Barbara Bush (Dubya's daughter, not his mother) has just appeared in an HRC video spot promoting marriage equality in New York.
In terms of Bush's actually influence, this isn't all that important -- Bush is only a political figure because of who she's related to; she's expressed little interest in entering the public sphere on her own terms (even less than, say, Meghan McCain -- another gay marriage supporter). But what it does demonstrate is that, even among Republicans, the youth are just gone on this issue. Support for marriage discrimination is nearly solely the province of older Americans. It's barely even a partisan issue amongst the young. I'm dubious that the leaders of the "Christian right" can arrest the inevitable here -- I'm wondering if even they are beginning to feel some fatalism on the subject.
In any event, it's only a matter of time.
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
Monday, January 31, 2011
PPACA Bump Roundup
The decision by a federal district judge to strike down the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is the big, if ultimately irrelevant (this law is going to be decided at 1 First Street), news of the day. But other stuff happened too! Let's round it up.
* * *
Eric Alterman gives a solid memoriam of Marty Peretz's tenure at the helm of the The New Republic.
Who would have guessed that the lead Democratic co-sponsor of the GOP there's rape and then there's rape bill would be
Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL)? I can't quite figure out how he avoids a primary defeat each year -- he really is among my least favorite congressional Democrats.
Okay, a quick foray into PPACA: Brian Galle has an interesting, brief paper up on the constitutionality of PPACA under Congress' taxation powers.
The Realistic Dove has a good appraisal of how Israelis are reacting to the democratic revolution in Egypt. Their putative opposition has been greatly overread -- while a few pro-Israel voices in the US have been acting like dicks, by and large it is better to describe them as "anxious" than hostile. Turmoil inside a country that is now one of your few regional allies but with which you've fought three wars against in living memory will do that to a country.
Ta-Nehisi Coates has an interesting post on the development of stereotypes with respect to Blacks and Jews in athletics. I want to be nicknamed "the intellectual assassin" one day.
Given the awful argument being made by, most prominently, ex-Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) that Black people like President Obama are traitors to their racial heritage and the abolitionist movement insofar as they don't necessarily oppose abortion rights, this post, which actually examines the role abortion played amongst enslaved Black women in the American South, is a desperately needed corrective.
* * *
Eric Alterman gives a solid memoriam of Marty Peretz's tenure at the helm of the The New Republic.
Who would have guessed that the lead Democratic co-sponsor of the GOP there's rape and then there's rape bill would be
Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL)? I can't quite figure out how he avoids a primary defeat each year -- he really is among my least favorite congressional Democrats.
Okay, a quick foray into PPACA: Brian Galle has an interesting, brief paper up on the constitutionality of PPACA under Congress' taxation powers.
The Realistic Dove has a good appraisal of how Israelis are reacting to the democratic revolution in Egypt. Their putative opposition has been greatly overread -- while a few pro-Israel voices in the US have been acting like dicks, by and large it is better to describe them as "anxious" than hostile. Turmoil inside a country that is now one of your few regional allies but with which you've fought three wars against in living memory will do that to a country.
Ta-Nehisi Coates has an interesting post on the development of stereotypes with respect to Blacks and Jews in athletics. I want to be nicknamed "the intellectual assassin" one day.
Given the awful argument being made by, most prominently, ex-Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) that Black people like President Obama are traitors to their racial heritage and the abolitionist movement insofar as they don't necessarily oppose abortion rights, this post, which actually examines the role abortion played amongst enslaved Black women in the American South, is a desperately needed corrective.
Huntsman '12?
Former Utah Governor, current ambassador to China Jon Huntsman (R) may be gearing up for a 2012 presidential run. At the very least, he's not shooting down rumors that his ambitions lie in that direction.
