The constant debate in terms about Israel is about whether any given act it takes is done to "preserve Israeli security" or "maintain the occupation". The answer, of course, is "both". Or more accurately, "either". Do they maintain the occupation? Yes. Do they protect Israel from real, extant security threats? Also yes. Israel has legitimate and illegitimate objectives, and the same actions can plausibly advance either. It is often impossible to tell which is the "real" motive from afar. The odds are, it is a mixture of each.
Take the three companies that the PCUSA may soon divest from: Caterpillar, Motorola, and Hewlett-Packard. Caterpillar sells armored bulldozers to Israel. Motorola runs cell phone networks in the settlements. And Hewlett-Packard provides information technology to the Israeli navy.
Caterpillar's bulldozers are sometimes used to build Israeli settlements, which is bad. Sometimes they demolish Palestinian houses because these houses are built "illegally" (in quotes because the process for Palestinians to gain building approval seems to be deliberately arcane and Kafka-esque), which is also bad. Sometimes it's because these houses are being used as bases for terrorist activity and firing, which is good. Sometimes it's to do normal construction activities inside Israel, which is good. When Caterpillar operates in Israel, it advances all these possibilities at the same time. If it withdraws from Israel, it retards all these objectives. It is true that we can sometimes clearly distinguish between good and bad usages -- but not always: demolition of a Palestinian house on claims that it is being used to smuggle weapons or as a firing post for terrorist will likely be met with skepticism by pro-Palestinian activists claiming it is gratuitous punishment -- we really have no way of knowing who is telling the truth from afar.
Motorola provides cellular technology to settlements, and settlements are illegal. Is that bad? I suppose, though it's unclear why this is different from companies which sell, say, food to settlers. Motorola also apparently provides some weapons technology (such as bomb fuses), and again, one can point out that the IDF's capacity to deliver lethal force can be used either to "protect Israel" (good) or "maintain an occupation" (bad). And one also points out that these are indistinguishable from afar. That Israel has an effective military by definition means its military is capable of pursuing both legitimate and illegitimate objectives. Trying to cripple that military means the opposite -- it would weaken both Israel's ability to maintain an occupation and it's ability to defend itself. It's difficult to disentangle these from one another.
Hewlett-Packard is perhaps the toughest case to justify. HP provides technology to Israeli Navy. To the extent this debate is about the settlements, HP is irrelevant -- Gaza has no settlements and the West Bank isn't on the water. Rather, HP is presumably being indicted because of the navy's efforts in placing a blockade on Gaza. I'm not convinced the blockade is illegal at all (it seems to fall inside the rules laid out by the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, and most of the arguments against its legality either don't cite any legal arguments at all, or, as in the case of the UNHRC's report, made me embarrassed to share the profession of "attorney" with them). Of course, I also don't care about international law anyway -- so the blockade may still be wrong. In any event, the point is more or less the same: a blockade both can restrict the flow of necessary goods into Gaza (bad), and restrict the flow of weapons into Gaza (good).
A large part of why the bulk of the Jewish community is so uncomfortable with divestment from these companies is that they are unconvinced the divesters are putting any moral weight on the other side of the ledger. That is to say, while I say that Motorola simultaneously is enabling "good" (enabling Israel to defend itself) and "bad" (enabling Israel to maintain an occupation), the divesters don't consider the former to be "good" at all. It's either "irrelevant" or perhaps even "bad". This is particularly so with HP, which arguably isn't doing anything wrong at all -- it is not supporting the settlements at all. But regardless, the point is that there are two sides to the ledger, and it's not clear that even legitimate Israeli interests are being taken to account -- indeed, whether it is acknowledged that Israel has interests capable of being characterized as legitimate at all. In essence, it's the same problem in reverse -- the same tactics could plausibly advance legitimate (end the occupation) and illegitimate (end Israel) objectives, and it is impossible to tell from afar which is which.
So what does one do? In essence, the problem is one of trust -- all parties have ample reason to distrust one another, and little way of verifying which moves are legitimate and which ones are aggressive -- they tend to look the same. So I tend to focus on two, seemingly contradictory ambitions: (1) Rebuilding trust and (2) Making it so parties don't have to trust one another. The first is obvious -- mistrust significantly diminishes the range of actions one party can take without provoking the other. So in order to get things done, there has to be space for political action to breathe. That means listening to the other's concerns and claims of serious threat, even if one thinks they're unfounded. I don't think that Israel secretly harbors a desire to maintain control of Jericho forever, but I understand why Palestinians worry about it. And so Israel should behave in ways that alleviate that concern, and be mindful of how their actions interact with that lens upon Israeli motivations. Likewise folks operating from a pro-Palestinian perspective -- they may be absolutely confident that they're totally incorporating Jewish interests and concerns, but Jews seem convinced of the opposite. They have to take account of that fact, rather than engaging in further inflammation. This is the general project of groups like OneVoice, and why they are worthy of your support.
The second proposal is less romantic, but in some ways more important. Israelis and Palestinians don't trust one another. They don't think the other has their best interests at heart. Each are probably, at least to some degree, right about that. But right now they have to trust on another, because they're enmeshed in a relationship of mutual dependency -- both have to take actions predicated on what they believe the other will do. That is one reason why a two-state solution is not just the best solution but also, as Ziad Asali of the American Task Force for Palestine reminds us, is the only one that will ever work. A situation where Israelis and Palestinians are regularly in a position to influence the other's lives is a situation that will likely be characterized by strife, discord, and probably violence. So the goal should be to extricate the warring parties from one another as soon as possible.
This also, in part, is why I do not support a demilitarized Palestine. Part of the reason is simply because I want Palestine to have a monopoly on violence in its territory (if the PA doesn't have guns, then only Hamas will have them). But in part, it's also because I want Palestine to be in a position where it doesn't need to trust Israeli good intentions because it is capable of defending itself. For the same reason, I support Israel having a strong military (including a strong navy). Israel has a great many people who claim to want to destroy it. If Israel is militarily weak, it has to take those threats extremely seriously (in neorealist terms, it has to act aggressively on turn one because it can't guarantee there will be a turn two). If Israel is militarily strong, it can afford to take more risks and concessions because if its goodwill is exploited, it can rest confident its ability to utterly demolish whoever it is that was dumb enough to cross them. Power doesn't guarantee cooperation, but it creates the conditions by which cooperation is possible, because it makes it so that losing once doesn't mean losing everything. And that same logic is why, ultimately, empowering Palestine is the largest step in making Israel secure -- and vice versa.
Tuesday, July 03, 2012
Monday, July 02, 2012
BDS, The PCUSA, and Caring About Anti-Semitism
One thing that is evident to observers of the BDS movement is how thoroughly it is shot through with anti-Semitism. One sees this in ways ranging from allegations that Jews engineered the financial crisis to folks threatening to make Jews' "life hell". And one corollary to that is that institutions enmeshed in the BDS movement have extreme difficulty in crafting any sort of robust policy against anti-Semitism, as to do so would create sharp dissonance with their own avowed politics and priorities. So it was that the UCU -- a prime player in the British BDS campaign -- simply decided to abandon any definition of anti-Semitism at all.
As the American focus of this debate shifts to the Presbyterian Church (USA), one sees a similar pattern emerge. Jewish organizations had already issued complaints that the PCUSA had been deliberately excluding the mainstream Jewish community from deliberations about issues of concern to the Jewish community, instead inviting handpicked representatives from the marginal fringe who would eagerly provide cover to the PCUSA's pre-existing political priors. Meanwhile, as Will Spotts documents, despite its claims to the contrary the PCUSA has been rather consistent in evading any sort of reckoning with potential anti-Semitism -- rejecting internal reports that acknowledge to a problem within their church and demanding instead that any accounts of anti-Semitism be phrased so broadly that they could never firmly be pinned on anything the PCUSA actually does. The prime criteria for what is anti-Semitism, to groups like the PCUSA, is that it can under no circumstances encompass anything that the PCUSA actually does. That, of course, is not how someone who cares about anti-Semitism operates -- that's how someone who cares about ticking the "I'm not anti-Semitic" box off their mental checklist operates.
As the American focus of this debate shifts to the Presbyterian Church (USA), one sees a similar pattern emerge. Jewish organizations had already issued complaints that the PCUSA had been deliberately excluding the mainstream Jewish community from deliberations about issues of concern to the Jewish community, instead inviting handpicked representatives from the marginal fringe who would eagerly provide cover to the PCUSA's pre-existing political priors. Meanwhile, as Will Spotts documents, despite its claims to the contrary the PCUSA has been rather consistent in evading any sort of reckoning with potential anti-Semitism -- rejecting internal reports that acknowledge to a problem within their church and demanding instead that any accounts of anti-Semitism be phrased so broadly that they could never firmly be pinned on anything the PCUSA actually does. The prime criteria for what is anti-Semitism, to groups like the PCUSA, is that it can under no circumstances encompass anything that the PCUSA actually does. That, of course, is not how someone who cares about anti-Semitism operates -- that's how someone who cares about ticking the "I'm not anti-Semitic" box off their mental checklist operates.
Friday, June 29, 2012
Giving Offense
Took a second stab at apartment hunting today, with considerably more success than the first go-around. With luck, we may have a place to live next year.
Meanwhile, I haven't been able to get this Alyssa Rosenberg post on "offense" off my browser, so now's as good a time as any.
What one believes to be unsaid, rarely is.
Meanwhile, I haven't been able to get this Alyssa Rosenberg post on "offense" off my browser, so now's as good a time as any.
I think that one of the common defenses whipped out by people who make art—or hell, say things in any forum—that’s sexist or racist or transphobic is to say that they’re brave, speaking truths others dare not utter. The thing this, these people rarely speak these so-called truths to unfriendly audiences. And the easiest thing you can do with any audience is to confirm the beliefs they already hold. Sometimes, that can be a useful thing to do. Confirming that people aren’t alone in their beliefs or reactions to things can be a powerful way to bring marginalized people together. And telling people that their beliefs matter and are actionable in the world is a major mobilizing tool. But there’s a difference between those kinds of conversations and affirming people’s fears, prejudices, and need to be superior to someone. If you view giving offense as a sign of courage, it’s much more courageous to poke at your allies rather than the people weaker that you’ve determined to keep that way, to take a broad view, really see what the conventional wisdom is, and then challenge that. There are pieties in every movement, be it left, right, or center. But if you want to skewer them, you have to do better than “bitches be crazy” or “trans people are gross.” Smashing things and causing pain are not the same things as making a point.
What one believes to be unsaid, rarely is.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
(Im)Proper Constitutionalism: Roberts' Revenge?
Now that the original frenzy over the ACA ruling has died done (a little), folks are starting to dig a little deeper into the opinions (particularly Roberts') to figure out what it means for the next case (incidentally, you can read the opinions here). Chief Justice Roberts' formulation is that the individual mandate does not lie within Congress' commerce clause power (nor the necessary and proper clause), but functions effectively as a tax and thus is part of Congress' taxing power. Now that I've quickly read over the commerce/N&P parts of the opinions (well, Roberts, Ginsburg, and the joint dissent), I have a few thoughts on them as well.
First thing is first -- I'm not sure I've ever seen as vicious a spanking as Justice Ginsburg delivers to Chief Justice Roberts on the commerce clause question. It is an utter smackdown of epic proportions. She clearly demonstrates that, under existing precedent, the ACA should have been by all rights a slam dunk, and that the parade of horribles Roberts and others have trotted out are more or less fanciful. So you go Justice Ginsburg. Keep on keepin' on.
Some folks are speculating that Chief Justice Roberts is pulling a Marbury -- issuing an opinion that on face is a victory for the President while actually sharply moving doctrine in a new direction undesired by the Chief Justice's political opponents (in Marbury, establishing judicial review, here, sharply circumscribing the Commerce Clause).
Chief Justice Roberts' attempt to atomize the discussion (is this individual person "in the health insurance market"?) is reminiscent of the style of commerce clause analysis the Court rejected in Jones & Laughlin. There, the Court rejected older decisions which looked individually at particular segments of the steel production process and asked if, individually, they were exhibiting a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The Court instead said we should look at the "steel industry" as a whole (which clearly does significantly impact ISC), and then Congress can issue regulations of the steel industry as part of regulating ISC. Similarly, the "health insurance market" is clearly a huge part of interstate commerce, so the question is whether regulating persons who do not possess health insurance substantially effects that market -- which of course it does (Justice Ginsburg's arguments about these persons "proximity" to the market were particularly on target).
But the part of the opinion that is more eyebrow raising to me is not the Commerce Clause analysis, but rather the decision to give the "proper" in "necessary and proper" independent weight. Given McCulloch (and Raich), that the individual mandate satisfies the necessary and proper clause would seem to be obvious -- it is an essential part of Congress' attempts to regulate the health insurance market as a whole. The rhetoric in McCulloch focused particularly on the word "necessary" -- to wit, does it mean "absolutely indispensable", or just convenient or useful? The Court found it meant the latter, reasoning that an alternate interpretation would render the Courts an effective super-legislature judging for themselves what was the single best way of regulating health care policy (this did not stop the joint dissent from explicitly doing just that, saying that the individual mandate was not necessary because the dissent could conceive of alternative health care regulations). This means, as Chief Justice Roberts acknowledges, that courts are very deferential about what legislative policies are "necessary".
Still, with "necessary" seemingly a bust, what about "proper"? It was the claim that the individual mandate was not a "proper" way of exercising the commerce clause authority that was Chief Justice Roberts' ultimate hinge. Here, Chief Justice Roberts accords no such deference, and that's especially worrisome given that the only constraining text he's using is the word "proper". As much as we might worry about courts imposing their own policy preferences when they utilize relatively open-ended language like "due process of law" or "cruel and unusual punishment", that risk has to be tripled when the alleged constitutional infirmity is that the law isn't "proper". I don't even know what that could conceivably mean other than raw imposition of judicial preference.
And the Chief Justice's opinion hardly inspires confidence that "proper" will mean anything more than "personally distasteful". What makes a law not "proper"? All Chief Justice Roberts can give us is that the legislation isn't "proper" where it would "undermine the structure of government established by the Constitution" or is "not consist[ent] with the letter and spirit of the constitution." There is almost no constraining bite to that "doctrine" at all -- it is an open invitation to simply strike down whatever it is a given Justice finds distasteful. Which is more or less how it was used here: The individual mandate is not "proper" because ... mandates, ew, scary. There just isn't a workable argument in there -- particularly when, as Justice Ginsburg (again!) notes, it is far from clear that the mechanism of a penalty payable as a tax is more far-reaching than Chief Justice Roberts' own example of admittedly "proper" congressional exercises (such as, say, keeping someone in jail). Nor is it clear why, if the form of a mandate is so repugnant to the constitutional order, it becomes okay when it is viewed as a tax regulation rather than a commerce regulation. The answer is that programs like this aren't actually that scary, but using constitutional language as vague as "is it proper" is an invitation to disaster.
