Nearly Half of All GOPers Doubt Obama Was Born in the US

CNN provides a staggering new poll indicating that a full 41% of Republicans harbor serious doubts about whether President Obama was born in the United States. Only 19% of Independents and 15% of Democrats believe that Obama "probably" or "definitely" was born in another country.

It truly amazes me just how deeply entrenched birtherism is inside the modern conservative movement. Rush Limbaugh is, of course, only the latest to fall into the fever swamp.

Meanwhile, in not entirely unrelated news, vanquished Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) recounts his meeting with the tea partiers. It starts with folks telling him how Social Security numbers indicate how people are (literally) owned by banks, and goes downhill from there (with the usual pitstops in old school anti-Semitic conspiracy-mongering).

Today in Mosquedom

A ton of news cropped up regarding the WTC mosque/community center. This post will be about half-substantive, half-roundup.

First, I can't think of a better place to start than Mayor Bloomberg's stellar speech on the subject. It really hits home that the question here is one of our deepest commitments to religious liberty.

“Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values and play into our enemies’ hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists, and we should not stand for that.

“For that reason, I believe that this is an important test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetimes, as important a test. And it is critically important that we get it right.

“On Sept. 11, 2001, thousands of first responders heroically rushed to the scene and saved tens of thousands of lives. More than 400 of those first responders did not make it out alive. In rushing into those burning buildings, not one of them asked, ‘What God do you pray to?’ (Bloomberg’s voice cracks here a little as he gets choked up.) ‘What beliefs do you hold?’

“The attack was an act of war, and our first responders defended not only our city, but our country and our constitution. We do not honor their lives by denying the very constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked.

Damn the fuck straight.

Meanwhile, I wish I could give a cookie to the AJC for not opposing the building of the mosque, but you know what? I can't. This is such an open and shut case that the mealy-mouthed, ham-handed decision by which the AJC -- after agonizing deliberation -- deigned to give its approval is worth nothing to me. This passive-aggressive "questions have been raised" formulation, wherein any Muslim in the public sphere must carry a punch card indicating the last time they condemned Osama bin Laden, is incredibly pernicious and must be countered at all costs. I bow to no one in opposing radical extremists of all stripes and denominations -- Islamic ones included -- but Muslims don't have an a priori obligation to show themselves to be peace-loving. Like all other persons, we ought to assume they fully buy into the panoply of human rights protections and human values until they, personally, show themselves otherwise. The burden is on those making the allegation that this group is aligned with Islamic radicals. It is a burden they cannot meet.

Of course, that pales in comparison to the contempt I feel for Abe Foxman right now, and the tragic little tears he's crying about how everyone is ganging up on the poor ADL and not recognizing for its "nuance" ... ugh. Gag me. That was decidedly not the lesson Foxman needed to learn. The lesson he needed to learn is that pissing away decades of credibility opposing religious bigotry is going to meet with backlash. As it should.

That being said, I'm not sure the ADL's position on this is fairly traceable to its position on Israel. In fact, I think Beinart misunderstands the proper role the ADL should take with regards to Israel, for the ADL is not a domestic Israeli human rights organization. To be sure, it should oppose religious discrimination anywhere and everywhere, including in Israel. But the ADL, as an international organization, is properly concerned with the way that anti-Israel animus in the global community both inspires and is inspired by anti-Jewish sentiment. I reject the notion that the fact that Israel is a place where Jews have power completely obviates any and all discussion of anti-Semitism in the context of Israel.

The far-right ACLJ has announced it is filing a legal challenge seeking to reverse the decision of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission declining to designate the site a "landmark", thus allowing the mosque to proceed. The suit must be for show, because I can't imagine even the ACLJ believes it will win an "abuse of discretion" argument, and effectively their suit can be summarized as haling the NYCLPC into court for not deciding to violate the Constitution (Cf. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993)).

Finally, the backers of the have publicly thanked their Jewish backers. You're welcome, but honestly? Just doing my duty as an American.

No Worries

The last time Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) faced a race-baiting challenger in his majority-Black African-American district, he thrashed Nikki Tinker by a 60 point margin. I promised at the time that I wouldn't worry that the voters of the 9th District of Tennessee would fall for such naked appeals to prejudice. This time around, Cohen drew a decidedly tougher challenge in Memphis Mayor Willie Herenton, who also is trying to race-bait his way to victory.

Fortunately for my promise, I still don't need to worry -- Cohen appears to be cruising to victory, and by now has to be considered firmly entrenched in the district. And that's a good thing: Cohen is an excellent Congressman who deserves a long and successful career in Washington.

I Bring a Knife, You Pull a Gun

I generally like my laptop, but one thing that it hates is wireless internet. After two years of struggle, I finally effectively ceded the issue upon moving into my Virginia apartment, connecting to the internet via a direct landline.

But upon moving to my new place in Chicago (which I love), I foolishly decided to break that ceasefire, and attempt to set up a new wireless network. Oooh, the laptop didn't like that, and it retaliated by destroying the ability to connect even through a landline.

Wireless internet remains at the laptop's discretion, which is why I'm able to post this message from the airport. But things are not looking peachy right now.

ADL-Approved Religious Discrimination

Absolutely outrageous. The Anti-Defamation League has released a statement approving of efforts to bar the construction of a Muslim mosque in southern Manhattan, several blocks from the WTC site. While attempting to disassociate themselves from the conceded "bigotry" which they acknowledge animates some of the mosque's opponents, the ADL claims that the site "will cause some victims more pain – unnecessarily – and that is not right." "[U]ltimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right."

I submit that it is a question of both, and the precedent that the ADL is adhering to is one that is exceedingly detrimental to the safety and equality of religious minorities worldwide, including Jews.

The ADL's attempt to distinguish folks whose opposition to the mosque is based on "bigotry", and those for whom it isn't, is unavailing. It's all bigotry -- some of it is simply better dressed than others. Restricting the civil rights of a given population because some members of that population committed horrible acts is bigotry per se. There's no getting around it. We might sympathize with folks who -- having been brutally victimized by members of religious group -- are fearful or otherwise antagonistic towards that group as a whole. But such sentiments simply can't be given force of law. To force members of a religious group to bear additional burdens based on the actions of their brethren in faith -- actions which they themselves oppose stridently -- is bigotry in its purest form.

I am literally shaking with rage over this, because I trust the ADL to be there when the rights of religious minorities are threatened. I can no longer do that. That the ADL apparently views Egypt's treatment of its Jews as a model example of religious liberty is disqualifying for them to be taken seriously as a civil rights organization concerned with the fair and egalitarian treatment of all people. Their position on this issue is absolutely unconscionable, and is an embarassment to anyone who truly cares about the rights of religious minorities in the United States and worldwide.

Other commenters:

Greg Sargent: "On this one, you're either with the bigots or you're against them. And ADL has in effect sided with them."

Adam Serwer: "I learned a very important lesson in Hebrew School that I have retained my entire life. If they can deny freedom to a single individual because of who they are, they can do it to anyone."

Tablet Magazine: "Founded in 1913, the ADL, in its words, 'fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all.' Except when it does the precise opposite."

Conversos

I will admit that I harbor some prejudice against Jews who convert to another faith. It's not something I'm proud of, but there it is. There is a feeling of abandonment -- we're an embattled minority, and these folks are taking the easy way out. A socially sanctioned (encouraged, even) Michael Jackson pill, if you will. And sometimes, converts, in their quest to prove their loyalty to their (new) faith, are amongst the most zealous oppressors of their former brethren (this, of course, is not limited to folks converting from Judaism).

But this my problem, and my prejudices do not deserve any more protection by the law than anyone elses. So when an Israeli Oxford Professor claims she was discriminated against after converting from Judaism to Anglicanism, assuming her story is accurate, I think she has every right to legal redress.

Of course I have the right to oppose anti-Jewish behavior from any source, whether it be from Jews, Gentiles, or formerly-Jewish Gentiles. But neither I, nor anyone else, has the right to take a preemptive strike -- discriminating for fear of discrimination. My prejudices are my own problem, and I should be the one (as much as possible) to bear their burden.

Via.

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Tea Party?

Not Democrats -- they see the far-right movement as their best hope for keeping political control in 2010, by forcing the GOP to run terrifyingly fanatical candidates like Sharron Angle. But the GOP, which denounced as "quackery" a Democratic attempt to tie the GOP to the tea partiers, might be getting a bit nervous.

