It Turns Out Taxes are Uncertain Too

The folks at Verum Serum decided to call out TNR's Jon Chait for supposed hypocrisy, after he flagged poll results indicating that the American people think the rich don't pay enough in taxes. You see, Jon Chait also was outraged (or Isaac Chotiner -- but probably Chait too) "threw a hissy fit" regarding Sarah Palin's "death panel" nonsense. But here, they argue, Chait is relying on those same ignorant viewpoints he previously condemned. Doesn't he know that the rich actually pay the far and away largest share of American income taxes?

Oh, boy, this is going to be good. Anytime Chait gets the chance to throw down with smug idiots who think they got game, I break out the popcorn. And he doesn't disappoint.

Chait kind of eviscerates the post on every angle, but I want to focus on one thing in particular. The VS authors seem not to understand the difference between facts and values. The death panel claim was factually incorrect. The claim "the rich don't pay enough in taxes" cannot be factually correct or incorrect -- it is a subjective value judgment. This isn't to say facts can't play a role in forming normative judgments, only that they never inherently support one side over the other. It is entirely plausible to notice that the rich (defined as they are in the studies in question) pay 70% of total federal income taxes, and still say they should pay more. It's particularly plausible when one notes that the rich make over 50% of America's total income. Let's keep repeating this for the slow folks in the class: in any society with income stratification and percentage-based income taxation (including a flat tax) the rich will pay a higher percentage of the total income tax receipts than anyone else. That's not a shortcoming in the system design, that's a product of elementary mathematics.

VS offers a remarkably weak-sauce response that, to the extent it proffers an argument, claims that Chait is advancing falsehoods because if people knew the facts about tax rates, they wouldn't hold the subjective opinions that they do. Chait says there's virtually no reason to think this is true, and I agree -- as I noted above, there is a perfectly compelling story where -- taking into account the share of wealth owned by the wealthiest 20%, a preference for a progressive tax structure, and a desire to counteract regressive state tax structures -- the wealthiest 20% paying a 70% share of taxes is perfectly sensible or, indeed, too small of a share. I'm not saying that's the only plausible inference from the facts, but the VS folks are effectively saying the opposite, and that's simply not feasible. It's almost definitely true that most Americans don't know the specifics of federal tax rates or distributions. But it is hardly the case that knowledge of these specifics would compel a change in belief, even from a ideal deliberative standpoint.

That the VS folks believe the facts to so obviously compel one normative outcome, even as other folks believe (with equal fervor) that the same facts point to a completely opposite normative stance, is explainable based on a popular misconception of how facts aid political deliberation. Generally, we believe that as people learn more facts about a given subject, their policy beliefs on the subject will begin to converge. The idea makes sense: learning more means dispelling inaccurate stereotypes and prejudices; as information is attained, people begin discarding stances that don't fit the facts and instead adopt those which do.

Unfortunately, as research by Dan Kahan and others indicates, the opposite is usually true (Professor Kahan actually delivered a lecture at Chicago today on this very topic). Providing additional facts and information doesn't cause policy convergence, it causes policy polarization. The reason is that most fact patterns contain narratives, inferences, and interpretations which plausibly can be deployed to support diverse policy positions. People accordingly interpret the information they receive in manners which support their prior dispositions, only now they feel more comfortable in these beliefs because they have "facts" to back them up. Given this latent ambiguity, there is no incentive to agree, and lots of psychological incentives to latch on to friendly fact stories in order to preserve ones preexisting beliefs.

Fundamentally, one cannot bridge the fact/value division here. It is true that I do, in fact, support higher taxes on the wealthy, and part of my reasons have to do with the above factual account I gave (wealthy earn a higher share of the income, state tax systems are often regressive), mixed with some value positions (progressive tax schemes are good). But I would never claim that the above factual account mandates the policy positions I hold, because that would be nonsense -- if you have different values than I do, the same facts will carry entirely different meaning.* Facts matter, but at bottom what really matters are subjective value preferences.

So to be clear, the reason Chait is right and the VS folks are wrong isn't because the facts prove his policy prescriptions correct. The facts don't prove anything by themselves; they are vessels for attaining our value preferences. Chait is correct because he recognizes that tax policy is a value judgment and thus opinions about it exist on a fundamentally different plane than purely factual claims like Sarah Palin's imaginary death panels.

* Professor Kahan related an amusing story on this. Regarding a study he published on differing interpretations of facts surrounding the HPV vaccine debate, he cited a blogger who reported the study and then said it showed why some conservatives opposed the vaccine: "they're biased -- they just interpret the facts to support a preexisting worldview!" Of course, Professor Kahan noted, the point of the study is that this is how everyone evaluates facts -- the people who support vaccination are as "guilty" of it as the opponents -- and the errant blogger was a perfect illustration of that very theory: s/he interpreted the text presented in such a way as to verify prior intuitions, even though it actually contained no such normative force.

UPDATE: At TMV, I adopted this post to focus more specifically on the inability of increased information to give us the fabled convergence towards "moderate" policies.

Lieberman to Lead on DADT Repeal

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has announced he will be the sponsor of legislation repealing the military's risible "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy forbidding openly gay soldiers from serving their country in the armed forces. Now, Sen. Lieberman has annoyed the hell out of me in recent years, but fair is fair -- he's doing the right thing here, and I have no problem recognizing that.

Now, I unfortunately can't say I share John Cole's optimism about the impact of Lieberman's announcement:

I know I am going to be accused of hippie punching and gay bashing, but a certain someone has been claiming for months this is how this was going to happen. Let the military get out in front and be agents of change, neutering Republican opposition, and then let the Democrat who the Republicans simply can’t attack as anti-military propose the bill. And with the public showing great support for repeal, it will pass, Ike Skelton be damned.

This might have been a good strategic move or not, but let's not deceive ourselves with the one "Democrat who the Republicans simply can't attack as anti-military" business. Of course they can attack Lieberman as anti-military. They can attack anyone as anti-military. They're already attacking the military leadership as anti-military -- why on earth would Joe Lieberman be immune.

I think we're going to win the DADT battle. Aside from the bent of the arc of history and all that jazz, the polls are strongly in our favor as well. But let's not kid ourselves. The GOP pitches a fit over any proposal to allow gays and lesbians equal status as American citizens. There is no reason to suspect they'll do any different here.

Man's Last Stand

With the announced addition of women's boxing to the summer Olympics (which Cuba will not partake in), ski jumping stands alone as the final sport in the Olympics without gender parity. The reason? Well, there really isn't one: just a parade of sexist non-sense which should embarrass any remotely egalitarian individual.

Good Luck, Man

Alas points me to the comics of Keith Knight, including this one of famed hockey enforcer Georges Laraque.



The video referenced is here, and yeah, it's pretty hilarious:

You Gotta Throw an Elbow Sometimes

I have no idea if this will work or even accomplishes anything useful, but I have to think it got the bank's attention:

Hoskins said he's been in a struggle with RiverHills Bank over his Clermont County home for nearly a decade, a struggle that was coming to an end as the bank began foreclosure proceedings on his $350,000 home.

"When I see I owe $160,000 on a home valued at $350,000, and someone decides they want to take it – no, I wasn't going to stand for that, so I took it down," Hoskins said.
[...]
Hoskins said he'd gotten a $170,000 offer from someone to pay off the house, but the bank refused, saying they could get more from selling it in foreclosure.

Hoskins told News 5's Courtis Fuller that he issued the bank an ultimatum.

"I'll tear it down before I let you take it," Hoskins told them.

And that's exactly what Hoskins did.

Sometimes, one elbow is enough. Here -- I'm doubtful.

Very Targeted Assassinations

One major shift we've seen from the Bush to Obama administration is an increase in targeted strikes successfully killing al-Qaeda terrorists. Most people consider this a good thing, though a few die-hard Obama haters are annoyed that we aren't capturing and sending them to Gitmo instead. But by and large, we consider this an example of a step forward in the war against al-Qaeda.

