KBR Trashes Jamie Leigh Jones

You may remember the story of Jamie Leigh Jones, a KBR employee who alleges she was drugged and raped by colleagues of hers while working in Iraq, then locked in a shipping container with no food, water, or outside contact for 24 hours when she reported the crime. KBR then tried to prevent Ms. Jones from getting her day in court by asserting that her allegation was "employment-related" and thus fell under a mandatory arbitration agreement (y'all know my thoughts on those in general). The story sparked the passage of a law written by Al Franken which would prevent such arbitration clauses from being enforced by defense contractors in cases concerning rape, sexual assault, or discrimination (Republicans were stunned when their opposition to the law turned into a political disaster).

But KBR is still fighting. Pilloried in the press, stung by hostile legislation, and losing its case before the 5th Circuit, KBR has petitioned the Supreme Court to grant cert in its case in a last ditch effort to keep Ms. Jones out of court. And its primary strategy is to try and trash the reputation of Ms. Jones:

But having lost at the trial court, again at the appeals court and then in the Senate as the Franken amendment was signed into law, KBR/Halliburton, in its petition to the Supreme Court last week, wasted no time at all in trashing her. While advancing its legal theory that Jones's claim is unquestionably "related to" her employment, it also promises, in a footnote, that "The KBR Defendants intend to vigorously contest Jones's allegations and show that her claims against the KBR Defendants are factually and legally untenable." Er, where do they plan to show all that? In the secret underground arbitration lair of KBR?

In addition to going after her truthfulness in its court pleadings, KBR has mounted a zealous public campaign to "correct the facts" about the Jones litigation—urging, for instance, that "Ms. Jones' allegation of rape remains unsubstantiated" and that she wasn't locked in a shipping container but rather "provided with a secure living trailer." Apparently KBR fails to appreciate the irony of demanding that all of its counter-facts come to light despite its love for secret arbitration.

KBR is now claiming that Ms. Jones has "sensationalize[d] her allegations against the KBR Defendants in the media, before the courts, and before Congress," apparently to experience the joy of being known in public as the victim of rape.

As Senator Franken noted when asked:

"You know where a great place to try arguments is? In court. But they've spent five years fighting against her attempts to have her day there. It seems odd that they wouldn't want to explain their side in the courtroom, since they're willing to in the media."

In any event, one suspects that this will not end well for KBR. Ms. Jones has proven herself to be tough, resilient, and unwilling to back down regardless of the pressure put on her. I fully expect her to beat back this last challenge -- and then cream KBR for their egregious abuses with the full force of the law.

Israel's Goldstone Response

You can read the 52 page response here. It's not intended to be a comprehensive response to the Goldstone report, though it does address several allegations made in detail. More useful, I think, is its overview of the investigation procedures Israel takes in response to criminal allegations. If these procedures are sound, there is not grounds for international appeal even if a judge reviewing de novo might have reached different conclusions.

Justice

Scott Roeder has been convicted of first-degree murder in the slaying of Dr. George Tiller.

Abandoned

The fact that I tend to anthropomorphize everything makes today's xkcd the saddest thing ever.

Non-SOTU Roundup

'Cause that would be cliched.

* * *

Pennsylvania Superior Court overturns a slew of anti-gay child custody decisions from the 1980s.

Indian roads create new opportunities.

The impact of Obama's school speech, one year later.

People are casting this post as Ta-Nehisi Coates pasting Chris Matthews, but I think the important points are far broader than anything Matthews-specific. That said, it's a fabulous post.

A U.Chicago study finds that female math teachers who are anxious about their own skills transmute that anxiety onto female pupils, resulting in reduced performance.

Bill Clinton hails Israeli mission to Haiti.

A touching post by Al Brophy on a friend of his who recently passed away.

As a pinball fan, I actually knew of the "call the shot" story which got pinball legalized in New York -- but that doesn't mean I won't share it.

Taking on the SCOTUS

I wasn't as affected as most by the events surrounding Obama's slapdown of the Supreme Court's Citizen United decision last night. To be sure, I thought it took some stones to attack a recent Supreme Court decision right in the face of the justices -- particularly one which isn't obviously unpopular (I think it likely is unpopular, but it isn't the sort of pitchforks and torches decision that, for example, a ruling striking down "under God" from the Pledge would have been). At the same time, Justice Alito mouthing to himself "that's not true", which I didn't notice live, didn't really bother me that much either -- I don't think he meant it as a "you lie" moment, and my instinct was to not make a big deal about it.

But apparently others are. Glenn Greenwald's argument is that Alito has made himself into a political figure: a political hero to the right, and a political enemy of the left, and that's inconsistent with his role as a judge. It's a fair point, although it's easy to overstate the impact -- it's just a more explicit exclamation point on something the general public already is well aware of: there are liberal judges who like and are liked by liberals, and conservative judges who like and are liked by conservatives.

Meanwhile, Jeffrey Rosen sees this as an opening gambit for Obama to attack "conservative activism" by the Supreme Court. Rosen claims that historically, it hasn't taken much explicit executive pushback to see a court labeled as "activist". One thing I like about it is that it helps balance out years of Republican claims that conservative judging is about common sense and rule of law (there's a paradox there, but no time to discuss it), whereas liberal judges are just making stuff up because they spend too much time reading deconstructionists (or something). This is a chance for liberals to strike back a little bit and cast the conservative wing of the court as the one that is out of step with history, precedent, and the American people.

SOTU Live Blog

In for a penny, in for a pound. I'll be live-blogging the speech at this post (refresh for updates).

* * *

9:25: Alright, I'm out for the night (I have no interest in hearing McDonnell's response). I might have a broader reaction post up later, or I might not. Anyway, thanks for hanging with me, and have a nice night!

9:20: "We don't quit. I don't quit." Great finish, to a good but not great speech. B/B+.

9:18: The recurring theme of this speech is about pressing forward, and not being timid. Yet in terms of what is actually being proposed, there aren't any blockbusters. It's a weird contrast. You can't do "Give 'em hell, Barack" without some hellraising to give.

9:13: Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell comes in the civil rights section of the speech. I expected it to be in the national security section, but I prefer it here.

9:12: "America must always stand on the side of human freedom and dignity. Always." Always.

9:08: The defense stuff is pretty good, but it's nothing new. Bring the troops home, torture is bad, security and liberty aren't at odds. Veteran care would be a wedge issue if Democrats were more ruthless.

9:02: "Democrats, we have the largest majority in decades," is the civil way of saying "pass the damn bill".

9:00: I agree with the sentiment behind Obama's plea for civility, but I can't help but wonder if it makes him look weak. The oblique attack against Senate holds is appreciated, but perhaps too quiet.

8:57: Here comes the smackdown of the Supreme Court. I was wondering if he'd go there. They sit stony face (it would have been cool if the dissenters had given a hearty "hell yeah", but oh well).

8:55: Obama's dig on Republicans ("that's what we did for 8 years") is not exactly accurate. The problem was that Republicans never were serious (and still aren't serious) about deficit reduction -- so of course deficits would rise on their watch.

8:52: The spending freeze is a promise he's simply not going to keep, particularly given the exemption for defense spending.

8:51: And here comes the neo-Hooverist portion of the speech.

8:46: Obama has always been a fan of this format -- he loves having a free rein to give out laundry lists, and explain policies, and clear up misconceptions. It brings out his inner wonk. And the good thing about Democratic policies is that the policies themselves tend to be popular, which is why they're so rarely attacked based on their actual content.

8:44: "I didn't take on health care because it's good politics." With all due respect, Mr. President, it's only a strike if you watch it as it sails by.

8:43: Health insurance reform finally comes up. This ought to be good.

8:41: Education focus is good, focus on community college is better. I approve. And student loan reform! Fabulous -- if it ever gets through Congress.

8:36: I wonder who Joe Biden just looked at with a shit-eating grin when Obama passive-aggressively mocked climate change deniers. I'm banking on James Inhofe.

8:35: Nuclear power! I'm surprised and pleased.

8:31: Finally, some aggression. This speech was feeling pretty conservative for awhile. Now Obama is bringing out the big guns against the persistent calls for delays, and that's a good thing. Anything that takes some wind out of the sails of spineless centrists who are afraid of their own footsteps.

8:30: Attacking the record of the Bush administration (even indirectly) is a weird thing. It's perfectly accurate, but is there anything left in the well?

8:28: Infrastructure! And it's the high-speed rail project in Florida that I've heard good things about! Excellent.

8:27: Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) doesn't like helping community banks, I guess. Or using the big bank's money to pay for it.

8:24: New jobs bill is the first concrete policy proposal. Doubling down on the stimulus, I guess -- at least he got that passed.

