Let That Be a Lesson For You

#45 on the list of things not to do as an evil overlord reads as follows:

I will make sure I have a clear understanding of who is responsible for what in my organization. For example, if my general screws up I will not draw my weapon, point it at him, say "And here is the price for failure," then suddenly turn and kill some random underling.

I kind of got that feeling while reading this article about a Dutch prosecution of a Muslim group for hate speech. The Arab European League had published a cartoon on its website insinuating that the Holocaust was exaggerated. It did this, it claimed, not because it subscribes to Holocaust denial, but in order to draw attention to the dropping of charges against Dutch filmmaker Geert Wilders, whose film they claimed insulted Muhammad (the charges were dropped after authorities decided the film was targeted at Muhammad himself, not Muslims as a group). There's a solid case to be made against hate speech laws in general because of line drawing problems like this. But as Ronny Naftaniel of the Center for Documentation on Israel, who filed the complaint, pointed out, engaging in counter-hate speech against Jews, even to "make a point", is not justifiable, particularly when Jews had nothing to do with the film you're protesting. Even if you are pissed that Jews seem to be getting protections that you're not (and don't we all love the crabs-in-a-bucket mentality that evinces), there is something deeply immoral about claiming that person A wronged me, so I'm going to abuse innocent group B over there in order to draw attention to the injustice of it all. This is what happens when you're cast as history's scapegoats. Every situation, every context, every gripe, every misfortune -- the first thought of some people is to take a whack at the Jews. Forget the cartoon -- that's the real insult to Jews as a group.

Epitaph One

Great episode, but I couldn't sleep afterwards, so Jill and I had to put in an episode of Futurama (I have a phobia of being around at the end of the world). Amy Acker is such a great actress, and utterly rocks her part. Meanwhile, this show took a marked turn towards the dystopian. We'll see how it plays out in season two.

Cherry Poppin' Limes

These candy wrappers are nothing short of amazing.

Cite-checking Quote of the Day

The only good thing about looking for a pincite in a 78 page article is that sometimes you come across fun passages:

The nondelegation doctrine, however, is the Energizer Bunny of constitutional law: No matter how many times it gets broken, beaten, or buried, it just keeps on going and going....the combined vote in the Supreme Court on nondelegation issues from Mistretta through American Trucking was 53-0.

[Yet] Modern scholars have been no more willing than have litigants or lower court judges to give up on the nondelegation doctrine....the Court's decision in Loving v. United States, which unanimously rejected a nondelegation challenge in the context of the death penalty, spawned an entire academic conference on the nondelegation doctrine with the imposing title, "The Phoenix Rises Again."

And the footnote to that last sentence is where it gets really fun:

The published proceedings of the conference can be found at Symposium, The Phoenix Rises Again: The Nondelegation Doctrine from Constitutional and Policy Perspectives, 20 Cardozo L. Rev. 731 (1999). I do not want to be misunderstood as in any way criticizing this outstanding conference. The conference brought together a truly amazing collection of talent, and the published works amply justify the enterprise. My point is only that it is difficult to read the Court's remarks in Loving as signaling the rebirth of the nondelegation doctrine. The most that one can say is that Loving did not casually dismiss the plaintiff's nondelegation argument as a near-sanctionable waste of time. That is a thin reed on which to balance one's hopes for the rise of the phoenix.

Gary Lawson, Delegation and Original Meaning, 88 Va. L. Rev. 327, 330-32 & n. 22 (2002).

Rumor: Sweden Will Condemn Blood Libel Article?

Ha'aretz reports that Sweden is preparing to present a resolution condemning anti-Semitism to the EU, which will include a specific denunciation of an article published in Aftonbladet claiming -- with virtually no evidence -- that Israelis kill Palestinians and harvest their organs. The article, however, is second-hand -- it's quoting an Italian official who apparently has been working with Sweden to resolve the crisis, but there isn't any official word out of the latter country.

Israeli officials respond:

"Every initiative against anti-Semitism is welcome," said Yigal Palmor, that ministry's spokesman. "But if the declaration is general and does not specifically relate to the article in Aftonbladet, it will not resolve anything.

"We did not ask for an apology, or for measures against the newspaper or the journalist," he added. "All we asked of Sweden and the Swedes is that they reject and decry the content of the report. And our position has not changed."

We'll see if this controversy can finally be put to rest.

UPDATE: Well, damn.

Abort/Retry/Fail Roundup

I didn't blog much over OCI. But now OCI's over, and I can roundup some of the the accumulated stuff on my browser! The real question, though, is whether law review have the same effect on me. Stay tuned!

* * *

The National Review thinks its segregationist predecessors had a point.

Depression makes you smarter. Anecdotally, I'm not surprised, but it still seems weird.

Iraq has an air force! Unfortunately, it's being stored in Serbia. If those MiG's have nuke payloads, that'll be two mysteries solved!

Will Wilkinson talks sense about masculinity.

A question as dumb as "Does God tweet" deserves an answer like this.

Ha'aretz thinks the new Japanese government might be more hostile to Israel than its predecessors (as part of a broader program of asserting independence from the US).

Hamas is furious that the UNRWA might teach Gaza kids about the Holocaust (which it says is a "lie"). The UNRWA isn't commenting on the "allegations" (in a world that was serious about treating Jews as equals, it would tell Hamas to suck it up and deal, but that won't ever, ever happen).

The "Yoo effect" strikes again!

Generally, it's considered a good thing when people are deterred from breaking the law. Generally.

And finally, a very sad note from a nostalgia perspective: Reading Rainbow is going off the air. The Education Department apparently thought it focused too much on making kids want to read, as opposed to phonics or something. I'll tell you what: there are plenty of folks my generation who have fond memories of Reading Rainbow. I've yet to meet anybody who looks back wistfully at Hooked on Phonics.

Here's a Lesson For You

It is difficult to find more offensive tropes packed into one statement than was accomplished by Desmond Tutu. First, he lectures Jews on what the Holocaust means:

“The lesson that Israel must learn from the Holocaust is that it can never get security through fences, walls and guns,” Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu of South Africa told Haaretz Thursday.

No, Mr. Archbishop, that is not the lesson of the Holocaust. Indeed, that is a lesson that could be drawn only by someone who either knows nothing about the Holocaust, or someone who is perfectly willing to contort it into a political cudgel at the expense of the actual lived experience of the Jews who were victimized by it. The Jews who perished in the Holocaust did not do so in spite of their many fences, walls, and guns. They were slaughtered, at least in part, because they lacked these things. There are other historical events which demonstrate that guns alone do not guarantee security. But the lesson of the Holocaust, for Jews at least, is that depending on the goodwill and magnanimity of the Gentile world alone will never give Jews security either.

Human rights are essential to security, I agree, and there will never be security in the Middle East as long as the human rights of any party is threatened. But human rights need to be defended -- so security is likewise essential to human rights. Jews simply aren't and never have been in a position where they can afford to stake their security on abstract appeals to human rights. To be perfectly blunt, the lesson of the Holocaust is that this discussion will only be viable when Jews have some big fucking tanks backing them up.

His next statement is also Holocaust related, lamenting that the Palestinians are the ones now paying the price for a European sin. Not only is the implied equivalency ("Germany is guilty of two wrongs. One was what they did to the Jews. And now the suffering of the Palestinians.") appalling, but it also ignores the fact that the entire world, including Palestinians, were complicit in this massive crime against humanity -- and many non-Europeans, including Palestinians, actively helped enable it. I bow to nobody in demanding that Europe face up to its anti-Semitic legacy. But I absolutely refuse to let revisionists try and minimize the scope and gravity of the Holocaust by pretending like it was a provincial European affair. It is a sin that stained us all.

After that, Tutu makes the cliched complaint about how the big bad Jews are silencing him, then pivots to the classic "I'm a better Jew than the Jews are" claim:

He also slammed Jewish organizations in the United States, saying they intimidate anyone who criticizes the occupation and rush to accuse these critics of anti-Semitism. Tutu recalled how such organizations pressured U.S. universities to cancel his appearances on their campuses.

“That is unfortunate, because my own positions are actually derived from the Torah. You know God created you in God’s image. And we have a God who is always biased in favor of the oppressed.”