Now, on the "proper" end of things, it is possible that this is meant to be a ticket good for this ride only -- that the Court will not in fact start using questions of "is the law proper" to strike down legislation left and right (well, most likely left). But maybe not -- if it was meant to be just a tool for this case, Roberts would have joined his conservative colleagues and struck the thing down. If we do see a revitalization of Lochner-era due process jurisprudence under the new guise of "proper", that would be nothing short of a catastrophe.
First thing is first -- I'm not sure I've ever seen as vicious a spanking as Justice Ginsburg delivers to Chief Justice Roberts on the commerce clause question. It is an utter smackdown of epic proportions. She clearly demonstrates that, under existing precedent, the ACA should have been by all rights a slam dunk, and that the parade of horribles Roberts and others have trotted out are more or less fanciful. So you go Justice Ginsburg. Keep on keepin' on.
Some folks are speculating that Chief Justice Roberts is pulling a Marbury -- issuing an opinion that on face is a victory for the President while actually sharply moving doctrine in a new direction undesired by the Chief Justice's political opponents (in Marbury, establishing judicial review, here, sharply circumscribing the Commerce Clause).
Chief Justice Roberts' attempt to atomize the discussion (is this individual person "in the health insurance market"?) is reminiscent of the style of commerce clause analysis the Court rejected in Jones & Laughlin. There, the Court rejected older decisions which looked individually at particular segments of the steel production process and asked if, individually, they were exhibiting a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The Court instead said we should look at the "steel industry" as a whole (which clearly does significantly impact ISC), and then Congress can issue regulations of the steel industry as part of regulating ISC. Similarly, the "health insurance market" is clearly a huge part of interstate commerce, so the question is whether regulating persons who do not possess health insurance substantially effects that market -- which of course it does (Justice Ginsburg's arguments about these persons "proximity" to the market were particularly on target).
But the part of the opinion that is more eyebrow raising to me is not the Commerce Clause analysis, but rather the decision to give the "proper" in "necessary and proper" independent weight. Given McCulloch (and Raich), that the individual mandate satisfies the necessary and proper clause would seem to be obvious -- it is an essential part of Congress' attempts to regulate the health insurance market as a whole. The rhetoric in McCulloch focused particularly on the word "necessary" -- to wit, does it mean "absolutely indispensable", or just convenient or useful? The Court found it meant the latter, reasoning that an alternate interpretation would render the Courts an effective super-legislature judging for themselves what was the single best way of regulating health care policy (this did not stop the joint dissent from explicitly doing just that, saying that the individual mandate was not necessary because the dissent could conceive of alternative health care regulations). This means, as Chief Justice Roberts acknowledges, that courts are very deferential about what legislative policies are "necessary".
Still, with "necessary" seemingly a bust, what about "proper"? It was the claim that the individual mandate was not a "proper" way of exercising the commerce clause authority that was Chief Justice Roberts' ultimate hinge. Here, Chief Justice Roberts accords no such deference, and that's especially worrisome given that the only constraining text he's using is the word "proper". As much as we might worry about courts imposing their own policy preferences when they utilize relatively open-ended language like "due process of law" or "cruel and unusual punishment", that risk has to be tripled when the alleged constitutional infirmity is that the law isn't "proper". I don't even know what that could conceivably mean other than raw imposition of judicial preference.
And the Chief Justice's opinion hardly inspires confidence that "proper" will mean anything more than "personally distasteful". What makes a law not "proper"? All Chief Justice Roberts can give us is that the legislation isn't "proper" where it would "undermine the structure of government established by the Constitution" or is "not consist[ent] with the letter and spirit of the constitution." There is almost no constraining bite to that "doctrine" at all -- it is an open invitation to simply strike down whatever it is a given Justice finds distasteful. Which is more or less how it was used here: The individual mandate is not "proper" because ... mandates, ew, scary. There just isn't a workable argument in there -- particularly when, as Justice Ginsburg (again!) notes, it is far from clear that the mechanism of a penalty payable as a tax is more far-reaching than Chief Justice Roberts' own example of admittedly "proper" congressional exercises (such as, say, keeping someone in jail). Nor is it clear why, if the form of a mandate is so repugnant to the constitutional order, it becomes okay when it is viewed as a tax regulation rather than a commerce regulation. The answer is that programs like this aren't actually that scary, but using constitutional language as vague as "is it proper" is an invitation to disaster.
Now, on the "proper" end of things, it is possible that this is meant to be a ticket good for this ride only -- that the Court will not in fact start using questions of "is the law proper" to strike down legislation left and right (well, most likely left). But maybe not -- if it was meant to be just a tool for this case, Roberts would have joined his conservative colleagues and struck the thing down. If we do see a revitalization of Lochner-era due process jurisprudence under the new guise of "proper", that would be nothing short of a catastrophe.
Why Roberts Why?
That must be the question conservatives are asking themselves today. After all, the prevailing wisdom (one I signed onto) was that this was a 5-4 decision one way or the other, with Kennedy holding the swing vote. Now, I thought maybe if Justice Kennedy bit, Roberts might come along -- both to keep the decision from being yet another 5-4 ruling and to keep the opinion for himself. But Justice Kennedy voted to strike down the ACA -- indeed, by signing on to a far-right joint dissent for himself, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas, it indicates that it wasn't even a close call for the usually swingy justice. Which means that it was Chief Justice Roberts serving as the middle vote. So what prompted him to (switch his?) vote to uphold President Obama's signature law?
I have two potential explanations floating around right now. The first is legalistic. Chief Justice Roberts has always been a big government conservative. In fact, that's why he was appointed to the Court in the first place -- President Bush wanted someone he could count on to affirm his vast expansions of executive power in the War on Terror. One of the ways I teach my students that judges can exercise some independence from politics is that the political motivations which put them on the Court may not turn out to track the same sets of concerns as their careers progress. The classic example is Justice Frankfurter. Frankfurter was appointed to the Court as a fierce advocate of judicial restraint, which, with the Four Horsemen running roughshod over any and all state and federal economic regulation, was a defining progressive value at the time. And Frankfurter did turn out to be a reliable vote to uphold the New Deal. But as his career continued, the defining controversies for the Supreme Court started to become civil and criminal rights cases. And there, Frankfurter's deference to legislatures led to a far more conservative voting record. I'm not saying Chief Justice Roberts always is going to vote in favor of enhanced government power, only that the particular ideological profile he cuts -- the one that put him on the bench in the first place -- might have made him more sympathetic to the ACA than one might expect from a run-of-the-mill conservative judge.
Second, there are institutionalist concerns that may well have played a role. When he was first appointed Chief Justice, Roberts made clear that he wanted a more unified, less ideologically polarized Court. Whatever else one thinks of his tenure, it is clear that in that respect his has been a colossal failure. The Roberts Court has been bitterly fractured along partisan lines, and more and more (particularly with Citizens United) has been gaining a reputation as an ideologically conservative activist court. It's not that liberals are suddenly going to start singing the praises of the Roberts Court, but had the ACA been struck down, that train would have left the station for good. Basically, Chief Justice Roberts saw in this case that a vote to strike down the ACA was a vote to permanently remake his Court's image into one adjunct to the Republican Party. And he blinked.
I have two potential explanations floating around right now. The first is legalistic. Chief Justice Roberts has always been a big government conservative. In fact, that's why he was appointed to the Court in the first place -- President Bush wanted someone he could count on to affirm his vast expansions of executive power in the War on Terror. One of the ways I teach my students that judges can exercise some independence from politics is that the political motivations which put them on the Court may not turn out to track the same sets of concerns as their careers progress. The classic example is Justice Frankfurter. Frankfurter was appointed to the Court as a fierce advocate of judicial restraint, which, with the Four Horsemen running roughshod over any and all state and federal economic regulation, was a defining progressive value at the time. And Frankfurter did turn out to be a reliable vote to uphold the New Deal. But as his career continued, the defining controversies for the Supreme Court started to become civil and criminal rights cases. And there, Frankfurter's deference to legislatures led to a far more conservative voting record. I'm not saying Chief Justice Roberts always is going to vote in favor of enhanced government power, only that the particular ideological profile he cuts -- the one that put him on the bench in the first place -- might have made him more sympathetic to the ACA than one might expect from a run-of-the-mill conservative judge.
Second, there are institutionalist concerns that may well have played a role. When he was first appointed Chief Justice, Roberts made clear that he wanted a more unified, less ideologically polarized Court. Whatever else one thinks of his tenure, it is clear that in that respect his has been a colossal failure. The Roberts Court has been bitterly fractured along partisan lines, and more and more (particularly with Citizens United) has been gaining a reputation as an ideologically conservative activist court. It's not that liberals are suddenly going to start singing the praises of the Roberts Court, but had the ACA been struck down, that train would have left the station for good. Basically, Chief Justice Roberts saw in this case that a vote to strike down the ACA was a vote to permanently remake his Court's image into one adjunct to the Republican Party. And he blinked.
ACA Upheld!
What, you didn't hear? (Oh, by the way, the Stolen Valor Act was struck down too).
Now, I haven't read the opinions yet. But it's not like that's stopping anyone else from opining. And I know the basics: The 4 liberal justices vote to uphold on commerce clause grounds, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy vote to strike down the entire law, and Roberts votes to uphold the law as an exercise of the tax power (there's a minor hiccup regarding how medicare funding is allocated that I'll ignore for now). Scattered thoughts below:
* I agree that the dissent's simultaneous assertions that the whole of the ACA must be struck down because the mandate and funding conditions are unconstitutional, and that the mandate is not "necessary and proper" to Congress commerce clause authority, are completely inconsistent with each other.
* I also agree that Justice Ginsburg repeatedly citing Justice Scalia's Raich opinion is a thing of beauty.
* Revenge of the tax power! That was the issue that everyone kind of forgot was an issue, even though that's really what the mandate most closely simulates. I don't know enough about tax law to understand why it isn't a tax for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, though.
* Conservatives might claim a minor victory in that the opinion may further cabin the commerce clause power a bit, but ultimately I don't think that changes that much.
* People who say they're moving to Canada after this really need to rethink their strategy.
* UPDATE: I separately give my thoughts on why Chief Justice Roberts voted the way he did.
Now, I haven't read the opinions yet. But it's not like that's stopping anyone else from opining. And I know the basics: The 4 liberal justices vote to uphold on commerce clause grounds, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy vote to strike down the entire law, and Roberts votes to uphold the law as an exercise of the tax power (there's a minor hiccup regarding how medicare funding is allocated that I'll ignore for now). Scattered thoughts below:
* I agree that the dissent's simultaneous assertions that the whole of the ACA must be struck down because the mandate and funding conditions are unconstitutional, and that the mandate is not "necessary and proper" to Congress commerce clause authority, are completely inconsistent with each other.
* I also agree that Justice Ginsburg repeatedly citing Justice Scalia's Raich opinion is a thing of beauty.
* Revenge of the tax power! That was the issue that everyone kind of forgot was an issue, even though that's really what the mandate most closely simulates. I don't know enough about tax law to understand why it isn't a tax for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, though.
* Conservatives might claim a minor victory in that the opinion may further cabin the commerce clause power a bit, but ultimately I don't think that changes that much.
* People who say they're moving to Canada after this really need to rethink their strategy.
* UPDATE: I separately give my thoughts on why Chief Justice Roberts voted the way he did.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Anti-Semites Lose in New York
Well, it looks like a lot of worrying was for naught. The semi-credible attempts of two anti-Semitic nuts to make it to New York's congressional ended tonight, both by sizable margins. With 69% reporting, Hakeem Jeffries is blowing out Charles Barron 74.5/25.5 in NY-8 Democratic primary. Jim Russell did a little better in the NY-17 Republican primary, but only reached 35% against Joe Carvin (94% reporting).
Jeffries crushing victory over Barron ratifies something we should have already known: Black voters can indeed be trusted to hear the concerns of their Jewish colleagues, and are not swayed by racialized and anti-Semitic appeals. The belief that Blacks are more prone to conspiracy theories and other harbingers of extremism has never been true, and this is just one more data point for that.
Of course, fringe candidates can sometimes gain more traction than they should -- in both parties (as Russell demonstrates further upstate). But for whatever reason, there is a mythology that Black voters are more prone to this sort of nuttery. And it's just not true. It's consistently not true, and they're proving it time and again.
Jeffries crushing victory over Barron ratifies something we should have already known: Black voters can indeed be trusted to hear the concerns of their Jewish colleagues, and are not swayed by racialized and anti-Semitic appeals. The belief that Blacks are more prone to conspiracy theories and other harbingers of extremism has never been true, and this is just one more data point for that.
Of course, fringe candidates can sometimes gain more traction than they should -- in both parties (as Russell demonstrates further upstate). But for whatever reason, there is a mythology that Black voters are more prone to this sort of nuttery. And it's just not true. It's consistently not true, and they're proving it time and again.
New York Primaries: Home of the Anti-Semite?
Daily Kos Elections has a good rundown of today's primary races (in New York, Colorado, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, and Utah). Most notable (and disturbing) is the possibility that not one but two raging bigots could score major party nominations in New York house races.
We've already talked about David Duke-endorsed Charles Barron in NY-08, where he's running to replace retiring Rep. Ed Towns (D). State Assm. Hakeem Jeffries is the establishment choice here and has vastly outraised Barron, but Barron has scored a few union endorsements as well as that of Towns (who was unhappy at lackluster establishment support for him back when Jeffries was mounting a primary challenge to him). I've seen no polling on the race, but there are reports that New York Dems are "panicking" about a potential Barron victory. Even if Barron does pull off the upset, though, it isn't over -- Jeffries is also on the Working Families Party line and will thus be on the general election ballot regardless.
Meanwhile, over in the NY-17, two Republicans are looking to challenge Rep. Nita Lowey (D). The establishment choice is hedge fund manager and Rye town supervisor Joe Carvin. But he's facing a surprisingly stern test from White supremacist and anti-Semite Jim Russell, who scored 38% of the vote when he was the Republican nominee for this seat in 2010 (despite official GOP disavowals of his candidacy after his racist views became known). With relatively high name recognition from his previous run, Republicans too are a bit nervous about what election night might bring.
Oh, the Empire State. What will you bring us next?
UPDATE: This is a stellar short profile piece on Barron, explaining where he gets his support. It's a mix of an old core of 60s-style pan-African radicals (who love that he does things like speak out in favor of Mugabe), coupled with an indefatigable focus on local issues -- combating drug gangs, cleaning up neighborhoods, attending local labor protests -- that has made him a respected figured amongst his constituents who couldn't care less about international pan-African liberation.