8:22: That little jab at congressional Republicans -- "I thought I'd get some applause there" -- I think was subtly quite effective. If Republicans won't applaud tax cuts, doesn't that show they just dislike anything Obama does?

8:21: Obama's starting out with straight out populism -- attacking the banks, bonuses, and the bailout. Anything that puts a wedge between Republicans' thrall to big businesses, and popular rage against the hyper-rich, is an effective strategy.

8:17: First applause comes six minutes in. That was a long intro. I'm bored already.

8:14: "The worst of the storm has passed, but the devastation remains" is good framing, I think; it balances between forward-looking optimism and recognition of current hurt.

8:11: Obama opens by telling us he's here only because the constitution tells him so. And history is looking over his shoulder.

8:10: Here we go! (I love the way Biden cheers).

8:05: I'll be curious how the spending freeze will be played in speech, particularly since Republicans have taken everything off the table.

8:00: You know what would be awesome? If Michael Buffer was hired as the sergeant-at-arms, just for tonight.

7:56: Will Obama announce that the best days of America are ahead? I'm banking on the upset: "The best days of America are behind us. I have formed a death panel to ensure that we handle our decline with grace and dignity."

7:53: Haitian ambassador is apparently getting a prime position in the audience.

7:49: Here's a shocking development (CNN calls it a "remarkable contrast"): Republicans think Obama has been too liberal, Obama doesn't think so. Whoa.

7:47: CNN reports Republicans are planning on being their best behavior. No more "you lies" this year ... assuming they can contain themselves.

SOTU!!!

Every year I promise not to watch the State of the Union. Some years I keep the promise, some years I don't. This year, I got curious about the reported call to overturn DADT. If you want to drink, here are your rules.

Also, CNN's focus group looks like they were kidnapped off the street and are being locked in the studio.

Hamas Finds No Wrongdoing By Hamas

We already discussed the likely shortcomings of any Israeli probe into IDF operations during the Gaza war. Now, Hamas has released the results of its "investigation" into its own conduct, finding that (surprise!), despite all appearances to the contrary, it was aiming at military targets. All those rockets raining down on Sderot (which has no military bases)? Just misfires, due to the fact that their rockets are unguided (if only they had better rockets!).

When the probe was announced, I differed with Matt Yglesias in that I thought Hamas' superficial participation in such "inquiries" was more harmful than good. Neither of us buys into the "transparent nonsense" (Matt's words) that Hamas was aiming for military targets. However, he thought that it signaled that Hamas saw its legitimacy as being tied at least to the perception that it was in adherence to human right standards. I argue that Hamas' participation was part of a larger strategy aimed at blurring human rights categories altogether, transforming them from legal principles into ambiguous tools suitable for a "lawfare" assault on Israel. Getting Hamas to superficially participate in human rights discourse is like getting Soviet-bloc states to sign human rights treaties they had no intention of upholding: a superficial, unaccountable move aimed at muddying the waters. The only way it could be seen as a positive step is if the international community holds their feet to the fire, Helsinki Watch style.

In other words, it does nobody any good (in fact, does much harm) if Hamas can simply say it is adhering to human rights standards, alongside patently ridiculous "reports" affirming the same. We will see if this report is taken by the relevant bodies with the derisive laughter it deserves, but I'm skeptical. And insofar as this dissipates pressure to hold Hamas account for its criminal acts, or serves as prop for disingenuous commentators to pretend Hamas is something it isn't, it is a qualitatively bad thing for the cause of human rights and the cause of peace.

Where Angels Fear

Jeffrey Goldberg takes aim at yet another Andrew Sullivan post extolling the bravery of those bold critics of Israel:

How true! How brave it is to stand athwart the Jews and yell "Stop!" We are a dangerous group of people. Just look at what has happened to other critics who have gone where angels fear to tread and criticized Israel. Take, for example, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, the authors of "The Israel Lobby." Walt, as many of you know, is in hiding in Holland, under round-the-clock protection of the Dutch police, after the chief rabbi of Wellesley, Mass., issued a fatwa calling for his assassination. Mearsheimer, of course, lost his job at the University of Chicago and was physically assaulted by a group of Hadassah ladies in what became known as the "Grapefruit Spoon Attack of 2009." Now he teaches political science at a community college in Hayden Lake, Idaho, under police guard. And Michael Scheuer, the former CIA man who argues that American Jews are traitors to their country, was recently burned in effigy during a riot led by a cell of Reconstructionist rabbis. All across this country, assaults by Jews on their critics are on the rise. It's gotten so bad you can't even publish a mildly anti-Semitic cartoon without having your office sacked by gangs of extremists from the North American Federation of Temple Youth. It's tough out there for brave truth-tellers these days.

Presumably, Walt and Mearsheimer still teach at the sufferance of the Jewish overlords, who wish to give the appearance of freedom the our doomed world. Crafty folk, we are.

Interesting Case of the Day

Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964).

Why? Two reasons:

1) In 1964, it was a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that held in favor of the Cuban government in a case concerning that government's compensation-less expropriation of American property. The case turned on the application of the "state action doctrine", which holds, essentially, that the acts of foreign government's inside their own territory will be considered valid and legitimate.

2) In addressing the question of whether expropriation of property violates customary international law, the opinion notes and gives authority to the opinions of both communist and newly independent countries which argued that such a position was unfair and in service of "imperialist" interests:

There are few if any issues in international law today on which opinion seems to be so divided as the limitations on a state's power to expropriate the property of aliens. There is, of course, authority, in international judicial and arbitral decisions, in the expressions of national governments, and among commentators for the view that a taking is improper under international law if it is not for a public purpose, is discriminatory, or is without provision for prompt, adequate, and effective compensation. However, Communist countries, although they have in fact provided a degree of compensation after diplomatic efforts, commonly recognize no obligation on the part of the taking country. Certain representatives of the newly independent and underdeveloped countries have questioned whether rules of state responsibility toward aliens can bind nations that have not consented to them and it is argued that the traditionally articulated standards governing expropriation of property reflect "imperialist" interests and are inappropriate to the circumstances of emergent states.

The disagreement as to relevant international law standards reflects an even more basic divergence between the national interests of capital importing and capital exporting nations and between the social ideologies of those countries that favor state control of a considerable portion of the means of production and those that adhere to a free enterprise system. It is difficult to imagine the courts of this country embarking on adjudication in an area which touches more sensitively the practical and ideological goals of the various members of the community of nations. (428-30)

I'm not expressing an opinion as to either existence or normative desirability of a customary international legal norm against expropriation without compensation. Rather, I thought it noteworthy both that Cuba won a case like this in American courts, and more broadly, that an American court openly considered the implications of certain perspectives normally considered quite radical and out of bounds in our public discourse.

Generally, this is how one is supposed to approach questions of customary international law, and of course, this is the double-edged sword of that institution: since it represents the customs of the entire world, and there is much disagreement in the world over a variety of customs which we often take to be touchstones of modern human rights standards, generally international law will always be tied to the behavior of its most regressive members. Canvassing the international community in order to determine international custom doesn't mean just looking at countries generally in line with American interests or values, and I thought this case illustrated that in uncommonly vivid fashion.

Higginbotham's Recusal Opinion and the Politically-Active Jew

I dropped a rather cryptic cite in my last post to Pennsylvania v. Local Union 542, Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs, 388 F.Supp. 155 (E.D. Pa. 1974). The opinion deals with a recusal motion filed against famed Black Judge A. Leon Higginbotham in the midst of an employment discrimination suit.

The allegations were that Judge Higginbotham was Black and identifies with Blacks, specifically, he was a leader of the Black civil rights movement, with an "emotional attachment to the advancement of black civil rights" and a belief in rectifying racism in America, and that he had demonstrated the preceding in a speech before "a group composed of black historians" (the Association for the Study of Afro-American Life and History) (157-58). These demonstrated an appearance of partiality towards the Black plaintiffs, which warranted recusal. In the course of his now-famous opinion, Judge Higginbotham carefully eviscerated this argument, showing how it was predicated off essentially racist notions, effectuated a double-standard for both Black litigants and Black judges, and wrongfully conflates opposition towards racism with opposition towards Whites.

In support of his refusal to recuse, Judge Higginbotham mustered an impressive array of judges who had commented on matters of public concern and/or engaged in scholarship and inquiry on cutting edge, controversial legal topics, without feeling the need or pressure to recuse themselves. One of these examples includes the following:

I am pleased to see that my distinguished colleagues on the bench who are Jewish serve on committees of the Jewish Community Relations Council, on the boards of Jewish publications, and are active in other affairs of the Jewish community. I respect them, for they recognize that the American experience has often been marred by pervasive anti-Semitism. I would think less of them if they felt that they had to repudiate their heritage in order to be impartial judges. (180)

The opinion is a tour de force, and I highly recommend it top to bottom. But I am reminded of it most often in all the cases where it is asserted, explicitly or implicitly, that all but a bare handful of good Jews are too provincial, too partisan, or too biased to be worth listening to (much less be given any decision-making authority) on matters connected to Jewish life or experience.

