You all gonna be here when I wake up?
I was planning on waiting a few more days to write this. It was not something I was looking forward to, to say the least. But I hit a natural lull in my blogging and, well, it didn't seem smart to try and get back in the groove given what was looming on the horizon.
Eight years and two months after I launched it shortly after my high school graduation, The Debate Link is going on public hiatus.
I mean "hiatus" seriously -- this is a required break for the duration of my clerkship, where various rules of judicial ethics effectively prevent me from having a high-profile public platform for launching all my half-formed opinions onto the world. Everyone raves about how wonderful clerking is, and I'm excited about it too, but this is one major sacrifice I'm being asked to make. But it's only for a year, I hope. The plan is that once that clerkship ends a year from now, the blog will resume as well.
Still, this is a scary thing for me. The Debate Link has been my baby for nearly my entire adult life. I created it from scratch and since then it has become a really important part of me. It's a space for me to let off steam, incubate new ideas, or just shoot the breeze about random interesting events. It has more or less served as my mind's external hard-drive for years. And, of course, it has sparked innumerable great conversations with friends and colleagues off-line, all of which I treasure.
Some of these things I can still do -- just not in a public setting. I'll move the blog behind a password wall, and I can still write to my heart's content. So in that sense it isn't really a "hiatus", since I'll still be doing some writing (albeit probably at a reduced pace). But taking the blog out of the public eye means giving up one of the most important things of all -- the blogging community. I'm still small-ball enough that getting links from any blog (big or little) tickles me pink. And even more important than inbound links, I've been blessed with some wonderful commenters and met some wonderful people through The Debate Link. It is difficult to let that go -- even temporarily. While I may end up sharing the password with a limited audience, there's no getting around the fact that I'm essentially disconnecting the blog from its larger ecosphere, and that's going to hurt.
But so it is. I'm going to leave this post up on top as my formal farewell until I get back from my vacation in Maryland later this month, and then The Debate Link will officially become password protected.
Again, I want to thank everybody who's been reading me -- those of you who have been around almost since the beginning, and those of you who are relatively new. You've been fantastic.
Just promise me you'll be here when I get back.
Tuesday, August 07, 2012
Thursday, August 02, 2012
Concern Trolling, Thy Name Is Lara
I think Americans for Peace Now is generally a good organization, but this piece by Lara Friedman on the "exploitation" of Jewish refugees is just awful. The instigation for the column is various moves in both Israel and the United States to place the issue of Jewish refugees from Arab countries -- many of whom were forced to flee anti-Semitic discrimination and violence and watched as their property was confiscated -- on the agenda of the broader Israeli/Arab peace process. "Exploitation", here, appears to be defined as "making sure these persons are not completely overlooked".
The basic problem with Friedman's article is that, while it purports to recognize that there are unresolved issues of justice with respect to the departure of Jews from Arab nations, she effectively labels any efforts to make it an agenda item an example of illegitimate political gamesmanship meant to neutralize claims by Palestinian refugees. For starters, even on face this isn't really correct -- the congressional bill she cites, for example, specifically suggests that Israeli and Palestinian refugee claims ought to be paired. So she twists a bit and says, no, the problem is that discussion of Israeli refugees as a parallel to Palestinian refugees is wrongheaded because they're separate issues. Which they are, but it's not clear why that's relevant -- if they're both issues of concern, both should be on the agenda, and one set of refugees currently is being largely ignored. Jewish refugees and their descendants have every right to wonder about the asymmetry as compared to the most analogous event. None of these bills do much more than urge that Arab Jewish claims become part of the agenda -- which right now they are not. If even that relatively modest call is illegitimate politicization, then Friedman is effectively saying that Arab Jews should permanently shut up.
Is part of the impetus for this discussion an attempt to fight back against the notion of Israel as the sole wrongdoer victimizing Palestinians, while Jews had it made in the shade? Sure. But so what? Aside from the fact that if we're going to get all high-groundy over disputants' attempts at framing we'll be here all day, Israel wasn't the sole wrongdoer and not all Jews did have it made in the shade. The fact of the matter is that this is an issue which has been grossly overlooked for decades for a variety of factors -- racism against non-White Jews ranking high among them -- and now is finally getting some attention. While Friedman says that these claims are "tarnished" because they also have political valence, I doubt the men and women in question will lose much sleep over it, given that everything in this region has a political valence. If that's Friedman's standard -- and it really isn't, because it's impossible for it to be one she applies to every Israeli/Palestinian issue -- what she's actually saying is that any discussion of Arab Jewish claims is a distraction from real-people issues.
Frankly, this is a class of persons that's been silenced for long enough, and deserves to have their grievances aired. Friedman may sigh about how she feels for Arab Jews, but without any indication of how a conversation about them can proceed in an "acceptable" fashion, it rings quite hollow indeed.
