Apparently, Las Vegas does have enough to do to distract me from blogging. Who knew?
I have to say, though, I don't really like gambling. I don't consider myself an overly competitive person, but I don't like participating in activities that I know I won't do well in. Like chemistry. Or frisbee. Or gambling. Obviously, I am never going to "do well" in video poker. Yet I feel like I should be playing to win. So it's stressful, and I don't enjoy it.
That doesn't mean Vegas is a bust, of course. There is still plenty to do aside from gambling. I saw Lewis Black do stand-up last night (great) and will see Jay Leno tomorrow. I also rediscovered my love for pinball--which is a surprisingly cheap way to spend the day in this town, which sucks your wallet dry like nothing else (ask about the $5 glass of coke my brother got). Today is a lazy day--which is cool too.
Maybe I'll even blog.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
My Brother's Political Savvy
One of my favorite Boondocks strips features Riley telling Huey about missing a class question that even he felt embarrassed about. The question was "which Black political leader said 'turn the other cheek'", and Riley was given the hint "King."
"I thought, how many 'King's' could there be?"
"I know, but Rodney King?"
Last night, I had that same feeling when discussing over dinner whether "Gonzalez was going to go." My brother perks up and asks, "Elian Gonzalez?"
At the airport today, the TV was showing a Bush press conference. My brother looked over and asked "who's that?"
My brother, FYI, is 17 years old and will be attending the University of Virginia (Engineering School) next fall.
"I thought, how many 'King's' could there be?"
"I know, but Rodney King?"
Last night, I had that same feeling when discussing over dinner whether "Gonzalez was going to go." My brother perks up and asks, "Elian Gonzalez?"
At the airport today, the TV was showing a Bush press conference. My brother looked over and asked "who's that?"
My brother, FYI, is 17 years old and will be attending the University of Virginia (Engineering School) next fall.
Let The Bankruptcy Begin!
Greetings from the Venetian Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada! We got in a few hours ago, had a late dinner, and are now settling into our rooms. They screwed up our reservation, which is always nice, because it incurred no real inconvenience while causing us to fall upwards into upgraded accommodations. Hurray for failure!
As to the impending bankruptcy, after enjoying a $10 hamburger (yum!) and buying Internet service for another $10 (per 24 hours--again, I hate how I can get this for free at a Days Inn), I'm well on my way to financial oblivion. I even lost my first dollar on airport slots!
I'll keep you posted--assuming I can still afford the $10 Internet fee at the end of the trip.
As to the impending bankruptcy, after enjoying a $10 hamburger (yum!) and buying Internet service for another $10 (per 24 hours--again, I hate how I can get this for free at a Days Inn), I'm well on my way to financial oblivion. I even lost my first dollar on airport slots!
I'll keep you posted--assuming I can still afford the $10 Internet fee at the end of the trip.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Endless Introductions
Thinking Girl asks for comments on an interesting dilemma for those of us working in anti-subordination fields: How to deal with the endless parade of people who are (for lack of a better term) entirely ignorant of the basics of what we are doing? Anyone whose participated in these communities knows the type. It's generally the same questions, over and over and over again, basic 101 material that--because, alas, feminism and CRT are not yet mainstream--many folks still don't know. Sometimes it's genuine (if they ask to be taught something, I assume it's in good faith), other times it's trolling (hostile tones beget hostile responses).
The response the hosts and/or regular commenters give is somewhat ad hoc. If we're in a good mood, we'll answer the question as best we can. If we're not, we'll snap at the questioner to stop being ignorant, or coldly inform them that not every blog is designed to help beginners figure out the basics. From an outsiders perspective, it is difficult to understand, but try to imagine watching every discussion on a really important topic being pushed back to square one by (we'll be generous here) well-meaning commenters who just don't have a clue. It's like a Dilbert strip gone to hell.