They got to be careful, though. Republicans who denounce the far-right tend not to last long in Republican primaries (Bob Bennett and Bob Inglis, wave from the galleries!). I hardly think the tea party will be thrilled by public GOP efforts to disassociate themselves. But I hardly think voters will be thrilled if they don't.

Rough gig.

Take Two

I'm not convinced that someone who truly screwed up (as opposed to committing the gaffe of honestly stating his beliefs) would need two cracks at the apology apple (see also: Fatima Hajaig). But I don't speak for the ADL.

Still, as far as I'm concerned, Oliver Stone is just a sober Mel Gibson.

Like Precious Little Snowflakes

Jeffrey Lord, a writer at the American Spectator has concluded that Shirley Sherrods lied about her father being lynched. Yes, her father was brutally beaten to death by a mob on the courthouse steps. But "lynching", we're told, requires a rope -- otherwise, it's just "a brutal and fatal beating," and an outright fabrication to say otherwise.

Needless to say, this doesn't track anybody's definition of "lynching", which generally refers to an extrajudicial execution by a mob (the Israeli commandos who claimed that the crew of the Mavi Marmara was preparing to lynch them were not referring to ropes). And consequently, it seems like virtually everybody is coming down on Lord -- from Matt Yglesias and Jeff Fecke to Radley Balko and Lord's own colleagues at The American Spectator.

But Paul Campos managed to nutpick a gem from a commenter trying, desparately, to defend Lord's statement:

Regardless of the dictionary’s definition, English is considered the most nuanced of languages because each word has a specific, unique meaning giving context and emotion to any written or spoken idea or statement. I don’t need a dictionary to instruct me on the accepted meaning of the word ‘lynching.’

That is so, so far from an accurate description of English that it nearly defies belief. Words in English rarely have just one specific meaning, and the idea that the word "lynching" tends to evoke a noose doesn't mean a extrajudicial mob killing isn't a lynching, any more than the classic image of a "picnic" occurring on a grassy field would mean someone is liar if their "picnic" occurred on a craggy mountain ledge.

And Do You KNOW What Dancing Leads To?

A woman sued Girls Gone Wild for filming her without her consent at a bar. Basically, she was dancing at the bar, and somebody pulled her top down, exposing her breasts to the camera. The jury ruled against her, in what has to be some of the most stunningly offensive logic ever deployed:

After deliberating for just 90 minutes on Thursday, the St. Louis jury came back with a verdict in favor of the smut peddlers. Patrick O'Brien, the jury foreman, explained later to reporters that they figured if she was willing to dance in front of the photographer, she was probably cool with having her breasts on film. They said she gave implicit consent by being at the bar, and by participating in the filming - though she never signed a consent form, and she can be heard on camera saying "no, no" when asked to show her breasts.

I have to admit, it never occurred to me that dancing at a bar equaled implied consent to be filmed having your clothes stripped off (that "no" once again meant "yes" is tragically too common to comment on). But I guess I have one of those crazy, feminist conceptions of consent that doesn't let you have any fun at all.

What Fools They Were To Trust The Website I Write For

In the wake of the Shirley Sherrod scandal, it became known that Noah Jonathan Joel (so many Pollaks!) Pollak -- the soon to be crushed election opponent of Rep. Jan Schkowsky (D-IL) -- is a contributor to Andrew Breitbart's website. Schkowsky, seeking to make some hay, asked Pollak to stop writing for Breitbart. Pollak demurred, saying he would continue his association, but released this statement:

"Andrew [Breitbart] used intemperate language in his debate with the NAACP, which was wrong," Pollak said in a statement. "It was even more wrong for the White House and the NAACP to punish a woman for alleged racism without conducting a full and fair investigation."

Beautiful. "Sure, the website I write for released a spliced-up, wildly misleading video in order to smear a woman and a prominent civil rights organization as racist," (I assume that's what "intemperate language" means, though Lord knows that's an A+ demonstration of weasel-wording). "But even worse was that the White House and NAACP were dumb enough to trust that something posted on it can be taken at face value. I mean, come on!"*

Honestly, I need to genuflect for a moment at this, because ... wow. It's just in a class of its own, isn't it?

* Not that I disagree entirely -- it is bad that the Department of Agriculture rushed to fire Ms. Sherrods without fully investigating the charge, particularly given that the source was, um, Andrew Breitbart. But it is a bizarre standard that the entity that initiated the lie should be judged less harshly than the entity that got taken in by it.

In any event, we've all learned a valuable lesson in trusting things posted on Andrew Breitbart's website -- including those, I imagine, posted by Noah Jonathan Joel Pollak. As Pollak has reminded us, we'd be fools to trust anything he says at this point without undertaking an independent investigation of our own.

A Model to Emulate

When Sarah Palin announced her desire that "peaceful" Muslims "refudiate" a proposed Mosque to be built a few blocks from the World Trade Center site, I was stunned at her brazen devolution into religion demogoguery. Put aside the fact that the organization building the group is the epitome of a "peaceful" Muslim group. As Adam Holland observes, there really isn't any other way to characterize the opposition of Palin and her ilk other than as naked religious bigotry.

A law school friend of mine was defending Palin, and I told him that the argument (such as it is) against the Mosque reminded me of a decision by the Egyptian government to forbid Jews from utilizing a recently restored synagogue in retaliation for Israeli "aggressions" against Muslim holy sites. When I read that story, I saw a human rights violation. Sarah Palin, I said, saw a model to emulate.

I didn't mean it farcically, but I hardly expected Palin or one of her allies to actually consciously admit that they viewed religious discrimination the Middle East as a guide for us to follow. Yet here's Newt Gingrich, explicitly pointing to Saudi bans on synagogues and churches as a reason to bar a Mosque in New York. What I see as barbaric, Gingrich apparently sees as pathbreaking. If only we could be as humane and open-minded parochial and bigoted as the Saudis! What a great vision for America!

The similarity between Palin (and Gingrich) and the bigoted policymakers in the Egyptian and Saudi government doesn't surprise me, as Palin clearly cut from the same cloth as those who would render me a second-class citizen -- perhaps why she is one of the most singularly unpopular politicians amongst American Jews (others have alternative explanations).

The Redemption Scenario

Cross-posted to The Moderate Voice

The scandal of the day was the story of a USDA employee who appeared to indicate that she gave less than full help to a White farmer in an incident over 20 years ago, on account of his race. She told the story at an NAACP dinner, hence the contemporary hook -- conservatives (or at least segments of them) are still on their kick that the NAACP is the true racist organization in America. As it turns out, the employee was actually telling the tale as a redemption scenario -- she realized her prejudice was wrong, threw her full support to the White family, and ended up saving the farm. Hence why the family has consistently intervened to give her their full support.

When I first saw the story this afternoon, I didn't have time to blog about it, which is good, because I didn't know the full context and, like the NAACP, would have been at risk of getting "snookered". But I did know that the incident happened over 20 years ago. And that got me to thinking.

When the United States finally repudiated Jim Crow in the 1960s and 70s, it did not come with any purges. By and large, the same bureaucrats who managed our racist system in 1950 still managed the more egalitarian system that had emerged by 1970. There are lots of reasons for this, starting with the fact that firing every single person who had participated in America's brand of racial apartheid would have effectively left us without a civil service, and ending with the fact that America never really has managed to wrap its head around just how deeply the sins of racism had enmeshed itself in the system -- a full accounting of which would have extracted its pound of flesh from virtually each and every man and woman alive in this nation.

In any event, these bureaucrats took many forms. Some undoubtedly had opposed racism even at its apex, others really didn't care about it one way or the other. Some were loyal disciples of Jim Crow who later realized the error of their ways, and some had no guilt at all regarding their role as agents of apartheid, but adjusted to the new social order all the same. And some, of course, were entirely unrepentant and maintained a belief in White supremacy, but suppressed that outlook just enough to keep their job.

The point being -- this nation has a long history of employing the formerly racist. The best case scenario for such employees, usually, is that they come to see the light and dedicate the remainder of their professional lives towards remedying racial inequality and securing racial justice. And that story -- a story of redemption -- appears to be the story of Shirley Sherrod. It's not the worst tale in the world. To the extent that this country has moved forward on matters of race, it is, in fact, the quintessential American tale.