While the motion did not, in fact, require that all Blacks refrain from judging cases involving Whites or civil rights, it did demand that only a very narrow range of "acceptable" Black persons, ones who had meticulously refrained from taking a stance on or discussing matters of racism, be permitted. And such a stance, Judge Higginbotham accurately noted, was functionally no different from a blanket rule of racialized exclusion. What motivated the motion, the Judge suspected, was that anxiety that Whites no longer were in a position where they could be assured that they'd never be forced to submit to the judgment of a Black man or woman.*

If, for the reasons previously discussed, defendants' motions are meritless, and since the motions are presumably filed in good faith, what other rationale could explain why defendants so vehemently assert their claim that I be disqualified in the instant case? Perhaps, among some whites, there is an inherent disquietude when they see that occasionally blacks are adjudicating matters pertaining to race relations, and perhaps that anxiety can be eliminated only by having no black judges sit on such matters or, if one cannot escape a black judge, then by having the latter bend over backwards to the detriment of black litigants and black citizens and thus assure that brand of "impartiality" which some whites think they deserve.

Since 1844, when Macon B. Allen became the first black lawyer to be admitted to the bar of any state, and since John S. Rock was admitted to the bar of the United States Supreme Court on February 1, 1865, black lawyers have litigated in the federal courts almost exclusively before white judges, yet they have not urged that white judges should be disqualified on matters of race relations. In fact, in the "good old days" before William H. Hastie was appointed in 1949 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, white litigants throughout America were able to argue before a judiciary from the United States District Courts to the Courts of Appeals to the United States Supreme Court without encountering a single black judge along the entire judicial route; for until Judge Hastie's appointment there were no black Article III judges. In fact, until 1961, white litigants in the United States District Courts never had to ponder the subtle issue which defendants now raise, because no President had ever appointed a black as a United States District Judge. If blacks could accept the fact of their manifest absence from the federal judicial process for almost two centuries, the plain truth is that white litigants are now going to have to accept the new day where the judiciary will not be entirely white and where some black judges will adjudicate cases involving race relations. (177)

And so it is today -- for Jews as well as Blacks. There are people who are furious that modern Jews won't accept their proper place as powerless and dispossessed, and display an "unholy glee" at the thought of forcibly returning them to that position. I cannot say descriptively whether they will succeed, but I do know the moral argument is dead wrong.** Non-Jews are going to have to accept the fact that Jews will sometimes be in positions of authority, and sometimes will be tasked with making decisions that others are bound to accept.

* This, more than anything else, represents the diminution of the unjust power Whites held over Blacks; as power, Carol Gilligan once wrote, means "you can opt not to listen. And you can do so with impunity." Feminist Discourse, Moral Values, and the Law – A Conversation: The 1984 James McCormick Mitchell Lecture, 34 Buff. L. Rev. 11, 62 (1985) (Isabel Marcus and Paul J. Spiegelman, moderators; Ellen C. DuBois, Marx C. Dunlap, Carol J. Gilligan, Catherine A. MacKinnon, and Carrie Menkel-Meadow, participants).

** This is distinct from conspiratorial accounts by which the Jews (or "Zionists") control the world and are responsible for all (evil) global decisions. Persons who hold such views are delusional, anti-Semitic and dangerous, but one thing you can say for them is that they are only factually challenged -- were all the things they believed actually true (that Jews are poisoning vaccines or abducting Haitian children for organs or whatever it is we're up to today), they would be, in fact, bad things.

The people I am talking about would rarely stoop so low as to believe in any global Zionist conspiracies (unfortunately, sometimes they do flirt with such beliefs when their talk about The Israel Lobby stretches too far into hyperbole). But in some ways, their beliefs are more pernicious. They are not upset that the Jews control the world; they are upset at the prospect that Jews control anything; a slice of land, an organization, a political movement, a lobbying committee -- whatever. Any body that they cannot not ignore with impunity -- any body that they don't have power over (to use Gilligan's framing) -- is a body that cannot justly be in the hands of Jews. Because that would mean Jews are no longer purely in a position of subservience. And that is unacceptable.

A Storm is Brewing

Israel is considering forming a panel to examine the quality of its investigations into alleged wrongdoing stemming out of last year's Gaza conduct.

Under Barak's proposal, which is acceptable to Netanyahu and to [IDF Chief of Staff Gabi] Ashkenazi, the committee would focus on two main issues: the quality of the investigations conducted by the IDF of incidents and of the decisions taken by the cabinet, the security cabinet and the IDF General Staff regarding the policy of the use of force in the operation. The committee will have to determine whether the internal investigations met the relevant international standards. On the civilian side it will ask whether there is a basis to the Goldstone report's claims - which are categorically rejected by Israeli officials - that the operation was planned in advance as a punitive campaign against the civilian population in the Gaza Strip.

Hmm. Note that the panel is not meant to replace the aforementioned IDF probes, but to review them -- it does not have the authority to call operational commanders into testify. The problem I see is that all the questions being asked are the sorts that Israel can only give one answer to. Perhaps the committee might indict the decisions of the cabinet (anything to spite Tzipi Livni, after all). It also could revise doctrines regarding the use of force, which would be an interesting development. The IDF probes will likely be exonerated, as in all likelihood they did meet formal thresholds of fairness -- the question is whether they actually were dispassionate inquiries, or whether they had the trappings of neutral procedures but were really predetermined, and that's the sort of accusation I doubt a panel like this will make (possibly because it isn't true -- I don't mean to prejudge). The final question -- whether the operation was planned as a punitive campaign against the civilian population of Gaza -- will assuredly be answered "no".

The intention is to include on the panel Israeli jurists with international standing and perhaps also an international jurist. One name that has been mentioned in discussions is Prof. Alan M. Dershowitz.

Oh, now wouldn't that be a trip? I am conflicted about the selection of Professor Dershowitz, though not for the reasons one might expect. I don't think that a reputation for being pro-Israel is a disqualifier for impartial service on a judicial inquiry (see Pennsylvania v. Local Union 542, Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs, 388 F.Supp. 155 (1974) (Higginbotham, J., rejecting motion to recuse)). Professor Dershowitz has on plenty of occasions saw fit to criticize Israeli government policy; the objection to him is not his inability to admit critique of Israel, but his refusal to do so on the terms of the state's most harsh opponents. And while I suspect that Professor Dershowitz's presence on the panel would be used to discredit it as biased, I am willing to put my foot down in rejecting the notion that either "non-Jewish" or "anti-Israel" is a prerequisite (if not the definition) of non-biased. We all come from a perspective, Jewish or not, pro-Israel or not, and to label some perspectives "biased" and others invisible is just a replication of (in this case) anti-Semitic hierarchy.

No, my worry with Professor Dershowitz on this panel is that given the particular contours of the panel's mandate, I'm not sure he has the right outlook to insure fairness and justice are done. Dershowitz is primarily a defense attorney, and in effect the panel's review is to determine whether the IDF probes were too deferential to the defendants (Israeli soldiers, commanders, etc.). Even putting Israel out of the picture, this is an area where Dershowitz would likely begin from a position sympathetic to the status quo. Now, as per above, I don't think that being a defense attorney is disqualifying for service on such a panel -- it is important that someone concerned for the rights of the accused and attuned to both the possibility of rushing to judgment or using grunts as scapegoats to ward off international pressure be represented on such a panel. I just don't necessarily think that's the role that the international jurist needs to play; I suspect someone who fits that mold can be found from within Israel's own legal ranks.

Perhaps a better fit -- someone less polarizing, Jewish, notably non-hostile to Israel but with an unimpeachable commitment to human rights everywhere -- would be Irwin Cotler?

Just Another Holocaust Survivor/Turkish Rap Group Collab

Oh for cute. But also inspiring.

Shift Without Pause

It looks like the key strategy for defending Proposition 8 is to say that gays possess plenty of political power.

Andre Bauer Apologizes ... To Animals?

In my roundup yesterday, I noted comments by South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer which compared poor people to stray animals (both apparently will breed if you feed them). Today, he issued an apology ... of sorts:

"I never intended to tie people to animals," he said, before opting for a kinder animal metaphor: "If you have a cat, if you take it in your house and feed it and love it, what happens when you go out of town?"

Noting that he has raised money for a group that protects animals, Bauer also said he is "not against animals."