Now, regardless of how we should react to it (e.g., irrespective of whether we should press to cancel Tutu's speeches), I think it is beyond clear that Archbishop Tutu does not hold egalitarian views towards Jews. That isn't to say that he consciously harbors hate in his heart for them. It does mean that he is completely blind to the notion of gentile privilege, is completely disinterested in viewing things from a Jewish perspective or taking our voice and experience seriously as something as valuable, and views it as an affront if anyone calls him on it or attempts to inform him that his views are not unimpeachable on the subject. This, of course, is an extremely common conceit and perhaps the heart of gentile privilege as it is now expressed -- an insistence that I am fair to the Jews, coupled with an absolute refusal to listen when Jews say that might not be true and a shrill insistence that any Jew who has the temerity to make the claim is the real bad guy in the equation. In other words, talking about anti-Semitism in the same sentence as Archbishop Tutu is perfectly justified. And what Tutu is depending on to deflect that accusation -- the knowledge that the "anti-Semitism card card" is a perfect trump in a world that fundamentally views Jewish claims with disdain -- is itself a manifestation of the disease.

Moving forward, Tutu expresses sympathy with the BDS campaign. I've already explained why this is likely to make the situation worse. I'll only note here that Tutu's expressive justification for sanctions ("[I]t gave hope to our people that the world cared. You know. That this was a form of identification.") puts at a strong risk of devolving into moral hatred -- something we're beginning to see already.

And finally, Tutu is asked about the Petah Tikva controversy, where several private Orthodox academies have refused to enroll Ethiopian children. Tutu merely said "I hope that your society will evolve." Justified words, if there was any indication that this was reflective of Israeli society writ large. But the contrary: while the behavior of these schools is flagrantly and unambiguously racist, the response of the Israeli government has been equally unambiguous condemnation: stripping the schools of all their funding and (per Prime Minister Netanyahu) decrying their behavior as "an attack on our morals, contradicting our ethos as a country, as a society, as Jews and as Israelis."

And So It Begins

Scene from last nights law review orientation dinner.

Characters:
Editor
Book Review Editor
Myself

Editor: You're David Schraub right? You did some work for me earlier this summer!

Me: That's right -- for Strauss' online piece. But now I'm cite checking the book review from hell.

Editor: Haha ... book reviews aren't that bad. Trust me, it gets a lot worse.

Me: Really?

Editor: Yeah. Book reviews are generally pretty short compared to articles, and...

Me: [interrupting] Mine's 66 pages and 450 footnotes.

Editor: [pause] What the hell kind of book review is that?

Book Review Editor: This was not my decision!

Exeunt

My Dreams are Stained in Maroon...

Sorry for the unexplained absence. I've been running around the past two days pulling sources for a cite-check. Ah, ain't law review grand?

Also, interviews are over!

Safe Haven

I want to dissent briefly from this AAB post, deriding the notion that we need to prevent Afghanistan from becoming an "al-Qaeda sanctuary":

There’s nothing unique about Afghanistan that means that Al Qaeda can plot attacks from Afghanistan and no where else in the world. (Indeed, a significant portion of 9/11 seems to have been plotted in Germany). Even Stephen Biddle — who strongly advocates for the US to remain at war in Afghanistan — admits that preventing Al Qaeda from having a sanctuary in Afghanistan isn’t a very sensible argument.

It is certainly true that terrorists don't need a haven like Afghanistan in order to carry out attacks. But it does make their lives a ton easier. Part of this goes back to some of my early observations about statecentrism and how it can distort our outlook on the problem of terrorism. The problem is less friendly versus unfriendly states than it is functional versus dysfunctional states. An unfriendly but functional state (such as Iran) can still be dealt with via the normal tools of statecraft, which is why I don't think they're as significant a threat in terms of spawning terror towards America as they are sometimes labeled. Places like Afghanistan (and, say, Somalia), which either have collapsed or are at risk for doing the same, don't provide that option, and that's dangerous.

It's always better to at least have the option of domestic enforcement as a check against the growth of terror infrastructure. That doesn't mean it will always work, but it is nearly always better than not having it. In this respect, trying to convert Afghanistan into a stable, functional state with control over its borders and a monopoly on violence is almost definitely reasonably related to the fight against terrorism.

What Makes This Song New?

The artist formerly known as Feddie seeks to defend his anti-stare decisis views (via).

The issue for many originalists, of course, is not whether a prior decision is “correct,” but whether the reasoning/holding of that case is based on a plausible interpretation of the constitutional text at issue. If it is, and a substantial body of case law has been built upon the foundation of this decision, then it is perfectly reasonable for a justice to let that precedent stand as is (even if that justice would have ruled differently as a matter of first impression). But this type of “hard” originalist case is not at the center of the “stare decisis” debate. The question, plainly put, is this: At what point does it cease to matter that a prior Supreme Court decision is nonsense on stilts?

For those of us in the (Clarence) Thomas Camp, the answer is: Never. A Supreme Court decision that has no basis in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution is always and forever a judicial abomination, no matter how much time passes (e.g., Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson). For the Burkean originalist (see, e.g., Scalia), the answer is: It depends on whether the line of jurisprudence is no longer controversial (i.e., it has essentially become woven into the fabric of the Constitution—whatever in the heck that means). Finally, for the living constitutionalist, the answer is: It depends on whether the decision in question enshrines into the Constitution a preferred policy preference (e.g., Roe v. Wade=Stare decisis is sacrosanct!; Bowers v. Hardwick= Stare decisis is fo’ suckas). In comparing the foregoing approaches to constitutional interpretation, it doesn’t take a law degree to recognize which one is concerned with, well, actual interpretation of the relevant text.

Is he serious? If Feddie's criteria for when to respect precedent is whether "the reasoning/holding of that case is based on a plausible interpretation of the constitutional text at issue," then both Plessy and Dred Scott are simply terrible examples. Both are perfectly plausible interpretations of the constitutional text, structure, and especially history. The outcomes are not the only plausible outcomes, but legally they are not "nonsense on stilts". What those cases have in common is that they are both morally abhorrent (like, to a different degree, Bowers was). Which is why Feddie cites them. But that logic is the definition of impermissible "policy-making" as per Feddie's final paragraph.

This is the problem with how conservative judicial philosophy is actually practiced. For all its protestations of objectivity and neutrality, the policy tails completely wag the theoretical dog. Anyone who tries to sell you on the notion that Dred Scott was completely disconnected from "the law" is selling you the legal equivalent of the Brooklyn Bridge. There are plenty of grounds -- indeed, plenty of legal grounds -- to critique Dred Scott. But claiming it violates some mythical "just the facts, ma'am" vision of law is not one of them. Pretending otherwise is what happens when you, well, think the Constitution enshrines preferred policy preferences.

Taking Sides

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) is angry at Attorney General Eric Holder for daring to do his job and investigate potential violations of the law:

"It's bullsh*t. It's disgraceful. You wonder which side they're on," the Long Island Republican told Politico Tuesday.

There are two sides to this conflict. One side is defending democracy, liberty, and rule of law, and the other side is trying to destroy it. And I am quite sure where Attorney General Holder and Rep. King line up, respectively.

INTERNET!

Y'all can't stop me now. The wireless router was the last hurdle.

Twirl them Hips Round and Round(up)....

Today's roundup brought to you by Lady Gaga's "Just Dance", official soundtrack of OCI 2009.

* * *

Jena Six defendant gets out of Jena, thrives in New York.

The end of the all-White suburb? Wasn't that supposed to happen after Brown (but we're post-racist!)?

Kevin Drum asks how we counter the cranks, when cranks have access to far more megaphones than ever before? The only answer I can think of is demanding more aggression out of the mainstream media. If every time a Republican repeated the vile "death panels" lie, the Washington Post wrote a headline: "Republicans repeat 'death panels' lie", we might see some changes. Might.

Postbourgie argues that "Mad Men" may be fruitful ground for feminist analysis but it is not itself feminist.

Seth Freedman essentially agrees the Swedish "organ harvesting" story about Israel is rubbish, but nonetheless thinks the real wrongdoers are all the whiners who are calling it "anti-Semitic" (because it attacks Israel, y'see, not Jews). Absent from his column is the fact that the Swedish article "hooked" its coverage off the fact that several Jews (not Israelis) had been accused of organ-smuggling. He fails the test. (H/T).

TULIP reports on AFT efforts to assist Palestinian teachers' unions.

I'm doing guest boxing blogging at The Queensberry Rules this week. Two posts are already up: the first, on political judging and the boxing community's complacency, and the second, a more general stream of consciousness set of ideas.

