Wow, It's a Good Thing I Don't Blog Anonymously

I've probably annoyed a few people with the posts I've written on this blog. Frankly, I don't think I'd be doing my job if I didn't. But if I hadn't stopped blogging anonymously in the very earliest days of the venture, this penchant for aggrevation might have gotten me in trouble.

John Cole tallies another marker on his Bush-regret chart.

Pretty Please

I'm always amazed at those who, in what they appear to think is a very clever riposte, tell pro-war bloggers (like myself) that we should have "asked the Iraqis" first. I'm always curious how the proposed that be done? Should we have commissioned a poll? I'm sure Saddam would have been very receptive to that. Maybe we could have had him run the poll! I can call out the results now:

0% for invasion, 100% for eternal Ba'ath rule. 100% say life in Iraq is "divine", 0% say it is excellent, good, fair, or poor. 98% say Saddam Hussein is God, 2% say he's mortal. Whoops, those 2% got executed--100% for "God." Woohoo! Perfect score!

The odds that we could have gotten a response from the Iraqi people that would have been clear enough to assuage the anti-war left is nil. Besides, it's a disingenuous claim anyway. Even had they made a clear request for a military intervention, I don't think the left would support it. How do I know? Simple: I don't see any DKos post advocating for a US invasion of Myanmar:

For proof of how grim things have become in Myanmar, consider how locals talk about America's invasion of Iraq. There is no griping about violations of Iraqi sovereignty, no carping about the mysterious absence of weapons of mass destruction, no horror at the bloodthirsty insurgency that has ensued. Only one criticism is ever voiced: why hasn't America invaded Myanmar too? A monk, a taxi driver, a student, all shyly ask your correspondent whether America might not be prevailed upon to topple their dictatorial regime next. The country is stuck in such a rut that the prospect of a foreign invasion is a fond hope, not a fear. [The Economist, "The Mess the Army Has Made--Myanmar," 7/23/05]

So let's hear it, folks! I'm waiting for a pro-war march by the left to send our boys back to Southeast Asia. After all, we asked first, and the locals said: go for it.

Incidentally, I've been asked before why, given that I supported the war in Iraq, why I didn't support and/instead a war in North Korea, Sudan, Iran, or any number of other countries. The answer is complex. First and foremost, Iraq is what was on the table. Advocating blindly for an intervention in Sudan that wasn't going to happen would be an exercise in futility. Iraq wasn't. Second, there is at some level a cost-benefit analysis I did--I'll admit it--based on how much good the US could do versus the costs it would inflict on us. Some countries, like North Korea and Iran, could have inflicted catastrophic losses on American forces. Just because I'm an idealist doesn't make me insane--I want to make sure we're being practical in our foreign adventures. An Iraq war, done right and competently from the start, could do amazing good at minimum cost. And in spite of this administration's incompetence, I still believe that it was possible.

In any event, the point is at some level moot. We're there, and we have an obligation not to abandon them now, regardless of whether we had the duty to assist them in the first place. The latter question is an important debate--there is much to be said for both sides. The former, though, is no question. There is no option but victory.

Test of Will

According to CNN, the two declared candidates to replace Tom DeLay as House Majority Leader are John Boehner (OH) and Roy Blunt (MO).

I don't know much about the former. I have vague recollections of him being important in the Gingrich Revolution--#4 in the House Leadership or something--but then falling out of favor. It seems he's primed for a comeback (or, depending on your perspective, payback).

I do know of Representative Blunt, however. A member of the dirty thirteen, Blunt is cut straight from DeLay's mold--K street connected, sleazy, money-grubbing, hackish, and corrupt as hell. in fact, many consider him to be DeLay's protege, and by all accounts the student has learned well from the master.

Who Republicans choose in this race will speak volumes about how committed they are to the K Street Crowd. Will they try and clean house (so to speak)? Or will they keep on going for more of the same?

Conditions of Victory

Here is why I'll never join the anti-war movement (abbreviated version here). At a forum hosted by Representative Bob Filner (D-CA), "Citizen Smash", AKA the Indepundit, asking the anti-war congressman about victory in Iraq. Specifically, he inquired:

Are you committed to the success of our military in Iraq, or are you resigned to failure?

He proceeded to clarify "success" as "a stable, representative government that is capable of protecting itself against threats, without outside assistance."

Representative Filner didn't buy that definition. He proposed a different metric for success:

...Look, if you define success as "democracy," you know, why -- why would you choose Iraq to go anywhere, anyway? I mean, why are we supporting Saudi Arabia, or whatever? So, success can't be "democracy." Success can't be "lack of autocracy," because we support autocrats other places.

Success, it seems to me for these guys, is control of, not only the -- the strategic positioning, but the oil. So, success for me would say, "we don't need your lousy oil." We could start -- we could put -- we can run this whole country off renewable energy, right this minute.

And, we -- we wouldn't even care what happened in Iraq. Like we don't care what's going on in Africa, and we don't care what's going on in Saudi Arabia, we don't care what's going on in all these other nations... [emphasis added]

That is, to say the least, morally appalling. It defines victory wholly in terms of what benefits us, with not even a nod toward Iraqi lives or their future. And the end result is that "we wouldn't even [have to?] care what happened in Iraq." In other words, the end result is crypto-isolationism, where the status of the rest of the world is immaterial and irrelevant to American interests, where we are wholly independent and removed from the sufferings in the impoverished world.

