One State --> Two State?

Robert Wright puts forward the argument that strong, non-violent Palestinian agitation for one-state could actually pave the path to two-states by shaking Israeli moderates out of their apathy and breaking the hold that the Israeli far-right has over Israeli peace initiatives. In the post-script, he acknowledges some of the reasons why it won't work -- chief among them that the Palestinian Authority has no interest in a one-state solution where it will likely lose significant amounts of power. But I think even in his "best-case" layout -- where Palestinians do manage to create a massive grassroots non-violent protest for simple voting rights, and Hamas is somehow deterred from participating -- I'm highly doubtful that it will end up leading to two states rather than one.

The core observation Wright makes -- that it will be incredibly difficult for either Israel or the international community to resist a non-violent Palestinian campaign for voting rights in the polity that currently controls their lands, and that such a campaign poses the most serious and immediate existential threat to Israel's existence as a Jewish state -- is one I already agree with. I also agree that it may well shake Israeli moderates out of their torpor and put them in control over their more right-wing fellows.

But so what? It's not a given that, in a world where there is widespread international popular support for Palestinian demands, that the Palestinians would have any reason to accept two-states, or that the international community would suddenly withdraw their support if Palestinians did hold out for one state in the face of even a credible Israeli offer for a two-state solution. After all, many still believe (though I disagree, strongly) that a one-state solution is the first-best outcome -- they oppose the state of Israel on principle, not merely instrumentally insofar as it is a putative block to the existence of Palestinian nationhood. When the dream is in sight, why settle for the compromise?

Of course, this simply reinforces the fact that, regardless of whether it leads to a fair and just outcome for all parties, Wright's proposal is rather obviously the best practice for the Palestinians. It is virtually guaranteed to give them the minimum of what they want, and stands a good chance of giving them absolutely everything. Of course, groups often do not take the wisest of paths (witness the end of the settlement freeze), but there is a limit to how long Israel can count on the Palestinians being idiots. More than Iran, more than Hamas, this is the most dire threat to Israel's existence in the world today.

Punked!

The latest James O'Keefe scandal -- where he tried to trick a CNN reporter into boarding a boat loaded with sex props in order to "seduce her" on camera and then embarrass her publicly -- is, in addition to being frankly bizarre, creepy as all get out.

According to the document, O'Keefe was to record a video of the following script before Boudreau arrived: "My name is James. I work in video activism and journalism. I've been approached by CNN for an interview where I know what their angle is: they want to portray me and my friends as crazies, as non-journalists, as unprofessional and likely as homophobes, racists or bigots of some sort....

"Instead, I've decided to have a little fun. Instead of giving her a serious interview, I'm going to punk CNN. Abbie has been trying to seduce me to use me, in order to spin a lie about me. So, I'm going to seduce her, on camera, to use her for a video. This bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who comes on at five will get a taste of her own medicine, she'll get seduced on camera and you'll get to see the awkwardness and the aftermath.
[...]
"If they pursue this as you are a creep, you should play it up with them initially only to reveal that the tape was made beforehand confirming this was a gag," the document states. "If they [CNN] admit it was a gag, you should release the footage and focus on the fact they got punked, and make sure to emphasize Abbie's name and overall status to help burden her career with this video, incident and her bad judgment in pursuing you so aggressively."

Finally, "if they go on the attack, you should point out the hypocrisy in CNN using the inherent sexuality of these women to sell viewers and for ratings, passing up more esteemed and respectable journalists who aren't bubble-headed bleach blondes and keep the focus on CNN."

Oh, and sexist too.

I'm so glad that he was the assignments editor for the much of the media on the ACORN faux-scandal.

My Replacement

Too busy to post today. So just read Jon Chait instead. Though I will defend, perhaps irrationally, Walt Whitman HS against private school competitors.

Let Him Breathe

J.J. Goldberg on President Abbas' recent charm offensive towards the American Jewish community:

Abbas’ dinner was the climax of a day jam-packed with heated appeals to American Jews to show enthusiasm for Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. The floating pep rally might have been a product of timing, given all the international leaders gathered in New York for the opening of the United Nations General Assembly. Perhaps it was inspired by the approaching Sukkot holiday with its tradition of inviting strangers to dine — or, alternatively, its pointed evocation of a homeless, stateless people lost in the desert.

It also reflected the growing sense in Israel and the West Bank that negotiations can’t succeed without President Obama’s involvement, and that Obama can’t get in and stay in unless American Jews back off and give him some running room.

Interesting.

Elmo Defends Katy Perry on Good Morning America

This is actually adorable. And really like that it seems like the cast of the show is genuinely enjoying themselves (you can hear producer-type folks laughing in the background).

Two and Two

I forgot to mention the most fascinating part of my trip thus far. We checked into our room in Las Vegas, and the coffee table is all wobbly. It turns out that the pillar was not securely attached to the base, like it had been jarred loose.

Closer inspection revealed one more oddity nearby -- one half of a broken pair of handcuffs.

Hmmm .... delightful.

This Isn't a Parody?

I can't believe the West Virginia Republican Senate nominee, John Raese actually said this in an interview:

LEWIS: Tell us a little bit about you and your business experience and how you got here.

RAESE: I made my money the old-fashioned way, I inherited it. I think that’s a great thing to do. I hope more people in this country have that opportunity as soon as we abolish inheritance tax in this country, which is a key part of my program.

Are you kidding me?

Man of the people!

Quote of the Evening

The quote, excerpted here, is cited to Moshe Lilienblum, The Future of Our People (1883):

The opponents of nationalism see us as uncompromising nationalists, with a nationalist God and a nationalist Torah; the nationalists see us as cosmopolitans, whose homeland is wherever we happen to be well off. Religious Gentiles say that we are devoid of any faith, and the freethinkers among them say that we are Orthodox and believe in all kinds of nonsense; the liberals say that we are conservative and the conservatives call us liberal. Some bureaucrats and writers see us as the root of anarchy, insurrection and revolt; and the anarchists say we are capitalists, the bearers of the biblical civilization, which is, in their view, based on slavery and parasitism. Officialdom accuses us of circumventing the laws of the land – that is, of course, the laws directed specifically against us….Musicians like Richard Wagner charge us with destroying the beauty and purity of music. Even our merits are turned into shortcomings: “Few Jews are murderers,” they say, “because the Jews are cowards.” This, however, does not prevent them from accusing us of murdering Christian children.

Off to Las Vegas tomorrow (my brother is turning 21). Vacation blogging schedules are in effect.

You Can Say That

God, John McCain is such an enormous prick.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Via.

Chambliss Staffer: "All Faggots Must Die"

They're not sure who the staffer is yet, but it looks like someone in the office of Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) left a comment on a gay blog declaring that "all faggots must die". The Chambliss office is investigating.

Reconsideration Roundup

The problem with going big or going home is that sometimes ....

* * *

Is Bibi thinking of selling the West Bank withdrawal to right-wing Rabbis by waving US security guarantees over their head?

Ahmadinejad blusters: "The United States doesn't understand what war looks like. When a war starts, it knows no limits."

Senate minority blocks the repeal of DADT. Relatedly: John McCain still a hack, Tony Perkins still a dick.

The stats of a "front-runner".

Like all other religions, Christianity has a broad array of different views on moral questions, and we shouldn't take the seemingly abhorrent perspectives advocated by some and paint the entire faith with a broad brush.

Nate Silver has a comperenehsive assessment of the likely impact of the Tea Party, on election day and beyond.

A neat map that tracks the racial divides in DC.

Setting the Boundaries

New York Democratic Rep. Nita Lowey's Republican opponent this fall is ... well, how to put this gently ... openly racist.

Longtime Democratic incumbent Rep. Nita Lowey's Republican challenger this fall is a Christian conservative author and activist whose writings have frowned on inter-racial marriage and movies like "Save the Last Dance," touted the benefits of studies linking race to IQ and said parents need to teach their kids "appropriate ethnic boundaries" for marriage and socializing.