The basic problem with Friedman's article is that, while it purports to recognize that there are unresolved issues of justice with respect to the departure of Jews from Arab nations, she effectively labels any efforts to make it an agenda item an example of illegitimate political gamesmanship meant to neutralize claims by Palestinian refugees. For starters, even on face this isn't really correct -- the congressional bill she cites, for example, specifically suggests that Israeli and Palestinian refugee claims ought to be paired. So she twists a bit and says, no, the problem is that discussion of Israeli refugees as a parallel to Palestinian refugees is wrongheaded because they're separate issues. Which they are, but it's not clear why that's relevant -- if they're both issues of concern, both should be on the agenda, and one set of refugees currently is being largely ignored. Jewish refugees and their descendants have every right to wonder about the asymmetry as compared to the most analogous event. None of these bills do much more than urge that Arab Jewish claims become part of the agenda -- which right now they are not. If even that relatively modest call is illegitimate politicization, then Friedman is effectively saying that Arab Jews should permanently shut up.
Is part of the impetus for this discussion an attempt to fight back against the notion of Israel as the sole wrongdoer victimizing Palestinians, while Jews had it made in the shade? Sure. But so what? Aside from the fact that if we're going to get all high-groundy over disputants' attempts at framing we'll be here all day, Israel wasn't the sole wrongdoer and not all Jews did have it made in the shade. The fact of the matter is that this is an issue which has been grossly overlooked for decades for a variety of factors -- racism against non-White Jews ranking high among them -- and now is finally getting some attention. While Friedman says that these claims are "tarnished" because they also have political valence, I doubt the men and women in question will lose much sleep over it, given that everything in this region has a political valence. If that's Friedman's standard -- and it really isn't, because it's impossible for it to be one she applies to every Israeli/Palestinian issue -- what she's actually saying is that any discussion of Arab Jewish claims is a distraction from real-people issues.
Frankly, this is a class of persons that's been silenced for long enough, and deserves to have their grievances aired. Friedman may sigh about how she feels for Arab Jews, but without any indication of how a conversation about them can proceed in an "acceptable" fashion, it rings quite hollow indeed.
UC's Misguided Flirtation with Hate Speech Ban
The Forward has an interesting story up about a proposal by a University of California community to regulate hate speech -- in part because of alleged anti-Semitism as part and parcel of various anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian protests.
While I'm perhaps a little more ambivalent than most on this issue, I still lean towards skepticism. There's just too much room for manipulation with regard to what counts and what doesn't. One of the co-directors of the panel, when asked about whether calling Israel an "apartheid state" would count as hate speech, replied "I couldn't give you an answer without looking at the definition of how courts define hate speech." Bzzt. American courts don't have a definition of hate speech, because hate speech isn't a legally cognizable concept in American law at the moment. The panel grandstands about the inevitable legal challenge (urging the university to "accept the challenge."), but it isn't altogether clear they know just how shaky their position is.
And furthermore, it seems like a ban is the easy way out. Banning hate speech is a sign not just that one's community has racist, sexist, or anti-Semitic members. It's a sign that the community as a whole does not have a strong enough commitment to liberal ideals to defeat them by normal means. It is easy to sign an order barring a racist protest. It is considerably harder to mobilize the community to counterprotest, to flood the newspapers with condemnatory editorials, and to otherwise make it known that the fringe is a fringe. It strikes me that UC's flirtation with this move is done with the knowledge that the fringe isn't so fringe at all, and a corresponding lack of confidence that, left to their own devices, the Cal community really can be counted on to stand against bigotry. There is irony in the report chiding UC President Mark Yudof for condemning a protest of a pro-Israel event, for in a sense that's precisely the right tactic -- people can protest however they want, and we hope that the university leadership and student rank-and-file makes known their contempt for the protesters. That's how one reconciles free speech with combating hate speech -- "more speech, not enforced silence."
None of this is to say that issues of racism and anti-Semitism aren't problems on California campuses. The JVP, for example, is complaining about a co-director of the panel who apparently is biased because he's (*gasp*) pro-Israel. They're also making the banal and irrelevant point that Jews have a variety of positions on Israel, though it is altogether unclear why that would make it impossible for any particular statement or protest against Israel to be anti-Semitic (as usual, the JVP's main contribution is to act as Jewish voice for what non-Jews want to say about Jews with impunity). But that the JVP has an institutional hostility to the belief that anti-Semitism exists does not mean that any policy geared at combating it is appropriate. I'm skeptical of Cal's ability to manage an anti-hate speech program, and I'm worried about such a policy serving as a short-cut against what needs to be done -- an actual, concrete, substantive, broad-based commitment by the entire university community that bigotry is unacceptable and does not represent California values.
While I'm perhaps a little more ambivalent than most on this issue, I still lean towards skepticism. There's just too much room for manipulation with regard to what counts and what doesn't. One of the co-directors of the panel, when asked about whether calling Israel an "apartheid state" would count as hate speech, replied "I couldn't give you an answer without looking at the definition of how courts define hate speech." Bzzt. American courts don't have a definition of hate speech, because hate speech isn't a legally cognizable concept in American law at the moment. The panel grandstands about the inevitable legal challenge (urging the university to "accept the challenge."), but it isn't altogether clear they know just how shaky their position is.
