I'm not getting ready to go to sleep, but I just did buy a new bed for the house I'm moving into Monday. It's a Serta too -- now I can actually call myself a Serta jockey from now until Jill decides to hit me.
* * *
Another Black Harvard professor says he was baited and then arrested by Cambridge Police. Via Sullivan.
This article on the Promise Keepers is really, really interesting. They're definitely a complicated organization, and their past efforts at race reconciliation (even if not with the focus I'd like), and their present attack on domestic violence, are certainly nice. On the other hand, their "outreach" to "believing [i.e., Messianic] Jews", among other things, understandably annoys the hell out of me. (via)
Fatah is blaming Israel for Arafat's death. Sure, why not?
Meanwhile, Israeli voters seem to be taking a turn towards Kadima leader Tzipi Livni (who is facing a stiff challenge from within Kadima by Shaul Mofaz).
What is racism to Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK)?
Can one criticize a "socialist regime" without being called an imperialist shill? Non-hack leftists want to know.
Five tips for raising a girl geek.
I remember when the Bush administration was telling critics to watch what they say. The Obama administration, by contrast, actually wants to debate its critics -- and that apparently is what's actually "Orwellian".
Eugene Volokh thinks we should not ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Peter Spiro thinks he's dead wrong; Volokh responds.
The APA rejects gay-to-straight "therapy." Needless to say, the FRC is outraged.
Hey, let's stir up a hysteria of right-wing mobs and then joke about lynching! Great call, Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO)!
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Congratulations, Justice Sotomayor
She wins approval 68-31. May she have many years of long, distinguished, and happy service.
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
And Stay Down
Hey! The cop who called Henry Louis Gates Jr. a "jungle monkey" is suing the Boston Police Department for "intentional infliction of emotional distress." Because irony apparently was trying to drag itself to its feet in the face of multiple bullet wounds.
Wave Away
I firmly take no position on whether it was proper to award former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Many Jewish groups are "deeply disappointed" (to use AIPAC's language) with the decision, citing Robinson's involvement in the Durban I debacle and her time heading the UNHRC. I'll discuss their case in a moment, but I want to stress again that I am neither endorsing it nor rejecting it.
Rather, my objection is to this Matt Yglesias post on the controversy, which I find appalling on several dimensions. Really, there is almost nothing right about it. First off, he cites to Abe Foxman's reaction:
Yglesias led into that quote by saying "Naturally, Abe Foxman sees an insidious plot against the Jewish people." Because Foxman had the temerity to say "ill-advised"? Yglesias (of course) makes the by now extremely cliched argument that for many "criticism of Israel amounts to anti-Israel bias" (at least he didn't say anti-Semitism). But what this is really indicative of is how even relatively tempered criticism ("ill-advised"! "deeply disappointed"!) of any critics of Israel is blown up into a massive threat to the entire project of democratic deliberation. Yglesias analogizes this dispute to the spat over Human Rights Watch -- ironic, because there too he waves aside the entire issue of anti-Semitism without pause.*
Yglesias is also extremely dismissive of the idea that Robinson's performance at Durban might have been even remotely problematic, saying "it takes a pretty serious case of narcissism to reach the conclusion that this bill of particulars ought to outweigh a person’s entire career." (I also take exception to the patronizing lead-in here: "You see, back in 2001". Ancient history!). Now, nobody, including Robinson herself, disputes that Durban involved vicious anti-Semitism. Indeed, Robinson powerfully denounced it early in the proceedings, declaring "I am a Jew" in response to anti-Semitic cartoons distributed by the Arab Lawyers' Union. The question is whether she did "enough to prevent [the anti-Semitic atmosphere] – or speak up loudly enough after the debacle."
On the former, some, such as the late Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), thought she did not. As to the latter, Robinson's refrain is been that overall, Durban was a good thing -- including on the middle east -- which leaves me wondering why so many seem to consider it acceptable (if not obligatory) for Jews to take in the teeth for the sake of everyone else's human rights discussions. What heartens me is that Robinson has been quite clear that she recognized the going-ons as anti-Semitic. What troubles me is that Robinson seems to buy into a growing norm that something can be a "success" from a human rights standpoint even if it viciously promotes hatred and bigotry against the Jewish people.
But as far as Yglesias is concerned, all this can be collapsed into the unfair targeting of critics of Israel. And the most absurd part is that the most salient area of critique isn't her supposed "bias" against Israel, but her insufficient response to anti-Semitism. Contrary to the popular refrain, nobody serious argues that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. But there does seem to be a growing equation that says criticism of anti-Semitism is anti-Palestinian.
* The cause isn't helped, obviously, by David Bernstein's "start with the kitchen sink and work backwards" approach to attacking HRW. Still, the particular problem Goldberg noted was a serious one and one that deserved more searching scrutiny -- scrutiny that Yglesias didn't give because at this point he is ideologically committed to the notion that anti-Semitism is mostly a red herring.
UPDATE: By contrast, Marty Peretz's slam on Robinson is well-worth condemning, though Peretz is arguably too easy a target.