Some might try to salvage the good Representatives rhetoric by saying that he wants to aggressively promote human rights in all countries, as opposed to singularly focusing on oil-producing nations. That may be, although it is difficult to ascertain this from his website, as it contains no mention of his foreign policy views. The problem is that I have yet to see a concerted and aggressive effort by anti-war congressional Democrats to bring about real human rights change elsewhere in the world. That's not to say that I think Representative Filner and his cohorts doesn't care about Human Rights violations in Iraq or Afghanistan or where-ever, because I'm sure they do. It's that I think the temptation of complacency will become to great--even if they supports strong action in the abstract, I don't think they have the political fortitude to aggressively pursue their enactment as real world policy. Which means that the end result is isolationism--and frankly, I'm not convinced that's a prospect that bothers Filner and his allies too much. Moreover, regardless of whether Filner is willing to invest in alternative methods in the long-term, it still tells us nothing about why he doesn't consider a stable, democratic, and secure Iraq to be a victory in the short-term. There does not seem to be any reason to substitute oil politics for democracy in the present case, even if we may wish to challenge the tactics we used to secure those ends. In other-words, regardless of why we went in, we should go out leaving in our wake freedom and democracy, not Hybrid cars. To make such a selfish standard of victory is a slap in the face to the Iraqi people, and there is no other way to interpret it.

It is unfortunate that much of the commentary is rote-repetitive "Democrats are stupid!" (I of course exempt my Moderate Voice colleague from this attack). It's unfortunate because Citizen Smash himself is a serious blogger who, as far as I can tell, seriously believes in this mission not as a partisan issue but a moral one. The only way we're going to win this war is if we view in that light. Even John Kerry, with his "Pottery Barn" principle, accepted this (at least through the 2004 election campaign): "You break it, you buy it." But as I noted with regards to Bush's latest Iraq speech, the political discourse surrounding Iraq has, on both sides, largely consisted of political extremists seeking to use the events to partisan advantage. The people who are hurt are American soldiers left bereft of competent policy, and Iraqi civilians who have been given no indication that the progressive left cares about their future. This isn't sustainable, and I blame our whole political community for sending them down this road to hell. They deserve better.

Blogging As Scholarship As Struggle

Major points to anyone who can identify the allusion.

Anyway, Paul Caron blogs on an AALS panel on the quite salient topic (to me anyway) of blogging by law faculty members (H/T: Orin Kerr). The three panel participants were Larry Solum (Legal Theory blog), Vic Fleischer (Conglomerate), and Randy Barnett (Volokh Conspiracy).

There seemed to be a fair amount of trepidation about blogging by junior faculty, most manifest in the fear that senior faculty might get offended by a comment and retaliate come tenure time. Other issues were time management and self-regulation. However, Professor Fleischer pointed out that blogging can also raise a young scholars profile and get her/him invited to conferences, test-run new ideas, and get immediate feedback. So while I recognize the concerns, I think that for the careful pre-tenure professor, blogging can still be a professional perk.

On the more meta-level, I agree with Professor Solum that blogging will not transplant but complement traditional scholarship. I know this argument has been made before, but to briefly reprise--blogging is fast and allows for immediate reactions, while traditional scholarship is slower but more meticulous. Both have functions--and its been interesting to see how law journals are incorporating smaller, quicker, bite-sized pieces into their publishing (the Yale Law Journal's Pocket Part, for one). In any event, it sounds like an interesting discussion--wish I could have been there.

UPDATE: See also Dan Markel.

Down and Out

Texas Rep. and Corruption King Tom DeLay is done as House Majority Leader, and will not seek to regain the post. Oh life can be beautiful some times. The Corner has the condemneds press release, including this gem:

"During my time in Congress, I have always acted in an ethical manner within the rules of our body and the laws of our land. I am fully confident time will bear this out."

Oh Tom, Tom, Tom. Need I remind you of this?

Mr. Hurt: Have you ever crossed the line of ethical behavior in terms of dealing with lobbyists, your use of government authority or with fundraising?
Mr. DeLay: Ever is a very strong word. [Washington Times Interview, 4/14/05]

I should say that The Corner reminds me of a Strom Thurmond retirement party right now--they're just falling over themselves to praise DeLay (couched in suitable rhetoric about how, if he really is corrupt, then forget it). You have to think eventually they're going to shoot themselves in the foot. Will it be Podhertz?

Very elegantly done....DeLay has wisely decided to retreat for now to fight again another day.

At least one center-leftist, however, thinks DeLay is done for good--not just in the leadership office, but in Washington.

Or perhaps Lowry:

He did the right thing, and this does leave an opening for a comeback. He was a fantastic majority leader, arguably--as Rich Galen said yesterday I believe--the best ever. He had an uncanny knack for reading the votes and persuading members. This was not a matter of him being "The Hammer," as the media would have it. As a colleague put it the other day, he was more like "The Concierge," doing favors, soothing hurts, taking care of his members so they would be there when they were really needed on a key vote.

I actually some what agree with the "concierge" description, in the most mafia-esque sense of the term. He could do favors, massage "family members", be a great friend. And if you displeased him, he could get you whacked. Ice cold.

Kos, of course, is delighted in a sort of "as if this isn't pure politics" sort of way. One of the more interesting things I've read is about Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), whose name has been floating around as a possible majority leader replacement. On the one hand, he's a DeLay ally, but on the other hand, he's an ex-FBI agent who did work on corruption cases. In a superficial media environment, that could give him and the GOP instant credibility on combatting corruption.

In any event, I don't know whether or not this is the tip of the iceberg that will sink the GOP's Titanic, or will work as an effective dodge and retrenchment that will nimbly avoid the ethical hounding they so deserve. But at least for one day, for one event, justice has prevailed.

