionist stance on 19 year olds drinking alcohol is futile to the point of absurdism, as anyone who's ever been on a college campus knows. So I really don't know what motivates irrationality to this robust of a degree.
This, to my mind, is ridiculous. Like with drugs, virtually everyone knows folks who drank prior to turning 21 (perhaps -- or perhaps not! -- like drugs, most people themselves drank prior to turning 21). We do not feel like they got away with something they shouldn't have. We do not believe they are bad people. All of which gets tacked onto the fact that our prohibitionist stance on 19 year olds drinking alcohol is futile to the point of absurdism, as anyone who's ever been on a college campus knows. So I really don't know what motivates irrationality to this robust of a degree.
Barbara M Rocks the House
My senior senator, on whether or not she'd take the Vice Presidency:
Madam, my respect for you has soared.
“Absolutely,” said Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.). “I think I would be great. First of all, I know how to behave at weddings and funerals. And I know how to be commander in chief. I’d bring a lot of fun to the job. We would rock the Naval Observatory.”
Madam, my respect for you has soared.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Po-Mo Bernstein
David Bernstein is complaining about how liberal bloggers are protesting Phyllis Schlafly's honorary degree from Washington University (St. Louis). Specifically, he objects to an excerpt of this post:
Bernstein dryly notes that this hostility towards conservatism may be one of the reasons right-ward individuals stay out of academia.
I agree and I disagree, but I think that Bernstein's statement is very revealing. After all, his argument boils down to a very left-identified post-modern claim about how normative statements about "morality" and "right and wrong" are often masks providing justification for relations of power. After all, one could presumably justify not giving someone like Schlafly an honorary degree on the fact that her views are evil, poisonous, bile -- that's his interlocutors argument. But Bernstein does not appear to accept this as a valid justification. Liberals who engage in this sort of strong moral critique of a Schlafly, or a Dubya or a Jesse Helms, are really just perpetuating particular norms of power -- norms which act to (and perhaps are intended to) marginalize and exclude alternative voices (in this case, conservatives). Only by deconstructing the mechanics of this putatively "moral" critique can we recognize how it is a function of power, and seek to remedy the underlying inequality.
And to some extent, I agree. I've registered my support for limited political affirmative action in academia, and acknowledged the potential that a "hostile environment" towards conservatives may push them away from the profession even in absence of overt discrimination.
The problem, though, is that I doubt there is any other context where Bernstein would make (indeed, refrain from mocking) this form of argument. And to turn the stock conservative response back onto him: why should we refrain from calling evil by name? Why shouldn't we avoid honoring those who traffic in immorality? Jesse Helms was a flagrant racist. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have enacted a regime of torture. Phyllis Schlafly has dedicated a career to undermining the principle of equal human rights and dignity. Is Bernstein now in the relativist camp, saying that we must pretend to ignore these inconvenient facts as blurring the focus on the "power structure"? I see no other explanation.
And as for me? There is, in my view, no way to avoid making value judgments -- and even if that's not true, giving an honorary degree is a rather explicit example of making a value judgment anyway. Universities, like all other institutions, have to decide what values they stand for. Open exchange of diverse ideas is one -- which is why I promote the inclusion of smart, qualified conservative thinkers into the academic structure (my support for race-based affirmative action is on precisely the same grounds). But just as our desire to remedy inequalities in race doesn't mean we should admit any Black person who strays across our path, likewise our desire for intellectual equity does not mean that any prominent conservative thinker deserves our honors. Phyllis Schlafly is an unambiguous force for wrong in the world -- wrong in ways that really are no longer controversial from within any reasonable intellectual standpoint, wrong in ways that I doubt Bernstein would disagree with. It is reducing our standards to non-existence to give her an honorary degree. So while I welcome Bernstein to the post-modern camp, and look forward to his support on all other issues which demand that we undermine entrenched hierarchies of domination, he still has some practicing to do.
Nor do I believe that conservatives should never receive honorary degrees. There are conservative scholars who do work that is respected within academia—many economists, for example—and they would not be inappropriate candidates for such an honor. Nor would I have a problem with conservative pundits, so long as they’re sane and genuinely distinguished (which these days admittedly narrows the field to practically zero), such as the late William F. Buckley. I’ll even grudgingly accept the reality that conservative Republican elder statesmen are regularly awarded these things. Though even here there are limits—while personally I wouldn’t protest the awarding of a degree to George H.W. Bush, even though I find him pretty hateful, far-right lunatics like Cheney, Dubya, and Jesse Helms should be entirely out of bounds..... Because, as much as conservatives may whine and scream to the contrary, liberalism and conservatism are not moral equivalents. Because, on the one side you have the thinkers and activists who have advanced freedom, social justice, and human rights, and on the other, you have those who have attempted to thwart all those things
Bernstein dryly notes that this hostility towards conservatism may be one of the reasons right-ward individuals stay out of academia.
I agree and I disagree, but I think that Bernstein's statement is very revealing. After all, his argument boils down to a very left-identified post-modern claim about how normative statements about "morality" and "right and wrong" are often masks providing justification for relations of power. After all, one could presumably justify not giving someone like Schlafly an honorary degree on the fact that her views are evil, poisonous, bile -- that's his interlocutors argument. But Bernstein does not appear to accept this as a valid justification. Liberals who engage in this sort of strong moral critique of a Schlafly, or a Dubya or a Jesse Helms, are really just perpetuating particular norms of power -- norms which act to (and perhaps are intended to) marginalize and exclude alternative voices (in this case, conservatives). Only by deconstructing the mechanics of this putatively "moral" critique can we recognize how it is a function of power, and seek to remedy the underlying inequality.
And to some extent, I agree. I've registered my support for limited political affirmative action in academia, and acknowledged the potential that a "hostile environment" towards conservatives may push them away from the profession even in absence of overt discrimination.