The recent assassination of Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, possibly (though not assuredly) at the hands of Israel, has not raised similar cries of pleasure. Indeed, it seems to be seen as some sort of mini-scandal. This despite the fact that this manner of eliminating a known terrorist resulted in precisely zero civilian casualties, property damage, or serious negative effect whatsoever. I seriously object to some of the policies endorsed here, but Sonny Bunch has a point when he writes:

I mean, look, I’m all in favor of lobbing missiles at terrorists from airplanes; it’d be nice to capture them alive and get some info out of them via harsh interrogations, but a Tomahawk up the keister works just as well as far as I’m concerned. But then you get all the hemming and hawing about “Oh, we’re just creating more terrorists when we accidentally kill an innocent bystander.” Well, there’s none of that here, is there? The guy was traced to his hotel room, zapped with a stun gun, and smothered to death. Quick and easy. If only all terrorists could meet the same fate.

I don't endorse torturing anybody, and I don't endorse recklessly lobbing missiles at terrorists without regard to the surrounding civilian population (though that doesn't mean no collateral damage is acceptable). Nonetheless, from within the framework folks say they judge Israel within (accepting its right to self-defense, but urging it to do more to avoid collective punishment and civilian hardship), this really was the ideal killing. At least, Alan Dershowitz writes, that was seemingly Judge Goldstone's view on things:

The Goldstone report suggests that Israel cannot lawfully fight Hamas rockets by wholesale air attacks. Richard Goldstone, in his interviews, has suggested that Israel should protect itself from these unlawful attacks by more proportionate retail measures, such as commando raids and targeted killing of terrorists engaged in the firing of rockets. Well, there could be no better example of a proportionate, retail and focused attack on a combatant who was deeply involved in the rocket attacks on Israel, than the killing of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. Not only was Mabhouh the commander in charge of Hamas' unlawful military actions at the time of his death, he was also personally responsible for the kidnapping and coldblooded murder of two Israeli soldiers several years earlier.

Not putting any words in Judge Goldstone's mouth -- he may have no problem with the killing of Mr. Mabhouh -- but the global community hardly seems to be taking this stance. One gets the distinct sense it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Broomball Roundup

They play with weak-sauce rules here at Chicago, but I'm just excited to retake the ice.

* * *

Early reports of a possible coup attempt in Niger.

Crazed South Carolina state Rep. wants to eliminate the use of US currency in his state.

Given that I don't drink at all, I found Alyssa Rosenberg's story of how she learned to drink surprisingly fascinating. Then again, she is just a really good writer.

BBC interviewee: One million Jews are secretly available to aid Mossad assassins.

Phoebe Maltz says she's too tired to give thoughts on the Wieseltier/Sullivan quasi-anti-Semitism throw-down, but even her exhausted contribution is pretty spot-on. Still, you should scope the older, longer version.

It must be tough being a news writer who can't even rely on he said/she said. Sometimes, one side is just wrong.

Whaling protesters as pirates?

This strikes me as pretty thin gruel in terms of a benefit for joining the UNHRC.

Israeli foreign ministry apologizes for snubbing J Street-linked American Congressman. This is yet another case of Deputy FM Danny Ayalon unilaterally embarrassing his country.

A Loose Coalition of Arguments

Stephen Walt makes an interesting two-step in defending his claims regarding the "Israel Lobby's" influence in getting America to go to war in Iraq. First, he dilutes the hypothesis so much that it ceases to have virtually any normative punch, but becomes descriptively banal. Then, having established that banality, he dresses it back up as something shocking, disturbing, and pernicious, for which we should be thankful to have bold truthsayers like Walt pulling back the curtain.

The first thing Walt does is blur together necessary and sufficient conditions. He asks us to consider what Andrew Sullivan calls a "powerful counter-factual":

What if Bush and Cheney had independently dreamed up the idea of invading Iraq after 9/11, but the plan was openly questioned by Israel, AIPAC, the Conference of Presidents, and the ADL, on the grounds that it might lead to a quagmire and maybe even strengthen Iran? What if these groups had openly opposed the war, or just quietly pushed for an genuine debate on different options, or simply remained on the sidelines and let members of Congress know that they had their doubts? What if their counsels of restraint had been reinforced by similarly prudent advice from respected think-tanks like the Saban Center at Brookings, the American Enterprise Institute or the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP)? What if staunchly pro-Israel pundits like Charles Krauthammer, Max Boot, Kenneth Pollack, Jeffrey Goldberg, and Thomas Friedman, among others, had spent 2002 raising questions about the wisdom of an attack, or arguing as passionately against the war as they did in favor of it? It's possible that Bush & Co. still might have been able to stampede the country to war, but surely it would have been much harder.

In other words, if a large quantity of important beltway players supporting the Iraq War had taken the opposite stance, the push for war would have been considerably more difficult. Ladies and gentleman, consider my mind officially blown. It never occurred to me that major reversals in political support would have political consequences. Of course, one can tell the same story about, inter alia, the Evangelical right, or the congressional Republican leadership. Nobody disputes that "neoconservatives" (who are not synonymous with "the Israel Lobby" -- particularly given the expansive definition Walt provides that I'll discuss below) were in favor of the war in Iraq. What's supposed to be controversial is that they were essentially sufficient to get America to go to war. A claim that they were a necessary part of the pro-war coalition is utterly banal. If important elements of the pro-war coalition were not, in fact, pro-war, the pro-war position would suffer. Yes, duh. Can I get a book deal now?

Now let's go to Walt's, shall we say, expansive definition of the Israel Lobby. It isn't just formal lobbying organizations like AIPAC. Nope, it is

a "loose coalition" of individuals and groups that actively works to promote and defend the "special relationship" between the United States and Israel (i.e., the policy of generous and unconditional U.S. support). Having a favorable view of Israel or generally pro-Israel attitude doesn't make someone part of the Israel lobby; to qualify, a person or group has to devote a significant portion of time, effort or money to promoting that "special relationship."

You may note that this definition is amorphous to the point of incoherency. A "special relationship" isn't the same thing as a policy of "unconditional U.S. support". Many of the folks he characterizes as unquestionably part of The Lobby would, I think, hotly dispute that they are in favor of "unconditional support" for Israel. To "devote a significant portion of time, effort or money" to promote this vague vision is a standard begging for scholarly manipulation.

Indeed, as best I can tell, this standard is just double-speak for "people who publicly advocate views on Israel Stephen Walt disagrees with". It hardly restricts itself to uncritical allies of Israel -- elsewhere in the piece Walt completely gives up the ghost by characterizing J Street and Americans for Peace Now as part of The Lobby under this definition. Now, I speak as a staunch supporter of J Street when I point out that there is no conceivable world in which it is uniformly uncritical of Israel. That is, bluntly, a bizarre claim. If everyone to the right of Jewish Voice for Peace (which is, literally, where Walt places the border) who speaks out on Israel is part of the Israel Lobby, the term encompasses nearly the totality of the American Jewish community. A community which, we might point out, was disproportionately opposed to the Iraq War.

Third, even conceding that it makes sense to speak of the Israel Lobby in Walt's broad, messy brushstrokes, he still falls into a trap we've seen before: that folks who hold a particular set of views on Israel (that Walt finds distasteful) can't possibly hold any other policy positions. Everything that they say, do, or advocate for has to stem, ultimately, from determinations of Israel's best interest. And that's clearly false (and offensive). The absolute most generous interpretation of Walt's evidence is establishing a correlation between Israel Lobby views and support for the Iraq War. But this doesn't imply any sort of causation, and as Andrew Sullivan himself noted, in 2003 he'd have qualified as part of the Israel Lobby under Walt's definition, yet his support had nothing to do with Israel in all "but a peripheral sense." At most, Sullivan writes, "Israel was one factor, if one of the least prominent ones, in their [the neo-conservatives] case."

