Israeli Diplomat Attacked in Britain

The Israeli government is expecting a rather strong condemnation after this:

A lecture given by Israel's Deputy Ambassador to Britain Talya Lador-Fresher at the University of Manchester deteriorated Wednesday into violence when pro-Palestinian protesters stormed at the diplomat in an attempted attack.

The protesters were waiting for Lador-Fresher outside the lecture hall, but this did not deter her from entering as planned. Immediately upon her exit, the protesters lunged at the diplomat, prompting security guards to whisk her back into the hall. Following a consultation on the site, it was decided to escort her out of the premises in a police car.

The deputy ambassador was removed from the hall and into the police vehicle. However, this did not block the protesters, who surrounded the car and climbed on the hood, trying to break the windshield.

Lador-Fresher ultimately was taken away from the scene safe and sound.

Of course, if anyone gets arrested, we can expect to see some thugs protesting on behalf of the attackers. That will be the usual joy to behold.

UPDATE: At the very least, the statement by the University of Manchester is quite tone-deaf:

A Manchester University spokesman said: “The University is fundamentally committed to freedom of speech, exercised within the law. It follows that it should also allow peaceful and lawful protest to take place on its campus.

“We took all reasonable action to put appropriate security measures in place for this meeting, including a complete lockdown of the building, a high-level security presence, ID checks at the door and ticket-only arrangements.”

I think, being charitable, that the spokesman is not saying that surrounding the ambassador's car and bashing on the windshield is a "peaceful protest", but rather that the University's security arrangements were designed to allow both the diplomat to speak and for "peaceful and lawful protest" to occur. Still, it certainly could be interpreted as a dismissal of the violent nature of the attack here. Given the current atmosophere in British universities, it is fair to ask that their officials take a more unambiguous line on these sort of issues.

Pulling for Cards

Oh, Republicans. One day, they're upset because Democrats want Black people to vote. The next day, they're livid because Obama is purportedly not considering Black candidates for the open SCOTUS seat (as noted, Leah Ward Sears has shown up on several lists of potential nominees, though I don't think she is being considered all that seriously. Ann Claire Williams' name has also bounced across my browser).

The Long Arm of Democracy

Arizona's new "immigration law" -- a targeted slap at Latinos and one that flings the door wide open towards racial profiling -- is a travesty upon the nation. But if there is a glimmer of good news, it is that it may not last long. Kos reminds us of the California GOP's experience with Proposition 187, another immigrant-bashing piece of work which resulted in the decimation of the state's Republican Party as Latinos flocked Democratic. Early polling looks like the same dynamic will occur in Arizona, from a situation where Republicans could get a solid 40% of the Latino vote, to an era where they'll be lucky to break 30%. And in a region of the country where the proportion of Latino voters continues to rise, this is no small thing.

Consider also this story:

I’ve got nothing, and it’s open thread time, so let’s talk about my Mother. She’s 74 years old, brown (US citizen from Mexican parents), and tough as nails. She spends her winters in a small town near Tucson, a few miles from where she grew up.

Since the Arizona immigration law passed, I’ve been thinking about what’s going to happen the first time she’s pulled over and asked for her papers. The results of my thought experiment aren’t pretty. To say that she’ll be unintimidated by the local cops is a gross understatement. My concern is for the officer who pulls her over, as well as the police department and town that she’ll sue. Life gets a little dull for the retired, and the family joke is that Mom has a titanium grudge carrier, so I expect she’ll do her part to bankrupt her local municipality, and enjoy doing it.

Mom’s a proud Goldwater Republican. She was happy with Reagan, voted for Bush II in 2000 (but not in ‘04), and has long been active in the local Republican party. But I can say with absolute certainty that she will not vote for a Republican, for any office, ever again. She’s the proudest person I know—proud of her family, her achievements in life, and her Mexican heritage. And, whatever else this new law is, it is profoundly disrespectful. I don’t know if this law will kill the Republican party in Arizona, but I can assure you that they’re already dead to her.

Sometimes, democracy sucks. But sometimes, when democracy sucks, it swings back around later and punches the suckers in the face. And that's a good feeling.

Pulling for Votes

I first saw the story about President Obama's appeal to African-Americans, Latinos, and young voters when David Bernstein petulantly called it a "blatant appeal to racial demography". I'm not entirely sure what that means, nor am I sure why it's a bad thing to ask young folks or people of color to vote. But I figured it was anomalous.

Apparently not, as the conservative Washington Examiner is also calling it a "diss" to "White guys". And again, I'm not sure what the problem is supposed to be, beyond the ongoing conservative misunderstanding that anytime someone mentions a racial category, it's an example of racism in one form or another. Maybe the issue is supposedly that one couldn't issue an appeal to White voters in the same way. But aside from that not necessarily being true, it's also quite clear that politicians (of all parties) appeal to White voters all the time (even if they sometimes mask the language -- barely).

Shove It

In my intermittent role as musical adviser to political bodies, I have to say I'm baffled as to why the Tea Partiers haven't adopted Santigold's Shove It as an anthem. Listen to the chorus:

We think you're a joke/
Shove your hope where it don't shine. (x4)

And, if you listen to the version with Project Pat, he appears to say something about government making promises, but turning around to "rob our pockets".



What's that you say? Tea Partiers are unlikely to listen to Santigold and Three Six Mafia? Pshaw!

Oboe Players are Per Se Not Ordinary

Some truly lazy journalism by the Washington Post:

From the moment Stevens announced April 9 that he would leave the court, President Obama, Senate Democratic leaders and sometimes fractious liberal advocacy groups have united behind Obama's assertion that the new justice must be, like Stevens, someone who "knows that in a democracy, powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens."

That thinking has continued even though none of the perceived front-runners on the list to replace Stevens would seem to embody Obama's requirement that the person have a "keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people."

The "front-runners" being referred to here are Garland, Kagan, and Wood. I don't know enough about Garland and Kagan's background to speak to them, but I am baffled as to why Judge Wood can be so casually dismissed as being disconnected from ordinary Americans. A significant part of Judge Wood's background involves her experience as a working mother, raising three kids while trying to advance her professional career. She was somewhat pathbreaking in this role at the University of Chicago (not just for writing the university's first sexual harassment policy).

I think what's going on here is just some bored writer presuming that anybody whose C.V. includes the title "professor" and whose extra-curriculars include playing in an orchestra simply can't be considered an "ordinary American". But Judge Wood's efforts to succeed as a working mother have resonance, I believe, with many people across the country. There is no reason why that should be waved away.

If The Tea Party Was a Black Movement

Tim Wise asks us to imagine what would happen if the Tea Party was a Black movement:

Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters —the black protesters — spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government? Would these protester — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? Because, after all, that’s what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation’s capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country’s political leaders if the need arose.

Imagine that white members of Congress, while walking to work, were surrounded by thousands of angry black people, one of whom proceeded to spit on one of those congressmen for not voting the way the black demonstrators desired. Would the protesters be seen as merely patriotic Americans voicing their opinions, or as an angry, potentially violent, and even insurrectionary mob? After all, this is what white Tea Party protesters did recently in Washington.

Imagine that a rap artist were to say, in reference to a white president: “He’s a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun.” Because that’s what rocker Ted Nugent said recently about President Obama.