And furthermore, it seems like a ban is the easy way out. Banning hate speech is a sign not just that one's community has racist, sexist, or anti-Semitic members. It's a sign that the community as a whole does not have a strong enough commitment to liberal ideals to defeat them by normal means. It is easy to sign an order barring a racist protest. It is considerably harder to mobilize the community to counterprotest, to flood the newspapers with condemnatory editorials, and to otherwise make it known that the fringe is a fringe. It strikes me that UC's flirtation with this move is done with the knowledge that the fringe isn't so fringe at all, and a corresponding lack of confidence that, left to their own devices, the Cal community really can be counted on to stand against bigotry. There is irony in the report chiding UC President Mark Yudof for condemning a protest of a pro-Israel event, for in a sense that's precisely the right tactic -- people can protest however they want, and we hope that the university leadership and student rank-and-file makes known their contempt for the protesters. That's how one reconciles free speech with combating hate speech -- "more speech, not enforced silence."
None of this is to say that issues of racism and anti-Semitism aren't problems on California campuses. The JVP, for example, is complaining about a co-director of the panel who apparently is biased because he's (*gasp*) pro-Israel. They're also making the banal and irrelevant point that Jews have a variety of positions on Israel, though it is altogether unclear why that would make it impossible for any particular statement or protest against Israel to be anti-Semitic (as usual, the JVP's main contribution is to act as Jewish voice for what non-Jews want to say about Jews with impunity). But that the JVP has an institutional hostility to the belief that anti-Semitism exists does not mean that any policy geared at combating it is appropriate. I'm skeptical of Cal's ability to manage an anti-hate speech program, and I'm worried about such a policy serving as a short-cut against what needs to be done -- an actual, concrete, substantive, broad-based commitment by the entire university community that bigotry is unacceptable and does not represent California values.
Wednesday, August 01, 2012
Down Goes Perry!
The kinda-upset by former state Solicitor General Ted Cruz over Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst in the Texas Republican Senate primary (kinda because while Dewhurst started as the overwhelming favorite, all the momentum had shifted to Cruz during the run-off such that by election day, prognosticators were saying that a Dewhurst victory would be "a surprise") doesn't effect me very much. It in effect chooses a new US Senator. And, since this is Texas, he looks like a typical loon, but no more than anyone else. I mean, what Republican at this point doesn't oppose efforts by a shadowy Jewish financier to destroy freedom and achieve global domination George Soros' "grand scheme ... to abolish 'unsustainable' environments, including golf courses, grazing pastures, and paved roads" efforts by a shadowy Jewish financier to destroy freedom and achieve global domination (you know what -- my original formulation is more accurate, so I'm sticking with that).
But what is a little interesting is how this race puts the exclamation point on the fall of Rick Perry. Dewhurst, of course, is Perry's LG, and Perry went to the mat hard for him. But even in Texas, Republicans have fallen out of love with the man who actually managed to be too stupid to win the GOP nomination. And hey, I can certainly support that. The craziness of Texas politicians is a constant, but I can at least enjoy watching the final implosion of Governor Rob Ritchie.
But what is a little interesting is how this race puts the exclamation point on the fall of Rick Perry. Dewhurst, of course, is Perry's LG, and Perry went to the mat hard for him. But even in Texas, Republicans have fallen out of love with the man who actually managed to be too stupid to win the GOP nomination. And hey, I can certainly support that. The craziness of Texas politicians is a constant, but I can at least enjoy watching the final implosion of Governor Rob Ritchie.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Reports from the Move
As this post indicates, internet is now online, which means the most crucial part of any move has been a success. As always, obtaining wireless connectivity was a desperate, sometimes hopeless-seeming struggle, with twists, turns, a few tears, and a few times where I thought I'd lost even direct connectivity (those last two events may have be related). I honestly think wireless routers refuse to work for the first half-hour after a move out of spite, solely to get you to fiddle impotently with various incomprehensible settings (absent guidance from the internet, because, irony) and make your situation worse each time. As best I can tell, the wireless only started working when I reverted back to the original settings that had failed to work when I first connected the router to the modem. Oh well -- past is past.
Other thoughts:
* We misestimated the truck size we'd need for the move, and so Saturday morning became a brutal triage of which furniture got to make the trip to Minneapolis. A lot of good pieces were left behind. An IKEA trip yesterday has replenished the living room, though much of it remains unbuilt.
* The building managers of the apartment appear to be fascist (Jill says sadist, but it seems to me like their motivating desire is total autocratic control rather than gaining pleasure from others' pain). The number of restrictions on our move in was unbelievable.
* The local grocery store is nice, but too nice -- it's the sort of place that seems to view stocking items like "shampoo" to be degrading. Since there is no CVS for miles, this is deeply unfortunate.
* On the food side of things, Chipotle within walking distance may quickly obviate the need for said grocery store anyway.
* We're back on Comcast, as the building has a contract which makes it insanely cheap. Our installer, Trivia (real name, unbelievably), was very nice, but I can't help but notice one of my TVs effectively can't change channels. Thankfully, Jill is calling them, because I cannot go through this again.
* I already desperately miss smoothies. Neither Jamba Juice nor Robek's nor Smoothie King nor Freshen's appears to have discovered Minneapolis yet. Nor, if my cell phone reception is to be believed, has AT&T.
Other thoughts:
* We misestimated the truck size we'd need for the move, and so Saturday morning became a brutal triage of which furniture got to make the trip to Minneapolis. A lot of good pieces were left behind. An IKEA trip yesterday has replenished the living room, though much of it remains unbuilt.