The Chamber of Commerce wants to put global warming on trial, saying it'd be the Scopes trial of the 21st century. Matt Yglesias notes a couple reasons why this is idiotic, starting with the fact that evolution lost at the Scopes trial (the ruling was reversed on a technicality on appeal), as well as the general observation that 12 random lay folk aren't exactly qualified to resolve technical scientific disputes. I'd add this: I thought we all agreed that the fact we even had to have a Scopes trial was pretty disgraceful, no?

Swedes are Morons

Even when they aren't spreading blood libels: "Chlymedia helps young men feel more 'manly': Swedish study.

Taketh Away

The WNBA's Washington Mystics aren't fans of the kiss-cam. The reason? It might show teh dreaded lesbians:

"We got a lot of kids here," Sheila Johnson, the Mystics' managing partner, said when asked last week at a game. "We just don't find it appropriate."

Understood is that women's professional basketball has two major fan bases: dads and daughters, and lesbians. The KissCam issue, frivolous on its surface, puts the effort to cater to both audiences squarely at odds.

Don't even think about being blinkered by Ms. Johnson's "explanation". I am highly skeptical that there are any more kids at a WNBA game than there are at, well, an NBA game. I've seen a kiss cam before at NHL hockey games (hell, I've even -- once -- seen two men kiss on one of them). The issue isn't the children. At "best", they're not protecting the children from smooches, they're protecting them from lesbian kisses.

The WNBA, of course, may only still be alive because of lesbian support. The money is green enough to take, but not enough to acknowledge. And that's shameful.

This is New Jersey

A conservative pollster has GOP gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie's numbers crashing after a series of damaging revelations have given him a full news cycle of bad press.

This is what always happens in New Jersey. Let's be clear: NJ voters do not like incumbent Jon Corzine (D). In fact, NJ voters tend to harbor a dislike for most of their statewide incumbents (mostly Democrats). But the entire state is so twisted from top to bottom that it will be incredibly difficult for Republicans to find a candidate who can actually capture disaffected votes. Instead, it's a pox on both their houses -- but since New Jersey leans liberal, Democrats win the tie-breaker.

I don't mean to imply Corzine is out of the woods yet -- his numbers are a fair flight worse than you virtually ever see for an incumbent this side of Bob Taft. Not to mention this is but one poll, with some legitimate methodological issues to grapple with. But Republicans may have to prepare for yet another Lucy-and-the-football experience in the Garden State.

The Clash

I think this article in The Forward, on the ongoing volleying between Israel and human rights NGOs over what happened in Operation Cast Lead, is perhaps the best single accounts I've read. It does a great job of cutting through BS, calls both sides to the carpet when need be, and meticulously focuses on the actual issues at hand, rather than petty name-calling. Highly recommended.

DOJ Opens Investigation into CIA Interrogations

A. Bout. Time.

Time To See Who's Been Naughty....

...and who's been naughty!

Russia names its latest Nuclear Ballistic Missile sub the St. Nicholas.

Best Study Ever?

Canadian researchers try to discover the best way to defeat a zombie uprising. The answer: hit them hard, fast, and often. And mercy (in the form of capture or treatment) is for the weak. Tim Cavanaugh thinks the professors are too grim -- but they have mathematical modeling on their side. Mathematical modeling!

Daniel Drezner, by contrast, analyzes the zombie threat from a variety of International Relations perspective. To my eye, it's way too much diplomacy and not enough scenes from "Resident Evil" -- but that's just me.

Here is a link to the original study.

Origination

David Bernstein posts a squib on Palestinians who are "obviously of African descent." The unspoken subtext is that they aren't "real" Palestinians.

I hate this. I hate this in all of its forms. I hate it when folks try and tell me that Jews don't really belong in the Middle East because they actually descend from Khazars. I hate it when people argue that Palestinians aren't a "real" people because they didn't have national ambitions until relatively recently. I hate it when Israelis are accosted as inauthentic because they have the "wrong" eye color. I hate it when people seem to think this entire conflict is properly resolved via an impossible historical inquiry into who got to the Holy Land "the firstest with the mostest".

It all just strikes me as incredibly primitive -- based on old-school notions of ancestral ties and bloodrights and purity that have no place in modern discussions. I'm a Levi, so I assume I descend from relatively deep Israelite strands. But who knows -- maybe there are some European converts in my family tree. So what? And if some persons with African blood identify as Palestinian and are so recognized by the Palestinian community -- good for them! It is sordid business, this attempt to police each other's racial authenticity for our own transparently political ends.

UPDATE: As per the comments, Professor Bernstein wishes to inform everyone that he does not, in fact, believe that origination has any legitimate bearing on the authenticity of one's national identity. The post he linked to put "Palestinians" in scare quotes, hence my confusion. Of course, Prof. Bernstein is not obligated to agree with every word of each post he links to -- though by the same token, he can't be too surprised when, absent a caveat, people assume he does agree with them (assuming the link was positive, as it was here).

However, that assumes that somewhere on the internet an indication of a contrary opinion by the author hadn't been expressed, and in this respect Prof. Bernstein would also like to draw attention to my inexcusable failure to do due diligence. For if I had only bothered to read the 19th comment from a post he wrote over two years ago, I would not have made the above error. I can only hope my readership forgives me for this horrific lapse in personal responsibility, and grants me another chance to prove my self-worth.

In any event, I'm glad that Prof. Bernstein and I are in agreement that the subtext of the linked-article is repellent, and I am equally glad that one less person than I had assumed bought into it. It is, after all, always a good thing when one finds one has overestimated the amount of wrongdoing in the world.

Cuba Nixes Women's Boxing

Cuba has, bar none, the best amateur boxing program in the world. In part that's because they've done the hard work of building up a top-flight program, in part it's because their top talent is forbidden from leaving the country and has to defect under cover of darkness if they want to turn pro. Six of one, one half of the other. In any event, after Olympic officials announced the addition of women's boxing to the lineup -- the last sport not to be offered to both men and women [update: in the Summer Olympics] -- Cuban officials have announced that they will not be fielding a team. The reason? They're sexist:

"We have no plans at the moment to participate in any international events because we don't think the sport is appropriate for women," Jose Barrientos said in comments reported on Friday by Cuba's official news service, Prensa Latina [President of the Cuban Boxing Federation].
[...]
"Cuban women should be showing off their beautiful faces, not getting punched in the face," said Pedro Roque, a top coach of Cuban boxers.

In spite of everything, there is some mythologizing of Cuba by the (mostly European) far-left as having some admirable progressive qualities on human rights. This should be laughable -- Cuba is an oppressive dictatorship and always has been. But this is revealing because it doesn't have anything to do with the exercise of political control. It's just a manifestation of illiberal attitudes towards women, pure and simple.

Yer Doing it Wrong

Mike Huckabee tells Israelis that Evangelical Christians are "so much more supportive of Israel than the American Jewish community." This, of course, is part of a long line of Christians telling Jews they're better at being Jewish than we are. I wonder if it even occurred to Huckabee that if most Jews had a different conception of what "pro-Israel" means than he does, maybe he should, you know, reevaluate his own opinions on the meaning of the term, rather than just assume we suck at life.

Matt Yglesias points out the form Evangelical Christian "support" of Israel takes (I refuse to buy into the frame that they are actually "more" supportive than I am) is simply based off a affinity for violence as a tool for solving problems -- which goes into hyperdrive here since it isn't their people who will be counting the body bags if their apocalyptic vision is enacted. Being Jewish, I consider a bad thing to support policies which have a near-certainty of seeing more Jews killed. Non-Jews may not care quite as much on that score as I do, which is their business, but I think it is perverse that this lack of empathy gets translated to mean "support".

Foreman's Shot

I hate to rain on the ambitions of the tribe, but I am very skeptical of Russian-born, Israeli-raised, America-residing Orthodox Jewish boxer Yuri Foreman's chances in his upcoming title shot again Daniel Santos (32-3-1, 23 KOs). Foreman (27-0, 8 KOs) is an extremely strong technical boxer, but is very cautious and has precisely zero pop. Santos is much cruder, but is the definition of rugged and represents a huge step up for Foreman, with wins over Antonio Margarito, Joachim Alcine, and Yuri Boy Campos (among others). Here's how he beat Alcine to capture the WBA 154 lbs. title they're fighting for:



Foreman's best win, by contrast, is probably a split-decision over Andrey Tsurkan, who is double-tough but extremely limited. He also has a win over welterweight fringe contender Jesus Soto Karass, who jumped up in weight, and looked as good as I've seen him early against Cornelius "K9" Bundrage in his last match before that fight was stopped on a headbutt in the third. None of those guys, however, is anywhere close to Santos' level, or even folks that Santos has beaten.