There's an unfortunate paradox here. It is exhausting to have to tread the same terrain over and over again. Back in my early days doing anti-racism theory, I didn't understand this. I was like a kid with a shiny new toy, and with my debate background (and years of pent up evangelizing spirit that had no outlet since Jews don't missionize) I had near endless energy to try and explain Critical Race Theory to the masses (i.e., my White friends and blog readership). This was in part due to the fact that I was a new sojourner to the movement--I remember back when I was "unsaved" (so to speak), and so I viewed it as my obligation to try and bring as many of my fellow pagans to the fold as possible (I'm not joking with the rhetoric--this felt very much like a religious experience to me). There but for the grace of God and all that. I also hoped that I could use my Whiteness to my advantage here as well--since an aspect of my White privilege is that I do not have to live my life constantly "race-d", I thought that if I began to tire of the fight, I could step back, take a sabbatical, re-charge my batteries, and then return to the battlefield restored and renewed. Suffice to say, it didn't work: once you're attuned to the way race and racism permeate American society, you can't just start ignoring them, even if you're White. And if even I--who is not the primary victim of racism, whose life and equal status is not on the line in the debate--can feel this rhetorical exhaustion and fatigue from dealing with the same foundational debates, then I dare venture to say that it is a problem the whole community experiences.
But on the other hand, anti-subordination workers need to reach new people. We're in the minority, we want to move to the majority--it's axiomatic. And like I said, since I still can remember when I was the ignorant, uninformed one, I am unwilling to just abandon the masses. It was a total fluke that I came across this entire area of discourse--I don't expect other people to come to it the same way I did (a random debate round in high school). And, to speak on behalf of the ignorant for a minute--it's not their fault that they're the 40th iteration of a certain question, so long as they weren't also numbers 39, 38, 37, etc.. Sure, to us it looks like infinite repetition, but remember, for every 40 people asking the question (that they might overhear the answer), there are another 40,000 not talking about it at all. Statistically, the average man or woman is likely to be running in the social circle of the 40,000 than the 40. Such is life in an intellectual minority. In our frustration, it can be difficult to remember that cluelessness is not the same thing as malice. I think, as a community, we have an obligation to speak to anyone who, in good-faith, seeks us out for dialogue. The who and how are, to me, the bigger issues, and I don't want to minimize them. But I think we have to be wary of disclaiming the obligation entirely because we haven't figured out entirely how to go about it.
I hope that the Feminism 101 blog can help mediate this problem (am I the only one who thinks it might be a good Wiki candidate?). A anti-racism parallel would certainly be nice as well. But I just want to emphasize that this is a really important topic, and I'm glad that Thinking Girl has opened the floor for discussion on it.
The response the hosts and/or regular commenters give is somewhat ad hoc. If we're in a good mood, we'll answer the question as best we can. If we're not, we'll snap at the questioner to stop being ignorant, or coldly inform them that not every blog is designed to help beginners figure out the basics. From an outsiders perspective, it is difficult to understand, but try to imagine watching every discussion on a really important topic being pushed back to square one by (we'll be generous here) well-meaning commenters who just don't have a clue. It's like a Dilbert strip gone to hell.
There's an unfortunate paradox here. It is exhausting to have to tread the same terrain over and over again. Back in my early days doing anti-racism theory, I didn't understand this. I was like a kid with a shiny new toy, and with my debate background (and years of pent up evangelizing spirit that had no outlet since Jews don't missionize) I had near endless energy to try and explain Critical Race Theory to the masses (i.e., my White friends and blog readership). This was in part due to the fact that I was a new sojourner to the movement--I remember back when I was "unsaved" (so to speak), and so I viewed it as my obligation to try and bring as many of my fellow pagans to the fold as possible (I'm not joking with the rhetoric--this felt very much like a religious experience to me). There but for the grace of God and all that. I also hoped that I could use my Whiteness to my advantage here as well--since an aspect of my White privilege is that I do not have to live my life constantly "race-d", I thought that if I began to tire of the fight, I could step back, take a sabbatical, re-charge my batteries, and then return to the battlefield restored and renewed. Suffice to say, it didn't work: once you're attuned to the way race and racism permeate American society, you can't just start ignoring them, even if you're White. And if even I--who is not the primary victim of racism, whose life and equal status is not on the line in the debate--can feel this rhetorical exhaustion and fatigue from dealing with the same foundational debates, then I dare venture to say that it is a problem the whole community experiences.
But on the other hand, anti-subordination workers need to reach new people. We're in the minority, we want to move to the majority--it's axiomatic. And like I said, since I still can remember when I was the ignorant, uninformed one, I am unwilling to just abandon the masses. It was a total fluke that I came across this entire area of discourse--I don't expect other people to come to it the same way I did (a random debate round in high school). And, to speak on behalf of the ignorant for a minute--it's not their fault that they're the 40th iteration of a certain question, so long as they weren't also numbers 39, 38, 37, etc.. Sure, to us it looks like infinite repetition, but remember, for every 40 people asking the question (that they might overhear the answer), there are another 40,000 not talking about it at all. Statistically, the average man or woman is likely to be running in the social circle of the 40,000 than the 40. Such is life in an intellectual minority. In our frustration, it can be difficult to remember that cluelessness is not the same thing as malice. I think, as a community, we have an obligation to speak to anyone who, in good-faith, seeks us out for dialogue. The who and how are, to me, the bigger issues, and I don't want to minimize them. But I think we have to be wary of disclaiming the obligation entirely because we haven't figured out entirely how to go about it.