Imagine that a prominent mainstream black political commentator had long employed an overt bigot as Executive Director of his organization, and that this bigot regularly participated in black separatist conferences, and once assaulted a white person while calling them by a racial slur. When that prominent black commentator and his sister — who also works for the organization — defended the bigot as a good guy who was misunderstood and “going through a tough time in his life” would anyone accept their excuse-making? Would that commentator still have a place on a mainstream network? Because that’s what happened in the real world, when Pat Buchanan employed as Executive Director of his group, America’s Cause, a blatant racist who did all these things, or at least their white equivalents: attending white separatist conferences and attacking a black woman while calling her the n-word.

Imagine that a black radio host were to suggest that the only way to get promoted in the administration of a white president is by “hating black people,” or that a prominent white person had only endorsed a white presidential candidate as an act of racial bonding, or blamed a white president for a fight on a school bus in which a black kid was jumped by two white kids, or said that he wouldn’t want to kill all conservatives, but rather, would like to leave just enough—“living fossils” as he called them—“so we will never forget what these people stood for.” After all, these are things that Rush Limbaugh has said, about Barack Obama’s administration, Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama, a fight on a school bus in Belleville, Illinois in which two black kids beat up a white kid, and about liberals, generally.

Imagine that a black pastor, formerly a member of the U.S. military, were to declare, as part of his opposition to a white president’s policies, that he was ready to “suit up, get my gun, go to Washington, and do what they trained me to do.” This is, after all, what Pastor Stan Craig said recently at a Tea Party rally in Greenville, South Carolina.

Imagine a black radio talk show host gleefully predicting a revolution by people of color if the government continues to be dominated by the rich white men who have been “destroying” the country, or if said radio personality were to call Christians or Jews non-humans, or say that when it came to conservatives, the best solution would be to “hang ‘em high.” And what would happen to any congressional representative who praised that commentator for “speaking common sense” and likened his hate talk to “American values?” After all, those are among the things said by radio host and best-selling author Michael Savage, predicting white revolution in the face of multiculturalism, or said by Savage about Muslims and liberals, respectively. And it was Congressman Culbertson, from Texas, who praised Savage in that way, despite his hateful rhetoric.

Imagine a black political commentator suggesting that the only thing the guy who flew his plane into the Austin, Texas IRS building did wrong was not blowing up Fox News instead. This is, after all, what Anne Coulter said about Tim McVeigh, when she noted that his only mistake was not blowing up the New York Times.

Imagine that a popular black liberal website posted comments about the daughter of a white president, calling her “typical redneck trash,” or a “whore” whose mother entertains her by “making monkey sounds.” After all that’s comparable to what conservatives posted about Malia Obama on freerepublic.com last year, when they referred to her as “ghetto trash.”

Imagine that black protesters at a large political rally were walking around with signs calling for the lynching of their congressional enemies. Because that’s what white conservatives did last year, in reference to Democratic party leaders in Congress.

Hmm. For some reason, it's difficult to imagine that.

I think that particularly the image of the armed Blacks descending on DC is the one wherein the differences are most stark. There are some principled supporters of an expansive Second Amendment who have properly noted the history of gun restrictions as a method of White supremacist governments nationwide to maintain a monopoly of violence in a bid to keep the Black population suppressed.* But in the eyes of many, a Black man with a gun is the very threat that White people need their guns to keep at bay. White gun owners are patriots, Black gun owners are simply thugs (the Boondocks used to do some incredible riffs on this). The Black Panthers are rarely seen as emblematic of "authentic Americans".

* This doesn't have no relevance to the contemporary gun control debate, but it can be over-stated. I think the fact that gun control has historical connections to racist domination is important, but not as important as the clear preferences of the Black community in governing their own communities.

Two Face

Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi: "We are not against Jews, but against Zionism."

Gadhafi, same visit:

During their visit, the Israeli Arab delegation asked the Libyan leader to voice an initiative among Arab states to invite Israeli Arabs to visit, and to accept them as students in their various universities.

Ghadafi responded to the request as saying that Libya would be happy to enroll Israeli Arab students in its schools.

Is that request open to Jewish Israeli students as well? No? Why not?

Could be it be -- unequal sentiments towards Jews? If you're interested in cultural exchange with Israelis, it has to be with all Israelis.

(We'll skate on by whether or not unilateral opposition only to Jewish nationalist aspirations is consistent with not being "against Jews" in any meaningful sense).

Overruled!

A Venezuelan judge recently ruled that a man Hugo Chavez wanted to remain in prison had to be released.

15 minutes later, that judge was arrested.

The revolution lives on.

Iran Drops UNHRC Bid

The Washington Post reports Iran has abandoned its bid for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. This is good news, though the interesting question is "why?" If it's because they wanted to avoid a humiliating defeat in the Asia group, I would be most pleased.

Your State

I love Minnesota. I often describe it as my "adopted" or "second" home state. It's just a wonderful, friendly place that I spent four of the best years of my life living in. I'd be thrilled to go back one day.

But the best thing about a place being your "second home state" is that when it brings the crazy, it gets to be Jill's home state:

Senate Republicans introduced a constitutional amendment Wednesday that would make Minnesota the first state to require a two-thirds majority vote in the legislature to approve federal laws affecting the state. “Minnesotans enjoy inherent, natural, God-given rights,” the bill states, and “Citizens of Minnesota are sovereign individuals, subject to Minnesota law and immune from any federal laws that exceed the federal government’s enumerated constitutional powers.”

The bill was introduced by state Sens. Mike Parry of Waseca, Bill Ingebrigtsen of Alexandria, and David Hann of Eden Prairie, and is a companion to a House bill introduced by Reps. Steve Drazkowski of Mazeppa, Bruce Anderson of Buffalo, and Tom Emmer of Delano last month.

Oh, Jill. What is wrong with your people?

Rocket Fire

Of all the crazies trying to assert that anytime the Obama administration breathes, it's unconstitutional, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (previously seen flirting with birtherism) might be at the top. Unfortunately for his cohorts, he's also somewhat of a speed demon. When the Affordable Healthcare Act was past, Cuccinelli hurried to be the first to file a suit alleging it was beyond Congress' constitutional authority. Apparently, his hurry to file "as soon as the ink is dry" took its toll on the legal craftsmanship of the argument. Worse, the case was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia -- the famous "rocket docket" -- making it likely that the case will be heard before all the other challenges. And that, in turn, makes it far likely that the first ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA will be a victory for the President, and a loss for the conservatives. Precedent, momentum -- it'll all be on our side.

Thanks, Mr. Cuccinelli!

Pre-Banquet Roundup

The Law Review is having a banquet tomorrow. Swanky!

* * *

How to beat back a divestment bill: Get organized! And I think it's a good thing that the Jewish community is actively engaged in politics and political deliberation. The meme that when Jews participate in the political process to try and sway politicians to their preferred position, that this is something suspect or conspiratorial, is deeply unsettling to me. In any event, to my mind this is the way politics is supposed to work: folks organized to try and get politicians to change their minds, spoke their minds regarding what they saw as unrepresentative actions, and got the change they wanted. Congrats.

Are we headed to towards another Jenna Delich situation with the Palestine Telegraph?

I will do everything I can to promote "the McConnell line" as a new part of our political lexicon.

Jon Chait sums up Sue Lowden's bizarre bartering-for-healthcare proposal: "Oh Doctor, isn't there any other way I could pay for this?"

Good NYT piece on Judge Wood.

The Texas AG's office is fighting tooth and nail to prevent a gay couple legally married in Massachusetts from divorcing (because that would recognize the legitimacy of the marriage in the first place). The AG instead suggests "voiding" the marriage. As the bemused attorney for one member of the couple put it: "But for the actions of the attorney general, my client would already be divorced and there would be one less same-sex marriage in Texas."