Foreman's game plan will be the same that it always is -- make the fight boring (he would have had a title shot earlier, but the fight meant to set up the bout -- a 10 round split-decision over Anthony Thompson -- was so horrifyingly dull that the plan was called off). He's certainly very capable of that, but Santos is a come forward, gritty sort that (in the much less talented form of Tsurkan) has troubled Foreman in the past. I haven't heard anything bad about Foreman's chin (and there is no way he's stopping Santos), so it should go to a decision, but I'm predicting a comfortable UD for Santos.

Even still, the allure of combining two of my passions -- Jews and boxing -- is too much. So count down one supporter of Foreman -- even if I do expect him to go down in flames.

Non-Partisan

The Tax Policy Center defends the viability of its non-partisan model, in language that harkens back to my old, more moderate days. I agree with the argument -- so long as they're serious about it. That is, if one party is controlled by crazy Sarah Palin types, they're going to be pretty consistently and dramatically wrong on policy. A non-partisan think tank doesn't shy away from saying so.

Via.

Ya'alon Gets Slammed

The entire Israeli governmental apparatus -- starting with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and continuing through the totality of his Likud Party -- have slammed comments by Vice Premier Moshe Ya'alon attacking groups like Peace Now and promoting the settlement of all Israel, including the occupied territories.

Netanyahu summoned Ya'alon for clarification immediately following publication, and slammed his vice premier's comments as as "neither acceptable in meaning or in approach."

"[Ya'alon's comments] do not represent the stance of the [Israeli] government," Netanyahu's office said in a statement.
[...]
Senior Likud officials called Ya'alon's comments "a downright shame" that represented "a bizarre alliance between a group of anti-Zionists who support draft dodging and the refusal to follow orders and a former IDF chief of staff."

The officials called on Ya'alon to apologize for remarks and said that his "race to the extreme right will not strengthen his position in the Likud, no matter what he thinks".

Defense Minister Ehud Barak responded to the comments by saying: "Peace Now is an important part of the peace camp and an integral part of the democratic dialogue in Israeli society."

Every country has its embarrassments. In a parliamentary system, regrettably, they sometimes end up in government. The important thing is what the rest of the country does in response.

Kill Keller's Career

Back in February, I blogged on Judge Sharon Keller, a member of the Texas' highest criminal court. Long story short, she refused a request to keep the clerk's office open for 20 minutes to file an appeal for a death row inmate scheduled to be executed that night. The delay was required because a) the Supreme Court had the day before released a decision radically altering the legal terrain upon which the execution rested and b) a computer crash had prevented the lawyers from filing the brief earlier. But Judge Keller wanted to go home on time, so she said no.

I mentioned at the time that I was skeptical Judge Keller would face any repercussions for her outrageous conduct. But perhaps I had too little faith in the Texas system (you'll have to forgive me). The state's Commission on Judicial Conduct is holding a special hearing to address charges she committed "willful or persistent conduct that cast public discredit on the judiciary, among other things." If found guilty, she could be stripped of her status as presiding judge or removed from the court entirely.

Anti-Healthcare Thug Shouts "Heil Hitler" at Israeli

An Israeli man talking about the virtues of Israel's national healthcare system faced a woman who yelled "Heil Hitler" to him at a conservative townhall meeting in Nevada.



The man is understandably agitated, more so when the woman (wearing an IDF t-shirt, for crying out loud) lectures him that he should be the "most against President Obama" (I just love it when conservatives lecture Jews on what we should and shouldn't support). Then, when he tells her of his experience with the American health system (namely, an $8,000 bill for a two hour emergency room visit), she makes mock crying noises at him.

ThinkProgress cites this as the clearest example yet of the anti-Semitism burbling beneath the far-right populist revolt the right has been staging these past few weeks (yes, photo-shopping Obama as Hitler qualifies)*. Meanwhile, the conservative Legal Insurrection blog is so embarrassed that he denounces it in the strongest terms immediately assumes it's a set-up. Ah, responsibility.

Meanwhile, YNet reports that the woman considers herself to be a staunch supporter of Israel (but clearly not its health care system), which, as we've long since figured out, means "support for Israel insofar as it advances a American conservative vision of global politics". It's support I can do without.

* Though I think photo-shopping Bush as Hitler is also remarkably distasteful, the fact that over 3/4 of American Jews voted for Obama does make a difference, because it buys into the trope that Jews are "the new Nazis" (which one often sees nowadays in particularly virulent attacks on Israel -- and why those attacks are more anti-Semitic than the same words directed at another, random country). Nazi comparison in general are usually diminishing of Jewish suffering and the genocide we experienced ("having the option to get publicly financed health care is just like what Hitler did!"), and wrong for that reason, no matter who the target was. But certain targets are worse than others because of the heavy implication that Jews are now complicit in the Nazi ideology that murdered us. Jews were victims of Hitler in the past, but now they're backers of Nazism through their continued support of President Obama and the Democratic Party. It's difficult to imagine a message more disrespectful to the Jewish community than that, regardless of who the source.

The Radical Clerics

Anti-peace radicals deserve nothing but scorn:

On Monday, a radical cleric issued a statement rejecting a two-state solution for Israel-Palestine, suggesting that one of the two parties involved in the conflict should be made to find a homeland "elsewhere." Strangely, conservatives, who can usually be counted on to condemn such statements, have thus far been silent about this denial of the right of two peoples to two states in the Holy Land.

But perhaps it's not so strange, given that the cleric in question is Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, non-ordained Southern Baptist pastor, and former (and likely future) Republican presidential candidate. Speaking to reporters while on a tour of Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem, Huckabee insisted that there is no room for a Palestinian state "in the middle of the Jewish homeland" and that the international community should consider giving the Palestinians a state some place else.

Huckabee was (rightfully) met with about 100 Israeli protesters who said that they were "not pawns in your Armageddon". In any event, I oppose anyone who tries to legitimize a one-state solution, regardless of who they imagine will rule over it.

The Ultimate Baller

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) may be my favorite person in the world right now.



Nice.

Enjoy the Silence

Ha'aretz reports that Israel apparently has frozen settlement construction (Peace Now concurs, saying that projects currently in progress are continuing but no new construction has been approved). They're just not officially saying its frozen. So a tangible victory without the symbolism. Good enough?

Zionist Agents

CQ has a long article on the rise of J Street, the progressive pro-Israel lobby which is seeking to build support for a muscular pro-peace agenda on the Hill. It's an interesting read, but my favorite part came here:

An AIPAC spokesman declined to comment on the record about J Street. But a person familiar with the organization’s thinking slams J Street for prescribing policy solutions, such as a settlement freeze.

“AIPAC does not take an ideological position on this stuff,” he said, adding that, by contrast, J Street, in lobbying for policy prescriptions for Israel to follow, is effectively saying, “We know better.” That is a far cry from AIPAC’s approach, which he described as building a close relationship between the United States and Israel, but respecting Israel’s choices as a democracy.

He also portrays J Street as a tool of the Israeli left, which is trying to accomplish in the United States what it couldn’t get done in Israel.

“They’ve gone offshore,” he said. “They couldn’t succeed inside the democratic framework of Israel, so they’re trying to get Americans to push their ideas and accomplish what they couldn’t get done inside their own country.”

Is everyone a Zionist agent? My God, the network is everywhere!

This is the Test

There is a form of defending criticisms of Israel from the charge that they are anti-Semitic that seeks to hermetically sealed off from each other. Under this hypothesis, criticism of Israel, so long as it is expressed as criticism of Israel, cannot be anti-Semitic no matter what form it takes. The idea seems to be that since Israel and Jews are distinct (true), it isn't targeting Jews qua Jews, and thus it is insulated. I admit I never found it persuasive in the first place, because I think prejudicial treatment of an entity affiliated with a marginalized community implicates prejudice towards that group (particularly, though not necessarily, when expressed through tropes that are typical associated with racism towards said group). But apparently some people do.

And now we have an excellent test case. A Swedish newspaper is actually accusing the IDF of harvesting Palestinians for their organs, a new twist on the classic blood libel that has rival papers calling them out for anti-Semitism.

But the liberal Sydsvenskan - southern Sweden's major daily - had harsh criticism for the rival paper, running an opinion piece under the headline "Antisemitbladet" (a play on the name Aftonbladet [the paper which published the original accusation]).