And Walt's essentially concedes this. Turning back to the testimony of Tony Blair which sparked this debate in the first place, he writes:

I made it clear in my post that Blair's comments were not a "smoking gun" that proved we were right, and I neither suggested nor implied that Blair's testimony demonstrated that Bush went to war at Israel's urging or to accommodate the Israel lobby. I merely noted that Blair had said that concerns about Israel were part of the discussion, and that Israeli officials were consulted as part of the conversation. Indeed, after summarizing Blair's testimony, I wrote:

Notice that Blair is not saying that Israel dreamed up the idea of attacking Iraq or that Bush was bent on war solely to benefit Israel or even to appease the Israel lobby here at home. But Blair is acknowledging that concerns about Israel were part of the equation, and that the Israeli government was being actively consulted in the planning for the war."

Yeah, that's pretty peripheral if you ask me. Indeed, to characterize this as even remotely mendacious is absurd. "Concerns about Israel were part of the equation"! You're kidding me! You're telling me that, in determining whether to take a relatively major foreign policy operation (say, invading a country), we including in our deliberations considerations about how the shockwaves would affect regional entities particularly vulnerable to the reverberations? How irresponsible! Clearly, the only patriotic approach is to adopt an appropriate, devil-may-care attitude to how launching a war would affect other countries in the region.

So what are we left with. It's hard to say, mostly because the inconsistent definition Walt provides for the Israel Lobby defies cohesive analysis. But at worst, we have (1) Actors who take certain views on Israel that Walt finds disagreeable (2) were part of a pro-war political coalition, which would (naturally) suffer if they weren't part of it (which is somewhat implicit in the notion of a coalition) (3) whose support for the war seems to have stemmed from policy stances entirely independent of their views on Israel but (4) may have acted to insure that Israeli concerns were "part of the equation" in the deliberations over war.

Shocking.

February Blues Roundup

I've been feeling very tired these past few weeks -- both physically and academically. Someone said I had the "February blues", which depresses me (paradox!) because I like February. I find winter to be a beautiful season, and February contains my birthday.

Anyway, I think I might be snapping out of it a little. So that's good.

* * *

Write your very own incendiary blog post

Is Citizens United the perfect wedge issue for Democrats? Answer: Only if they can muster the balls to really take on corporate power.

More race-baiting in the 9th congressional district. Fortunately, this electorate in this district has proven itself against these sorts of campaign tactics -- though Cohen's opponent poses easily the toughest challenge of his congressional career.

New Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell (R) reverses non-discrimination protections for gay state workers.

Fortunately, the American people are moving in the right direction on gay rights.

And the Jewish Council on Public Affairs is also set to endorse DADT repeal.

Arizona's proposed rule barring all use of foreign or religious law in state court adjudication is unbelievably stupid.

Jon Chait eviscerates the principle-less Harold Ford.

What drives the tea party movement? The fact that affluent conservative White men don't like President Obama or his policies. Wow -- shocking political development.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT): 9/11 troofer?

And THIS is How You Repay Us?

The former premier of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad -- a key player in the red-brown-green alliance uniting over anti-Semitism -- got some negative press coverage recently for a speech in which, among other things, he said the following:

Jews “had always been a problem in European countries. They had to be confined to ghettoes and periodically massacred. But still they remained, they thrived and they held whole governments to ransom,” Mahathir said.

“Even after their massacre by the Nazis of Germany, they survived to continue to be a source of even greater problems for the world.”

A Malaysian paper reported on the remarks, but accidentally omitted "in European countries". An incensed Mr. Mohamad wrote a letter to the editor correcting the mistake, and adding the following:

I would like to point out that in the past when Europeans confined (the Jews) to ghettos, and periodically massacred (them), they used to seek refuge in Muslim countries (of North Africa and the Ottoman empire).

They couldn't have gone there if Muslim countries were less hospitable than the Europeans. Even today, Jews live in Muslim countries including in Iran. It was only after the US welcomed the Jews that they ceased to migrate to Muslim countries.

For the hospitality of the Muslim countries, they were repaid by the Zionists by seizing Palestine to create the state of Israel. Not content with seizing Arab land, they went on to expel the largely Muslim Palestinian [sic].

All that I say here can be verified by the history books of Europe. If Muslims are antagonistic towards the Jews today, it is because of the way the Jews repaid them for their hospitality.

As Judeosphere put it: "So, to clarify—we control the world and we’re ingrates."

It is quite true that many Muslim nations were more hospitable to Jews than their European colleagues throughout the last millenia (though not for all of it, and certainly they still weren't treated as equals). One might note, however, that hundreds of thousands of Jews felt it necessary to flee these countries in the mid-20th century, as that "hospitality" turned with astounding rapidity into rabid, genocidal hatred. Indicating, perhaps, that this wasn't exactly a paradise of equality to begin with.

Regardless, I think it is quite telling that this is all presented as a favor done to the Jewish people -- something we should be grateful for. "Yeah ... we tried not massacring Jews at the first opportunity, and the bastards still complained about unfair treatment! See if we ever make that mistake again!"

As obviously abhorrent as such a stance is, I think there are two elements to it that need to be teased out and given emphasis. The first is how clearly it indicates the danger of such things as a "one-state" solution. Mr. Mohamad's argument, in essence, is that they (Muslims) tried being nice to the Jews, and they've proven they can't be trusted. Given that outlook, it is pretty apparent that reverting to a situation in which Jews are under foreign domination is one unlikely to be result in the (largely mythical) equal treatment that Mr. Mohamad now considers failed policy. Second, it demonstrates the thinness of Mr. Mohamad's conception of just treatment of Jews. Anything that extends beyond "periodic massacres" is "hospitality" -- not even something Jews can demand as of right, but a favor that we should be grateful for. From within that framework, is it any wonder that even relatively basic, fundamental human rights claims made by Jews are looked upon with disdain by Mr. Mohamad and his cohort? It's way beyond what Jews have any right to claim. Pushy Jews -- we give and give and give, and they still want things like self-determination. Schmucks.

More Jewish than the Jews, Take 43

The legal questions in this case (via), involving a restraining order preventing a Catholic father from exposing his daughter to non-Jewish religious influences (the mother is Jewish), are extremely complex, and raise a number of tough issues from both a moral and doctrinal point of view. That being said, I feel perfectly free in calling the father a dick for his snotty supersessionist view of the Christian-Jewish relationship.

"Catholicism falls right under the umbrella of Judaism."

A court is scheduled to rule today on whether or not Reyes violated the temporary restraining order barring him from "exposing his daughter to any other religion than the Jewish religion" for 30 days. While the restraining order is highly unusual, Reyes obviously knew he wasn't supposed to take her to church, even if he was, "taking her to hear the teachings of perhaps the most prominent Jewish rabbi in the history of this great planet of ours."

Seriously -- can Christians stop doing this? Catholicism is not "under the umbrella of Judaism" -- a particularly obnoxious claim given the centuries we have spent under the jackboot of Catholicism (and Protestantism, to be fair).

We're separate religions. There are some commonalities of tradition. But Judaism and Christianity are, at this point, quite distinct. And more importantly, given the degree to which Christian anti-Semitic oppression has historically flowed from supersessionist ideology, it's really important for Christians who purport to be interested in egalitarian interfaith dynamics to back off this appropriation, and let us have our independent space.

Palin's a Partisan? No!

The CNN link currently reads as "Ticker: Palin gives surprising advice". But the advice itself really isn't that surprising:

"Now the smart thing will be for independents who are such a part of this Tea Party movement to, I guess, kind of start picking a party," Palin said at an Arkansas GOP fundraising event Tuesday, according to CBS News.

"Which party reflects how that smaller, smarter government steps to be taken? Which party will best fit you? And then because the Tea Party movement is not a party, and we have a two-party system, they're going to have to pick a party and run one or the other: 'R' or 'D'."

Trying to get the tea party movement to integrate itself in the Republican Party makes perfect sense for someone who is trying to be the new leader of the Republican Party. More people makes the GOP more powerful. More people who are specifically and notably sympathetic to Gov. Palin in the Republican Party is clearly in Palin's interest. What on earth could possibly be surprising about this?

It's Like Living in a Dadaist Hell

For someone who really thinks policy discussions and political deliberations, this exemplifies why I have so much trouble following the path of debate anymore. I mean, what's the point? It's so utterly disconnected from reality -- or even the day before -- that I'd go insane even trying.