On guarding the guards of human rights.

Exceptionalism

Writer Amitav Ghosh, explaining why he is not boycotting a literary award associated with Israel's Tel Aviv University.

I would like to state clearly that I do not believe in embargoes and boycotts where they concern matters of culture and learning. On the contrary I believe very strongly that it is important to defend the notion that institutions of culture and learning must, in principle, be regarded as autonomous of the state. Or else every writer in America and Britain, and everyone who teaches in a British or American university, would necessarily be implicated in the Iraq war, and by extension, in Israel’s actions in Gaza and Palestine. Similarly every Indian writer and academic would also be complicit in the actions of the Indian government in areas of conflict. And if we don’t defend this principle how will we defend the rights of dissent of those who are employed in universities – especially, for instance, in times of war, when reasons of state can be cited to create an explicit complicity?
[...]
I do not see how it is possible to make the case that Israel is so different, so exceptional, that it requires the severing of connections with even the more liberal, more critically-minded members of that society. Is it really possible to argue that there is in that country such a unique and excessive malevolence that it contaminates every aspect of civil society, including private foundations and universities? Let me remind you of something that Sari Nusseibeh once said:

"If we are to look at Israeli society, it is within the academic community that we've had the most progressive pro-peace views and views that have come out in favor of seeing us as equals... If you want to punish any sector, this is the last one to approach."

I have always felt that exceptionalism has been a major problem for the rest of the world in relation to both the US as well as Israel. How then can I now take an exceptionalist position myself?

Mr. Ghosh also objects to the boycott on tactical grounds, linking to this Gush Shalom piece. See also Margaret Atwood's response to the same request (she also is not boycotting).

H/T: Norm Geras.

Ending the Culture of Impunity

Sometimes, it seems to me that "opposing the settlements" is the gimme for supporters of Israel looking to demonstrate that they are not simple rubber-stampers of government policy. That doesn't mean it's not important -- it gives lie to the notion that the typical pro-Israel person actually can't distinguish between "criticism of Israel" and "anti-Semitism", and lord knows no amount of bullets is too many to lay into that beast -- but it does sometimes come off as a bit like going through the motions.

A somewhat more "hot" issue, it seems, than the settlements themselves, is the issue of settler violence. And let's be clear here too: Groups like the ADL are quite vocal and pronounced in condemning acts of settler violence against the Palestinian people. Which is good. But I do think there is not enough intention in the pro-Israel community to the seeming culture of impunity that surrounds these acts. The settler thugs that perpetrate these acts don't seem to get caught or punished, and I don't see why. I don't see why when they throw rocks, it's not assault. I don't see why when they build a new "outpost" on private Palestinian land, it's not theft. There is effort by the IDF to maintain order in the West Bank, but its mostly by dispersion. The settlers who break the law aren't prosecuted. And I think there needs to be a crackdown, starting now.

And maybe there will be. The IDF seems to be getting mighty tired of the daily provocations of extremist "hilltop youth" folks whose belligerence is targeted towards the IDF and Palestinians.

Israel Defense Forces officers have lashed out at rioters who clashed with soldiers at the West Bank settlement of Yitzhar on Tuesday.

"These people are scum," one senior officer told Haaretz after three soldiers were wounded by stones thrown near the hilltop settlement, known for its hard-line yeshiva, or Jewish seminary.

It was seminary students who had instigated the violence, the officer said.

"They don't even represent the settlers of Yitzhar. Most of the problems in the area stem from yeshiva students in the settlement. People think they come there to study Torah - but the only reason they come there is to incite riots and provoke the Palestinians."

After the incident, the IDF vowed to take serious steps to curb settle violence at Yitzhar, with assistance from local police and the Shin Bet security service's Jewish unit, set up to thwart violence by extremist settlers.

"[Yitzhar] is a focal point for violence and harassment and the time has come to put a stop to this," the officer said. "The problem requires fundamental action by all the law enforcement agencies."

Yitzhar is best known as the focal point for the settler "price tag" policy -- essentially, terrorist acts meant to put a "price" on the settlement freeze agreed to by the Netanyahu government. As far as I'm concerned, the folks promoting "price tag" should be treated the same as any other violent opponents of Israeli government policy. And maybe soon, they will.

Martinez Takes On Violence Against Women

In the wake of the senseless murder of Jennifer Carolina Viera by her husband, former two-division champion Edwin Valero (who proceeded to commit suicide in prison), newly crowned middleweight champion Sergio Martinez has announced his intention to create a foundation aimed at stamping out violence against women:

"I love and respect women. Violence against women is simply unacceptable," Martinez said. "The great number of cases, too often involving athletes, requires action. I have always confided in my mother and consider myself to be a momma's boy. Women must be respected, not abused."
[...]
"Sergio is going to petition the different sanctioning bodies and the different boxing dignitaries to make them know he is serious in this effort," said Sampson Lewkowicz, Martinez's adviser. "We can create a foundation that makes a world of difference to women everywhere."

Promoter Lou DiBella said he will enlist the Boxing Promoters Association to help in the cause.

"I am proud of Sergio for attempting to use his newfound fame to help address a terrible problem, which must be eradicated," DiBella said.

Martinez, who is from Argentina but living in Oxnard, Calif., said besides creating a foundation and raising money to help the cause, he hopes his newfound status as middleweight world champion will give him a platform to help spread his message.

"My middleweight championship gives me a voice," he said. "I will use this voice in an effort to protect women from senseless violence and abuse."

Good for him. Count me in as a supporter.

Two of My Favorite Things

The Moroccan National Ice Hockey team (yup), based out of Montreal, brings together Jews and Arabs as part of one great hockey club.

“We are succeeding where politics have failed,” said the 48-year-old Mr. Mrini, who has lived in Montreal for 30 years. “We don’t have weapons, we have sweat. And whether your name is Eli or Mohammed doesn’t matter, you’re going to embrace after you score a goal.”

Sometimes, the notion takes some getting used to. Last fall, Mr. Mrini and Mr. Tawfiq were introduced to a potential recruit – Shlomo Levy, a Montrealer and member of the Israeli national hockey team.

As Mr. Levy stood in the foyer of a Montreal arena, his hockey bag thrown over his shoulder, he insisted on clearing the air. Yes, he was open to joining. But he wanted them to know: He was not only Jewish, but born in Israel.

Mr. Mrini and Mr. Tawfiq looked at him. Then they burst out laughing.

“Where’s the problem?” Mr. Mrini said. “Are you Moroccan or not?” (He is, through his Moroccan-born father.)

“We didn’t see a problem – on the contrary, at least he knows about international hockey,” said Mr. Tawfiq, 27. “It brings another level to our team.”

The players say their camaraderie reflects the relatively harmonious coexistence of Muslims and Jews in Morocco; they’re just extending it onto the ice in Montreal. For one, they respect one another’s religious observances. Practices are suspended during Ramadan, as they were during the recent Passover holiday; instead of fending off pucks, Adil El Farj, a Muslim goaltender and financial adviser in Montreal, fired off Happy Passover wishes to his Jewish teammates.

“This team is a nice lesson for the rest of the world,” said Patrick Harroch, who is Jewish and whose brother, Dave, just signed on as coach. “It shows the world that Arabs and Jews can get along through the beauty of sports. We have something in common that bonds us – the love of hockey.”

They're playing in the African Nations Cup this fall. Wish them luck!