* The building managers of the apartment appear to be fascist (Jill says sadist, but it seems to me like their motivating desire is total autocratic control rather than gaining pleasure from others' pain). The number of restrictions on our move in was unbelievable.
* The local grocery store is nice, but too nice -- it's the sort of place that seems to view stocking items like "shampoo" to be degrading. Since there is no CVS for miles, this is deeply unfortunate.
* On the food side of things, Chipotle within walking distance may quickly obviate the need for said grocery store anyway.
* We're back on Comcast, as the building has a contract which makes it insanely cheap. Our installer, Trivia (real name, unbelievably), was very nice, but I can't help but notice one of my TVs effectively can't change channels. Thankfully, Jill is calling them, because I cannot go through this again.
* I already desperately miss smoothies. Neither Jamba Juice nor Robek's nor Smoothie King nor Freshen's appears to have discovered Minneapolis yet. Nor, if my cell phone reception is to be believed, has AT&T.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Moving on Up
Today's packing today, and tomorrow's moving day. I'm off to Minneapolis, and will be moved in on Monday. But no time to rest on my laurels -- I'll be in Chicago next weekend, and I'll be in DC (and the beach) for days a week after that.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
J Street Takes on the One-State Caucus
When J Street attacked Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) for his one-stateism, I said that the ad was exactly what I wanted to see in theory, but noted a few problems in the execution. Basically, I didn't think it was aggressive enough in hammering home that one-state = anti-Israel.
This is more like it.
The ad still isn't perfect on execution. At a full minute it runs a little long, and takes some time to get its wheels spinning. I think the beginning can be trimmed considerably, and I think the Adelson reference can be cut (not because Adelson isn't being a putz about this, but I'm not sure why his involvement makes things worse). I also think adding quotes from other Jewish organizations saying "one state = anti-Israel" would pack some punch.
But nitpicking aside, the message is loud and clear: The one-state solution stands in opposition to Israel's Jewish, democratic character. It is an obstacle to a true peace that respects the rights and security of Israelis and Palestinians alike. Ergo, anything less than support of a two-state solution isn't pro-Israel. J Street is saying nothing more than what every other mainstream Jewish organization has been saying for years but now seems too cowardly to stand up for. So I'm glad that at least one pro-Israel group has the balls to take on the rising one-state tide head on.
This is more like it.
The ad still isn't perfect on execution. At a full minute it runs a little long, and takes some time to get its wheels spinning. I think the beginning can be trimmed considerably, and I think the Adelson reference can be cut (not because Adelson isn't being a putz about this, but I'm not sure why his involvement makes things worse). I also think adding quotes from other Jewish organizations saying "one state = anti-Israel" would pack some punch.
But nitpicking aside, the message is loud and clear: The one-state solution stands in opposition to Israel's Jewish, democratic character. It is an obstacle to a true peace that respects the rights and security of Israelis and Palestinians alike. Ergo, anything less than support of a two-state solution isn't pro-Israel. J Street is saying nothing more than what every other mainstream Jewish organization has been saying for years but now seems too cowardly to stand up for. So I'm glad that at least one pro-Israel group has the balls to take on the rising one-state tide head on.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
EMILY's Lies
Is there a nominally progressive advocacy group more scurrilous than EMILY's list? It seems like I'm constantly seeing them engaging in bogus-to-outrageous attacks on progressive Democrats, in ways that do deep damage to the progressive movement while doing very little (if anything) to push Congress in a pro-choice direction. They were deeply involved in Nikki Tinker's racially and religious-tinged campaign to unseat sterling progressive Rep. Steve Cohen in the 2008 Democratic primary. And right now DKos Elections is on their case adopting GOP-style rhetoric attacking a Democrat for successfully raising taxes on millionaires.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Blogger PSA
The Debate Link is a blog. This individual entry is a blog post. If I refer to "my last blog", it presumably means a prior website I wrote for before moving to The Debate Link (no such site exists). It does not mean the last entry on this blog. Bloggers who use "blog" to refer to individual posts read like bloggers who non-ironically capitalize "Internet".
Thank you, and remember -- acculturation to the norms of the medium is everyone's responsibility.
Thank you, and remember -- acculturation to the norms of the medium is everyone's responsibility.
Monday, July 23, 2012
Body Swappers
Wouldn't it be awesome if former Florida Governor Charlie Crist (then-R, now-I) and Alabama ex-Rep. Artur Davis (then-D, now-R) ran against each other for something in the future?
This came to mind after Crist came out against the voter ID fraud in the Washington Post, and delivered an unapologetic defense of democratic values and access to the ballot box. It was precisely apostasies like this, of course, that caused him to lose what had seemed a sure-shot bid to the US Senate as a Republican in 2010 to the tea-flavored Marco Rubio. Davis, of course, originally showcased his GOP-curiosity by jumping on the voter fraud bandwagon, though he was outraged when media critics made unreasonable demands of him like "give examples of when this has ever happened".