It's Just Not Coming To Me

I have a terrible case of writer's block. I'm sorry -- I'm really at a loss. I'm not even seeing roundup material.

Ron Paul Mourns Loss of Great Anti-Semite

Adam Holland has the story. Paul has always attracted fringe figures in American politics -- some because they're just strange, some because they're genuinely dangerous. Suffice to say, the pro-Paul movement comes at the expense of Jewish safety in the United States.

Bayh Retires

I have a speechwriter friend who I guess is now out of a job. Senator Bayh is blaming excessive partisanship as his reason for departure. Kos calls bullshit, but I don't know -- I think that Bayh simply didn't know how to adjust to the current legislative climate where Republicans are willing to block everything, and didn't really care to learn. Regardless, this sets up a very tough hold for the Big D Machine.

Your Parts Seem To Check Out. Marry Me?

After being turned down in her effort to marry her long-time partner, Kitty Lambert turned to the crowd and asked any willing man to step forward and marry her. A gay man agreed, they presented the proper documentation, and voila! Marriage.

I'm pretty sure this was staged, but it's still a pretty vivid demonstration of the sex discrimination element latent in anti-gay marriage laws.

Tee-Hee-Hee

Ta-Nehisi Coates has an important update on the "lynch Holder" post I linked to earlier.

Happy Valentine's Day, Jill!

Some advice at handling your lawyer beau.

I've Lost Top Billing

But it was time, and this was important.

For a long, long time, this was the top post if you searched "fuck you google". It was a response to Google Maps pinpointing a location in Virginia when you searched "Maryland" (they've fixed the problem).

This post, about Google's new "Buzz" product, at Fugitivus is also titled "Fuck you, Google". Now I found Buzz a mix of perplexing and annoying, so I pretty quickly turned it off. But what was a minor aggravation for me, was a serious threat to her, as it essentially involuntarily passed on private (or semi-private) data towards people that the author might not have wanted to see it. Like her abusive ex-husband. Or her abusive ex-husband's friends. Or creepy blog-stalkers. To be sure, Google has now taken steps to mitigate the damage, but not all of the harm can be put back in the box.

Her post is now tops on the "fuck you google" search. And quite deserved. For as incensed as I may get over disrespect towards my home state, being reckless with the lives of one's customers is clearly a leap and bound beyond that. Privacy on the internet is nothing to be trifled with -- you don't know why someone chooses to hide or reveal what they do. Google wasn't thinking, and while I'd like to say they paid the price, they really didn't. Some of their most vulnerable customers did.

Quiet Riot Roundup

Yesterday was the birthday, tonight is the celebration. Not sure about the lack of blogging though -- it's not like I was busy.

* * *

Right-wing mob urges the lynching of Attorney General Eric Holder -- ironically, because Holder wants to uphold rule of law.

The Winter Olympics start tonight, and Ghana will be representing for the first time.

In sadder news, a Georgian luger died hours before the opening ceremonies in a crash during a practice run.

Voters like gays and lesbians; homosexuals, less so.

Liberal Democrat (UK) MP Baroness Jenny Tonge was sacked from a high profile party position after demanding Israel undertake investigations of completely unsubstantiated allegations of organ theft in Haiti.

Meanwhile, this is a good post on the longevity and impressive staying power of organ theft rumors (not just about Jews or Israelis).

Jews face the highest rate of hate crimes of any religious group in the United States (Blacks are the most targeted overall).

A Tennessee Muslim community is the subject of a sensationalist CBS report questioning whether it is a secret terrorist training facility. It isn't, but gets hit with vandalism anyway in its wake.

It's nice that Glenn Beck disavowed 9/11 troofer-flirting candidate Gloria Medina, but to call it impressive would be to lower our expectations bar underground.

Hedging Hollywood -- a brilliant scheme to induce bad filmmakers to actively try and make their movies worse.

Another Birthday Present!

David Schraub, Comment, The Price of Victory: Political Triumphs and Judicial Protection in the Gay Rights Movement, 77 U. Chi. L. Rev. __ (forthcoming 2010).

Today ... is an Ass-Picious Day

February 11th is a surprisingly prominent date in global affairs. Nelson Mandela was freed from prison February 11th, 1990 (Buster Douglas knocked out Mike Tyson that same day). The Shah of Iran fell February 11th, 1979 (the Iranian regime is dealing with protests today as a result). I, as noted, was born on the date, 1986. And you know who else shares my lovely birthday?

Sarah freakin' Palin, that's who.

Fortunately, I received a present to her lump of coal -- a new poll out demonstrates that most of America considers her to be somewhat of an unqualified joke. She's been dropping precipitously since election day, indicating that (in a shocking upset) David Broder doesn't actually have a clue what "real America" thinks.

Anyway, I call Mandela's release. Palin can get the rise of the Islamic theocracy in Iran.

Birthdays of our Lives

It's my birthday today -- but most of the celebration will be done tomorrow and Saturday. The only big thing on the agenda tonight is Project Runway. But that's a ton of fun in its own right.

On Treading Lightly

Having discussed somewhat unsympathetically defenses of Andrew Sullivan from quasi-charges of anti-Semitism from Leon Wieseltier, I feel it is only fair to link to Sullivan's response. I'd also recommend Jon Chait and Jeffrey Goldberg. But I think Ta-Nehisi Coates is the one who really gets at the heart of the matter:

I've found Andrew to be, at times, infuriating. But I don't think that has to do with a particular animus, as much as it has to do with an attraction to what he believes to be going unsaid. The more it strikes him as something that people won't say, the more he's attracted. For the better and the worse. I'm not saying that his critique of Israel is literally the same as investigating race and IQ. But I suspect that the stridency of his rhetoric comes from a similar place. (Ditto with Palin and Trig, btw.)

I agree that Sullivan is probably not motivated by animus. My observation about him is that he tends to write quite passionately, and can shift focus (if not positions) with staggering speed. He himself admits that one of these dramatic shifts came with the onset of Cast Lead. And it tends to occur in an all or nothing way: it's not that Sullivan no longer believes that anti-Semitism in the Arab World is dangerous and detestable, it just fades the background against his new focus on being a bold truthsayer about Israel. It'd be one thing if he was writing the posts in equal measure (though there is no way to mitigate the discomfort and, yes, threat, that occurs when one senses rage coming at you from an (along this axis) empowered class). But the torrent that flows towards one side, then the other -- according to which side Sullivan's contrarianism thinks is getting off light -- is going to raise alarms. There's no way around that.

I also have to say that I think Sullivan tends to subscribe to a pretty shallow version of contrarianism. What he "believes to be going unsaid" is rarely, actually, unsaid. The powerful voices that, in his mind, squelch all dissent rarely do so. That's not just an assessment of his current stance; this was evident when he was hyper-hawkish in the wake of 9/11. Then it was fashionable to believe that the world was insufficiently attuned to the threat of Islamic radicalism, that it was "uncomfortable" to speak in bold strokes about the need to kill off the evildoers. That was, and is, patently absurd. Now Sullivan thinks that the powerful Israel Lobby stifles debate and prevents all but a brave few from being heard. It's a fashionable belief, but that doesn't make it an accurate one.

But there is a more fundamental issue. I think there is a parable here to the racial neo-conservative movement that arose in the late 60s and early 70s. The scions of that movement were not evolved members of the Jim Crow set. Many were on the front lines of the civil rights struggle. The policy positions they advanced were not done out of malice towards African-American. Much the opposite -- if anything, they were borne out of frustration at the seeming intractable nature of the problem, its apparent immunity to the standard tactics, presumptions, and operating procedures of the civil rights movement. So they began offering new ideas.

These ideas infuriated many members of the Black community. And the neo-conservatives, who knew their intentions were pure, responded angrily -- demanding the space for free-wheeling, open debate, decrying a new orthodoxy which tolerates no dissent from the civil rights mantras. There, as here, the ability of the marginalized group to truly set the agenda was wildly overstated.