Questioning the Nominees

Apropos my previous posting on the ethics of questioning judicial nominees, I think folks may be interested in this brief article by Yale Law Professors Reva Siegel and Robert Post. They argue that we should question judges on how they would have ruled on already decided cases as a tool for determining their constitutional philosophy. They then defend their plan against Separation of Powers, Due Process of Law, Appearance of Impropriety, and Politicization of the Judiciary objections. Very interesting piece.

Responses are given by Erwin Chemerinsky (Duke), Laurence Tribe (Harvard), Steven Lubet (Northwestern), and Randy Barnett (Boston University). Of these, Professor Barnett's compelling criticism was my favorite (although Professor Lubet's statement that Antonin Scalia, as a nominee, had refused to answer questions about Marbury v. Madison on the grounds the case may be challenged in the future may have been the single most interesting nugget), though some of his objections were addressed in the responses of the other three. Essentially, he argues that judges should be pressed on their interpretation of particular constitutional clauses, not cases. The reason for this is primarily that a case-based approach a) will be results-oriented, because saying one would vote against X case implies to the public mind that they'd vote against X's real-world result, and b) will privilege the status quo, because the cases that will be selected will almost definitely be part of our constitutional canon/anti-canon and will require judges to proclaim their support accordingly. Fair points, but I think that his critique in some ways falls flat, because the problem it identifies is the problem inherent a process in which judicial nominee are confirmed by a polarized democratic body. Views which are anti-canonical or privilege the status quo are always going to be at a severe disadvantage--this is true regardless of whether we're talking about "lost constitution" libertarians on the right (like Professor Barnett) or Critical Race Theorists on the left. Asking about clauses may ameliorate this to some extent, but only because its more obtuse--it is easier to spin an interpretation of the 14th amendment in such a way that it makes opposition difficult (or more likely, difficult to articulate in a way that will be popularly compelling) than it is to explain why thinking Roe was wrong doesn't mean you oppose women's rights. This is the core dilemma, between transparency (which forces judges into mainstream centrism) and political awareness (which mandates some compromises if alternative legal perspectives are ever going to see light of day). There is no doubt it is a problem, but I feel that Professor Barnett only lays out the opposing side, rather than engaging in some sort of weighing mechanism that would let us adjudicate between the poles.

Professor Barnett comments further on his blog, as does Marty Lederman. Overall, very cool stuff.

Quick Con Law Question

Probably a foolish one, but whatever--and we're on the topic in my Constitutional Law class, so may as well address it now.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution reads, in part, that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States." This clause, as far as I understand it, was meant to overrule the Supreme Court's decision in Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833), which held that the bill of rights was inapplicable to the states.

However, prior to the passage of the 14th amendment, the constitution already had similar clause in Article IV, Section II, which states that "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." In fact, the framers of the 14th amendment specifically and deliberately used language to mirror the pre-existing constitutional text.

I understand that the 14th amendment's language is slightly more clear and specific than that found in Article IV. But I am curious: what was the purporse or practical effect of the Article IV language originally? Why was it including in the constitution?

Jews Without The Mossad

That's how Martin Peretz describes Iraqi Shiites. And given the atrocities inflicted upon them by Sunni terrorists daily, it's hard to disagree.

The gruesome Sunni killings of Shia go on and on. They went on today when some 50 innocents were murdered at prayer in Karbala. The truth is that there is no outrage or even polite disapproval from the Sunni world where this bloodlust nests. It is a fact of life, and we are by now accustomed to thinking it immutable. Like Sunni Palestinians kill Israeli Jews, Sunni Arabs also kill Shia Arabs. But in much greater numbers. After all, the latter are heretics. So why not? And, of course, the Shia do not have a Mossad. And they do not have checkpoints or barriers. To be sure, many people think that every conflict can be pacified by sufficient goodwill and ingenuity. Some American commentators believe, for example, that if only the Sunni receive their "fair" share of Iraq's oil revenues and their "fair" share of representation in the government in Baghdad and their "only fair" veto rights the mass murders will stop--that 30 Shia will no longer be bombed to death in a funeral procession at Miqdadiya. The Sunni Arabs of Iraq are not victims of anything except their delusions that they--in reality, a small minority of the country--were meant to govern because they are Allah's people and a majority besides.

Brutal.

Various Political News

It was the first day of classes today. I'm a bit off--we had virtually no work and I still can't find the energy to blog. Not good. But here are some interesting links to the day's news.

White House Spokesman Scott McClellan breaks with party, supports...mom.

Warning: Republican staffers can be crazy.

Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman may be running for Senate. Umm...I guess I'm excited, but isn't he tied to the mob?

Phoebe Maltz on why the Dreyfus Affair matters to more than just "Francophilic Zionists". And I liked my AP History classes too, Phoebe.

Bull Moose begs to be ignored.

Professor Bainbridge wants an "extended edition" of the Harry Potter flicks, a la Lord of the Rings. I understand the sentiment, but I don't know if I can stand more of that awful acting. So unless the entire extra portion is dedicated solely to Severus Snape (Alan Rickman), count me out.

Compare Powerline versus Crooked Timber on the merits of Plame/NSA leak comparisons (a hint: they disagree).

This one's a bit older, but I loved this post on stock image constructions of Africa by Westerners. I probably made that sound boring--it isn't.

Only a small subset of the blogosphere will care that Constitutional Law and Church/State expert Douglas Laycock is moving from the University of Texas to the University of Michigan. Interesting factoid revealed--he attended Michigan State University as an undergrad. Know who else did? Constitutional law and Church/State expert Michael W. McConnell, currently on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and, in my opinion, one of the more brilliant writers I've ever read. What is in the water in East Lansing?

I've been negligent in blogging on the Mining Tragedy, but West Virginia resident John Cole has a must-read post on the subject. This Kevin Drum post also raises questions.