But Will It Be Enough?

Solicitor General and SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan advanced out of committee today, garnering the surprise support of South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham. Some commentators are now wondering whether Graham will face a backlash from the far-right base over the lethal apostasy of not filibustering each and every Obama-led initiative that comes down the pike (Erick Erickson -- best known for calling David Souter a "goat-fucking child molester" -- said not filibustering Kagan would constitute "a high act of confirmation treason"). In response, a Graham consultant argued that Senator Graham is "a thinking person's conservative. I expect him to do well among voters with IQ's in triple digits."

Steve Benen took note of that passage and observes that any Democrat who essentially called opposing voters idiots would be tarred and feathered as an elitist. Fortunately, since I'm not really a public figure, I'm simply free to wonder whether the class of voters with IQ's over 100 is sufficient to cobble together a winning coalition in a South Carolina GOP primary (ask Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) about that).

The Grand Except

Arizona Law Professor Jack Chin is far, far more charitable than I'm inclined to be towards UMKC Law Prof Kris Kobach, a principal drafter of the Arizona anti-immigrant law who is falsely claiming in bars racial profiling. Of course, it doesn't -- the bill says that law enforcement officers "may not consider race, color or national origin . . . except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution." Which, under Arizona and federal law, they can -- at least to some extent. Professor Kobach simply omits the qualifier at the end of the passage.

Professor Chin graciously accepts that "the misleading quotation reflects Prof. Kobach's honest [though incorrect] recollection of the law", and urges him to go back to the legislature and get them to fix the language so it actually bars racial profiling. But, "[o]n the other hand, on the off chance that the law was actually intended to" sanction racial profiling, Professor Chin rightfully says the law's proponents should acknowledge that it does so.

Pope and Anti-Pope

A leader of the National Tea Party Federation has announced they are expelling Mark Williams and his "Tea Party Express" from the movement, after he published a "satirical" letter wherein the "coloreds" complained to Abraham Lincoln that slavery was better than having to think for himself (this was hardly an isolated incident for Williams).

And while that is very much a good thing, who knows who has authority to expel whom? Is the National Tea Party Federation the real movement and the Tea Party Express the splinter? Or vice versa? I have no idea. Williams' group is still leading the charge for Sharron Angle -- maybe somebody can ask her which wing of the movement she represents.

UPDATE: This Steve Benen post demonstrates some of the shuffling of Williams' affiliations in the wake of the controversy. His roles have definitely been reduced across the board, but he certainly hasn't been cut out of the movement entirely.

Mixed Boxing Results

Just some brief thoughts to keep the blog posts rolling ....

... Tim Bradley was simply way, way better than Carlos Abregu. I figured it would be a skill mismatch, and it was. But I didn't think the disparity would be so great that Abregu would effectively stop trying. Anyway, Bradley tried to call out Pacquiao after the fight, but Max Kellerman not-so-subtly said "good luck, who else you want?", at which point Bradley called out the entire 140 lbs. division.

... Alfredo Angulo isn't exactly the most versatile fighter in the world, but what he does, he does very well, and when Joachim Alcine let him start working on the inside, that was it. The stoppage came at the last moment of the first round, but it was good stoppage -- Alcine was out on his feet against the ropes and was at risk of serious injury.

... Somebody just won a ton of money by picking "over" for the David Tua/Monte Barrett fight. Everybody, and I mean everybody, was picking Tua KO1. After all, he's a gigantic puncher, and Barrett's chin has looked, well, less than stellar of late. But apparently Barrett fought his heart out, even knocking Tua down for the first time in his career in the 12th round, and many folks thought he deserved the nod. Barrett had already announced he was retiring after this fight regardless of the outcome, and it's a promise I hope he keeps. He seemed like a nice guy, always tried his best, and had a perfectly respectable career. Now he enjoy his retirement.

... Ishe Smith continues his streak of losing agonizingly close decisions, in large part because he doesn't have a high enough work rate. I had him winning the fight narrowly, but like basically every other Smith fight it could have gone either way (the 97-91 card was absurdly wide though). He did score a nice knockdown though. Also, towards the end of the fight when he did open up, he was astonishingly good at it, which makes me wonder why he doesn't do it more often. So frustrating.

... It's hard to say whether Zab Judah is "back" or not after his knockout win over Jose Armando Santa Cruz, but he certainly looked pretty sharp, and I think folks were a little too harsh ragging on the talent level of Santa Cruz. The big difference was that Judah actually finished Santa Cruz -- the last time I saw him on FNF, he was doing stupid little "throat slash" gestures instead of actually fighting his staggered opponent, so that's a step in the right direction. The hand speed is still mostly there, and it is still blinding, which would make Judah an intriguing match-up against anyone at 140. Khan, particularly, would be a battle of the blazers, but unfortunately Judah can punch, so that fight likely won't happen any time soon.

The Tea Party Resolution

Ta-Nehisi Coates has a good take on it. And like I pointed out yesterday, nothing has done more to legitimize the NAACP resolution than the response of the TP leadership. It is unbelievably outrageous.

Negotiated Roundup

You'll get it, but you got to give me something in return.

* * *

For the record: That North Korea published this propaganda picture does not in any way constitute an admission that they sunk the Cheonan.

The judge as defense counsel.

Ta-Nehisi Coates on the culture of excessive force.

The IDF specifically lauded B'Tselem for its assistance in providing information leading to the indictment of several IDF officers for war crimes during Operation Cast Lead. Gerald Steinberg of NGO Monitor, a frequent B'Tselem critic, also acknowledged that "B’Tselem really does have a credible research capability."

There is no such thing as too conservative to get on TV. Birtherism, rampant racism, conspiratorial paranoia -- it's free range out there!

Star Wars subway action.

Argentina considering legalizing gay marriage.

The Tea Party Has Always Been Against Racism

As many of you know, the NAACP recently passed a resolution criticizing the Tea Party for tolerating racism in its movement. Top Tea Party leaders insist the charge is bogus. They are loud and vociferous in condemning racist organizations in America. Look at how they reacted to one of the most notorious racist organizations in America, the, um, NAACP:

[MARK] WILLIAMS: You’re dealing with people who are professional race baiters, who make a very good living off this kind of thing. They make more money off of race than any slave trader ever. It’s time groups like the NAACP went to the trash heap of history where they belong with all the other vile racist groups that emerged in our history.

Would a racist organization have said something like that? I don't think so! They don't pull any punches when it comes to opposing racism.

Mr. Williams, who is perhaps best known for saying Muslims worship a "monkey god" (then apologizing to Hindus for the slight), also declared that he was "disinclined to take lectures on racial sensitivity from a group that insists on calling black people, 'Colored,'" once again showing the deep, sophisticated grasp of racism and prejudice possessed by the American right.

Wild Fantasies

The Onion makes my life: "Repeal Of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Paves Way For Gay Sex Right On Battlefield, Opponents Fantasize."

Monday Evening Roundup

Forgive me, I've been busy.

* * *

A host of leftist luminaries, including Noam Chomsky, have lent their imprimatur to a book which, among other things, effectively denies the 1994 Rwanda genocide. Well, let nobody accuse folks of singling out the Jews anymore, at least.

The internal IDF probe of the Gaza flotilla incident (distinct from the independent Terkel commission) has found mistakes in the operation, but fully sanctioned the use of force by the commandos. One of its observations was that there aren't really that many ways to stop a ship from going someplace without boarding it, and there aren't that many ways to board a ship whose crew is violently resisting without yourself using some violence.

Whoever wrote the screenplay for this World War II thing I keep seeing on the History Channel needs to find a new profession. I mean, sheesh.

It's not nice to kick folks while they're down, but Matt Yglesias I think is appropriately harsh to journalists just now discovering that John McCain is 95% hack. He didn't really change, you just weren't paying attention.

Switzerland refuses to extradite Roman Polanski, bowing to an international outcry that punishing a convicted child rapist is a gross injustice when the rapist is friends with important to people.

Adam Serwer has a good post on the Justice Department dropping voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party.

The NAACP is considering a resolution condemning racism in the Tea Party movement.