Jim Russell, who's challenging Lowey in a repeat after trying to take her on in 2008, made the statements in an essay called "The Western Contribution to World History," which was published in a 2001 - 2002 edition of the Occidental Quarterly, and had also been featured on infamous former politician and Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke's website. It's since been taken down from there.

But it's still available in the back issues of the Occidental Quarterly, a far-right magazine that the civil rights-focused Southern Poverty Law Center dubbed a "racist" publication whose "editors and advisory board members have constituted a 'Who's Who' of the radical right, and its regular publication of extremists' articles has made it a favorite among academic racists in America."

In the essay, Russell also praised T.S. Eliot and psychology professor Kevin MacDonald for looking to limit the proliferation of Jews. MacDonald, who's served on the advisory board of the Occidental Quarterly, has been criticized as an anti-Semite who's pushed the theory that Jews are essentially practicing group-think to outperform non-Jews. He also praises a book, "Camp of the Saints," that the SPLC has said is "revered by American white supremacists."

Some of the block quotes provided in the piece are real doozies.

On the Cheapness of a Harvard Honor

James Fallows and Ta-Nehisi Coates both have great posts on the burgeoning controversy over Harvard honoring Marty Peretz, who has a history of saying some pretty nakedly bigoted things. Coates' point, that one can be a bigot and a great journalist is particularly well-taken (regardless of whether Peretz qualifies as a great journalist or not):

The notion that we must choose between the two, that one mitigates the other, that good people don't do deplorable things, that deplorable people don't do great things, emanates from our own inability to understand that bigotry is not strictly the preserve of orcs.

Not Harvard's finest hour, to be sure.

The Fruits of Their Labor

The Washington Post has an interesting profile of Louisville's continued efforts to keep their schools integrated after the Supreme Court's Parents Involved decision. The short story is that what was originally a rather popular and cost-effective plan is now more expensive, more convoluted, more difficult to administer, less effective and far less popular.

But hey -- at least Chief Justice Roberts got a pithy quote out of it.

Day of Atonement

Hope everyone had an easy fast. It was also my anniversary with Jill today (fabulous timing, that) -- we broke the fast at Flaco's Tacos.

In any event, in honor of Yom Kippur, Rabbi Ovaida Yosef has issued a pretty strong apology after previously calling for the death of Mahmoud Abbas and a plague to fall upon the Palestinian people.

One of the hardest things for people to realize, I think, is that the peace process is probably going to have to rely on folks like Yosef -- folks who have taken some risible stands in the past, but may yet be willing to sign on the dotted line in the future. It is so easy to permanently disqualify folks from the public sphere in conflicts like these, for virtually everyone has a skeleton in their closet: Abbas' Holocaust denial, Netanyahu's rampant rejectionism towards Palestinian peoplehood. But ultimately, we need to look for routes to success, not excuses for failure.

Have a Good Time Spelling That

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) will run as a write-in candidate for Senate after losing her primary bid to Joe Miller. How this will effect the race is unclear, although early indicators say that it will actually help Miller and hurt Democratic candidate Scott McAdams.

* * *

I do have news, but unfortunately, I can't publicly reveal it yet. This is not meant to be a tease -- I honestly wasn't expecting events to turn out quite the way they did, and while I think I'm in a very good state, things are delicate right now.

You Tease You

So I know I promised news, and I actually do have news ... but I can't share it. A perfect storm of events has put things in a rather unique situation at the moment, which I am trying to untangle. It will happen, eventually, and the good "news" I can share is that there is no truly bad outcome. It's just very messy. Stay turned.

Remember the Massachusetts!

While Christine O'Donnell's upset victory over Rep. Mike Castle does turn a likely Democratic loss into a likely Democratic hold, my recollection of Scott Brown prevent me from crowing too hard. I do think Chris Coons will win this seat, but I don't want to count my chickens before they hatch.

That being said, Jonathan Chait is undoubtedly correct that the victories of (among others) O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, Marco Rubio, Rick Scott, and (we just found out) Carl Paladino over establishment-backed favorites is going to make it pretty hard for Republicans to recruit their preferred candidates into races next time around. Castle, for example, gave up a locked-down House seat for a race he never seemed that interested in running for, and which was not a sure shot (particularly when Beau Biden was considering the race). Now he's rewarded with an ignoble end to his political career. The national party simply can't be relied upon the clear the field for even its highest-profile recruits anymore.

Will this sink the GOP ship in 2010? Perhaps not -- the fundamentals are entirely in their favor, and they will still see significant gains in the House and the Senate. But in 2012 -- when, presumably, this wave will have crested -- that's when the pain will emerge, because that's when you very well could see a surprisingly large number of dangerous Republican candidates passing on competitive races for fear of being bounced in the primary season. And while they may be able to skate by on the fundamentals alone in 2010, I think in 2012 -- with the Democratic Party in full swing to promoting President Obama's reelection fight -- being stuck with a ton of subpar, far-right candidates will really come back to haunt them.

North to the Future Roundup

Flying to Minnesota tomorrow -- I may or may not be posting tomorrow and Thursday. I also may or may not give an election update with the primary results tonight.

* * *

The Tea Party begins its Jewish outreach project as part of a broader diversification campaign. Why Jews first? "I think that there is a more open debate to be had (in the Jewish community), but there is no genius behind that. I had to start somewhere." Don't tell Karol de Gucht.

A few days old, but James Fallows regrets the harsh things he didn't say to Marty Peretz.

Like Ta-Nehisi Coates and Matt Yglesias, I find it strange that resisting British colonialism is now a slur. If you're African (if you're White, it's a Tea Party!).

Meanwhile, Adam Serwer's post on how this whole "Kenyan anticolonialism" thing is a blatant racial dog-whistle is excellent.

No link, but a conservative friend of just cried out over Facebook: "Why don't Delaware Republicans want to win the Senate?"

American support for Israel is up following the relaunch of peace talks.

Engage lists its greatest hits.

Is Donna Edwards really threatened in her primary race (I voted today, but she's not my Congresswoman).

Where the Danger Really, Really Lies

Commenting (indirectly ) on Carlos Ball's allegation that Villanova University refused to hire him on account of his status as an openly gay man and his writings on LGBT rights, Robert George posts the following hypothetical under the heading "Where does the danger actually lie?"

On the more general point, let me put a question to everyone, Let's imagine that Joe is a candidate for an entry level law teaching position at Villanova, Georgetown, Boston College, and Loyola of Los Angeles. He is a secular person who self-identifies as gay and is living in a sexual partnership with a man. He has thought carefully and read widely about issues of sexual morality and marriage, and has arrived at the view that any sexual act can be morally good so long as it does not involve coercion or deception and the parties performing the act find it mutually pleasant and fulfilling. He has also formed the conviction that state marriage laws should recognize same-sex partnerships as marriages. Sam is a candidate for a law teaching position at Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and Stanford. He is a Catholic who has thought as deeply and read as widely as Joe has about issues of sexual morality and marriage, but has arrived at different judgments. He believes that fornication, adultery, and sodomy are immoral acts and that the law ought to define marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife.

Now, as it happens, Joe and Sam, despite their differences, have some things in common. Both are summa cum laude graduates of Williams College. Both were Rhodes Scholars who earned D.Phil. degrees in philosophy from Oxford. Both were law review editors at Harvard Law School. Both were Supreme Court clerks. Both are outstanding young scholars and promising teachers. And one more thing: Both are good friends of yours, and have sought your advice on the same question: How big a risk would I be taking if I decided not to conceal the facts about myself and my views having to do with sexual morality and marriage?

Does anyone think that Joe would be taking a bigger risk than Sam? Indeed, does anyone think that the risk is equal? What would you tell Joe? How would you advise Sam?

The problem with this hypothetical is that it blurs together two different things: personal status and political/moral/academic views. But these are obviously separate, and disentangling them makes the story far more complicated than George would admit.

Joe, we're told, is an openly gay man living in some form of sexual partnership with another man. We are not told of Sam's relationship status (itself rather revealing), but the true hypothetical parity would have Sam happily ensconced in a heterosexual marriage. That covers both of their personal relationship status. Separately, there are their political, moral, and academic views on matters of LGBT rights -- Joe in favor, Sam, opposed.