I had liked the old Davis, which is part of the reason the new one is so risible -- he's smart enough to know that "voter fraud" is a fraud, but he's also smart enough to know that jumping on that train is a fast way to leap to prominence amongst the GOP. Crist, by contrast, I liked even before he dropped the "R", and of course, I like him even better now. But still, they do seem to be walking similar paths (in opposing directions).
This came to mind after Crist came out against the voter ID fraud in the Washington Post, and delivered an unapologetic defense of democratic values and access to the ballot box. It was precisely apostasies like this, of course, that caused him to lose what had seemed a sure-shot bid to the US Senate as a Republican in 2010 to the tea-flavored Marco Rubio. Davis, of course, originally showcased his GOP-curiosity by jumping on the voter fraud bandwagon, though he was outraged when media critics made unreasonable demands of him like "give examples of when this has ever happened".
I had liked the old Davis, which is part of the reason the new one is so risible -- he's smart enough to know that "voter fraud" is a fraud, but he's also smart enough to know that jumping on that train is a fast way to leap to prominence amongst the GOP. Crist, by contrast, I liked even before he dropped the "R", and of course, I like him even better now. But still, they do seem to be walking similar paths (in opposing directions).
Reinventing Charlemagne
As usual, TNC hits out of the park:
This, presumably, explains the frustration at having to repeat "101" level material over and over and over again. When I was newer at this, I couldn't understand the frustration -- probably because I remember when I was 101. Nowadays, it's far more clear to me, though I still do my best to be patient. It really depends whether someone is being deliberately pugnacious or not. But either way, having to spend huge portions of one's times reinventing the wheel (or Charlemagne) is time that one can't spend pushing the ball forward, and that really is annoying.
Consider this: what if you were a medievalist and the majority of your public simply refused to accept that Charlemagne ever existed. Indeed, what if they felt their prosperity was contingent on not acknowledging it. And thus all your medievalist friends spent a great deal of time proving that Charlemagne did exist.
Think about all the other interesting questions you might never get to ask, because you were spending all your energy in refutation of myth. And this would be frustrating because surely you had true questions, questions which you actually didn't have answers for. But every time you presented your work before an audience you felt called back to 800 AD all over again.
I think about how the climate scientist, or the evolutionary biologist living in Tennessee must feel, and I find some sympathy. So much of black intellectual life is wasted in disabuse, in explaining yourself to other people, as opposed to yourself.
Above all, I think this is the case for HBCUs. It wasn't like we didn't talk about racism at Howard -- where Toni Morrison attended -- but we never had to explain. And we were free to consider the geography of ourselves, to understand ourselves as another country. I remember going to the CSA (Caribbean Students Association) parties. It was like some other parallel world. Or watching the fraternities and sororities come out in the Spring, something I had no understanding of at all.
This, presumably, explains the frustration at having to repeat "101" level material over and over and over again. When I was newer at this, I couldn't understand the frustration -- probably because I remember when I was 101. Nowadays, it's far more clear to me, though I still do my best to be patient. It really depends whether someone is being deliberately pugnacious or not. But either way, having to spend huge portions of one's times reinventing the wheel (or Charlemagne) is time that one can't spend pushing the ball forward, and that really is annoying.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Project Runway Season 10: Designer Notes
We're back with a new season of Project Runway! Can any of this season's designers compete with the awesomeness that was Anya? Nope -- let's get that out of the way right now. But still, it looks like they'll have their own charms, and with one episode down I already feel comfortable giving my assessment of all 16 to the world.
Beatrice: She's already gone, so we'll make this quick. Did I think her clothes were worse than Lantie's? No. But when you're in the bottom two in the first challenge and basically admitted you're a one-trick pony, you can't expect the judges to keep you around. She did have a dazzling smile though.
Alicia: The dreads meant that Jill and I immediately starting calling her "New McKell" (what, you don't remember the first designer eliminated from PR two seasons ago? What kind of fan are you?). So far, though, she's pretty awesome: I loved her hoodie garb (it was like Little Red Riding Hood meets Assassin's Creed), and the companion piece was pretty sweet too -- wearable, yet just off-kilter enough to feel unique. I really think she deserved Top 3, to be honest. I don't know if there are many lesbian designers (the glut of gay male designers made me think yes, but upon further reflection I have no idea), but she's pretty rockin'.
Andrea: I kind of wish she was judged this week so she and Patricia Field could have a throaty New York-accented conversation. Unfortunately, if she had been up there it would have been in the bottom three. The first dress was nice enough, if a little house-maidy, but the second one made her model look like a pregnant cupcake. I feel like I've seen that exact cut before, which makes me wonder if that style is a deliberate choice -- like we're in some bizarro fashion world where the goal is to make your model look shorter and fatter. I hope it's a fluke -- I like the saucy old folk, and she's a professor so, you know, solidarity.
Buffi: "Tacky." "The good kind of tacky?" "No, just the regular kind." Actually, both of these outfits seemed to lie just on the right side of too much. I could deal with less shiny scrunchy black on the first, and the top of the second looks like it emerged from the bottom of my dresser drawer after having been balled up for three months, but it really wasn't that bad. I'm not optimistic though.
Christopher: That gown was legitimately gorgeous. Seriously, it was probably the single best piece of the entire show. I'm a little put off by the placement of the leg slit, but that hardly mars a beautiful effort. I was so impressed by the gown, in fact, that I'm totally cool with Christopher winning even in spite of his Vegas-hooker-cocktail-waitress second look.