Rather, my objection is to this Matt Yglesias post on the controversy, which I find appalling on several dimensions. Really, there is almost nothing right about it. First off, he cites to Abe Foxman's reaction:
Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, today issued a statement saying that Robinson has “anti-Israel bias” and calling the decision to bestow America’s highest civilian honor upon Robinson as an agent of change “ill-advised.”
Yglesias led into that quote by saying "Naturally, Abe Foxman sees an insidious plot against the Jewish people." Because Foxman had the temerity to say "ill-advised"? Yglesias (of course) makes the by now extremely cliched argument that for many "criticism of Israel amounts to anti-Israel bias" (at least he didn't say anti-Semitism). But what this is really indicative of is how even relatively tempered criticism ("ill-advised"! "deeply disappointed"!) of any critics of Israel is blown up into a massive threat to the entire project of democratic deliberation. Yglesias analogizes this dispute to the spat over Human Rights Watch -- ironic, because there too he waves aside the entire issue of anti-Semitism without pause.*
Yglesias is also extremely dismissive of the idea that Robinson's performance at Durban might have been even remotely problematic, saying "it takes a pretty serious case of narcissism to reach the conclusion that this bill of particulars ought to outweigh a person’s entire career." (I also take exception to the patronizing lead-in here: "You see, back in 2001". Ancient history!). Now, nobody, including Robinson herself, disputes that Durban involved vicious anti-Semitism. Indeed, Robinson powerfully denounced it early in the proceedings, declaring "I am a Jew" in response to anti-Semitic cartoons distributed by the Arab Lawyers' Union. The question is whether she did "enough to prevent [the anti-Semitic atmosphere] – or speak up loudly enough after the debacle."
On the former, some, such as the late Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), thought she did not. As to the latter, Robinson's refrain is been that overall, Durban was a good thing -- including on the middle east -- which leaves me wondering why so many seem to consider it acceptable (if not obligatory) for Jews to take in the teeth for the sake of everyone else's human rights discussions. What heartens me is that Robinson has been quite clear that she recognized the going-ons as anti-Semitic. What troubles me is that Robinson seems to buy into a growing norm that something can be a "success" from a human rights standpoint even if it viciously promotes hatred and bigotry against the Jewish people.
But as far as Yglesias is concerned, all this can be collapsed into the unfair targeting of critics of Israel. And the most absurd part is that the most salient area of critique isn't her supposed "bias" against Israel, but her insufficient response to anti-Semitism. Contrary to the popular refrain, nobody serious argues that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. But there does seem to be a growing equation that says criticism of anti-Semitism is anti-Palestinian.
* The cause isn't helped, obviously, by David Bernstein's "start with the kitchen sink and work backwards" approach to attacking HRW. Still, the particular problem Goldberg noted was a serious one and one that deserved more searching scrutiny -- scrutiny that Yglesias didn't give because at this point he is ideologically committed to the notion that anti-Semitism is mostly a red herring.
UPDATE: By contrast, Marty Peretz's slam on Robinson is well-worth condemning, though Peretz is arguably too easy a target.
Monday, August 03, 2009
The Evolution of a Chicago Student
Today, I realized that I found a set of articles approaching a subject from a rational choice perspective more compelling than the ones I read relying on 1980s narrative theory.
What's happening to me?
It's like working in the accounting department at Dilbert's company: too much time, and you transform into a troll.
What's happening to me?
It's like working in the accounting department at Dilbert's company: too much time, and you transform into a troll.
Square One
Point:
Counterpoint:
Best of luck, Senator (via).
"On the issue of the Hispanic voter, we have to do a lot more. We Republicans have to recruit and elect Hispanics to office," McCain told CNN's State of Union. "And I don't mean just because they're Hispanics, but they represent a big part of the growing population in America. And we have a lot of work to do there. And I am of the belief that unless we reverse the trend of Hispanic voter registration, we have a very, very deep hole that we've got to come out of."
While he was one of only a handful of Republicans willing to tackle immigration reform in 2007, McCain faced a massive deficit with Hispanic voters in the 2008 election. His aides have said that, were he not the home state senator, he would have lost Arizona to Barack Obama, in large part because Hispanics had left the Republican Party in droves.
Counterpoint:
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called Judge Sonia Sotomayor a “judicial activist” today, announcing he’ll vote against making her the first Latina on the Supreme Court.
Sotomayor “cannot change her record. She has a long record of judicial activism” as a federal judge since 1992, McCain said. “Her decisions too often stray from legal norms.”
Best of luck, Senator (via).
Who Gave This Speech?
In a speech to be delivered today, MK Reuven Rivlin will reportedly say the following:
But who is Reuven Rivlin? Is he a member of Meretz, Israel's left-wing Zionist party? Or perhaps Labor or Kadima?