It may be true that on the policy side, it is more "risky" on the academic market to be opposed to LGBT rights than to support them. But George cannot plausibly maintain that Sam should be "advised" to hide his heterosexual marriage in the same way that Joe very plausibly might want to cover his gay relationship. We might dispute whether the academic risk of outing yourself as gay is minor or significant, but surely we can agree that the academic risk of outing yourself as straight is non-existent. And this doesn't even get into the other ways which being gay circumscribes one's choices aside from who is willing to hire you; as anyone who has been to Carleton knows, there are other barriers to being a gay man in Northfield other than whether the school itself is welcoming.

Moreover, by blending together the personal and the political, George (and, to be fair it seems, Ball) elides the fact that the two are descriptively detachable -- there most certainly are straight men who support LGBT rights, and, while perhaps uncommon, there are definitely gay men who oppose them. There are four potential permutations: (1) Personally gay and politically pro-gay rights (Joe), (2) Personally straight and politically pro-gay rights (for example, me), (3) Personally straight and politically anti-gay rights (Sam), and (4) Personally gay and politically anti-gay rights (Larry Craig?).

I think it is fair to say that holding the other variables constant, being personally gay is disadvantageous. While all those who work on LGBT issues in the academy have to deal with the notion that their work isn't "rigorous" or "real law" (this is true regardless of the content of the scholarship), if the author is gay him or herself then s/he has to deal with the added burden of his/her work being dismissed as personal pleading or emotional attachment. And whatever disadvantages anti-LGBT rights positions have on the market, I have to think they'd be magnified for a gay or lesbian adherent of it.

But even acknowledging, as I think George must, that being gay is far more "dangerous" than being straight on the academic market, this still leaves us with the other half of the equation: the assertion that holding the political or academic position against LGBT rights is more dangerous on the market than its pro-LGBT equivalent. There's some truth to this as far as it goes, though I'm not sure it extends to candidates who are not just pro-LGBT in some abstract sense but actually devote their scholarship to it (see above regarding the generic presumption that such work is trivial and unserious -- this is definitely a sentiment I've run across, and I have been told before to at least soft-pedal my scholarly interest in these topics). But even granting the point generally, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take away from it.

Being a law professor is an academic, policy-oriented position. The question of LGBT rights is a normative, political question. It goes to the heart of what a professor does. If someone gets that question "wrong", is there any reason why I can't evaluate them more harshly on the merits of their candidacy? How else is one supposed to evaluate it? This gets to the deep tension within academia: academic freedom means letting people take whatever position they like and pursue any line of inquiry they desire; academic merit necessarily requires judging those positions and inquiries as good or bad. I don't mean to discount the possibility that somebody can take a position that I think is wrong while conceding that they argue for it in a powerful and sophisticated fashion. I do mean to say that the deeper ingrained a particular commitment is, the less likely that one will believe the dispute to be one of reasonable disagreement, rather than simply the other side making a profound moral error.

Gays and lesbians are disadvantaged compared to straights on the job market because of who they are and who they love. If it is true that anti-gay politics are disfavored in academia, that still means only that adherents of that position are being "punished" for holding an ideology that their fellows think is in grave error -- and being in that situation is likely to have negative impacts on a job candidacy no matter what the field is and no matter what particular dissenting view one holds. The real danger, in other words, is in being an academic whom most other academics think has gotten an important element of their research wrong.

The Crazy Day-z

It's been a rather crazy last few days. But hopefully soon, I will have some news. In the meantime, I am headed off to my once and perhaps future home, Minnesota, on Wednesday afternoon. Anybody who is around and wants to hang Wednesday night, let me know.

When a Boy Isn't Just a Boy

We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 551 (1896).

The 11th Circuit has once again reversed a verdict finding racial discrimination a Tyson Foods factory, holding (among other things) that the evidence whereby a White supervisor had called the Black plaintiff "boy" was insufficient to provide evidence of discriminatory bias.

This case had already been up to the Supreme Court once, where they reversed a prior 11th Circuit decision holding that "boy" could never be evidence of racial prejudice unless accompanied by a modifier like "Black" or "White". The Supreme Court chastised the lower court:

Although it is true the disputed word will not always be evidence of racial animus, it does not follow that the term, standing alone, is always benign. The speaker's meaning may depend on various factors including context, inflection, tone of voice, local custom, and historical usage.

Not taking the hint, the 11th Circuit continues insist that there was simply not conceivable way a jury could have interpreted the usage of "boy" as evidencing a discriminatory attitude.

Obviously, it's true that whether "boy" is malevolent or benign depends on the factors the court laid out. And you know who is, if not really good at examining those factual elements, then at least is legally tasked with sorting them out? Juries! They're the ones who know the most about local custom, and inflection, and tone of voice, and how comparable "boy" is to the n-word. Not, say, three judges on the 11th Circuit reviewing trial transcripts after the fact.

That One Quote

Great cartoon on MLK's unlikely membership in the Tea Party.

In DC

Jill and I made it in alright, except that I came across this story, which is more horrifying than anything I could possibly imagine. I mean, you thought the DOJ was politicized under Gonzalez....

Shana Tova

At the airport -- Jill and I are heading back home (my home) for the high holidays. Blogging will be appropriately sparse. Stay tuned, though -- I may have exciting news in a week or two (or else crushingly disappointing news. But let's stay optimistic).

Castro Tells Iran To Back Off the Anti-Semitism

If you haven't read Jeffrey Goldberg's interview with Fidel Castro, it's worth you time. Kind of like stepping into bizarro world, but worth your time.

Abusive

The ever-more disgusting Marty Peretz: "I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse." Take a guess on who "these people" are.

If Peretz didn't own the damn place, this is the sort of thing that would get one fired. What an embarrassment. (Incidentally, Alex Pareene is correct that if TNR's in-house critics can't weigh in on this, then what's the point of having them around?).

Home of the Brave

Daniel Gordis has a rather repellent column up in the Jerusalem Post. It purports to be about the Park 51 community center, but it actually barely talks about it. Rather, its focus is on the need of Americans to know, with clarion certainty and no distractions, that we are in a potentially endless, apocalyptic war, with Muslims (yes, yes, not all Muslims are terrorists. But this observation, he writes, "only goes so far."). To the extent the Cordoba Initiative comes up, it seems to be that any indulgence to any Muslim, anywhere, risks distracting us from this steely steadfastness we'll need to pull through.

As Tim F. once noted, the possibility that Americans might forget that Muslim terrorists attacked us on 9/11 "seems vanishingly unlikely when at any given time a Republican is running for office somewhere." But more fundamentally, what this article is, more or less, is an unapologetic paean to pure fear. It says that America's noted "gentility" (which, I imagine, is like France's noted courtesy. I love America and lots of things about it, but "gentility" is hardly among our better-known qualities) will be the end of us. For all its macho rhetoric about how we need to be strong and unified, it is cowardly and weak. For all the talk about how the terrorists wish to destroy us and our liberties (and, no doubt, they do), it seeks to do much of their job for them, by turning our robust, vibrant, and free society into a paranoid fortress. I fly pretty often, and no, US air travel is not "abominably unpleasant". It isn't, it doesn't have to be, and really, if that's the best you got, your siege mentality needs work. We have stood resilient for years against this threat, precisely by not making our state a ghastly imitator of bigoted, oppressive regimes worldwide; precisely by not deciding that their discriminatory hatred is not a sin to fight, but a model to emulate.

We do need to be both the "land of the free" and the "home of the brave". But Daniel Gordis is not brave. He is weak. He is cowardly. He would have America panic and treat the Muslim community writ large as presumptive enemies, when what distinguishes America from so many countries around the world right now is the relative lack of homegrown Muslim radicalism. We've preserved that lofty status because we have no yet wavered from our belief that America is for all Americans -- that we are all equals here. Now, some folks, like Mr. Gordis, seek to cut and run from our constitutional commitments. There is no bravery in that.

Proof This Roundup

To quote my friend Marlena: "Let's kill 'em!"