I think that's a lot of what is going on here. Sullivan clearly is motivated by frustration that his unwavering support for a particular iteration of the pro-Israel position had yielded nothing but more war, more hatred, more destruction, and more stasis. I understand that sentiment; I've felt it too. And a big part of Sullivan's defense is bold statements about political correctness and the need to speak freely and air all grievances, etc. etc..

And this is where things begin to fall apart. I understand Sullivan's frustration with the status quo; I share it. New ideas are always welcome, so long as they come from a position of respect. But the people whose lives are on the line here -- Jews and Muslims, Israelis and Palestinians -- are actively endangered by this sort of vitriolic lashing out. It's not what's needed. We perpetually stand near the precipice; these winds can blow us over the edge. As Goldberg writes:

The question of whether Andrew is or is not personally anti-Semitic isn't entirely relevant. What is relevant is that he sometimes uses his blog to disseminate calumnies that can cause hatred of Jews, and of Israel. I know this from personal experience, because the anti-Semites who e-mail him copy me. Andrew's posts on Israel and on Jewish political power in America have lately given comfort to some very repulsive people. This doesn't mean, of course, that the role of AIPAC shouldn't be debated openly, but it should be done without prejudice; without the axiomatic assumption that American Jews who love Israel are disloyal to America; and without the Judeocentrism of the neo-Lindbergh set.

The point is that, as Sullivan flails about in rage -- rage built upon the best of intentions -- he doesn't have to deal with the consequences. It's hard enough to keep an even-keeled perspective when one does have to deal with the consequences -- but if we can do it, he can do it. When he provides succor to or reifies -- unintentionally, to be sure -- the Jews-control-DC canard, he doesn't have to deal with the fallout. I do. When he hammers away at the ability of Jews to advocate in the public sphere without being questioned as to the legitimacy of that basic political act being, I'm justified in being pissed off, and I'm justified in being somewhat indifferent towards pleas of good intentions.

Does this all rest uncomfortably with the desire for open debate? Yes. I admit that, though I maintain that an open debate can be had if we mind our p's and q's. But there is a fundamental asymmetry of power here that prevents the free-for-all that Sullivan wants; that he needs in order to rationalize his passion. The White neo-conservatives, whatever they said about battling the all-powerful civil rights orthodoxy, had power and influence that dwarfed their interlocutors. The moral righteousness of the wild blue discursive yonder begins to pale once we remember that for some of us, the wrong words can bring about real pain and death. When your misstep causes me to fall, I can ask you to tread lighter than you might otherwise be inclined.

My Own Lyin' Eyes

There's a new controversy* brewing about a Goldstone report contributor, this one being Irish Col. (ret.) Desmond Travers.

Travers rejects the idea that Israel launched the offensive in Gaza on December 27, 2008, as an act of self-defense in response to Hamas rockets.

The Jerusalem center report says he bases this idea on a "fact" that he presents that in the month prior to start of the war, only "something like two" rockets that fell on Israel.

The report quotes an extensive interview with Travers in the Middle East Monitor, in which he also says that Hamas had sought "a continuation of the cease-fire" prior to Israel's offensive in Gaza.

Travers also rejects Israel Defense Forces photographs as proof that Hamas hid weapons in mosques during the conflict.

"I do not believe the photographs," Travers said, describing the IDF evidence as "spurious."

Now I'm going to confess something here. Whenever I'm shown intelligence photos demonstrating, for example, that the Cubans have Russian missiles, they don't look like anything to me. But I imagine that with intelligence training, what looks like grainy blocks is actually meaningful data, since the analysts draw conclusions pretty confidently from them (and the reveal of the photos is always considered quite the dramatic trump card). So I assume that unless Travers is alleging the photos are doctored, he's simply deciding that he doesn't like evidence that contradicts his pre-existing conclusions. It's a tough world when the facts are established by those who aren't interested in one side's iteration of them.

You might recall that, when pressed about the alleged bias in another panel member (Christine Chinkin), Judge Goldstone's response was that since the panel was a "fact-finding" commission, not a judicial inquiry, recusal was unnecessary. I noted at the time that Judge Goldstone seems to be the only person on the planet who continues to blithely assert that his panel wasn't making any assertions regarding guilt and innocence. As he put it, "if this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven." Alas, it seems that Col. Travers is with the majority interpretation of what the panel did:

Travers also criticized Israel's past presence in Southern Lebanon, asserting that Israeli soldiers had "taken out and deliberately shot" Irish peacekeeping forces in the area.

He accused "Jewish lobbyists" of influencing British foreign policy in the Middle East and said that efforts to block the Goldstone reports findings have failed.

"The court of world opinion seems determined to see the report prevail," he said.

We'll skate on by yet another instance of "Zionist" slipping back into "Jewish" (I hate when Jews influence things. So much better when they're under the dominion of their superiors). A fact-finding probe, of course, does not "prevail" or not, particularly when it (in theory) is meant to begin, not end, the process. Once again, Judge Goldstone takes the lonely dissenting view, saying that if the allegations in his report are disproven, "I will rejoice."

And here we return to the problem. Judge Goldstone is a true believer in the system, surrounded by cynics. He didn't mind that his compatriots on the panel were "biased", because, he thought, the was nothing judicial going on. Everything he did was predicated off of taking the system at face value. His panel members are impartial and will evaluate evidence fairly. The world will take the report exactly as far as its technical mandate (fact-finding, not judicial), no further. Testimony received is without question truthful and unimpeachable. Refusal to give evidence means there is no countervailing evidence to be had.

His colleagues were wiser, or at least more attuned to reality. Col. Travers knew he wasn't participating in a "fact-finding commission". He knew that the report would be taken as a definitive pronouncement on guilt and innocence, and he knew that given the subjectivity of conflicting evidence and legitimate fears of bias leading to non-cooperation, he could write a report saying virtually anything he wanted while staying within the boundaries of the process. And so long as he colored inside the (infinitely malleable) lines, Judge Goldstone, he of great faith, would have no thought to protest.

* There is another allegation Col. Travers urged Hamas to demand more for the release of Cpl. Gilad Shalit. The passage cited for this is as follows:

Travers claims that the Palestinians should really demand that more prisoners be released for Shalit: “When the Palestinians sign up to, say, the release of Shalit for 2000 Palestinians, they degrade their own value system. They ought not to do that. But then no civilized country ought to detain 8000, is it 8000 Palestinians? Very nearly 9000.”

I'm not entirely sure what Travers is trying to say here, but it's not at all clear he means that Hamas should have demanded more for Shalit. If anything, I think he's arguing the opposite -- that the 2000:1 ratio implies that Palestinian prisoners are worth 1/2000 of an Israeli one. Then, of course, he pivots to attacking Israel for detaining the prisoners in the first place. In any event, since I don't think it is clear that Col. Travers made the claim alleged, I don't think its appropriate to attack him for it.

Dusty

Oh, Visa. Emotionally manipulate me -- you know I love it.



Great ad.

The Magic of Intent: Matt Yglesias Edition

So Matt Yglesias is angry at Leon Wieseltier for being mean to Andrew Sullivan. The argument is that Wieseltier is throwing around "baseless" charges of anti-Semitism, for the sole purpose of instilling fear in the "innocent" so they dare not critique Israel. He then compares Wieseltier to a Bolshevik show-trial ringleader (really).

The problem is that Wieseltier's argument is not "baseless", at least in the sense that it isn't supported by clearly-stated warrants. He's making pretty specific claims about what demands Sullivan makes of Jews, and how they fit into a broader history and structure of power that Christians possess over Jews (and majorities tend to possess over minorities). One could disagree with those claims on the substance, but what Yglesias is relying on is a particular definition of when something is legitimately labeled anti-Semitism:

If you call anti-semites anti-semites, then people who aren’t motivated by anti-Jewish racism will figure “hey, since my political opinions aren’t motivated by anti-Jewish racism, then I’m safe.” The idea is to put everyone on notice that mere innocence will be no defense.