No, MK Rivlin is the Speaker of the Knesset, and a member of the right-wing Likud party. Which is why this speech -- which forthrightly acknowledges the "trauma" Palestinians faced along side the establishment of the state of Israel, recognizes the racism and discrimination faced by Israeli Arabs, and starkly lines himself against any efforts to uproot them as full and equal members of Israeli society -- struck me.
Rivlin seems like an interesting character. On the one hand, he was a vocal critic of the Gaza disengagement plan as well as crusading Israeli Supreme Court Justice Aharon Barak. On the other hand, he tellingly chose an Israeli Arab town targeted by far-right demonstrators for his first official state visit (he denied his visit was related to the protests, but most observers thought it was meant to convey a conciliatory message).
In any event, the speech is a very good one, and it is a very good one to hear from a prominent member of Likud.
[Rivlin] is calling for a fundamental change in relations between Jews and Arabs in Israel, urging the founding of a "true partnership" between the two sectors, based on mutual respect, absolute equality and the addressing of "the special needs and unique character of each of the sides."
Rivlin was expected to say all this in an address to be delivered at the president's residence in Jerusalem on Monday. In his speech, Rivlin was to say that "the establishment of Israel was accompanied by much pain and suffering and a real trauma for the Palestinians (in large part due to the shortsightedness of the Palestinian leadership). Many of Israel's Arabs, which see themselves as part of the Palestinian population, feel the pain of their brothers across the green line - a pain they feel the state of Israel is responsible for."
"Many of them," Rivlin says, "encounter racism and arrogance from Israel's Jews; the inequality in the allocation of state funds also does not contribute to any extra love."
According to Rivlin, Israel's Arab population "is an inseparable part of this country. It is a group with a highly defined shared national identity, and which will forever be, as a collective, an important and integral part of Israeli society."
Rivlin remarks that most of Israel's Arab residents refuse to accept the idea that the state of Israel is the home of the Jewish people, and adds that some of the Arab leaders within Israel align themselves with Israel's worst enemies, and incite against it.
"The Arab population is an inseparable part of our homeland," he adds, however, saying that "we, the Jews, must send out a clear message that is apparent to us that our homeland is their homeland, and that we intend to live together with them, and that we reject all the calls for forced immigration or even expulsion."
"The somewhat European goal that most of us have -- to live alongside a Zionist minority which sings the anthem with sparkling eyes -- will not become a reality in our Middle East," Rivlin planned to say. "We can't pretend, or hope that our neighbors will go away, even if we close the window. Furthermore, we mustn't do it! We must see them as they are and tell them that we accept them as they are and that we seek a true partnership with them."
But who is Reuven Rivlin? Is he a member of Meretz, Israel's left-wing Zionist party? Or perhaps Labor or Kadima?
No, MK Rivlin is the Speaker of the Knesset, and a member of the right-wing Likud party. Which is why this speech -- which forthrightly acknowledges the "trauma" Palestinians faced along side the establishment of the state of Israel, recognizes the racism and discrimination faced by Israeli Arabs, and starkly lines himself against any efforts to uproot them as full and equal members of Israeli society -- struck me.
Rivlin seems like an interesting character. On the one hand, he was a vocal critic of the Gaza disengagement plan as well as crusading Israeli Supreme Court Justice Aharon Barak. On the other hand, he tellingly chose an Israeli Arab town targeted by far-right demonstrators for his first official state visit (he denied his visit was related to the protests, but most observers thought it was meant to convey a conciliatory message).
In any event, the speech is a very good one, and it is a very good one to hear from a prominent member of Likud.
No One Here By That Name
Is there a reason nearly all the spam that makes its way into my junk folder is addressed to "Amanda"? Who is Amanda?
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Weekend Roundup
I'm not as funny as Tina Fey, but I make up for it in erudition.
* * *
There was a brutal shooting at a gay club in Tel Aviv, with two dead. The gay community blames Shas, the Sephardic/Mizrachi ultra-Orthodox party, for inciting violence against their community.
The police are recommending that Israeli FM Avigdor Lieberman be indicted on graft charges. Hey, whatever gets him out of office.
Likud MK Yisrael Katz, Israel's Transportation Minister, calls the Fatah draft platform currently up for a vote a "declaration of war" against Israel. I'm not convinced it's a "declaration", since it doesn't seem to change much Fatah policy. The draft endorses two states and encourages civil disobedience, but also sanctions violence, rejects Israel as a Jewish state, and demands a right of return for Palestinian refugees. It also contemplates increased links with Iran, unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state on '67 borders, or even a binational state should talks fail.
Politicians won't stop lying until lying becomes a liability.
Ann Friedman on the gendered implications of the "beer summit".
Red-heads feel the pain.
Gregory Gordon pushes an African Marshall Plan for the Congo.
Pat Boone only opposes metaphorical waterboarding.
The Australian TULIP event I mentioned earlier appears to have been a rousing success.
Frank Rich identifies the source of much of the Gates-gate flap as anxiety over America's upcoming majority-minority status. Post-racial, we're not.
Iran is putting 100 protesters on trial. It appears that they may have coerced false confessions out of them.