The problem, though, is that I doubt there is any other context where Bernstein would make (indeed, refrain from mocking) this form of argument. And to turn the stock conservative response back onto him: why should we refrain from calling evil by name? Why shouldn't we avoid honoring those who traffic in immorality? Jesse Helms was a flagrant racist. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have enacted a regime of torture. Phyllis Schlafly has dedicated a career to undermining the principle of equal human rights and dignity. Is Bernstein now in the relativist camp, saying that we must pretend to ignore these inconvenient facts as blurring the focus on the "power structure"? I see no other explanation.
And as for me? There is, in my view, no way to avoid making value judgments -- and even if that's not true, giving an honorary degree is a rather explicit example of making a value judgment anyway. Universities, like all other institutions, have to decide what values they stand for. Open exchange of diverse ideas is one -- which is why I promote the inclusion of smart, qualified conservative thinkers into the academic structure (my support for race-based affirmative action is on precisely the same grounds). But just as our desire to remedy inequalities in race doesn't mean we should admit any Black person who strays across our path, likewise our desire for intellectual equity does not mean that any prominent conservative thinker deserves our honors. Phyllis Schlafly is an unambiguous force for wrong in the world -- wrong in ways that really are no longer controversial from within any reasonable intellectual standpoint, wrong in ways that I doubt Bernstein would disagree with. It is reducing our standards to non-existence to give her an honorary degree. So while I welcome Bernstein to the post-modern camp, and look forward to his support on all other issues which demand that we undermine entrenched hierarchies of domination, he still has some practicing to do.
Faith
I've read quite a few stories revealing the horror of America's prison system (and our detention centers for immigrants). The legal immigrant -- detained on a charge of buying stolen jewelry a decade ago -- who can't get a test to see if her cancer has come back. The nine-year old Canadian child begging the Canadian Prime Minister to intervene and get him and his family out of detention while their asylum claim is being processed. Reports of officially sanctioned rape. Flagrant abuse. Innocent men tortured in extra-legal black sites, then, when we concluded that "oops, he is innocent", dumped blindfolded on a hillside in a random country (it turned out to be Albania). I could go on -- and that doesn't even go into broken process by which we decide who goes to jail in the first place.
These stories, read in themselves, do not distinguish themselves from a typical autocratic thugocracy. Maybe not the worst of these regimes -- there are no reports of mass killing, for example. But certainly well within the bounds of the average brutal dictatorship.
But I read them, and for some reason, I have faith. I have faith that they're aberrations. I have faith that the system as a whole "really isn't like that." That these are exceptions. That we are not what these stories deeply imply that we are.
Why do I believe that? It's a belief that really has no grounding. There are certainly a great many people who are quite outspoken that my faith is wrong -- that the prison-industrial complex really is "that bad", all the way down, and consequently our justice system is essentially a reproduction of cruelty, degradation, and inhumanity that we -- as citizens in a democratic polity (and one that has taken "tough on crime" to be an article of faith) -- are all complicit in. And ultimately, there is very little argument in favor of my faith. The fact that these stories are printed, to (sometimes) public outrage? Please. Scandal is a fickle thing, as Mark Kelman once wrote. Abuse of certain people may be a scandal -- but the abuse of others is routinely ignored, which is not considered to be a scandal, nor is the fact that even the original scandal will quickly be forgotten even as the abuse continues considered to be a scandal. The fact that occasionally prison abuse burbles to the surface is no proof that it is exceptional.
Admittedly, the fact that there are reports of prison abuse does not mean that the problem is epidemic. I'm just in no position to know either way. That I believe that we are not ultimately an abusive state is ultimately an article of faith. But the more I read, the more I'm terrified that my faith might be wrong.
These stories, read in themselves, do not distinguish themselves from a typical autocratic thugocracy. Maybe not the worst of these regimes -- there are no reports of mass killing, for example. But certainly well within the bounds of the average brutal dictatorship.
But I read them, and for some reason, I have faith. I have faith that they're aberrations. I have faith that the system as a whole "really isn't like that." That these are exceptions. That we are not what these stories deeply imply that we are.
Why do I believe that? It's a belief that really has no grounding. There are certainly a great many people who are quite outspoken that my faith is wrong -- that the prison-industrial complex really is "that bad", all the way down, and consequently our justice system is essentially a reproduction of cruelty, degradation, and inhumanity that we -- as citizens in a democratic polity (and one that has taken "tough on crime" to be an article of faith) -- are all complicit in. And ultimately, there is very little argument in favor of my faith. The fact that these stories are printed, to (sometimes) public outrage? Please. Scandal is a fickle thing, as Mark Kelman once wrote. Abuse of certain people may be a scandal -- but the abuse of others is routinely ignored, which is not considered to be a scandal, nor is the fact that even the original scandal will quickly be forgotten even as the abuse continues considered to be a scandal. The fact that occasionally prison abuse burbles to the surface is no proof that it is exceptional.
Admittedly, the fact that there are reports of prison abuse does not mean that the problem is epidemic. I'm just in no position to know either way. That I believe that we are not ultimately an abusive state is ultimately an article of faith. But the more I read, the more I'm terrified that my faith might be wrong.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Hate
John Cole blogs the Pens/Flyers game:
In undergrad, I had a bunch of Canadian roommates and I remember watching VHS tapes of great hockey games that were broadcast in Canada with, of course, Canadian announcers. During the breaks between periods, they would have in depth analysis on the finer points of line changes, etc. Tonight in between the 2nd and 3rd period, we are being treated to ‘The advent of the curved hockey stick.”
I think they hate us for more than our freedom.
No Talking
David Bernstein, Michael Totten, and Noah Pollack do not like Obama's statement on the Lebanon Crisis, which focuses on diplomatic engagement to reform Lebanon's electoral structure, fight corruption, decrease economic inequality, and combat impositions on Lebanese sovereignty (particularly by Syria).
Pollack snarks: "Since his prescription for the Middle East is diplomatic engagement, every disease gets re-diagnosed as something curable through talking."
As opposed to the conservative options, which appear to be restricted to "bomb" or "ignore"?
Pollack snarks: "Since his prescription for the Middle East is diplomatic engagement, every disease gets re-diagnosed as something curable through talking."
As opposed to the conservative options, which appear to be restricted to "bomb" or "ignore"?