* * *

Venezuelan Jews appeal to Hugo Chavez to stem the tide of anti-Semitic incitement pouring from the state's media.

9/11 families appeal to Pam Geller not to hold an anti-Muslim rally on the day of 9/11. Geller tells the families to get lost -- a bit weird, given that she claims to be speaking on their behalf.

Speaking of 9/11, American Muslims may have to curtail their end of Ramadan celebrations because the timing overlaps with 9/11. I smell another round of "out respect for the feelings of real Americans (and certainly not any prejudice!), Muslims should spend most of their waking hours in caves in service of interfaith dialogue" concern trolling.

UC-Irvine has upheld, though slightly reduced, its suspension of the campus' Muslim Student Union after it was found to have engaged in coordinated disruption of a speaking appearance by the Israeli ambassador. There was, I think, a good discussion of the original decision in the comments here.

The history of America indicates that nothing is better than effectively preventing minority groups from integrating into society.

A history of union violence against poor, defenseless corporations.

The Anti-Obama

Haley Barbour makes the pitch:

Haley Barbour, the chairman of the Republican Governors Association and one of the most powerful Republicans said to be considering a run for president, is making the case that his southern accent and lobbying career might make him exactly the kind of candidate who can mount a successful campaign against President Obama.
[...]
"As far as southern accents and Mississippi, this country may be looking for the anti-Obama in 2012. Don't know. Could be," Barbour continued.

A corrupt lobbyist with ties to White supremacists? Yeah, that's the anti-Obama alright.

PA Savages Iran, Ahmadinejad

I figured there existed some tension between the Palestinian leadership and the Iranian government, given that the latter (a) tends to arrogate itself the right to speak for Palestinians and (b) provides support for brutal separatist groups which violently removed the PA from various Palestinian territories. Still, this is pretty amazing:

The one who does not represent the Iranian people, who falsified election results, who oppressed the Iranian people and stole authority has no right to speak about Palestine, its president or its representatives," Abbas spokesman Nabil Abu Rudaineh said about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I have to ask whether this is the first outright statement by a (non-Israeli) middle eastern leader that Ahmadinejad stole the election and is an oppressive tyrant?

This, once again, reinforces the delineation between the folks who actually support Palestine living side-by-side in peace with Israel, and Iranian-backed stooges who couldn't care less what happens to Palestinians so long as they can be used to whip up racist hatred.

The Worst Fear at All

I find it entirely unsurprising that the announcement of renewed peace talks between Israel and Palestine has thrown COSATU foreign relations secretary and pro-Palestinian activist noted hate speaker Bongani Masuku into a fit of apoplexy:

“ This march also takes place at a time when the imperialists have imposed upon the Palestinian people, negotiations under the barrel of a gun, which have been designed to serve the interests of forcing the Palestinians to succumb to the bully tactics of the US and Israel.

“ The terms of negotiation, the terrain of struggle has been made to favour the occupying force through several brutal incursions and continued destabilisation of Palestine by the Israeli forces.

Hence, COSATU is looking to undermine these negotiations at all costs, by joining with Iranian-backed groups and pushing for a renewed wave of anti-Israel activism designed to torpedo, once again, the chance for peaceful co-existence. Because if you're not struggling, you're surrendering. And if Palestinians aren't chafing under occupation, if Jews aren't cowering under Masuku and his brethren's barrage of hate and incitement -- well, what would he do with his life?

Tip of the Iceberg

I feel like, of all the various repulsive things Glenn Beck has said, focusing on whether he actually held George Washington's inaugural address is kind of small potatoes.

Victory Mosque Removal

In The New Republic, Yossi Klein Halevi has a heartfelt letter addressed to "his friend" Imam Rauf. The objective behind the letter is twofold: first, to establish that he does consider Rauf to be an important figure in interfaith dialogue ("If you are not a worthy dialogue partner for the Jewish community, then there is almost no one in Islam with whom we can speak."), and second, to urge the Imam to change the plans for the Park 51 center. Instead of turning it into a Muslim community center:

Instead, I urge you to consider turning the site into a center for interfaith encounter. Build the mosque—but do so together with a church and a synagogue and a center for common reflection for all three faiths and for those with no faith. Do this, Imam Feisal, not to surrender to your critics but to honor their pain, and, in the process, to honor Islam.

In the abstract, such a center would be a wonderful idea. Is it "better" (from the standpoint of interfaith healing? From the a general social utility view?) than the current blueprints? It's hard to say, though I suspect that, under whatever standard that labels such a center superior to Park 51, that same center would be a "better" usage for nearly any parcel of land publicly or privately developed in New York City (those strip clubs spring immediately to mind). And I maintain that, if the purpose of the community center is to serve the Muslim community in Southern Manhattan, it kind of misses the point to relocate the center to the other end of the borough Staten Island Queens.

But even if such an idea was meritorious, it can't happen anymore. The stakes have changed. We've moved beyond that.

One of the more ridiculous memes surrounding the Park 51 center is that it constitutes a "victory Mosque". The center organizers certainly never cast it that way, so we're forced to speculate that Islamists world-wide are slapping high-fives over the creation of a Islamic center headed by a man who has said he is a "supporter of Israel", and who gave such a stirring sermon on the occasion of Daniel Pearls brutal murder by those same Islamic extremists. The "victory Mosque" supposition stretches beyond implausible -- it is the stuff of pure paranoid bigoted fantasy.

On the other hand, we need no speculation to know who would claim victory at forcing the abandonment of the Park 51 plan. Changing the Park 51 plans -- moving it one inch, changing its mandate one iota -- would hand a victory to Pam Geller and her crowd of fascists who are responsible for ginning up this controversy and have never minced any bones about their objectives. They absolutely would declare victory. And they'd be right.

This is why, even granting the most "nuanced" interpretation of their position on this controversy, I still find the ADL's stance to be an outrageous capitulation of their core agenda. The arguments being put forth by Pam Geller and her bandmates represent a dire threat to the entire American constitutional vision. Their principles are toxic to the ideals of religious liberty that the ADL had sworn to protect. That was the critical issue that the Park 51 controversy raised. Everything else is a sideshow. The ADL either didn't recognize that, or it didn't have its priorities in order. Either way, it's no longer worth the time of folks genuinely concerned with preserving freedom in this nation.

America has seen these moments before. We had the Know-Nothings. We had Father Coughlin. We had the John Birch Society. All of these repellent groups counted hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Americans, among their adherents. But that did not render these movements American, and ultimately, we the people were faced with a choice. To affirm American values of religious freedom, of pluralism, of tolerance; or to cede ground to the nativists, the ultra-nationalists, the reactionary purveyors of hatred. Today, we have Pam Geller. She is a representative of an ancient evil, one that slumbers but seemingly is never killed. And we have that same choice faced by our predecessors. The time for clever midway solutions is over. You're either on the side of American values, or you're with Pam Geller. No more middle ground.

Give Him More Rope, Part III

Yes, the honesty is refreshing, but Haley Barbour is like a sick parody:

But I will know this: if I run for President, what you see is what you get, and I am from Mississippi, I do have a southern accent. I was a lobbyist and a pretty damned good one. And I'm very proud -- we were talking before the show came on -- I am happy about my life. I've got a great marriage. I've got great family, and I've had a great career. Wouldn't do anything differently."

"And I will tell you this -- the next President of the United States on January 21, 2013 - - is going to start lobbying. He's going to be lobbying Congress, he's going to be lobbying other countries. He's going to be lobbying the business community. He's going to be lobbying the labor unions, the governors, because that's what Presidents do, and I feel like it's an advantage for me to have the chance to do that."

Please oh please nominate this man. Nominate the man who wants to brag about his time as a lobbyist.

Ring Up Another One

I just completed a long overdue reorganization of "Racism as Subjectification." And, coincidentally, I also found that Racism as Subjectification, though not yet published, in fact was heavily cited in a recent journal chapter: Denise Egéa-Kuehne, "Subjectification": Biesta’s Strong Link to Education, 2009 Phil. Educ. 363.