Okay, what? First, note that he apologizes for an animal comparison by proceeding to make the comparison again, with stray cats. But then, in the coup de grace, he makes it clear that he has nothing against animals. And you have to feel bad for the poor animals -- subjected to the indignity of being compared to poor people! It's rather horrible. And rather sociopathic of Lt. Gov. Bauer.*

* Okay, that was out of line. I'd like to apologize to the sociopath community; they don't deserve to be grouped with Bauer (see what I did there?).

The Seventh Degree

Ross Douthat tries to square the circle between the dueling positions of "abortion is murder" and "but I don't want anyone to go to jail."

Nobody involved would go to jail, he said, as "it is possible to believe that abortion is murder and also believe it is a completely unique form of murder. Abortion would be, you know, if you have first-degree murder, second and third degree...it's like seventh-degree murder or something."

Kevin Drum calls this "about as good an excuse for not jailing abortionists as I've heard." Maybe, but that still doesn't make it very good.

First of all, it's worth noting that once you get beyond second-degree murder, for the most part (not everywhere), we stop calling the act "murder" and begin giving it other names. Like "voluntary" or "involuntary manslaughter". Below that, there's "negligent homicide". And all of these ever-lower degrees of "murder" still carry with them prison sentences.

Second, it's worth exploring why we have various degrees of homicide charges at all. Generally, it has to do with the state of mind of the perpetrator. We punish people who intend to kill more than those whose act was unintentional but reckless, which in turn carries more punishment than the person whose state of mind was merely negligent. We also provide some diminution when the actor's consciousness is blurred, due to some sort of provocation or temporary insanity, as well as outright acquittal where the action was justified (self-defense) or excusable (insanity).

What is unclear is why, if abortion is a species of murder, it falls under any of the exceptions that typically counsel even a reduced sentence (let alone an outright excuse). It's clearly premeditated. There is no immediate provocation. There isn't a self-defense claim (Douthat grants a life-exemption for abortion). The best argument I've heard, and I use the descriptor loosely, is one based off the idea that women are being per se irrational when they seek an abortion -- in other words, flat misogyny. We could say that abortion is entirely of its own kind, but that raises the question of why, if abortion rests so uncomfortably with our widely established and agreed upon intuitions of what murder means, it be considered a relative of murder at all? Either you buy into the framework or you don't -- you don't get to borrow the normative punch of the term "murder" without actually having to live with the consequences of labeling something that way.

Stomp the Floor

Ta-Nehisi Coates has a devastating piece up comparing ex-Rep. Harold Ford (D-TN), now considering a run for Senate in New York, to those figures in Southern politics who knew segregation was wrong, but said what they had to say to get elected. George Wallace (and I did not know this) had a reputation as a particularly unbiased and fair-minded judge for Blacks in the south, and indeed at one point ran for office with the NAACP's backing. It failed miserably. And so, Wallace said:

You know, I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened. And then I began talking about niggers, and they stomped the floor.

Ford's political ambitions have caused him to take a variety of socially conservative positions that he is now racing to disavow. The most morally pernicious of these was his effort to position himself as the most anti-gay of the anti-gay politicians that infect the American political system. It's probable that Ford really didn't have a problem with gay marriage. But, as Coates writes:

In the 1950s and 1960s, Alabama had in its midst men who knew segregation was a reeking abomination, but embraced it because it allowed them to fix a road in their hometown, build a clinic in the underserved backwoods, or just hook a friend up for a job. Or maybe it was just power--who can tell?

From my perspective, motive is irrelevant. (There's usually a good reason to do evil. That's the nature of evil.) It takes a particular kind of cowardice to throw people's lives aside and bow to the mutually destructive curse of discrimination. I can believe Harold Ford was never actually against gay marriage, and was more concerned with good schools and good roads. But then when he said "constitutional amendment," they stomped the floor.

Amen.

Cool Interviews with Cool People

It's a month old, but I just stumbled across this interview with Israeli MK Yuli Tamir (Labor). Dr. Tamir was one of the founders of Peace Now and holds a doctorate in Political Philosophy from Oxford (where she studied under Isaiah Berlin) with a specialty in the intersection between liberalism and national identity. Currently, she is the dissident minority faction of Labor which is refusing to join the coalition government formed by Likud PM Bibi Netanyahu.

It's a really fascinating interview with a really fascinating person. Highly recommended.

The Great Debate

I watched the first 10 minutes of this debate between Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz and J Street's Jeremy Ben Ami (moderated by Eliot Spitzer), but got bored relatively quickly. Why? Because, try as they might, they don't disagree about much. What disputes they have are nearly invariable about either focus or degree, rarely about substance. So both support two-states, both oppose the settlements, both support some division of Jerusalem.

In a sense, this is why I am very surprised by the amount of controversy J Street has managed to gin up. It's quite apparent here that Professor Dershowitz really wants to accentuate the differences between his positions and those of Mr. Ben Ami; it is equally clear that they really just aren't that far apart. The dissonance, I think, comes from popular misunderstandings both of J Street and the broader pro-Israel community: the former is often portrayed as much further to left than it is, the latter, much further to the right. And this debate helps illustrate just how facile those assumptions are. Professor Dershowitz is often used as a bogey-man for the broke-no-criticism-of-Israel wing, but as he notes he is a longstanding critic of several key Israeli policies (like the settlements). And if J Street can't be considered mainstream after essentially being in cheerful agreement with most of Alan Dershowitz's positions, what would establish it?

Ultimately, J Street isn't out of the mainstream of Jewish policy positions on Israel because there remains a relatively robust center-left consensus amongst American Jews regarding Israel, one that's been well represented amongst all the fixtures of American Israel-commentators. This debate simply dramatized the effect.

Sunday Roundup: Landlord/Tenant Edition

Busy weekend. Our landlord is trying to sell our house, which isn't directly a problem for us -- our lease is unaffected -- except that the real estate agent wants the four of us to live in full "sell the house" mode (every room sparkling clean, willing to vacate at anytime for showings, etc.) for the indefinite future. We're quite willing to be helpful up to a point, perhaps a few days of glittering cleanliness, but we can't effectively vacate the house as law students on any random night (where exactly are we supposed to go in Hyde Park?). I assume they can't force us to do anything, so I think we're in a solid bargaining position -- but the idea of a conflict is stressful to me.

Okay, that was a longer introduction than I intended. Roundup!

* * *

Should we keep "negro" as a census option?

South Carolina likens free lunch programs for impoverished children to feeding stray animals. Why? "Because they breed. You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that."

Anti-Semitic incidents way up in 2009.

Israeli right-wing extremists call Rahm Emanuel a traitor to the Jewish people in response to his upcoming visit to the country.

Cuban and American doctors are cooperating to relieve the Haiti crisis.

Italian gay couple hunger strikes for marriage rights.

Hussein Ibish warns of the perils of certainty regarding the outcome of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Pittsburgh police officers nearly beat a student to death for aggravated possession of Mountain Dew (now they're charging him with resisting arrest).

A judge charged with investigating Judge Sharon Keller's conduct in preventing the filing of a last-minute death penalty appeal has decided that fault mostly fell on the defense team, not the judge. He did find several instances of poor judgment on Keller's part, but recommended she receive no punishment. The report will be delivered to the Commission on Judicial Conduct, which can decide whether to accept, reject, or modify the recommendations.

The Rosetta Stone of English Departments Everywhere

SEK in the comments to this post: "If I learned one thing in grad school, it's that if it's longer than it is wide, it's a penis."

I, Too, am Seismic Shock

British Reverend threatens bloggers who dare talk about his links to anti-Semites and authoritarian thugs. Specifically, he threatens to "report them" to the police if he is labeled anti-Semitic. It's an affront to free speech, an abuse of police resources, and an affront to freedom.

Israel Set to Present Its Goldstone Rebuttal

Ha'aretz has the report that Israel is preparing to issue its rebuttal to the UN. I noted several weeks back that we should expect that some of Judge Goldstone's allegations would turn out to be inaccurate, not because of any malfeasance on his part, but simply because (for better or for worse) Israel did not cooperate with his investigation, meaning that much potentially exculpatory evidence was withheld from him. It looks like the report Israel is going to issue will include much of this evidence.

Whether or not we should ultimately judge this process as a serious one or not depends on what happens yet. It is almost undoubtedly true that some of the Goldstone allegations will turn out to be relatively conclusively wrong. It is also almost undoubtedly true that some of the Goldstone allegations which Israel will be contesting in its report will still have legs. What we would hope to see, then, is Judge Goldstone (and the relevant UN bodies) taking precisely that stance -- withdrawing certain claims, and digging in on others. It doesn't have to be debasing; he could say something like the following:

"Based on the evidence presented in this report, I am satisfied that the events that transpired on X date in Y location were within the bounds of accepted military practice. We regret that it could not be included in our findings, but this evidence was not made available to the commission at the time of its report, despite our efforts to secure Israel's cooperation. We reiterate our disappointment that Israel did not participate in our inquiry; as this example indicates, their non-participation unfortunately barred the committee from ascertaining the fullest, most accurate account possible of the events in question."