I hope that the Feminism 101 blog can help mediate this problem (am I the only one who thinks it might be a good Wiki candidate?). A anti-racism parallel would certainly be nice as well. But I just want to emphasize that this is a really important topic, and I'm glad that Thinking Girl has opened the floor for discussion on it.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Credible Source
Elizabeth Cassidy is reporting from the UN Human Rights Council's conference. It's an excellent (if depressing) post. Far and away the best part, though, was her recounting of Nobel Laureate Jody Williams' report on Darfur, which she is battling to see adopted by the commission:
Supporting adaptation are Canada, Japan, South Korea and the European democracies. In opposition are most of the rest of the Asian bloc, the Arab League, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Russia, and Cuba. The swing votes are in Africa--several nations spoke out in favor of the report, but others have not publicly revealed a preference.
Speaking of Cuba, while they cannot bring themselves to condemn genocide in Darfur, they did issue a statement accusing Sweden of "carry[ing] out ethnic cleansing that only allows those whose skin and hair color fit with the racial patterns of former Viking conquerors to remain in the country."
The entire post is worth reading, if only to know what we're dealing with when talking of the highest human rights body in the world.
Watch Jody Williams take those challenging her team's report to task for playing political games in Geneva while Darfuris die. Noting the Council's double standards on Sudan and Israel, Williams said that if her mission had gone to Palestine, "I imagine that the discussion here would be amazingly different." Regarding the challenges to the credibility of the report, she told Council members that the issue on credibility is "not about ours, it's about yours."
Supporting adaptation are Canada, Japan, South Korea and the European democracies. In opposition are most of the rest of the Asian bloc, the Arab League, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Russia, and Cuba. The swing votes are in Africa--several nations spoke out in favor of the report, but others have not publicly revealed a preference.
Speaking of Cuba, while they cannot bring themselves to condemn genocide in Darfur, they did issue a statement accusing Sweden of "carry[ing] out ethnic cleansing that only allows those whose skin and hair color fit with the racial patterns of former Viking conquerors to remain in the country."
The entire post is worth reading, if only to know what we're dealing with when talking of the highest human rights body in the world.
Sin City
Another break, another term I don't fail out of Carleton. Actually, I had one of my best performances at Carleton thus far this last term--taking far and away my toughest schedule. So hurray for me! And hurray for school!
Meanwhile, I'm missionizing on behalf of a drink my friends at college discovered through some alcoholic alchemy. It's very simple: Take a mug of hot apple cider, add one shot of peach schnapps. It's amazing--tastes like liquid candy. Be sure to credit me when you make it on a cold winter night.
Oh, and I almost forgot--tomorrow, I'm off to Vegas, baby! The family is going as a celebration for my 21st Birthday. It'll be sweet. Computer will be along--I don't anticipate any blogging break.
Meanwhile, I'm missionizing on behalf of a drink my friends at college discovered through some alcoholic alchemy. It's very simple: Take a mug of hot apple cider, add one shot of peach schnapps. It's amazing--tastes like liquid candy. Be sure to credit me when you make it on a cold winter night.
Oh, and I almost forgot--tomorrow, I'm off to Vegas, baby! The family is going as a celebration for my 21st Birthday. It'll be sweet. Computer will be along--I don't anticipate any blogging break.
Bad Policies Beget Bad Spin
White House Press Flack Tony Snow: Troop withdrawal bill "victory for enemy."
Color me old-fashioned, but I think the enemy's "victory" in Iraq started with failed policy, not trying to remedy it. I read in my IR textbook that it is almost impossible for democracies to concede defeat in war. I'm not a politician, so I can say it: we've lost. It's a tragedy (for us but more so for the Iraqi people). It will stain our nation for decades to come. But if we're going to blame someone for our defeat, it's the administration that (after years of having a nearly complete free hand) failed to win the war, not the Congress which finally recognized we're losing it.