And that's it. Everything else on the internet today is crap. I do feel badly though--I feel like I've promised a true return to blogging for some time now while constantly short-shrifting y'all. So wish me luck to get back into my rhythm as the term gets started.

Full Moon Rising

A Maryland judge has just ruled that mooning, while "disgusting", is not illegal in our lovely state. The attorney for the defendant stated (and I'm not making this up):

yesterday's ruling should "bring comfort to all beachgoers and plumbers" in the state.

It's so good to live in a progressive state. Plumbers' Rights!

True Activism

Tom Parker is a Justice on the Alabama Supreme Court. He is, I presume, a very intelligent man, with an undergraduate degree from Dartmouth and a law degree from Vanderbilt. But I am at a loss to explain this op-ed, where he blasts his follow Alabama Justices for not ignoring the Supreme Court's clear precedent in Roper v. Simmons. Specifically, he argued the following:

You see, my fellow Alabama justices freed [Renaldo] Adams from death row not because of any error of our courts but because they chose to passively accommodate -- rather than actively resist -- the unconstitutional opinion of five liberal justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.
[...]
The proper response to such blatant judicial tyranny would have been for the Alabama Supreme Court to decline to follow Roper in the Adams case. By keeping Adams on death row, our Supreme Court would have defended both the U.S. Constitution and Alabama law (thereby upholding their judicial oaths of office) and, at the same time, provided an occasion for the U.S. Supreme Court, with at least two new members, to reconsider the Roper decision.
[...]
State supreme courts may decline to follow bad U.S. Supreme Court precedents because those decisions bind only the parties to the particular case. Judges around the country normally follow precedents in similar cases because they know that if those cases go before the Court again they are likely to receive the same verdict. But state supreme court judges should not follow obviously wrong decisions simply because they are "precedents."

Justice Parker has to know better than this. Inferior court judges are not at liberty to simply ignore precedent because they see fit. And there is no warrant to suggest that the only reason they do follow said precedent is because if they choose not to, the Court will overturn their verdict. Precedents serve to provide stability and predictability in our judicial proceedings, both attributes conservatives should love. Judges who ignore superior court mandates are engaging in clear activism--ignoring the strictures of law in favor of their own personal whims and desires. There simply is no way around it.

Steve Vladeck comments further:

This strikes me as not only very wrong, but also very dangerous. As pertains to interpretations of the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter, and its decisions are binding on every court in the United States, no matter how "wrong" it may be. State supreme court judges who think they're not bound to follow the federal Supreme Court's reading of the federal Constitution might want to re-read Article VI thereof (not to mention Marbury and, at the very least, Cooper v. Aaron).

It's ironic that the already barely plausible justification Justice Parker gives for his activism, that the new judges on the Supreme Court may assist in overturning Roper, is virtually inconceivable. As is noted by Douglas Berman, none of the judges being replaced were part of the Roper majority, so even if all of the new appointees vote to overturn (and given all the pains Alito and Roberts have taken to assure us they "respect precedent", that may not be a sure bet), the result wouldn't change unless the newbies could persuade a member of the majority to defect.

But for me, the kicker is this quote from Parker's own court biography (first link at the top of the post):

Justice Tom Parker was elected to the Alabama Supreme Court in November 2004. Immediately prior to that, he was the Special Projects Manager for The Foundation for Moral Law, where he coordinated a federal legislative effort, under Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, to combat judicial activism.[emphasis added]

My how the proud have fallen. Or perhaps "combat[ing] judicial activism" was always code for implementing conservative policies?

One final note I'd like to add. Many commentators are saying that a judge merely writing an op-ed attacking an opinion by one's colleagues is in itself reprehensible. I'm open to being persuaded on the matter, but I have to admit that aspect doesn't bother me. This editorial does not strike me as substantially different than something Parker would have written as an "angry dissent" if he hadn't recused himself from the case at hand. I do think that his recusal was appropriate in this case, to be sure. And I know that judges traditionally have not participated in the rough-and-tumble of mainstream journalism. But I fail to see why what would have likely been his same words in a dissenting opinion become inappropriate when written in an editorial.

Hockey Heartthrobs

Greetings, boys and girls. I'm still settling in here at Carleton, so no major blogging yet. The trip in to Minnesota was slightly delayed and generally annoying, but otherwise uneventful. After I got to college, I hung out with some friends and generally frolicked. Nothing too crazy.

I did, however, want to share something from the copy of "The Hockey News" I read on the plane. I am, as you may know, a bit of a fan of the sport. However, this issue, I discovered 33,000 feet in the air, was their attempt at a "humor" addition. Not a particularly successful attempt either. The worst consistent mistake was that many of their anecdotes and jokes were repeated throughout the issue as if new. But the most amusing discrepancy came in their description of semi-star Mike Ricci. See if you can spot the difference.

A heartthrob to women in Denver for his Italian bad boy looks, Ricci was getting hit on one night at a Denver bar... [pg. 80]

and

Gap-tooth with scraggly long hair and a busted-up schnoz, ex-Sharks forward Mike Ricci isn't exactly a supermodel...[pg. 117]

Arghh! Fact-check, fact-check!!!!

No Good Answers

It is unfortunate that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict often leaves one in a position where there are no good answers. I labor under no illusions that Israel's security barrier ("barrier" striking me as the most value-neutral term for the entity separating Israel and Palestine--since it changes forms quite often along the route, calling it either a "wall" or a "fence" would both be inaccurate and prejudicial) is something we should cheer about; it incurs real costs on both Israelis and Palestinians that should not be minimized or shunted aside. At the same time, the wall/checkpoint system has real and crucial security benefits for Israel that are critical and unreplicable. I am truly sorry for the tremendous inconvenience the barrier places on the Palestinians who need to navigate it. I am not willing to let suicide bombers blow up children's parties because of that sorrow.