Happy Israeli Independence Day

A must-read column in the Jerusalem Post.

Mississippi Sense

It's easy to get demoralized about the fact that a Mississippi school district is, in 2010, facing a desegregation order after a court found its school transfer policy had created racially identifiable school. But, optimist that I am, I'm actually finding hope. Why? Because the district officials and residents seem to have owned up to what happened, and understand why it has to change:

"I didn't realize it was getting to the point anyone should worry about it," said Jay Boyd, the school board president, who is white. "I just thought we need to do what's best for students -- if they're happy, let them go to Salem. Who's it hurting?"
[...]
Boyd, the school board president, reluctantly acknowledged that racism probably played a role in the transfer requests. "I thought that was a thing of the past," he said. "You live and you learn."
[...]
The ruling has led some white parents in Walthall County to reconsider the systemic effects of individual choice. Roger Ginn, a white parent whose children graduated from both Tylertown and Salem, said he'd always considered the transfer issue to be a simple matter of student happiness, not race.

"But if all that adds up to segregated schools?" he asked, and then paused for a while. "That wouldn't be right, no."

It's easy to lapse into defensiveness when faced with an order like this -- a tendency, I can't help but think, that is accentuated when the rest of the country is holding you up as the racist hillbillies who got stuck in the last century. To their credit, it looks like the residents of this county aren't taking that route. And that's worth commending.

Bob Jones Comes to Hastings

The Supreme Court is currently considering Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, a case involving how UC-Hastings (a public law school) treats student groups who wish, for religious reasons, to exclude gays and lesbians from their ranks. Hastings has a blanket policy forbidding any registered student organization from discriminating on basis of, among other things, sexual orientation; the CLS claims this policy constitutes religious discrimination. Nobody disputes, of course, that the CLS can maintain its current exclusionary policies -- they just can't, under the current rule, do so with the support of a public university.

There is some Supreme Court precedent indicating that public universities must be open to sectarian religious organizations (see Rosenberger v. Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995)). But that case isn't really on-point -- it stands for the simple proposition that religious groups must be admitted to campus on an equal basis with secular groups, and that Establishment Clause concerns can't be used as a ward against this.

No, the case that most clearly comes to mind is Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983). There, the IRS revoked BJU's tax-exempt status due to its religiously-inspired policy against inter-racial dating. The court upheld the action because racial discrimination in education is contrary to public policy. More broadly, while the government certainly can't prohibit private groups from excluding racial minorities, it does not have to give such behavior its imprimatur. In setting public policy, and in managing its own affairs, it is well within the government's right to treat racially-inclusive groups differently from their exclusionary peers. The government is allowed to set policies that prefers equality over discrimination.

Responding to BJU's First Amendment claim, Chief Justice Burger wrote:

On occasion, this Court has found certain governmental interests so compelling as to allow even regulations prohibiting religiously based conduct. In Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), for example, the Court held that neutrally cast child labor laws prohibiting sale of printed materials on public streets could be applied to prohibit children from dispensing religious literature. The Court found no constitutional infirmity in "excluding [Jehovah's Witness children] from doing there what no other children may do." Id. at 171.... Denial of tax benefits will inevitably have a substantial impact on the operation of private religious schools, but will not prevent those schools from observing their religious tenets.

The governmental interest at stake here is compelling.... [T]he Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education -- discrimination that prevailed, with official approval, for the first 165 years of this Nation's constitutional history. That governmental interest substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on petitioners' exercise of their religious beliefs. The interests asserted by petitioners cannot be accommodated with that compelling governmental interest ... and no "less restrictive means," ... are available to achieve the governmental interest.

Id. at 603-04.

It is relatively uncontested, then, that in certain contexts religious practices must yield in the face of anti-discrimination norms. I can't imagine that if the CLS was asserting a religious requirement to exclude Blacks, this case would be before the Supreme Court -- it might theoretically be possible to distinguish Bob Jones, but I doubt any court would take the bait.* So as far as I see it, the question is simply whether the Court is willing to put anti-gay animus on the same constitutional level as racism. Or more accurately: whether it is willing to defer to a governmental determination making that value judgment. At bottom, Martinez doesn't present a particularly novel issue of First Amendment law. The only thing new is whether this Court, the Roberts Court, is willing to allow a government body to proclaim a public policy against homophobia. That it is considering prohibiting this is indicative of just how shallow both its "minimalism", and its protestations of non-"activism" (whatever that means), are.

* There are many theoretical difficulties in terms of how to distinguish between government properly refusing to issue its stamp of approval towards discriminatory organizations, and government improperly acting to suppress those groups entirely. If the government said "fire fighter protection is a privilege that we're withholding from racist organizations", I doubt it would be sustained. But I don't think those theoretical problems are in play here, precisely because we've already started the line-drawing process with Bob Jones, and, were this case one of racial exclusion rather than heterosexist exclusion, we'd know exactly which side of the line the CLS would be on. It's not the theory issues that make this case "hard", it's whether courts are willing to let a government body treat homophobia the same way as it does racism. And I don't see any principled reason why it should be precluded from doing so.

Mass Wrongs

Marc Porier on the aftermath of the Mississippi prom case (where a rural town and school district went to great lengths to stop a lesbian student from attending prom in a tux):

In spring a young woman’s fancy turns to love. Take Constance McMillen for example. A senior at Itawamba Agricultural High School in north Mississippi, McMillen has been out as a lesbian since the eighth grade. Back in February the high school — for some reason — issued a policy directing that only opposite sex couples could attend the upcoming prom in early April. McMillen asked for an exception so she could bring her girlfriend, and she also asked permission to wear a tuxedo. The high school and the county school board denied her requests. McMillen and the girlfriend could attend, but only if each came with a boy as her date, if the girls wore dresses (not a tux, not slacks and a nice top), and if they did not slow dance with each other, which would “push people’s buttons”. After McMillen got the Mississippi ACLU involved, the school board cancelled the prom altogether, citing potential “distractions to the educational process”. The school board expressed the “hope that private citizens [would] organize an event for the juniors and seniors.”

McMillen promptly sued in federal court, seeking an injunction to compel the prom to go forward. In a decision issued March 23, just one day after the hearing, Senior U.S. District Judge Glen Davidson (no liberal he — a Reagan appointee) denied her request. McMillen v. Itawamba County School Dist., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27589 (N.D. Miss. 2010). The opinion contains some interesting holdings. The judge found that McMillen had a First Amendment interest in attending the prom with a same-sex partner, and also a First Amendment interest in wearing cross-gender formal attire to the prom. More on those notions in a moment. Holding number three — he denied the preliminary injunction, based on his assessment of the familiar fourth factor for injunctive relief, consideration of the public interest. There was no need to reinject the school board into the prom process via court order or to get the court involved in planning and overseeing a prom, he found, because the parents of the high school students represented to him that they were now planning a ”private” prom which all the students in the high school would be invited to attend. Judge Davidson’s opinion used the scare quotes around “private” and the italics for all. Perhaps he suspected something was up.

With good reason, it turns out. There were some additional shenanigans. McMillen couldn’t find out where to buy a ticket to the “private” prom, then when she did, was told she had missed the cutoff time for purchase by a few minutes. Then the parents announced that the prom they had told the judge about was cancelled altogether. Eventually, though, McMillen thought that it was finally settled and on April 2 off she went in her tuxedo to her hard-won prom. Only to find it was a decoy. McMillen and her date (not the girlfriend, BTW – the girlfriend’s parents wouldn’t let her attend because of the media attention) were just about the only ones there — five other students, two of them with learning disabilities, and the chaperones, who were the high school principal and other school officials. All the other students had gone to another, ”private” prom being held at the same time in a location concealed from McMillen. Some of the high school students later bragged on Facebook about the whole deception, further mocking McMillen.