My Transition to Law Geek-dom is Complete
I got the answer to PrawfsBlawg's weekend law school trivia question. I was almost a brat at said law school -- when I was two, my dad apparently looked at leaving private practice to teach there, but decided against it. I have to say, I'm glad I grew up in Bethesda. But being a prof-ling would have been cool too.
Friday, May 09, 2008
Voting Politically
Some folks have been giving Barack Obama a hard time for his claim that the court's should serve as a refuge and defender of the oppressed in America. This, the argue, is politics substituting itself for law. They gleefully point to John McCain's statement on what he's looking for in a judge -- a position that is supposedly non-ideological and apolitical. Conservative judges go where the law takes them. Liberal judges go where they want to go, law be damned.
Tragically, this position is false -- and it's a conservative judge who is pointing it out. Judge Richard Posner, one of the leading conservative jurists in America today (and possibly one of my professors at the U of Chicago) has a new book out, "How Judges Think" which pops the myth that liberal justices are more likely to vote their policy preferences than conservatives. Actually, conservative judges are statistically far more likely to do so, and not only that, the trend line for conservative judges is towards increased politically-based voting, while liberal judges actually have shown a slight decrease in their (already smaller) propensity to vote in accordance with their policy preferences.
Posner thinks the reasoning for this is that, since the Reagan administration, Republicans have relied significantly more on ideological considerations when appointing judges. Liberals, he suggests, are not as organized in demanding that their nominees be ideologically pure and committed. But Brian Tamanaha (with just a hint of snark?) suggests that maybe its just that "Democratic judicial appointees are more committed to respecting and abiding by the law (to restraining the influence of their political views)."
I don't have any problem with the presumption that courts should be defenders of the marginalized. The rights of majorities are less likely to be threatened in democracies, because they're, well, the majority, and as John Hart Ely pointed out so many years ago, majorities aren't likely to discriminate against themselves. It should be expected that the primary function of the courts will be to defend those whose interests are not likely to be defended in the democratic arena. We have for decades held to the principle that these minorities deserve special consideration by the judiciary if their equal status is society is to be maintained. Insofar as conservatives substitute their policy preferences that often counsel against protecting minorities against majorities, they are engaging in an unabashedly political project. And as for their judicial "philosophies" which "force" them into that position, as River Tam would put it, it's not part the philosophy, it's why you chose the philosophy.
Tragically, this position is false -- and it's a conservative judge who is pointing it out. Judge Richard Posner, one of the leading conservative jurists in America today (and possibly one of my professors at the U of Chicago) has a new book out, "How Judges Think" which pops the myth that liberal justices are more likely to vote their policy preferences than conservatives. Actually, conservative judges are statistically far more likely to do so, and not only that, the trend line for conservative judges is towards increased politically-based voting, while liberal judges actually have shown a slight decrease in their (already smaller) propensity to vote in accordance with their policy preferences.
Posner thinks the reasoning for this is that, since the Reagan administration, Republicans have relied significantly more on ideological considerations when appointing judges. Liberals, he suggests, are not as organized in demanding that their nominees be ideologically pure and committed. But Brian Tamanaha (with just a hint of snark?) suggests that maybe its just that "Democratic judicial appointees are more committed to respecting and abiding by the law (to restraining the influence of their political views)."
I don't have any problem with the presumption that courts should be defenders of the marginalized. The rights of majorities are less likely to be threatened in democracies, because they're, well, the majority, and as John Hart Ely pointed out so many years ago, majorities aren't likely to discriminate against themselves. It should be expected that the primary function of the courts will be to defend those whose interests are not likely to be defended in the democratic arena. We have for decades held to the principle that these minorities deserve special consideration by the judiciary if their equal status is society is to be maintained. Insofar as conservatives substitute their policy preferences that often counsel against protecting minorities against majorities, they are engaging in an unabashedly political project. And as for their judicial "philosophies" which "force" them into that position, as River Tam would put it, it's not part the philosophy, it's why you chose the philosophy.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Round Four
Amazingly, the Indiana 9th District is looking at the fourth consecutive battle between the same opponents, with Democratic Rep. Baron Hill defending his seat against former Rep. Mike Sodrel. Sodrel challenged Hill in 2002 but lost, but then won the re-match in 2004. Hill got his seat back in 2006 and now the race is on again 2008. It's expected to be negative -- 6 years of running against each other has created some bad blood.
I'm curious: what's the record for most consecutive cycles where the same two major party candidates faced off?
I'm curious: what's the record for most consecutive cycles where the same two major party candidates faced off?
Coin Op and Cona Op
One of my friends at Carleton wrote her senior thesis on the tension between America's counter-insurgency tactics in Afghanistan, and our counter-narcotics tactics there. It was a good argument that I think deserves greater attention (I say that while I'm sure I'm not doing it full justice).
The link between the drug war and the war on terror is no mystery. Terrorists like drug money because its already an underground economy, so the transfer paths are already present in ways designed not to alert the authorities. But fighting the drug war makes allies of the terrorists and the drug producers -- the cartels, yes, but also the peasant population which grow the crops as their primary source of income.
This creates a problem. Basically, America's standard counter-insurgency operations revolve around the "winning hearts and minds" cliche. We try and stabilize regions, build institutions, increase the well-being of the locals, and help them get their goods to the market. If they like us, or even if they just are content with the status quo, the support for the insurgency withers away. Win for Team America.
Our counter-narcotics operations, by contrast, are based on eradication. We go in, and destroy the poppy crops. This means that our first exposure to many Afghan families is decimating their livelihoods, which is a problem on the whole hearts-and-minds metric. More specifically, rather than seeing Americans as a source for enhanced stability or a brighter future, locals instead rationally conclude that the only way to keep their crops safe is to insure that America or the central Afghan government doesn't get near them. That makes support for the insurgents skyrocket. And the insurgents reciprocate by protecting and promoting poppy cultivation. This dynamic has made it nearly impossible for anti-Taliban forces to crack the Taliban's hold on Southern Afghanistan, which, in addition to being their original base of support, is also a prime poppy region. The insistence on fighting the drug war in this way is making it impossible for the army -- and the Afghanistan government -- to do its job: unite the country, and stifle the insurgency.