Lots of radicals with global visions flameout because they don't actually care about the community's they purport to represent. Barron appears to have enough energy to keep an eye on both prizes, and together it makes for a potent and dangerous combination.
We've already talked about David Duke-endorsed Charles Barron in NY-08, where he's running to replace retiring Rep. Ed Towns (D). State Assm. Hakeem Jeffries is the establishment choice here and has vastly outraised Barron, but Barron has scored a few union endorsements as well as that of Towns (who was unhappy at lackluster establishment support for him back when Jeffries was mounting a primary challenge to him). I've seen no polling on the race, but there are reports that New York Dems are "panicking" about a potential Barron victory. Even if Barron does pull off the upset, though, it isn't over -- Jeffries is also on the Working Families Party line and will thus be on the general election ballot regardless.
Meanwhile, over in the NY-17, two Republicans are looking to challenge Rep. Nita Lowey (D). The establishment choice is hedge fund manager and Rye town supervisor Joe Carvin. But he's facing a surprisingly stern test from White supremacist and anti-Semite Jim Russell, who scored 38% of the vote when he was the Republican nominee for this seat in 2010 (despite official GOP disavowals of his candidacy after his racist views became known). With relatively high name recognition from his previous run, Republicans too are a bit nervous about what election night might bring.
Oh, the Empire State. What will you bring us next?
UPDATE: This is a stellar short profile piece on Barron, explaining where he gets his support. It's a mix of an old core of 60s-style pan-African radicals (who love that he does things like speak out in favor of Mugabe), coupled with an indefatigable focus on local issues -- combating drug gangs, cleaning up neighborhoods, attending local labor protests -- that has made him a respected figured amongst his constituents who couldn't care less about international pan-African liberation.
Lots of radicals with global visions flameout because they don't actually care about the community's they purport to represent. Barron appears to have enough energy to keep an eye on both prizes, and together it makes for a potent and dangerous combination.
Iraq Cuts Arts Ties to the US over Jewish Artifacts
America's refusal to turn over Jewish artifacts recovered from Iraqi archives has caused that country to cut archaeological cooperation with the United States. I wrote about the dispute in more detail here, but basically there are three major elements:
First, the possibility that Jewish artifacts in Iraq won't be safe due to anti-Semitic pressure in Iraq. Second, the possibility that preserving and displaying such artifacts in Iraq will play an important role in humanizing Jews to Iraqis and reminding Iraqis of the long and vibrant Jewish history there prior to their effective expulsion in the wake of Israel's Independence. And third, the interests of the Iraqi Jewish community itself, many of whom live in Israel and thus would likely not be able to access their own history if it was hosted in Iraq (which refuses to admit Jewish visitors).
First, the possibility that Jewish artifacts in Iraq won't be safe due to anti-Semitic pressure in Iraq. Second, the possibility that preserving and displaying such artifacts in Iraq will play an important role in humanizing Jews to Iraqis and reminding Iraqis of the long and vibrant Jewish history there prior to their effective expulsion in the wake of Israel's Independence. And third, the interests of the Iraqi Jewish community itself, many of whom live in Israel and thus would likely not be able to access their own history if it was hosted in Iraq (which refuses to admit Jewish visitors).
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Late is Not Never: JFed Cancels Anti-Muslim and Anti-Semitic Speaker
I saw the other day (while I was traveling to Chicago) that the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles was hosting a speech by notorious bigot Pamela Geller (sponsored by the Zionist Organization of America, which I'll return to in a moment). Geller's rabid hatred of Muslims has been noted by groups ranging from the Anti-Defamation League to the Southern Poverty Law Center. But beyond her hatred of all Muslims, Geller is also equally incensed by most Jews ("liberal Jews", which is another way of saying "most Jews"). She refers to us as "kapos" and "Nazis" who yearn for Israel's destruction and the genocide of Jews. She is a repulsive speaker and it was shocking to see her gaining a platform at a mainstream (albeit regional) Jewish organization.
Well, say goodbye to the platform. Little Green Footballs has informed us that the federation has canceled her speech (to Geller's spit-flecked rage). This is a victory for decency, yes, humanity, yes, religious equality, yes, and also the Jewish people -- not just because it shames the holy name to associate ourselves with such hate, but because Geller hates most Jews too. She is nothing more than a disgrace.
I haven't seen a statement from the LA Jewish Federation on their decision yet. I did visit their contact page to drop a note thanking them on making the right call, which I encourage you to do as well (you can also tweet them @JFedLA). The event was scheduled for today, and almost all the outraged coverage occurred yesterday, so this was very fast motion by the organization.
Meanwhile, let's talk about ZOA again. They weren't involved in the cancellation -- Geller thanks them for finding an alternate venue after the JFed cancellation -- and they were the one's who sponsored the event in the first place. ZOA, of course, has already revealed itself as an anti-Israel organization with its push for a one-state solution (which needless to say Geller supports), and its support of anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic speakers alike is nothing new. But -- if only by age alone -- they maintain some clout in the Jewish community. It is an excellent thing that the LA JFed stood up to them, and their endorsement of Geller should render them as far beyond the pale of Jewish communal life as any other extremist, racist group.
UPDATE: Here is ZOA's statement on the cancellation. They pointedly do not blame "security threats" but rather acknowledge it was political pressure (they say by extremist Jewish and Muslim groups -- because we all know how beholden Jewish Federations are to JVP!) that caused the federation to back down. So more kudos to the Jewish Federation, and tally up another instance of ZOA being a disgrace to Jews and pro-Israeli Americans alike.
UPDATE x2: I've read accounts -- unconfirmed, but it seems plausible -- that the Jewish Federation did not invite Geller to speak. Rather, it was ZOA's doing, and they just reserved space at the Federation, which they could do since they were a member of a group. Once the Federation was informed of the nature of who was speaking, they cancelled the event.
Now, it's implausible that they weren't aware that Geller was coming -- the event was announced on their webpage, after all -- but it is possible that they did not know who she was beyond ZOA's white-washed biography. In any event, that would be much better than the alternative -- that the Federation knowingly was going to have someone like Geller speak, but caved under pressure.
UPDATE x3: JTA picks up the story. They weren't able to get a comment from the Jewish Federation prior to press time though.
Well, say goodbye to the platform. Little Green Footballs has informed us that the federation has canceled her speech (to Geller's spit-flecked rage). This is a victory for decency, yes, humanity, yes, religious equality, yes, and also the Jewish people -- not just because it shames the holy name to associate ourselves with such hate, but because Geller hates most Jews too. She is nothing more than a disgrace.
I haven't seen a statement from the LA Jewish Federation on their decision yet. I did visit their contact page to drop a note thanking them on making the right call, which I encourage you to do as well (you can also tweet them @JFedLA). The event was scheduled for today, and almost all the outraged coverage occurred yesterday, so this was very fast motion by the organization.
Meanwhile, let's talk about ZOA again. They weren't involved in the cancellation -- Geller thanks them for finding an alternate venue after the JFed cancellation -- and they were the one's who sponsored the event in the first place. ZOA, of course, has already revealed itself as an anti-Israel organization with its push for a one-state solution (which needless to say Geller supports), and its support of anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic speakers alike is nothing new. But -- if only by age alone -- they maintain some clout in the Jewish community. It is an excellent thing that the LA JFed stood up to them, and their endorsement of Geller should render them as far beyond the pale of Jewish communal life as any other extremist, racist group.
UPDATE: Here is ZOA's statement on the cancellation. They pointedly do not blame "security threats" but rather acknowledge it was political pressure (they say by extremist Jewish and Muslim groups -- because we all know how beholden Jewish Federations are to JVP!) that caused the federation to back down. So more kudos to the Jewish Federation, and tally up another instance of ZOA being a disgrace to Jews and pro-Israeli Americans alike.
UPDATE x2: I've read accounts -- unconfirmed, but it seems plausible -- that the Jewish Federation did not invite Geller to speak. Rather, it was ZOA's doing, and they just reserved space at the Federation, which they could do since they were a member of a group. Once the Federation was informed of the nature of who was speaking, they cancelled the event.
Now, it's implausible that they weren't aware that Geller was coming -- the event was announced on their webpage, after all -- but it is possible that they did not know who she was beyond ZOA's white-washed biography. In any event, that would be much better than the alternative -- that the Federation knowingly was going to have someone like Geller speak, but caved under pressure.
UPDATE x3: JTA picks up the story. They weren't able to get a comment from the Jewish Federation prior to press time though.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Blankenhorn Defects on Gay Marriage
Over the past decade, polling on same-sex marriage has seen a dramatic swing. Once a marginal, even fringe position, support for gay marriage has become a mainstream, perhaps even a majority position, The most recent poll I've seen has a plurality in favor (42/40), and I have little doubt that given another few years, support for marriage equality will consistently be the majority position.
Implicit in that shift is that people who used to oppose gay marriage now support it. Many of those are, of course, ordinary citizens who have realized that marriage equality is just the latest permutation of the American credo demanding equal dignity, rights, and respect for all. Some are high profile political and social figures whose shifts have made major headlines (ranging from Barack Obama to Colin Powell to Bill Clinton).
But the announcement by David Blankenhorn (H/T: Dale Carpenter) that he now supports gay marriage may be, in a sense, bigger than all of these. Blankenhorn, obviously, does not have the profile of the President of the United States. But Blankenhorn's career as a public intellectual has been as one of the most prominent opponents of the same-sex marriage. He represents possibly the highest profile defector from that position to the side of equality.
Blankenhorn's reasons for his shift are interesting. He does not recant his belief that there is a positive good in children being raised by their biological parents. But he acknowledges that outside a few lonely voices writing newspaper editorials, the campaign against same-sex marriage has not been characterized by concerns about parenting, but about dehumanizing gays and lesbians. And perhaps even more importantly, from his vantage point, opposing gay marriage has had no discernible impact on any of the tangible ways Blankenhorn had hoped it would strengthen the institution of marriage as whole. His belief that stopping gay marriage would strengthen marriage has been falsified, and so he no longer holds the belief. That is an all-too-rare case of intellectual integrity, and it is worth applauding.
In essence, Blankenhorn now concedes that whatever trivial impacts opposing gay marriage has on strengthening heterosexual marriage (and he, like I, am unconvinced these impacts are real), they are vastly outweighed by the enduring dignitary and de jure harm such bars place upon gays and lesbians. He's right, and his transition represents the crumbling of credible intellectual opposition to the project of gay equality. It's just not that complicated.
Implicit in that shift is that people who used to oppose gay marriage now support it. Many of those are, of course, ordinary citizens who have realized that marriage equality is just the latest permutation of the American credo demanding equal dignity, rights, and respect for all. Some are high profile political and social figures whose shifts have made major headlines (ranging from Barack Obama to Colin Powell to Bill Clinton).
But the announcement by David Blankenhorn (H/T: Dale Carpenter) that he now supports gay marriage may be, in a sense, bigger than all of these. Blankenhorn, obviously, does not have the profile of the President of the United States. But Blankenhorn's career as a public intellectual has been as one of the most prominent opponents of the same-sex marriage. He represents possibly the highest profile defector from that position to the side of equality.
Blankenhorn's reasons for his shift are interesting. He does not recant his belief that there is a positive good in children being raised by their biological parents. But he acknowledges that outside a few lonely voices writing newspaper editorials, the campaign against same-sex marriage has not been characterized by concerns about parenting, but about dehumanizing gays and lesbians. And perhaps even more importantly, from his vantage point, opposing gay marriage has had no discernible impact on any of the tangible ways Blankenhorn had hoped it would strengthen the institution of marriage as whole. His belief that stopping gay marriage would strengthen marriage has been falsified, and so he no longer holds the belief. That is an all-too-rare case of intellectual integrity, and it is worth applauding.
In essence, Blankenhorn now concedes that whatever trivial impacts opposing gay marriage has on strengthening heterosexual marriage (and he, like I, am unconvinced these impacts are real), they are vastly outweighed by the enduring dignitary and de jure harm such bars place upon gays and lesbians. He's right, and his transition represents the crumbling of credible intellectual opposition to the project of gay equality. It's just not that complicated.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Charles Barron Endorsed By David Duke
The Democratic primary to succeed retiring Rep. Ed Towns (D-NY) has gotten even more bizarre, with former KKK Grand Wizard and White supremacist David Duke endorsing pan-African extremist Charles Barron. Barron, notorious for his embrace of folks like Muammar Gaddafi and his loathing of Israel (among other things), is facing off against Hakeem Jeffries. Democratic leaders are panicking a bit as Barron, a longtime New York City councilman, has apparently gained some traction (including an endorsement from Towns as a final "fuck you" to the local and national Democratic establishment).
I have to think being called an "Uncle Tom" by David Duke must be the highlight of any Black politician's career.
Radley Balko joked on twitter that "It's a new morning in America when a white supremacist and a black nationaist can join hands in a shared hatred of Jews." Which I retweeted, because it's hilarious, but actually this sort of alliance is not all that new -- Black nationalists have been forging bonds with White supremacists dating back to at least Marcus Garvey, and one of the commonalities Garvey shared with White supremacists was mutual loathing of Jews.
Of course, part of what brought Garvey down was his ties to the KKK, which rendered him beyond the pale for nearly all Blacks. And one cannot imagine that a David Duke endorsement is helpful in this majority-Black district no matter how crazy things get.
“The possible election of a dedicated anti-Zionist to the U.S. Congress has thrown the Zionist influenced media and the Zio-political establishment in a tizzy,” Duke says. “The Jewish-controlled New York media is now calling Barron the, quote, ‘David Duke of New York,’ unquote. I’ve been deluged by media inquiries as to whether I would endorse Barron because of his very strong anti-Zionist and anti-Israel positions.”
“In a race for Congress between an anti-Zionist black activist and a black activist who is a bought and paid for Zionist Uncle Tom, I’ll take the anti-Zionist any day,” Duke explains — the "Zionist Uncle Tom" being Barron's opponent Hakeem Jeffries, the establishment favorite.
I have to think being called an "Uncle Tom" by David Duke must be the highlight of any Black politician's career.
Radley Balko joked on twitter that "It's a new morning in America when a white supremacist and a black nationaist can join hands in a shared hatred of Jews." Which I retweeted, because it's hilarious, but actually this sort of alliance is not all that new -- Black nationalists have been forging bonds with White supremacists dating back to at least Marcus Garvey, and one of the commonalities Garvey shared with White supremacists was mutual loathing of Jews.
Of course, part of what brought Garvey down was his ties to the KKK, which rendered him beyond the pale for nearly all Blacks. And one cannot imagine that a David Duke endorsement is helpful in this majority-Black district no matter how crazy things get.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Hold It
Wait ... are you telling me that sometimes, when a cargo ship is potentially smuggling arms to a murderous armed faction, that a civilized nation might contemplate using military forces to board it? Headline from the Telegraph:
No. No, no no no no. Such things are always, always, inherently illegal. Or worst, Zionist. I just can't fathom that anyone, anywhere, would even contemplate such an outrageous breach of human decorum.