"We have heard the story before, in one form or the other. It follows the traditional pattern of conspiracy theory: a great number of loose threads that the theorist tempts the reader to tie into a neat knot without having been provided with any proven connection whatsoever," writes leading columnist Mats Skogkär of Sydsvenskan.

"Whispers in the dark. Anonymous sources. Rumors. That is all it takes. After all we all know what they [the IDF] are like, don't we: inhuman, hardened. Capable of anything," the opinion piece says. "Now all that remains is the defense, equally predictable: 'Anti-Semitism' No, no, just criticism of Israel."

Are they right? I think the paper is engaging in pretty classic anti-Semitic conspiracy mongering. But perhaps this, too, is just "criticism of Israel"?

I suppose there is an out here -- the article ties the accusations to the recent arrest of an Orthodox Jew in New Jersey accused of brokering a kidney sale. So it's tied to Jews, not just Israel. And the cognitive dissonance survives another day.

UPDATE: Apparently the author of the piece has been walking down this road for quite some time now.

UPDATE #2: But of course he's "no anti-Semite". They never are.

UPDATE #3: A must-read post by Barry Rubin.

IDF Responds on Cast Lead

The IDF has released its own brief regarding the factual and legal issues raised by Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. I've read nothing but the executive summary; I thus neither endorse nor refute any specific claims regarding factual events or legal theories detailed therein.

But as is often the case with my blogging, I wanted to flag a few things that caught my eye (generally from other folks excerpting from the materials). First was this summary of the relevant standard regarding civilian damage and death in war situations:

[C]ivilian deaths and damage to property, even when considerable, do not necessarily mean that violations of international law as such have occurred. In particular, the principles of distinction and proportionality are only violated when there is an intention to target civilians or to target military objectives with the knowledge that it would cause harm to civilians that is excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.(I.10)

To my knowledge, this is an accurate synopsis of the doctrine; however, I welcome correction as to its doctrinal status (that is, not whether this is a good standard, but whether it is the actual, applied standard).

Second, apropos this post, we have a passage worthy of repetition:

The final core proposition that runs through this Paper is that, while the principles of customary international law may be “basic” and can be simply stated, they nevertheless must be applied with analytical rigor. Reports by non-governmental organisations and rapporteurs and committees acting under mandates from international organisations too often jump from reporting tragic incidents involving the death or injury of civilians during armed combat, to the assertion of sweeping conclusions within a matter of hours, days or weeks, that the reported casualties ipso facto demonstrate violations of international law, or even “war crimes.”[n. 14] Often, these leaps of logic bypass the most basic steps, such as identification of the specific legal obligation at issue and explanation of how it was violated. The depth of feeling in the face of civilian losses is understandable, but it does not excuse this rush to judgment. It is a fundamental precept of the rule of law that any legal inquiry about events relating to armed conflicts cannot assume the conclusion, particularly a conclusion that — as shown below — proper application of the law does not sustain.[n. 15]

14 See, e.g., Report, Operation Cast Lead: 22 Days of Death and Destruction, Amnesty International (29 June 2009); Report of the Independent Fact Finding Committee on Gaza, No Safe Place, League of Arab States (30 April 2009); Report, Rain of Fire: Israel’s Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza, Human Rights Watch (March 2009).

15 Cf. Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 14 June 2000 (hereafter “NATO Bombings, Final Report to the ICTY Prosecutor”), ¶ 51, available at http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/nato061300.htm (“[m]uch of the material submitted to the OTP consisted of reports that civilians had been killed, often inviting the conclusion to be drawn that crimes had therefore been committed.” Yet in truth, “[c]ollateral casualties to civilians and collateral damage to civilian objects can occur for a variety of reasons.”). (III.34)

That was found from this analysis; the first excerpt (and the document itself) was found from Harry's Place.

Again, this doesn't mean that no violations occurred -- as the brief itself is quite clear enough, investigations (including criminal ones) are ongoing, and it would not surprise me in the slightest if some yielded prosecutions (or should do so). Nor am I suggesting we take every assertion of fact at face value. It should be taken for what it is: a very well researched, calmly argued, adversarial brief. That's not Divine Word. But it's not illegitimate babble either.

Research Assistance

A new study indicates that 90% of U.S. bills carry on them traces of cocaine. $1 bills are less likely than other denominations to be contaminated, leading the head researcher to make this observation:

"Probably $1 is a little too less to purchase cocaine," [U-Mass Dartmouth Prof. Yuegang] Zuo said "I don't know exactly [why]. It's an educated guess."

Not that ... I ... would know anything about that. I'm just guessing. Who knows why? Who says I'm paranoid!?!

Stork Tales

I wrote my spin on the last big flurry of commentary aimed at discrediting Human Rights Watch here. My take was that I don't have a problem fundraising amongst civilians in Saudi Arabia or anywhere else, but I'm not sure that one should market based off the putatively secondary clashes with the "Israel Lobby" as opposed to the human rights violations themselves. Moreover, I agreed with Jeffrey Goldberg that there was something disconcerting about the way the "Israel Lobby" was being referred to in the part of the world where the discourse surrounding it is less "group with outsized influence" and more "Zionist puppet-masters controlling the world". But by and large, I thought the controversy was overblown.

I am more concerned about this expose (via) of Joe Stork, a top official in the Mideast bureau of HRW. Stork opposes "Zionism" writ large, wanted to abolish Israel, attacked "Academic neutrality" as "deceitful", and wrote of the Munich massacre:

“Munich and similar actions cannot create or substitute for a mass revolutionary movement,” the statement said, “But we should comprehend the achievement of the Munich action…It has provided an important boost in morale among Palestinians in the camps.”

This is completely antithetical to the notion of human rights and the impartiality that HRW (claims it) strives to achieve.* Even if Stork has moderated his views (and the indication is that he has, but only from extreme to marginal), this is the sort of history that at the very least should have raised some serious red flags to hiring him. I have difficulty believing that there is not anybody in the whole wide world who a) is qualified to do human rights analysis and b) isn't loaded with this sort of baggage.

HRW's role is not to pick fights and flaunt its independence from the pro-Israel lobby. It's job is to be a fair and objective advocate for human rights the world over (including Israel, Palestine, and the Middle East). Obviously sometimes the latter may involve actions resembling the former. But they are distinct, and Ms. Whitson's statements in Saudi Arabia, and the hiring of Mr. Stork, are signs that it might be mistaking them in terms of equivalency and primacy. And that would be something worth worrying about.

* UPDATE: David Bernstein contextualizes the statement on the Munich massacre (which was a collective editorial by his organization). He notes that the statement did say it was unjustified, though it engages in several apologetics for it and reiterates that, naturally, Israel is worse.

Davis Execution Stayed

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that the Supreme Court has stayed Troy Davis' execution to allow him to present new evidence (over a dissent by Scalia and Thomas). I've written about the case here -- virtually all of the witnesses have since recanted, alleging the police intimidating them into saying what they wanted to hear (namely, that Davis is guilty). The prosecutors, for their part, say the high levels of recantations are themselves suspicious and raise the specter of guilt-tripping by groups like Amnesty International. It's an argument I do not find compelling, and this is a textbook case of why the death penalty just isn't working in American society.

UPDATE: Judging by these posts from Orin Kerr and Kent Scheidegger, the Court's move here was unusual bordering on unprecedented. My understanding was that "actual innocence", on its own, has never before been considered a valid ground for Habeas review -- there needs to be some sort of irregularity at trial to hang the hat on. Here, though, we might be seeing a rather significant turn in the Court's jurisprudence. Stay tuned.

Dancing with the Sludge

Tom "Snapping Turtle" DeLay, former Texas Representative, former House Majority Leader, and almost definitely current jerk, has signed on to the latest season of Dancing with the Stars.

What's Next

Interviews have started -- for obvious professional reasons, I won't be talking about them any more. What matters from your perspective is that I have solid internet at the interview site. So hopefully, I should be able to get some blogging done during the down times.

Blah Blah Massacre War Crimes Genocide Blah

Hamas forces blew up a house belonging to radical Salafi cleric who had called for the creation of an Islamic emirate in Gaza, part of a network of organizations in Gaza, many affiliated with al-Qaeda, which believe Hamas is too moderate. The detonation occurred after clashes erupted between his and Hamas militants. Between the ensuing gunfight and the detonation, 21 were killed and 121 injured, mostly civilians.*

In a televised statement, Hamas ministry spokesman Taher Nunu called al-Maqdessi's group "outlaws" and said they have been "terrorizing the country and attacking civilians."