I've previously identified Huntsman as a leader of the "not insane" wing of the Republican Party -- possibly its last man standing, with the immolation of Charlie Crist. So I have a lot of respect for him. But I can't fathom how the Socialist Kenyan regime's ambassador to the Socialist Chinese regime plans on getting through a Republican primary. I'm baffled as to why Huntsman -- who will only be 56 in 2016 -- wouldn't wait until then for what I'd imagine to be a much cleaner shot at the White House.
I've previously identified Huntsman as a leader of the "not insane" wing of the Republican Party -- possibly its last man standing, with the immolation of Charlie Crist. So I have a lot of respect for him. But I can't fathom how the Socialist Kenyan regime's ambassador to the Socialist Chinese regime plans on getting through a Republican primary. I'm baffled as to why Huntsman -- who will only be 56 in 2016 -- wouldn't wait until then for what I'd imagine to be a much cleaner shot at the White House.
Eat Less Chikin
It's a shame that Chick-fil-A is so closely tied with anti-gay forces. They make delicious fast food.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
The CPMAJO Stooges
An incredible cheap shot by Malcolm Hoenlein on former IAEA head and Egyptian opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei. He calls him a "stooge" for Iran. Regardless of how one evaluates ElBaradei's tenure as head of the IAEA, there is zero support for that accusation. ElBaradei pushed for inspections of Iran's nuclear program, albeit not as aggressively as some might have liked, and was a vociferous opponent of military confrontation with the state, which certain more hawkish sorts very much did not like. But even taken to their fullest, these are policy differences, and should remain such. Acting as if ElBaradei in his role as leader of a unified Egyptian opposition is simple a front man (or useful idiot) for Iran is deeply offensive, and beneath the dignity of the CPMAJO or any other organization.
What we have is a simple slander against the most promising secular leader of the Egyptian opposition. Let's call a spade a spade -- it's one that likely flows from Hoenlein's fear that an Egypt not led by an autocratic thug like Mubarak will be an Egypt less amenable to Israel and America's interests. Which is a descriptively legitimate fear (while many of the same pressures which keep Egypt in America's camp will still be present in any new regime, they'll be countered by a newly salient need for democratic accountability toward a populace deeply -- though not blindly -- suspicious of both nations) -- but not one that normatively justifies kneecapping the Egyptian quest for self-governance, much less slandering the man who may prove pivotal in bringing democracy to the nation.
What we have is a simple slander against the most promising secular leader of the Egyptian opposition. Let's call a spade a spade -- it's one that likely flows from Hoenlein's fear that an Egypt not led by an autocratic thug like Mubarak will be an Egypt less amenable to Israel and America's interests. Which is a descriptively legitimate fear (while many of the same pressures which keep Egypt in America's camp will still be present in any new regime, they'll be countered by a newly salient need for democratic accountability toward a populace deeply -- though not blindly -- suspicious of both nations) -- but not one that normatively justifies kneecapping the Egyptian quest for self-governance, much less slandering the man who may prove pivotal in bringing democracy to the nation.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
GOP Conference Chairman Comes Out in Favor of Mubarak
There's a fair critique to be made that the Obama administration's response to the street revolution in Egypt has been a bit muddled. There's a fair excuse for that too -- we're in a tough spot, between the fact that Mubarak is an autocrat who has consistently stymied democratic reform in his country, and the fact that he's our autocrat and has managed to keep an uneasy peace with its neighbor to the east. The devil you know and all that. Still, there is little evidence that these protests have been driven by Islamist forces. And ultimately, the US will suffer far more if the Egyptian people believe that, when the chips were down, the United States wasn't there for them when they took to the streets and demanded their legitimate rights to democratic self-governance. And so, while there might have been a bit more hedging than I'd prefer, I was heartened to see Obama strongly back the rights of the Egyptian protesters and call for desperately needed reforms in the country. At the same time, folks who claim they haven't been nearly clear enough have a point.