Syria: David Cameron considered ordering special forces to seize Russian ship
David Cameron considered ordering British special forces to board and impound a Russian ship suspected of carrying arms to Syria, it has emerged.
No. No, no no no no. Such things are always, always, inherently illegal. Or worst, Zionist. I just can't fathom that anyone, anywhere, would even contemplate such an outrageous breach of human decorum.
Midweek Roundup
Going to Chicago next weekend, Minnesota next week. Lot's of good stuff on my browser, which I don't have as much to say on as I should.
* * *
Bill Donohue of the Catholic League issues a warning: "Jews had better not make enemies of their Catholic friends, since there are so few of them." He attributed the comment to former NYC mayor Ed Koch, but Koch denies saying it.
Arizona SoS, already under fire for being birther-curious, gives the conspiracy a new spin -- Obama was born in Hawaii but lied about being born in Kenya to get into college.
Kieran Healy gives a satirical statement from UVA's Board of Visitors.
The National Review bringing aboard unrepentant racist David Yerushalmi prompts Ta-Nehisi Coates to write two great posts on "politically correct conservatism", where the most offensive thing you can say is that anyone, anywhere is a bigot -- even someone who wants to criminalize being a Muslim with a 20 year prison sentence.
Interesting study on how the triumphs and failures of male and female Olympic athletes are described by commentators.
* * *
Bill Donohue of the Catholic League issues a warning: "Jews had better not make enemies of their Catholic friends, since there are so few of them." He attributed the comment to former NYC mayor Ed Koch, but Koch denies saying it.
Arizona SoS, already under fire for being birther-curious, gives the conspiracy a new spin -- Obama was born in Hawaii but lied about being born in Kenya to get into college.
Kieran Healy gives a satirical statement from UVA's Board of Visitors.
The National Review bringing aboard unrepentant racist David Yerushalmi prompts Ta-Nehisi Coates to write two great posts on "politically correct conservatism", where the most offensive thing you can say is that anyone, anywhere is a bigot -- even someone who wants to criminalize being a Muslim with a 20 year prison sentence.
Interesting study on how the triumphs and failures of male and female Olympic athletes are described by commentators.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
The Spy Who Loved Me
One of Israel's shining achievements is its relatively egalitarian treatment of gays and lesbians, not just compared to its neighbors but compared to any other country in the world. Among other things, Israel allowed gays and lesbians to serve openly in the IDF well before the US repealed "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (as ex-Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) argued, this must have been because Israel lacks "Judeo-Christian values").
But National Union MK Uri Ariel, unwilling to allow Israel to have any amount of a good thing, has urged Israel stop letting gays serve in the army. To be fair, Ariel is a fringe player (National Union is a small, far-right party too extreme even for Netanyahu's right-wing coalition). And Ariel himself has admitted to serving as a spy for militant settlers as they worked to disrupt IDF activity, making him at best a weak source of credible information about what benefits Israel's security or the IDF (at worst, it makes him a traitor).
But National Union MK Uri Ariel, unwilling to allow Israel to have any amount of a good thing, has urged Israel stop letting gays serve in the army. To be fair, Ariel is a fringe player (National Union is a small, far-right party too extreme even for Netanyahu's right-wing coalition). And Ariel himself has admitted to serving as a spy for militant settlers as they worked to disrupt IDF activity, making him at best a weak source of credible information about what benefits Israel's security or the IDF (at worst, it makes him a traitor).
Monday, June 18, 2012
Alice Walker Says No Hebrew Translation of "The Color Purple"
As part of her general boycott of Israel, Alice Walker is refusing to allow her novel "The Color Purple" to be translated into Hebrew (the article sounds like her objection is to the Hebrew language, not the publishing house, though it's a little unclear). Though if it is literally just a problem with the language that Jews and Israelis speak, then I think we've found a topper to this includes any reference to their wildlife.
In all seriousness, Alice Walker's problems with anti-Semitism -- going well beyond "criticizing Israel" -- are nothing new. I mean, even Michael Lerner regretted invited her to speak, saying she was offensive and put-downish towards the Jewish people as a whole. Lerner's note that Walker was utterly dismissive of Jewish history accords with my own reading of her, and is doubly ironic given her prior arrogant assertion that "Jews who know their own history" agree with her.
But this does demonstrate with renewed vividness the connection between Walker's famous sentiment ("No one is your friend who demands your silence"), and her later remark regarding Israel that "when a country primarily instills fear in the minds and hearts of the people of the world, it is no longer useful in joining the dialogue we need for saving the planet." Walker, of course, feels that Israel is primarily fear-inducing to "the people of the world" (most Jews excluded, naturally), and so she would rather not engage in discourse with them -- preferring them to be silenced as others determine their fate.
Alice Walker is no friend of Jews. There's nothing new to that statement, but it bears repeating. It's tragic when someone looked up to by so many turns so viciously, but it can't be ignored.
In all seriousness, Alice Walker's problems with anti-Semitism -- going well beyond "criticizing Israel" -- are nothing new. I mean, even Michael Lerner regretted invited her to speak, saying she was offensive and put-downish towards the Jewish people as a whole. Lerner's note that Walker was utterly dismissive of Jewish history accords with my own reading of her, and is doubly ironic given her prior arrogant assertion that "Jews who know their own history" agree with her.
But this does demonstrate with renewed vividness the connection between Walker's famous sentiment ("No one is your friend who demands your silence"), and her later remark regarding Israel that "when a country primarily instills fear in the minds and hearts of the people of the world, it is no longer useful in joining the dialogue we need for saving the planet." Walker, of course, feels that Israel is primarily fear-inducing to "the people of the world" (most Jews excluded, naturally), and so she would rather not engage in discourse with them -- preferring them to be silenced as others determine their fate.
Alice Walker is no friend of Jews. There's nothing new to that statement, but it bears repeating. It's tragic when someone looked up to by so many turns so viciously, but it can't be ignored.
Atzmon-esque Islamophobia
Gilad Atzmon is a fringe anti-Semitic thinker, who spends much of his time savaging Jews for alleged schemes of world-domination and racist parochialism. For the most part, he owns this identity (calling himself, among other things, a "proud self-hating Jew"), but occasionally he tries to kick up some dust around it. One way he does this is by saying that when he attacks "Jewishness", he isn't referring to all Jews per se but rather a style of thinking or behavior that is wrong or immoral, which may be done by Jews or non-Jews (so, for example, he might say George W. Bush is behaving Jewishly). It's not a good faith argument (Atzmon's argument is more or less far-right hyper-colorblindness and his definition of "Jewishness" is anyone who maintains any sort of group identity. But he doesn't apply this "standard" universally, only to persons he dislikes), but even taken on its face it'd still be anti-Semitic -- using "Jew" as a pejorative is inherently hostile to that group "even if" one means to encompass non-Jews under its ambit (compare calling someone a "Jew" because they're allegedly cheap).
It's no shock to anyone that Robert Spencer is a racist bigot against Muslims. But his latest column might as well be taken from the Gilad Atzmon playbook, asking whether New York mayor Michael Bloomberg "is secretly a Muslim". Now, Spencer agrees that obviously Bloomberg isn't literally a Muslim. But, he says, by taking authoritarian actions (Spencer is referring to the big soda ban, rather than something like, I don't know, barring minority religious practices), he's basically "acting" Muslim. "Muslim" is a referent not to Muslims, necessarily, but to a class of behavior that Spencer finds distasteful (which he imputes to the vast majority of all Muslims but also to basically anyone else he disagrees with). That behavior is then transmuted into a sort of totalitarian impulse that desires to squelch liberty and dominate the world. So it's basically Gilad Atzmon with a new label. He can't even distinguish himself based on target profile -- after all, Spencer's targeting Jews too (who -- though probably not supporting soda bans -- tend towards the sort of liberalism that Spencer has painted a target over).
This isn't really all that surprising -- bromides about haters being haters aside, polling indicates that the best predictor of anti-Muslim sentiment is anti-Jewish sentiment. Spencer is just another practitioner of far-right hatred that, while casting itself as Islamophobic, really has its sights on essentially any minority group.
It's no shock to anyone that Robert Spencer is a racist bigot against Muslims. But his latest column might as well be taken from the Gilad Atzmon playbook, asking whether New York mayor Michael Bloomberg "is secretly a Muslim". Now, Spencer agrees that obviously Bloomberg isn't literally a Muslim. But, he says, by taking authoritarian actions (Spencer is referring to the big soda ban, rather than something like, I don't know, barring minority religious practices), he's basically "acting" Muslim. "Muslim" is a referent not to Muslims, necessarily, but to a class of behavior that Spencer finds distasteful (which he imputes to the vast majority of all Muslims but also to basically anyone else he disagrees with). That behavior is then transmuted into a sort of totalitarian impulse that desires to squelch liberty and dominate the world. So it's basically Gilad Atzmon with a new label. He can't even distinguish himself based on target profile -- after all, Spencer's targeting Jews too (who -- though probably not supporting soda bans -- tend towards the sort of liberalism that Spencer has painted a target over).
This isn't really all that surprising -- bromides about haters being haters aside, polling indicates that the best predictor of anti-Muslim sentiment is anti-Jewish sentiment. Spencer is just another practitioner of far-right hatred that, while casting itself as Islamophobic, really has its sights on essentially any minority group.
Africans Who Want To Convert Rejected by Israel
I've been ambivalent about Israel's policy towards African migrants. I have a general belief in relatively liberal immigration policies, at least for the United States. At the same time, most countries aren't the United States (for example, they're much smaller). Certainly, while humane treatment of immigrants is an absolute must, I don't view rejecting an open border policy as a per se human rights violation.
But another facet of Israel's existence is as a haven for Jews -- Jews, of course, have a "right of return" to Israel regardless of where they're from. So what about African migrants who wish to convert to Judaism? Ha'aretz is reporting that Israel's conversion committee has rejected every single one of those applications was rejected ("Of course, all the requests were rejected," is how the Prime Minister's Office put it).
This is deeply upsetting. Israeli society has long had a problem with racism directed towards its African community (including African Jews), so in a sense it is unsurprising that it is erecting a per se bar to African conversions. Still, it strikes very close to the heart of the very function of the Jewish state, and the way in which the "Jewish" part has been captured by regressive, ultra-orthodox forces who view any Jew that isn't under their thumb as a threat.
Now. the claim here is that these migrants are seeking to convert in bad faith, simply to gain citizenship in Israel. This doesn't move me, for at least three reasons. First: All of them? Every last one? 100% is a figure that one rarely reaches via dispassionate evaluation; it's the province of banana republic "elections" and Ron Paul newsletters. That "of course" all of them were rejected is heavy evidence that the bad faith came from the government's conversion committee, not each and every applicant. Second, conversion to Judaism isn't exactly a walk in the park. It's a difficult, grinding process -- quite capable of forcing people to prove their commitment to the faith. In fact, that's the entire design of it. So if someone wants to go through conversion, I say you start him or her down the process and see where it leads. Bad faith will reveal itself soon enough.
But perhaps most importantly -- what is the "bad faith" here? A bunch of people saw a Jewish society, saw that it functioned well, saw that it produced opportunities they lacked elsewhere, saw that it operated in a way they viewed as promising such that they wanted to stay a part of that community -- how is that not the epitome of what we want in a convert? Is keeping strict kosher part of what is driving them? Admittedly doubtful, but then I don't do that either, so I can hardly view it is an essential part of a genuine design to join the Jewish community. As far as I'm concerned, the desire to live in Israel as a Jew is almost self-referentially proof of a good-faith desire to become a Jew. The Israeli government should have treated it as such.
In any event, it would be interesting to see what would happen if some Orthodox Rabbis traveled with these deportees back to their countries of origins and tried to set up a formal, full-length Orthodox conversion process. Outside the direct control of the Israeli government, it would be far harder to deny them re-entry if they come back as Jews.
But another facet of Israel's existence is as a haven for Jews -- Jews, of course, have a "right of return" to Israel regardless of where they're from. So what about African migrants who wish to convert to Judaism? Ha'aretz is reporting that Israel's conversion committee has rejected every single one of those applications was rejected ("Of course, all the requests were rejected," is how the Prime Minister's Office put it).
This is deeply upsetting. Israeli society has long had a problem with racism directed towards its African community (including African Jews), so in a sense it is unsurprising that it is erecting a per se bar to African conversions. Still, it strikes very close to the heart of the very function of the Jewish state, and the way in which the "Jewish" part has been captured by regressive, ultra-orthodox forces who view any Jew that isn't under their thumb as a threat.
Now. the claim here is that these migrants are seeking to convert in bad faith, simply to gain citizenship in Israel. This doesn't move me, for at least three reasons. First: All of them? Every last one? 100% is a figure that one rarely reaches via dispassionate evaluation; it's the province of banana republic "elections" and Ron Paul newsletters. That "of course" all of them were rejected is heavy evidence that the bad faith came from the government's conversion committee, not each and every applicant. Second, conversion to Judaism isn't exactly a walk in the park. It's a difficult, grinding process -- quite capable of forcing people to prove their commitment to the faith. In fact, that's the entire design of it. So if someone wants to go through conversion, I say you start him or her down the process and see where it leads. Bad faith will reveal itself soon enough.
But perhaps most importantly -- what is the "bad faith" here? A bunch of people saw a Jewish society, saw that it functioned well, saw that it produced opportunities they lacked elsewhere, saw that it operated in a way they viewed as promising such that they wanted to stay a part of that community -- how is that not the epitome of what we want in a convert? Is keeping strict kosher part of what is driving them? Admittedly doubtful, but then I don't do that either, so I can hardly view it is an essential part of a genuine design to join the Jewish community. As far as I'm concerned, the desire to live in Israel as a Jew is almost self-referentially proof of a good-faith desire to become a Jew. The Israeli government should have treated it as such.
In any event, it would be interesting to see what would happen if some Orthodox Rabbis traveled with these deportees back to their countries of origins and tried to set up a formal, full-length Orthodox conversion process. Outside the direct control of the Israeli government, it would be far harder to deny them re-entry if they come back as Jews.
Friday, June 15, 2012
But It's a Proud, Family-Owned Brothel
PPP: Sixty-six percent of Nevada Republicans support legalized brothels (same percentage as Democrats), but only 20% of them support same-sex marriage. Now that's some family values!
Obama Lets Them Work
In a bold new pronouncement, President Obama has decided to stop deporting most illegal immigrants who came to the US as children, don't pose a criminal or security threat, and either did well in school or served in the military. In other words, people who already are for all intents and purposes not just Americans, but Americans we're lucky to have.