The link between the drug war and the war on terror is no mystery. Terrorists like drug money because its already an underground economy, so the transfer paths are already present in ways designed not to alert the authorities. But fighting the drug war makes allies of the terrorists and the drug producers -- the cartels, yes, but also the peasant population which grow the crops as their primary source of income.
This creates a problem. Basically, America's standard counter-insurgency operations revolve around the "winning hearts and minds" cliche. We try and stabilize regions, build institutions, increase the well-being of the locals, and help them get their goods to the market. If they like us, or even if they just are content with the status quo, the support for the insurgency withers away. Win for Team America.
Our counter-narcotics operations, by contrast, are based on eradication. We go in, and destroy the poppy crops. This means that our first exposure to many Afghan families is decimating their livelihoods, which is a problem on the whole hearts-and-minds metric. More specifically, rather than seeing Americans as a source for enhanced stability or a brighter future, locals instead rationally conclude that the only way to keep their crops safe is to insure that America or the central Afghan government doesn't get near them. That makes support for the insurgents skyrocket. And the insurgents reciprocate by protecting and promoting poppy cultivation. This dynamic has made it nearly impossible for anti-Taliban forces to crack the Taliban's hold on Southern Afghanistan, which, in addition to being their original base of support, is also a prime poppy region. The insistence on fighting the drug war in this way is making it impossible for the army -- and the Afghanistan government -- to do its job: unite the country, and stifle the insurgency.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
How Much Time?
A new ad out tries to force McCain into that question pro-lifers never want to answer: if abortion should be a crime, how much time should women who have them serve? (Via)
I've yet to hear a coherent justification (at least, one that isn't nakedly paternalistic -- e.g., women are irrational creatures controlled by their emotions, so they can't be punished) for why abortion can be outlawed (as murder), but the murderers should get off scot-free. I suppose if someone doesn't think abortion is murder, but still can come up with a reason for it to barred, they could dodge out of this, but the few arguments I've heard on those lines are also pretty paternalistic (it's a serious decision, and we can't know if you're taking it seriously enough unless you're willing to prove it somehow to the state).
In any event, it's a question that McCain and his allies shouldn't be allowed to dodge. But I agree with Bean: it's a pretty new tactic (at least in mainstream argumentation), and nobody knows how new tactics will play out.
I've yet to hear a coherent justification (at least, one that isn't nakedly paternalistic -- e.g., women are irrational creatures controlled by their emotions, so they can't be punished) for why abortion can be outlawed (as murder), but the murderers should get off scot-free. I suppose if someone doesn't think abortion is murder, but still can come up with a reason for it to barred, they could dodge out of this, but the few arguments I've heard on those lines are also pretty paternalistic (it's a serious decision, and we can't know if you're taking it seriously enough unless you're willing to prove it somehow to the state).
In any event, it's a question that McCain and his allies shouldn't be allowed to dodge. But I agree with Bean: it's a pretty new tactic (at least in mainstream argumentation), and nobody knows how new tactics will play out.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
A Jewish BLT
Not Bacon-Lettuce-Tomato (that'd be impossible to make Jewish -- unless you're Reform), but Black Liberation Theology!
This NYT article on the subject (H/T: PG) brought to the fore a thought I've been having for some time. Black Liberation Theology strikes me as a significantly more "Jewish", if you will, theology than it does Christian.
Now, I'll admit only a moderate knowledge of the parameters of Christian theology. But plenty of Christians I've talked to have confessed genuine trouble with identifying BLT as a "Christian" entity. They object to its particularism, that it "takes sides" (as opposed to Christ's message of universal salvation and infinite love). They think it's too political, and this-worldly, as opposed to concentrating on faith and the world-to-come.
Both of these concerns fit far more comfortable within Judaism, which is also particularistic, and also is more concerned with the state of the human world as opposed to abstract notions of faith and the afterlife. Admittedly, Orthodox Judaism often only concerns itself with "this world" on a ritualistic level, and less so with regards to universal concerns of justice. But Judaism as a whole (including Orthodox Judaism) has developed a strong social identity around the notion of Tikkun Olam (repairing the world). Even if, as my Judaic Studies professor at Carleton argues, Tikkun Olam historically has been only a minor element of Jewish religious practice, it's certainly risen to a dominant position today.
Moreover, the Liberation Theology mantra, "God is on the side of the oppressed", also seems to my ears to ring more Jewish than Christian. In part, this is simply historical: Jews have spent more time oppressed than (White) Christians, so obviously we're going to develop theological accounts that provide sustenance in such situations. But also, as the article notes, the God of BLT tends to be that of the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament: God standing in judgment over wrongdoers, and prophets preaching Jeremiads against evil societies. I don't believe this theme is absent in the New Testament, but my understanding is that it takes on reduced significance.
In part, this affinity (brother-sufferers) has been used to explain the disproportionate presence of Jews (religious and not) in the Civil Rights movement. But BLT came to the fore with the Black Power movement -- an event which, at the very least, stressed the Black/Jewish bond. Perhaps one way to repair the rift would be for Black Liberation Theorists and their Jewish counterparts to explore connections and commonalities regarding how they view the world. Orthodox Christianity has not exactly been the most welcoming home for liberation theology. Maybe Judaism can be (and learn something about ourselves in the process).
This NYT article on the subject (H/T: PG) brought to the fore a thought I've been having for some time. Black Liberation Theology strikes me as a significantly more "Jewish", if you will, theology than it does Christian.
Now, I'll admit only a moderate knowledge of the parameters of Christian theology. But plenty of Christians I've talked to have confessed genuine trouble with identifying BLT as a "Christian" entity. They object to its particularism, that it "takes sides" (as opposed to Christ's message of universal salvation and infinite love). They think it's too political, and this-worldly, as opposed to concentrating on faith and the world-to-come.