Dmitry: Dmitry is the one who was a ballet dancer in Belarus, but who claimed that didn't influence his style anymore, right? Because that glittery first dress looks exactly how I'd expect an eastern European ballet dancer to design a gown. The second look is okay, though the skin-baring panel in the middle reads less "ooh, sexy flash of skin" and more "someone slashed off the bottom of my top."
Elena: Both of her outfits looked like Stasi uniforms, circa 2056. Which I would have thought I'd have liked more, to be perfectly honest. I'm taking a wait and see attitude -- militaristic chic can be pretty awesome, but right now it's a bit too heavy on the Frau Farbissina side of things.
Fabio: Ombre! Pretty frickin' awesome! Becky said the line, but I'm pretty sure Victor used that exact color scheme. But I liked Victor's looks, and these were both pretty solid. Wyatt Cenac wants his beard back, though.
Gunnar: Gunnar Deathrage! Coolest name ever! I remembered him from last season, simply because the name was so sweet. So I'm thrilled he's back -- except that he appears to be this season's reincarnation of Joshua. Boo. He also is physically indistinguishable from Christopher, which will get tiresome quite quickly. Clothes-wise, both pieces were pretty good, except that the yellow base/black stripe theme makes both girls (but especially the first) look like they're going to a Halloween party as a slutty taxi cab.
Kooan: So I'm conflicted about him being in the bottom three this time around. His clothes are genuinely weird, but that's what he's going for. He is going for "Hello Kitty running from Godzilla," right? The judges seem to have preemptively decided that he's repetitive and one-note, and while technically I agree with Heidi that they can't say that off of literally one challenge, secretly (well, secret's out I guess) I think they're almost certainly right. But maybe he'll surprise us when he's tasked with making something elegant. Maybe.
Lantie: The actual worst of the worst last night. The first dress looked like a repurposed wedding gown -- which was an interesting PR challenge, but not anything that should be done voluntarily. The second piece had that fugly front panel that looked like it was glued on. And I'm not convinced she has any stylistic vision. I'm dubious she's got much longevity on this show.
Melissa: There might be a cast member named Buffi, but she's the one who looks like Sarah Michelle Geller. It's difficult to go too far wrong with an all-black palette (and I enjoyed watching her race to the only part of Mood which looks like a Brooks Brothers annex), but neither of her two looks blew me away or anything. I don't even think either were super-wearable. In any event, if she doesn't show some color, stat, she'll pretty quickly wear out her welcome.
Nathan: Nathan's story about reconnecting with his dad over Project Runway was super cute. His dresses were perfectly pretty, though a little simple -- and the knot on the green one was a little too crotch-centric for my tastes. Middle of the pack right now.
Raul: Raul's first look is pretty awesome if I can look past construction issues and the fact that there is literally no context it can be worn other than "I've just been laid off from my law firm so seducing my boss is now-or-never." The second one is a stiff, feathery mess. He also seemed to struggle badly with his time, which is always a bad sign.
Sonja: Sonja currently stands out for that ghastly shade of lipstick she had on. Her first look was very strong except for the way it opened in the middle (she might have had a skin-colored shirt under there -- I couldn't tell -- but either way it looked ridiculous). The second look was super-chic and elegant. Definite potential.
Ven: I can totally see and appreciate the superb technical skill that went into this. That being said, I have no idea where anyone could wear that flower-outfit. The second piece, on the other hand, was perfectly made and chic and wearable -- that's the one that popped for me to be honest. He's got an eye and he knows how to make clothes, and that's a powerful combination.
Beatrice: She's already gone, so we'll make this quick. Did I think her clothes were worse than Lantie's? No. But when you're in the bottom two in the first challenge and basically admitted you're a one-trick pony, you can't expect the judges to keep you around. She did have a dazzling smile though.
Alicia: The dreads meant that Jill and I immediately starting calling her "New McKell" (what, you don't remember the first designer eliminated from PR two seasons ago? What kind of fan are you?). So far, though, she's pretty awesome: I loved her hoodie garb (it was like Little Red Riding Hood meets Assassin's Creed), and the companion piece was pretty sweet too -- wearable, yet just off-kilter enough to feel unique. I really think she deserved Top 3, to be honest. I don't know if there are many lesbian designers (the glut of gay male designers made me think yes, but upon further reflection I have no idea), but she's pretty rockin'.
Andrea: I kind of wish she was judged this week so she and Patricia Field could have a throaty New York-accented conversation. Unfortunately, if she had been up there it would have been in the bottom three. The first dress was nice enough, if a little house-maidy, but the second one made her model look like a pregnant cupcake. I feel like I've seen that exact cut before, which makes me wonder if that style is a deliberate choice -- like we're in some bizarro fashion world where the goal is to make your model look shorter and fatter. I hope it's a fluke -- I like the saucy old folk, and she's a professor so, you know, solidarity.
Buffi: "Tacky." "The good kind of tacky?" "No, just the regular kind." Actually, both of these outfits seemed to lie just on the right side of too much. I could deal with less shiny scrunchy black on the first, and the top of the second looks like it emerged from the bottom of my dresser drawer after having been balled up for three months, but it really wasn't that bad. I'm not optimistic though.