"We hold the group and its leader fully responsible for what is happening in Gaza and we offer our condolences to everyone who was killed during the clashes," Nunu said. "No one is above the law and we urge everyone who is a member of this group to surrender himself to the authorities or they will be accountable for all of their actions."

Of course, I too extend my condolences to the civilians caught up in this strife. But part of me wonders if, even a little bit, this experience gives Hamas an inkling that urban warfare operations against entrenched terrorist outfits are really difficult and lend themselves to civilian casualties, even if you don't want them to. Of course, we have no idea how Hamas conducted this operations and what safeguards, if any, it took to safeguard civilian lives. As I wrote in the immediate aftermath of Cast Lead, few people possess the factual information necessary to make a considered and accurate judgment on who is "at fault" for civilian deaths in any given armed clash, which counsels humility and forbearance of judgment. That holds true here, too.

Another part of me, however, just wants to shout WAR CRIMES TARGETING CIVILIANS MASS MURDER MASSACRE GENOCIDE SAVAGES BLOOD-SOAKED ILLEGITIMATE REGIME. But that's a part of me that I try to repress as much as possible.

* Actually I have no idea, but that accusation is typically leveled and accepted with little to no evidence whatsoever, so hey, why not. (Obviously, that statement and this footnote offered in the same spirit as the final paragraph of the post).

UPDATE: Latest reports say six of the 24 killed were unarmed civilians, with 125 injured (no word on their affiliation).

The Interim

Following up on the exciting exploits of my move-in, Comcast and I had a "I'm not fired; I quit!" moment yesterday, as I canceled the deal just about the same time they informed me they couldn't hook my house up after all. It wasn't a total loss, though: They did keep me out of a competitors hands for a full week while I waited for an installation that was later revealed to be impossible (so not a total loss for them. For me ... yeah, it kind of was).

Meanwhile, my intuition about AT&T was correct too, as they say they can't connect us to the internet until August 25th. They have to mail us the modem (the guy coming to install the line can't touch it, for it is holy), and apparently they have to route it through Kazakhstan for quality assurance purpose. Good Lord, why is the internet controlled by morons? So for the time being, I'm still on the weak, intermittent but at least somewhat steady (so long as I stay in the living room -- it doesn't pick up at all in my bedroom), patriots signal.

Radio Free Hyde Park

It's me again, still blogging from the "liberated" signal of the neighbors (it's even called "patriots". How fabulous). Why, you ask? Wasn't Comcast scheduled to come today and hook me up to the grid? Surely, there is no way Comcast would let me down like this, right?

Ahaha. Puny mortal that I am, I did not comprehend the powers I was dealing with here. You see, Comcast technicians are divided into two orders. The first, who you've probably met, are the installers -- the guys who bring your cable box and/or modem, screw a few things into a wall, attach a few wires, and voila! Now you have television. Those guys have now come to my townhouse twice, and were on time and unfailingly polite both times. Unfortunately, they couldn't actually install my cable or internet, because my house doesn't signal that it's connected to the Comcast network. Which brings us to the other half of the Comcast Cult.

The second order, is apparently a shadowy, paranormal sect called "line technicians", who are responsible for actually hooking up houses to the Comcast grid at the source box level. These ghost-like beings are apparently so powerful that Comcast technical support and installation cannot summon them, or indeed, even contact them. As best I can tell, the Comcast process is to intuit a request in their general direction and then pray. There were traces in the system that they were supposed to come today between 1 and 5 (itself incorrect -- they were supposed to come between 10 and 1), but needless to say they never did. And the hapless mortals manning dispatch told me no, there was no way to reach them and ask sweetly if they ever planned on doing the work they were paid for. Line technicians are powerful and capricious beasts.

Now, here's where things get fun (it wasn't already?). Twice now, the installers have come only to find that no, my house still isn't on the grid because the line techs haven't arrived. The lady I talked to on the phone scheduled another installer date for tomorrow between 1 and 5. But of course, this is as useless as the other two installation dates if the line techs continue to hide in fairy-land. So, I asked, how do we know if the line techs will have arrived by then? She promised she'll call me in the morning (earlier today I received a promise I'd get a call back in 15 minutes which never happened -- the odds that they can manage to remember something over the course of a whole 18 hours requires the sort of heart-warming, inspirational turnabout in competency that one normally only finds in a Disney movie). Will they arrive in the morning? She doesn't know. Will they arrive sometime tomorrow, preferably before the installer so he isn't made redundant (again)? She doesn't know. Hell, they may even come tonight, she told me -- but she has no way of knowing.

This whole proceeding has been a farce from start to finish. Moving always involves hassles -- I know this. My desk arrived (two days late, natch) from Sears today, and we clearly have different interpretations of "easy assembly". But I've never come to face to face with such persistent rank incompetence and byzantine bureaucratic nonsense as I have over the past week with Comcast. It is crazy that I am now on my fourth appointment to get a simple cable and internet installation, even more ridiculous that they don't actually know if the appointment is solid or not, and simply unfathomable that they can't figure out how to contact a division of their own corporation to find out.

If I wasn't convinced that I'd go through the same nonsense with AT&T, I'd have bolted by now.

The Latest

Where we last left off, I was moving in to my townhouse on Monday. It was going to be great -- everything was scheduled to arrive on Monday, we'd put in one huge day, get everything set up, and be ready to go (with maybe some mopping up to do over the rest of the week).

It didn't go smooth. Why doesn't it ever go smooth?

The box spring for my mattress didn't fit up the stairs -- they're bringing a split tomorrow. Contrary to corporate assurances, my house isn't hooked up to the Comcast grid -- they're doing that tomorrow. The desk which was scheduled to be delivered Monday only made it to the local deliverers Monday, so it won't get here until (you guessed it) tomorrow (and then I have to assemble it!). And in the midst of all this, my laptop computer decided 9 months was a nice long lifespan, and kicked it. The Dell technicians are coming to attempt CPR ... tomorrow.

So right now I'm on my girlfriend's laptop, using a signal we "liberated" from the neighbors to get internet, and I'm basically trapped in this house for the rest of the week continuing with set up. I had to email my bosses and tell them I basically can't do any work this week, which I am not happy about (they were all very understanding, thankfully).

As I told Jill, trying to move the same week that you begin a huge stretch of important job interviews is the karmic equivalent of dangling a rare steak in front of Doberman, so I guess I can't really blame the fates. But even still. Grr.

Targeting the Sick

The Israeli Air Force bombed smuggling tunnels in Gaza, in response to militant attacks on Palestinian medical patients crossing into treatment for Israel. That's right -- Palestinian radicals fired on their own civilians as they were seeking medical treatment.

Disgusting.

Moving Day

Tomorrow, I move into my new townhouse (still in Hyde Park, but the other side of town). Excitement city (but probably no updates for you).

The Evolution of Female East Asian Stereotypes

Like most other races, East Asians have suffered under a vibrant and ignoble history of racial stereotyping and imagery in the Western mind. For East Asian women, the primary two archetypes are the submissive, docile "China doll", and the hypersexual, deceitful "dragon lady." Asian men are similarly cast as either deceptive and untrustworthy, or personality-less "grinders".

Yet the public image of East Asians in America has been growing consistently more positive. Continued academic success, and a potential incorporation into Whiteness have both contributed to this dynamic. As White society has, uneasily, grown to grudgingly acknowledge East Asian "game", the old stereotypes no longer fit the new social understandings. And I think there has been an evolution in the stereotypes of East Asian women to match this (interestingly, I haven't observed a similar shift in stereotypes of East Asian men).

While I am by no means suggesting that the old stereotypes are gone, when I think of popular stereotypes of East Asian women today, two more spring immediately to mind. The first is the bookish, whip-smart student. The second is the martial arts expert who can kick the ass of everyone in the room. One can see the roots of the older forms in both of these -- the student-type tends to be quiet and deferential, like the China doll; the martial artist is powerful and sexual like the Dragon Lady. Nonetheless, I submit that both of the "new" stereotypes are socially coded as positive.* The student is the type of woman that you're supposed to marry one day. The martial artist is the hip, bad-ass action star.