Both of these concerns fit far more comfortable within Judaism, which is also particularistic, and also is more concerned with the state of the human world as opposed to abstract notions of faith and the afterlife. Admittedly, Orthodox Judaism often only concerns itself with "this world" on a ritualistic level, and less so with regards to universal concerns of justice. But Judaism as a whole (including Orthodox Judaism) has developed a strong social identity around the notion of Tikkun Olam (repairing the world). Even if, as my Judaic Studies professor at Carleton argues, Tikkun Olam historically has been only a minor element of Jewish religious practice, it's certainly risen to a dominant position today.
Moreover, the Liberation Theology mantra, "God is on the side of the oppressed", also seems to my ears to ring more Jewish than Christian. In part, this is simply historical: Jews have spent more time oppressed than (White) Christians, so obviously we're going to develop theological accounts that provide sustenance in such situations. But also, as the article notes, the God of BLT tends to be that of the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament: God standing in judgment over wrongdoers, and prophets preaching Jeremiads against evil societies. I don't believe this theme is absent in the New Testament, but my understanding is that it takes on reduced significance.
In part, this affinity (brother-sufferers) has been used to explain the disproportionate presence of Jews (religious and not) in the Civil Rights movement. But BLT came to the fore with the Black Power movement -- an event which, at the very least, stressed the Black/Jewish bond. Perhaps one way to repair the rift would be for Black Liberation Theorists and their Jewish counterparts to explore connections and commonalities regarding how they view the world. Orthodox Christianity has not exactly been the most welcoming home for liberation theology. Maybe Judaism can be (and learn something about ourselves in the process).
Next Stop: Michelle
Michelle Obama enjoyed a long grace period from the national media. A smart, engaged women who has formidable accomplishments of her own wholly aside from those of her husband -- what's not to like? Well, being an outspoken Black women is always a position fraught with peril, and Michelle does not have her husband's naturally conciliatory personality. We saw her previously sterling image take a hit with the infamous comments about how her husband's candidacy represented the first time she'd been proud of America. And with a pair of articles out trying to paint her with a tar brush, I think we safely say that conservatives think Michelle Obama may be a point of vulnerability for the Obama campaign.
That doesn't mean that the attacks are just, though. The first is a projection piece by Yulal Levin at the National Review complaining that Michelle Obama articulates a sense of "bitterness" (the ultimate insult!). The warrant is that Michelle's speeches often hit on themes regarding how people no longer feel like they're in control of their destiny, that they can't make change in the world (obviously, the fulcrum to Obama's message that "yes, we can" make change). It's a pretty silly argument, that boils down to "there's no anxiety in America, because many of the people Michelle Obama is talking to are middle class or wealthy, and if there is, it's because we rock that much the harder," which I feel misreads the current sentiment of the American people by reducing the only possible source of anxiousness to money concerns. In any event, as in all arguments that flow from a perception that something is wrong with America, Michelle is being critiqued for daring to mention that all Americans might not exist in a state of ecstatic joy, all the time (how can we not? This is the greatest nation in the history of the world!).
The second is an article by equal-opportunity religion-hater Christopher Hitchens, who tries to blame Michelle for Barack's membership in Rev. Wright's church -- a membership which can only be explained by sympathy to radical Black separatist ideology. Since Barack clearly doesn't believe in separatism (nor, I'd wager, does Rev. Wright, but no matter), it must be Michelle. He spends literally one half of a paragraph providing evidence for this -- and (I'm not making this is up), that one piece of evidence consists of Michelle Obama's 1985 senior thesis (my senior thesis is online for all to see -- am I doomed?). That's it, and it's in the last paragraph. Contrast that to the two opening paragraphs, dedicated to wholly gratuitous references to Louis Farrakhan. This the best you've got? [Note: I strongly recall my argument here being made in a post at The Plank, but I can't find it. Apologies for the appropriation -- particularly if the post wasn't at The Plank and I'm effectively stealing from somewhere else. There it is! Publius from Obsidian Wings. Sorry 'bout that.].
While I'm on that last point, the discussion by PG and myself on the prospect of a Bobby Jindal VP position reminds of something. In addition to the latest go around of "is Obama a closet Muslim or a radical Christian Black separatist? Or both!?", there's been a persistent rumor fest that Obama only converted to Christianity and joined his church as a furtherance of his political ambition. Would Jindal, who converted from Hinduism to Christianity, face the same scrutiny of political motive? I mean, good luck getting elected as a Hindu Republican in Louisiana. Still, my guess is no, both because the pre-existing narrative of a 5th column (radical Hindus are trying to subvert America and Jesus!) isn't there (oddly enough, since Hinduism, as a non-monotheistic [or at least not traditionally monotheistic] religion would seem to be more theologically dangerous to Christianity), and because the arbiters of who is sufficiently close to Jesus to be allowed to participate in American democracy (i.e., the Christian right) seem to have given him the a-okay. Still, fascinating contrast.
That doesn't mean that the attacks are just, though. The first is a projection piece by Yulal Levin at the National Review complaining that Michelle Obama articulates a sense of "bitterness" (the ultimate insult!). The warrant is that Michelle's speeches often hit on themes regarding how people no longer feel like they're in control of their destiny, that they can't make change in the world (obviously, the fulcrum to Obama's message that "yes, we can" make change). It's a pretty silly argument, that boils down to "there's no anxiety in America, because many of the people Michelle Obama is talking to are middle class or wealthy, and if there is, it's because we rock that much the harder," which I feel misreads the current sentiment of the American people by reducing the only possible source of anxiousness to money concerns. In any event, as in all arguments that flow from a perception that something is wrong with America, Michelle is being critiqued for daring to mention that all Americans might not exist in a state of ecstatic joy, all the time (how can we not? This is the greatest nation in the history of the world!).