The Oscar Grant Verdict

As nearly all of you know, Johannes Mehserle, the White BART police officer who fatally shot an unarmed, restrained Black man who was lying face-down on the ground, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter but acquitted of the more serious charges of voluntary manslaughter or second degree murder. Oakland residents reacted with outrage at the perceived lenient verdict, with several riots breaking out.*

It seems difficult to understand how a jury could refrain from judging Mehserle guilty of at least voluntary manslaughter (Having read the jury instructions given for voluntary manslaughter, I'm not longer willing to state that. This, nonetheless, simply raises the level of abstraction when we're talking about injustice). Nonetheless, part of me was surprised that there was a conviction at all. I am, in fact, that cynical. Look at the history. A Texas cop was recently acquitted of all charges after shooting an unarmed Black man, lying face down in his own driveway, because the cop thought he was stealing his own car. Bernard Goetz was acquitted of everything but unlawful possession of a firearm after brutally massacring four Black men on a subway train. And of course, we all remember the Rodney King verdicts. Given these precedents, any form of homicide conviction is at least partial justice. But then, I don't really expect the people of Oakland to settle for partial justice.

* The Root has a good piece on those. Also worth noting is that a significant portion of the rioters were White anarchists. And on that front, I agree with Myca and others in the comments, which is that these folks who just like to use political discord as an excuse for smashing shit are remarkably blind to their own privilege. Not only are they appropriating the miscarriage of justice in the Grant case for their own ideological ends (which I imagine is some ill-thought out version of "smash capitalism"), but even though their faces are White, the media narrative will be all about savage Black folks who run rampant through the streets when the legal system utterly fails them they don't get their way.

Where's Your Federalism Now?

A federal court has just struck down Section III of the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional. There are actually two decisions here: the first holding that DOMA violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the constitution, and the second claiming it violates the 10th Amendment.

I don't have time to give these cases my full attention right now, but obviously this is very exciting. And of course, it is particularly exciting to see the 10th Amendment angle, as I greatly look forward to conservatives dropping their commitment to state's rights like a bad habit in the coming, well, minutes.

A European Problem

The Forward has a stellar, if chilling, article on growing anti-Semitism in Malmo, Sweden, which is driving the Jewish population away from the city and into Israel. But buried inside, they also quote from some downright scary polling done inside Europe:

A continentwide study, conducted by the Institute for Interdisciplinary Research on Conflict and Violence at the University of Bielefeld in Germany, released in December 2009, found that that 45.7% of the Europeans surveyed agree somewhat or strongly with the following statement: “Israel is conducting a war of extermination against the Palestinians.” And 37.4% agreed with this statement: “Considering Israel’s policy, I can understand why people do not like Jews.”

“[There is] quite a high level of anti-Semitism that is hidden beneath critics of Israel’s policies,” said Beate Kupper, one of the study’s principal researchers, in a telephone interview with the Forward, citing this data and a tendency to “blame Jews in general for Israel’s policies.”

Kupper said that in places where there is a strong taboo against expressions of anti-Semitism, such as Germany, “Criticism of Israel is a great way to express your anti-Semitism in an indirect way.”

That 37.4% figure seems like a perfect match of folks whose "anti-Israel" politics is leading directly into anti-Semitism, or at least "understanding" it. The 45.7% figure, by contrast, overlaps nicely with folks who have lost all sense of perspective or proportion (and what might be the cause of that?). Given these findings, I find it hard to disagree with Kupper that anti-Israel politics is often (not always) simply a socially acceptable way of operationalizing anti-Semitic attitudes.

Put a Price on It

Nick Kristof has a column up about Israeli human rights activists who are protecting Palestinians from the violent predations of settler extremists, who think (with reason) that they can generally assault Palestinian residents immune from legal repercussions.

I've written several posts urging that the Israeli government initiate a crackdown on settler violence against Palestinians. The most prominent, Ending the Culture of Impunity, observed that such a crackdown would be in Israel's best interests too, as "[a]side from the fact that stirring up animosity in the Palestinian population, natch, harms Israel's security, more broadly Israel really doesn't want essentially a separatist extremist right-wing militia that's already proven itself willing to attack Israel when upset running wild on its frontier."

That being said, Matt Yglesias is absolutely right that the likelihood of Israel acting is reduced insofar as it is accountable to Israelis and not Palestinians -- in other words, the problem of settler violence against Palestinians is likely intractable so long as the occupation continues.

The reason I'm a democrat is because history tells us that even folks with good intentions are unlikely to be particularly responsive to the concerns of constituencies to which they are unaccountable. The fact that Israel has some interest in curbing settler violence does mean something, but it doesn't mean everything. The full rights of Israelis and Palestinians alike are unlikely to be respected but in a situation where each is governed by an authority that is democratically accountable to their concerns. In other words: two states.

I support deferring to democratic majorities when they're enacting policies that bear primarily upon themselves. Israel deserves plenty of deference in how it manages its own security. It deserves considerably less in terms of how it protects the rights of Palestinians under its domain. Often these considerations overlap, and then we have a tough problem. But there is no element of Israel's security which is strengthened by letting settlers beat people up with impunity. The rule of law must be respected, and settlers enacting the "price tag" policy must be made to pay their piper. If Israel can't muster the will to do that on its own, then perhaps they could use a little push from the US government.

Is It Too Much To Ask That Middle East Correspondents Not Be Fans of Folks Who Want Me Dead?

CNN's Senior Editor on Mideast Affairs, Octavia Nasr, has stepped down after writing about her "respect" for Sayyed Fadlallah, a top Hezbollah spiritual leader.

Ms. Nasr explained that her respect did not mean a whole-hearted endorsement of everything Mr. Fadlallah stood for -- including his claims that the Holocaust was exaggerated and his desire to exterminate the Jewish state. Rather, she believed that Mr. Fadlallah had, with regards to women's rights, been forwarded a more moderate vision of Shi'ite Islam that condemned "honor killings" and abuse against women. To call him "progressive" on women's rights would be a gross exaggeration, but he was perhaps notably less retrogressive, and grading on a curve I guess that counts for something. And I don't doubt that Ms. Nasr is being totally honest in stating that her feelings of respect stemmed from these issues.

But it doesn't obviate the tiny detail that the organization he was affiliated with, you know, wants Israel to be annihilated (and possibly wants me, personally, dead as well*). As Ms. Nasr admits, Mr. Fadlallah was marginalized in Hezbollah because he was too aggressive in demanding that Hezbollah focus solely on destroying Israel. Given that, I'm frankly stunned by the reaction in some liberal quarters to the news -- essentially alleging that this was kowtowing to a requirement in the media that all figures by biased in favor of Israel. "Bias", here, means a requirement that one not praise folks actively wishing for Israel to be obliterated. That alone demonstrates just how far the plaintive whine about how "the Israel Lobby" suppresses all dissent has extended itself. Why, you can't even praise folks who want to see Israel completely destroyed, and who think its completely okay to murder Israeli civilians (and possibly Jews worldwide), without facing their wrath. Oh, the muzzling! Oh, spare me.

Hezbollah generally, and Sayyed Fadlallah particularly, promote a radical anti-Semitic and anti-Israel agenda which is quite well-known. It is not whitewashed just because Fadlallah supports some progressive less retrogressive reforms inside Shi'ite Islam. I'm reminded of Naomi Klein's hideous reaction to the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Durban II speech, which conceded that it was anti-Semitic, but nonetheless that Jews dared protest it because it distracted from other progressive goals of the conference. Progressivism, here, simply means Jews have to take it in the teeth, because paying attention to our concerns might distract from those of real human beings.

And yes, it's pretty clear that CNN (and other media giants) have a bevvy of rather appalling figures on their payrolls. It's obviously a blot on CNN that it hired someone who referred to a Supreme Court Justice as a "goat f@$king child molester", but I hardly think a universal reduction in standards is the way to solve the issue. I likewise think anyone who thinks Palestine should not exist does not deserve a place on CNN, and certainly not in a senior position in CNN's Mideast desk. If such people are currently working in such a position at CNN, they should step down as well (make me a list -- I'll sign a petition). But it isn't right to ask Jews to play the sacrificial pawn in your media wars. If your progressivism means ignoring equal Jewish rights, it ain't progressivism to me.