Finally, funny science abstracts!
* * *
There was a brutal shooting at a gay club in Tel Aviv, with two dead. The gay community blames Shas, the Sephardic/Mizrachi ultra-Orthodox party, for inciting violence against their community.
The police are recommending that Israeli FM Avigdor Lieberman be indicted on graft charges. Hey, whatever gets him out of office.
Likud MK Yisrael Katz, Israel's Transportation Minister, calls the Fatah draft platform currently up for a vote a "declaration of war" against Israel. I'm not convinced it's a "declaration", since it doesn't seem to change much Fatah policy. The draft endorses two states and encourages civil disobedience, but also sanctions violence, rejects Israel as a Jewish state, and demands a right of return for Palestinian refugees. It also contemplates increased links with Iran, unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state on '67 borders, or even a binational state should talks fail.
Politicians won't stop lying until lying becomes a liability.
Ann Friedman on the gendered implications of the "beer summit".
Red-heads feel the pain.
Gregory Gordon pushes an African Marshall Plan for the Congo.
Pat Boone only opposes metaphorical waterboarding.
The Australian TULIP event I mentioned earlier appears to have been a rousing success.
Frank Rich identifies the source of much of the Gates-gate flap as anxiety over America's upcoming majority-minority status. Post-racial, we're not.
Iran is putting 100 protesters on trial. It appears that they may have coerced false confessions out of them.
Finally, funny science abstracts!
Saturday, August 01, 2009
White People and Their Conspiracy Theories
There are, in America, a certain number of African-Americans who believe conspiracy theories about the AIDS virus. It's not a majority by any stretch, but it is a not insignificant amount and something that has real and serious damaging effects on matters of public health and keeping our most vulnerable populations safe from disease.
Polling data which seems to show a measurable amount of Black support for such conspiracies are often trotted out as proof of their inferior status as politically rational creatures. But White people have their conspiracies too, and I highly suspect we'll be seeing the same standard applied. Dave Weigel number crunched a recent poll indicating that possibly over 70% of Southern Whites harbor doubts about Barack Obama's citizenship. That's an unbelievably huge number for something that by all rights should be in "we didn't land on the moon" territory.
Polling data which seems to show a measurable amount of Black support for such conspiracies are often trotted out as proof of their inferior status as politically rational creatures. But White people have their conspiracies too, and I highly suspect we'll be seeing the same standard applied. Dave Weigel number crunched a recent poll indicating that possibly over 70% of Southern Whites harbor doubts about Barack Obama's citizenship. That's an unbelievably huge number for something that by all rights should be in "we didn't land on the moon" territory.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Senator Dodd Diagnosed with Cancer
Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), already embroiled in a tough fight for reelection, is now gearing up for an even more difficult battle: Prostate cancer. Dodd says he has no intention of resigning and intends to continue his campaign to hold his seat in 2010.
I like Dodd a lot -- I think he's a very gifted progressive voice in the Senate (albeit sometimes a flawed one). But of course, the most important thing is his health, and I wish him well whatever he decides for his future.
I like Dodd a lot -- I think he's a very gifted progressive voice in the Senate (albeit sometimes a flawed one). But of course, the most important thing is his health, and I wish him well whatever he decides for his future.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Harry Potter & The Half Blood Prince Review
No major spoilers, but I didn't really work to hide what's going on
I went to see Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince last night, in 3-D. Let's start with the 3-D part -- it's a bit of a rip-off. It's cool for as long as it lasts, but only the first 20 minutes of the movie or so are shown in the extra dimension. Lame.
The movie itself I liked -- not surprising, since I thought Book Six was one of the highlights of the series. But even one of my friends who said he thought the book was one of his least favorites (he said the least, until I reminded him of the 5th installment: "Harry Potter and the Post-Pubescent Angst") thought the movie was one of the better ones out there.
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince begins with HP getting royally cock-blocked by Albus Dumbledore. This theme (teenage romance and cock-blocking) will reappear as a side-plot throughout the film, and it is a solid if not spectacular presentation. Hermione enslaving a flock of birds and sending them on kamikaze runs against Ron was a highlight. On the other hand, when Ginny finally decided to hook up with Harry in the Room of Requirement, I really wanted it to transform into a 70s-style love nest. Kids need to mack, god dammit!
The main portion of the movie was done quite well. Alan Rickman as Snape was brilliant, as always, and I continue to be a fan of Helena Bonham Carter's portrayal of Bellatrix Lestrange. The three main characters can't compete at that level, but they have all blossomed into at least passable actors, and that's a good thing (and, for those of us who remember Sorcerer's Stone-era Daniel Radcliffe, a surprising one as well). The movie's vibe really felt like the Lord of the Rings at times, and I mean that in a good way (Jim Broadbent's uncanny resemblance, in my view, to Bilbo Baggins may have contributed to this). Compared to the Order of the Phoenix, I think the director did an excellent job making the minor tweaks to really make things shine. Luna Lovegood's character was a joy to watch (I didn't feel like she was overdone like last time), and the magical scenes no longer had the feel of Final Fantasy boss battle. The fact that the plot didn't require the main characters to be annoying and angsty was a great benefit, and the movie had an overall lighter tone that was greatly appreciated. And there finally was an indication that maybe adults are better at magic than Harry Potter is -- watching Harry's spells get impetuously swatted aside by superior wizards was a great highlight.