I wrote earlier of my anticipation of Professor Adrien Wing's "part II" blog post on her trip to Israel and the West Bank. I expressed hope that Professor Wing could present the relevant issues in a balanced way, with both a sensitivity to the Palestinian's plight while recognizing Israel's legitimate security interests as well. Though it could have been worse, I feel she fell far short of that goal.

She begins:

The Israelis have militarily occupied the West Bank where Bethlehem is located since 1967 along with the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and other areas. In the past few years, they have been building a giant wall of nearly 400 miles in the West Bank, three times as long as the Berlin Wall and twice as high. When completed, this barrier will wall in the more than 1 million Palestinians into little noncontiguous pockets of poverty and misery that many people globally say remind them of American Indian reservations or South African apartheid. Needless to say, many resent any comparisons of any aspect of the Occupation to apartheid. The wall is not located along the 1967 border lines, but instead weaves deep into Palestinian areas, separating people from their land, schools, jobs and family members. In 2004, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion that the Wall violated international law.

Oy. This is wildly distortive and Professor Wing knows or should know better. Let's just go part by part. Starting with the Berlin Wall comparison--it obviously is going to be longer than the Berlin Wall, because that was a barrier within a city and this is one between two countries. As to the height, Professor Wing should know that the barrier only rises to its total height in a select few places where it is needed to stop Palestinian sniper attacks on Israeli roadways (specifically, there are 8.5 kilometers of "wall"). That strikes me as quite legitimate. In its "normal" manifestation, the barrier is not even a solid "wall" at all but a fence, designed to stop Palestinian suicide bombers and terrorists (something it has, to even Professor Wing's acknowledgement, been extraordinarily good at).

The second argument she makes, that it will wall in "1 million Palestinians" into "noncontiguous pockets of poverty and misery." As I'm sure Professor Wing is aware, the wall at most will "wall in" 7% of the West Bank--and extends "deep into Palestinian areas" only where those areas are not predominantly Palestinian (such as the Ariel settlement bloc, and some Jerusalem suburbs). All told, around 10,000 Palestinians will be on the Israeli side of the line--though that number is fluid (partially because many Palestinians in East Jerusalem have petitioned to be moved onto the Israeli side of the line). As such, even if Israel does decided to annex the territory on its side of the wall at the end of negotiations (and it disavows such designs), this would leave the new Palestinian state with 100% of Gaza, and 93% of the West Bank including 99% of its population base there, in exchange for a huge rise in Israeli security and safety. That this is seen to be a massive imposition on Palestine just shows that Palestinian advocates have completely forgotten the meaning of a "compromise" (hint: generally, neither side gets everything it wants).

Though it isn't an argument per se, I love how she makes non-specific analogies to greater instances of global oppression, like South African apartheid that are just generic enough so that she disavow the claim herself:

many people globally say [that the barrier/checkpoint system] remind[s] them of American Indian reservations or South African apartheid. Needless to say, many resent any comparisons of any aspect of the Occupation to apartheid.

I'm thrilled that "many people" say that. Do you say that? I mean, that's quite a charge to make. Some people might say that conflation of the two situations betrays a shocking absence of moral proportionality. Some might also say that the rhetorical tactic being used, of soft insinuations of a link mixed with plausible deniability in case the charge doesn't pan out, is very reminiscent of how President Bush tried to tie Iraq to 9/11. Not me, only "some people," of course. But I do love how these particular sins seem to be so non-partisan. Sometimes, it seems like they're the only thing that are.

Finally, as an International Law expert Professor Wing should know better than cite that ICJ ruling. I stand by my original criticism of it, and upon re-read my contempt only grows. For example, even though the primary legal question was whether Israel's security concerns justified the hardships put upon the Palestinians by the barrier, the Court opinion felt it could get enough factual grounding on the former issue from "Israel's Written Statement...limited to issues of jurisdiction and judicial propriety" because it "contained observations on...Israel's concerns in terms of security" as well as information in the "public domain" [emphasis added]. Well then! I guess that's more than enough information to make a judicial ruling with massive geopolitical implications. This is especially ironic because, on one of the rare occasions the opinion even touches on security issues, it says that "on the material before it" [emphasis added], the court is unconvinced that the barrier's destruction of property is "absolutely necessary" for Israel's security. All told, not even one full paragraph is devoted to analyzing Israel's security claims (out of 162 paragraphs total).

But perhaps more upsetting than the false and misleading premises the argument is based upon, are the little phrasings and storytelling decisions designed to minimize Jewish and Israeli legitimacy in the region (call them "discursive micro-aggressions" if you will). The reference to Nablus as the "center of resistance to the Occupation", rather than a hotbed of terrorism, for example. Professor Wing refers to Tel Aviv as "considered the Israeli capitol by most countries of the world." Well pardon me if I don't give "most countries of the world" authority to strip Israel of its own actual capitol (in West Jerusalem). It should be noted that this is not a trifling slight--the existence of a Jewish state with a capitol in Jerusalem is the culmination of the 2000 year old dream that sustained our people in exile as they spent countless generations of slaughter by their Christian and Muslim peers. The effort to deny Jews this even in the face of its realization can only be interpreted as a last gasp effort to maintain the Jewish state of exile--as any good Crit knows, its far easier to keep a group down when you can deny their reality and replace it with ones own. The ability of Jews to construct their own identity has only occurred sporadically in the modern era, and for whatever reason, everytime we try the world rallies against it to crush it (whether it be by Christians calling us Satanists, Muslims calling us Crusaders, or Televangelists incorporating us as "Judeo-Christians"). She refers to the reduced rates of suicide bombing caused by the wall, but almost as a negative factor in that it may be responsible for the fact that "most of these people on the beachfront [in Tel Aviv] did not have to think on a daily basis if at all or may not be truly aware about the harsh existence of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories." In fact, this is a bit of a trend in the literature I've noticed--in the ICJ opinion, for example, the extension of the wall toward Israeli settlement blocs, far from being counted as a part of Israel's security concerns toward those Jews not being blown up, was counted as a negative factor because it legitimized the settlement campaign. The implication--unintentional, perhaps, but unavoidable--of both the former and the latter is the same--the "right" end result would be less security and more death of Jews.