Color me old-fashioned, but I think the enemy's "victory" in Iraq started with failed policy, not trying to remedy it. I read in my IR textbook that it is almost impossible for democracies to concede defeat in war. I'm not a politician, so I can say it: we've lost. It's a tragedy (for us but more so for the Iraqi people). It will stain our nation for decades to come. But if we're going to blame someone for our defeat, it's the administration that (after years of having a nearly complete free hand) failed to win the war, not the Congress which finally recognized we're losing it.
Running on "Racist"
I understand my definition of "racist", while supported in the academic literature, is much broader than the popular conception. So, there a persons (more often, policies) I consider to be "racist" that other people do not. I think that's a problem, but it is irrelevant to the forthcoming conversation. For "America's Mayor" Rudy Giuliani has decided the best way to win back conservative primary votes is to brag about how he's viewed by some of his Black former constituents.
The Amsterdam News is a NYC-based paper catering to the Black community. Remember, Giuliani thinks that being called a racist will gain him votes in conservative primaries.
The campaign also helpfully provided a bunch of quotes from New York papers that demonstrate Giuliani's conservative credentials, such as this one from The Amsterdam News in 2000 (before Giuliani dropped out of the U.S. Senate race):
"[Giuliani's] Only Hope For An Overwhelming Victory In Upstate New York Would Be To Remain As He Is: A Hard-Nosed, Evil, Racist Republican Conservative."
The Amsterdam News is a NYC-based paper catering to the Black community. Remember, Giuliani thinks that being called a racist will gain him votes in conservative primaries.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Erin Esurance
Feministe's "Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday" gives me the chance to ask a question that's been nagging me for awhile:
What's the feminist take on Erin Esurance? For those of you who don't watch TV (ever--she is on like all the time), Erin is the animated spokeswoman for Esurance, an online car insurance company. She appears in a variety of flash animated advertisements, pitching the company's "quote, buy, print" motto in secret-agent type settings. The ads are produced in-house, not by Madison Avenue, so that could explain why they aren't at least flagrantly sexist (in my opinion).
The ads have a male character in them (and various robot baddies), but he is definitely second-fiddle. Erin, for her part, is not cast in stereotypically feminine roles--she races cars, jumps out of buildings, and beats up on robot evildoers. Basically, she spends most of the ads kicking ass. Which is good.
On the other hand, she certainly is drawn in the stereotypical slender, White, pretty mold that virtually all female actresses on commercials have (even animated ones, apparently, though I doubt her figure is humanly possible even among the model-set). When I ran a google blogsearch to try and answer this question on my own, all I got was a bunch of male bloggers repeating how hot she was. Which might be an answer itself, but I suspect it merely proves that any normatively attractive woman in a public arena will find herself objectified. That's certainly not her fault (though Esurance is arguably exploiting that fact--they, of course, control the proportions of their animated characters).
So? What's the line?
What's the feminist take on Erin Esurance? For those of you who don't watch TV (ever--she is on like all the time), Erin is the animated spokeswoman for Esurance, an online car insurance company. She appears in a variety of flash animated advertisements, pitching the company's "quote, buy, print" motto in secret-agent type settings. The ads are produced in-house, not by Madison Avenue, so that could explain why they aren't at least flagrantly sexist (in my opinion).
The ads have a male character in them (and various robot baddies), but he is definitely second-fiddle. Erin, for her part, is not cast in stereotypically feminine roles--she races cars, jumps out of buildings, and beats up on robot evildoers. Basically, she spends most of the ads kicking ass. Which is good.
On the other hand, she certainly is drawn in the stereotypical slender, White, pretty mold that virtually all female actresses on commercials have (even animated ones, apparently, though I doubt her figure is humanly possible even among the model-set). When I ran a google blogsearch to try and answer this question on my own, all I got was a bunch of male bloggers repeating how hot she was. Which might be an answer itself, but I suspect it merely proves that any normatively attractive woman in a public arena will find herself objectified. That's certainly not her fault (though Esurance is arguably exploiting that fact--they, of course, control the proportions of their animated characters).
So? What's the line?
Take The Gloves Off
John Cole comments on Senator Patrick Leahy's stated desire to question Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and other top Bushies on the Prosecutor Purge: "Personally, I say we subject them to strict interrogation methods. After all, those methods aren’t torture."
What's good for the goose....
What's good for the goose....