Unfortunately, this reorganization means that all the pagination in Professor Egéa-Kuehne's article is about to be wrong, as soon as I get around to updating SSRN. That's the peril of citing unpublished works -- usually, the author is still trying to render them publishable. Still, it's a nice vote of confidence. And unlike the folks who have cited my blog, Professor Egéa-Kuehne decided to go totally wild and even include my name. So, big day for me.

Outlet Pass

So opponents of peace between Israel and Palestine have launched a full-court press to derail talks between Bibi Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas. Hamas has promised a wave of attacks. Iran is sponsoring rallies calling for the demise of Israel. Settlers are swearing to renew construction throughout the West Bank.

Here's a thought: How about we not give them what they want? I know the idea of not giving into the demands of radicals is all novel and bleeding-heart, but maybe it's worth a try? Just saying.

Of Interests and Lobbies

As someone who found The Israel Lobby thesis to be profoundly misguided, it really shouldn't be any surprise that I find its new counterpart, The Arab Lobby, to be pretty silly as well. Hussein Ibish reviews the latter here, though I wish he had provided more specific examples about where he thinks the authors go off the rails, the broad points are sound.

In general, the problem with these sorts of arguments is twofold. First, they nearly always have an insanely reductionist account of "American Interests", creating an implicit baseline of what the U.S. "would" be doing were it not for the "lobby", and then measuring the lobby's influence based on how far it can get us to deviate from our basic interests. But that's not the way interests work--we don't just have interests in the abstract; we're interested in various principles, resources, and situations, all of which are open to political and democratic contestation, and lobbies usually try and convince policymakers to adopt one constellation of interests over another. So yes, if the U.S. really didn't care about democracy (adopting a pure W&M-style neo-realist framework that only cared about defensive security) our position regarding Israel would probably change; if the U.S. really did care about democracy our position regarding Egypt would change. We blend lots of interests together, in a variety of cocktails. And that's okay.

Second, they usually collapse many different perspectives under a single heading. Ibish claims that The Arab Lobby does this by creating blanket groupings of organizations as either "pro-Israel" or "pro-Arab", we know Mearsheimer did this with his wretched list of good and bad Jews. I agree in principle that we can characterize groups ranging from J Street to ZOA as "pro-Israel" in some sense or another, but it seems very bizarre to characterize them as being part of a cohesive "Lobby".

And this, in turn, gets at the fundamental problem with these comparisons between the power of the "Israel Lobby" and the "Arab Lobby"? When you define the Israel Lobby as broadly as do Walt and Mearsheimer, encompassing everyone from the ZOA to J Street, the only thing they have in common is that they don't want Israel to die. Is the sentiment amongst US policymakers that Israel shouldn't be destroyed stronger than their sentiment that, say Saudi Arabia shouldn't be destroyed? I guess, but (unlike with Israel) the potential destruction of Saudi Arabia isn't really on the geopolitical table. In terms of more specific policy initiatives where "the Israel Lobby" is internally divided, it becomes more difficult to sustain claims of unique power. Israel gets lots of American weaponry and aid; so does Egypt and Saudi Arabia. America has security guarantees with Israel, but it likewise has them for Arab neighbors.

Given the unstable nature of concepts like "interests", the widespread disagreement over what it would mean to "support" Israel or Arab "interests", the differing geopolitical contexts which mediate what each group has to request and how much pushback their is against their demands, the question of whose Lobby is bigger is effectively meaningless. These questions are nearly always used as a smokescreen (author protests notwithstanding) to act like somebody is subverting the true needs of the American nation, and I find it aggravating.

Master of Money Roundup

Anybody on Law Review will tell you -- nobody knows economics like I do.

* * *

Glenn Beck: Not really comparable to Malcolm X. At all.

Four Israeli settlers shot dead by Palestinian terrorists. Hamas has claimed responsibility; the PA condemned the attack.

A neat piece on Justice Ginsburg's role as a feminist pioneer. This older bit from the Legal Times is also interesting.

A CNN profile on a Baha'i woman imprisoned by Iran. Apparently, charges of espionage for Israel are the preferred method Iran takes for suppressing its religious minorities (surprise, surprise).

It's a shame that the housing market is so dismal right now. If only there were masses of people desperate to come to America and find a place to live.
It's like the Maroonbook doesn't even exist (for entirely valid reasons, to be sure).

The best and worst of America.

30/30/30

CNN has an interesting story about a group of two American Muslims (plus a CNN reporter and photographer) who are trying to visit 30 mosques in 30 states in 30 days. Worth a read.

You'd Think the Church Would be Deemphasizing the Centrality of its Priests' Genetalia

I think Christian denominations have every right to define their own theology and religious practices, free from my interference. Nonetheless, I find the latest Catholic defense of barring women from priesthood to be a little baffling:

Barring women from being Catholic priests is not the result of sexism 2,000 years ago, it's because women cannot fulfill a basic function of the priesthood, "standing in the place of Jesus," a leading British Catholic thinker argued Monday.

"This teaching is not at all a judgment on women's abilities or rights. It says something about the specific role of the priest in Catholic understanding - which is to represent Jesus, to stand in his place," argued Father Stephen Wang in a statement sent out by the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales.
[...]
The bottom line is that Jesus chose 12 men - and no women - to be his apostles, Wang argues.

The choice was "deliberate and significant, not just for that first period of history, but for every age," Wang says.

Men and women are equal in Christianity, he continues, but "this does not mean that our sexual identity as men and women is interchangeable. Gender is not just an accident."

He compared the role of a priest to that of an actor playing King Arthur or British soccer star Wayne Rooney in a movie.

"No one would be surprised if I said I wanted a male actor to play the lead," he said, admitting the analogy was "weak."

But, he said, "it shouldn't surprise us if we expect a man to stand 'in the person of Christ' as a priest, to represent Jesus in his humanity - a humanity that is not sexually neutral."

Indeed, that analogy is weak. But more fundamentally, I have to think one can believe that sex is not interchangeable while still not considering a critical component of Jesus' human representation to be his penis (why not his height or -- let's have some fun, shall we? -- skin color? Would you hire George Clooney to play Magic Johnson? On second thought, don't answer that). If I were a Christian, I'd find that message to be incredibly degrading. The essential Jesus: universal love, global salvation, and a cock.

But whatever. I'm an interested spectator in this fight, no more.

The Strange Necessity of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef

The other day, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, spiritual leader of the influential Sephardic-religious Shas Party, set-off a firestorm after delivering a sermon in which he said God should unleash a "plague" against the Palestinians and declared that "Abu Mazen (nom de guerre for Abbas) and all these evil people should perish from this world."

Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu moved quickly to disavow the comments. And yet, we are left in a strange situation. Rabbi Yosef's comments are clearly appalling -- I reject anyone who tries to distinguish them from the rabid anti-Israel and anti-Semitic discourse that flows out of the pulpits of all-too-many Palestinian preachers. And yet, Rabbi Yosef has an interesting history in this respect. He has consistently viewed the Palestinian people as Israel's enemy. Yet he also made a highly influential religious ruling that Israel should seek peace with Palestinians, even giving up painful concessions, because to do so might save lives. And indeed, this perplexing paradox was how Shas' spokesperson explained the Rabbi's comment: That the Rabbi sees the Palestinians as enemies, but wants peace with them.

And this is something we seem to see surprisingly often. In the case of "normal politics", we might say someone who called for a plague to fall down against a whole class of people ought be permanently disqualified from playing any role in any political discussion whatsoever, except as a figure of contempt. For of course, these positions are contemptible. And yet, if we want peace, it will have to be the people like Rabbi Yosef who will do it. I am proud of the Israelis who don't see the Palestinians as enemies, and the Palestinians who don't see Israelis as their enemies. But ultimately, it's the folks who would say things like this, who have horrible, hateful, detestable views, and yet still are willing (at least sometimes) to take a step for peace, that are the most valuable.