In any event, whatever failings of clarity Obama may have had, there is no such ambiguity in the position of Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), GOP Conference chairman. He's loud and clear: the US needs to back Mubarak and make sure these protests are crushed. Presumably, he will then wonder why American credibility regarding democracy is shot to hell.
In any event, whatever failings of clarity Obama may have had, there is no such ambiguity in the position of Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), GOP Conference chairman. He's loud and clear: the US needs to back Mubarak and make sure these protests are crushed. Presumably, he will then wonder why American credibility regarding democracy is shot to hell.
Friday, January 28, 2011
There's Rape and Then There's Rape
If you know what I mean. And House Republicans sure do:
Of course, there is a well-known tension between the idea of abortion being about murder (as opposed to the regulation and punishment of non-reproductive female sexuality), and an exception for pregnancies caused by rape. If the idea is that the unborn child is innocent, then the idea of a rape exception makes no sense. If the idea is that rape renders the mother innocent, then it does -- but that just goes back to the notion of abortion regulation being about judging women for having sex.
But in any event: to the extent we are saying that the massive trauma of being raped cannot be ethically reconciled with forcing the victim to give birth to her rapist's child, this law is incredibly insensitive to the wellbeing of rape victims whose rapists didn't use (physical) force -- as in the case of many statutory and date rape cases. Basically, it's back to the old days of that not really being rape.
Via LGM.
For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. (Another exemption covers pregnancies that could endanger the life of the woman.) But the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress, contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases.
With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion. (Smith's spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.)
Of course, there is a well-known tension between the idea of abortion being about murder (as opposed to the regulation and punishment of non-reproductive female sexuality), and an exception for pregnancies caused by rape. If the idea is that the unborn child is innocent, then the idea of a rape exception makes no sense. If the idea is that rape renders the mother innocent, then it does -- but that just goes back to the notion of abortion regulation being about judging women for having sex.
But in any event: to the extent we are saying that the massive trauma of being raped cannot be ethically reconciled with forcing the victim to give birth to her rapist's child, this law is incredibly insensitive to the wellbeing of rape victims whose rapists didn't use (physical) force -- as in the case of many statutory and date rape cases. Basically, it's back to the old days of that not really being rape.
Via LGM.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Interview with Gadi Taub
Very cool interview by Michael Weiss with the left-wing Israeli Zionist and polymath Gadi Taub, who has a new book out: The Settlers and the Struggle over the Meaning of Zionism (Yale UP). Taub is of the opinion (and I agree) that the religious-nationalist settlement movement is Israel's largest homegrown threat to Israel's status as a democratic homeland for the Jewish people (not unrelatedly, as embarrassing as the McCarthyist Knesset inquiry into leftist NGOs is, I can't tell you how thrilled I am that the Kahanist-linked, terrorist-sympathizing Michael Ben Ari of all people will be the man in charge of the panel).
But anyway, back to Taub, who, if Ben Ari represents Israel's worst, represents Israel's best. And the best of the best excerpt:
Anyone who can, in such short space, make the accurate conflation of "left" and "right", "pro-Israel" and "pro-Palestine" one-staters, defend two-states, and nail British pseudo-anti-colonialists for so unabashedly taking back up "the White Man's Burden" is an automatic winner in my book. And the whole interview is excellent. He makes no apologies for anti-Semitism or denying Israel's right to exist, but notes the fundamental fact that Israel -- as a matter of basic national self-preservation -- has to extract itself from the occupation. It may not be fair that this burden falls upon Israel, even though the conditions of occupation and the lack of peaceful two-state solution are not entirely (primarily, whatever -- I'm not interested in hashing over degrees of fault) Israel's fault. Life isn't fair. Get over it, and do what needs to be done. Everything else (including, frankly, a comprehensive peace treaty -- even in a state of formal war like that which exists between Israel and Syria, I think the IDF is strong enough to keep Israel safe from any military threat from a Palestinian state with or without the occupation. Cast Lead, more or less, proves that) can come later.