Republicans were predictably outraged ("predictable" both because they substantively oppose immigration reform and because they're outraged at anything Obama does). Haley Barbour did warn his party-mates not "demonize" illegal immigrants, which likely means Haley Barbour is about to be bitterly disappointed.
We should be clear: This does not replace the necessity of the DREAM Act (it doesn't provide a path to citizenship, merely work permits), but it is a good first step at both humane treatment of these persons, and for strengthening America via their contributions to our society.
Republicans were predictably outraged ("predictable" both because they substantively oppose immigration reform and because they're outraged at anything Obama does). Haley Barbour did warn his party-mates not "demonize" illegal immigrants, which likely means Haley Barbour is about to be bitterly disappointed.
We should be clear: This does not replace the necessity of the DREAM Act (it doesn't provide a path to citizenship, merely work permits), but it is a good first step at both humane treatment of these persons, and for strengthening America via their contributions to our society.
If Only Jews Were Dumber....
This year's Jennifer Rubin award for conservative Jews who hate American Jews goes to ... Barry Rubin! It's a Rubin-to-Rubin handoff!
Like Jennifer, Barry Rubin is trying to answer the vexing question as to why Jews support liberals like Barack Obama. His consternation over the question is in inverse correlation to its difficulty: Simply put, Jews are liberal. Take a voting bloc that's 90% pro-choice, 70% pro-gay marriage, 60% pro-union, and 66% in favor of tax hikes on the rich, (not to mention strong supporters of a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict -- unlike the Republican Party) and yeah -- tough nut for Republicans to crack.
But Rubin eschews the obvious "liberals prefer liberals" analysis in favor of basically saying Jews are a bunch of dupes
Jews like superficial sophistication and faux-intellectualism (and weirdly are willing to view someone with a Harvard law degree as "highly educated"). But if only we weren't so literate and educated, we'd be less prone to base our opinions on suspect sources like "media" or "academia", instead favoring more credible ones like Barry Rubin, Glenn Beck, or the semi-literate ravings of local talk radio hosts.
You know your argument is in trouble when it basically boils down "the problem is Jews aren't dumb enough to dislike Obama."
(Rubin also talks a bit about Jews' relationship with race and racial issues. It's pretty garbled -- boiling down to "Jews have a compulsion to appear anti-racist" -- and not all that helpful. For a better discussion, read Eric Goldberg's The Price of Whiteness, reviewed by me here).
Like Jennifer, Barry Rubin is trying to answer the vexing question as to why Jews support liberals like Barack Obama. His consternation over the question is in inverse correlation to its difficulty: Simply put, Jews are liberal. Take a voting bloc that's 90% pro-choice, 70% pro-gay marriage, 60% pro-union, and 66% in favor of tax hikes on the rich, (not to mention strong supporters of a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict -- unlike the Republican Party) and yeah -- tough nut for Republicans to crack.
But Rubin eschews the obvious "liberals prefer liberals" analysis in favor of basically saying Jews are a bunch of dupes
Propaganda: As highly educated and literate people, Jews are more heavily impacted by schools, universities, and mass media that are engaged in indoctrination or highly concerted efforts to campaign for Obama and his ideas. By the same token, Jews as a whole tend to give higher credibility to the fairness of media and academia.
Camouflage: The concealment of Obama’s radicalism and that of those supporting his ideology as supposed liberals plays into Jewish reverence for liberalism.
Obama’s persona: While the notion of Obama as a “Jewish president” is absurd, its appeal to some does in fact have a material basis. His image as an apparently highly educated, supposedly intellectual, superficially sophisticated, cosmopolitan personality fits with majority Jewish preferences.
Jews like superficial sophistication and faux-intellectualism (and weirdly are willing to view someone with a Harvard law degree as "highly educated"). But if only we weren't so literate and educated, we'd be less prone to base our opinions on suspect sources like "media" or "academia", instead favoring more credible ones like Barry Rubin, Glenn Beck, or the semi-literate ravings of local talk radio hosts.
You know your argument is in trouble when it basically boils down "the problem is Jews aren't dumb enough to dislike Obama."
(Rubin also talks a bit about Jews' relationship with race and racial issues. It's pretty garbled -- boiling down to "Jews have a compulsion to appear anti-racist" -- and not all that helpful. For a better discussion, read Eric Goldberg's The Price of Whiteness, reviewed by me here).
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Quote of the Year
Sally Quinn's essay blaming the fall of bipartisanship on the lack of DC dinner parties (with a healthy dose of damn kids these days) is being roundly mocked by just about anyone. But Jon Chait takes the cake when he digs up a gem of what Quinn considered to be the good old days:
To which Chait sums up:
Bang.
Washington writer Sally Quinn told of a 1950s reception where: “My mother and I headed for the buffet table. As we were reaching for the shrimp, both of us jumped and let out a shriek. Senator Strom Thurmond, grinning from ear to ear, had one hand on my behind and the other on my mother’s. As I recall, we were both quite flattered, and thought it terribly funny and wicked of Ol’ Strom.”
To which Chait sums up:
Once Washington was a happy place where a girl and her mother could be groped simultaneously in good fun by a white supremacist. Sadly, it has all been ruined by Kim Kardashian and Ezra Klein.
Bang.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
And Yet Somehow They'll Survive
Wesleyan University has made some waves by announcing it is abandoning need-blind admission. In effect, this means it will give some amount of preference towards wealthier applicants (how much is probably indeterminate). In other words, affirmative action for rich kids.
Now a lot of you will be up in arms about how unfair this is to students of lower socio-economic backgrounds. But I think we need to look to another set of victims: the wealthy students themselves. As beneficiaries of affirmative action, we have to ask -- are they mismatched above their level? Does giving them special preferences stigmatize them, creating the soft bigotry of low expectations? I mean, even wealthy students who could get in without the "boost" are tainted by the policy -- everyone will be left wondering if they got in on the strength of their merit or their bank account.
These are the questions precisely no one will be asking, because the students are not racial minorities and thus there is no need to concern-troll about them. But since I'm guessing that, given the resources and knowledge base available to these applicants, they don't see attending Wesleyan as an exercise in self-sabotage -- well, maybe it isn't so bad for other people who benefit from affirmative action but aren't already advantaged?
Now a lot of you will be up in arms about how unfair this is to students of lower socio-economic backgrounds. But I think we need to look to another set of victims: the wealthy students themselves. As beneficiaries of affirmative action, we have to ask -- are they mismatched above their level? Does giving them special preferences stigmatize them, creating the soft bigotry of low expectations? I mean, even wealthy students who could get in without the "boost" are tainted by the policy -- everyone will be left wondering if they got in on the strength of their merit or their bank account.
These are the questions precisely no one will be asking, because the students are not racial minorities and thus there is no need to concern-troll about them. But since I'm guessing that, given the resources and knowledge base available to these applicants, they don't see attending Wesleyan as an exercise in self-sabotage -- well, maybe it isn't so bad for other people who benefit from affirmative action but aren't already advantaged?
Defending a Racist: The Drinking Game
You ever had a conversation with someone hell-bent on defending a racist (him/herself or someone else)? There are some predictable moves they'll make -- and by "predictable" I mean "virtually all of these conversations could track my anti-discrimination syllabus class-for-class". So I figured, if I'm going to be driven to suicide by these idiots, I may as well go down via drinking game. But let's be clear -- actually playing this game? Will kill you. Nobody's tolerance is high enough.
That said -- here are the rules! Note that I'm using "Black" as my stand-in minority group, but you can substitute pretty freely (Jews, gays, Latinos -- try it, it's fun!). And feel free to add your own rules in the comments.
* * *
"I don't have a prejudiced bone in my body." (1 sip)
"I asked him and he said he wasn't racist." (2 sips. But if he says "let's ask him and see if he admits he's racist," replace alcohol with juice because he's too naive to be older than 11 and you're in for a long night)
"I think he's really brave to even ask these questions." (1 sip)
"Oh there you go, playing the 'race card'" (1 sip, 3 sips if you haven't actually called the person racist yet, 5 sips if you haven't even spoken yet)
"So I guess anytime someone criticizes a Black man, it's 'racist'?" (1 sip)
"CRITICIZING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS NOT RACIST." (1 sip, 3 sips if nobody's arguing that all such criticisms -- as opposed to this particular criticism -- are. Which is to say, 3 sips).
"I'm not saying I agree with everything he says, but he makes some astute points" (1 sip to start, 2 sips if he won't say which things he disagrees with, 3 sips if he won't say which parts he agrees with, and down the bottle if the "astute point" is "Blacks were better off enslaved"/"Jews do run the world"/"gays are basically an armada of child molesters")
"But I have Black friends/family!" (1 sip) "...and they agree with me!" (another sip)
"Not every Black person agrees with you!" (1 sip)
"You're the real racist...." (1 sip)
"You're just afraid of hard truths. Stop being so PC!" (2 sips)
"I'm just asking questions okay? Stop being so defensive!" (1 sip) ".... do you have something to hide?" (another sip)
"Oh, so I need a lifetime of study before I opine about your group?" (2 sips, but down the bottle if it would have taken less than an hour of "study" to know what was said was idiotic).
"It is true! I know because ..."
"TRUE OR FALSE: THERE ARE BLACK PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE BAD THINGS!" (1 sip)
"Who made you the knowledge/PC police? What makes you so sure you know what you're talking about" (1 sip if you're a member of the group under attack, and/or 1 sip if you actually do have an academic or professional specialty in the topic under discussion).
"I'm not saying racism is okay, but I understand it given that Black people do [whatever]." (1 sip)
"I don't have a problem with Black people. I have a problem with ...." (1 sip, but brace yourself)
UPDATE
Some more:
"All I'm saying is how about a White History Month for a change?" (1 sip -- thanks Bill)
"You see racists behind every bush." (1 sip, add another if they accuse you of it being a hobby)
"Louis Farrakhan exists. Therefore...." (1 sip)
"So I guess Black people are perfect in every way?" (2 sips)
That said -- here are the rules! Note that I'm using "Black" as my stand-in minority group, but you can substitute pretty freely (Jews, gays, Latinos -- try it, it's fun!). And feel free to add your own rules in the comments.
* * *
"I don't have a prejudiced bone in my body." (1 sip)
"I asked him and he said he wasn't racist." (2 sips. But if he says "let's ask him and see if he admits he's racist," replace alcohol with juice because he's too naive to be older than 11 and you're in for a long night)
"I think he's really brave to even ask these questions." (1 sip)
"Oh there you go, playing the 'race card'" (1 sip, 3 sips if you haven't actually called the person racist yet, 5 sips if you haven't even spoken yet)
"So I guess anytime someone criticizes a Black man, it's 'racist'?" (1 sip)
"CRITICIZING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS NOT RACIST." (1 sip, 3 sips if nobody's arguing that all such criticisms -- as opposed to this particular criticism -- are. Which is to say, 3 sips).
"I'm not saying I agree with everything he says, but he makes some astute points" (1 sip to start, 2 sips if he won't say which things he disagrees with, 3 sips if he won't say which parts he agrees with, and down the bottle if the "astute point" is "Blacks were better off enslaved"/"Jews do run the world"/"gays are basically an armada of child molesters")
"But I have Black friends/family!" (1 sip) "...and they agree with me!" (another sip)
"Not every Black person agrees with you!" (1 sip)
"You're the real racist...." (1 sip)
".... for thinking about race so much" (1 sip)
".... for even thinking race is a thing" (1 sip)
".... for holding yourself out as different. Why do you think you're better than the rest of us, huh?" (down the bottle)
"You're just afraid of hard truths. Stop being so PC!" (2 sips)
"I'm just asking questions okay? Stop being so defensive!" (1 sip) ".... do you have something to hide?" (another sip)
"Oh, so I need a lifetime of study before I opine about your group?" (2 sips, but down the bottle if it would have taken less than an hour of "study" to know what was said was idiotic).
"It is true! I know because ..."
"... I read it on the internet" (1 sip)
"... my Black friend said so." (1 sip)
"... well, everyone knows that it's true." (3 sips)
[multiply drinks x2 if what's "true" is a well-known urban legend/conspiracy theory; x3 if upon being informed of that the response is "sure, that's what the Mossad wants you to think."]
"TRUE OR FALSE: THERE ARE BLACK PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE BAD THINGS!" (1 sip)
"Who made you the knowledge/PC police? What makes you so sure you know what you're talking about" (1 sip if you're a member of the group under attack, and/or 1 sip if you actually do have an academic or professional specialty in the topic under discussion).
"I'm not saying racism is okay, but I understand it given that Black people do [whatever]." (1 sip)
"I don't have a problem with Black people. I have a problem with ...." (1 sip, but brace yourself)
"... their music, clothing, and culture." (1 sip)
"... the 80% of them who disagree with me." (2 sips)
"... institutions populated primarily by Black people." (3 sips)
"... the uppity ones." (down the bottle)
UPDATE
Some more:
"All I'm saying is how about a White History Month for a change?" (1 sip -- thanks Bill)
"You see racists behind every bush." (1 sip, add another if they accuse you of it being a hobby)
"Louis Farrakhan exists. Therefore...." (1 sip)
".... until you condemn him to my satisfaction, shut up." (2 sips)
".... racism is totally justified." (2 sips)
".... anybody who talks about racism is Louis Farrakhan" (down the bottle)
[x2 if Farrakhan is replaced with Jesse Jackson, x3 if he's replaced with Kanye West]
"So I guess Black people are perfect in every way?" (2 sips)
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
What's Not Being Said
Ta-Nehisi Coates is not the only one savaging a new study purporting to question whether the children of "gay parents" (very, very loosely defined -- see below) experience negative consequences (John Corvino shreds it in a very satisfying manner), but he gets extra points for stating something important in a more general sense: "Too often, people wave the flag of 'difficult truths' and 'un-PC' as though merely saying something unpopular is somehow a kind of thinking." It was something Coates also pointed out as a persistent weakness of Andrew Sullivan, and having just been informed by Johnny Argent about how "brave" Gilad Atzmon is for daring "to even question the value of Abrahamic brainwashing," it's worth reiterating.
Meanwhile, as to the study itself, I'm not an empiricist, so I have a simple rule of the thumb for appraising empirical studies. If I can spot the methodological flaws, then it's probably a pretty weak study. And here -- oh boy here -- do we have a doozy. Normally, when doing a study like this, you try to hold as many variables as possible constant. So if your control is the children of stable heterosexual couples, you compare them to the children of stable homosexual couples, and see what happens.
But here, the study takes on the one hand the children of "intact biological families", and pairs them against the children of anyone whose parents has ever had any same-sex sexual interaction, ever. Aside from the fact that this includes persons who remain in an intact biological family (capturing anything from a bout of college experimentation to a Ted Haggard-style drug-fueled prostitution binge), it by design doesn't standardize family settings -- it's an ideal heterosexual family paired against a cottage pie of gay (and not gay) life situations. That's the sort of gaping error that makes one wonder how this thing got past peer-review.