Christopher: That gown was legitimately gorgeous. Seriously, it was probably the single best piece of the entire show. I'm a little put off by the placement of the leg slit, but that hardly mars a beautiful effort. I was so impressed by the gown, in fact, that I'm totally cool with Christopher winning even in spite of his Vegas-hooker-cocktail-waitress second look.
Dmitry: Dmitry is the one who was a ballet dancer in Belarus, but who claimed that didn't influence his style anymore, right? Because that glittery first dress looks exactly how I'd expect an eastern European ballet dancer to design a gown. The second look is okay, though the skin-baring panel in the middle reads less "ooh, sexy flash of skin" and more "someone slashed off the bottom of my top."
Elena: Both of her outfits looked like Stasi uniforms, circa 2056. Which I would have thought I'd have liked more, to be perfectly honest. I'm taking a wait and see attitude -- militaristic chic can be pretty awesome, but right now it's a bit too heavy on the Frau Farbissina side of things.
Fabio: Ombre! Pretty frickin' awesome! Becky said the line, but I'm pretty sure Victor used that exact color scheme. But I liked Victor's looks, and these were both pretty solid. Wyatt Cenac wants his beard back, though.
Gunnar: Gunnar Deathrage! Coolest name ever! I remembered him from last season, simply because the name was so sweet. So I'm thrilled he's back -- except that he appears to be this season's reincarnation of Joshua. Boo. He also is physically indistinguishable from Christopher, which will get tiresome quite quickly. Clothes-wise, both pieces were pretty good, except that the yellow base/black stripe theme makes both girls (but especially the first) look like they're going to a Halloween party as a slutty taxi cab.
Kooan: So I'm conflicted about him being in the bottom three this time around. His clothes are genuinely weird, but that's what he's going for. He is going for "Hello Kitty running from Godzilla," right? The judges seem to have preemptively decided that he's repetitive and one-note, and while technically I agree with Heidi that they can't say that off of literally one challenge, secretly (well, secret's out I guess) I think they're almost certainly right. But maybe he'll surprise us when he's tasked with making something elegant. Maybe.
Lantie: The actual worst of the worst last night. The first dress looked like a repurposed wedding gown -- which was an interesting PR challenge, but not anything that should be done voluntarily. The second piece had that fugly front panel that looked like it was glued on. And I'm not convinced she has any stylistic vision. I'm dubious she's got much longevity on this show.
Melissa: There might be a cast member named Buffi, but she's the one who looks like Sarah Michelle Geller. It's difficult to go too far wrong with an all-black palette (and I enjoyed watching her race to the only part of Mood which looks like a Brooks Brothers annex), but neither of her two looks blew me away or anything. I don't even think either were super-wearable. In any event, if she doesn't show some color, stat, she'll pretty quickly wear out her welcome.
Nathan: Nathan's story about reconnecting with his dad over Project Runway was super cute. His dresses were perfectly pretty, though a little simple -- and the knot on the green one was a little too crotch-centric for my tastes. Middle of the pack right now.
Raul: Raul's first look is pretty awesome if I can look past construction issues and the fact that there is literally no context it can be worn other than "I've just been laid off from my law firm so seducing my boss is now-or-never." The second one is a stiff, feathery mess. He also seemed to struggle badly with his time, which is always a bad sign.
Sonja: Sonja currently stands out for that ghastly shade of lipstick she had on. Her first look was very strong except for the way it opened in the middle (she might have had a skin-colored shirt under there -- I couldn't tell -- but either way it looked ridiculous). The second look was super-chic and elegant. Definite potential.
Ven: I can totally see and appreciate the superb technical skill that went into this. That being said, I have no idea where anyone could wear that flower-outfit. The second piece, on the other hand, was perfectly made and chic and wearable -- that's the one that popped for me to be honest. He's got an eye and he knows how to make clothes, and that's a powerful combination.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Deep Thoughts By Tablet Mag
It takes a lot to unite John Podhoertz and MJ Rosenberg, Commentary and The Nation, all on one issue. But Anna Breslaw's sick attack on Holocaust survivors in Tablet Mag has managed to bring pretty much everyone together in entirely justified condemnation of both Breslaw for writing the piece, and Tablet for publishing it.
I don't really have anything to add to the piece itself, but I did want to remark a bit on Tablet's explanation for the article. They've published two so far -- neither by Breslaw, who is laying low -- and neither is what it should be: a sincere, unadulterated apology. Rather, they seem to be taking the tack of saying that while they don't agree with Breslaw, they view her article as "a means of honestly processing the complicated, damning, and even self-indicting impulses for Jews who are now generations removed from the Shoah." As Adam Chandler concluded:
The idea here seems to be that Breslaw isn't just some smarmy contrarian bomb-thrower. Rather, hers was an honest look at a tough issue, and even if it touched a few raw nerves (hell, even if her conclusions are undeniably offensive), shouldn't we encourage such difficult introspection?