I'm not sure whether Judge Goldstone will react to this -- I continue to believe there were at least some admirable qualities undergirding why he took on this mission, but there is no doubt he feels burned by the response and I suspect he believes a substantial amount of his international credibility now rests on defending his report to the death. This is his legacy, for better or for worse, and he will not be remembered well if his legacy is "that report which he later admitted wildly exaggerated Israel's culpability for war crimes" (by pro-Israel loyalists for issuing the report, by anti-Israel partisans for admitting its shortcomings). I guess we'll see. As for the relevant UN bodies, well, them I have no hope for, because for them this was never about fairness or human rights to begin with -- there is no reason to suspect they'll change that now.

If It Means Some Infinitesimal Portion of the FRC's Tax Dollars Go To An Abortion, I'm All For It

John Cole gets a push poll from the FRC (the FRC push polls? But they're so moral and upright!) with such questions as "Do you support taxpayer funded abortions", "Do you support cuts of up to 50% in medicare in the Pelosi/Reid/Obama healthcare plan", and "Do you support backroom deals to pass the Pelosi/Reid/Obama healthcare plan?"

Chavez, Morales, and Robertson Duke It Out

For supremacy in the idiotic comments about Haiti contest. We've already discussed Robertson's contribution. Here's Morales:

President Evo Morales said Wednesday that Bolivia would seek U.N. condemnation of what he called the U.S. military occupation of earthquake-stricken Haiti. "The United States cannot use a natural disaster to militarily occupy Haiti," he told reporters at the presidential palace.

"Haiti doesn't need more blood," Morales added, implying that the militarized U.S. humanitarian mission could lead to bloodshed. His criticism echoed that of fellow leftist, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who said Sunday that "it appears the gringos are militarily occupying Haiti."

When asked Wednesday about the possibility of the U.N. General Assembly condemning the U.S., assembly spokesman Jean Viktor Nkolo pointed to previous U.N. statements expressing gratitude for U.S. help in Haiti.

The United Nations will soon sign an agreement with the U.S. stipulating the U.N. as the lead organization for security in Haiti, Edmond Mulet, acting U.N. special envoy to Haiti, said Tuesday.

And here's Chavez:

Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez Wednesday accused the United States of causing the destruction in Haiti by testing a 'tectonic weapon' to induce the catastrophic earthquake that hit the country last week.

President Chavez said the US was "playing God" by testing devices capable of creating eco-type catastrophes, the Spanish newspaper ABC quoted him as saying.

One thing that is missing from this "analysis" is why America has any particular interest in occupying Haiti. At least with Iraq, we have a facially plausible, though conspiratorial, interest in Iraq's oil (left unclear is why we couldn't just buy it from the Hussein regime, as he would have been quite glad to sell it to us). Haiti carries with it no such natural wealth; an occupation would be a massive expenditure of American resources (at a time when they are locked up in various other locations) for no apparent gain. I'm uncomfortable enough with bare materialist explanations for behavior (particularly when they are cast as a dualism: one side is materialist, the other side, of course, morally pure), but what we are supposed to imagine is that American's have some innate, pathological desire to control the world -- something in our national biology apparently turns us into sociopaths. We might describe such a view as racist.

UPDATE: The Chavez quote, at least, appears to be a fabrication that managed to get some legs in the global media. Interestingly, the statement was repeated both by anti-Chavez outlets like Fox News and pro-Chavez entities like Iran's Press TV, apparently because, as Harry's Place put it, it panders to the prejudices of both those who think Chavez is crazy, as well as those who think that America is.

In the Same Boat

A new Gallup poll concludes that the strongest predictor of anti-Muslim sentiment is ... anti-Jewish sentiment. Presumably, this indicates that both anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim sentiments still are primarily associated with the American right to far-right. The overlap doesn't really surprise me, though I'd be curious to see whether it is as extensive in Europe.

One thing I do wonder about, though, is reporting bias. Presumably, liberals who harbor negative feelings about Jews or Muslims are less likely to admit them, even to themselves, as such prejudice is dissonant with the prevailing self-image of what it means to be a good leftist. I doubt that Tom Hickey, for example, would be keen on confessing anti-Jewish prejudice, even to a pollster.

But taking the poll at face value (and to be clear, I feel reasonable in asserting that the poll captures a goodly portion of the social positions of Jews and Muslims in America), it does reinforce something Jews have known ever since we set foot on these shores: the only way to insure our security, is to insure the security of all vulnerable minorities here. Anytime America looks poised to create another division between "real" and "fake" Americans, Jews are at risk of falling into the latter camp. We're all in the same boat here.

More Fun in Denials

We already saw one walkback of what had seemed to be a breakthrough between Israel and one of its more implacable foes when the Iranian government denied one of its ministers shook hands with his Israeli counterpart at a conference. Today, we saw a similar dynamic with Hamas. The Jerusalem Post had a report claiming that Hamas' top West Bank representative signaled his willingness to nullify Hamas' anti-Semitic charter and recognize Israel's existence:

During the meeting in Hebron, [Aziz] Dwaik stressed that other Hamas leaders, including Damascus-based leader Khaled Mashaal and Gaza Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, have voiced support for the idea of establishing an independent Palestinian state within the pre-1967 boundaries.

"The [Hamas] charter was drafted more than 20 years ago," Dwaik noted, adding that his movement would even be prepared to "nullify" the document.

"No one wants to throw anyone into the sea," he said.

That would be good news. Unfortunately, Hamas immediately issued a furious denial, so who knows what's going on. A mistaken report by the JPost? A misunderstanding by Mr. Dwaik's interlocutor? A Hamas official who got too far ahead of himself and was slapped back into line? An example of double-speak -- one set of words for western audiences, and another for domestic consumption? So much ambiguity, so little time.

Can You See Color in a White Ball?

A new professional basketball league is starting up: the All-American Basketball Alliance (AABA). What distinguishes it from the NBA, you might ask? Lack of Black people!

A new professional basketball league called the All-American Basketball Alliance (AABA) sent out a press release on Sunday saying that it intends to start its inaugural season in June, with teams in 12 U.S. cities. However, the AABA is different from other sports leagues because only players who are “natural born United States citizens with both parents of Caucasian race are eligible to play in the league.”

But don't worry! He says he's not racist, which, as we all know, is a failproof way of determining that someone is not racist:

“There’s nothing hatred about what we’re doing,” he said. “I don’t hate anyone of color. But people of white, American-born citizens are in the minority now. Here’s a league for white players to play fundamental basketball, which they like.” [...]

He pointed out recent incidents in the NBA, including Gilbert Arenas’ indefinite suspension after bringing guns into the Washington Wizards locker room, as examples of fans’ dissatisfaction with the way current professional sports are run.

“Would you want to go to the game and worry about a player flipping you off or attacking you in the stands or grabbing their crotch?” he said. “That’s the culture today, and in a free country we should have the right to move ourselves in a better direction.”

Nope, not racist at all. He just is forming an "all-American" all-White group (you'd think that'd be a contradiction), to play "fundamental basketball" (as distinguished from its "street ball" variant), as a way for White people to express their superior, "better" culture.

Hat tip to a certain ex-blogger whose Facebook account makes me think he's having trouble staying out of the game.

UPDATE: Ta-Nehisi Coates thinks it's a hoax. The thought crossed my mind as well.

Another Greeting

A few weeks ago, a top Iranian soccer official resigned after his body accidentally sent a greeting to their Israeli counterparts. This, on the other hand, looks far less accidental:

Israel's Tourism Minister Stas Misezhnikov made unlikely history in Madrid on Wednesday when he shook the hand of an Iranian tourism representative, Israel Radio reported.

The two found themselves face to face at a reception in Madrid with the Spanish Royal family.

Previously, when confronted with Israelis, Iranian officials have shunned contact. In the past, Iran has even pulled out of sporting tournaments to avoid encounters with Israeli athletes.

This time the Iranian representative, who like Misezhnikov, was visiting Madrid for a trade fair, surprised the Israeli minister and grasped his hand before inviting him to visit Iran.

Misezhnikov, who also visited the Egyptian, Jordanian and Moroccan stalls at the fair, replied that tourism could be a "bridge for peace" and that he looked forward to the day when all Israelis could visit Iran.

That was pretty clearly intentional. But what does it mean?

One possibility is a thawing, however slight, of Iran's hardline position towards Israel. That I doubt.