The second is an article by equal-opportunity religion-hater Christopher Hitchens, who tries to blame Michelle for Barack's membership in Rev. Wright's church -- a membership which can only be explained by sympathy to radical Black separatist ideology. Since Barack clearly doesn't believe in separatism (nor, I'd wager, does Rev. Wright, but no matter), it must be Michelle. He spends literally one half of a paragraph providing evidence for this -- and (I'm not making this is up), that one piece of evidence consists of Michelle Obama's 1985 senior thesis (my senior thesis is online for all to see -- am I doomed?). That's it, and it's in the last paragraph. Contrast that to the two opening paragraphs, dedicated to wholly gratuitous references to Louis Farrakhan. This the best you've got? [
While I'm on that last point, the discussion by PG and myself on the prospect of a Bobby Jindal VP position reminds of something. In addition to the latest go around of "is Obama a closet Muslim or a radical Christian Black separatist? Or both!?", there's been a persistent rumor fest that Obama only converted to Christianity and joined his church as a furtherance of his political ambition. Would Jindal, who converted from Hinduism to Christianity, face the same scrutiny of political motive? I mean, good luck getting elected as a Hindu Republican in Louisiana. Still, my guess is no, both because the pre-existing narrative of a 5th column (radical Hindus are trying to subvert America and Jesus!) isn't there (oddly enough, since Hinduism, as a non-monotheistic [or at least not traditionally monotheistic] religion would seem to be more theologically dangerous to Christianity), and because the arbiters of who is sufficiently close to Jesus to be allowed to participate in American democracy (i.e., the Christian right) seem to have given him the a-okay. Still, fascinating contrast.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Stand Up and Admit
Whenever Obama talks about "change" and whatnot on his campaign (which is, let's face it, every six seconds or so), I am filled with an inexplicable urge for him to adopt a new song as his campaign theme. Specifically, Marilyn Manson's "This is the New Shit".
Can you imagine? He could be going into his standard refrain:
And so on. It even has call and response:
I don't understand why they don't pay me for this.
Can you imagine? He could be going into his standard refrain:
"Are you ready for something new? Are you ready for change?" [hit the music, start head-banging] "Are you mutha%*%@ing ready? For the new shit! Stand up and admit, come on everybody! ..."
And so on. It even has call and response:
Do we get it?
No.....!
Do we want it?
Yes.....!
I don't understand why they don't pay me for this.
Jindal for VP, Part II
A few posts ago I explored the possibility of McCain selecting Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal as his VP choice.
Now some liberal bloggers have tackled the issue, and they seem rather sanguine about it. Kevin Drum thinks that Jindal's youth (36) will serve to accentuate just how old McCain is (71), and Steve Benen -- in addition to that point -- wonders if the right-wing base that's uncomfortable with "difference" (read: dark people) in general will come out to vote for an Indian-American VP (once a Hindu, always a Hindu?).
Color me unconvinced. On the age issue, I guess I can see Jindal's boyishness serving to emphasize just how old McCain is. But I've always been skeptical that age will be as big a factor as some Democrats make it out to be. Maybe Democrats can make the point that the Republican ticket is lead by someone who might die tomorrow, backed up by someone with virtually no experience on the international stage. But it's hard to make that point without indicting Obama, who is more experienced than Jindal, but not by enough to immunize him from the attack. The better charge might be to simply point out that we're a heartbeat away from putting an extreme right-wing fanatic in office.
The issue of race, I think, is even less compelling. As I wrote in my last post, conservatives like big progressive shifts to come clothed in conservative garb -- it makes them less threatening. If Jindal can win statewide in Louisiana -- possibly the southern state with the worst demographics for a non-White Republican (plenty of racism combined with a Democratic Party that is still competitive in high profile elections) -- then I think he's dispelled doubts that White racism from the right will be a major strike against him.
Then, of course, there is the elephant in the room: that Jindal says he doesn't want the job. But of course, what potential VP candidate says he does want it?
Now some liberal bloggers have tackled the issue, and they seem rather sanguine about it. Kevin Drum thinks that Jindal's youth (36) will serve to accentuate just how old McCain is (71), and Steve Benen -- in addition to that point -- wonders if the right-wing base that's uncomfortable with "difference" (read: dark people) in general will come out to vote for an Indian-American VP (once a Hindu, always a Hindu?).
Color me unconvinced. On the age issue, I guess I can see Jindal's boyishness serving to emphasize just how old McCain is. But I've always been skeptical that age will be as big a factor as some Democrats make it out to be. Maybe Democrats can make the point that the Republican ticket is lead by someone who might die tomorrow, backed up by someone with virtually no experience on the international stage. But it's hard to make that point without indicting Obama, who is more experienced than Jindal, but not by enough to immunize him from the attack. The better charge might be to simply point out that we're a heartbeat away from putting an extreme right-wing fanatic in office.
The issue of race, I think, is even less compelling. As I wrote in my last post, conservatives like big progressive shifts to come clothed in conservative garb -- it makes them less threatening. If Jindal can win statewide in Louisiana -- possibly the southern state with the worst demographics for a non-White Republican (plenty of racism combined with a Democratic Party that is still competitive in high profile elections) -- then I think he's dispelled doubts that White racism from the right will be a major strike against him.
Then, of course, there is the elephant in the room: that Jindal says he doesn't want the job. But of course, what potential VP candidate says he does want it?
As Usual, It's Teh Fault of Teh Gay
Shorter FRC: The recent raid on the FLDS -- a sect which has existed for over 100 years -- shows that teh gay are destroying American civilization, and that teenagers can never be allowed to have sex. That being said, is nobody thinking of the parents in this situation? What about their rights?
The only criminals in this account are gays and horny teenagers. The only victims are the adults who rape teenagers and the parents who put their kids in this situation.
Family values, FTW!
The only criminals in this account are gays and horny teenagers. The only victims are the adults who rape teenagers and the parents who put their kids in this situation.
Family values, FTW!
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Order Up
This is really fascinating. In putting together his seminal work, An American Dilemma (published in 1944) Gunnar Myrdal asked White southerners to list, in order of importance, what they thought American Blacks wanted most. Their response:
Myrdal then asked Blacks the same question, and got the same answer, with one significant exception: Blacks listed them in reverse order!
From Patricia J. Williams, "On Imagining Foes, Imagining Friendship," in Struggles in the Promised Land: Toward a History of Black-Jewish Relations in the United States (Jack Salzman & Cornel West, eds., Oxford: Oxford UP 1997), pp. 371-383, 374-75 (citing Calvin Hernton, "The Sexualization of Racism," in Sex and Racism in America (1988); Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma (1944), pp. 587-88).