Meanwhile, with respect to Taub's point about externally-imposed solutions, it's worth noting that, while I haven't seen immediately-recent polling out of Palestine, the most recent numbers I recall reading, from about two years ago, had a two-states for two-peoples solution as the clear consensus choice amongst Palestinians, taking 53% of those polled (32% want solely a Palestinian state on all the land, while only 15% preferred what is forwarded as the classic "one-state", binational solution).
But anyway, back to Taub, who, if Ben Ari represents Israel's worst, represents Israel's best. And the best of the best excerpt:
MW: One of the more interesting points you make in your settlements book is that settlers seem to be echoing the sentiments of the anti-Zionist left in calling for a binational state. You quote Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook and Shlomo Aviner and others who make it plain that they’d rather see Greater Israel with an Arab majority than any division of land. That the intelligentsia of the Yesha Council more and more resembles the collective wisdom of the London Review of Books might be taken for a sign of how just marginalised and discredited the settlement project is.
GT: I think that’s very true. Which is why recently some on the right have been arguing for annexation which will include full citizenship to all residents of the territories.
I have very little respect for that solution when it comes from them, just as I have little respect for it when it comes from anti-Zionists.
A look at Gaza, where the differences between Hamas and Fatah were settled by the use of arms, should help us all wake up from imaginary schemes of peaceful bi-nationalism. I don’t see how Gaza would have turned into a liberal democracy if only there was a Jewish faction added to the mix. What the one-statists are promoting is going to be a chronic Lebanon style civil war. And the odd thing is, how little the London Review has drifted from old colonial habits of mind. The natives – we Jews and Arabs – aspire to national self-determination. But the good ol’ Brits, never tired of carrying the White Man’s Burden, know that the natives are too barbaric to understand what the right form of self-determination should be for them. So until they grow up, we, Western intellectuals, will serve as their political parents, and impose on them the state we know they should want. Because it is Western and enlightened, of course.
Anyone who can, in such short space, make the accurate conflation of "left" and "right", "pro-Israel" and "pro-Palestine" one-staters, defend two-states, and nail British pseudo-anti-colonialists for so unabashedly taking back up "the White Man's Burden" is an automatic winner in my book. And the whole interview is excellent. He makes no apologies for anti-Semitism or denying Israel's right to exist, but notes the fundamental fact that Israel -- as a matter of basic national self-preservation -- has to extract itself from the occupation. It may not be fair that this burden falls upon Israel, even though the conditions of occupation and the lack of peaceful two-state solution are not entirely (primarily, whatever -- I'm not interested in hashing over degrees of fault) Israel's fault. Life isn't fair. Get over it, and do what needs to be done. Everything else (including, frankly, a comprehensive peace treaty -- even in a state of formal war like that which exists between Israel and Syria, I think the IDF is strong enough to keep Israel safe from any military threat from a Palestinian state with or without the occupation. Cast Lead, more or less, proves that) can come later.
Meanwhile, with respect to Taub's point about externally-imposed solutions, it's worth noting that, while I haven't seen immediately-recent polling out of Palestine, the most recent numbers I recall reading, from about two years ago, had a two-states for two-peoples solution as the clear consensus choice amongst Palestinians, taking 53% of those polled (32% want solely a Palestinian state on all the land, while only 15% preferred what is forwarded as the classic "one-state", binational solution).
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
OMG DID YOU SEE WHO LISA'S GOING WITH?!!?
While I understand the impetus for mixed-party seating at the State of the Union after Tuscon, and I even think it is, all told, sweet, I do think that the "statement" it makes regard a new era of bipartisan cooperation is, well, overstated. Hence, I was amused to read this statement by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) on the event:
That is, in fact, exactly what it reminds me of, and I thank Senator Murkowski for giving words to my inchoate senses on the subject.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, asked reporters covering Tuesday's State of the Union address not to spend too much time focusing on prom-like questions about where Republicans and Democrats are sitting, but instead to concentrate on the content of President Obama's speech.