The climatic scene (you know the one I mean) was a bit of a letdown, though it was operating under some heavy constraints given the nature of a book-to-movie adaptation. It just didn't have the punch I'd have expected out of it. Malfoy was pretty flat throughout the movie (though he seemed to have gotten the number of Voldemort's extremely snappy tailor). Indeed, I'd say the movie fizzled a little bit at the end, though not enough to take away from an overall enjoyable experience.
7.5/10
I went to see Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince last night, in 3-D. Let's start with the 3-D part -- it's a bit of a rip-off. It's cool for as long as it lasts, but only the first 20 minutes of the movie or so are shown in the extra dimension. Lame.
The movie itself I liked -- not surprising, since I thought Book Six was one of the highlights of the series. But even one of my friends who said he thought the book was one of his least favorites (he said the least, until I reminded him of the 5th installment: "Harry Potter and the Post-Pubescent Angst") thought the movie was one of the better ones out there.
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince begins with HP getting royally cock-blocked by Albus Dumbledore. This theme (teenage romance and cock-blocking) will reappear as a side-plot throughout the film, and it is a solid if not spectacular presentation. Hermione enslaving a flock of birds and sending them on kamikaze runs against Ron was a highlight. On the other hand, when Ginny finally decided to hook up with Harry in the Room of Requirement, I really wanted it to transform into a 70s-style love nest. Kids need to mack, god dammit!
The main portion of the movie was done quite well. Alan Rickman as Snape was brilliant, as always, and I continue to be a fan of Helena Bonham Carter's portrayal of Bellatrix Lestrange. The three main characters can't compete at that level, but they have all blossomed into at least passable actors, and that's a good thing (and, for those of us who remember Sorcerer's Stone-era Daniel Radcliffe, a surprising one as well). The movie's vibe really felt like the Lord of the Rings at times, and I mean that in a good way (Jim Broadbent's uncanny resemblance, in my view, to Bilbo Baggins may have contributed to this). Compared to the Order of the Phoenix, I think the director did an excellent job making the minor tweaks to really make things shine. Luna Lovegood's character was a joy to watch (I didn't feel like she was overdone like last time), and the magical scenes no longer had the feel of Final Fantasy boss battle. The fact that the plot didn't require the main characters to be annoying and angsty was a great benefit, and the movie had an overall lighter tone that was greatly appreciated. And there finally was an indication that maybe adults are better at magic than Harry Potter is -- watching Harry's spells get impetuously swatted aside by superior wizards was a great highlight.
The climatic scene (you know the one I mean) was a bit of a letdown, though it was operating under some heavy constraints given the nature of a book-to-movie adaptation. It just didn't have the punch I'd have expected out of it. Malfoy was pretty flat throughout the movie (though he seemed to have gotten the number of Voldemort's extremely snappy tailor). Indeed, I'd say the movie fizzled a little bit at the end, though not enough to take away from an overall enjoyable experience.
7.5/10
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Yes Sir
I find this story about Black families teaching their children (generally sons) how to relate to the police unbelievably depressing.
It's not that I have license to be rude to cops whereas Black people do not. I don't recall ever being told how to talk to a cop; I assume I'd try to relate to them the same as I do to any other authority figure (quite deferentially -- I'm actually extremely conflict-averse). But it wasn't an "issue" for me. There was never any sentiment that this might be a problem. By contrast, these families are talking as if they see the police as a double-edged sword. Of course they recognize that cops are necessary for safety and protecting their well-being. But they also see them as a potential source of threat, and that's a scary situation to be in. And the further down the totem pole you go, the worse it gets: it the toughest neighborhoods in America, residents have been known to describe the police as "just another gang" they have to deal with.
It's not that I have license to be rude to cops whereas Black people do not. I don't recall ever being told how to talk to a cop; I assume I'd try to relate to them the same as I do to any other authority figure (quite deferentially -- I'm actually extremely conflict-averse). But it wasn't an "issue" for me. There was never any sentiment that this might be a problem. By contrast, these families are talking as if they see the police as a double-edged sword. Of course they recognize that cops are necessary for safety and protecting their well-being. But they also see them as a potential source of threat, and that's a scary situation to be in. And the further down the totem pole you go, the worse it gets: it the toughest neighborhoods in America, residents have been known to describe the police as "just another gang" they have to deal with.
Practical Solutions
Check out this event being held at the National Conference for the Australian Labor Party this year:
Isn't this great? Joint Jewish/Palestinian participation. A genuine commitment to dialogue. A focus on practical efforts to secure peace and reconciliation.