Ah, but the court encounter is not over. Judge Davidson indicated he would hold a hearing on damages some time in April. That should give him an occasion to explore whether the parents lied to him back in March (contempt?), and whether they were in cahoots with the school officials (state action, conspiracy?). I hope he slams them all big time. Perhaps he should find the entire community of Fulton, Mississippi, (pop. 4000) in contempt if the evidence warrants and if there’s a way to do it.

It would please me greatly if these parents were hit with massive contempt fines.

Lego House

This is less impressive if you've been to the Mall of America ... but only a little bit less.



Via.

Resembling Nazis

Previously, when blogging on the failure of UC-Berkeley's divestment vote, someone protested my labeling of the anti-BDS folks as "the good side". I've written at length regarding why I find the BDS movement to be morally pernicious, and specifically that the core of the movement, by its own admission, is implacably opposed to the existence of Israel as a Jewish state in any way, shape, or form. I feel no need to reiterate my arguments to this respect, curious commenters are welcome to search my archives. Suffice to say, I do not retreat an inch from my position that the BDS side is not a pro-peace side; it is a side that is predicated on continued conflict, on continued hate, on continued anger, and ultimately, on a one-state solution designed to restore Jews to their "rightful" place as global supplicants. If you're not on the side of TULIP and One Voice (and the BDS movement is locked in mortal combat with these groups), you're not on the side of peace. It's that simple.

I did, however, want to flag the experiences of a Berkeley student who attended the veto override vote:

The writers of the bill say that in itself, the bill is not anti-Semitic. Whether or not you believe that, I argue that whatever it is, something about the bill brings out anti-Semitic sentiment that I have never felt before. An Israeli man, probably in his forties, wearing a kippah, was tapped on his shoulder by the woman behind him (a supporter of the bill and local Berkeley resident), and told by her, “You know what’s ironic? You really look like a Nazi. There is something unpleasant about your face and features that really resembles a Nazi.” While this doesn’t reflect everyone in the room, I was shocked that someone would have the audacity to say that. I cannot think of something more offensive that could be said to a Jew. And here we are in 2010. When the bill was first voted upon and the veto was upheld, a hispanic student that had been sitting in front of me the entire time jumped up and turned back (where many of us who are against the bill were sitting) and yelled, “You killed Jesus.” I was shocked to say the least. Finally, a common refrain of “AIPAC is taking over the ASUC” was called out many times, partially in response to our newly elected Jewish president (what a relief). To me, this is the oldest of anti-Semitic claims - the Jews are running the world, they are running our government. To be honest, this was the first time I was scared because of anti-Semitism, and I really was.

I bolded that line in particular, because I think it represents a perfect storm of atrociousness. The student simply focuses on how viscerally offensive it is. And there is that. But consider deeper. The idea that particular facial features are symptomatic of being Nazi-like is essentially biological racism. There is little to distinguish it. The claim is that something embedded in this man's genetic code -- something as inherent as ones bodily structure -- is enough to make one into a Nazi. Ironically enough, it is precisely that sort of phenotypic sorting that most closely resembles Nazi practice. Looking like a Jew is itself a moral disease.

Even if we assume that the man had features that looked Germanic, instead of "classically" Ashkenazi Jewish, what is the woman forgetting? Who does she think was killed by the Nazis? Does she not realize that there were German Jews; that they, too, were victimized in the Holocaust. I believe she does. She has been squeezed into a contorted mask of moral hatred, and the BDS vote was what she saw as an appropriate outlet for it. It's indicative of a person who simply doesn't care about Jews, who doesn't care about Jewish experience, who fundamentally doesn't care about Jewish lives. And in my experience, while she may have been more overt in causing offense, that fundamental disregard for equal human dignity is indicative of the sort of person who joins the BDS movement.

Edwin Valero Arrested on Suspicion of Murder

WBC lightweight champion Edwin Valero has been arrested in Venezuela on suspicion of murdering his wife.

Venezuelan Federal Police Chief Wilmer Flores said Valero was arrested after police found the body of his wife, Jennifer Carolina Viera, in a hotel in the city of Valencia.

Flores said Valero left the hotel room around dawn on Sunday and told the hotel's security personnel that he had killed Viera.

Flores told state television that police found three stab wounds on Viera's body. He said Valero was transferred a local police precinct, "where we are headed to take samples needed for the investigation of the case" and to question the boxer.

Valero's lawyer, Milda Mora, did not immediately answer telephone calls seeking comment.

The 28-year-old boxer has been in trouble with the law before.

Last month, Valero was brought up on charges of harassing his wife and threatening medical personnel who treated her at a hospital in the western city of Merida.

Police arrested Valero then following an argument with a doctor and nurse at the hospital, where his wife was being treated for a series of injuries, including a punctured lung and broken ribs.

Valero entered a Venezuelan rehabilitation center under court order on March 28 for treatment of drug and alcohol addiction, Mora said at the time. The boxer's attorney said Viera was injured when she fell down a flight of stairs at the couple's home while checking a water tank located on the roof.

Valero is (was) a national hero in Venezuela; it is unclear how a trial against him will progress. And I should add that he is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Nonetheless, his track record is not good. If he's guilty, he should be locked away for a long, long time.

H/T: BLH. In the comments there, someone is reporting Venezuelan sources stating that Valero has confessed, and will claim self-defense (he's saying his wife attacked him with a knife).

UPDATE: Valero has reportedly hung himself while in prison.

Give Him More Rope, Part II

Jon Chait is reporting that Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) is weighing a 2012 presidential bid. Hmm... the nation's first Black President, versus someone who thinks slavery wasn't a big deal. That's what we in the biz call a "stark choice". As Chait asks, "Is Boss Hogg not available?"

I was a bit disappointed when Gov. Barbour didn't lose his seat in 2007. But I consoled myself when I realized it just was setting him up for bigger failures down the line.

Primary Editor Roundup

I'm becoming a villain. Not sure how I feel about that.

* * *

Arkansas keeps on trying to ban gay people from adopting children. Their latest effort has been struck down as unconstitutional, and the state attorney general doesn't sound enthused about appealing.

A suicide bomber hit a refugee camp in Pakistan. The attack was apparently retaliation by Sunni terrorists after Shi'ite villagers killed two women for cnverting from Shi'ite to Sunni Islam.

...And now Merrick Garland is extreme, apparently for not wanting to burn the papers of Justice Harry Blackmun.

Two bad tastes which go poorly together: A dude affiliated with the ZOA is trying to convince Jews to go for Palin. Good luck.

Well, this is one way to get folks to read their contract language.

You may have come across a story claiming that former IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said in an interview that "the Israeli occupation only understands the language of violence" and endorsing terrorism. The piece, which was purportedly sourced to the UPI, is almost definitely fake; the source is actually Iran's Press TV and Hamas' website.

Divestment Fails at Berkeley ... For Now

The UC-Berkeley student senate narrowly failed to override a veto of a bill which would have divested student funds from Israel. The override required 14 votes to approve, but failed 12-7-1. Since one of the "nay" votes was a supporter who switched her vote to enable the issue to be reopened at a later time, it's fair to say that the motion failed by one vote -- the one abstainer. So hardly a resounding victory for the good side.