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Unification Ritual
So this is a problem. Palestine has formed a unity government. That isn't the problem part. The issue is that said unity government hasn't unified on the subject of whether to recognize Israel (/whether killing Israelis is okay). The Fatah leadership says they reject violence categorically. I don't believe them, but it's still a nice gesture. The Hamas half of the government refuses to budge in inch on the whole "destroy the Zionists" bit. Hence, the Israeli government's response:
It's probably good that Israel has a single entity to deal with (in whatever manner it ends up dealing), but when the unity government isn't unified over some pretty key issues, I don't think we're really going to see any progress.
"President Abbas accepts the three international principles and Prime Minister Haniyeh not only doesn't accept them, but calls openly for Palestinian resistance -- that is, for Palestinians to commit terror against Israel," said Miri Eisin, spokeswoman for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. "Israel will not recognize or deal with such a government."
It's probably good that Israel has a single entity to deal with (in whatever manner it ends up dealing), but when the unity government isn't unified over some pretty key issues, I don't think we're really going to see any progress.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Contraceptive Failure
The 8th Circuit has issued a very disappointing 2-1 ruling in Standridge v. Union Pacific Railroad. The court held that a company policy not extending its health care to cover contraception violated neither Title VII nor the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), primarily because contraception occurs prior to conception (obviously) and thus is not "related" to pregnancy (er, less obviously).
The decision is wrong, and not in the liberal, judicial-activist, decisions I dislike are wrong fashion. It's wrong because it violates the plain meaning of the PDA, which applies not just to "pregnant women" but to "women affected by pregnancy." I.e., any women of child-bearing age--pre- or post-conception. Not just the sexually active--since all women can be raped (a fact "the sluts deserve it" arguers always forget to account for), all women who are within the proper age frame can become pregnant and thus are "affected" by pregnancy--with all the medical, psychological, social, and economic burdens it brings (even if we were to restrict the debate to sexually active women, I neither know how nor desire the capacity for companies to discern which of its female employees were sexually active). As Ann of Feministing puts it:
This points to another issue--the panel not only fails to understand what makes one "affected by pregnancy," it also fails to discern the meaning of discrimination. The court used Union Pacific's failure to cover certain non-prescription contraceptive tools (such as condoms and vascetamies) as proof that their policy did not discriminate against women. This, of course, misses the point: the issue isn't who takes what pill or undergoes what procedure. The issue is who bears the medical affects of pregnancy. Women get pregnant, men do not, thus women bear the medical affects of pregnancy, and men do not. This should be obvious, but the dissent apparently felt the majority needed a basic reminder of Biology 101: "[T]he record demonstrates women are the only gender which can become pregnant." Not providing coverage of a significant medical condition that only affects women is discriminatory on face, and is precisely the sort of disparity that the PDA was designed to remedy.
These effects are not inconsequential. Reproductive Rights blogger Caitlin Borgmann remarks on the significant out-of-pocket expense women are forced to incur if they have to pay their own way on contraception. If they can't afford it, then their sexuality (voluntarily chosen or not--remember the rape issue) becomes a Sword of Damacles hanging over their head, threatening to decapitate their earning potential, subject them to serious health risks, and, oh yeah, force them to possibly bring a child into the world before they're ready. These disparities are real and should be obvious. That the court did not see them, and did not apply the plain meaning of the PDA which by its terms applies to any women "affected by pregnancy", suggests more of a willful blindness than any mundane dispute over statutory interpretation.
The decision is wrong, and not in the liberal, judicial-activist, decisions I dislike are wrong fashion. It's wrong because it violates the plain meaning of the PDA, which applies not just to "pregnant women" but to "women affected by pregnancy." I.e., any women of child-bearing age--pre- or post-conception. Not just the sexually active--since all women can be raped (a fact "the sluts deserve it" arguers always forget to account for), all women who are within the proper age frame can become pregnant and thus are "affected" by pregnancy--with all the medical, psychological, social, and economic burdens it brings (even if we were to restrict the debate to sexually active women, I neither know how nor desire the capacity for companies to discern which of its female employees were sexually active). As Ann of Feministing puts it:
How hard is it for judges to understand that 1) contraception is a basic, fundamental part of women's preventive and routine health care, 2) pregnancy -- which is the result of lack of contraception use -- disproportionately affects female employees, so 3) failure to cover contraception is discrimination against women? Seems clear as day to me.