The easiest thing in the world, in an entrenched ethnic conflict, is to find ways to disqualify prominent players from the realm of civilization. Because ethnic conflict nearly always carries with it a wake of hatred, and hatred is a terrible thing. But such an instinct, I think, ultimately is incompatible with peace and reconciliation -- it is a gambit to justify the status quo, not a tactic thrusting towards the future. This is why I'm willing to look beyond -- not overlook, not apologize for, but look beyond -- some of the positions of potential peace partners, rather than searching for mutually assured discredition. You don't build bridges to folks already on your side of the river. You don't make peace with those who already agree with you. The important thing is a commitment to securing a just peace. Beyond that is beyond that -- it isn't my concern right now.

At least once upon a time, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef was this sort of person -- horrible in his hatred of the Palestinians, but perhaps necessary in order to secure peace. It is a thin stand upon which to hang grace, and he may not possess it anymore. But the template is a common one -- amongst Israelis and amongst Palestinians, and it is one we must handle delicately.

No, Dr. King Would Not Be Proud

On the occasion of helping lead a right-wing rally on the Mall on the anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream Speech", Sarah Palin declared her hope that "Dr. King would be so proud of us."

In his famous speech, Dr. King answered those who asked "When will you be satisfied?" He replied:

We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating “For Whites Only”. We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

As my friend notes, some of these, like the exclusion of Blacks from hotels, the "Whites only" signs, and the flat prohibition on Blacks voting in the South, have been rectified. Others, though -- like police brutality and rampant residential segregation, have not.

Has Sarah Palin spoken out on the issue of housing segregation? Has she spoken out on the issue of police brutality? Not that I can recall. Those aren't her issues. Those aren't her passion. And I doubt she knows or cares enough about the legacy of Dr. King to even know her short-comings.

I wrote several years ago that, for much of America, the only "good" civil rights leader was, quite literally, a dead one (Dr. King). There is a reason why the same admiration the right bestows upon Dr. King hasn't been granted to any of his surviving lieutenants.

Being dead, he can't contest or contextualize the actual content of his beliefs. Being dead, he can't remind audiences of the criticisms and abuse he was subjected to during his campaigns, and how it is eerily reminiscent of the charges foisted upon contemporary Black leaders. And being dead, he is no longer a political threat, and thus is a safe person to prop up upon an altar and praise. Were he alive, we might be faced with the uncomfortable prospect that this great hero of American history might demand we actually fulfill our covenant with Black citizens, and that would require actual change and reform and sacrifice. Dead people tell no such tales.

I firmly believe that, if Dr. King were alive today, Sarah Palin and her cohorts would believe he is a radical agitator, a socialist sympathizer, maybe someone who once had some important ideas, but whose time had effectively passed. It is quite fortunate, then, that he is dead, so he can be stripped of his essence and turned into a icon.

So no, I don't think Dr. King would be proud to be treated in this manner. I don't think he would be proud to have his legacy abandoned -- contorted as some abstract paean to "equality" rather than as a concrete struggle for justice. Sarah Palin can change that, by actually adopting Dr. King's agenda. But she won't. And he is not proud to be used as a tool by the likes of Sarah Palin..

A Year of Fundamentals

I feel like this is going to be an interesting election year. On the one hand, all the fundamentals favor the GOP. The economy is down. The Presidential Party normally loses off-year elections. The Democratic Party won a ton of marginal seats in the 2006 and 2008 wave elections, and those seats would be difficult to hang onto under any circumstances. The terrain is very Republican-friendly.

Political scientists are generally rather sneering about the idea that the daily political play-by-play actually effects election results all that much. It's fundamental, macro issues (most notably the economy) which drive results.

Yet, this year, we might see a test of that hypothesis, given just how far to the right the Republican Party has decided to drift. It's not quite like the Republican Party decided to run a whole slate of Alvin Greenes, but it's close.

In state after state -- Kentucky, Nevada, Florida, and most recently Alaska -- GOP primary voters have spurned mainstream, electable candidates for folks on the furthest of the right-ward fringe. And it's turning states that should have been easy wins for the GOP into bona fide targets for the Democratic Party. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) should be dead in the water, but for the fact that 66% of Sharron Angle's own supporters regret having nominated her. Joe Miller's apparent knock-off of incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has possibly put that Senate seat into play. In the Florida gubernatorial race, former prohibitive favorite Bill McCollum couldn't get past Rick Scott in the primary, and Democratic nominee Alex Sink has to be smiling given that McCollum apparently won't endorse Scott. A similar story prevails in the Florida Senate race, as Charlie Crist's independent bid after getting forced out of the GOP primary by Marco Rubio has thrown the entire race into flux (for the record, I'm a Charlie Crist fan, and have been since well before he dropped the GOP label). And so on and so forth.

So this is an interesting year. It really tests the question -- are fundamentals everything? Are there candidates so extreme that they can -- not just on a case-by-case basis, but systemwide -- check against the natural political gravity which is pulling hard against the Democrats this year?

It'll be interesting to find out. (Although I can't say I'm excited. Call me risk-averse, but I'd prefer a strong chance of mainstream Republicans winning than even a 50-50 chance of some of the nuts we're talking about getting their hands on the levers of power. Sharron Angle may have given Harry Reid a breath of life, but it also means we have a non-negligible prospect of Senator Sharron Angle. Scary.).

Filling the Gap

Kevin Drum has two good posts up: one on the obsession with raising the retirement age, and another on the rise of the "Obama is a Muslim" falsehood.

It's been a busy day for me, and a quiet day on the web.

Ground Zero: It's Not Just Staten Island Anymore

No, the title is not a typo. In the meantime, opponents of the Park 51 community center don't know exactly where "Ground Zero" ends and Muslims should be allowed to build things. 10 blocks away? 100 blocks away? The entire island of Manhattan? Who knows! We ought to just throw up our hands like the American Family Association, and just ban Mosques nationwide!

This sudden escalation of hate and prejudice is reflected by the nearly one-third of Americans think Muslims shouldn't be allowed to run for President. As Dan Filler accurately notes, "anti-Muslim sentiments are beginning to jump the levees, spreading out across Village Americana." We are teetering on the precipice of this becoming mainstream -- part of "normal politics", rather than banished to the fringes where it belongs. It's scary. It's very, very scary.

When Did We Suddenly Have To "Pay For" Things?

I feel like there is no greater illustration of the hollow GOP concern for the deficit than this exchange between Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and David Gregory:

GREGORY: For a final time, I’ll go back to my question which is, the extension of the tax cuts would cost $3.2 trillion. That’s borrowed money, that adds to the deficit. Do you have a plan to pay for that extension?

MCCONNELL: You’re talking about current tax policy. Why did it all of a sudden become something that we, quote, ‘pay for’?

Senator McConnell may have once again darted across the McConnell Line.

....FORMER ROOMATE!

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's book What's Right with Islam is What's Right with America, was published in America by a press owned by none other than Fox News' Rupert Murdoch. Which, under the Spaceballs criterion of guilt that the Cordoba Initiative is being forced to play under, makes Fox News a terrorist affiliate (and the Cordoba Initiative a conservative hack outfit, I guess).

The Dark Side

This article, on how to keep the trapped Chilean miners sane as they await what might be a four-month long wait for rescue, is very interesting. But my favorite part was the inverse-Yoda advice given about the perils of darkness:

The men used tools they have underground to establish a light source and to power their head lamps – after food and water sources, establishing reliable access to light is critical to staving off psychological deterioration.

“The most important thing, aside from keeping physical needs satisfied, is to help them keep a positive frame of mind,” Dr. Suedfeld said. “Darkness is disorienting. It leads to uncertainty. That leads to anxiety and fear.”

And that leads to the dark side! Wait -- that's circular.

Anyway, hopefully the officials down in Chile have some good consultants available to advise them on how to keep tensions to a minimum amongst the trapped miners. Their situation is precarious enough without them fighting all the time.

I Hear That Book Covers Almost as Much Terrain as Richard Posner in a Year

An amusing legal research anecdote shared by Eugene Volokh.

Direct Talks Beginning

It took some severe arm-twisting and more than a few tense moments, but the US has announced that direct talks will commence between Israel and the PA this September. The word out of Washington (and this strikes me as quite optimistic) is that all issues can be resolved within a year.