* From the New Yorker article:

On the killing of Israeli civilians, Fadlallah said, "In a state of war, it is permissible for Palestinians to kill Jews. When there is peace, this is not permissible." He does not believe in a peaceful settlement between two states, one Palestinian, the other Israeli; rather, he favors the disappearance of Israel.
[...]
"We are against the killing of Jews outside Palestine," Fadlallah said. "Unless they transfer the war outside Palestine." When I asked if they had, Fadlallah raised an eyebrow, and let the question go unanswered.

To Have a Trial After an Investigation

Following a lengthy investigation, an Israeli soldier will be formally tried for the killing of a Palestinian woman during Operation Cast Lead (right now the charge looks like manslaughter).

The incident was one of several specifically mentioned in the Goldstone report. Military Advocate General Avihai Mandelblit, in charge of investigating those allegations, is pursuing action in three more cases, and has elected to close the investigation into the remaining 19 events mentioned in the report.

I'm curious about what Judge Goldstone thinks of all this. After all, Goldstone was quite adament that the goal of his commission was not to convict anyone, but rather trigger an investigation by the parties themselves. And Israel, at least, has done this, and issued several indictments. Is this enough to satisfy him? Who knows. Normally, the standard of review in these instances (to justify pulling a case out of national and into international jurisdiction) is rather stringent -- it certainly isn't "what I would have done if I were doing the investigation myself". But without knowing the facts of the relevant cases, it's hard for me to evaluate.

It obviously is a good sign that Israel is willing to initiate prosecution against soldiers who violate the rules of war (assuming, of course, that the evidence here supported a prosecution). I've been pretty consistent, I think, in asserting that credible investigations ought to be taken and perpetrators of crimes (on all sides) should be punished -- but that taking this position was entirely inconsistent with shouting "savage war criminal Nazis" from moment zero. Hopefully, my patience has been vindicated, as we are getting a trial after the investigation, rather than watching as a verdict comes down first, with a pro forma inquiry following.

The Politics of Fandom

A new study indicates that the success of local college sports teams in the weeks preceding an election has a measurable effect on the electoral prospects of incumbents. Basically, when the local team wins, voters are happier, and thus are more inclined to look favorably on entities representing the status quo. (Sorry, but voters are that stupid).

This does raise some interesting rooting conundrums, though. After all, sometimes teams from two competitive districts will be competing against each other. Suppose Ole Miss (Travis Childers) plays the University of Virginia (Tom Perriello). Who do you root for? Who is more football crazy (or at least more likely to be influenced by the outcome of a football game) -- the Rebels or the Wahoos (Ole Miss)? Which incumbent would be more of a loss (Perriello)? Should the DNC dispatch operatives to critical games to give the "right" team a critical boost? Lots of tough calls here.

Happy Birthday America!

Mmmm ... hot dogs and liberty are my favorite parts about being an American.

Have a happy Fourth, people!

Times Have Changed

Senator John McCain (R-AZ), flashing that "country first" maverick streak for which he is renowned, won't support the comprehensive immigration reform package he's pushed for years because ... well, because it's no longer in his political interest to do so. And, I suspect, because supporting it would mean helping Obama, which is the most deadly sin of all in the modern Republican Party (the excuses of the other 10 Republican Senators who used to support comprehensive immigration reform, but have mysteriously flipped, are equally pathetic).

Premature SCOTUS Roundup

I thought I was taking a SCOTUS tour tomorrow, but it's next week. Sorry for forcing folks to rearrange their schedules because I can't successfully read outlook.

* * *

The top rate of the original income tax, established in 1913, was 7 percent. Four years later, it was 67%. Cynics might suggest that, given the timing, and the fact that the bill which hiked it was called the "War Revenue Act", this increase probably was attributable to the US entering into, you know, a war. Silly liberals.

Neat-o story about an Israeli law school with a program focused on providing legal education to religious leaders (Jewish, Muslim, Christian, and otherwise). Israel (regrettably, in my view) maintains a system of religious courts (each religion controls its own members' affairs), but many of the religious leaders who serve on these courts have no legal background.

The big polling news is not a poll at all, but reports that Daily Kos will be suing its former pollster, Research 2000, for fraud.

Without commenting on the underlying case itself -- you can be charged with being an "unruly child" in Ohio? Really?

The Vatican is angry at one of its Cardinals who helped expose sex abuse inside the Church. Perhaps it come steer some of that ire towards the abusers (and their enablers) instead?

"The Green Prince" -- the son of a top Hamas leader who became a spy for Israel -- has been granted asylum in the US.

Geneva Polls

The Geneva Initiative, a comprehensive peace plan for resolving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, just released a poll measuring Israeli and Palestinian support for the plan, both as a whole and broken down into its constituent parts. It makes for very interesting reading.

The plan itself has roughly six elements. First, Israel withdraws from virtually all of the West Bank (1:1 land swaps for the rest) and the Gaza Strip, creating territory for a Palestinian state. Second, East Jerusalem would be split between its Jewish and Arab quarters, the former going to Israel and the latter to Palestinian state (the Temple Mount would be under Palestinian jurisdiction, but the Western Wall would remain in Israeli hands). Third, Palestinian refugees (no word on their Jewish counterparts) would have the right to return to areas under the control of the new Palestinian state, or else, with the permission of the desired country, resettle in Israel, their current host country, or a third country. All refugees would enjoy compensation rights. Fourth, the Palestinian state would be demilitarized (no army, but a security force and a multinational force deployed in its borders). Fifth, while Palestine would maintain sovereignty over its own air, land, and water, Israel would be able to use its airspace for training purposes and would maintain two early warning stations in the West Bank for 15 years. A multinational force on the border of the two countries would help maintain security. Sixth, and most importantly, acceptance of a permanent status agreement on these lines would represent "the end of the conflict and no further claims will be made by either side. The parties will recognize Palestine and Israel as the homelands of their respective peoples."

The levels of support for each individual provision vary wildly, as you might imagine, amongst Israelis versus Palestinians and from clause to clause. Yet, two things stand out. First, despite several provisions that are tremendously unpopular (Palestinians are strongly opposed to a demilitarized state and the security guarantees, Israelis are deeply opposed to the refugee provisions, and both sides don't like the Jerusalem compromise), the plan taken as a whole carries with it majority support amongst Israelis (52/38), with Palestinians in a dead heat (49/49). For both populations, this represents a significant uptick in support from last year -- a 14 point swing for Israelis and a 23 point shift for the Palestinians.

Second, the one area that both sides both expressed strong agreement on was, in my view, the most important clause: the one asserting that any such agreement would represent the final resolution to the conflict. This carried a 62/30 support split in Israel and a 63/35 split in Palestine -- both numbers far higher than any other provision or even the package as a whole, indicating that even many people who would not support the peace deal itself still would accept it as bringing closure to the conflict.

Overall, this poll presents excellent news, and I hope it gets more publicity.

Israel Flotilla Panel Shows Some Spine

After the presiding judge threatened to resign his post, Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu looks set to broaden the commission's mandate, "including the authority to subpoena any witnesses or evidence it requires and to take testimony under oath." The new mandate is supposedly akin to the powers possessed by the panel that investigated Israel's behavior in the Second Lebanon War.

Of course, it won't matter. I'm convinced that the panel will level some relatively harsh criticism at the operational quality of the flotilla incident, but will uphold the legality of the raid itself and the blockade generally. And no matter how independent or objective that decision is -- indeed, regardless of whether that ruling is, as a matter of law, correct -- it will be raked over the coals by folks for whom an "investigation" is only worthwhile if it leads to a guilty verdict.

Does Malaysia Matter?

Matt Yglesias has a short bit on a column detailing Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim's increasingly virulent anti-Israel stances. Yglesias thinks the column is worthwhile, but finds odd the concluding graf, which argues that Ibrahim's stances are emblematic of a "transition from pro-American democrat to anti-Israeli zealot."

On the "democrat" side, Yglesias argues, Ibrahim is clearly just being responsive to democratic pressures inside Malaysia, whose citizenry is itself becoming more and more virulently anti-Israel. This is well-taken. We often use "democracy" as a loving, catch-all term of rainbows, but of course when bad ideologies are popular, they will be well-represented in a democratic context. That's why sometimes "democracy" gives you Hamas. It shouldn't surprise us that in areas where Israel is deeply unpopular, democratic politicians are deeply anti-Israel. Similarly, while Ibrahim's recent forays into Jew-baiting are deeply disturbing, and seemingly flow out of this rise in anti-Israel sentiment, there is nothing suggesting they're anti-democratic.