This points to another issue--the panel not only fails to understand what makes one "affected by pregnancy," it also fails to discern the meaning of discrimination. The court used Union Pacific's failure to cover certain non-prescription contraceptive tools (such as condoms and vascetamies) as proof that their policy did not discriminate against women. This, of course, misses the point: the issue isn't who takes what pill or undergoes what procedure. The issue is who bears the medical affects of pregnancy. Women get pregnant, men do not, thus women bear the medical affects of pregnancy, and men do not. This should be obvious, but the dissent apparently felt the majority needed a basic reminder of Biology 101: "[T]he record demonstrates women are the only gender which can become pregnant." Not providing coverage of a significant medical condition that only affects women is discriminatory on face, and is precisely the sort of disparity that the PDA was designed to remedy.
These effects are not inconsequential. Reproductive Rights blogger Caitlin Borgmann remarks on the significant out-of-pocket expense women are forced to incur if they have to pay their own way on contraception. If they can't afford it, then their sexuality (voluntarily chosen or not--remember the rape issue) becomes a Sword of Damacles hanging over their head, threatening to decapitate their earning potential, subject them to serious health risks, and, oh yeah, force them to possibly bring a child into the world before they're ready. These disparities are real and should be obvious. That the court did not see them, and did not apply the plain meaning of the PDA which by its terms applies to any women "affected by pregnancy", suggests more of a willful blindness than any mundane dispute over statutory interpretation.
Good Lord
LA Times reports that Obama "bowed to Allah" as a child in Indonesia. Obama's campaign issues a statement saying "Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ."
Wow, do I not care. What exposure Obama had to Islam as an eight year old is spectacularly uninteresting to me. For that matter, now that Keith Ellison is in Congress I would love if we could all affirm that Obama could be Muslim now, and it wouldn't matter so long as his politics were the same (I'm curious how GOPers would respond if Zalmay Khalilzad ran for office). But regardless, even if this story turns out to be true (as the radical madrassah one wasn't), it is so innane as to border on "Mitt Romney's ancestors were polygamous" territory.
Wow, do I not care. What exposure Obama had to Islam as an eight year old is spectacularly uninteresting to me. For that matter, now that Keith Ellison is in Congress I would love if we could all affirm that Obama could be Muslim now, and it wouldn't matter so long as his politics were the same (I'm curious how GOPers would respond if Zalmay Khalilzad ran for office). But regardless, even if this story turns out to be true (as the radical madrassah one wasn't), it is so innane as to border on "Mitt Romney's ancestors were polygamous" territory.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Home, Sweet Home
Today's the travel day. I'm heading back to Bethesda for Spring Break. And thus, the maelstrom of this term (far and away the most intense I've had at Carleton) comes to an end.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Clinton, Obama and AIPAC
The recent meeting at AIPAC is apparently one of the few venues where Hillary Clinton outdrew Barack Obama. Obama's last foray to AIPAC, in my opinion, was "solid but not spectacular." Here, a minor flap appears to be developing over Obama's comment (the night before the conference) that "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinians."
I agree with Jon Chait that this overblown. It's self-evidently clear that Obama is talking within the context of the I/P conflict (had he be saying that the Palestinians were suffering more than, say, Darfuri Africans, I'd have issues). And we can recognize the immense hardship that Palestinians live under without turning to reflexive Israel bashing. Some of it is traceable to Israeli actions. Some of it is the Palestinian's "own fault." A large part, I'd forward, can be laid at the feet of Palestinian militia and terrorist groups, of which the average Palestinian man or woman has little influence on.
Whatever. I agree with Ezra Klein and think pro-Israeli speakers (in which I count Obama) should emphasize the manner in which prolonging the conflict hurts Palestinians. The Israeli and Palestinian interest here are not out of sync. A peaceful solution is to the benefit of both. When Palestinian's launch a suicide bombing, that is anti-Palestinian, because it has virtually no hope of causing any positive change and merely prolongs their suffering.
The sooner that truth is drilled into everyone's head, the happier I'll be.
I agree with Jon Chait that this overblown. It's self-evidently clear that Obama is talking within the context of the I/P conflict (had he be saying that the Palestinians were suffering more than, say, Darfuri Africans, I'd have issues). And we can recognize the immense hardship that Palestinians live under without turning to reflexive Israel bashing. Some of it is traceable to Israeli actions. Some of it is the Palestinian's "own fault." A large part, I'd forward, can be laid at the feet of Palestinian militia and terrorist groups, of which the average Palestinian man or woman has little influence on.
Whatever. I agree with Ezra Klein and think pro-Israeli speakers (in which I count Obama) should emphasize the manner in which prolonging the conflict hurts Palestinians. The Israeli and Palestinian interest here are not out of sync. A peaceful solution is to the benefit of both. When Palestinian's launch a suicide bombing, that is anti-Palestinian, because it has virtually no hope of causing any positive change and merely prolongs their suffering.