Another, somewhat more likely, is that this demonstrates weakness in Iran's government flowing out of their recent electoral repression, such that more and more government officials feel comfortable breaking from the official line.

A third, related interpretation is that openness to Israel of any form is understood in Iran as a repudiation of Ahmadinejad -- it is a way for dissident officials to signal their distance from the regime, or, more crudely, show their disdain for it.

It will be interesting to see what comes out of this -- particularly if the Iranian official is forced, like his soccer peer, to resign.

UPDATE: Or there's option #4: denying it ever happened.

Mufti Pronouncement

The Mufti of Syria has a message of peace between Jews and Muslims:

Syria's foremost Muslim leader declared on Tuesday that Islam commands its followers to protect Judaism, according to Army Radio.

"If the Prophet Mohammed had asked me to deem Christians or Jews heretics, I would have deemed Mohammed himself a heretic," Sheikh Ahmed Hassoun, the Mufti of Syria, was quoted as telling a delegation of American academics visiting Damascus.

Hassoun, the leader of Syria's majority Sunni Muslim community, also told the delegates that Islam was a religion of peace, adding: "If Mohammed had commanded us to kill people, I would have told him he was not a prophet."

Intriguing.

Livni: I'll Face Arrest in the UK

Former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni (Kadima), who held a key position in Israel's government during Operation Cast Lead, has announced she is willing to stand trial in the UK to settle, once and for all, the war crimes claims against her (and by extension, against the government of Israel).

Tzipi Livni, leader of a key Israeli opposition party, said Monday she would be willing to face arrest to challenge the validity of war crimes charges reportedly filed against her in a British court.

"For me, this is not a question," Livni told CNN's Christiane Amanpour, when asked whether she was willing to face arrest. "I mean, yes, the answer is yes. I am."

A British court last year issued an arrest warrant for Livni, leader of Israel's Kadima Party. Details of the warrant were never made public; the warrant was reportedly later dropped.

"I would like this to be, in a way, maybe even a test case, because I'm willing to speak up and to speak about the military operation in Gaza Strip," Livni said.

Livni had served as Israel's foreign minister during an Israeli three-week military offensive against Hamas in Gaza that ended exactly one year ago. The United Nations and some human-rights groups have blamed Israel and Hamas for human rights abuses during the conflict.

But Livni, who is no longer in the Israeli government, defended the former government's decision to go to war, saying that the campaign was needed to confront rocket attacks by Palestinian movement Hamas on Israeli civilians, particularly those living in southern Israel.

"I know that the decisions that we made were crucial to give an answer to Israeli civilians that couldn't live in the south part of Israel and later or even also in different parts of Israel," she said.

"It was part of my responsibility, and this was the right answer. And I'm willing to stand for these reasons and to explain this to -- to the world and to any court."

A bit early for the trial of the century, no? But in reality, I expect this is simply another step in a high-stakes game of chicken. The UK doesn't want this trial to go off anymore than Israel does. It's the diplomatic equivalent of a hand grenade being tossed about. At some point, the train will be derailed.

Happy MLK Day!

Here at Chicago, we celebrate holidays, so I have the day off. Hope everyone is having a relaxing, rejuvenating day.

Abominable Snowmen

Massive, massive, Calvin & Hobbes-inspired win:

I Feel Better about that "C" in Spanish Class

An inquiry into some of the world's most difficult languages. Via early Debate Link fan Random Scrub.

Martirosyan Tops Ouma

If you're hungering for some of my vaunting boxing coverage, I recapped last night's bout between rising star Vanes Martirosyan and former beltholder Kassim Ouma. It wasn't a robbery, per se, but Vanes won by scorecards that I thought were pretty wide, particularly given that I had the fight scored for Ouma 96-93.

Fruits and Vegetables

A student newspaper at Notre Dame has issued an apology after running a cartoon with the following punchline:

"How do you turn a fruit into a vegetable?"

"No idea."

"With a baseball bat."

Here is the apology:

The editors of The Observer would like to publicly apologize for the publication of “The Mobile Party” in the Jan. 13 edition. The burden of responsibility ultimately lies on us for allowing it to go to print. 
There is no excuse that can be given and nothing that can be said to reverse the damage that has already been done by this egregious error in judgment. 


Allowing this cruel and hateful comic a place on our pages disgraced those values and severely hurt members of our Notre Dame family — our classmates, our friends. For this, we sincerely apologize. Unfortunately, the language of hate is an everyday reality in our society.”

The South Bend Tribune has the most complete coverage I've seen. Via Andrew Sullivan.

The Iraqi Jewish Archives

One of the artifacts recovered after the US invasion of Iraq were items detailing the long history of Iraq's Jews. Many of these pieces are currently being stored in America, and there is a bit of a fight brewing over whether and under what circumstances they should be returned.

There are, I think, three angles to this.

1) There is the fear that, in a country where "Jew" is a dirty word and anti-Semitism has considerable potency in the public square, the archives will simply not be safe in Iraq. There have already been concerns that Ezekiel's Shrine -- a Jewish holy place within Iraq -- will see its Jewish heritage erased under the guise of "restoration" under pressure by Islamic parties eager to suppress Jewish history and connections to the region.

2) The flip side of number one is the idea that preserving and publicly displaying Jewish cultural history in Iraq is an important way of restoring the values of pluralism and tolerance in that community, and dissipating the view that Jews are their enemies. During the controversy over Egyptian Culture Minister Farouk Hosni's possible elevation to a top UN position, one of the things that was concerning was his stated opposition to building a museum of Jewish-Egyptian culture on "anti-Zionist" grounds. This conflation of "Jew" with "Israel" in many parts of the Arab world is deeply problematic. Still more problematic is the ongoing belief that "Jews" aren't in some sense real human beings -- they continue to be perceived as a sort of extra-social malevolent force, based out of Israel, responsible for all global ills. Grounding Jewish lives and experience in their actual historical roots, including areas in the middle east, is important to checking that instinct. Many of the Iraqi officials who are promoting return of the artifacts to their country are making arguments that strongly echo the above. In large part, the debate between the first and second angles is whether a) you believe them and b) whether, even if you think they're genuine, you have confidence in their ability to maintain control over the situation in the face of hostile pressures.

3) The third angle has to do with whose heritage these pieces actually represent: Iraq's, or Iraq's Jews. Oh yes, middle eastern Jews -- how quickly they tend to be forgotten. The richness of Iraq's Jewish history is testament to its status as a centuries-old community that for a considerable time ranked as one of the largest in the world. Unfortunately, during the 20th century, the majority of the community was driven out through violence and intimidation; the current Jewish population of Iraq is estimated at around 10. Not 10,000 -- 10. Representatives of the Iraqi Jewish diaspora are somewhat incensed that their own history will be in the hands of the very people responsible for driving them out. More concretely, since substantial portions of the Iraqi Jewish community now resides in Israel, there is a good chance that any documents remaining inside Iraq will be inaccessible to them, as Iraq continues to have no diplomatic relations with Israel (hey, another victory for boycott policies!). The article indicates that representatives of the Iraqi Jewish community, though upset, are "resigned" that the material likely will be returned there -- which goes to show just how little power and influence that have on the decisions and discourses which affect their lives.

I don't have an answer to these problems -- they are quite vexing. But it is an issue that will have to be addressed somehow, in a way that is both just to all the heirs of the traditions at issue, and that contributes, as much as possible, to peaceful and just reconciliation between the affected communities.

They Don't Understand

Jon Chait, on Republicans ill-fated attempts to play the race game (they, it seems, are the only ones who see it as a game).

Steele perfectly embodies modern Republican racialism. Democratic racialism represents a perversion of the civil rights ideal--an opposition to racism taken to excesses of hypersensitivity, occasionally devolving into a mere political tactic. Republican racialism is an attempt to mimic Democratic racialism without first having any grasp of the original sentiment underlying it--a parodic replica of the original thing, like a person who decides to convert to Judaism by studying Madonna.

Republican racialism is not an expression of racism but, rather, a failure to understand racism. Obama’s appearance on the scene has made this misapprehension painfully apparent. On the right, there lies an enduring suspicion that Obama’s race has been his greatest, and possibly only, political asset. As Glenn Beck complained in 2008, “a lot of white people will say, ‘Look, I’m not racist. I voted for Barack Obama.’ ” Only white racial guilt could explain the inexplicable rise of this inexperienced, ultra-radical, teleprompter-dependent figure.

Chait notes that the first GOP response to the rise of Obama has been to "get their own Black guy" -- an instinct that also showed up in the Palin selection.