"It's like going to the prom and who's wearing what dress," Murkowski said. "And to a certain extent this has been a little bit of a dating show. You know, who are you going with? Reminds me a little of 8th grade."
That is, in fact, exactly what it reminds me of, and I thank Senator Murkowski for giving words to my inchoate senses on the subject.
Monday, January 24, 2011
The Palestine Papers
The big news out of the Middle East is the leak by al-Jazeera of the so-called Palestine Papers, which appear to demonstrate a Palestinian government offering record concessions on issues important to Israel. Unfortunately, the Netanyahu government broke off negotiations upon its election, and the Palestinian Authority has refused to renew them, so we're at an impasse.
On the one hand (operating on the assumption that the documents are accurate), it's obviously a good thing that Palestinian negotiators were willing to make such drastic concessions on the issue of settlements ringing Jerusalem -- not so much because I have strong beliefs as to who gains ultimate jurisdiction about any (well, most) particular acre of land near the Green Line as because I prefer a great deal about agreement being closer rather than further, and concessions on points of contention -- regardless of my Platonic ideal resolution of the conflict -- further that interest. To that end, it is of course disheartening that the PA has been forced into furious denials over the contents of the memo. Their defensiveness is understandable -- the only thing more unpopular than making controversial concessions in pursuit of independence and a comprehensive peace agreement is making controversial concessions and then not getting independence or peace. But I would hardly say it is doing anyone any favors to, say, write that "The shame on the ‘negotiators’ (collaborators) who offered this will never be eradicated." The political fallout is disheartening, but it reflects well on the PA that it was willing to take a bold leap of faith here, and poorly on the Israeli government that it wasn't able to reciprocate.
Hence the conventional wisdom -- that the Palestinian Authority is a true partner for peace, but it is questionable the extent to which it can deliver democratic legitimacy to the peace process, seems to me apt. At the same time, for all the famous lines about Palestinians "never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity", it seems very obvious that the Israeli government missed a major opportunity to push the ball forward during this round of negotiation, and it deserves to be held to task for its failing.
Meanwhile, the first half of the Turkel Committee report on the Gaza flotilla incident is out. I've skimmed part of it (I was curious as to whether my intuitions regarding the legality of the blockade under San Remo were on target), but I haven't read it carefully (I was hoping that Opinio Juris would have weighed in on it, but they haven't yet). I will note that it is released just in time to greet a new flotilla ready to sail to Gaza, so that's "good".
On the one hand (operating on the assumption that the documents are accurate), it's obviously a good thing that Palestinian negotiators were willing to make such drastic concessions on the issue of settlements ringing Jerusalem -- not so much because I have strong beliefs as to who gains ultimate jurisdiction about any (well, most) particular acre of land near the Green Line as because I prefer a great deal about agreement being closer rather than further, and concessions on points of contention -- regardless of my Platonic ideal resolution of the conflict -- further that interest. To that end, it is of course disheartening that the PA has been forced into furious denials over the contents of the memo. Their defensiveness is understandable -- the only thing more unpopular than making controversial concessions in pursuit of independence and a comprehensive peace agreement is making controversial concessions and then not getting independence or peace. But I would hardly say it is doing anyone any favors to, say, write that "The shame on the ‘negotiators’ (collaborators) who offered this will never be eradicated." The political fallout is disheartening, but it reflects well on the PA that it was willing to take a bold leap of faith here, and poorly on the Israeli government that it wasn't able to reciprocate.
Hence the conventional wisdom -- that the Palestinian Authority is a true partner for peace, but it is questionable the extent to which it can deliver democratic legitimacy to the peace process, seems to me apt. At the same time, for all the famous lines about Palestinians "never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity", it seems very obvious that the Israeli government missed a major opportunity to push the ball forward during this round of negotiation, and it deserves to be held to task for its failing.