Turning to "anti-American", though, things are a little more complicated. Matt is certainly correct that this is a nebulous and ambiguous phrase -- particularly given my belief that American interests are constructed and thus are open to contestation: we're allowed to say that we, as a nation, are interested in Israel being treated fairly, if that's what the American people through their elected representatives decide is important to our country. But even from a more standard perspective on American interests, I think Matt is looking through a very narrow lens.

Clearly, though, Malaysia is very far away from Israel and not the kind of country that’s engaged in global power projection. I would think that we would therefore judge the pro-Americanness or not of a Malaysian politician primarily in terms of his attitude toward regional issues in Southeast Asia. Perhaps a “pro-American” Malaysian leader is one who wishes the United States to play a robust security role in the region in order to counterbalance China. Presumably there are some specific issues in the area that we care about. But certainly it would be odd to make Israel the top agenda item during a discussion with Malaysian officials (one striking thing about being in China during the Gaza flotilla raid is that nobody there cared at all) or the main criterion by which we judge a politician.

Without objecting to Matt's point that the US has many interests with regard to Malaysia, simply noting that it is far away from Israel hardly means that the US is entirely uninterested on its position towards the Jewish state. Fanning extremist attitudes in that region is bad for the US on a host of levels, and that can be done by leaders near and far from the region (see also: Hugo Chavez). Malaysia's important role in the OIC also means it has disproportionate impact on how Israel is treated in international fora beyond what one might expect from mere geographic proximity. Using Israel as a scapegoat and focal point for any and all international ailments likewise is a barrier to the US accomplishing its foreign policy goals. The way in which Israel is constructed as the linchpin of all that is evil in wrong is turning it into an organizing point for reactionary movements worldwide, and that is exceedingly dangerous for the US even if we did an entire 180 on our position regarding Israel.

And finally, one would hope that the overt anti-Semitism that Ibrahim and others have engaged in (talking about "Jewish-controlled" organizations pulling the strings of the government) would be something the US would be "interested" in opposing if for no other reason than that we should be interested in insuring that Jews can live and travel safely to any country in the world without fear, and that ideal is threatened by such rhetoric.

Two State United

TULIP reports on the superb victory supporters of a just, lasting peace between Israel and Palestine just scored at the International Trade Union Confederation.

A vehemently anti-Israel resolution submitted by the Congress of South African Trade Unions never made it to the floor.

And in a stunning blow to pro-Hamas activists in some unions, the Israeli national trade union center Histadrut was honored by the global trade union movement.

Its leader, Ofer Eini, was elevated to the ITUC’s 25-member Executive Board as well as its General Council. Eini was also elected as one of the organization’s Vice Presidents.

The ITUC has 312 affiliated organizations in 156 countries and territories representing 176 million workers.

Eini’s election followed calls by major unions in the UK and elsewhere for the Histadrut to be boycotted. Instead, the international trade union movement has embraced the Israeli unions, understanding them — correctly — to be important partners in building peaceful relations between Israelis and Palestinians.

In a resolution adopted by the ITUC congress, the positive role of the Histadrut was made explicit:

“Congress welcomes the landmark agreement between Histadrut and the PGFTU on the rights of Palestinian workers, which was finalised with the assistance of the ITUC in August 2008, and initiatives by Global Union Federations in their sectors to support cooperation in defence of workers’ rights. This agreement, and other actions to promote decent work and end discrimination, are crucial to building the basis for just and equitable economic development.”

For the future, the ITUC resolution declared:

“Congress commits the ITUC to continue to support the strengthening of cooperation between the Palestinian and Israeli trade union movements and calls upon the international community to support Palestinian economic reconstruction and development, including through the ILO Palestinian Fund for Employment and Social Protection.”

In addition, the world’s trade unions

• Called for a two-state solution — and “universal recognition of Israel’s right to exist, next to an independent viable Palestinian state”
• Rejected “the extremist policies of Hamas“
• Condemned the Egyptian “decision to impose heavy restrictions on its border with Gaza”
• Acknowledged that Israeli’s December 2008 attack on Gaza came “in response to rocket attacks”
• Supported the 2002 “Road Map” for peace proposed by the United States, Russia, the United Nations and the European Union

The resolution adopted was highly critical of many Israeli policies, calling for an end to illegal settlements in the Palestinian territories, rejecting the blockade of Gaza and the building of a security fence, and so on.

But what stands out clearly is the commitment by the vast majority of the world’s trade unions to a two-state solution and to strengthening Israeli-Palestinian trade union cooperation.

This is fantastic, fantastic news. Nobody has any objection to the trade union movement criticizing unhelpful and unproductive Israeli actions, so long as it clearly comes within the context of a just, negotiated settlement to the conflict, rather than naked attempts to delegitimize Israel. The decision by the ITUC is a resounding triumph for the forces of justice in the trade union movement, and a testament to the ability of the trade union movement to change things for the better.

The Pendulum Swings

Some folks were very excited the other day when Queers Against Israeli Apartheid, a radically anti-Israel group which supports the BDS campaign against the people of Israel (I reject categorizing BDS as anything but a campaign against the people of Israel -- indeed, as anything but a campaign against peaceful coexistence), was allowed to march at a Toronto Pride festival. Organizers (and the Toronto city government, which had provided funding to the march) had previously worried that the group's positions were incompatible with city anti-discrimination ordinances.

Canadian free speech norms are considerably different than American ones, but nonetheless there is a fair case to be made that QuAIA should be allowed to march, and that the proper response to their repulsive, hateful speech would be more speech -- speech that mobilizes the progressive, pro-peace community and demonstrates strong support for both Israeli and Palestinian rights. I do find it disconcerting that some folks seemed excited that QuAIA could march not on free speech principles, but because they sympathized with the particular message QuAIA represents. Nonetheless, that people with hateful views, or people sympathetic to hateful views, happen to line up on the side of an otherwise good principle does not necessarily mean that the principle is worth abandoning -- even where, as here, the group that cries for open speech for itself simultaneously seeks to silence, through the BDS campaign, the voices of those whom it seeks to crush.

But it would be nice to see the principle enforced universally. Fresh off the banning of an Israeli gay organization marching in the Madrid gay pride parade, another pro-Israel gay rights group, StandWithUs, has just been expelled from the U.S. Social Forum under pressure from anti-Zionist groups (StandWithUs's press release is here). The "more speech" element isn't at issue here -- USSF already is marketing itself as a meeting point for anti-Zionist Jews promoting a BDS agenda (once again, the irony). And compounding said irony, the USSF justified its exclusion on the grounds that SWU tries to "censor" pro-Palestinian viewpoints. Alas, it does not seem like, in the queer community, this is the primary problem that needs to be dealt with.

I should add that, like with QuAIA, I don't need to agree with SWU to support a principled free speech position. My brief perusal indicates a lot to dislike -- such as their hit piece on J Street. They are at least marginally better than groups like QuAIA and IJAN insofar as their stated end goal isn't to my eyes facially unjust, although one questions how sincere their devotion is to a two-state solution. But certainly, if we can excuse QuAIA's one-sided and obsessive focus on Israeli wrongs, we can likewise excuse StandWithUs' overwhelming focus on Palestinian wrongs. And at an event like the USSF, it seems like SWU would have provided at least a counterweight to an environment overwhelmingly hostile to Israel and to equal treatment in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Idaho Eyes a Ban on Transgender Marriage?

A panel of Idaho Republicans want the state to rewrite its marriage laws to hold that it is "a bond between a 'naturally born' man and woman". (Via). Part of me hopes that this does pass, just because I think that it may actually be more vulnerable to challenge than typical laws "merely" prohibiting gay marriage. Because the law at least potentially prevents transgender individuals from marrying anybody -- man or woman -- it doesn't even have the (facially ridiculous) defense that it doesn't exclude anyone from marriage (just their preferred partner). If that's the case, it is tough to see it standing against constitutional challenge. And that, in turn, would be one hell of a precedent.

Then again, maybe I'm being too indulgent in formalist fantasies. Transgender rights are still pretty controversial, and I suspect a reviewing court, particularly in Idaho, will search long and hard for a "neutral" reason for upholding this law too. Best to not push my luck.