Still, a win is a win. If this comes back up later this month, the pro-peace community has to be ready to mobilize and get try and get a more comfortable margin of victory.

Oh, and allow me to reiterate just how little I care about Desmond Tutu's opinion on this subject. Anti-apartheid hero he may be -- and nothing can take that away from him. But there is nothing intrinsic in being a hero of one social movement that insures you have progressive, egalitarian views with regards to another. And let's be clear: my problems with the statement discussed in the above link have nothing to do with some mythological inability to tolerate "criticism of Israel", and everything to do with Archbishop Tutu's extraordinarily offensive appropriation and contortion of Jewish history and experience.

Particularly if you're Christian clergy, you have to earn my trust -- and Archbishop Tutu has done the opposite, more than convincing me of his inegalitarian views towards Jews and Israel.

UPDATE: Hussein Ibish comments more on the vote, and what it symbolizes. Most importantly, he correctly notes that any "anti-occupation" strategy which brings together mainstreams Israelis and settlers is an anti-occupation strategy designed by idiots. Or by those who aren't, in any meaningful sense, "anti-occupation".

CCAR Resolution on the Kairos Document

Reproduced without comment.

* * *

Central Conference of American Rabbis

Resolution on the 2009 Kairos Document

Adopted by the CCAR Board of Trustees, April 15, 2010

Background

The ongoing struggle of Israelis and Palestinians to live side by side in the land sacred to both is one of the greatest tragedies of our time. People of good will, whatever their faith or background, have beheld twin horrors: Israel’s existential struggle in the face of massive invasions and years of indiscriminate bombings and murderous terrorism, along with the horrible suffering and indignities experienced on a daily basis by Palestinians living under Israeli occupation. Israel and the Palestinians desperately need a peaceful settlement that brings about an end to the occupation of Palestinians lands[1] and that provides dignity and self-rule to the Palestinians and security to Israelis in a Jewish and democratic state. Such a solution is a moral and practical necessity in the interest of all. This moment in history calls for sober, honest, and nuanced voices coming especially from involved religious leaders who understand the necessity of compromise and who can speak truth to power on both sides. The cause of peace is not served by pronouncements which vindicate one side while demonizing the other, but by the courage of moral clarity and respect for truth.

In December, 2009, a document known as “Kairos / A Moment of Truth: A word of faith, hope and love from the heart of Palestinian suffering” was issued and signed by nine Palestinians members of the Christian Clergy and six Palestinian Christian laypersons.

A close reading of Kairos reveals that it is anything but a document based on truth. Careful consideration of what it says and what it does not say, of the history it paints and the history it obfuscates, and of the moral yardstick it applies to Israel yet compromises in the face of Palestinian violence, reveals a morally inconsistent and theologically suspect document that speaks only part of the truth, and not always that.

Sadly, this document also rejects or ignores more than a half a century of Jewish-Christian rapprochement and takes its place among other Christian documents which, throughout history, have intended to delegitimize the Jewish people’s continuing Covenant with God, particularly by arguing that our Covenant has been superseded by Jesus and Christianity. Too often, such Church documents have been utilized as pretexts for our persecution, our expulsion, and even our attempted annihilation. Since the Shoah and World War II, and particularly beginning with Vatican II, the Jewish people has come to expect better from our Christian brothers and sisters.

Like the Kairos authors, the Central Conference of American Rabbis is deeply concerned about the welfare of the Palestinian people, as our record indicates.[2] Our strenuous objections to Kairos do not diminish our commitment to a two-state solution as the only avenue to achieve a just and lasting peace, preserving a secure Jewish State of Israel and facilitating for the first time the realization of the Palestinian people’s nationhood.

Among its many failings, Kairos:

1. Echoes supersessionist language of the Christian past, since rejected by most mainstream Christian denominations, referring to the Torah absent Christian revelation as, in the words of the Christian Scriptures, “a dead letter.”[3]

2. While opposing and negating the applicability of scriptural texts, historical presence, and theological discourse to justify the existence of a Jewish state,[4] does exactly that in making its case for a Palestinian State. [5]

3. Consistently objects to “the Occupation,” without making clear that it is referring exclusively to lands occupied by Israel and in dispute since the Six-Day War of 1967. Ultimately, the document becomes clear, altogether rejecting the very notion of a Jewish State.[6]

4. Insists that the root cause of Palestinian resistance – both violent and non-violent - is ”the Occupation,”[7] obfuscating the historical truth of the Arab world’s militant rejection of the existence of a Jewish state pre-dating 1948, and the decades of war and terrorism, which, in 1967, prompted and necessitated the taking of the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan heights.

5. Purports to promote non-violent resistance as the only legitimate Christian response to the Israeli occupation, yet expresses “respect” and “high esteem for those who have given their life for our nation,” thereby implicitly condoning, even praising, suicide bombers.[8]

6. Attempts to neutralize the concept of terrorism through the euphemistic reference to “terrorism,”[9] implying that the deliberate Palestinian targeting of Israeli civilians with the aim of killing as many as possible in order to strike fear and terror is not terrorism at all, but a form of “legal resistance.”

7. Paints a compelling picture of the reality of Palestinians living under Israeli rule, but ignores the reality of Israelis forced to flee for their lives into bomb shelters, or in fear of being blown up while eating in a restaurant, celebrating a Passover Seder or dancing at a Bar Mitzvah Celebration.

The Kairos Document has been explicitly endorsed by a relative few Palestinian Christian leaders.[10] However, the acceptance and endorsement of this document by certain other individuals and church groups with which we have enjoyed harmonious interfaith relations has been surprising, disturbing and profoundly disappointing. For the contemporary Christian to ascribe to this supercesionist document would be saying to their Jewish neighbors and friends – indeed to the world – that Judaism has no validity as a covenant religion, that the pain and martyrdom endured by countless generations of Jews was for naught; that the world would have been better off without the religious, cultural, spiritual, social, scientific and educational contributions of Jewish people throughout ages; and that the God we worship and serve is no God at all. So many mainstream churches have rejected superscessionism, not only because of the centuries of persecution it has engendered, but because they believe it not to be true. In short, those who would associate themselves with this document and the religious foundation upon which it is based would be erasing years of Christian soul searching and repentance as if they had not been. We expect more from our interfaith partners. We are forced to wonder whether these Church organizations do not recognize the supersessionist and anti-Semitic nature of the Kairos document or whether they no longer care to share interfaith dialogue with us.