Meanwhile, the first half of the Turkel Committee report on the Gaza flotilla incident is out. I've skimmed part of it (I was curious as to whether my intuitions regarding the legality of the blockade under San Remo were on target), but I haven't read it carefully (I was hoping that Opinio Juris would have weighed in on it, but they haven't yet). I will note that it is released just in time to greet a new flotilla ready to sail to Gaza, so that's "good".
Sunday, January 23, 2011
This is America! Nobody Deserves to be Treated as a Black Man!
The Onion: "Judge Rules White Girl Will Be Tried as Black Adult."
Judge Rules White Girl Will Be Tried As Black Adult
Judge Rules White Girl Will Be Tried As Black Adult
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Auctioneer Roundup
Law school auction on Thursday. I didn't win anything -- probably a good thing. The last time I "won" something at the law school auction, I paid for it and never received it.
* * *
Bradley Burston gives ten reasons to be optimistic that Israel has finally turned a corner.
Unqualified Offerings offers a revised schedule of illegal drugs.
Tablet Mag profiles the extremist anti-Zionist Jew Phillip Weiss. It's an interesting read.
A Muslim? As a judge? Oh noes!
New research on why Texas' "top 10%" plan, envisioned as a race-neutral replacement for affirmative action, is not working out.
While Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) will be given the GOP's official SOTU response, Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) is delivering her own response as a representative of the Tea Party movement. I'm sure Dems are just quaking.
I cannot imagine the trauma of having one's own teacher burn a cross into one's arm.
* * *
Bradley Burston gives ten reasons to be optimistic that Israel has finally turned a corner.
Unqualified Offerings offers a revised schedule of illegal drugs.
Tablet Mag profiles the extremist anti-Zionist Jew Phillip Weiss. It's an interesting read.
A Muslim? As a judge? Oh noes!
New research on why Texas' "top 10%" plan, envisioned as a race-neutral replacement for affirmative action, is not working out.
While Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) will be given the GOP's official SOTU response, Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) is delivering her own response as a representative of the Tea Party movement. I'm sure Dems are just quaking.
I cannot imagine the trauma of having one's own teacher burn a cross into one's arm.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Spam!
I have just recently found out that Blogger has enabled auto-spam detection and quarantined comments it suspects to be spam, which is where many of the missing comments have been headed. I've just gone through and published all the (non-spam) comments mistakenly trapped there, and I'll take to checking the box more regularly now that I've discovered its existence.
As to why the particular comment-authors in question are so consistently taken to be spam, I venture no public opinion.
As to why the particular comment-authors in question are so consistently taken to be spam, I venture no public opinion.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
One Tequila Two Tequila....
Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) has the quote of the day, speaking from the House floor on the healthcare repeal debate:
Lolz to the wallz, boys.
"You know, I want to just advise people watching at home playing that now popular drinking game of 'you take a shot whenever Republicans say something that's not true.' Please assign a designated driver. This is going to be a long afternoon."
Lolz to the wallz, boys.
Come On, Steve
Fun fact, Steve Cohen (D-TN) -- when Sarah Palin said criticism of her constituted a "blood libel"? That wasn't a license for open season on the term. Blech.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
The Role Model
I don't have much to say aside from my endorsement of this post on Clarence Thomas and the myth of the "one most qualified" candidate. Was Clarence Thomas the single "most qualified" person who could have been nominated for a SCOTUS seat? To the extent that question makes sense, the answer is clearly "no", but the better moral is that the question really doesn't make sense.
"Despite" the fact that he was clearly an "affirmative action" pick by President Bush, who recognized that the legitimacy of the Supreme Court couldn't stand for it being lily-white anymore, Justice Thomas has proven himself to be an innovative thinker and an all-around excellent jurist (albeit one with whom I disagree with on nearly every issue). Which goes for the proposition that there are a great many (or at least more than one) candidates qualified for most government positions, and once you get beyond certain basic thresholds, what we're looking for isn't the "most qualified" person but rather between the different contributions different candidates are likely to bring to the job. And Justice Thomas, whatever his other failings, has brought an important perspective to the Supreme Court that almost certainly would not have been replicated by any other potential George H.W. Bush nominee.