Nip it in the Womb

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), who easily ranks in any top ten craziest Congressperson list, is now alleging that terrorist cells are exploiting America's birthright citizenship to create a new class of terrorist babies with American citizenship. It seems to me that the only way to stem this threat is to capture all immigrant mothers, and force them to abort their kids (the Executive has an inherent power to assassinate American citizens to be if necessary for our national defense, after all). Otherwise we're just training the next generation of terrorists (it's unbelievably to me that this argument is not actually a one-off).

MadCraziesSkillz

There was some sucky stuff that happened on the intertubes today (see here for back story), but there was one redeeming factor. I discovered MadCrazies blog, and I think I'm in love. Not as much love as I have towards the proprietor of this blog, of course, but a fair amount of love all the same.

The anti-Zionist bingo card is pretty good. But I really loved this passage on what it's like as a queer women when one goes out with guys:

Fun part is, going out in public with an adult human male is like an invisibility cloak! When you take one with you, you cease to exist not only as a queer but as a person at all! This is actually kind of nice sometimes. It doesn't matter what my male companion looks like, going out at night is no longer about "how many street harassers can I shiv".

For. The. Win.

And for the blogroll, I might add.

German-Arab Youths Attack Jewish Dance Troupe

Very scary stuff. And apparently the festival organizers, instead immediately calling the police when the thugs starting chanting anti-Semitic slurs and throwing rocks, tried to "de-escalate" the situation on their own. What the hell?

The Most Dangerous Game

The FRC is angry that Grover Norquist is joining the board of GOProud, a conservative gay rights group. One of the alleged sins of the group is that it will seek to leverage “concealed carry reciprocity” amendments whereby guns can be carried and recognized across state lines in order to create precedent that gay marriages legal in one state be likewise recognized in their fellows.

This, as David Kopel notes, is not an accurate summary of GOProud's position -- they support concealed carry laws so that gays and lesbians can protect themselves against rampant anti-gay violence. He suggests that the FRC should have instead made a slippery slope argument (that, regardless of intent, concealed carry reciprocity amendments would end up weakening state exclusion of foreign gay marriages), but adds the following:

obviously the FRC is free to organize is policy preferences any way it wants. Personally, though, I think that federal legislation which directly protects the Second Amendment rights of all Americans is far more important than whatever tiny effect the bill might have on gay marriage.

Well, Kopel might think that, but look at it from the FRC's point of view. Gay marriage will destroy democracy and is worse than child rape. Even an infinitesimal chance that such horrors might come to pass is far, far more important than any other legislation Congress might consider.

Let's Go 'Hawks!

It pains me to say that, but they deserve it:

Professional sports stars haven't played much of a role in the 40-year history of Chicago's Pride Parade.

Sunday's parade will be different, with the Chicago Cubs entering a float and a player from the NHL champion Blackhawks set to tote the Stanley Cup down North Halsted Street. ...

The Cubs' participation was encouraged by new owner Tom Ricketts, who wanted the Cubs to be seen as "good neighbors," a team spokesman said.

While players from this year's lineup won't be on the team's float — they'll be busy playing the White Sox — "Mr. Cub" Ernie Banks will.

Blackhawks defenseman Brent Sopel will be carrying the Stanley Cup in the parade to honor Brendan Burke, the son of Toronto Maple Leafs General Manager Brian Burke. Brendan Burke came out as a gay man shortly before dying in a car accident in February.

Brendan Burke was a student at Miami University in Ohio and worked with the school's hockey team. After opening up about his sexuality to the team, he spoke publicly about his experience growing up as a gay hockey player.

An excellent and touching gesture.

Teaching Peace Now a Crime

Roger Alford points out that the recent SCOTUS decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project "upholds a criminal ban on teaching international law". This is not a hyperbole.

Plaintiffs claim that §2339B is invalid to the extent it prohibits them from engaging in certain specified activities…. [T]hose activities are: (1) “train[ing] members of [the] PKK on how to use humanitarian and international law to peacefully resolve disputes”; (2) “engag[ing] in political advocacy on behalf of Kurds who live in Turkey”; and (3) “teach[ing] PKK members how to petition various representative bodies such as the United Nations for relief.”…

The Court first held that teaching international law fell under the category of “training” and “expert advice or assistance", and thus constituted material assistance to terrorist groups under the terms of the statute. It then held that restriction constitutional under First Amendment attack.

The dissenters (Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor) responded:

[T]he majority discusses the plaintiffs’ proposal to “‘train members of [the] PKK on how to use humanitarian and international law to peacefully resolve disputes.’” The majority justifies the criminalization of this activity insignificant part on the ground that “peaceful negotiation[s]” might just “bu[y] time . . . , lulling opponents into complacency.” And the PKK might use its new information about “the structures of the international legal system . . . to threaten, manipulate, and disrupt.” What is one to say about these arguments—arguments that would deny First Amendment protection to the peaceful teaching of international human rights law on the ground that a little knowledge about “the international legal system” is too dangerous a thing; that an opponent’s subsequent willingness to negotiate might be faked, so let’s not teach him how to try?…

The risk that those who are taught will put otherwise innocent speech or knowledge to bad use is omnipresent, at least where that risk rests on little more than (even informed) speculation. Hence to accept this kind of argument without more and to apply it to the teaching of a subject such as international human rights law is to adopt a rule of law that, contrary to the Constitution’s text and First Amendment precedent, would automatically forbid the teaching of any subject in a case where national security interests conflict with the First Amendment.

It's not that the majority's concerns are unfounded. Any observer of international law is keenly aware that international law can and has been used as a tool of "lawfare" -- less to promote human rights protections and peaceful coexistence than to subvert these goals. But the dissent is considerably more right that it would be far more dangerous to prohibit speech simply because it could be used to promote ill-ends, prohibit training on peaceful coexistence because it could be used to sabotage the ideal. Whatever the shortcomings of the world's legal system -- and they are manifold -- it is one of the only clearly established alternatives to terrorist violence by NGOs, and thus it is clearly a benefit when NGOs and rebel groups adopt that approach above violent conflict.

The Supreme Court's decision is a massive triumph of despair over hope. And that's worrisome. Because no legal system predicated on individual rights can survive if our legal system defaults to fear.

The Perils of Being British

A British writer tries to figure out why he (by his own admission) is obsessed with Israel. After ruling out anti-Semitism (based off a deep searching of his own soul and the fact that He Has Jewish Friends (tm)), he thinks he's got it nailed: Unlike Zimbabwe, North Korea, Sudan, Tibet, or Burma, Israel is basically "an English county planted on the Mediterranean shores."

Oh joy! As the Judeosphere points out, this is scarcely anything more sophisticated than undisguised Orientalism. Burma and Sudan, they aren't civilized enough to care about. But Israel, why that's almost like Britain -- that is, if Britain was run by "burglars and con-men". It's all the joy of liberal guilt-induced self-flagellation, except the wounds show up on someone else's body. How grand.

Richard Lazarus Takes Post on Oil Spill Commission

Congratulations to Georgetown Law Professor Richard Lazarus, who was just appointed staff director of The National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. Professor Lazarus, in addition to being an experienced Supreme Court advocate, is a specialist in an environmental and natural resource law, and will thus be an invaluable asset in, you know, trying to save the planet.

On a more personal note, Professor Lazarus was a personal mentor of mine back in high school (I was on the debate team with his son), and we've maintained off-and-on contact with him in the intervening years. In fact, we were supposed to meet to catch up earlier this month, but, as he put it, "something came up". I'll say!

Anti-Israel Protesters Prevent Cargo Ship From Unloading in Oakland?

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that a group of anti-Israel protesters, primarily affiliated with ANSWER, have successfully blocked (at least temporarily) an Israeli cargo ship from unloading in Oakland.

Becker [of ANSWER] said some workers [from the Longshoreman's Union] showed up for the morning shift, but virtually none did for the second. All agreed not to unload the ship or cross the picket lines, citing concern for their personal safety.

I find it very interesting that -- apparently by Becker's own admission (but the language is ambiguous here) -- the reason that the ship was unable to unload is because ANSWER threatened the personal safety of the dockworkers if they did (or at least, they perceived a threat to their personal safety).

Yeah, that's some peace movement. It's so nice to see that "leftist" advocacy has once again devolved into threatening workers -- if for no other reason than to reveal the true colors of the movements responsible.

Happy Father's Day!