1. Intermarriage and sex intercourse with whites
2. Social equality and etiquette
3. Desegregation of public facilities, buses, churches, etc.
4. Political enfranchisement
5. Fair treatment in the law courts
6. Economic opportunities
Myrdal then asked Blacks the same question, and got the same answer, with one significant exception: Blacks listed them in reverse order!
From Patricia J. Williams, "On Imagining Foes, Imagining Friendship," in Struggles in the Promised Land: Toward a History of Black-Jewish Relations in the United States (Jack Salzman & Cornel West, eds., Oxford: Oxford UP 1997), pp. 371-383, 374-75 (citing Calvin Hernton, "The Sexualization of Racism," in Sex and Racism in America (1988); Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma (1944), pp. 587-88).
Blacks and Israel
In discussions of why the Black/Jewish alliance of the early 20th century began to falter in the 1970s, the question of Israel usually is at the forefront. Growing Black identification with third world anti-colonialism (which manifested itself in support of Palestine against their purported colonizer, Israel), combined with growing Jewish ambivalence to affirmative action, was a double-whammy combination that severely fractured previously deep bonds.
But both problems, while certainly real, have been overstated. Jews have demonstrated ambivalence towards affirmative action (particularly quotas, which have deep negative connotations given their history as a tool of exclusion of qualified Jewish applicants), but they still register support for it at levels higher than any other White ethnic group, and the trend lines are positive, not negative, on the topic. Blacks, for their part, do support Israel -- albeit by lower margins than Whites. Moreover, while high-profile anti-Israel statements get media attention and feed the perception of a large and growing bloc of the Black community in strident opposition to Zionism, the reality is far more complicated. Certainly, some Black leaders shifted from previous support of Zionism to staunch opposition (such as Stokely Carmichael). At the same time, others made the opposite trek, such as Jesse Jackson, who in the space of several years went from describing Zionism as a "poisonous weed" choking Judaism to hailing it as a national liberation movement. Other Black leaders, led by Bayard Rustin, formed the Black Americans in Support of Israel Committee (BASIC) -- joined by, among other notables, Clarence Mitchell, David Dinkins, and even Andrew Young, who become a poster boy for Jewish concerns over growing anti-Israel sentiment in the Black community when he met with representatives of the PLO as America's Ambassador to the United Nations in 1979.
The reality is that the view of significant Black anti-Israel sentiment is largely apocryphal, stemmed by the aforementioned high profile denunciations rather than by any strong empirical evidence. Summarizing a long history of survey data, Gary Rubin writes:
Rubin also notes that the Congressional Black Caucus has "consistently and overwhelmingly favored foreign aid to Israel" (367, quoting Murray Friedman), and notes that in general Black politicians have been quite willing to "horse trade" with Jewish leaders so that each group can secure the support of the other on issues of mutual importance.
So what do we get out of this? First, Jewish concerns are not wholly off base -- Blacks, while overall supportive of Israel, are less likely to express that position than Whites. More importantly, the relative apathy on the issue Rubin notices is not neutral -- just as Blacks are hardly unconcerned with Whites who "don't care one way or the other" on questions of racial justice. When the question is basic survival and equal dignity in the arena of human affairs, apathy and indifference can feel like hostility. But all that notwithstanding, insofar as Israel remains an issue of critical importance to Jews, the Black community writ large is not our enemies, and that's important to keep in mind as groups who truly are hostile to our interests try and pry us apart.
But both problems, while certainly real, have been overstated. Jews have demonstrated ambivalence towards affirmative action (particularly quotas, which have deep negative connotations given their history as a tool of exclusion of qualified Jewish applicants), but they still register support for it at levels higher than any other White ethnic group, and the trend lines are positive, not negative, on the topic. Blacks, for their part, do support Israel -- albeit by lower margins than Whites. Moreover, while high-profile anti-Israel statements get media attention and feed the perception of a large and growing bloc of the Black community in strident opposition to Zionism, the reality is far more complicated. Certainly, some Black leaders shifted from previous support of Zionism to staunch opposition (such as Stokely Carmichael). At the same time, others made the opposite trek, such as Jesse Jackson, who in the space of several years went from describing Zionism as a "poisonous weed" choking Judaism to hailing it as a national liberation movement. Other Black leaders, led by Bayard Rustin, formed the Black Americans in Support of Israel Committee (BASIC) -- joined by, among other notables, Clarence Mitchell, David Dinkins, and even Andrew Young, who become a poster boy for Jewish concerns over growing anti-Israel sentiment in the Black community when he met with representatives of the PLO as America's Ambassador to the United Nations in 1979.
The reality is that the view of significant Black anti-Israel sentiment is largely apocryphal, stemmed by the aforementioned high profile denunciations rather than by any strong empirical evidence. Summarizing a long history of survey data, Gary Rubin writes:
Four points stand out in this review of three decades of surveys on African American attitudes toward Israel. First, African Americans show consistent support for Israel over this entire period. Second, that support is at a lower level than that of the public at large. Third, for greater proportions of African Americans than others, this is not a very important issue: Blacks consistently outpace whites in the proportion that express no opinion on Israel-related questions. Fourth, response of African Americans are subject to the course of events; they are especially prone to express sympathy with the Palestinians as well as with Israel and to strongly back pro-peace positions. [Gary E. Rubin, "African Americans and Israel," in Struggles in the Promised Land: Towards a History of Black-Jewish Relations in the United States (Jack Salzman & Cornel West, eds., Oxford: Oxford UP 1997), 357-370, 366]
Rubin also notes that the Congressional Black Caucus has "consistently and overwhelmingly favored foreign aid to Israel" (367, quoting Murray Friedman), and notes that in general Black politicians have been quite willing to "horse trade" with Jewish leaders so that each group can secure the support of the other on issues of mutual importance.