Meanwhile, as to the study itself, I'm not an empiricist, so I have a simple rule of the thumb for appraising empirical studies. If I can spot the methodological flaws, then it's probably a pretty weak study. And here -- oh boy here -- do we have a doozy. Normally, when doing a study like this, you try to hold as many variables as possible constant. So if your control is the children of stable heterosexual couples, you compare them to the children of stable homosexual couples, and see what happens.
But here, the study takes on the one hand the children of "intact biological families", and pairs them against the children of anyone whose parents has ever had any same-sex sexual interaction, ever. Aside from the fact that this includes persons who remain in an intact biological family (capturing anything from a bout of college experimentation to a Ted Haggard-style drug-fueled prostitution binge), it by design doesn't standardize family settings -- it's an ideal heterosexual family paired against a cottage pie of gay (and not gay) life situations. That's the sort of gaping error that makes one wonder how this thing got past peer-review.
Everyday Citizens
The nation of Sweden tried an experiment with its official twitter feed: handing it off to a random Swede each week. Sounds like a fun, funky idea -- until one of them spent her week asking about those strange Jew-people she's heard so much about.
You know, say what you will about Americans, but we're smart enough to know in advance that a similar project with random American citizens would end in similar disaster.
Meanwhile, I am in agreement with those who say that the list of messages isn't hostile or anti-Semitic, just profoundly clueless. But still -- not exactly a shining moment. (Via WWPD).
You know, say what you will about Americans, but we're smart enough to know in advance that a similar project with random American citizens would end in similar disaster.
Meanwhile, I am in agreement with those who say that the list of messages isn't hostile or anti-Semitic, just profoundly clueless. But still -- not exactly a shining moment. (Via WWPD).
Monday, June 11, 2012
LingleChannel
Money is important in election. You can use it to fund local offices which can door-knock to promote your candidacy. A little more and you can purchase television ads, to persuade voters via the power of vague testimonials and grainy footage of your opponent. A little more than that, and you can use it to purchase your own television network and just have them promote you 24/7:
I don't even know what to say. My first question is how much material can she even have to fill up an entire channel? My second question is what are we coming to as a nation?
Via DK Elections.
Former Gov. Linda Lingle (R) today launched her own cable television channel, which is dedicated solely to providing information about her Senate campaign and the issues facing Hawaii.
LL2012 can be found on digital channel 110 for Oceanic Time Warner subscribers. According to the cable company, this is the first time a U.S. political candidate has used a dedicated cable channel, the campaign said.
I don't even know what to say. My first question is how much material can she even have to fill up an entire channel? My second question is what are we coming to as a nation?
Via DK Elections.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Pacquiao/Bradley: The Breakdown
A lot of nothing from me over the past few days (my mom came out to visit), so it's only fitting that silence with a post on topic you all love: boxing! Specifically, last night's Pacquiao/Bradley card.
Cards on the table time: I was watching with friends so I didn't formally score the fight. I thought Pacquiao won. Everyone watching with me thought Pacquiao won. But while I was watching I did not think it was the one-sided drubbing that HBO was making it out to be. And I recall six rounds (from memory they were 1, 5, and 9-12) where I thought to myself "I can see an argument for Bradley in that round." Does that mean I thought all of those rounds should have necessarily been scored for Bradley? Nope. Does it mean that I thought they were the only conceivable rounds one could have scored for Bradley? Not necessarily. But as I said, I still came out with the assumption and belief that Manny Pacquiao won the fight.
So what happened? Let's break down some possibilities. But before we begin, let's break down why it is we all think Pacquiao won the fight.
The case for Pacquiao
It's weird to have to defend a result that everyone thinks is correct. But it makes for a good starting point for looking at the Bradley apologias, and it's productive for me to run through in my head why I thought Pacquiao deserved the nod. So here it goes: The only punches of meaning were landing by Pacquiao (the straight left hand). He landed more punches and harder punches, generally a winning combination, while Bradley may not have landing a single meaningful punch all fight. While someone like Timothy Bradley is never going to stop trying, by the middle of the fight he did start to look desperate, coming in wild and winging shots. Pacquiao for the most part executed his game plan and got Bradley to fight his fight.
Nor was it the case that Pacquiao dazzled in some rounds but quietly gave away others. With the possible exception of the 11th, there was not a single round that Pacquiao didn't have a solid case for winning. One could plausibly argue that a Pacquiao shutout was more in range of what transpired than a Bradley decision.
Corruption
This is always close to the lips of irate boxing fans. I'm always skeptical, possibly out of naivete -- I'm not close to the dark underbelly of boxing to know what "really" happens down there, so I blissfully tell myself corruption is a thing of the past (I also think it's easy enough for various cognitive biases to generally slant outcomes towards favored fighters without having to resort to corruption).
The corruption claims right now are centered on three points: (1) Unconfirmed accounts that Pacquiao was thinking of leaving Top Rank, and this was Bob Arum's way of punishing him, (2) The idea that Pacquiao was aging out and Top Rank wanted to launch a new, younger, American star in Timothy Bradley, and (3) The belief that this sets up a lucrative rematch between the two -- especially important given that Pacquiao was running out of credible opponents not named "Mayweather" or "Marquez", neither of whom Arum wants to work with.
In terms of Arum's response itself, I don't give much weight either to his fulminations about the sport being disgraced in the post-fight presser, nor his all-smiles presentation when talking to Bradley after the fight. The latter could be just politeness (Arum's not going to get in the face and scream at his own fighter right after the decision about the injustice of it), and the former is just basic political self-preservation given the popular reaction to the fight.
As I said, I tend not to think corruption is in play. But people are talking about it, and that's never a good thing.
Count to seven
On the other extreme from corruption, the simplest explanation for the result is that the judges found 7 rounds that they thought Bradley won. One interesting thing I've observed in reading the reactions to the fight is that while essentially everyone is saying "there are 3, maybe 4 rounds one could give to Bradley tops", there is widespread disagreement on what those rounds are. In fact, I've seen almost every round in the fight cited by someone or another as a "possible" Bradley round (in the course, again, of denying the possibility that he won more than 4). So if there's an argument to be made for all those rounds, well, string seven such arguments together and you have a Bradley win.
Is that "good" judging? Not necessarily -- I think the sour taste in our mouths comes from the sense that one has to reach to give Bradley these rounds, and one should not over and over reach to give the same fighter rounds. But it's there in a way that doesn't necessarily imply abject incompetence.
Upward mobility
Do you know what this fight reminded me of most when I was watching it? Bradley/Lamont Peterson. In that fight, Lamont Peterson fought hard, and well, and never looked like he was being blown out of the ring or anything. It's just that Tim Bradley was consistently better, and so was handily winning the fight. It seemed like the sort of fight that was obviously a Bradley win, possibly by shutout, but one in which shutout scores wouldn't really do justice to the effort put forward by the losing fighter. And I think that's what I lot of folks thought about this fight -- a convincing Pacquiao victory, but one in which he had to work harder than lopsided cards might suggest.
Okay, now, put yourself in the heads of the judges. For the first half of the fight, they're basically thinking the same thing we are: Pacquiao is winning, but not utterly dominating -- it's not like Bradley is out of the fight. So in their heads (even if subconsciously), when close rounds come up they're leaning towards scoring the bout in a way that matches their general instinct of Pacquiao in control but not walking of his man -- up 5-1 or 4-2 (I'm not saying this good judging practice -- I'm trying to make a psychological explanation for what's going on). And halfway through the fight, all three judges had Pacquiao winning (59-55 and 58-56 twice). I think if those scores had been announced after round six, none of us would have been bursting a blood vessel over it -- we'd say "okay, they found two rounds to give to Bradley."
Then we get to the second half of the fight, in which Bradley fought much better, and (more importantly) each round was better for Bradley than the one before. Judges start to see he's coming on strong, push a round his way. The next round is even better for Bradley than the one before, so you got to give him that one too. And again. And again, all the way down the back stretch of the fight.
The fact is that Bradley dominated the cards over the second half the fight -- he won 5 of 6 rounds on two cards and 4 of 6 on the third. Did he really win all those rounds? No. But you give him the first couple of rounds because the fight "feels competitive", then the next few because they were better than the ones you already gave him, then the last couple that he legitimately did win -- and suddenly you're holding a Bradley decision.
Again, I'm not saying "and thus, Tim Bradley legitimately won the fight". I'm trying to break down what I think might have actually gone on in the heads of three very experienced judges to make the result the way it was. This last story is the one that I think is most likely, and note what drives it -- not corruption, not incompetence, but not "judge each round individually" either. It's a set of cognitive biases that here happened to work strongly in Tim Bradley's advantage. That doesn't make it fair or right -- it makes it something to be attentive to.
* * *
The rest of the night
* Was the Randall Bailey/Mike Jones fight a microcosm of Randall Bailey or what? He does nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing ... BOOM right hand floors Jones. Then Jones gets up to control most of the 11th, before BOOM right uppercut obliterates him. It was a stunning one-punch knockout and further solidifies the legend of Randall Bailey as one of the all-time most concussive punchers in the sport. It is unreal the amount of power he packs in that one hand.
* Bizarre ending to the Arce/Rojas fight deprived us of what was shaping up to be a barn-burner. While I am quite willing to call the ending "freakish" as Lampley did, one of my friends watching argued against by pointing out that "a bolt of lightning is freakish. This fight ended with Arce being punched in the face, which is well within the realm of what I expected." Okay, touche. And rematch please?
* Guillermo Rigondeaux is so insanely good. It's not that Teon Kennedy is anything special, because he's not, but still five knockdowns in five rounds is pretty amazing. But more than that is how easy Rigondeaux makes it look -- he just gives off the impression he can do whatever he wants in there. The knockdowns themselves are less about raw, Randall Bailey-esque power and more just perfect timing and precision -- I don't know if I've ever seen a more accurate puncher. And on the rare occasions that Kennedy was able to force an exchange, that accuracy didn't go away -- Rigondeaux is blessed with an ability (shared by Pacquiao and Marquez, among others) to throw hard, accurate shots consistently in the middle of what look from the outside to be wild exchanges. He is the real deal, and I hope he gets a fight against the division's elite because I want to see him against the best.
* Max Kellerman was pretty dickish in his interviews tonight. It was annoying. But one thing I give Kellerman credit for when he's in the booth is that he does sometimes, quietly, try to derail Jim Lampley from running wild with "the narrative of the fight". That's one of Lampley's great weaknesses as a broadcaster, and while I've never heard Kellerman successfully convince Lampley to change his mind mid-fight, it's good for the viewers that we have a voice giving an alternative take.
Cards on the table time: I was watching with friends so I didn't formally score the fight. I thought Pacquiao won. Everyone watching with me thought Pacquiao won. But while I was watching I did not think it was the one-sided drubbing that HBO was making it out to be. And I recall six rounds (from memory they were 1, 5, and 9-12) where I thought to myself "I can see an argument for Bradley in that round." Does that mean I thought all of those rounds should have necessarily been scored for Bradley? Nope. Does it mean that I thought they were the only conceivable rounds one could have scored for Bradley? Not necessarily. But as I said, I still came out with the assumption and belief that Manny Pacquiao won the fight.
So what happened? Let's break down some possibilities. But before we begin, let's break down why it is we all think Pacquiao won the fight.
The case for Pacquiao
It's weird to have to defend a result that everyone thinks is correct. But it makes for a good starting point for looking at the Bradley apologias, and it's productive for me to run through in my head why I thought Pacquiao deserved the nod. So here it goes: The only punches of meaning were landing by Pacquiao (the straight left hand). He landed more punches and harder punches, generally a winning combination, while Bradley may not have landing a single meaningful punch all fight. While someone like Timothy Bradley is never going to stop trying, by the middle of the fight he did start to look desperate, coming in wild and winging shots. Pacquiao for the most part executed his game plan and got Bradley to fight his fight.
Nor was it the case that Pacquiao dazzled in some rounds but quietly gave away others. With the possible exception of the 11th, there was not a single round that Pacquiao didn't have a solid case for winning. One could plausibly argue that a Pacquiao shutout was more in range of what transpired than a Bradley decision.
Corruption
This is always close to the lips of irate boxing fans. I'm always skeptical, possibly out of naivete -- I'm not close to the dark underbelly of boxing to know what "really" happens down there, so I blissfully tell myself corruption is a thing of the past (I also think it's easy enough for various cognitive biases to generally slant outcomes towards favored fighters without having to resort to corruption).
The corruption claims right now are centered on three points: (1) Unconfirmed accounts that Pacquiao was thinking of leaving Top Rank, and this was Bob Arum's way of punishing him, (2) The idea that Pacquiao was aging out and Top Rank wanted to launch a new, younger, American star in Timothy Bradley, and (3) The belief that this sets up a lucrative rematch between the two -- especially important given that Pacquiao was running out of credible opponents not named "Mayweather" or "Marquez", neither of whom Arum wants to work with.
In terms of Arum's response itself, I don't give much weight either to his fulminations about the sport being disgraced in the post-fight presser, nor his all-smiles presentation when talking to Bradley after the fight. The latter could be just politeness (Arum's not going to get in the face and scream at his own fighter right after the decision about the injustice of it), and the former is just basic political self-preservation given the popular reaction to the fight.
As I said, I tend not to think corruption is in play. But people are talking about it, and that's never a good thing.
Count to seven
On the other extreme from corruption, the simplest explanation for the result is that the judges found 7 rounds that they thought Bradley won. One interesting thing I've observed in reading the reactions to the fight is that while essentially everyone is saying "there are 3, maybe 4 rounds one could give to Bradley tops", there is widespread disagreement on what those rounds are. In fact, I've seen almost every round in the fight cited by someone or another as a "possible" Bradley round (in the course, again, of denying the possibility that he won more than 4). So if there's an argument to be made for all those rounds, well, string seven such arguments together and you have a Bradley win.
Is that "good" judging? Not necessarily -- I think the sour taste in our mouths comes from the sense that one has to reach to give Bradley these rounds, and one should not over and over reach to give the same fighter rounds. But it's there in a way that doesn't necessarily imply abject incompetence.
Upward mobility
Do you know what this fight reminded me of most when I was watching it? Bradley/Lamont Peterson. In that fight, Lamont Peterson fought hard, and well, and never looked like he was being blown out of the ring or anything. It's just that Tim Bradley was consistently better, and so was handily winning the fight. It seemed like the sort of fight that was obviously a Bradley win, possibly by shutout, but one in which shutout scores wouldn't really do justice to the effort put forward by the losing fighter. And I think that's what I lot of folks thought about this fight -- a convincing Pacquiao victory, but one in which he had to work harder than lopsided cards might suggest.