Well, good luck!

Nobody Reads Literature Anymore

The New York Times had a fascinating account over a townhall meeting designed to assuage concerns over a new mosque being built on Staten Island (which, as we know, is only 11 miles from the WTC site). The meeting was quite fiery, and tensions were running high. But then,

as Bill Finnegan stood at the microphone, came the meeting’s single moment of hushed silence. Mr. Finnegan said he was a Marine lance corporal, home from Afghanistan, where he had worked as a mediator with warring tribes.

After the sustained standing ovation that followed his introduction, he turned to the Muslims on the panel: “My question to you is, will you work to form a cohesive bond with the people of this community?” The men said yes.

Then he turned to the crowd. “And will you work to form a cohesive bond with these people — your new neighbors?”

And we all know how this story ends, right? We all know what happens next?

The crowd erupted in boos. “No!” someone shouted.

Sigh.

In Southern Manhattan, I am a Muslim

Early this year, I declared myself "Seismic Shock" in solidarity with a blogger faced with threats of legal retaliation for daring to expose the links between a prominent pastor and anti-Semitic thugs.

The "controversy" over the proposed Southern Manhattan Muslim community center continues to grow, and folks stretch to ever deeper contortions to justify passive-aggressions "questions must be asked" formulations about whether the Imam is a closet Islamist. In that light, we read Jeffrey Goldberg's account of that Imam's sermon at a memorial service for Daniel Pearl, and bow our heads in shame:

We are here to assert the Islamic conviction of the moral equivalency of our Abrahamic faiths. If to be a Jew means to say with all one's heart, mind and soul Shma` Yisrael, Adonai Elohenu Adonai Ahad; hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One, not only today I am a Jew, I have always been one, Mr. Pearl.

As Mr. Goldberg correctly notes:

There are those who would argue that these represent mere words, chosen carefully to appease a potentially suspicious audience. I would argue something different: That any Muslim imam who stands before a Jewish congregation and says, "I am a Jew," is placing his life in danger. Remember, Islamists hate the people they consider apostates even more than they hate Christians and Jews. In other words, the man many commentators on the right assert is a terrorist-sympathizer placed himself in mortal peril in order to identify himself with Christians and Jews, and specifically with the most famous Jewish victim of Islamism.

I noted very early on that the demagogues who have created this controversy were taking the oppression of Jews in the Arab world not as a violation to be condemned, but as a model to emulate. The religious bigotry and hatred they are promoting is one that threatens me too. The experience of not being able to worship freely, of being seen as a permanent outsider, of constantly having to prove one's loyalty to country and community, these are all quite familiar to me. And in that sense, just as I am a Jew, I am a Muslim -- and always have been.

Barack Obama Went to Carleton?!?!

Goldberg:

Such a ridiculous question, is Obama a Muslim? Of course he's not. He's a Druid. But a Reform Druid. Meaning he only worships shrubbery.

(See here).

Flying Back to Chicago

Going back to Chicago today. Lot's of stuff is going down right now, and my patience is very thin. Looking forward to seeing Jill.

Seal the Chamber

In the wake of harsh criticism over her repeated use of the "n-word" on radio, Dr. Laura is ending her radio career:

Embattled radio talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger announced Tuesday she will not renew her contract that is up at the end of the year, telling CNN's "Larry King Live" she wants to "regain my First Amendment rights."
[...]
In announcing her decision "not to do radio anymore" after being in the business for more than 30 years, Schlessinger said, "I want to be able to say what's on my mind and in my heart and what I think is helpful and useful without somebody getting angry or some special-interest group deciding this is a time to silence a voice of dissent."

While Dr. Laura still claims to "regret" the incident, I'm a little dubious, not the least because the "n-word" was among the least offensive elements of the tirade she went off on.

In any event, as is so often the case, "First Amendment rights" translates to the right not to be criticized by private parties. In fact, we can translate this entire whine as abject fury that Dr. Laura's professional position forced her to actually listen to Black people's "special-interest group's" opinions. Dr. Laura's real complaint here isn't about the First Amendment. It's that her echo chamber wasn't as secure as she thought it was.

Buchanan Says Gingrich Went Too Far

Pat Buchanan told off Newt Gingrich for comparing the planned Muslim community center in southern Manhattan to putting up a swastika near the Holocaust museum. Though, it being Buchanan, one can't be precisely sure if he was speaking up in defense of the Muslims, or the Nazis.

You Can Argue But You'd Be Wrong

In spite of grave misgivings, I started to read this post by Efraim Karsh, figuring that hey, it's important to educate myself on the views of others -- even if they do say ridiculous things like that Obama has "distinguished himself, in his short term in office, as the most anti-Israeli U.S. president in living memory."

And then we got here:

James Zogby himself, among others, felt compelled to attempt to rebut my article. "There are bad polls, and then there are bad interpretations of polls," he wrote in the Huffington Post. "Putting them together (i.e. a bad interpretation of a bad poll) can create a mess of misinformation."

The "bad poll" in question is a recent survey for the al-Arabiya television network, noted in my article, which found a staggering 71 percent of Arab respondents had no interest in the Palestinian-Israeli peace talks. And the "bad interpretation" is my presumed failure to recognize that this was not a fully scientific poll but rather an "online vote," which didn't refer to the Palestinian-Israeli peace talks but rather to the "Middle East peace process."

It is arguable of course that an "online-vote" by 8844 respondents (more than twice the size of the Brookings/Zogby poll), answering one straightforward question, might be more accurate and less susceptible to manipulation than "scientifically" crafted surveys purposively choosing their target audiences; or that ordinary Arabs, living as they do in one of the least democratic parts of the world, will be more candid in the relative obscurity of the web than in the presence of a pollster knocking on their front door or contacting them by phone.

And ... we're done here.

Because even I, B+ student in Statistics for Half-Witted Morons that I was, know that it is not, in fact, arguable that online polls (no matter how many people respond) are more accurate than a scientific poll. In fact, the entire polling industry got its start because George Gallup proved that scientific polling was far more accurate than even data drawn from a giant, non-random response pool (in his case, the Reader's Digest polls).

Anybody who is more statistically illiterate than I am really can't be trusted on any topic that involves gauging public opinion. Moving on.

Oh, I Think You'd Be Surprised

Proposing to create a new tax bracket for the ultra-rich (annual income of $1 million and above), James Surowiecki writes:

There would be political advantages, too: the reform could actually make tax hikes on top earners more popular. Critics like to describe tax hikes as hurting small business, because small-business owners make up a sizable percentage of people in the top two brackets and because small-business owners, unlike Wall Street traders, are popular on Main Street. It would be harder to mount a defense of millionaires, which may be why this year a Quinnipiac poll found overwhelming support, even among Republicans, for a millionaire tax.

I think you drastically underestimate the ability of the political classes to mount defenses of policies benefiting the hyper-rich.

It All Makes Sense Now

I've finally figured out why folks are so worked up about the Cordoba Center mosque near the WTC site.



To be fair, that "I [bomb] NY" in shrubbery is pretty impressive.

Obama Walks Back Religious Freedom Remarks

After issuing a strong statement in favor of the right of Muslims to build a mosque/community center several blocks from the WTC site, the President trimmed his sails slightly, saying that he meant to support only the "legal" right of Muslims to build there (or anywhere). He was not, he said, making any statement about whether he supported the particular decision of the local Muslim community to situate their mosque at that location.

How unfortunate. Nobody is going to give credit to the President for trying to slide on through the middle here. The folks who oppose the mosque still will view him as an enemy, and the folks who support the mosque now can effectively lump in the President with the ADL. And all of this comes after the President looked to actually be showing leadership on the matter.

The issues here are very clear. People have the right to build religious buildings to serve their local community. There should not be a mosque-exclusion-zone of indeterminate radius in south Manhattan. Asking the community to relocate is not just patronizing, it's idiotic -- the community center is designed to serve the Muslim community that already exists in southern Manhattan -- it doesn't do them any good to build out in Queens.