So what do we get out of this? First, Jewish concerns are not wholly off base -- Blacks, while overall supportive of Israel, are less likely to express that position than Whites. More importantly, the relative apathy on the issue Rubin notices is not neutral -- just as Blacks are hardly unconcerned with Whites who "don't care one way or the other" on questions of racial justice. When the question is basic survival and equal dignity in the arena of human affairs, apathy and indifference can feel like hostility. But all that notwithstanding, insofar as Israel remains an issue of critical importance to Jews, the Black community writ large is not our enemies, and that's important to keep in mind as groups who truly are hostile to our interests try and pry us apart.
Signal Strength
Dave Meyer has a fantastic post up on the historical practice of America using wars as a form "public relations" or "marketing" -- specifically, marketing that we as a nation are "strong" or have the "will" to impress our desires upon the rest of the world. He begins with Hannah Arendt's retrospective on the Vietnam War, and continues to show how image was always the central element of selling the Iraq War:
Meyer notes that, insofar as war is used as a signal for will, it requires tremendous message discipline. But as Matt Yglesias points out, such uniformity is effectively impossible in a modern, pluralist democracy -- which is probably why Republican war supporters who are so concerned with the "message" we're sending (to al-Qaeda or Iran or France or whomever) about our "will" have so often resorted to the rhetoric of treason to describe war dissenters, or have engaged in domestic propaganda efforts of questionable veracity (not to mention ethics or legality) to try and keep the American psyche all moving in one public direction.
These are all good points, but Robert Farley, an expert on military affairs, adds that even outside the limitations imposed by American democracy, "signaling" things like "will" relies on several shaky assumptions, which often don't bear themselves out:
This doesn't mean that American actions don't communicate messages that we should be cognizant of. But it does mean that a) we can't pretend like "strength" or "will" are the only signals we'll ever send -- even if that's what we intend to, and b) that it's probably a bad idea to launch entire foreign policy adventures based on the blurry concept of communicating American willpower.
In the last year of her life, Hannah Arendt offered a retrospective on Vietnam; Home to Roost is printed in the Responsibility and Judgment collection published back in 2003. Her prescient insight was that the entire "not very honorable and not very rational enterprise was exclusively guided by the needs of a superpower to create for itself an image which would convince the world that it was indeed 'the mightiest power on earth.'" Eventually, the war was maintained solely "to avoid admitting defeat and to keep the image...intact."
The official obsession with image developed over time in the Vietnam era. With Iraq, it was central from the beginning. Before the war, Andy Card told Elisabeth Bumiller that "from a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August." Tom Friedman thought invading Iraq would communicate a useful "Suck. On. This." Jonah Goldberg glowingly attributed to Michael Ledeen the idea that "every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business." There are countless examples, from high government officials to low pundits, of endorsements of Iraq for the message it would send, as an easy way to dispel the myth of American weakness. The Iraq war is a multi-trillion dollar public relations campaign, aimed at persuading hostile forces of our "strength."
Meyer notes that, insofar as war is used as a signal for will, it requires tremendous message discipline. But as Matt Yglesias points out, such uniformity is effectively impossible in a modern, pluralist democracy -- which is probably why Republican war supporters who are so concerned with the "message" we're sending (to al-Qaeda or Iran or France or whomever) about our "will" have so often resorted to the rhetoric of treason to describe war dissenters, or have engaged in domestic propaganda efforts of questionable veracity (not to mention ethics or legality) to try and keep the American psyche all moving in one public direction.
These are all good points, but Robert Farley, an expert on military affairs, adds that even outside the limitations imposed by American democracy, "signaling" things like "will" relies on several shaky assumptions, which often don't bear themselves out:
1. Signals are unambiguous: The meaning of our signaling is not subject to interpretation, such that different people could, based on different priors, carry away different meanings.
2. Signals always indicate what we want them to indicate: This is related to the first; if we are trying to send a signal of strength, then we send a signal of strength, not a signal of mean, stupid, crazy, etc.
3. We never develop a bad reputation, except for weakness: This is related to the first two; our effort at signaling strength doesn't have reputational costs. If we invade his country, the Other will understand us as strong, rather than as brutal, imperialistic, crusading, evil, etc.
4. No one ever considers that we might be trying to deceive through signaling: This is probably the most important. If signaling is about creating a reputation for strength, and if a reputation for strength is a positive good, then obviously there's an incentive to lie about being strong. The entire premise of signaling depends on no one noticing that we have an incentive to lie about our own strength.
5. We know our own strength: Our effort to communicate the true level of our resolve is dependent on knowing what that level is. However, the resolve of the American people to crush enemies of the American public is a value that is unknown to anyone, including our leadership. At best we're guessing, which basically means that every effort to signal is essentially deception.
This doesn't mean that American actions don't communicate messages that we should be cognizant of. But it does mean that a) we can't pretend like "strength" or "will" are the only signals we'll ever send -- even if that's what we intend to, and b) that it's probably a bad idea to launch entire foreign policy adventures based on the blurry concept of communicating American willpower.
We'll Stay Until We Can Stay In Peace
John McCain has been complaining about Democrats making hay over his "100 years in Iraq" comment. He says that they're implying he wants the war to continue for 100 years, while he claims that he's merely saying we could stay in Iraq indefinitely once peace has been achieved. Howard Dean has responded that McCain's missing the point -- Americans oppose staying in Iraq in any capacity 100 days from now, much less 100 years, and that's what gives their ads punch. This point is buttressed by the fact that the ads never use the word "war", but I'll certainly concede that the ads are playing on the ambiguity to achieve maximum effect.
But apropos the controversy, Hendrik Hertzberg, who gave the quote its (extended) context at the time it was spoken, I think nails the real problem for McCain's protestations of innocence over "100 years":
This is not a plan most Americans are comfortable with. So why shouldn't the Democrats make hay out of it?
Via Josh Marshall
But apropos the controversy, Hendrik Hertzberg, who gave the quote its (extended) context at the time it was spoken, I think nails the real problem for McCain's protestations of innocence over "100 years":
McCain's wants to stay in Iraq until no more Americans are getting killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal—that is, the goal of not getting any more Americans killed. And once that goal is achieved, we'll stay.
This is not a plan most Americans are comfortable with. So why shouldn't the Democrats make hay out of it?
Via Josh Marshall
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