Okay, now, put yourself in the heads of the judges. For the first half of the fight, they're basically thinking the same thing we are: Pacquiao is winning, but not utterly dominating -- it's not like Bradley is out of the fight. So in their heads (even if subconsciously), when close rounds come up they're leaning towards scoring the bout in a way that matches their general instinct of Pacquiao in control but not walking of his man -- up 5-1 or 4-2 (I'm not saying this good judging practice -- I'm trying to make a psychological explanation for what's going on). And halfway through the fight, all three judges had Pacquiao winning (59-55 and 58-56 twice). I think if those scores had been announced after round six, none of us would have been bursting a blood vessel over it -- we'd say "okay, they found two rounds to give to Bradley."
Then we get to the second half of the fight, in which Bradley fought much better, and (more importantly) each round was better for Bradley than the one before. Judges start to see he's coming on strong, push a round his way. The next round is even better for Bradley than the one before, so you got to give him that one too. And again. And again, all the way down the back stretch of the fight.
The fact is that Bradley dominated the cards over the second half the fight -- he won 5 of 6 rounds on two cards and 4 of 6 on the third. Did he really win all those rounds? No. But you give him the first couple of rounds because the fight "feels competitive", then the next few because they were better than the ones you already gave him, then the last couple that he legitimately did win -- and suddenly you're holding a Bradley decision.
Again, I'm not saying "and thus, Tim Bradley legitimately won the fight". I'm trying to break down what I think might have actually gone on in the heads of three very experienced judges to make the result the way it was. This last story is the one that I think is most likely, and note what drives it -- not corruption, not incompetence, but not "judge each round individually" either. It's a set of cognitive biases that here happened to work strongly in Tim Bradley's advantage. That doesn't make it fair or right -- it makes it something to be attentive to.
* * *
The rest of the night
* Was the Randall Bailey/Mike Jones fight a microcosm of Randall Bailey or what? He does nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing ... BOOM right hand floors Jones. Then Jones gets up to control most of the 11th, before BOOM right uppercut obliterates him. It was a stunning one-punch knockout and further solidifies the legend of Randall Bailey as one of the all-time most concussive punchers in the sport. It is unreal the amount of power he packs in that one hand.
* Bizarre ending to the Arce/Rojas fight deprived us of what was shaping up to be a barn-burner. While I am quite willing to call the ending "freakish" as Lampley did, one of my friends watching argued against by pointing out that "a bolt of lightning is freakish. This fight ended with Arce being punched in the face, which is well within the realm of what I expected." Okay, touche. And rematch please?
* Guillermo Rigondeaux is so insanely good. It's not that Teon Kennedy is anything special, because he's not, but still five knockdowns in five rounds is pretty amazing. But more than that is how easy Rigondeaux makes it look -- he just gives off the impression he can do whatever he wants in there. The knockdowns themselves are less about raw, Randall Bailey-esque power and more just perfect timing and precision -- I don't know if I've ever seen a more accurate puncher. And on the rare occasions that Kennedy was able to force an exchange, that accuracy didn't go away -- Rigondeaux is blessed with an ability (shared by Pacquiao and Marquez, among others) to throw hard, accurate shots consistently in the middle of what look from the outside to be wild exchanges. He is the real deal, and I hope he gets a fight against the division's elite because I want to see him against the best.
* Max Kellerman was pretty dickish in his interviews tonight. It was annoying. But one thing I give Kellerman credit for when he's in the booth is that he does sometimes, quietly, try to derail Jim Lampley from running wild with "the narrative of the fight". That's one of Lampley's great weaknesses as a broadcaster, and while I've never heard Kellerman successfully convince Lampley to change his mind mid-fight, it's good for the viewers that we have a voice giving an alternative take.
Wednesday, June 06, 2012
Mad CEI Men
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (perhaps best known for their pro-Carbon Dioxide ads -- tag: "They call it pollution. We call it life!" recently hosted a Mad Men themed fundraiser. The thesis is that Don Draper would be appalled by corporations always apologizing for this or that misdeed. Take BP. Sure they basically destroyed the Gulf of Mexico and nearly beset a flaming wall of alligators onto Louisiana. But that doesn't mean they should be apologetic. This is America, damn it!
As the writer notes, the CEI doesn't actually take Draper's mercurial spirit seriously enough, citing to his famous anti-tobacco letter that was as pure a business-oriented mea culpa as they come. Businesses run apologetic TV ads because, one presumes, they're better for business than the alternatives -- particularly for firms with unlovely reps. That's part of the market too -- sometimes, the market doesn't reward your testosterone fueled fantasies.
As the writer notes, the CEI doesn't actually take Draper's mercurial spirit seriously enough, citing to his famous anti-tobacco letter that was as pure a business-oriented mea culpa as they come. Businesses run apologetic TV ads because, one presumes, they're better for business than the alternatives -- particularly for firms with unlovely reps. That's part of the market too -- sometimes, the market doesn't reward your testosterone fueled fantasies.
Tuesday, June 05, 2012
The Things You Can Do With a Shiny New Coalition
A recent dust-up in Israel comes in response to a Supreme Court decision demanding the evacuation of settlers in the Ulpina neighborhood, who built their homes on private Palestinian land. The settlers, of course, don't want to go, and there have been murmurings that the Israeli government would vote to retroactively legalize the settlement (which would put it on a collision course with the Supreme Court).
It seems like Netanyahu just put his foot down on that though: he's saying that any minister in his government who votes to legalize Ulpina will be fired. Two ministers (including one from Likud) have stated their intent to vote for it anyway, and I can't say I'll shed a tear if they depart.
So that's a good start to having a flexible, broad-based coalition. How about following up by evacuating some of the far-flung settlements that Israel knows it cannot keep?
It seems like Netanyahu just put his foot down on that though: he's saying that any minister in his government who votes to legalize Ulpina will be fired. Two ministers (including one from Likud) have stated their intent to vote for it anyway, and I can't say I'll shed a tear if they depart.
So that's a good start to having a flexible, broad-based coalition. How about following up by evacuating some of the far-flung settlements that Israel knows it cannot keep?
Change Places!
Fascinating article on population shifts in Cleveland. Basically, it goes like this: Rust Belt cities have witnessed the hollowing out of the urban cores for decades now. This means that residential real estate in the city is dirt cheap. You know who loves cheap urban real estate? Young White people, who are flocking to the city as they can purchase houses at rock bottom prices that are very close to finally reflowering city neighborhoods.
Meanwhile, the collapse of the housing market in the suburbs has had its own effect on Black city residents -- they see this is their big shot to cash in on the American dream (nice house with a yard away from the city). So as we're seeing an influx of White couples into the city, we're seeing a transition of Black families out to the suburbs. The upshot? Far more integrated neighborhoods.
Meanwhile, the collapse of the housing market in the suburbs has had its own effect on Black city residents -- they see this is their big shot to cash in on the American dream (nice house with a yard away from the city). So as we're seeing an influx of White couples into the city, we're seeing a transition of Black families out to the suburbs. The upshot? Far more integrated neighborhoods.
Monday, June 04, 2012
Dershowitz's Evolution Continues
A few weeks ago, I commented on Alan Dershowitz's experiences speaking at a "pro-Israel" gathering where attendees booed the President as well as members of Israel's security establishment whose views on Iran they found distasteful. Dershowitz was furious, but I noted that in a sense he was laying in a bed he had made -- it was Dershowitz, after all, who had supported Republican challenges to reliably pro-Israel Democrats like Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) for being too close to President Obama.
Still, his belated recognition that maybe he was backing the wrong pro-Israel horses is something to be encouraged. And we're seeing another step from Dershowitz as he takes to the Wall Street Journal to endorse (gasp) a settlement freeze. A settlement freeze! Signature element of President Obama's supposed apostasy. But now Dershowitz thinks it is a good idea, if done right (basically, paired with an immediate Palestinian return to the negotiating table, and lasting as long as they stay at the table). And he's right -- it is a good idea. But again, who exactly does he think will be his allies and who his saboteurs on this? He'll be backed up by the pro-Israel left and savaged by the right.
And once again, that leaves Professor Dershowitz with a choice regarding what he wants the future of pro-Israel to be. He can't straddle the line forever. He needs to take a breath, perhaps swallow his pride, and recognize who is and isn't his ally in the quest for rendering Israel a safe and secure Jewish democracy.
Still, his belated recognition that maybe he was backing the wrong pro-Israel horses is something to be encouraged. And we're seeing another step from Dershowitz as he takes to the Wall Street Journal to endorse (gasp) a settlement freeze. A settlement freeze! Signature element of President Obama's supposed apostasy. But now Dershowitz thinks it is a good idea, if done right (basically, paired with an immediate Palestinian return to the negotiating table, and lasting as long as they stay at the table). And he's right -- it is a good idea. But again, who exactly does he think will be his allies and who his saboteurs on this? He'll be backed up by the pro-Israel left and savaged by the right.
And once again, that leaves Professor Dershowitz with a choice regarding what he wants the future of pro-Israel to be. He can't straddle the line forever. He needs to take a breath, perhaps swallow his pride, and recognize who is and isn't his ally in the quest for rendering Israel a safe and secure Jewish democracy.
Sunday, June 03, 2012
Quote of the Day: Liberalism and Neutrality
Liberalism need not be defined by neutrality, nor by an unchanging list of individual rights which always and everywhere trump collective goals.... What keeps a society liberal is not that it retreats from any pronouncements on what constitutes the good life, but that, in pursuing its own conception of the good, it none the less respects those who disagree. 'A society with strong collective goals can be liberal, on this view, provided it is also capable of respecting diversity, especially when it concerns those who do not share its goals; and provided it can offer adequate safeguards for fundamental rights.'
Anne Phillips, The Politics of Presence (Oxford UP 1995), pp. 133 (quoting Charles Taylor, "Shared and Divergent Values," in Ronald L. Watts & Douglas M Brown, eds., Options for a New Canada (Toronto UP, 1991), pp. 71).
Friday, June 01, 2012
Big Boxing Weekend Roundup
This weekend has a lot of great action. Not to mention game two of the Stanley Cup Finals.
* * *
I posted this on my Facebook wall, but it's good enough for a double-dip -- David Hirsh does a beautiful job discussing the BDS campaign's treatment of Jews parallel to Shylock as BDSers tried to sabotage an Israeli production of The Merchant of Venice.
Peter E. Gordon has a fascinating review of a book detailing the history of the Catholic Church's Nostra Aetate.
"Memes are ridiculous!", he said, while unironically citing a meme.
The latest reports are that Stuxnet was a joint American/Israeli project aimed at sabotaging Iranian nuclear capacity.
Nancy Leong asks if diversity is for White people. She's got a cool paper coming out in the Harvard Law Review arguing that the diversity rationale has the effect of commodifying non-White racial identity. She thinks that's a bad thing, I am more circumspect about it.
J.J. Goldberg looks at several Jewish polls (including the one I discussed yesterday), finds that they're all saying very similar things (to wit, Jews are very liberal).
* * *
I posted this on my Facebook wall, but it's good enough for a double-dip -- David Hirsh does a beautiful job discussing the BDS campaign's treatment of Jews parallel to Shylock as BDSers tried to sabotage an Israeli production of The Merchant of Venice.
Peter E. Gordon has a fascinating review of a book detailing the history of the Catholic Church's Nostra Aetate.
"Memes are ridiculous!", he said, while unironically citing a meme.
The latest reports are that Stuxnet was a joint American/Israeli project aimed at sabotaging Iranian nuclear capacity.
Nancy Leong asks if diversity is for White people. She's got a cool paper coming out in the Harvard Law Review arguing that the diversity rationale has the effect of commodifying non-White racial identity. She thinks that's a bad thing, I am more circumspect about it.
J.J. Goldberg looks at several Jewish polls (including the one I discussed yesterday), finds that they're all saying very similar things (to wit, Jews are very liberal).
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Acid Attacks
In Afghanistan, one of the most horrifying elements of the Taliban's war on women is the use of acid attacks. Women who attend school, play sports, or otherwise behave in ways offensive to the Taliban's fundamentalist religious ethos are splashed with acid, causing excruciating pain and permanent disfiguration.
Most of us are appalled. But a spokesman for Rep. Nan Hayworth (R-NY) sees a metaphor. Posting on a local Democratic facebook page, Hayworth spokesman Jay Townsend said:
Let's hurl some acid at those female democratic [sic] Senators who won't abide the mandates they want to impose on the private sector.
Sickening.
Rep. Hayworth's office has not yet commented on the story.
Jews Are Liberal, Part Eleventy Billion
A new poll finds, once again, that Jews harbor opinions well to the left of the American mainstream on a host of issues. Nearly 70% favor gay marriage. Nearly 90% favor legal abortion in most cases.
And while it is sometimes asserted that Jewish social liberalism is balanced by economic moderation, that's only true as a matter of degree. Two-thirds support tax increases on persons making over $200,000/year, 62% feel that banks and financial institutions pose a "major threat", and 61% say they tend to favor unions over corporations when they hear about a strike (to be fair, when the corporations are run by guys like this, it's easy to root against them).
Oh, and on Israel/Palestine? No surprises there either. Jews tend to think Israel wants peace and Palestinians do not. But perhaps the most striking finding was their opinion regarding a settlement freeze. Though opinions were divided, a plurality of 40% believes that the Israel government should freeze settlements, versus only 22% opposed (39% are unsure).
And while it is sometimes asserted that Jewish social liberalism is balanced by economic moderation, that's only true as a matter of degree. Two-thirds support tax increases on persons making over $200,000/year, 62% feel that banks and financial institutions pose a "major threat", and 61% say they tend to favor unions over corporations when they hear about a strike (to be fair, when the corporations are run by guys like this, it's easy to root against them).
Oh, and on Israel/Palestine? No surprises there either. Jews tend to think Israel wants peace and Palestinians do not. But perhaps the most striking finding was their opinion regarding a settlement freeze. Though opinions were divided, a plurality of 40% believes that the Israel government should freeze settlements, versus only 22% opposed (39% are unsure).
Same-Sex Marriage as a Make-Up Call
As you may have heard, the 1st Circuit in an opinion by Judge Boudin just struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (defining marriage for purpose of federal law solely as existing between a man and a woman). Good commentary from Dale Carpenter and Ruthann Robson. Of course, everyone (1st Circuit included) expects this to be resolved by the Supreme Court.
And that got me to thinking. The swing vote, as always, is Justice Kennedy (though DOMA raises important federalism issues that theoretically sway some conservative justices -- well, just color me dubious on that). While Justice Kennedy has distinguished himself as a relatively friendly Justice for LGBT litigants -- writing important majority opinions in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas -- there is of course no guarantee how he would vote on the motherlode issue of same-sex marriage. However, it strikes me as relevant that these issues are coming to a head around the same time as the PPACA litigation.