I do not think that everything in Professor Wing's post is wrong. Particularly, I very much believe her description of naked racism against black Jews in Israel. I also believe that Israel has made greater strides in this field that nearly any other nation, but that only makes them the very sad king of a very small hill. More clearly needs to be done--and Jews everywhere have an obligation to stand in solidarity with their cohorts of all ethnic persuasions in their pursuit of full and equal rights. I applaud Professor Wing in bringing this issue to light for the greater blogging community. And in all honesty, I applaud her for writing this entire post as well. Nothing can change in the world without dialogue between people who have disagreements--many as ours may be. If she hadn't written this post, I'd never have written this response, and both of us would be that much farther from synthesis. The comments above should thus not be understood as a call for censorship but a request for further discussion--limited, contingent, and partial as it may be.

But it is singularly depressing just how little concern there is in her post for Jewish experience and Jewish lives. This is obviously a difficult topic to write upon, partially because of the need to separate the gravely intertwined issues of criticizing Israel and anti-Semitism. It is equally clear that the former must be possible without being accused of the latter, and that the latter can and often does inform the former. In seeking to navigate those treacherous waters, I have been greatly influenced by the incredible strides made by the CRT movement in elucidating how racism can operate subconsciously or structurally even when the individual system participants have the best of intentions. I believe that anti-Semitism can work much the same way, and that the long, broad, and deep tradition of global anti-Semitism still pervades our collective consciousness even amongst those who strive to overcome it (or believe they already have). One day, I wish to write a broader work exploring these issues. But today, only sketches exist thus far.

To someone operating within this tradition, saying "I have Jewish friends" is no different than the White conservative who answers all charges of racism with "but some of my best friends are Black." Similarly, the existence of Jews who may echo certain complaints just makes them the Semitic equivalent of a Black conservative--the closest analogue to Noam Chomsky is Clarence Thomas. This is not meant perjoratively, but simply descriptively--both are members of a minority identity group who take positions far outside the norm within said group--positions that I believe are hostile to the collective interest and play into the hands of the greater oppressive matrix. To cite just one more example, the discussion on Jerusalem as Israel's capital does not unintentionally draw from Charles Lawrence's "cultural meaning" work--the work I think can very easily be transplanted to issues of anti-Semitism, and it is a shame it hasn't happened on a greater scale. At the same time, I will admit hesitancy at some of my stronger rhetoric. Being charged of anti-Semitism (or perhaps, more accurately, being complicit in a global anti-Semitic framework) hurts, just as a similar charge about racism does. I have expressed my concerns about the expansion of these terms' discursive terrain, and they remain valid here. Even still, I believe Professor Wing knows that just as "racism" can be understood not necessarily in its classic sense of "you are an awful human being who wants all Blacks to be your inferior" but as a more subtle and nuanced (but still dangerous form), anti-Semitism is not just Holocaust-advocacy but also exist in those little blocks that construct our world such that it is hostile to Judaism and Jewish identity. And it is something we all must struggle to overcome. The world's longest running "ism" continues unabated--but somehow it stings harder when the left is leading the charge.

Assorted Jewish Blogging

A few Jew-related blog posts and articles I've stumbled across these past few days...

Julia Gorin writes a piece entitled "Dumb Jews"--presumably, she is the paradigmatic example because it is just awful (H/T: Feministe). I mean really, I have rarely seen idiocy on such a grand scale. Net story, she apparently cannot conceive that Jewish leaders can criticize both Evangelical Christians AND radical Islamists--and then (I swear I'm not making this up) she thinks that God has abandoned his "Chosen People" because we don't vote Republican. Yeah, I can imagine that ticking Him off. She continues:

Foxman also noted that 70 percent of weekly churchgoers and 76 percent of Evangelicals "agreed that 'Christianity is under attack' in this country -- a conclusion that is hard to square with their growing influence in Congress, the White House and the courts, he said."

With attacks on religion that target "In G-d we Trust", "Under G-d", tiny crosses on county seals, Christmas trees and the 10 Commandments, Christians really have nothing to fear.
[...]
There is only one group in America that is victim to bigotry on a massive scale, and that is the Christians. For those who think the minority can't oppress the majority, think again. The minority with its various minorities can oppress an entire nation.

Is she stoned? Or is this from natural causes? Somewhere along the line, getting rid of "Under G-d" has mutated into "bigotry on a massive scale." Next step, Stalinist Russia (a claim she, unsurprisingly at this point, makes as well). I'd like to think anyone with a passing knowledge of Jewish history knows that "bigotry on a massive scale" encompasses slightly more than removing overt state support for religion. Those little things like death camps, and burning Jews at stake, and tearing down synagogues--that's religious bigotry. And would someone introduce this woman to a inquisitor, so she can get off from the notion that wherever Christians are safe, Jews are too? I mean, honestly.