Calvin & Hobbes Search Engine

No joke, I've been wanting something like this to exist for years.

Leveraging Experience

Ta-Nehisi Coates has an excellent post up on Pankaj Mishra's essay about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Tariq Ramadan and Paul Berman. Mishra recalled the following anecdote from Arendt:

During the Vietnam War, Hannah Arendt noted that members of the Democratic Administration had frequent recourse to phrases like "monolithic communism," and "second Munich," and deduced from this an inability "to confront reality on its own terms because they had always some parallels in mind that 'helped' them to understand those terms."

Coates adds:

When I was college, it was common for student activists to call slavery "the Black Holocaust" or "The Real Holocaust." There's an argument to be made about America, and the stories we tell ourselves when we see ourselves as heroic, and when we don't. But most of these activists--some of them anti-Semites--knew very little about Jews, Europe, Nazism nor, frankly, slavery. And they didn't much care. They were not interested in specifics. They were interested in leveraging the moral power of other people's experience, in order to bolster the moral power of their own. It was narcissism, laziness, and basic lack of respect--not simply for the Jewish experience--but for the specifics of the African-American experience.

I've stated my distaste for the appropriation of "Holocaust" to other contexts in general. And I think that Coates is right both that such a move is both demonstrative of a lack of imagination, and represents an astoundingly disrespectful attempt to leverage one group's experience on behalf of another (often without that group's consent, and often -- as Jews well know -- against the group itself).

Hey, Data Point!

A major part of my comment thesis is that courts don't protect the politically powerless, but rather only intervene once a marginalized group has demonstrated some clout in the political arena. And wouldn't you know it if, fresh on the heels of Judge Walker's historic opinion striking down California's anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment, we see a poll indicating that half of all Americans agree with him.

Of course, my suspicion is that these things aren't independent of each other. High profile gay marriage victories make it more likely that more people will label themselves in support of gay marriage, because the position has moved from fringe to mainstream (and people generally don't like to consider themselves fringe). At the same time, of course, growing popular support for gay marriage is what makes pro-gay marriage rulings feasible -- it's what moves them from "kooky, frivolous argument" to "position I have to take seriously".

I should say that I don't think whether gay marriage is constitutionally protected is dependent on whether a majority wills it so. I just think descriptively, judicial recognition of gay rights (or really any rights claim) seems to move in tandem with popular recognition of the same.

Fun With Civil Procedure

Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows depositions to be used by an adverse party "for any purpose". A clever lawyer read that language literally, giving us this colloquy (quoted in Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 2141 n. 1).

The Court: Next witness.
Ms. Olschner: Your Honor, at this time, I would like to swat Mr. Buck in the head with his client's deposition.
The Court: You mean read it?
Ms. Olschner: No sir, I mean swat him in the head with it. Pursuant to Rule 32, I may use this deposition for any purpose, and that is the purpose for which I want to use it.
The Court: Well, it does say that. (pause) There being no objection, you may proceed.
Ms. Olschner: Thank you, Judge Hanes. (Whereupon, Ms. Olschner swatted Mr. Buck in the head with the deposition).
Mr. Buck: But, Judge....
The Court: Next witness.

You never know what new trial tactics will emerge if you read the rules closely enough. That's a tip, kids, write it down.

It's That Most Magical Time of Year

There's nothing like the thought of sticking it to Muslims that makes conservatives suddenly care about gay rights:

I’m announcing tonight, that I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space.

This is not a joke. I’ve already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.

As you know, the Muslim faith doesn’t look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I’m building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.

The goal, however, is not simply to open a typical gay bar, but one friendly to men of Islamic faith. An entire floor, for example, will feature non-alcoholic drinks, since booze is forbidden by the faith. The bar will be open all day and night, to accommodate men who would rather keep their sexuality under wraps – but still want to dance.

To be sure, a deliberate attempt to provoke is not akin to an accidental one. Nonetheless, it does not seem to occur to them that, while certainly the right to build a bar is not a bedrock tenet of America's civic traditions like building a house of worship is, there certainly is no reason why Muslims or anyone else should be able to prevent an otherwise legal and properly zoned* gay bar just because they find it offensive.

* Of course, as the post seems to recognize, zoning laws do sometimes take issue with bars being opened right next to houses of worship. In any event, assuming that there are no zoning issues -- sure, build the bar. I have no quarrel with it.

Every Inch of America is Consecrated Ground

The New York Times has an excellent report on nationwide protests against mosque construction, in such hallowed American locations like Sheboygon, Wisconsin (hi, Joe!) and Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

Of course, the opposition to the New York City mosque that has breached the Muslim-site-exclusion-zone-of-indeterminate-radius could not possibly stem from similar motivations. It is a principled defense of the legitimate pain of 9/11 victims.

(Same ban rules apply to NF, CC, and Joe. Oh, and we'll say Superdestroyer too -- I've been meaning to do that for awhile anyway. I'll decide when -- and if -- I feel like lifting those.).

Zakaria Returns His Check

When the ADL first decided to come out in opposition to the proposed mosque/community center being built near the WTC site, Jon Chait declared that it was "such a fundamental violation of the ADL's principles that the group is no longer supportable."

This weekend, Fareed Zakaria became one of the highest profile figures to turn those words into action, electing to return an award and honorarium received from the ADL in 2005. He said that he can no longer in conscience accept either given the dramatic breach the ADL has just initiated with its own founding motives.

And you know what? He's right.

Abe Foxman responds here, and it remains clear that he doesn't get it. As I noted the other day, Foxman continues to believe he is the real victim here -- that he was just misunderstood, that folks today can't grasp "nuance". What I see is that Mr. Foxman believes that Muslims have an obligation to not have a community within some indeterminate radius in southern Manhattan, because other Muslims committing a terrorist atrocity nearby. They have an obligation to restrict their own rights, to limit their freedom of worship, because of the "feelings" of others. Even though we feel sympathy for the victims, insofar as their feelings manifest in the form of blind, unguided anger towards Muslims qua Muslims, they do not deserve the backing of a organization that putatively defends religious liberty.

So, good for Zakaria. And while I highly doubt that the ADL will be admitting their mistake any time soon, here is to hoping. They were wrong on this -- wrong on the deepest, most fundamental level -- and I believe it is a mortal wound to their credibility.

Oh, Joe and N. Friedman are both banned from commenting on this thread. I will delete comments from you sight unseen. Any other commenters are welcome.

Tennessee Sense

The Tennessee primaries are done, and after a year in which we've seen candidates like Sharron Angle nominated and incumbents like Bob Inglis (R-SC) knocked off for insufficient crazy, it's nice to see that at least one state seems to have (miracles of miracles!) made sensible choices.

Surprising nobody, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) handily turned back a primary challenge from former Memphis Mayor Willie Herenton, winning by over a 55 point margin. Herenton had once again tried to race-bait his way to victory in this majority-Black district, and once again the voters showed that they weren't having it.

On the Republican side of things, the nominee for Governor is Bill Haslam, the mayor of Knoxville and the only one of the three major GOP candidates in that race not to go all-in on the crazy (Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey had argued that Islam was "cult" that should be deprived of protection on the First Amendment, and Rep. Zack Wamp had floated seceding from America).

So, good for Volunteer State voters on both sides of the aisle. I salute you.

Palin Endorses Murphy, Ehrlich Breathes Sigh of Relief

Sarah Palin has endorsed long shot challenger Brian Murphy in the Maryland Republican gubernatorial primary.

Former Governor Robert Ehrlich is the overwhelming favorite in that race, and I doubt this endorsement will cause him too much trouble in the primary. And with all due respect to Governor Palin's star power (though if it can't win you Kansas, what can it do?) I have to think that a Palin endorsement would be a 200 lbs anvil that incumbent Democratic Governor Martin O'Malley would hang around Ehrlich's neck in the general. This race may be tight, but Maryland remains one of the most liberal and well-educated states in the nation. This is not real America Palin territory.

Prop. 8 Reversed

The opinion is here, I'm reading it now.

Huge win for equal rights. It won't be the last stroke in the battle by any means. But tonight, we can celebrate.