The sooner that truth is drilled into everyone's head, the happier I'll be.
Lucy In The Sky
Sasha Volokh points to a new article by Mike Seidman, Critical Constitutionalism Now [75 Fordham L. Rev. 575 (2006)], which argues that the arguments of the Critical Legal Studies movement have been vindicated--by President Bush's, er, creativity in interpreting legal texts and norms to justify some of his more extreme policies on the war on terror.
I think that's true, although I hardly think it strikes a mortal blow against the CLS movement. Much the opposite, I think this is precisely what modern CLSers would predict--conservatives mask their policy preferences as "rule of law," when in reality they are just contorting law to fit the policy. This is how law can be enlisted so easily to impede social change--it's content never is unambiguous and thus no conservative will ever feel compelled to make any earth-shaking or radical reform to society via law.
In sum, I feel like Seidman's understanding of the history and "ideology" (such as it is) of CLS and successor movements is weak, although the prescriptive portions of his paper are better. However, he does score significant points for this passage, explaining why CLS scholars think the discourse of rights can actually be harmful towards achieving social reform:
Agree with it or no, I certainly think that portrays the argument in a delightful, succinct, and lucid manner.
Incidentally, Volokh-the-younger also links to Jack Balkin's Deconstruction's Legal Career [27 Cardozo L. Rev. 719 (2005)], which is a spectacular piece and one I cannot recommend highly enough.
I think that's true, although I hardly think it strikes a mortal blow against the CLS movement. Much the opposite, I think this is precisely what modern CLSers would predict--conservatives mask their policy preferences as "rule of law," when in reality they are just contorting law to fit the policy. This is how law can be enlisted so easily to impede social change--it's content never is unambiguous and thus no conservative will ever feel compelled to make any earth-shaking or radical reform to society via law.
In sum, I feel like Seidman's understanding of the history and "ideology" (such as it is) of CLS and successor movements is weak, although the prescriptive portions of his paper are better. However, he does score significant points for this passage, explaining why CLS scholars think the discourse of rights can actually be harmful towards achieving social reform:
The rhetoric of rights tended to objectify and distort the actual situation in which people found themselves. Rights were abstract, alienating, and individuating rather than concrete, liberating, and unifying. 12 These deficiencies were, in turn, reinforced by what might be called the "Lucy-and-the-football" phenomenon. The possibility of vindicating legal rights was endlessly dangled before the dispossessed. Rights were in fact vindicated frequently enough so as to keep people in the game. However, the indeterminacy of rights allowed courts to yank them away just when any truly meaningful reform seemed within reach. Consequently, endless time and energy were wasted in the pursuit of legal remedies, when the time might better have been spent organizing nonlegal popular resistance. (578)
Agree with it or no, I certainly think that portrays the argument in a delightful, succinct, and lucid manner.
Incidentally, Volokh-the-younger also links to Jack Balkin's Deconstruction's Legal Career [27 Cardozo L. Rev. 719 (2005)], which is a spectacular piece and one I cannot recommend highly enough.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Meehan Has Left The Building
Massachusetts Democratic Representative Marty Meehan is resigning from Congress to become the chancellor of UMass-Lowell. The coverage has focused on the fact that this creates a truly competitive Bay State House race for the first time in five years (Gov. Deval Patrick needs to call for a special election within 160 days). That's true (there are undoubtedly a lot of talented Massachusetts Dems who have been yearning to advance in the Party), and it should be interesting. But I just want to point out that Meehan is the point man on the effort to repeal the military's odious Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. He's got 116 co-sponsors and rumors of momentum. I hope that the other Representatives working on this issue can keep this issue moving in his absence.
Monday, March 12, 2007
UNHRC: Lost Cause?
After reading yet another article detailing how the UN Human Rights Council's single-minded focus on Israel to the expense of any other human rights issue in the world, Julien Ku asks if it is time to abandon the idea of a UN human rights body altogether, at least for the near term.
Meanwhile, Elizabeth Cassidy has an interesting post noting how the structural aspects of the new UNHRC give disproportionate power to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), virtually none of whom are "free" countries, and who have used their influence to dictate the council's aggressively anti-Israel stance. In 2006, the OIC managed to pass eight resolutions condemning Israeli human rights violations (without mentioning any abuses committed by the other side). No other country was singled out for critique even once. The European members of the council did manage to push through two resolutions on Darfur, but in order to get OIC approval they had to be watered down so much they actually lauded Khartoum for its "cooperation." Gag.