Moreover, the stereotype-shift has seemingly tracked internal cleavages within the East Asian community. Though often cast as monolithic by the West, there is a huge difference -- culturally, socially, economically -- between, say, American Chinese communities versus American Hmong or Vietnamese communities. There is, to some degree, a hierarchy here, with the Japanese and Chinese occupying the elite niches, followed by Koreans, South East Asians, and finally residents of the island states. I was talking to a friend whose family hails from Vietnam, for example, and she told me that her parents would consider it beneath her to marry someone from the Philippines, and that she was sure a Chinese family would think the same about her. This hierarchy tracks American socio-economic status pretty closely. And when I see those pop-up ads advertising docile Asian brides, they tend not to say they'll be from China or Korea -- they're saying Thailand or the Philippines.

Again, I'm not saying that a Chinese-American woman doesn't have to deal with the "old" stereotypes anymore. But I do think we're observing a very interesting social shift that is deeply tied to a broader realignment in America's racial dynamics. The whole point behind White supremacy is that it is the supreme group. When White society "absorbs" another racial or ethnic grouping, it simultaneously recodes it from inferior and less-than, to admirable and superior. My (admittedly anecdotal) observation is that we are seeing very similar behavior here, which makes me wonder whether in 50 years we'll be seeing books titled "How the Asians became White."

* We can say even "beneficial" stereotyping never actually is, but I do think there is a qualitative difference between being part of a group stereotyped as cool, useful, or inspiring, versus feared, mocked, or loathed.

Only in Vegas

From a review of the newly frugal dining options in the Sin City, this burger was mentioned:

...ground-shrimp-and-pork burger, designed to taste like a Vietnamese banh mi with cilantro, pickled daikon and carrots.

Put some cheese on that sucker and I think you've officially found the least Kosher dish ever created.

What a City

So Netanyahu had previously stated that Jerusalem will never again be divided. And now, Fatah says that Jerusalem is a red-line for negotiations -- not that it gets East Jerusalem as a capital, apparently, but all of it. Even West Jerusalem over the Green Line (sounds like Fatah dreams of an occupation of its own).

What a shame. The Fatah conference really did hold some potential to take a step forward in this conflict. Instead, they took a position that is clearly untenable under any legal or moral standard and raised it up to the level of primary principle.

What a shame.

Moving Roundup

We began helping Jill move into her new place today -- that project will continue over the weekend. Then Monday is M-Day for me -- excitement city! I also turned in my first topic proposal for a law review comment. It draws from this post on Rhode Island's weird exemption for Jews from its incest laws. Thanks, Rhode Island!

* * *

Iran's Christians labor under the states apostasy law.

The other Carleton (the Canadian one) is having a hell over a spat over a visiting professor accused of being behind a terrorist attack on a French synagogue.

A 1975 essay by Albert Memmi on "Arab Jews". Memmi himself was a Tunisian Jew who had been a staunch supporter of Algerian independence.

According to this poll, Latino approval ratings for the GOP stand at 3%. That's not a typo.

David Hyman really doesn't get that one can support "grassroots activism" and yet oppose angry mobs comparing the Obama administration to the SS?

A related observation.

And no, saying Obama will set up a "death panel" isn't any better.

Adam Serwer is annoyed that the ADL hasn't come out to condemn conservative Nazi imagery directed at the Obama administration -- except, whoops, they did.

Jeff Fecke on the "nice guy" sexism that led to the Pennsylvania health club shooting.

We took a break last week, but Chicago Faculty blogging is back with Rosalind Dixon on Dynamic Constitutional Rules.

Bam!

A poem by Steve Cohen.

Baseball in Minnesota

Why Your Stadium Sucks -- The Metrodome:

A couple of years ago I was watching the beloved local nine at the Dome with my brother, and apparently this was the day the home plate umpire decided not to sesh before the game and alleviate his advanced-stage glaucoma. After calling the third consecutive six-strike walk to load the bases, my brother and I screamed in (profanity-free, mind you-we know our audience) unison, "OH COME ON!!!"

And at that G-rated outburst, every single person-every man, woman and child alike sitting below us in our section-turned their heads in synchronous, counterclockwise, Hitchcockian slow motion to stare at us in their silent, furious, six-hundred eyed judgment. All because we had apparently ruined the tranquil atmosphere of the ballpark by being, well, fairly well behaved baseball fans.

It's emblematic of Beyond Metrodome: two parts of the psychic apparatus enter, one part leaves. Here, you are entering the id-versus-superego crucible, and in the Land of 10,000 Manifestations of Passive Aggressive Behavior, the don't act out/don't rock the boat/don't have fun superego has a scandalous Dome-field advantage. For every Twins fan who exhibits certain actions that fall under the rubric of demonstrative, totally acceptable public displays of emotion-you know: arguing obviously shitty calls, cheering for the home team, laughter and, uh, joy, etc.-they will inevitably encounter the legion of moralizing goons bent on transforming an afternoon at the game into the largest Lutheran Bible camp in Western Civilization. And for the Legion, any outburst that rises above the decibel level of the mild susurrations typically reserved for one's local library is regarded as a rank crime of passion and met with shame-inducing scorn. There's a code of conduct here, people. You better observe it.

And you wonder why you hear such an echo in there. Good times, indeed.

The fact is that, for all the Homer Hankie-waving, bloody eardrum-screaming fervent fan myths of yore, a typical Twins game at the Dome will yield more reprimands of "Down in front!" if you dare to stand during the 2-out, full count, possibly final at bat of a tense, hella exciting Joe Nathan save situation than should ever, ever actually happen. That's not the acrid odor of stale hotdogs and cheap beer you're inhaling in the Dome. That's "Minnesota Nice." And if you're not careful, you just might suffocate from it. To wit, too many Minnesotans keep it all inside a double-walled, Teflon-coated monstrosity that is completely unnatural and ugly as hell. And their baseball is no exception.

I prefer hockey games, personally.

For The Win

I have to think that he thought of the title first, and then dreamed up an article to go with it. Still, nicely done (and it isn't even forced!).

Tom Lininger, Sects, Lies, and Videotape: The Surveillance and Infiltration of Religious Groups, 89 Iowa L. Rev. 1201 (2004).

The only article title I can think of better than this was my ex-roommate's proposed senior thesis title. It was, in part, about medieval iconography of a particular choir of angels often represented as serpents. Hence, its title: "Snakes on a Higher Plane."

Alas, it was too tangential to the main thrust of his argument. But it lives on in my memory.

Into Bed Roundup

I'm not getting ready to go to sleep, but I just did buy a new bed for the house I'm moving into Monday. It's a Serta too -- now I can actually call myself a Serta jockey from now until Jill decides to hit me.

* * *

Another Black Harvard professor says he was baited and then arrested by Cambridge Police. Via Sullivan.

This article on the Promise Keepers is really, really interesting. They're definitely a complicated organization, and their past efforts at race reconciliation (even if not with the focus I'd like), and their present attack on domestic violence, are certainly nice. On the other hand, their "outreach" to "believing [i.e., Messianic] Jews", among other things, understandably annoys the hell out of me. (via)

Fatah is blaming Israel for Arafat's death. Sure, why not?

Meanwhile, Israeli voters seem to be taking a turn towards Kadima leader Tzipi Livni (who is facing a stiff challenge from within Kadima by Shaul Mofaz).

What is racism to Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK)?

Can one criticize a "socialist regime" without being called an imperialist shill? Non-hack leftists want to know.

Five tips for raising a girl geek.

I remember when the Bush administration was telling critics to watch what they say. The Obama administration, by contrast, actually wants to debate its critics -- and that apparently is what's actually "Orwellian".

Eugene Volokh thinks we should not ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Peter Spiro thinks he's dead wrong; Volokh responds.

The APA rejects gay-to-straight "therapy." Needless to say, the FRC is outraged.

Hey, let's stir up a hysteria of right-wing mobs and then joke about lynching! Great call, Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO)!

Congratulations, Justice Sotomayor

She wins approval 68-31. May she have many years of long, distinguished, and happy service.

And Stay Down

Hey! The cop who called Henry Louis Gates Jr. a "jungle monkey" is suing the Boston Police Department for "intentional infliction of emotional distress." Because irony apparently was trying to drag itself to its feet in the face of multiple bullet wounds.

Wave Away

I firmly take no position on whether it was proper to award former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Many Jewish groups are "deeply disappointed" (to use AIPAC's language) with the decision, citing Robinson's involvement in the Durban I debacle and her time heading the UNHRC. I'll discuss their case in a moment, but I want to stress again that I am neither endorsing it nor rejecting it.

Rather, my objection is to this Matt Yglesias post on the controversy, which I find appalling on several dimensions. Really, there is almost nothing right about it. First off, he cites to Abe Foxman's reaction:

Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, today issued a statement saying that Robinson has “anti-Israel bias” and calling the decision to bestow America’s highest civilian honor upon Robinson as an agent of change “ill-advised.”