What a fabulous event. Great kudos to both the ALP and TULIP, and all other supporting bodies, for helping put it together.
Labor Party and union members in Australia, looking for progressive solutions to support peace, justice and reconciliation for Palestine and Israel , will hold a break through Fringe Event at the 2009 National Conference of the Australian Labor Party in Sydney later this month.
The event is being sponsored by the Australian Workers’ Union with the support of the Maritime Union of Australia.
Ambassador Izzat Abdulhadi, the head of the Palestinian general delegation in Canberra, will be a key speaker at the ALP Fringe Event.
The ALP Fringe Event is being held at the Australian National Maritime Museum theatre on Thursday July 30, 2009, at 5.30pm.
It is open to all National Conference delegates, ALP members and supporters.
The National Secretary of the Australian Workers’ Union, Paul Howes will chair the panel discussion at the Fringe Event, which brings together, for the first time, key agenda setters in this debate in Australia.
Paul Howes, as a founding Executive member of Trade Unions Linking Israel and Palestine (TULIP), is looking for constructive alternatives to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement which has undermined trust building between unions on both sides of the Green Line.
This event – which is expected to attract a huge and diverse crowd – will be opened by Paddy Crumlin, National Secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia.
The MUA leader will show a short video, produced by the International Transport Workers Federation, about a joint Palestine-Israel trade union project bringing together Palestinian and Israeli transport union leaders.
This is a pace setting example of co-operation between the two national union centres – other projects involving Israeli and Palestinian construction unions are now under active discussion.
Panel participants
The panel discussion will involve:
* Ambassador Izzat Abdul Hadi, head of the Palestinian general delegation in Canberra
* Robert Goot, President of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry
* Michael Danby, Federal Labor MP and an active member of Parliamentary Friends of Israel
* Janelle Saffin, Federal Labor MP and an active member of Parliamentary Friends of Palestine
[...]
After questions from the floor Mike Salah, current president of the Australian Palestinian Professionals Association (APPA ), will make some comments about the way forward for activists in the Australian labour movement, from an Australian-Palestinian perspective.
Isn't this great? Joint Jewish/Palestinian participation. A genuine commitment to dialogue. A focus on practical efforts to secure peace and reconciliation.
What a fabulous event. Great kudos to both the ALP and TULIP, and all other supporting bodies, for helping put it together.
Slay the Adorable Woodland Creatures
This list of The 17 Least Appropriate Playmobil Sets for Children may be one of the greatest things ever created.
Quote of the Morning
"We are all Expressionists part of the time. Sometimes we just want to scream loudly at injustice, or to stand up and be counted. These are noble motives, but any serious revolutionist must often deprive himself of the pleasures of self-expression. He must judge his actions by their ultimate effects on institutions."
--Herbert A. Simon, Models of My Life (New York: Basic Books, 1991), 281.
--Herbert A. Simon, Models of My Life (New York: Basic Books, 1991), 281.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Unintentional Irony Department
In the course of a sustained attack on J Street and Barack Obama, Jonathan Mark has this to say about the latter's continued Jewish support: "On the left, and on the right, having plenty of Jewish supporters doesn’t always equate to being on the right side of history." This presumably is the first time the New York Jewish Week has warned against listening to Jewish opinions.
The rest of the piece compares Obama to Shabbtai Tzvi, Lenin, and the Golden Calf (really). As for J Street, they come under fire for not being huge fans of the Christian Zionist movement, who we all know just have the Jews' best interests at heart (see also Mr. Kirchick). One doesn't have to believe that John Hagee is really thinking eschatologically when supporting Israel to think that his brand of support is an awful, awful idea. If you think (as I do) that the settlements are both a) an impingement on Palestinian rights and b) an existential threat to Israel's existence as a Jewish, democratic state, then someone encouraging them to continueshooting up cocaine building as they see fit would be accurately described as "unhelpful".
I have to say, I'm heartened by the generally poor quality of the anti-J Street opposition. With enemies like this, who needs friends?
The rest of the piece compares Obama to Shabbtai Tzvi, Lenin, and the Golden Calf (really). As for J Street, they come under fire for not being huge fans of the Christian Zionist movement, who we all know just have the Jews' best interests at heart (see also Mr. Kirchick). One doesn't have to believe that John Hagee is really thinking eschatologically when supporting Israel to think that his brand of support is an awful, awful idea. If you think (as I do) that the settlements are both a) an impingement on Palestinian rights and b) an existential threat to Israel's existence as a Jewish, democratic state, then someone encouraging them to continue
I have to say, I'm heartened by the generally poor quality of the anti-J Street opposition. With enemies like this, who needs friends?
The Day in Review
I found out yesterday that I will spend next year locked in a box, never seeing my roommates or my girlfriend again. Yes, I made law review! Exciting news, for the next several days at least. Then I actually have to do it.
* * *
Colin Powell speaks on Sarah Palin, Henry Louis Gates, and racial profiling.
Jeffrey Goldberg and Michael Oren continue their dialogue on (among other things) the settlements.
The Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade is not thrilled at its portrayal in "Bruno".
This Ta-Nehisi Coates post on Vernon Forrest's death really struck a chord with me. I think we're all different people if we think our kids are threatened.
Venezuela is awfully thin-skinned for a country whose leader once called the US President "the devil".
Beatty Chadwick is free!
Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) is retiring -- bad news for Dems who saw him as a juicy target.
That's all I got for you. Quiet day today.
* * *
Colin Powell speaks on Sarah Palin, Henry Louis Gates, and racial profiling.
Jeffrey Goldberg and Michael Oren continue their dialogue on (among other things) the settlements.
The Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade is not thrilled at its portrayal in "Bruno".
This Ta-Nehisi Coates post on Vernon Forrest's death really struck a chord with me. I think we're all different people if we think our kids are threatened.
Venezuela is awfully thin-skinned for a country whose leader once called the US President "the devil".
Beatty Chadwick is free!
Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) is retiring -- bad news for Dems who saw him as a juicy target.
That's all I got for you. Quiet day today.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Muzzle
So a San Francisco Jewish Film Festival wanted to screen a copy of the documentary Rachel, about the life and death of International Solidarity Movement activist Rachel Corrie. Which was fine. But they also wanted to Corrie's mother, who runs the Rachel Corrie Foundation in continuation of her daughter's politics regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, to speak at the event. And some members of the local Jewish community were upset at this. Which was in turn condemned as muzzling and "Jews censoring Jews". The latter charge seems to be false, as the documentary (directed by a French-Israeli Jew) was never contested, and the Corries are not Jewish. So it really was "Jews censoring non-Jews", or perhaps, a teensy-bit less inflaming, "Jews determining the contours of the discussion in their own communities." As Matt puts it:
He then notes the long pedigree of the "muzzling" charge as a tool in the hands of anti-Semites to attack the Jewish community and insure our pliancy to external agendas.
In any event, Corrie showed up, the film was shown, and a crowd filled with IJAN activists booed and shouted down any pro-Israel opinions expressed. So I guess everything worked out for the best.
As for Corrie herself, Matt has this to say:
I wouldn't say my response is quite that visceral, but the associations I have aren't positive. The first time I went onto the foundation's website, it had a "resources" section on Jews (since, apparently, taken down -- or at least I can't find it anymore) divided into two portions.
The first, which I think was compiled by the foundation staffers, had Jews laying out anti-Zionist positions. Which is fine, as far as it goes -- Jews have the right to stake out minority positions. But I always get annoyed when such positions are represented as that of "Jews", because (as even the authors would likely recognize), their views are not representative. Dialoguing with the Jewish community means talking with all of us, not the pre-selected preferred slice of it. Whenever I see folks arguing in this vein -- hyper-promoting a tiny fringe of the Jewish community as being the authentic ones, I see folks uninterested in actual communication.
The second section, though, which I think was filled in automatically by Amazon, was comprised of viciously anti-Semitic hate propaganda -- "How Jews Control the World" type titles. I can't link, because as I said the entire page seems to have been taken off the website -- a decision for which I credit the foundation. But that was my first experience with them as a group. And even now, their materials indicate they have an alignment on the conflict that is not, in my view, particularly productive. No mention of One Voice; haughty dismissal of Israel's right to exist as a legitimate issue of concern ("a canard to avoid bilateral negotiations"). It isn't interested in facilitating understanding -- it assumes it already understands all there is to know, and all that is left is application. It is a mistake I've made -- everybody's made -- but it doesn't make it any less of a mistake.
There are, of course, members of the left-leaning Jewish community who are sympathetic to the Corrie's, such as this leader of "Rabbis for Human Rights". They also have their detractors, such as this leader of "Rabbis for Human Rights". Even the left is split -- the rest of the community, I know, finds them to be unrelentingly hostile. Which goes back to Matt's point. All communities have the right to police their conversations (I mean this socially, not governmentally) to determine what is productive and what is not. This is a right that must be exercised very judiciously applied internal to the community (which is why this Jewish filmmaker's movie rightfully was screened). There is considerably more leeway when talking about non-Jews like Ms. Corrie. I am extremely skeptical that her presence improves the quality of our internal dialogue or pushes the community towards peace.
Although Jewish Voice for Peace, which runs Muzzlewatch, claims to take antisemitism seriously, the truth is, they only sometimes do. (They did, however, stop allowing comments when they were attracting a great deal of antisemitism they couldn't ignore. They do not seem to have considered how they contributed to that.) They don't consider, for instance, that concerns about antisemitism genuinely ought to limit the scope of debate in a great many ways in order to ensure that discussion is less hurtful and more productive. Or, rather, they claim the sole right to determine when the discussion is hurtful or productive. For them, other Jews do not have a right to say "I find that antisemitic." To do so would be "muzzling."
He then notes the long pedigree of the "muzzling" charge as a tool in the hands of anti-Semites to attack the Jewish community and insure our pliancy to external agendas.