The problem with the UN in general, and the UNHRC in particular, is that it is dominated by unfree nations who have no interest in protecting human rights, and a very big interest in distracted global attention from their own internal failings by finding convienant external scape-goats (who, in what must be some incredible historical coincidence, happen to be Jews!). That this does not yield particular progressive results on a regular basis really cannot surprise us anymore.
Rather than whining about the U.N., etc., a more interesting question whether there could ever be a Human Rights Council with a broad-based membership that achieves fundamental agreement on the applicability of universal human rights norms. The consistent failure of this or any HRC to achieve broad consensus is not necessarily the result of political machinations by "bad" countries. Rather, it may reflect the more unsettling reality that there is no serious or broad consensus on what those norms are, despite lots of claims contained in human rights treaties to the contrary.
Meanwhile, Elizabeth Cassidy has an interesting post noting how the structural aspects of the new UNHRC give disproportionate power to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), virtually none of whom are "free" countries, and who have used their influence to dictate the council's aggressively anti-Israel stance. In 2006, the OIC managed to pass eight resolutions condemning Israeli human rights violations (without mentioning any abuses committed by the other side). No other country was singled out for critique even once. The European members of the council did manage to push through two resolutions on Darfur, but in order to get OIC approval they had to be watered down so much they actually lauded Khartoum for its "cooperation." Gag.
The problem with the UN in general, and the UNHRC in particular, is that it is dominated by unfree nations who have no interest in protecting human rights, and a very big interest in distracted global attention from their own internal failings by finding convienant external scape-goats (who, in what must be some incredible historical coincidence, happen to be Jews!). That this does not yield particular progressive results on a regular basis really cannot surprise us anymore.
DePauw Kicks Out Delta Zeta
Via Sacha Zimmerman, apparently DePauw University has kicked out the Delta Zeta sorority, which had made news after its national HQ expelled a significant portion of its house members on-campus. The exiled women included pretty much anyone who was not White, slender, and conventionally pretty.
DePauw obviously made the right move here. I also want to point out that this issue is a major victory for the Feminist Blogosphere, who got on this issue early and refused to let it drop. Excellent work.
Our Bodies Our Blog has the University's rationale, as well as links to several Delta Zeta alum who joined condemnation of the national office.
DePauw obviously made the right move here. I also want to point out that this issue is a major victory for the Feminist Blogosphere, who got on this issue early and refused to let it drop. Excellent work.
Our Bodies Our Blog has the University's rationale, as well as links to several Delta Zeta alum who joined condemnation of the national office.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Arab Gay Rights Meeting in Israel
Jerusalem may host a rare meeting of Arab gay rights activists.
Any guesses why the meeting is happening in Israel?
I don't mean to be too triumphant. There is plenty of anti-gay sentiment in Israel and in the Jewish community (the article notes opposition coming from leaders of Jerusalem's ultra-orthodox community). And again, the most important thing is that the meeting is happening, and one hopes that it is fruitful and productive. But let's remember--in all the Middle East, Israel is probably the only country this meeting could happen publicly without the participants being beaten and/or stoned.
Headlined "Home and Exile," the March 28 meeting is meant to spark discussion of homosexuality among Israel's 1 million Arab citizens, said Roula Deeb, a prominent Arab feminist and one of the scheduled speakers.
The conference is being organized by Aswat, an Arab lesbian group based in Haifa, a coastal city home to both Jews and Arabs.
Around 100 to 150 people are expected to show up, Deeb said. With homosexuality a taboo topic in much of the Arab world, the meeting is important simply because it is taking place.
Israel is generally tolerant of homosexuality, and the country's secular metropolis, Tel Aviv, is home to a thriving gay community. But Israel's Arabs, who make up 20 percent of the population, live mostly in separate communities and homosexuality is still considered out of bounds.
Any guesses why the meeting is happening in Israel?
I don't mean to be too triumphant. There is plenty of anti-gay sentiment in Israel and in the Jewish community (the article notes opposition coming from leaders of Jerusalem's ultra-orthodox community). And again, the most important thing is that the meeting is happening, and one hopes that it is fruitful and productive. But let's remember--in all the Middle East, Israel is probably the only country this meeting could happen publicly without the participants being beaten and/or stoned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