Yglesias led into that quote by saying "Naturally, Abe Foxman sees an insidious plot against the Jewish people." Because Foxman had the temerity to say "ill-advised"? Yglesias (of course) makes the by now extremely cliched argument that for many "criticism of Israel amounts to anti-Israel bias" (at least he didn't say anti-Semitism). But what this is really indicative of is how even relatively tempered criticism ("ill-advised"! "deeply disappointed"!) of any critics of Israel is blown up into a massive threat to the entire project of democratic deliberation. Yglesias analogizes this dispute to the spat over Human Rights Watch -- ironic, because there too he waves aside the entire issue of anti-Semitism without pause.*

Yglesias is also extremely dismissive of the idea that Robinson's performance at Durban might have been even remotely problematic, saying "it takes a pretty serious case of narcissism to reach the conclusion that this bill of particulars ought to outweigh a person’s entire career." (I also take exception to the patronizing lead-in here: "You see, back in 2001". Ancient history!). Now, nobody, including Robinson herself, disputes that Durban involved vicious anti-Semitism. Indeed, Robinson powerfully denounced it early in the proceedings, declaring "I am a Jew" in response to anti-Semitic cartoons distributed by the Arab Lawyers' Union. The question is whether she did "enough to prevent [the anti-Semitic atmosphere] – or speak up loudly enough after the debacle."

On the former, some, such as the late Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), thought she did not. As to the latter, Robinson's refrain is been that overall, Durban was a good thing -- including on the middle east -- which leaves me wondering why so many seem to consider it acceptable (if not obligatory) for Jews to take in the teeth for the sake of everyone else's human rights discussions. What heartens me is that Robinson has been quite clear that she recognized the going-ons as anti-Semitic. What troubles me is that Robinson seems to buy into a growing norm that something can be a "success" from a human rights standpoint even if it viciously promotes hatred and bigotry against the Jewish people.

But as far as Yglesias is concerned, all this can be collapsed into the unfair targeting of critics of Israel. And the most absurd part is that the most salient area of critique isn't her supposed "bias" against Israel, but her insufficient response to anti-Semitism. Contrary to the popular refrain, nobody serious argues that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. But there does seem to be a growing equation that says criticism of anti-Semitism is anti-Palestinian.

* The cause isn't helped, obviously, by David Bernstein's "start with the kitchen sink and work backwards" approach to attacking HRW. Still, the particular problem Goldberg noted was a serious one and one that deserved more searching scrutiny -- scrutiny that Yglesias didn't give because at this point he is ideologically committed to the notion that anti-Semitism is mostly a red herring.

UPDATE: By contrast, Marty Peretz's slam on Robinson is well-worth condemning, though Peretz is arguably too easy a target.

The Evolution of a Chicago Student

Today, I realized that I found a set of articles approaching a subject from a rational choice perspective more compelling than the ones I read relying on 1980s narrative theory.

What's happening to me?

It's like working in the accounting department at Dilbert's company: too much time, and you transform into a troll.

Square One

Point:

"On the issue of the Hispanic voter, we have to do a lot more. We Republicans have to recruit and elect Hispanics to office," McCain told CNN's State of Union. "And I don't mean just because they're Hispanics, but they represent a big part of the growing population in America. And we have a lot of work to do there. And I am of the belief that unless we reverse the trend of Hispanic voter registration, we have a very, very deep hole that we've got to come out of."

While he was one of only a handful of Republicans willing to tackle immigration reform in 2007, McCain faced a massive deficit with Hispanic voters in the 2008 election. His aides have said that, were he not the home state senator, he would have lost Arizona to Barack Obama, in large part because Hispanics had left the Republican Party in droves.

Counterpoint:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called Judge Sonia Sotomayor a “judicial activist” today, announcing he’ll vote against making her the first Latina on the Supreme Court.

Sotomayor “cannot change her record. She has a long record of judicial activism” as a federal judge since 1992, McCain said. “Her decisions too often stray from legal norms.”

Best of luck, Senator (via).

Who Gave This Speech?

In a speech to be delivered today, MK Reuven Rivlin will reportedly say the following:

[Rivlin] is calling for a fundamental change in relations between Jews and Arabs in Israel, urging the founding of a "true partnership" between the two sectors, based on mutual respect, absolute equality and the addressing of "the special needs and unique character of each of the sides."

Rivlin was expected to say all this in an address to be delivered at the president's residence in Jerusalem on Monday. In his speech, Rivlin was to say that "the establishment of Israel was accompanied by much pain and suffering and a real trauma for the Palestinians (in large part due to the shortsightedness of the Palestinian leadership). Many of Israel's Arabs, which see themselves as part of the Palestinian population, feel the pain of their brothers across the green line - a pain they feel the state of Israel is responsible for."

"Many of them," Rivlin says, "encounter racism and arrogance from Israel's Jews; the inequality in the allocation of state funds also does not contribute to any extra love."

According to Rivlin, Israel's Arab population "is an inseparable part of this country. It is a group with a highly defined shared national identity, and which will forever be, as a collective, an important and integral part of Israeli society."

Rivlin remarks that most of Israel's Arab residents refuse to accept the idea that the state of Israel is the home of the Jewish people, and adds that some of the Arab leaders within Israel align themselves with Israel's worst enemies, and incite against it.

"The Arab population is an inseparable part of our homeland," he adds, however, saying that "we, the Jews, must send out a clear message that is apparent to us that our homeland is their homeland, and that we intend to live together with them, and that we reject all the calls for forced immigration or even expulsion."

"The somewhat European goal that most of us have -- to live alongside a Zionist minority which sings the anthem with sparkling eyes -- will not become a reality in our Middle East," Rivlin planned to say. "We can't pretend, or hope that our neighbors will go away, even if we close the window. Furthermore, we mustn't do it! We must see them as they are and tell them that we accept them as they are and that we seek a true partnership with them."

But who is Reuven Rivlin? Is he a member of Meretz, Israel's left-wing Zionist party? Or perhaps Labor or Kadima?

No, MK Rivlin is the Speaker of the Knesset, and a member of the right-wing Likud party. Which is why this speech -- which forthrightly acknowledges the "trauma" Palestinians faced along side the establishment of the state of Israel, recognizes the racism and discrimination faced by Israeli Arabs, and starkly lines himself against any efforts to uproot them as full and equal members of Israeli society -- struck me.

Rivlin seems like an interesting character. On the one hand, he was a vocal critic of the Gaza disengagement plan as well as crusading Israeli Supreme Court Justice Aharon Barak. On the other hand, he tellingly chose an Israeli Arab town targeted by far-right demonstrators for his first official state visit (he denied his visit was related to the protests, but most observers thought it was meant to convey a conciliatory message).

In any event, the speech is a very good one, and it is a very good one to hear from a prominent member of Likud.

No One Here By That Name

Is there a reason nearly all the spam that makes its way into my junk folder is addressed to "Amanda"? Who is Amanda?

Weekend Roundup

I'm not as funny as Tina Fey, but I make up for it in erudition.

* * *

There was a brutal shooting at a gay club in Tel Aviv, with two dead. The gay community blames Shas, the Sephardic/Mizrachi ultra-Orthodox party, for inciting violence against their community.

The police are recommending that Israeli FM Avigdor Lieberman be indicted on graft charges. Hey, whatever gets him out of office.

Likud MK Yisrael Katz, Israel's Transportation Minister, calls the Fatah draft platform currently up for a vote a "declaration of war" against Israel. I'm not convinced it's a "declaration", since it doesn't seem to change much Fatah policy. The draft endorses two states and encourages civil disobedience, but also sanctions violence, rejects Israel as a Jewish state, and demands a right of return for Palestinian refugees. It also contemplates increased links with Iran, unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state on '67 borders, or even a binational state should talks fail.

Politicians won't stop lying until lying becomes a liability.

Ann Friedman on the gendered implications of the "beer summit".

Red-heads feel the pain.

Gregory Gordon pushes an African Marshall Plan for the Congo.

Pat Boone only opposes metaphorical waterboarding.

The Australian TULIP event I mentioned earlier appears to have been a rousing success.

Frank Rich identifies the source of much of the Gates-gate flap as anxiety over America's upcoming majority-minority status. Post-racial, we're not.

Iran is putting 100 protesters on trial. It appears that they may have coerced false confessions out of them.

Finally, funny science abstracts!