On the topic, see also LGM and Matt Yglesias

Race and the Decision to Arrest

An interesting ruling from the 9th Circuit in Elliot-Park v. Manglona, concerning allegations by the victim of a traffic accident that the officer on the scene refused to arrest the perpetrator because she (the victim) was Korean and the aggressor and officer were both Micronesian. The court held that such discriminatory treatment, if true, violated the victim's civil rights, rejecting the police officer's argument that there is no constitutional right to have your assailant arrested. This is intriguing, since generally decisions to arrest or not arrest are widely left to the officer's discretion. But the court not only ruled racially discriminatory decision making was impermissible, it ruled that this legal position was clearly established at the time of the alleged acts, thus stripping the officer's qualified immunity.

Via. And I should note that these are just allegations at this point -- at this point in the case's procedural posture, the reviewing courts must accept all of the plaintiff's allegations as true. But they are just that -- allegations -- for now. They have not been proven in a court of law. That doesn't make the legal precedent it has set any less interesting, but I think it's still important to note.

DC Nearly Reaches the Summit

A DC court has turned back a request by gay marriage opponents to put the question to a ballot. Under DC law, referendums are not allowed for questions that touch on the civil rights of residents, a clause which the elections board decided precluded putting gay marriage on the ballot. That decision was upheld by the court today.

Opponents still have a few chances to derail gay marriage in the district, but they're running out of time. They'll appeal this ruling, and they can try and get Congress to intercede, but both options are considered long shots.

Almost there. Almost there.

Random Congressional Thought

Am I crazy, or can I see ex-Rep. Harold Ford running for Senate in New York as a Republican?

He's tacking right to run in New York, which makes no sense. He's ambitious enough that I doubt he'd be deterred by some deep connection to the Democratic Party. He'd immediately become the most high profile Black Republican in the country (even more than Michael Steele). He'd ride a boondoggle of gushing press coverage about how the Democratic Party is falling apart (so much so that even a Black man is leaving the party).

Or maybe I'm crazy.

When You Lie Down With the Devil....

Pat Robertson explains why Haiti just lost thousands of people to a natural disaster:

"Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it," he said on Christian Broadcasting Network's "The 700 Club." "They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you'll get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it's a deal."

Robertson said that "ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other" and he contrasted Haiti with its neighbor, the Dominican Republic.

Tough to top Ta-Nehisi here:

The next time your wondering why there are so few black Republicans, consider the fact this unreconstructed Confederate was not long ago one of their greatest crusaders. Consider that he is equating the resistance of slavery, with a rejection of Christ.

Incidentally, Matt Yglesias has the background on what event Robertson might be talking about. Unfortunately, for it to fit with his "devil" theory, we'd have to posit that the God of the French colonialists was the ward of slaveowners and the boot on the neck of the slaves -- a position you wouldn't expect Christians to be rushing towards.

Hanania on Hamas

Palestinian-American writer Ray Hanania, founder of the Yalla Peace movement, has asked his readers to distribute the column he wrote for the Jerusalem Post on Hamas in Gaza.

No problem. Mr. Hanania is fighting the good fight -- I'm happy to do anything I can to assist him in it.

Hey, You Never Know

From a Wall Street Journal profile of Judge Vaughn Walker, the man presiding over the challenge against California's Proposition 8:

Two days into the trial over the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 gay-marriage ban, Judge Vaughn Walker has upset some opponents of gay marriage by allowing gay couples to testify on the meaning of marriage.
[...]
Judge Walker has been open to testimony that was "totally irrelevant to the issues of the case," said former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III. He wrote in Sunday's New York Times that Judge Walker has tilted the case in favor of gay-marriage proponents.

...[Judge Walker] has a mainstream Republic pedigree. He was nominated for a judgeship by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, when Mr. Meese was attorney general.

Democrats assailed the nomination because Judge Walker was member of an all-male private club. (He resigned his membership during the nomination process.) Gay-rights activists protested his appointment because, as a private lawyer, he had represented the U.S. Olympic Committee in a copyright suit against an organization called the Gay Olympics.

Sometimes folks surprise you.

Radical Professors

One of the great strengths of America's constitutional and academic systems is the latitude they give towards free speech. We allow people to advocate overthrowing the government, so long as the call is "abstract" and no concrete steps are taken to effectuate the call. We allow professors with such manifestly anti-American views to continue teaching, unhindered and unmolested, because that's what academic freedom means.

So when this George Mason professor seemingly promotes overthrowing the American government (and, perhaps, watering a tree with President Obama's blood), know one thing: he absolutely has the right to do this. He will and should face no official professional sanction for declaring himself an enemy of the lawfully constituted government of the United States. Whatever we think of a university system which is inhabited by such radicals must take second chair to our commitment to free speech and academic liberty.

(Via)

UPDATE: The professor's post has been updated, removing the part about watering the tree of liberty with Obama's blood.

Sticky Slopes on the Charts

Download the new hit single Sticky Slopes -- currently ranked on the following charts:

Rights and Liberties (Recent Papers): #9

The Judiciary & Judicial Process (Recent Papers): #7

Social Movements (Recent Papers): #2

Political Behavior (Recent Papers): #4

Get in on the action! Download your copy today!

UPDATE: Discrimination, Law & Justice (Recent Papers): #7

You May Not Be a Racist, But Your Logic Needs Work

Dafydd (via) can prove he's not a racist:

To be a racist, one must, at the very least, believe in the concept of race -- where "race" means some discrete and self-perpetuating subgroup of humans, defined by skin color and a certain morphology, but that also affects behavior and (some argue) thought itself. Anybody who accuses (e.g.) Clarence Thomas of "acting white" passionately believes in race-determinism.

This seems accurate to most people; but I simply don't believe in different "races" of Man: The morphology is inconsistent and its connection with behavior and thought is utterly spurious.

It is absolutely true that skin color and morphology are not determinate of behavior or ideology. But it is absolutely false to say that one must hold a belief in such determinism in order to be racist.

[Before we go further, a warning: this is a long post. And it does not address the totality of Dafydd's post; I don't take on his (badly misguided) account of culture, for instance. It has a narrower focus: disproving that not believing in biologically determinate races necessarily makes one "not racist".]

It is notable that Dafydd doesn't provide a definition of racist -- something quite essential to the supposed proof that believing the above proposition (we'll call it proposition X) is a necessary condition for being racist. If "racist" was defined as "anyone who votes Republican" (what I imagine the frustrated GOPer seems to believe is the effective definition for many folks), then not believing X would be quite consistent with being racist. Of course, "voting Republican" is a bad definition of racist. But that just illustrates the need to give a solid definition of racism -- then we can figure out whether disbelief of X necessarily immunizes one to it.

So let's try and nail down what "racism" means. Dafydd doesn't seem to deny that there can be such thing as a racist, he just denies the existence of "races" as he defines them. This indicates that he believes there can be racists in a world where, as a matter of objective fact, there are no "races". The implication is that a "racist" is one who (falsely) believes that there are such things as biological races. This would complete Dafydd's syllogism nicely: Believing in the existence of "races" is not just necessary to be a racist, it is what it means to be racist. If X is necessary and sufficient to be racist, then not-X means not racist. Hurray!

So what's the problem? Well, several, but here's the first: Very few people define "racist" in this way. Racism is generally not thought to be an identifier of (even false) descriptive affiliations (akin to being a "flat-earther"). Rather, it is generally taken to involve certain normative commitments; namely, treating certain (other races) as inferior, or otherwise rejecting the rights and freedom of people on basis of their perceived racial affiliation. Of course, belief in innate behavioral differences between the races is plausibly taken to be highly correlated with such differential treatment. But they're not the same thing, and it is important to be clear about what the actual problem is. Presuming that Clarence Thomas has a normative obligation to hold certain beliefs because he is Black is racist. Presuming that Clarence Thomas washes his kinky hair less often than I do my straight hair is not (even if my supposition is incorrect).

Once we put that view of "racism" on the table, then the shortcomings of Dafydd's logic become quite apparent. We can imagine someone who cheerfully admits the following:

I fully accept that there are no inherent biological differences amongst the "races"; skin color and morphological differences have no bearing on either behavior or ideology. Nonetheless, I still do not believe that people with certain skin colors and/or morphological features, or their blood descendants, should have the right to vote. It's just a prejudice I have. Besides, restricting voting rights to persons with my skin color and morphology means my vote has proportionally more influence -- restricting voting rights along those lines is in my self-interest.

Would anybody hesitate to label this "racist"? Hopefully not, even though the espoused ideology is in no way dependent on racial biological determinism. At the end of the day, we are agnostic as to why a person believes that socio-political benefits should be distributed in ways that track morphology -- we just think it's bad, and criticize accordingly. A hint that this view is correct is how you reacted when you read the word "prejudice". Taking Dafydd's view for all its worth, "it's just a prejudice" would be an argument that what we're dealing with isn't racism, but simple insanity -- a normative stance completely devoid of rational reasons backing it up. But for most of us, "prejudice" is signal pointing towards racism, not its absence. Racism is the expressed normative view, not the putative factual accounts (or lack thereof) backing it up.