In any event, Corrie showed up, the film was shown, and a crowd filled with IJAN activists booed and shouted down any pro-Israel opinions expressed. So I guess everything worked out for the best.
As for Corrie herself, Matt has this to say:
Upfront: every time I've come across the name Rachel Corrie, it's been about how evil I, personally, am. It's never been part of a real discussion of Israeli policy. Instead, I've been called to denounce Jews who support Israel's existence (for very good and real reasons I share) as evil and racist. Often enough, with the suggestion that I'm to blame for antisemitism because I won't. (And there's something, frankly, creepy about the way in which Palestinian supporters use Corrie's whiteness.) So, every time her name comes up, I have a Pavlovian reaction of ducking my head as if I were about to be hit. I find it threatening. And silencing, as well as simply not productive.
I wouldn't say my response is quite that visceral, but the associations I have aren't positive. The first time I went onto the foundation's website, it had a "resources" section on Jews (since, apparently, taken down -- or at least I can't find it anymore) divided into two portions.
The first, which I think was compiled by the foundation staffers, had Jews laying out anti-Zionist positions. Which is fine, as far as it goes -- Jews have the right to stake out minority positions. But I always get annoyed when such positions are represented as that of "Jews", because (as even the authors would likely recognize), their views are not representative. Dialoguing with the Jewish community means talking with all of us, not the pre-selected preferred slice of it. Whenever I see folks arguing in this vein -- hyper-promoting a tiny fringe of the Jewish community as being the authentic ones, I see folks uninterested in actual communication.
The second section, though, which I think was filled in automatically by Amazon, was comprised of viciously anti-Semitic hate propaganda -- "How Jews Control the World" type titles. I can't link, because as I said the entire page seems to have been taken off the website -- a decision for which I credit the foundation. But that was my first experience with them as a group. And even now, their materials indicate they have an alignment on the conflict that is not, in my view, particularly productive. No mention of One Voice; haughty dismissal of Israel's right to exist as a legitimate issue of concern ("a canard to avoid bilateral negotiations"). It isn't interested in facilitating understanding -- it assumes it already understands all there is to know, and all that is left is application. It is a mistake I've made -- everybody's made -- but it doesn't make it any less of a mistake.
There are, of course, members of the left-leaning Jewish community who are sympathetic to the Corrie's, such as this leader of "Rabbis for Human Rights". They also have their detractors, such as this leader of "Rabbis for Human Rights". Even the left is split -- the rest of the community, I know, finds them to be unrelentingly hostile. Which goes back to Matt's point. All communities have the right to police their conversations (I mean this socially, not governmentally) to determine what is productive and what is not. This is a right that must be exercised very judiciously applied internal to the community (which is why this Jewish filmmaker's movie rightfully was screened). There is considerably more leeway when talking about non-Jews like Ms. Corrie. I am extremely skeptical that her presence improves the quality of our internal dialogue or pushes the community towards peace.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Jesus Christ
Mark Tapscott wants Joe Biden to apologize for "using Christ's name as a curse word." Here's Biden's line:
Sounds pretty tame to me -- I feel like millions of Americans use this interjection on a pretty regular basis. But Tapscott has got the vapors pretty bad -- something about how we'd never be this insensitive if it were Muslims (of course, when it is Muslims, Tapscott and his buddies start wailing about how touchy they are and whether they've heard of free speech), Christians are ignored, Biden is a dunce (a gaffe-machine, sure, but a dunce?), etc.. Blech. There is nothing more annoying than a manufactured outrage machine.
UPDATE: Tapscott doubles down, now calling Biden's remarks "hate speech". I don't know what's more hilarious -- Tapscott's claim that if Biden used "Jesus Christ" like "hell" or "damn", he should apologize (because every time I use those words, I certainly do), or his obvious frustration that no major Christian denomination has chosen to make an issue out of this. Tapscott takes that as a sign of their emaciated nature; I take it as one that they aren't run by lunatics.
I can see Putin sitting in Moscow saying, 'Jesus Christ, Iran gets the nuclear weapon, who goes first?' Moscow, not Washington.”
Sounds pretty tame to me -- I feel like millions of Americans use this interjection on a pretty regular basis. But Tapscott has got the vapors pretty bad -- something about how we'd never be this insensitive if it were Muslims (of course, when it is Muslims, Tapscott and his buddies start wailing about how touchy they are and whether they've heard of free speech), Christians are ignored, Biden is a dunce (a gaffe-machine, sure, but a dunce?), etc.. Blech. There is nothing more annoying than a manufactured outrage machine.
UPDATE: Tapscott doubles down, now calling Biden's remarks "hate speech". I don't know what's more hilarious -- Tapscott's claim that if Biden used "Jesus Christ" like "hell" or "damn", he should apologize (because every time I use those words, I certainly do), or his obvious frustration that no major Christian denomination has chosen to make an issue out of this. Tapscott takes that as a sign of their emaciated nature; I take it as one that they aren't run by lunatics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