"Despite" the fact that he was clearly an "affirmative action" pick by President Bush, who recognized that the legitimacy of the Supreme Court couldn't stand for it being lily-white anymore, Justice Thomas has proven himself to be an innovative thinker and an all-around excellent jurist (albeit one with whom I disagree with on nearly every issue). Which goes for the proposition that there are a great many (or at least more than one) candidates qualified for most government positions, and once you get beyond certain basic thresholds, what we're looking for isn't the "most qualified" person but rather between the different contributions different candidates are likely to bring to the job. And Justice Thomas, whatever his other failings, has brought an important perspective to the Supreme Court that almost certainly would not have been replicated by any other potential George H.W. Bush nominee.
Every Anti-Semite Has Their One "Bad Gentile"
Sigmund Freud. Edward Bernays. George Soros. Cass Sunstein. Andy Stern. Walter Lippman. Frances Fox Piven. Edward Rendell. And Richard Trumka.
If you scarcely recognized any of those names outside of Freud, congratulations, you're a regular American.
If you recognized a few more of the names -- two-thirds or so -- but have no earthly idea what they all have in common, congratulations, you're a relatively well-informed, but still normal, American.
If you answered "the foremost enemies of America and humanity", by contrast, you must be a Glenn Beck viewer (no kudos for you). And, in what is of course just a massive coincidence, with the exception of AFL-CIO president Trumka, all of the names are Jewish.
Surely, just a coincidence. It's not like Beck has accused the Jews of killing Christ or anything. I mean, the ADL-honored Rupert Murdoch would never employ anyone with even a whiff of anti-Semitism in his bones. Right?
James Besser says folks like Beck raise
With due respect to Mr. Besser, I don't think it is that difficult at all. In post-1970s America, nobody admits to, or even thinks of themselves as, a bigot -- towards Jews, towards Blacks, towards Latinos, towards anyone. Any and all political positions are held with the firm stated conviction that they are perfectly consistent with liberal equality, just as Martin Luther King, Jr., commanded.
Folks like Beck don't raise any difficult questions, they just make it easy to see the facility of this analysis. The fact that one can proclaim one's love for the Jewish people even while promoting nearly-all Jewish lists of evil mind controls out to destroy the country simply shows the hollowness of the proclamation. It's simply not a reliable way of gauging who our friends are.
If you scarcely recognized any of those names outside of Freud, congratulations, you're a regular American.
If you recognized a few more of the names -- two-thirds or so -- but have no earthly idea what they all have in common, congratulations, you're a relatively well-informed, but still normal, American.
If you answered "the foremost enemies of America and humanity", by contrast, you must be a Glenn Beck viewer (no kudos for you). And, in what is of course just a massive coincidence, with the exception of AFL-CIO president Trumka, all of the names are Jewish.
Surely, just a coincidence. It's not like Beck has accused the Jews of killing Christ or anything. I mean, the ADL-honored Rupert Murdoch would never employ anyone with even a whiff of anti-Semitism in his bones. Right?
James Besser says folks like Beck raise
a difficult question that could define the job for the ADL and other "defense organizations" in this age of angry talk shows, cable news commentaries and blogs: what do you do about those who profess love for the Jewish people and for Israel, but whose ideology echoes age-old canards about malevolent Jewish conspiracies?
With due respect to Mr. Besser, I don't think it is that difficult at all. In post-1970s America, nobody admits to, or even thinks of themselves as, a bigot -- towards Jews, towards Blacks, towards Latinos, towards anyone. Any and all political positions are held with the firm stated conviction that they are perfectly consistent with liberal equality, just as Martin Luther King, Jr., commanded.