Therefore, the Central Conference of American Rabbis:

1. Declares that Kairos is a factually, theologically and morally flawed document;

2. Insists that the document’s explicit supercessionism and inherent anti-Semitism prevent Kairos from providing a legitimate framework for interfaith dialogue and understanding;

3. Acknowledges with appreciation Kairos’ call to the Palestinian people to reject hate[11] (as we all must do), to follow the Christian commandment to “love both enemies and friends” and to resist “through respect of life,” as required by cited Christian Scriptures;[12]

4. Challenges the authors of Kairos to be true to the love and respect of life they endorse and the very scriptures they quote by rejecting as immoral and un-Christian the indiscriminate and deliberately targeted murder of Israeli men, women and children;

5. Again insists that such acts of murder, either as acts of revenge or with the specious designation of “legal Palestinian resistance,”[13] do indeed comprise terrorism, denounced by people of conscience throughout the world as an unacceptable tool for achieving political ends;

6. Asserts that the Jewish people’s right to national sovereignty in the Land of Israel is primarily established, not by subjective religious belief or fundamentalist reading of Hebrew Scriptures, but by a millennium of national existence and civilization there, followed, even in exile, by nearly two millennia of unbroken physical and spiritual support of and yearning for the Land;

7. Labels as theologically hypocritical and historically dishonest the assertion that the Palestinian people’s historic presence on the land establishes its right of return,[14] but that the Jewish people’s historic presence, dating back 3000 years, does not establish that very same right;

8. Calls on Christians of good faith to recognize the complexity of the Israeli-Arab conflict, which is complicated by territorial dispute as well as competing allegiances to sacred land, Palestinian suffering and Palestinian terror; and which must not be reduced, as Kairos’ authors do, to an assertion that the Jewish people are in the wrong and that the Palestinian cause is fully just;

9. Calls on all who have endorsed Kairos to look deeply into its words and honestly into their own souls and to recognize and forswear the flawed and distorted picture of reality it paints;

10. Serves notice that the CCAR would require serious reflection before continuing our common cause with any Church body or organization that endorses or continues to endorse Kairos;

11. Re-affirms our commitment to our continuing interfaith cooperation with Christian groups that affirm the continuing, unique Covenant between God and the Jewish people; and

12. Recommits itself to all worthy and legitimate endeavors to bring an end to the suffering of the Palestinian people, to be achieved through negotiations to establish a Palestinian State adjacent to and in cooperation with a secure Jewish State of Israel.

13. Urges our members to educate themselves on this matter and to seek opportunities to share concerns about the Kairos document with their local Christian colleagues and lay people.

---

[1] We define such “Palestinian lands” as land in Israel’s hands since the Six-Day War of 1967 that was not part of Israel before that time and which has not been annexed by Israel. We also recognize that the exact boundaries of such land may be altered in the course of negotiations.

[2] See “Where We Stand on Israel,” 2002 and 2003; Resolution on Peace in Israel, 2001 inter alia,; Resolution on Gaza and the West Bank, 2006; Resolution on Building a Defensive Barrier between Israel and Palestinian Communities, 2004; Resolution on Discriminatory Home Demolitions in Israel, 2005; and countless others.

[3] Kairos 2.2.2

[4] Kairos 2.2.2

[5] Kairos 2.3.1

[6] Kairos 9.3

[7] Kairos 1.4

[8] Kairos 4.2.5

[9] Kairos 4.3

[10] On its website, the Kairos Document purports itself to be endorsed by thirteen Patriarchs and Heads of Churches in Jerusalem. And yet, that supposed statement of endorsement makes no allusion to the contents of the document nor does it endorse nor make reference to the contents of the Kairos document itself. It is instructive to note that the original Kairos document listed Bishop Dr. Munib Younan, head of the "Evangelical Lutheran Church of Jordan and the Holy Land.," as one of the sixteen signers, the only one who held a position other than pastor at that time; but that Bishop Younan’s name was subsequently removed from the list of signatories.

[11] Kairos 5.4.3

[12] Kairos 4.1.

[13] Kairos 1.5

[14] Kairos 2.3.2; 2.3.4

There's More To College Than What's In Your Porn File

A couple days back, Jessica Valenti posted on the creative modification of an anti-choice advertisement in the NYC subway.

Before



After



Uh-oh! Somebody at Red State is aghast:

Want to go to college, but there is a pesky baby growing inside of you? Abort! A life is far less important than your co-ed fun and career plans, right? Your dreams are all that matters, baby be damned. Can’t let that get in the way! Follow President Obama’s thinking and don’t let yourself be “punished with a baby!”
[...]
Loves encouraging abortion for convenience. Loves encouraging abortion because a baby, a human life, doesn’t fit in with your super fun college plans. Denies the trauma that abortion may cause to the woman, but rejoices at the thought of killing a baby who isn’t timely.

But you want it to be safe, legal and rare? Baloney. Willy nilly matters of convenience are not part of that definition. You have devalued life to the point where *convenience* over-rides a life itself, in your minds.

As Jessica responds, this is a rather ... odd ... diminishing of the importance of college. To be fair, the author seems to find the idea of a woman caring about her "career plans" to be ridiculous too. But by and large, the image he's putting out there is of the selfish slut-chick who wants an abortion so she can have her four years of drunken hook-ups and MTV spring break trips. Clearly, for women, college is just a chance to star in a "hot co-eds 4 u!" video.

Clearly It's Not Being Enforced

Apparently, Maryland judges are constitutionally required to be "most distinguished for integrity, wisdom and sound legal knowledge" -- the only qualification of its kind of any state nationwide. But then they hand down decisions like Conaway v. Deane, so obviously the language is more aspirational than anything else.

Same Old Same Old

There's this idea that the Tea Party represents some unheard of political phenomenom, the likes of which the nation has never seen before. In reality, it's actually pretty common for cranky White folks to preach the apocalypse when things seem not to be going their way.

Looking Right Past It

John Derbyshire to UPenn Black Law Students Association: You're biologically inferior to me:

Our species separated into two parts 50, 60, or 70 thousand years ago, depending on which paleoanthropologist you ask. One part remained in Africa, the ancestral homeland. The other crossed into Southwest Asia, then split, and re-split, and re-split, until there were human populations living in near-total reproductive isolation from each other in all parts of the world. This went on for hundreds of generations, causing the divergences we see today. Different physical types, as well as differences in behavior, intelligence, and personality, are exactly what one would expect to observe when scrutinizing these divergent populations.
[...]
We see the same differences in traits that we don’t think of as directly physical, what evolutionary psychologists sometimes refer to as the “BIP” traits — behavior, intelligence, and personality. Two of the hardest-to-ignore manifestations here are the extraordinary differentials in criminality between white Americans and African Americans, and the persistent gaps in scores when tests of cognitive ability are given to large population samples.

Via United States of Jamerica.

Empathy Quick Hit

Dahlia Lithwick and Sonja West's article on how John Paul Stevens showed the importance of "empathy" in a judge is a very good piece.

Evolving Thoughts

A solid observation on originalism:

[S]cholars such as Bernard Bailyn and Gordon Wood have demonstrated that the era from 1765 to the turn of the century was a dynamic period of consistent change and deep thought about political relationships. One cannot freeze a particular moment during that era and infer from it precisely what well-informed people thought, because they had not yet finished thinking about what something like freedom of speech or the relationship of church and state should be.

Ossification is hard!

Pink Tea

The folks at CODEPINK want to declare a truce with the rabid right-wingers in the Tea Party, to see if they can find some "common ground". Unsurprisingly, a large part of that "common ground" would entail slashing foreign aid to Israel (and Egypt -- why stop there? Why not foreign aid, in general?). They happily cite such luminaries as Ron Paul and "Conservative commentator" Pat Buchanan to bolster their case that the Tea Party right and the CODEPINK left should be just one big happy family -- at least where foreign policy is concerned.

Of course, nobody who's observed the behavior of former Rep. and Green Party VP candidate Cynthia McKinney should be surprised at this new desire to jump into bed with the racist right. Many folks seem quite enamored with the coloration produced by the green-brown swirl.

All I say is this: You can judge a movement quite well by who it thinks would make for good friends. I have very good reason not to trust a foreign policy agenda led by Pat Buchanan. And, just as well, I have very good reason not to trust a movement that thinks it would be wise to have our foreign policy inspired by Buchanan, either.