Fortunately, the remaining posts were slightly less likely to get my blood pressure up. David Bernstein remarks on the growing integration of Ethopian Jews into Israeli public life. This is important on several counts. First, Israel has had an unfortunate history of discrimination by the (European) Ashkanazis against the (African and Middle Eastern) Sephardim. That they are starting to move past this tradition is great news by itself. But also, Israel represents perhaps the best model of what a racially integrated society could look like. This isn't to say it is all that great--but then, no country is. Rather, I think would could plausible argue that on the race issue alone, Israel might have made more strides toward full integration than any other country in the world. People who criticize Israel as a "racist" or "apartheid" state would do well to remember that--and remember that their rhetoric completely writes out of existence the Sephardic Jewish population. They're people too, and they deserve to have a role in our political/historical dialogue.

On the subject of Israel, Iowa Law Professor Adrien Wing has given "part one" of her trip to Israel. Though this part is positive, it ends with the ominious "Unfortunately, we did not feel peace in the Holy Land." I had recalled from looking over Professor Wing's C.V. that she had done a lot of work on Palestinian legal issues, so I am particularly curious to hear her first-hand opinions of the current status there. I will admit that when I see a Professor who specializes in "constitutionalism in...Palestine...legal decision-making in the Palestinian intifada...and women's rights in Palestine" (among many other things) I get suspicious of how fairly they will treat Israel in their scholarship. It isn't fair of me, and I desparately hope to be proven wrong (I can't fiat my prejudices out of existence, but I can acknowledge them and hope to keep the suppressed until factual backing comes out). I firmly believe that there are persons who are personally invested in seeing Palestine become a stable, progressive, and democratic state that also harbor no ill will toward Israel and recognize its legitimate security and political interests as well. In fact, I'd like to think I fall into that category as well. So I eagerly await this next post by her that she claims is forthcoming.

David Kopel inquires about that prevelance of the phrase "First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people" in Palestine and the surrounding areas. The good news is that the consensus seems to be it's rather rare. The bad news is that this seems to be more a function of anti-Christian sentiments lagging far behind anti-Semitic sentiments than any true repudiation of violence. Ah well.

And there you have it--the complete blog-day in Judaism. Consolodated for your pleasure by your friendly Debate Link staff.

How I Spent My Winter Break

One Florida High Schooler decided "Hey! Why not take a trip to Iraq?"

Part of me admires him. Another (larger) part thinks he's insane. Favorite excerpt from the article:

"I want to experience during my Christmas the same hardships ordinary Iraqis experience everyday, so that I may better empathize with their distress," he wrote.

Farris Hassan says he thinks a trip to the Middle East is a healthy vacation compared with a trip to Colorado for holiday skiing.

"You go to, like, the worst place in the world and things are terrible," he said. "When you go back home you have such a new appreciation for all the blessing you have there, and I'm just going to be, like, ecstatic for life."

Hey...don't be so hard on Colorado skiing. It's got...hardships...

So, yeah. Craziness of it aside (and admittedly that's a big aside), I think he demonstrated an extraordinary character in taking this trip. And hopefully he will in the future apply that character toward making the Middle East and the world a bit better for all its inhabitants.

Only "Radical Feminist Women" Need Apply

Well, I nearly managed to avoid blogging throughout this whole vacation. But alas, I have succumbed on what would have been my last ski day. I woke up with a sore throat and aches all over from 4 straight days of almost nothing but black diamond runs. So I decided to take the day off. And here I am, back on the blog--posting away. How sad for me.

One of my favorite feminist blogs, Alas, a Blog, is mulling over having "radical feminist woman only" threads. I am not a fan of the proposal on several grounds. First of all, it strikes me as needlessly exclusionary. Flame wars are frustrating--having participated in a few, I know. But it is always possible to ban trolls. And unlike many of the boards cited by the post author (Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff, whom I believe is at this point only guest-blogging), the odds that it will be the feminists being kicked out strikes me as rather slim at this particular site. And this particular group: "radical feminist woman" strikes me as far too narrowly tailored. I consider myself a feminist who occasionally flirts with being radical--though as one might expect, both terms are quite fluid [UPDATE: Immediately upon posting, I realized that the author meant "radical" referring to a specific branch of Feminist Thought, as opposed to a more generic signifier. I don't think I am all that close to a Radical in this respect--I'm too anti-essentialist and too much of a third-waver/intersectionality fan to really fit the category. But by the conventions of ordinary political discourse, I'd be a small "r" radical. It doesn't seem like this oversight really affects the post content--the author mentioned below was definitely a big R Radical, and the denotation of a specific feminist branch is, if anything, more exclusivist than radicals in general.]. Alas, I'm not a woman. And I'll admit that, having taken Feminist Theory last term, there are certain radical feminists whom I find to be appalling creatures (the author who tempered her proposal to bring about the "political suppression of men" by assuring her readers that she meant methods other than "genocide" was my particular anti-hero in that class). But I do believe that I have things to add to the discussion. Perhaps it's my debate background, but discourse and argumentation are fields where I am most leery of even partial exclusion and marginalization. And I think that AAB is first a site about discussing these issues, and only second an activist front. Otherwise, they wouldn't tolerate anti-feminist posters at all. I am fine with AAB's experimentation in limiting explicitly anti-feminist arguments to certain threads--the "sidetracking" problem is a legitimate one. But establishing insider/outsider forums that precede political positioning I find a tad bit scary.