And y'all know what my objection here is. Intent is not a magical ward guarding its wielders from doing racist or bigoted things. You can mean perfectly well, consider oneself to be a totally fair and egalitarian person, and still hold positions or beliefs that are marginalizing or discriminatory towards particular groups. Being "motivated by anti-Jewish racism" is not the totality of what makes something potentially anti-Semitic, and if the threshold for non-abusive discussion of anti-Semitism is getting the defendant to admit "I'm an evil bigot who hates Jews", then we're just trying to suppress any critical discussion of anti-Semitism under the guise of preventing its "baseless" deployment. It is not a good thing when everyone who isn't a Klan member gets to claim immunity from grappling with ingrained racism and anti-Semitism. It simply allows people to say that nothing is ever anti-Semitic.

What does Sullivan feel about Jews? Like Wieseltier, who writes "it is impossible to know what is in a man’s heart", I have no way of knowing. But I suspect that he considers himself a friend of the Jewish people, committed to them flourishing and living in peace and security. That's great. It's also entirely consistent with holding policy prescriptions, stereotypes, prejudices, and other attitudes that act to keep Jews in an unequal status and deny them the ability to flourish, live as equals, and enjoy peace and security. The measure of a true friend and ally isn't what's in their heart, because racism isn't fundamentally "in the heart".* It's whether they are willing to go beyond that bare assertion of friendship and dig deep when they are told "you're hurting me".

* See Tommie Shelby, "Is Racism in the 'Heart'?" 33 Journal of Social Philosophy 411 (2002).

UPDATE: I think there is a fair tactical review of the upshot of Wieseltier's piece. I still maintain, though, that restricting the scope of anti-Semitism to evil Klansman cackling in their robes is wrong on essentially every level, and buying into that framework guarantees an increasingly impoverished discourse on the subject that will continue to marginalize Jewish lives.

Star of David Keffiyeh

The NYR Lede Blog reports on an Jewish music agency's creation of a "Star of David" Keffiyeh (traditional Arab head scarf), which is raising hackles in some circles as a potential appropriation of Arab culture. However, the creator of the product retorts that the garment is as much a part of his tradition as anyone else:

My family originates from Yemen, where my ancestors had lived for close to 2,000 years. Nearly 100 years ago, my grandmother’s side of the family decided to move to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and then to Israel, in 1933 (Southern Syria/Mandate Palestine at the time). On my grandfather’s side, our family emigrated to Israel in 1924. Jews indigenous to the Middle East, such as my family is, have worn some variation of the kefyah (cap/kippah) and keffiyeh (head/neck scarves) for thousands of years.

Chalk another one up for remembering the Sephardic/Mizrachi community (but what will Malkin say?)!

Via.

Monday Quick Hits

So how about the big game this weekend, eh?

* * *

Exonerated accused rapist forms a bond with the woman whose erroneous accusation put him in prison.

I assumed this was a tasteless Onion piece, but it wasn't: soldier waterboards four-year old daughter because she couldn't recite the alphabet. But let's be careful -- we wouldn't want to say something radical and uncivil like calling it "torture" (every little thing the Spanish Inquisitors and Khmer Rouge did....).

The University of Oregon campus and administration reacted with appropriate outrage when the offices of its LGBTQA offices were defaced with swastikas. However, as a gay Jewish-Israeli student noted, there was somewhat more serenity -- and appeals to "free speech" -- when certain other groups were targeted with swastikas.

The judge deciding the Proposition 8 challenge is a gay man. Both sides are being very careful not to make hay over it -- for now (my thoughts on the matter can be accurately deduced from this post).

... Well, some folks are doing their best to tip-toe up to the issue.

It looks like some form of talks between Israel and Palestine are going to restart.

Meanwhile, a Likud minister bluntly told a right-wing caucus that they need to give up their dreams of Greater Israel.

Justice Thomas talks a bit about his clerk-hiring practices (Thomas is known for being the Justice most prone to hiring outside the traditional Ivy strongholds): "I have a preference actually for non-Ivy league law clerks, simply because I think clerks should come from a wide range of backgrounds."

$6 million dollars is but a small price to pay to bring about the likely extinction of the human race.

Where Which Boys Are

Mark Perry (via) of the American Enterprise Institute trumpets a Bureau of Labor Statistics report on continued gender disparities in higher education, less to forward any sensible solutions on sending more men to college than to attack "gender activists" who will presumably ignore the results.

1. This huge gender gap will receive almost no media attention, and will be largely ignored by the gender activists.

2. There will be no calls for government studies, or increased government funding to address the “problem,” and nobody will refer to this gender degree gap as a “national crisis,” the way former astronaut Sally Ride described the gender disparity for jobs in engineering, technology, and science (women hold only 25 percent of those jobs).

3. President Obama will not address the gender degree gap by signing an executive order creating the “White House Council on Men and Boys,” like he did last year for women and girls.

4. Neither Obama, Congress, nor the gender activists in academia will address the gender degree gap by invoking Title IX gender-equity law, like they have proposed using for the gender gap in some math and science programs (see here and here).

5. Nobody will blame the gender degree gap on structural barriers from grades K–12 that discourage men from attending or graduating from college, like they do for explaining the gender gap for women in math and science.

In other words, the standard “disparity-proves-discrimination” dogma, followed by calls for government intervention, will not be applied in this case of a huge gender imbalance in college completion by age 22, because the disparity favors women, not men.

Well, not quite. Because there is are two variables that Mr. Perry is, quite predictably, missing: Race, and class.

Let's be clear -- there is a gender gap in higher education among all races (except Asians -- they're essentially even). A study from the American Council on Education found that in 2007-08, 46% of all undergraduates under age 24 are men (an 8 point gap). For White men, that figure is 47% (so a 6 point gap). For Hispanic men, it's 42% -- a 16 point gap. And for African-American men, it's 41% -- a whopping 18 percentage point gap. (There's also evidence that a college degree is worth less for people of color due to post-graduation discrimination, but that's a separate matter).

As for class, the data shows that the gender gap is intricately connected to income. Again in 2007-08, for the highest income quartile there is no true gender gap at all: 51% of White undergraduates, 52% of Asian undergraduates, and 48% of Hispanic and Black undergraduates are men. For the bottom quartile, by contrast, only 45% of Asian, 44% of White, and 42% of Black and Hispanic undergraduates are men.

The problem, in other words, isn't really with "men" as a class. White men comprise 47% of White college attendees, which isn't bad, given that men are around 49% of the population. Where things get hairy is when we focus in on men of color, and poorer men of all races. I have no trouble asserting that these classes of people are badly failed by our educational system; and that we should be more aggressive in finding tailored solutions for helping them (and there are groups working to address the problem).

But to frame the problem in such a way so as to assert that the men who went to, say, my alma mater (Walt Whitman HS in Bethesda, Maryland) are in a serious way disadvantaged, much less a "second sex", vis-a-vis our female peers borders on delusional -- it obscures far more than it illuminates. The men who are facing discrimination are members of the usual suspects in American society: the poor, and racial minorities. And in general, it is the progressive movement of which those maligned gender-activists are a part that have taken the lead in trying to advocate for these classes.

This is Why We Think You're Dumb

There's a piece coming out in the WaPo complaing that liberals are so condescending to conservative ideas.

American liberals, to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration.

I think the real split here is that liberals think conservative ideas are moronic and bigoted, whereas conservatives think liberal ideas are traitorous and immoral. But I digress. Matt Yglesias notes that it's not really a bad thing to try and link your own ideas to "fact and reason":

If I thought my views weren’t correct and based on fact and reason, I would adopt different views—correct fact-and-reason based ones. Does Alexander really think that conservatives don’t think their views are correct? Does Alexander not think his own views are correct? Not based on fact? Not based on reason? I’m not sure it’s possible to be condescending enough to this op-ed.

Meanwhile, the Virginia GOP is using the DC snowmaggedon to demonstrate once more that Republicans don't understand the difference between weather and climate. Is there any other way to respond to such an ad other than "you people are morons"?