Stand By Your Ad, Mark II

Democrats, led by President Obama, are trying to reverse the influence of corporate money on elections in the wake of Citizens United, have hit on some interesting ideas:

One provision would require the chief executive of any company or group that is the main backer of a campaign advertisement to personally appear in television and radio spots to acknowledge the sponsorship, the officials said.

These are akin to the "I'm Barack Obama, and I approve this message" bits you see at the end of every candidate ad, except applied to corporations (and presumably, unions and other such groups). Kevin Drum applies this standard to a California Proposition being pushed by Pacific Gas & Electric designed to force public competitors out of business. The ads, of course, feature "the most reasonable looking soccer mom you've ever laid eyes on, and it's in heavy rotation financed by PG&E's millions." But would they be as effective if the CEO of a massive power company was forced to come on at the end? Maybe not.

The New Kids on the Block

My mom was very proud that she heard the name Sidney Thomas floated as a potential SCOTUS pick before I did. I told her that there's no way he's anything more than a name. Democrats aren't going to nominate a total darkhorse like that -- too risky.

But the other two names the article mentions -- though both equally implausible -- at least are theoretically interesting. I've heard at least one other person mention Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren, a bankruptcy specialist who would make the nomination discussion all about economics (good for Obama). And, well, you know my opinions on Martha Minow -- so I'll just add that if you want to put a liberal's liberal on the court, she's possibly the only candidate that could make Pam Karlan look tame (Minow's liberalism, to be clear, manifests itself as 100% pure awesome).

Primitive Minds

I was doing some reading yesterday on the science of emotions, and at one point in the course of discussing certain 18th century views on the subject, the author noted a division traceable to the controversy over whether the brain and mind were united or split. This debate, he said, still had some salience today. And I snickered a bit at that -- oh, the West and its preoccupation with the classics. Of course the mind and brain are united -- where else would the mind come from? The inability to abandon the idea that the mind floats free of the brain was, I thought, just a symptom of Western thoughts propensity to assign validity to a concept for no more reason than Descartes said it.

Then later in that same reading, the author mentioned a patient that was referred to him (a neurologist) from a group of psychologists, and observed that the very fact that we distinguish between neurology and psychology is itself a relic of this brain/mind divide mentioned above. And that gave me pause -- because I do find that split very intuitive, but I have trouble characterizing it in ways that don't resort to parceling out the mind from the brain. The closest I could come is saying that neurology deals with physical trauma, scarring, lobotomies, and the like, while psychology deals with chemical imbalances (such as in some forms of depression). But this doesn't seem to leave much room for psychotherapy regarding, for example, traumatic experiences and things like that -- ideas which I would characterize as firmly psychological but do not feel particularly neurological.

So -- egg on my face. Guess I'm one of the Luddites.

Of Traitors and Terrorists

Gotta love Roland Martin for this. To be sure, Confederate soldiers weren't terrorists in any general sense -- that label, I think, is reserved for folks who as a matter of policy violate international humanitarian norms in order to achieve political ends, and I haven't read anything that suggests that Confederate war tactics were, as a matter of course, outside the normal bounds of the laws of war at that time. But Martin isn't really using the terrorist label for that purpose -- rather, he's making a comparison between the specious justifications given for "honoring" Confederate soldiers ("they were fighting for what they believed in!" "There were aggressive acts by the North") and similar rhetoric used by terrorist apologists the world over.

The fact is that Confederate soldiers weren't terrorists, so much as they were traitors. But either way, there is nothing honorable about it.

Meanwhile, Matt Yglesias has a great post about "the white southern political tradition’s very partial and selective embrace of majoritarian democracy."

As long as national institutions are substantially controlled by white southerners, the white south is a hotbed of patriotism. But as soon as an non-southern political coalition manages to win an election—as we saw in 1860 and in 2008—then suddenly the symbols of national authority become symbols of tyranny and the constitution is construed as granting conservative areas all kinds of alleged abilities to opt out of national political decisions.

And then the rest of the country is supposed to honor this as authentic Americana. Count me out.

Fork in the Road

Orin Kerr comments on the phenomenal diversity of Obama's reported short-list for Justice Stevens' soon-to-be vacant SCOTUS seat:

First, consider the broad range of choices Obama faces. His shortlist consists of former law clerks to a wide range of the liberal Justices of the 1970s and 1980s. Obama must choose between a Brennan clerk (Garland), a Marshall clerk (Kagan), and a Blackmun clerk (Wood). Further, the shortlisters differ dramatically in that they had different high-level positions in the Clinton Administration. Will Obama pick the former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division (Garland), the former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division (Wood), or the former Associate White House Counsel (Kagan)?

Even if Obama decides on a former academic, he has to pick which kind of resume he wants. For example, does he pick the woman who was a full-time law professor at the University of Chicago from 1981 to 1993 (Wood)? Or does he pick the woman who was a full-time law professor at the University of Chicago from 1991 to 1995 (Kagan)? Obviously, these are big choices.

No matter who he chooses, Obama will continue to break new ground, or at least help bolster some of the low numbers of people of certain arguably underrepresented backgrounds on the current Court. For example, Elena Kagan would become only the second former Harvard professor presently on the Court (joining Justice Breyer). Either Kagan or Wood would be only the second Chicago professor (joining Justice Scalia). Further, Merrick Garland would be only the second Justice on the Court who went to Harvard College; then Harvard Law School; then clerked for Henry Friendly; then clerked at the Supreme Court; and then worked at DOJ and was a partner at a big DC law firm before serving on the DC Circuit (joining Chief Justice Roberts).

Elena Kagan would also bring notable educational diversity to the Court. Kagan would be the very first Justice ever to have attended Princeton and then Harvard Law. Obviously, that would be a major break after two consecutive nominees who had attended Princeton and then Yale Law (Justices Alito and Sotomayor). Whoever Obama picks, I think it’s clear that Obama faces a major choice and that his selection will be a historic occasion.

Reading through the recitation of the trio's clerkships, I still thought this was serious -- I was imagining some in-depth discussion of the different branches of liberalism represented by Justices Blackmun, Marshall, and Brennan. Alas, I was met with sarcasm instead. Albeit funny sarcasm.

However, Professor's (fully-warranted) snarking aside, I think there are some significant choices inherent in the Wood/Kagan/Garland decision. First, in terms of relative controversy of appointment, there are notable differences -- Wood looking like the most likely to spark a fight, Garland the least likely, and Kagan somewhere in the middle. Kagan would be a change in being a rare (in recent times) Justice with no prior judicial experience -- folks vary as to whether that's a good or bad thing. At the same time, she has a reputation for being a consensus-builder -- an attribute Stevens shared and that Obama may thus value in the ever-present battle to secure Justice Kennedy's vote. Kagan also is probably the most sympathetic to expansive executive power of the three.

Garland is known for being a "moderate", although I'm not quite sure where that reputation comes from -- I had always thought of him as the second of the two liberal lions on the DC Circuit (alongside Tatel). And Wood, for her part, might be the purest intellect of the threesome (no knock on the other two) -- if Obama wants someone capable of going toe-to-toe with Scalia, Wood is battle-tested from her years of sparring with Posner and Easterbrook on the 7th Circuit.

Of course, the three do all share one critical attribute: all are clearly qualified and would make stellar Supreme Court Justices.

Picking a Nit

Who here is surprised that Mississippi Governor Haley "The top is not the top" Barbour (R-MS) doesn't think that Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell's omission of slavery from his "Confederate History Month" proclamation was a big deal? Not me!

UPDATE: The DNC smells blood.