Thanks, dad, for everything. I hope you realize that the fact that I left my card at the office in no way diminishes the thoughts behind it.

Bang It Out

I sometimes listen to music on my headphones at work. Unfortunately, the headphones are plugged into my laptop, which has a surprisingly excellent pair of speakers. Meaning that if I accidentally yank the headphones (inadvertant arm movement, leaning back too quickly), then the hallways of this prestigious, white-shoe law firm is suddenly filled with sound of whatever metal/guitar riff I'm currently listening to.

This has happened twice now -- and both times it has been tremendously humiliating.

You Wish You Were Me

Dave Hoffman on the relative openness of US News Law School rankings:

A few weeks back, Bob Morse issued a stern warning to law school administrators out to game his rankings. In response to a problem created by “openness about our ranking model” Morse took a strong step in the direction of reform by…wait for it…threatening certain schools with punishment for gaming their employed-at-graduation statistic. For those who follow the rankings, this was a particularly galling and obnoxious post. The rankings model isn’t at all “open”: for most categories of concern, USNews engages in hidden manipulations of dubious value which make replicating the results quite difficult. See, e.g., LSAT percentile scoring, COLA adjustments; normalization, treatment of missing data, etc. Indeed, the rankings would likely fail the very low bar for openness and replication set by even a student-edited law journal, let alone a peer reviewed publication.

Oh, burn. Wait ....

(Emphasis is original, by the way)

Dershowitz Tries To Knock Off Pro-Israel Congresswoman for not Hating Obama Enough

Back in September, I became aware that Joel Pollak, brother of Commentary contributor Noah Pollak, was going to challenge Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), on the grounds that the latter was insufficiently pro-Israel. It struck me then as an odd choice: Rep. Schakowsky has a well-known and well-deserved pro-Israel reputation stretching through her whole career. Not to mention Schakowksy represents an overwhelmingly Democratic district that agrees with her on near-every issue and, um, doesn't agree with Pollak or his brand of conservatism.

Nonethelss, Alan Dershowitz, either out of loyalty to a former student or a desire to shrink the definition of pro-Israel such that its adherents could fit into a Saskatoon synagogue, has decided to endorse Pollak. It won't really matter -- Schakowsky has never even dipped below 70% in any of her re-election fights -- but it is a sad commentary on Dershowitz, whose only apparent beef with Schakowsky is her alleged failure to "speak out" on alleged wrongs done by the Obama administration toward Israel.

In any event, J Street has risen to Rep. Schakowsky's defense. Good for them -- there are serious problems facing Israel, the US, and the world today, and we need serious people like Jan Schakowsky in Congress facing them. Now is not the time to elect some random political neophyte whose campaign alpha and omega is "Obama is teh suckz". And shame on Alan Dershowitz for electing to sacrifice his pro-Israel credibility so cheaply.

Haredi Protests Planned Over Israeli Desegregation Order

The Haredi Jewish community in Israel is planning to protest the enforcement of an Israeli Supreme Court ruling which would require they desegregate their schools (currently, Ashkenazi and Sepharidc Jewish students are kept apart in these ultra-religious academies). If the parents disobey the court order, they risk a two-week jail sentence for contempt of court.

Am I the only one who really isn't bothered at the prospect of a bunch of racists being thrown in jail for awhile by the Israeli government? Seriously, my sympathy for these blots on the holy name is very, very limited.

Thurgood

I saw Thurgood today with some folks from Covington. It was very good. Laurence Fishburne was spectacular in his role, and often times was laugh-out-loud funny. I can't recommend it highly enough.

The most interesting thing about the play was actually the audience, however. Anytime Marshall mentioned a historical name or fact (Homer Plessy, Japanese Internment, Douglas MacArthur), the audience gave a collective "mmm", as if to say, "yes, I remember that from 6th grade Social Studies." And whenever Marshall announced the achievement of some civil rights victory, the crowd broke out into applause. As I said to a friend, it felt very "U-S-A! U-S-A!" to me. Albeit not in a good way -- more as a way of externalizing ourselves from the "past" Marshall was speaking about. I'm very skeptical that, if Justice Marshall were alive today, he would support our efforts to externalize racism as something "past".

UC-Irvine Bans MSU Over Israeli Ambassador Disruption

Wow. The formal decision letter is here, detailing the various provisions of the UCI student code that the Muslim Student Union violated when it persistently disrupted a planned speech on campus being delivered by Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren. As a result, the university has suspended the MSU for one year. I'm not an expert on campus free speech issues, so I don't weigh in on the legal issues this undoubtedly raises, but I do think this is probably going to turn into a much bigger controversy.

Via the VC.

HOFer

It seems like anytime someone gets inducted into the Hall of Fame (whatever sport), they give the same spiel. This is the greatest honor of my life. Nothing could ever compare to this. I'm without words. And then you have former lightweight boxer Danny "Little Red" Lopez (42-6, 39 KOs), on his induction yesterday:

"Getting inducted is a big honor, getting the ring and the whole shot," said Lopez, who fashioned a 42-6 record with 39 knockouts in a 10-year career. "I felt much better winning a fight in the ring, but this is comparable to it. Pretty close."

I love it. "This is a pretty nice feeling. Nothing like actually being in the ring and knocking people's skulls in, but you know, it's close."

Israeli Gaza Flotilla Probe Announced

It looks good to me (not that it will matter). The probe is being headed by a retired Israeli Supreme Court Justice, and includes members with both international law and military backgrounds. Two international "observers" (with unclear powers) will participate in the proceedings -- a Nobel Peace laureate from Ireland, and a military lawyer from Canada. The panel will have full authority to look into, among other things, the legality of the blockade writ large, the legality of the particular raid on the flotilla, particular questions about the rules of engagement applied to the flotilla operation and whether they'd been breached, the Goldstone commission and Israel's ability to investigate itself, and the behavior of the Turkish passengers on the flotilla and the IHH organization.

The panel "will be able to summon any person or organization to testify, or to give it information in some other fashion, on any issue it deems relevant," except that it can only access military files "directly relevant" to the operation, including those from a separate, internal IDF probe being conducted contemporaneously. It can, however, request additional inquiries if it finds the IDF probe insufficient. Finally, all statements given to the commission will not be admissible in any legal proceedings, to encourage candor.

Sounds like a pretty robust investigatory panel to me. But I still maintain it will mostly be irrelevant, because what people want out of their "investigation" is either an indictment or an exoneration (depending on their alignment). Well, that might not be totally fair -- I'd be surprised to see any significant protest from the pro-Israel folks if the country's own panel decided to excoriate the operation (this is purely a matter of relative credibility -- the same conclusions, reached in identical language, by an international body would be met with outrage). But if the panel mostly exonerates the Israeli behavior (and I suspect it will -- the legal and factual issues are simply too unclear to warrant broad-based condemnation), the anti-Israel crowd will pitch a fit no matter how independent the panel objectively was. And while it will claim that it's real objection is that an Israeli panel can't "investigate itself", I'm honestly doubtful they'd react much differently if an international panel reached the same conclusions in identical language (we'd just shift to complaints about the all-powerful Jewish Zionist Israel Lobby tainting the commission).

But that's all counterfactual. The point is, there is a panel now, it looks pretty robust and independent, and it will issue a report at some point. And my conjecture is that this report will have virtually no bearing on anything.

UPDATE: Ha'aretz's editorial doesn't seem to think this panel is that impressive at all. But I'm a little confused -- the editorial says the panel has no powers at all, but the article seems to make clear that it has significant subpoena power.

"International Standards"

The refrain about the Israeli probe of the Gaza flotilla incident is that it must conform to "international standards". And recently, I've been curious: What are "international standards"? Do they refer to anything specific? Or is it kind of like "international human rights standards", where "international" is deployed less for any substantive content, and more to piggyback on the fuzzy, cosmopolitan cadences of the word "international"?

Everything I've seen of international legal investigations, after all, tends to show they really don't have very high standards at all. Most war crimes tribunals, for example, are adjudged failures unless they secure convictions of high-ranking accused parties -- the "standard" is "guilty until proven guilty". There aren't particularly strong rule of law norms at the international level, there isn't a deep basis of precedent which acts as constraints against politicization, and there isn't a broad-based acceptance of the legitimacy of the international bodies to act as adjudicators. It makes the particular choice of rhetoric very, very interesting to me.