This is My Generation

I hate to humiliate a friend, but this tweet personifies my peer group:

[W]e prepared for #snowpocalypse by getting dvds, food, alcohol, and hot cocoa. we did not get candles or flashlights. #snowfail

That is exactly what I would have done, too.

Ayalon Puts Saudi Prince on the Spot

Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, last seen nearly destroying Israel's relationship with Turkey, turned his aggression to a perhaps more positive development, securing a handshake with a member of the Saudi royal family. It's the lead up that's interesting:

In a rare occurrence, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon shook the hand of Saudi Arabia's Prince Turki al-Faisal during the annual security conference in Munich on Saturday. The handshake was preceded by the prince's attempts at avoiding participation in a panel alongside Ayalon, a consequent uproar and a sharp American condemnation of the Saudi behavior.
[...]
However, when Ayalon arrived at the conference on Friday, he discovered that the panel in which he was set to participate had been split into two separate panels. The first panel was to include the Saudi prince and other Saudi officials, as well as officials from Egypt and Turkey, followed by a separate panel to include himself, Lieberman and the American and Russia representatives.

According to Israeli diplomats, the split was a Saudi request. Prince al-Faisal refused to sit on the same stage as Ayalon and the organizers heeded his request and split the panel. Ayalon, who was surprised by the move, addressed the incident at the very start of the panel, saying that "this is micro cosmos of the Middle East conflict. The Arabs refuse to sit with us, recognize us or talk to us."
[...]
The Saudi prince, who was sitting in the audience at the time, rose from his seat and rushed to deny the allegation that he had requested the split. Ayalon quickly responded "if that is so, come and shake my hand." The prince refused to get on the stage, but Ayalon did not lose his stride, announcing that he would be willing to get off the stage. He then walked toward the prince and shook his hand. "Israel is committed to peace," he told the prince.

I'm constantly amazed at how even a handshake can be seen as a grave concession by Israel's neighbors.

Authenticity!

Ta-Nehisi Coates raises a good point (I know, I know, duh). John Judis is arguing that President Obama has trouble connecting to the White working class because his parents were professionals and he is associated with elite educational institutions (Columbia, Harvard, Chicago). Mr. Coates points out:

If we were talking about a group of black voters who refused to vote for someone because they aspired to be a lawyer or politician, we would be knee-deep in "black pathology" diatribes and Bill Cosby call-outs. Mo-fos would think it was the second Maafa. T

I get that Obama is a politician, and thus it's his job to make people vote for him. But I don't understand why anti-intellectualism among black people is pathological, and among white people is taken as evidence of working class roots.

Yeah, that annoys me too. Good call.

DADT Pushers

In the annals of those who support the continued exclusion of gays from the military, we've already talked about Senator John McCain's stunning reversal of his "listen to the leaders" position. Now that top military officials are onboard with repealing DADT, he no longer cares what they think! Now that's mavericky!*

But Senator McCain is hardly the only offender here. Let's look at some of the other top movers on the issue. There's Elaine Donnelly, whose professional responsibility is keeping gays out of the military, mostly by trafficking in obscene stereotyping. I enjoyed watching veteran Rep. Patrick Murphy eviscerate her in 2008 on the issue. Duncan Hunter is currently getting attention for his fear of a hermaphrodite wave, but I still recall fondly his belief that Israelis aren't "Judeo-Christian" enough to have problems with gay people.

Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), beloved in the military community for savaging the patriotism of war hero Max Cleland, is worried that homosexuality is incompatible with the military's "high standards". Not an expression of hostility towards gay people at all! He also, in perhaps the most bizarre charge ever, fretted that gayness would lead to soldiers with (brace yourself) TATTOOS!

Given all that, it's almost refreshing to here some true straight talk from FRC bigwig Peter Sprigg, who flatly wants to overturn Lawrence and ban homosexuality outright. Tony Perkins, the chief of the FRC, is a military veteran himself. But he seriously indicated that he would not have chosen to serve if it meant serving next to gay and lesbian peers. Put him next to the gay and lesbian servicemembers who risk their lives for country that still sanctions official discrimination against them along several axis. I know who best represents our military traditions.

* "Mavericky" is a registered trademark of John McCain, meaning "principle-less support of whatever position is most politically expedient or ego-enhancing at the present moment." In this case, opposing DADT-repeal both helps him in a primary challenge from far-right ex-Rep. J.D. Hayworth, and sticks it to President Obama. So it's a bit of a gimme.

We Went Through This Once With Marmaduke

It's not that I can see an interpretation of today's Non Sequitur that's really filthy and inappropriate. It's that I can't see any other conceivable punchline.

Iterative Roundup

What is this, three in a row?

* * *

American Jews signal their worries about decreasing pluralism in Israel, warn that their support isn't unconditional.

OneVoice sends its representatives into the heart of refugee camp and an illegal settlement for town hall meetings.

Tom Campbell: demonic sheep.

Scott Fujita steps up to the plate on gay rights.

If corporations are persons, why can't they run for Congress? Well, one corporation is testing the waters, announcing it is entering into the Republican primary for the 8th District of Maryland (my congressional district). The company is a liberal PR firm, so this is more akin to the California petition to end divorce than anything else (via).

Two possible SCOTUS vacancies for the Obama administration to grapple with. My money is on Kagan snagging at least one of them.

Quick Eats Roundup

The law school threw a dinner party downtown for us 2Ls, to celebrate us reaching the midway (if you know Hyde Park, you'll laugh at the pun) of our law school career. The dinner felt rushed though: arrive, 10 minutes later seated and eating, courses come out rapid fire, speech by Professor Masur, buses arrive, we go home. It was impressive.

* * *

The bullet-proof tailor of Bogota. This is really, really cool. Involves a reporter getting shot in the gut.

Egyptian journalist union punishes two members for contacts with Israel. One of the writers is "editor in chief of the state-run weekly Democratiya, or Democracy", the title of which I find unbelievably ironic.

Anti-Semitic acts soared in France last year.

Radical rabbi blames gays for natural disasters, warns against eliminating DADT. For the record, Israel has let gays and lesbians serve openly for over 25 years (and it's still kicking!).

Appeals court reverses trial court decision which had thrown out genocide charges against Sudanese President Bashir; Kevin Jon Heller defends the reversal against critics.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) wants it all ways: the joy of controlling the legislative agenda, and the joy of attacking mythical "liberal extremists" for controlling the legislative agenda.

Justice Department issues a recruitment call for mentally retarded lawyers. Sarah Palin is presumably thrilled.

Tomorrow's Another Day Roundup

Busy busy day tomorrow -- may not have much time for blogging. Better clear the browser now.

* * *

If Nancy Grace could take on Nancy Grace.

North Korea seems to have ditched the communism facade completely, and now is embracing full on classic racist fascism.

Top defense officials are onboard with repealing DADT.

Relatedly, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), who previously indicated that support from the top brass was what he needed to reconsider his support for DADT, has let anti-gay animus trump prior statements of principle. Stunning.

Why we should be especially thankful for our gay and lesbian servicemembers. Their sacrifice for a nation that fundamentally still rejects their equal citizenship is heart-rending.

Michael Klarman pops the myth that courts have been historical friends of racial minorities.

It's so scary when Jews have opinions and try to convince others to share them.

What's the trajectory of the California gay marriage litigation?

This Sachs

Albie Sachs, formerly of the South African Constitutional Court and living legend (he was an anti-apartheid activism whose arm was blown off in a car bomb) came to speak at the law school today. The theme was on "humor", specifically, on humor as a tool for the marginalized to bring down the powerful. Justice Sachs wished to distinguish this useful and important act from the cruel and impermissible use of humor by the already powerful to denigrate and put down the powerless (recall that South Africa is not absolutist about free speech, and explicitly bars hate speech).