I also worry that such discussions discourage outreach to the very communities that feminists need to dialogue with. Outside a separatist movement (which I, for obvious reasons, don't subscribe to), any effort to dismantle patriarchy has to at some level deal with the patriarchs. Not just them either--the sympathetic but undecided liberal male, the uncertain moderate women--there are many groups whose support is necessary for the feminist project to succeed. I make this same argument with regard to racial hierarchy--yes, it is true that minority discourse and scholarship need to have greater currency in society at large. But that goal can't come at the expense of (and I'd argue, should operate concurrently with) the meta-project of fixing the problem. Making males (or non-radical feminists, for that matter), feel like outsiders or enemies or otherwise unwelcome is antithetical to that project. Marginalization operates in many ways--radical feminists have to recognize that creating this exclusivist forums will exact costs in terms of how much non-radicals are willing to engage them. I am not at all confident that these costs will be outweighed by whatever benefits are accrued from an incestuous mini-circle of political allies. I know that Amp and I don't see eye-to-eye on everything, but I like to think we've learned from each other precisely because we disagree. Bouncing ideas off each other, so long as it is honest and respectful, is a boon to any intellectual movement, not a curse.

Third, these boards strike me as a Siren's Call. Assume that AAB does establish these boards. I predict they will be very popular, for the simple reason that it is far less stressful to chat with one's intellectual allies than it is to hit the trenches and battle with enemies (or negotiate with the moderates, which in some ways may be even harder). So after a suitable period of trial, Amp may ask for feedback on the threads. And the participants will be very happy to have a respite from the muck and grime of political warfare present elsewhere. So they'll give positive feedback. The excluded persons will at this point have already made our reaction to the forums--we'll either have left the site or acceded to their presence. So our response will be muted--and will be generally less compelling because we don't have access to the benefits the threads offer (ironically, because one of their primary reasons for existence is to prevent us from reaping said benefits). So we "just won't get it." In the end then, all the really important things will be said in the exclusivist forums--the discussions, the hashing out of positions, the refinement, the whole shibang. And there will be little incentive to go out into the world (or in this case, the other comment threads) and actually do the hard work of bouncing the ideas off maybe non-allies or non-sympathetic ears. It's too tempting to stay in the cocoon. As I said before, I think an apt analogy is to incest, and it will have the same effect--weakening the movement, isolating its participants, and depriving the whole endeavor of fresh ideas, opinions, and blood.

It might not be fair, given the contemporary political landscape, to apply this standard to AAB. After all, its not like an open policy at AAB will convince mainstream institutions of the error of their sexist ways and bring about an equitable playing field. But again, ultimately the goal isn't "eye for an eye" political justice, it's about laying the framework for real social change. I think exclusionary thread policies are generally opposed to that end.

UPDATE: I also offer my concurrence to Rachel S. and Dorktastic in comments. I'm only part way through, but as usual their comments section is superb.

UPDATE 2x: The updates are coming quick because the more I think about it, the more complex I realize this issue is. I do see the benefit of exclusive discussion groups. I'm not sure AAB is the right place to host them, because I think it has a different role to play. An explicitly activist site strikes me as a better host for such a forum--less likely to fall prey to the problems I outlined above. But I think at AAB, the net effect may be to dilute a rare site that encourages and fosters debate on these critical issues.

Feingold and the Genocide Convention

For those of you smoldering over my "cheap shot" at Russ Feingold on genocide, see the update to my post here.

It's So Simple!

Do you ever get the feeling that the Christian Right is just parodying itself? Consider this excerpt from the American Family Associations proposed boycott of Target:

ATTENTION! Expect Target To Try To Confuse You

When you call Target, they will no doubt try to confuse you. You may be told their employees are free to greet people with a "Merry Christmas." You may be told that they support the Salvation Army. You may be told many things in order to confuse you.

Therefore, ask this one simple basic question and don't allow them to confuse you. "Do you use the term 'Christmas' in your in-store promotions developed by Target (not products you have for sale) and do you include the term 'Christmas' in your retail advertising?"

Target refuses to use "Christmas" in their in-store promotions or in their retail advertising. If you are told they do, you are being mislead.

1) That's two questions

2) I don't know about you, but I don't consider that to a "simple" question, what with the parenthetical and the modifiers ("in-store promotions developed by Target", and "retail advertising"). Seems rather specific, don't you think.

3) What with their support of the Salvation Army, and store greeters free to say "Merry Christmas," it seems like Target is plenty supportive of Christmas already. I mean, I understand the AFA's dream-world is one where all retailers blare out carols at 250 decibels while being staffed solely by born-agains throughout December. But seriously, meet them half-way already!

I'm going to see the Caps tonight, and then will be off to Aspen, Colorado tomorrow. So this may be my last post for a week. It may not--I don't know if I'll have internet access in Colorado. But if it is, have a happy holidays, be it Christmas, Chanukkah, Kwanzah, or just the spirit of the season.

Back In The News

The story of the Bush administration's appalling negilgence toward Homeland Security in general (and the DHS in particular) is back in the news--only 2 and 3/4 years after Jonathan Chait first wrote the break-through article on it. To readers of this blog (or any credible center-left source, like The New Republic), there isn't anything wildly new. Bush opposed the DHS, blocked key Homeland Security initiatives, wielded the issue like a partisan club, etc. etc.. Still, at this point I'm just thrilled they're paying attention at all.

Kevin Drum remarks:

One of the worst results of all this is that because George Bush treats terrorism mostly as a handy partisan club to make Democrats look weak and cement his own support with his corporate base, he's managed to convince a lot of liberals that the whole thing is just a game. Unfortunately, this is pretty understandable. At this point, I don't really blame liberals for feeling that terrorism is little more than a Republican bogeyman that's pulled out whenever the president's poll numbers are down. After all, that's pretty much how Republicans treat it.

But it's not. Osama bin Laden really would like to find a way to kill a whole bunch of us, and we really should all be working to keep that from happening. Maybe someday Karl Rove will figure out that that's more important than bringing back the glory days of William McKinley and his 30-year Republican reign.

Yes, yes, and more yes.

Matt Yglesias also responds.