Seems like a small outlier? Alright, let's push it a step further. Presumably, part of what is driving Dafydd's intuition is that the only reason one would hold the above normative commitments is if one already has some account of "other races" to treat differently, the very premise Dafydd rejects. Yes, we can imagine someone who is cheerfully agnostic to this question, but surely by and large he's right.

Except not, or at least not necessarily. Now the problem comes in the restrictive definition Dafydd gives to "race" (biological determinants of behavior). I'd argue that most scholars wouldn't define "race" this way, at least not anymore. The general view on race nowadays is that it is a socially constructed form of categorization that has no biological basis, but which has historically and contemporaneously been used as a method for distributing socio-political benefits and burdens (by "socio-political" I mean to encompass both legal rights, like voting, and also social treatment, like stereotyping -- such as Justice Thomas being accused of "acting White" -- or suburban "White flight". I also include economic discrimination, like redlining and employment discrimination.). This definition is perfectly consistent with Dafydd's rejection of proposition X.

The history of race in America is one in which such benefits and burdens were so distributed. The category doesn't depend on whatever faux-biological rationales were originally given for it. A mistaken biological belief may have gotten the ball rolling, but now it has its own momentum. Indeed, while I'm willing to concede arguendo that race gained its original salience through bad scientific beliefs, I don't have to: We can imagine a situation where elites conspired to simply make up biological racial determinism and spread it amongst the people to justify enacting racist policies, never actually believing it themselves (highly unlikely), or where people deluded themselves into believing in biological racial determinism as an ex post facto way of rationalizing the creation of a state of affairs they'd otherwise consider to be unjust (far more likely). Both permutations demonstrate the unnecessary nature of a metaphysical underpinning for a race to have salience.

So if race doesn't correspond to a real biological thing, what is race? Simple: Race is race; that is, race is that which we have described as and made policy based upon its identification as race. There is nothing but the edifice. That it turns out there is no biology underlying the whole deal doesn't cause the schema to snap out of existence, it just emphasizes that there is nothing beneath the construct.

Race can be thought of as an building. Perhaps some unenlightened people would think that the building was a natural feature of the world; there from creation. As it turns out, we know that it was, quite literally, socially constructed. But that constructed quality (distinguished from being metaphysically grounded) doesn't make any less "real". Calling out the building as being "constructed" doesn't itself do anything; it doesn't cause the edifice to come crashing down, it has very little effect on whatever social or political arrangements have developed around the building. Same with concepts. Whether the categorization schema continues to have salience ("as a method for distributing socio-political benefits") is completely divorced from whether the belief that originally motivated its creation was ever factually correct, whether anyone still holds it today, indeed, whether anyone ever genuinely held the view at all. Call it a simulacrum, call it hyperreality -- big words for a not-actually-that-controversial position. Now let's be clear, it could be that the categorization system of race no longer does have salience. Buildings don't last forever; the point of the analogy is simply that you have to do work beyond a mere expression of disbelief to bring them down. Whether race continues to have salience in the distribution of socio-political benefits and burdens, as it had done for many, many years, is an empirical question.

That was a tragically long diversion: I apologize. So let's circle back to the supposed topic of the post: the possibility of being racist without believing in biological racial determinism. What we've accomplished is clarifying our terms. "Race" is not a descriptor mapping onto any brute biological race, race is a socially constructed categorization schema which at at least some historical point salience as a manner of distributing socio-political benefits and burdens, one that has no content but that which we've created for it (which doesn't mean we can simply declare, ala Santa Claus, our disbelief in it to make it disappear). Empirically, we then have to look to see if the system still is active -- if we still do, in fact, distribute benefits and burdens in way that tracks the lines the system draws. The evidence here is overwhelmingly that yes we do; this post is too long already for me to elaborate beyond that.

And what is a racist? I'd say a concept or argument or behavior is racist if it causes or reinforces unequal inegalitarian distribution of benefits and burdens on racial lines. It's not any descriptive beliefs, it's not the mere usage of race, it's not even the existence of the category -- it's the perpetuation of inequality on lines tracking the category. Calling a person racist probably means they have a normative commitment to such a state of affairs; the question, really, is at what level of knowledge we demand: to borrow from criminal law, is it intent, knowledge, recklessness, negligence, or absolute liability? I can't resolve that question.

I will say this: people, including people who believe themselves to be non-racist, act in ways that discriminate on basis of race -- they adhere to the categorization schema. The literature on subconscious racism is overwhelming in this respect. Regardless of whether we label them "racist" or not, what is clear is that the cognitive state of believing that race "doesn't exist", or believing oneself not to be racist, has very little to do with whether the categorization system of race maintains its salience; assuming that one has an obligation to be anti-racism, not just "not racist", this is a damning moral flaw. More likely, trying to restrict the field of racism so narrowly to outdated questions of biological determinism is generally a signal that one is unwilling to look at the question in its full breadth or depth, meaning that one is unlikely to have much of an effect on dissipating it.

So here are the conclusions:

(1) Logically, it is pretty much just wrong to say that a belief in biological racial determinism is necessary to be a racist, unless your definition of racist simply is "one who believes that";

(2) The likelihood that someone who does not hold that belief is a "racist" is highly dependent on our definition of racism; and

(3) There is virtually no reason to believe that not believing in racial biological determinism will do anything to break down the continued salience of race as a categorization schema, which to my mind is a far more pressing issue than whether we get to use the word "racist" or not.

Timmy, Please

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, widely viewed as a rising GOP star, has a plan for getting the budget back into balance:

Balancing the budget will require some tough decisions. Congress must reduce discretionary spending in real terms, with exceptions for key programs such as military, veterans, and public safety. The Congress must also reject costly new spending initiatives, like new health care entitlements.

There is, alas, a problem:

Someone needs to tell Pawlenty that discretionary spending except for "military, veterans, and public safety" is less than $400 billion a year. A real reduction of, say 10 percent (a ridiculous amount but use it for simplicity sake) would save a little more than $40 billion from the baseline and that doesn't come close to doing what needs to be done.

Finish us off, Matt Yglesias:

If I were planning on running for election, I might not be comfortable saying “to deal with the long-term federal budget deficit we need higher taxes and we need to slow the growth of Medicare spending.” But if you’re not willing to say “we need higher taxes and we need to slow the growth of Medicare spending” then you shouldn’t run around talking about the long-term federal budget deficit. There’s really nothing else to say about it.

Fictive Republican budget hawkery strikes again!

TNC on Senator Reid

Count me in the camp of folks who think Senator Reid's comments were clearly racially insensitive, but not a "racial slur". "Negro" as a referent to African-Americans is the sort of thing you say if you're totally out of touch with racial progress over the past, oh, 50 years. It's how you 75 year old great uncle from rural Kansas would put it -- he doesn't mean harm by it, he's just entirely clueless. Now, don't get me wrong, this is a bad thing -- we want our senators to have a better finger on the pulse of America's citizenry than that, and it's worrisome when they don't. But there is a qualitative difference between being that sort of person, and, say, endorsing White supremacy.

A point Ta-Nehisi Coates makes quite well:

Claiming that Harry Reid's comments are the same [as Lott's], is like claiming that referring to Jews as "Hebrews" is the same as endorsing Nazism. Whereas a reputable portion of black people still use the term Negro without a hint of irony, no black person thinks the guy yelling "Segregation Forever!" would have cured us of "all these problems."

Leaving aside political cynicism, this entire affair proves that the GOP is not simply still infected with the vestiges of white supremacy and racism, but is neither aware of the infection, nor understands the disease. Listening to Liz Cheney explain why Harry Reid's comments were racist, was like listening to me give lessons on the finer points of the comma splice. This a party, rightly or wrongly, regarded by significant portions of the country as a haven for racists. They aren't simply having a hard time re-branding, they don't actually understand how and why they got the tag.

These guys are lost. But Michael Steele's "off the hook" strategy will, presumably, point the way back. Not for nothing, I offer the wise and venerable words of my people: Negro, please.

As I've come to realize, they really believe this shit. They genuinely think that this is how racial politics work. And they are going to be woefully disappointed when the Black community doesn't respond they way the GOP expects them to.

Or perhaps alternatively, this isn't about Black people at all. This isn't about trying to level the playing field in terms of competing for Black voters. This is about blurring the line for White voters, relying on the widespread White misconception of what racism is and what is and is not racism to think that Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same (because canvassing the Black community on the matter is, of course, out of the question).