Using the example of the recent tensions between COSATU and parts of the South African Jewish community, I asked if this standard didn't just shift the debate into a question of who counted as "powerful" and who counted as "powerless". This seemed to be what is going on with regards to the COSATU controversy: the Jews note that they number around 70,000 to COSATU's 1.9 million (and key role in the governing coalition), as well as the historical discrimination faced by Jews worldwide. COSATU and its allies respond that it is not attacking a beleaguered minority at all, but rather a powerful Zionist coalition whose tendrils control much of the West, and that it is in fact speaking out on behalf of the powerless third world and Palestinians. Both sides claim the mantle of the powerless. Was this sort of controversy, I asked, intractable under the framework he was putting forward?

Alas, trying to provide the context, I somewhat butchered the question, and Justice Sachs demurred from answering. He thought I was referring to the Fatima Hajaig case, which never reached a court of law (it was resolved by apology ... eventually), and thus it was not an issue of "law". The more recent Bongani Masuku case, by contrast, resulted in a hate speech ruling by the SAHRC and does appear to be court-bound (of course, the examples I gave was just to contextualize -- I think the question is still valid and comprehensible even if in particular instances the dispute doesn't reach the courtroom. But I can understand how the way I framed it made it sound as if I was looking for comment on the specific controversy, not the broader principle).

Anyway, that's how I blew my chance at getting an answer from an iconic South African figure about a question that's been vexing me for months. Oops.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Your Republican Party

In handy chart form:



Embarrassing.

UN Riposte

After Israel published a response to the Goldstone report differing with several of the key allegations, the UN is now claiming evidence of its own casting doubt on the Israeli explanation of a key point of controversy. I'm not making claims as to which side is right or wrong, just reporting the story.

The (specific) controversy is over the destruction of a flour mill, which Goldstone claimed could have been done to deprive the civilian population of sustenance. The report claims the mill was specifically targeted in an airstrike. Israel released photos claiming the damage was more consistent with tank shells, which had opened fire after engaging Hamas militants -- the mill, in other words, was not a pre-planned target. Apparently, though, UN investigators found the remains of airborne bombs at the site, putting the possibility of a pre-planned airstrike on the table (of course, the mill being destroyed by a bomb rather than a tank is entirely consistent with the mill being targeted due to Hamas fighters in the vicinity).

Madison Avenue is Blessed

In a massive upset victory for common sense, Will Saletan takes down the logic of the "choose life" Tebow ad:

Pam's story certainly is moving. But as a guide to making abortion decisions, it's misleading. Doctors are right to worry about continuing pregnancies like hers. Placental abruption has killed thousands of women and fetuses. No doubt some of these women trusted in God and said no to abortion, as she did. But they didn't end up with Heisman-winning sons. They ended up dead.

Being dead is just the first problem with dying in pregnancy. Another problem is that the fetus you were trying to save dies with you. A third problem is that your existing kids lose their mother. A fourth problem is that if you had aborted the pregnancy, you might have gotten pregnant again and brought a new baby into the world, but now you can't. And now the Tebows have exposed a fifth problem: You can't make a TV ad.

We should note here that it is, of course, Ms. Tebow's choice if she wants to risk her life for the chance at birthing a live son. The emphasis, however, is on the word choice. "Women should be forced to risk their lives -- and I'm proof that some of you will beat the odds" is not a particularly catchy slogan.

H/T.

Recasting Avatar

The VC has already brought attention to one property rights interpretation of a tale generally thought to be left-leaning (The Lorax). Today, Ilya Somin points to another example of the genre: David Boaz on Avatar:

Conservatives have been very critical of the Golden Globe-winning film “Avatar” for its mystical melange of trite leftist themes. But what they have missed is that the essential conflict in the story is a battle over property rights....

But conservative critics are missing the conflict at the heart of the movie. It’s quite possible that [director] Cameron missed it too.

The earthlings have come to Pandora to obtain unobtainium. In theory, it’s not a military mission, it’s just the RDA Corp. with a military bigger than most countries. The Na’vi call them the Sky People.

To get the unobtainium, RDA is willing to relocate the natives, who live on top of the richest deposit. But alas, that land is sacred to the Na’vi, who worship the goddess Eywa, so they’re not moving. When the visitors realize that, they move in with tanks, bulldozers and giant military robots, laying waste to a sacred tree and any Na’vi who don’t move fast enough.

Conservatives see this as anti-American, anti-military and anti-corporate or anti-capitalist. But they’re just reacting to the leftist ethos of the film.

They fail to see what’s really happening. People have traveled to Pandora to take something that belongs to the Na’vi: their land and the minerals under it. That’s a stark violation of property rights, the foundation of the free market and indeed of civilization.

I think that's a perfectly tenable interpretation of the movie. I'd question, though, how strong the dissonance is with the "face" (leftist) message.

It is certainly true that the sort of leftist thought that Boaz is identifying Avatar with hardly identifies as capitalist. But that hardly means they can't speak in term of property rights. Indeed, while the anti-colonialist theory being drawn from here would likely not cast things in terms of individual plot ownership, they certainly are quite willing to assert cultural "ownership" of certain plots of land, territories, or resources. Indeed, the Na'vi seem to view these territories as collectively owned by "the people" (there is no indication that any one person in the community owns the land or the unobtanium). This raises a harder question for capitalist theorists than Boaz cares to admit, as capitalist entities have always had trouble figuring out how to handle (read: have felt comfortable ignoring completely) notions of property ownership that were not sufficiently individualistic. The doctrine of terra nullius was applied to claim that places such as Australia weren't actually "owned" by anyone, since the land wasn't titled in a manner that was comprehensible according to contemporary proto-capitalist norms.

But anyway. I think contemporary leftists are more anti-corporate than they are anti-capitalist. The argument in Avatar is that given sufficient power, corporations would be quite willing to ignore such capitalist niceties as property rights and freedom of contract (at least when it suits them). Put differently, the same priors that suggest a corporation would be indifferent to good liberal values like "don't slaughter the natives" would equally suggest that the corporation would be indifferent to good libertarian values like "contract with the natives". The corporation is going to take the least expensive path, whatever that may be, and unless some entity is their to raise the cost of the "killing the natives and taking their property", there's no reason to believe that market economics of all things will act as a restraining force.

So Avatar is an indictment of anarcho-capitalism, to a point, but the twist is it making the further claim that the necessary condition for an anarcho-capitalist hell is not absence of government, but simply corporations more powerful than government. The Ecuador example* I've sometimes cited would seem to be most directly on point.

There, the state had given the Texaco Oil virtually free reign in the country's outland regions. The company responded by engaging in massive environmental degredation at the expense of the nation’s Amazon community. Affected citizens were told that there was no redress available from the company because Texaco was a private corporation and thus not party to relevant treaty law, they would have to go to the state for aid. However, since Texaco’s revenues were 4x the entire GNP of country, and in any event the company was actively backed by the US government, few believed that the nation could stop the environmental destruction even if it were so inclined.

Obviously, there's two problems going on here. The first is the Ecuadorian government's willingness to enable Texaco's predations at the expense of the property rights of the locals. The second is Texaco's willingness to completely circumvent normal legal protections and remedies for the local populace, simply by virtue of the fact that it was actually "bigger" than the state itself.

It is quite easy to see why a country like China would dislike Avatar -- it threatens their exploitative ideology just as much as it would Texaco's. But the moral of the story isn't "yay for market power" so much as it is illustrative of the need to a) establish governmental norms that strongly protect personal rights, particularly of marginalized groups and then b) make sure corporations don't gain so much power that they're able to out-muscle the government.

* Chris Jochnick, "Confronting the Impunity of Non-State Actors: New Fields for the Promotion of Human Rights." Human Rights Quarterly 21.1 (1999) 56-79

A Fine Anti-Semitism Talk

Robert Fine's contribution to the UCU's anti-Semitism lecture series is absolutely magnificent. I particularly appreciate the dismantling of the "anti-Semitism card card" dodge that is so popular amongst "progressives" who don't want to take seriously allegations that their behavior is anti-Jewish in effect or intent (some were less enthused).

One gets the sense that, for some on the left, any conceptualization of anti-Semitism that doesn't immediately exonerate them from any possible wrongdoing is per se abusive. There's very little we can do to stop such sentiments from proliferating, but Fine does do an excellent job of showing their bankruptcy.