Folks like Beck don't raise any difficult questions, they just make it easy to see the facility of this analysis. The fact that one can proclaim one's love for the Jewish people even while promoting nearly-all Jewish lists of evil mind controls out to destroy the country simply shows the hollowness of the proclamation. It's simply not a reliable way of gauging who our friends are.
Overruled: Nine Months Later
Last April, I wrote a brief blurb on the plight of a Veneuzelan judge who released a prisoner Hugo Chavez wanted to remain incarcerated, and was arrested and thrown in jail 15 minutes later. The man in question had been held in jail for three years without trial, beyond legal limitations, hence the judge's ruling.
Anyway, Judge Maria Lourdes Afiuni remains in prison and is facing a 30 year sentence. Prosecutors admit they can find no evidence of any illicit payments to Judge Afiuni, but have accused her of (I kid you not) "spiritual corruption" (presumably, that provision is Article 2, Sec. 128 of Venezuelan national code, right next to the provision that prohibits violating "everything that we [the Venezuelan government] have been doing.").
Anyway, Judge Maria Lourdes Afiuni remains in prison and is facing a 30 year sentence. Prosecutors admit they can find no evidence of any illicit payments to Judge Afiuni, but have accused her of (I kid you not) "spiritual corruption" (presumably, that provision is Article 2, Sec. 128 of Venezuelan national code, right next to the provision that prohibits violating "everything that we [the Venezuelan government] have been doing.").
Alabama Governor: Non-Christians are not my "Brothers"
In a speech to a Black church in Alabama meant to bolster his race-relations credentials, Alabama Governor-elect Robert Bentley promised that though "I was elected as a Republican candidate ... once I became governor ... I became the governor of all the people."
A lovely sentiment. Except for what happened next:
I'm not sure how many folks in a church don't "have living within them the Holy Spirit". But the bigger point, obviously, is the gratuitous demeaning of Jews and other non-Christians, with the Governor explicitly telling them that they are lesser people in his eyes.
The reason the Constitution forbids official religious endorsement is that, in the words of Justice O'Connor, "Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community." Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 688 (1984) (O'Connor, J., concurring). Alas, public pronouncement of the governor's views -- absent any legal effect -- are likely outside the purview of constitutional review. But the effect is the same -- everybody in Alabama now has had it made starkly clue which faith groups are insiders, and which are outsiders, in the current administration.
UPDATE: Jon Chait reminds us that "it's been months since the last neoconservative column upbraiding American Jews for their inexplicable failure to vote Republican."
UPDATE #2: Governor Bentley has apologized.
A lovely sentiment. Except for what happened next:
"There may be some people here today who do not have living within them the Holy Spirit," Bentley said. ''But if you have been adopted in God's family like I have, and like you have if you're a Christian and if you're saved, and the Holy Spirit lives within you just like the Holy Spirit lives within me, then you know what that makes? It makes you and me brothers. And it makes you and me brother and sister."
Bentley added, ''Now I will have to say that, if we don't have the same daddy, we're not brothers and sisters. So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother."
I'm not sure how many folks in a church don't "have living within them the Holy Spirit". But the bigger point, obviously, is the gratuitous demeaning of Jews and other non-Christians, with the Governor explicitly telling them that they are lesser people in his eyes.
The reason the Constitution forbids official religious endorsement is that, in the words of Justice O'Connor, "Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community." Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 688 (1984) (O'Connor, J., concurring). Alas, public pronouncement of the governor's views -- absent any legal effect -- are likely outside the purview of constitutional review. But the effect is the same -- everybody in Alabama now has had it made starkly clue which faith groups are insiders, and which are outsiders, in the current administration.
UPDATE: Jon Chait reminds us that "it's been months since the last neoconservative column upbraiding American Jews for their inexplicable failure to vote Republican."
UPDATE #2: Governor Bentley has apologized.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