Why? Well, the fact that he's got two major historical decisions coming his way in relatively close succession gives him the chance to "split the baby". Let's say he votes to strike down the Affordable Care Act. Liberals are outraged. A year later, a same-sex marriage case comes to the Court, and he strikes down that law too. Suddenly, he's a liberal hero again. The same-sex marriage opinion gives him a chance to cleanse the prior vote -- making up for it and assuring himself that he's "centrist" and "middle of the road". The known prospect of a liberal-friendly SSM decision gives him the cognitive space to make a conservative-friendly decision on the ACA (or perhaps vice versa).
Of course, this is all vague speculation at this point. But part of my read on Justice Kennedy is he likes to regress to the mean. An anti-ACA decision would represent a major slide to the right -- it would not surprise me if he quickly tried to counterbalance it with a counterweight on the left.
And that got me to thinking. The swing vote, as always, is Justice Kennedy (though DOMA raises important federalism issues that theoretically sway some conservative justices -- well, just color me dubious on that). While Justice Kennedy has distinguished himself as a relatively friendly Justice for LGBT litigants -- writing important majority opinions in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas -- there is of course no guarantee how he would vote on the motherlode issue of same-sex marriage. However, it strikes me as relevant that these issues are coming to a head around the same time as the PPACA litigation.
Why? Well, the fact that he's got two major historical decisions coming his way in relatively close succession gives him the chance to "split the baby". Let's say he votes to strike down the Affordable Care Act. Liberals are outraged. A year later, a same-sex marriage case comes to the Court, and he strikes down that law too. Suddenly, he's a liberal hero again. The same-sex marriage opinion gives him a chance to cleanse the prior vote -- making up for it and assuring himself that he's "centrist" and "middle of the road". The known prospect of a liberal-friendly SSM decision gives him the cognitive space to make a conservative-friendly decision on the ACA (or perhaps vice versa).
Of course, this is all vague speculation at this point. But part of my read on Justice Kennedy is he likes to regress to the mean. An anti-ACA decision would represent a major slide to the right -- it would not surprise me if he quickly tried to counterbalance it with a counterweight on the left.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
It Takes Two
Recently, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has been floating a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank if peace talks stutter. Today, Palestinian officials firmly rejected that possibility, arguing that it would perpetuate the conflict and pose a barrier to a comprehensive and lasting solution to it.
There are plenty of things appealing about a unilateral withdrawal, and plenty of legitimate dangers (the Gaza experience illuminates both). But the Palestinians firm rejection of unilateral Israeli action is important, because it establishes that "ending the occupation" is not entirely in Israeli hands. It's not entirely in Palestinian hands either, of course. It's simply the fact that for a deal to happen, both sides are going to have to put the work in. Hence, any description of the conflict that puts the onus or blame entirely on one side is missing the point. Even the PA does not want this conflict solved via force of Israeli will alone.
There are plenty of things appealing about a unilateral withdrawal, and plenty of legitimate dangers (the Gaza experience illuminates both). But the Palestinians firm rejection of unilateral Israeli action is important, because it establishes that "ending the occupation" is not entirely in Israeli hands. It's not entirely in Palestinian hands either, of course. It's simply the fact that for a deal to happen, both sides are going to have to put the work in. Hence, any description of the conflict that puts the onus or blame entirely on one side is missing the point. Even the PA does not want this conflict solved via force of Israeli will alone.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Out of Many
Newt Gingrich renders his apologia for birtherism:
Ooh, ooh, let me play! "People keep saying lynching is about racism. But look at all the Black people who have never been lynched! Clearly, it's not about Black people, but about powerful emotions that surround the uppity ones, and when the media calls it 'racism', that's just another device to shield their radical agenda."
Seriously, though, it is interesting to watch the Republican establishment realize that it's not going to be able to contain birtherism. So it has to conduct rationales for it that excuse the misbehavior. If they had a zero-tolerance policy against birtherism, they'd lose half their base at this point.
“I know that there is a desperate need to attach racism to everything but in fact I think that Donald Trump said what he said because it’s the right thing for him to say,” Gingrich said to reporters in the lobby of the Trump Hotel here. “I think that Obama creates very powerful emotions about him, largely because of the radicalism of his views. I think that's the key fact.”
Trump's widely discredited claims about Obama's birth certificate overshadowed GOP front-runner Mitt Romney's message on the economy last Thursday, yet Gingrich said that it’s a media-driven story.
“Nobody runs around saying whether Colonel [Allen] West was born in the United States. He's an African American you know. He's a congressman. Nobody runs around and says was Tim Scott born in the United States. He's a congressman. He's an African American,” he said. “So the idea of asserting that any charge against Obama somehow manages magically in the media to get back to racism, I think is just one more device to protect Obama.”
Ooh, ooh, let me play! "People keep saying lynching is about racism. But look at all the Black people who have never been lynched! Clearly, it's not about Black people, but about powerful emotions that surround the uppity ones, and when the media calls it 'racism', that's just another device to shield their radical agenda."
Seriously, though, it is interesting to watch the Republican establishment realize that it's not going to be able to contain birtherism. So it has to conduct rationales for it that excuse the misbehavior. If they had a zero-tolerance policy against birtherism, they'd lose half their base at this point.
Artur Davis' Turn for the Worse
Former Alabama Democratic Rep. Artur Davis has announced he is switching parties, though he has not committed to a renewed political career (if he did run, however, it would be in Virginia, not Alabama).
There's a lot of "good riddance" being put out there. And I certainly see where that comes from. But I find my feelings are mixed -- while I am deeply disappointed in the man Rep. Davis has become, I also recall the fall from what he once was.
At one point, Davis was considered a rising star amongst young African-American politicians. And while he had already spent several term in Congress (knocking off incumbent Democrat Earl Hilliard to get there)*, it was the 2010 Alabama gubernatorial race that looked to be his coming out party. Young, smart, and Harvard-educated, Davis cut a character that folks thought might have cross-over appeal and could bite into the overwhelming margins White voters were providing to Republican candidates statewide -- a Barack Obama for the south.
But therein lay the problem: Davis looked ahead to the general election and took his base for granted. He tacked hard to the right, assuming that the Black voters who made the core of Alabama's Democratic activists would continue to support him -- particularly given that his main opponent was the White Agricultural Commissioner Ron Sparks. He voted against the Affordable Care Act and spurned the local Black leadership. And come election day, he was not just beaten but throttled by Sparks, who took home over 60% of the vote. Rep. Davis had made an elementary mistake -- he assumed that Black voters vote on basis of race, not policy. And his rising star came crashing to earth.
After that defeat, Davis turned hard against the Democratic Party, and his recent moves reek of sour grapes. The breaking point was his endorsement of the voter fraud panic, a "problem" that is by all empirical accounts mostly non-existent but has been an effective pretext for purging the rolls of valid voters, many people of color.
The thing is, I saw Rep. Davis in Congress, and I remember being extraordinarily impressed by his savvy and intelligence. Artur Davis is a smart man, and that's what makes his decision so infuriating. He's smart enough to know that "voter fraud" is a fraud, but he's also smart enough to know that jumping on that train is a fast way to leap to prominence amongst the GOP, who are always looking for Black faces to say what White audiences want to hear.
The tragedy is that someone as smart and talented as Davis is deciding to use his talents like this -- trying to exploit the game to put himself in power, rather than to do good for the nation. People say good riddance, and in a sense they're right to -- someone who sells out like this does not deserve our respect. But I can't help but feel a twinge of regret. Artur Davis' story could have had so many endings. It's a shame he chose this one.
* I distinctly remember the Davis/Hilliard race because Hilliard had issued several anti-Israel votes (as well as a solidarity trip to Libya), which put him on the radar screen of the pro-Israel and Jewish Democratic community. Davis received strong support in the Jewish community at the start of his career (people say he received money from AIPAC, but that's strictly speaking inaccurate -- AIPAC doesn't have a political action committee and does not give money to candidates. It is true that he received strong support from various Jewish and pro-Israel groups -- both Davis and Hilliard received most of their large donations from out-of-state as the race began to be seen as a referendum on mid-east policy), and I think many of us had warm feelings towards him as someone who was responsive to us when we were feeling hurt or aggrieved. Again, that makes it more difficult when you see what he's receded into.
But in a sense, Hilliard's defeat (like Cynthia McKinney's similar defeats in Georgia) wasn't about who ran against him, but about the voters who made a decision to listen. The Jewish community said to them "your representative is hurting us", and they responded. Every minority group should be so lucky as to have their claims of hurt be met with empathy like that. I try to be empathic in the same way to others, so that when I'm a position where my community is alleged to be causing a hurt, I do my best to be responsive as well. So, no matter how Congressman Davis' career ends, Jewish voters owe a debt of gratitude to the voters of the Alabama 7th District surrounding how it began.
There's a lot of "good riddance" being put out there. And I certainly see where that comes from. But I find my feelings are mixed -- while I am deeply disappointed in the man Rep. Davis has become, I also recall the fall from what he once was.
At one point, Davis was considered a rising star amongst young African-American politicians. And while he had already spent several term in Congress (knocking off incumbent Democrat Earl Hilliard to get there)*, it was the 2010 Alabama gubernatorial race that looked to be his coming out party. Young, smart, and Harvard-educated, Davis cut a character that folks thought might have cross-over appeal and could bite into the overwhelming margins White voters were providing to Republican candidates statewide -- a Barack Obama for the south.
But therein lay the problem: Davis looked ahead to the general election and took his base for granted. He tacked hard to the right, assuming that the Black voters who made the core of Alabama's Democratic activists would continue to support him -- particularly given that his main opponent was the White Agricultural Commissioner Ron Sparks. He voted against the Affordable Care Act and spurned the local Black leadership. And come election day, he was not just beaten but throttled by Sparks, who took home over 60% of the vote. Rep. Davis had made an elementary mistake -- he assumed that Black voters vote on basis of race, not policy. And his rising star came crashing to earth.
After that defeat, Davis turned hard against the Democratic Party, and his recent moves reek of sour grapes. The breaking point was his endorsement of the voter fraud panic, a "problem" that is by all empirical accounts mostly non-existent but has been an effective pretext for purging the rolls of valid voters, many people of color.
The thing is, I saw Rep. Davis in Congress, and I remember being extraordinarily impressed by his savvy and intelligence. Artur Davis is a smart man, and that's what makes his decision so infuriating. He's smart enough to know that "voter fraud" is a fraud, but he's also smart enough to know that jumping on that train is a fast way to leap to prominence amongst the GOP, who are always looking for Black faces to say what White audiences want to hear.
The tragedy is that someone as smart and talented as Davis is deciding to use his talents like this -- trying to exploit the game to put himself in power, rather than to do good for the nation. People say good riddance, and in a sense they're right to -- someone who sells out like this does not deserve our respect. But I can't help but feel a twinge of regret. Artur Davis' story could have had so many endings. It's a shame he chose this one.
* I distinctly remember the Davis/Hilliard race because Hilliard had issued several anti-Israel votes (as well as a solidarity trip to Libya), which put him on the radar screen of the pro-Israel and Jewish Democratic community. Davis received strong support in the Jewish community at the start of his career (people say he received money from AIPAC, but that's strictly speaking inaccurate -- AIPAC doesn't have a political action committee and does not give money to candidates. It is true that he received strong support from various Jewish and pro-Israel groups -- both Davis and Hilliard received most of their large donations from out-of-state as the race began to be seen as a referendum on mid-east policy), and I think many of us had warm feelings towards him as someone who was responsive to us when we were feeling hurt or aggrieved. Again, that makes it more difficult when you see what he's receded into.
But in a sense, Hilliard's defeat (like Cynthia McKinney's similar defeats in Georgia) wasn't about who ran against him, but about the voters who made a decision to listen. The Jewish community said to them "your representative is hurting us", and they responded. Every minority group should be so lucky as to have their claims of hurt be met with empathy like that. I try to be empathic in the same way to others, so that when I'm a position where my community is alleged to be causing a hurt, I do my best to be responsive as well. So, no matter how Congressman Davis' career ends, Jewish voters owe a debt of gratitude to the voters of the Alabama 7th District surrounding how it began.
What Exactly Did the UNWTO Do?
This Guardian story is claiming that a UN body has made Zimbabwean autocrat Robert Mugabe into a "leader for tourism". Such an honorific sounds like a terrible idea, and indeed, human rights groups and opposition members of Zimbabwe's besieged civil society are outraged, while supporters of Mugabe's ZANU-PF party are crowing. So I'm all set to be outraged.
But then at the very end of the article is a statement by the relevant UN body denying that it had appointed Mugabe to anything. The UNWTO instead issued an "open letter" to heads of states asking them to be "leaders for tourism". That letter "mplies no legal commitment or title attribution to the country or the head of state or government in question."
Now this doesn't quite settle things either -- it is unclear whether this letter was sent to every head of state, or just ones specifically selected by the UNWTO, and if the latter, how the selection process proceeded. But it seems at least possible that this really isn't any sort of official honoring of Mugabe by the UN, and I found the Guardian article particularly unhelpful in illuminating what, exactly, is going on here.
But then at the very end of the article is a statement by the relevant UN body denying that it had appointed Mugabe to anything. The UNWTO instead issued an "open letter" to heads of states asking them to be "leaders for tourism". That letter "mplies no legal commitment or title attribution to the country or the head of state or government in question."
Now this doesn't quite settle things either -- it is unclear whether this letter was sent to every head of state, or just ones specifically selected by the UNWTO, and if the latter, how the selection process proceeded. But it seems at least possible that this really isn't any sort of official honoring of Mugabe by the UN, and I found the Guardian article particularly unhelpful in illuminating what, exactly, is going on here.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Watch Dogs
Will Smith is raising his daughter to take ownership of her body. Stuyvesant High School is teaching its female charges that powerful men are always watching and leering at teenage women who should be ashamed of their dirty, slutty bodies. I have little else to say except the women they talk to are very impressive in articulating the problems with the high school's enforcement of its dress code, and Phoebe -- as an alum of the school -- has an excellent perspective of her own.
In marginally related news, I was all set to archly ask: if participants in the sport of pole dancing are so concerned about shedding their activity's racy reputation, why are they all in bikinis? But to my impressed surprise, one of the women had an answer, and it wasn't "so people pay attention to us" (it was that they need exposed skin to stick to the poles for some of their tricks).
In marginally related news, I was all set to archly ask: if participants in the sport of pole dancing are so concerned about shedding their activity's racy reputation, why are they all in bikinis? But to my impressed surprise, one of the women had an answer, and it wasn't "so people pay attention to us" (it was that they need exposed skin to stick to the poles for some of their tricks).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