Here's the thing, though. It is entirely possible for someone to have thought long, and hard, and deeply, about a difficult subject -- and still produce conclusions that are unworthy of publication. Conclusions that are foolish and ignorant and hurtful and demonstrate an impoverished moral compass. It's an editor's job to spot that -- an editor who is bedazzled because an author "thought really hard" about what she was saying is an editor who needs to find a new job.
Indeed, it's almost more indicting of Breslaw if it wasn't simply a misbegotten attempt at being provocative. At least then it might be nothing but a performance. But if we're to take her editors seriously -- that Breslaw was baring a window into the deepest recesses of her soul -- well, then we've revealed that her soul is blackened and diseased.
But the point is that Tablet seems fixated on the notion that any thought is worthy of publication so long as it's honestly attained. This is the hallmark of sloppy editing, and it manages to reflect even more poorly on the magazine and its direction than the original decision to publish Breslaw's article. Introspection is a valuable thing, and it should be encouraged. But it does not follow that all products of sincere introspection are valuable. Tablet needs to understand the difference if it's going to avoid mistakes like these in the future -- or indeed, recognize it made a mistake at all.
I don't really have anything to add to the piece itself, but I did want to remark a bit on Tablet's explanation for the article. They've published two so far -- neither by Breslaw, who is laying low -- and neither is what it should be: a sincere, unadulterated apology. Rather, they seem to be taking the tack of saying that while they don't agree with Breslaw, they view her article as "a means of honestly processing the complicated, damning, and even self-indicting impulses for Jews who are now generations removed from the Shoah." As Adam Chandler concluded:
I say this not to endorse what Ms. Breslaw has written, but to endorse these self-investigations, even if they turn up feelings — in us, in family, in the broader Jewish community — that at first (or may always) seem ugly or coarse. What’s underneath is the try, which for many is difficult enough.
The idea here seems to be that Breslaw isn't just some smarmy contrarian bomb-thrower. Rather, hers was an honest look at a tough issue, and even if it touched a few raw nerves (hell, even if her conclusions are undeniably offensive), shouldn't we encourage such difficult introspection?
Here's the thing, though. It is entirely possible for someone to have thought long, and hard, and deeply, about a difficult subject -- and still produce conclusions that are unworthy of publication. Conclusions that are foolish and ignorant and hurtful and demonstrate an impoverished moral compass. It's an editor's job to spot that -- an editor who is bedazzled because an author "thought really hard" about what she was saying is an editor who needs to find a new job.
Indeed, it's almost more indicting of Breslaw if it wasn't simply a misbegotten attempt at being provocative. At least then it might be nothing but a performance. But if we're to take her editors seriously -- that Breslaw was baring a window into the deepest recesses of her soul -- well, then we've revealed that her soul is blackened and diseased.
But the point is that Tablet seems fixated on the notion that any thought is worthy of publication so long as it's honestly attained. This is the hallmark of sloppy editing, and it manages to reflect even more poorly on the magazine and its direction than the original decision to publish Breslaw's article. Introspection is a valuable thing, and it should be encouraged. But it does not follow that all products of sincere introspection are valuable. Tablet needs to understand the difference if it's going to avoid mistakes like these in the future -- or indeed, recognize it made a mistake at all.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Multiple Israelis Killed in Bulgaria Terror Attack
A terrorist attack on a bus carrying Israeli tourists in Bulgaria has killed at least seven people. The attack came on the twenty-year anniversary of 1992 car bomb attack on the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires that killed 29 (a distinct event from the 1994 bombing by Iranian-backed terrorists of a Argentine JCC that killed 87). Details remain sketchy as to who is responsible, though early witnesses say it appeared to be a suicide bomb attack.
Obviously my prayers are with the victims, and I hope the perpetrators and any organizations which supported them are found and brought to justice.
UPDATE: Israel is now pointing fingers at Iran, noting that it has been implicated in a string of near-miss attacks on Israelis over the preceding months.
Obviously my prayers are with the victims, and I hope the perpetrators and any organizations which supported them are found and brought to justice.
UPDATE: Israel is now pointing fingers at Iran, noting that it has been implicated in a string of near-miss attacks on Israelis over the preceding months.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Meretzniks
Ha'aretz has a fascinating profile/interview piece up on Zahava Gal-On, leader of Meretz (for those of you who don't know, Meretz is Israel's left-wing Zionist party). It's really a great read (also, listening to her eviscerate the repulsive Michael Ben-Ari alone would be worth it).
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Joe Walsh Should Be Pro-Israel PAC's Public Enemy #1
There is one member of Congress who is a loud-and-proud supporter of a one-state solution. His name is Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL), a Tea Party extremist who came to Washington on the crest of the 2010 GOP wave. His opponent is decorated war hero Tammy Duckworth, who lost both her legs in combat (Walsh is sick of hearing about that).
Walsh's extremist views have made Israel a surprisingly large issue in his suburban Illinois race. Walsh's district isn't very Jewish (good thing too, because he views most Jews with contempt), but by being so clear in opposing one of the bedrock principles of American pro-Israel advocacy, he has put himself in the crosshairs.
Or he should be. I've already noted the deafening silence that has met the rise of one-stateism on the American right. And as The Forward reports, many of the middle-of-the-road pro-Israel groups are ducking this race entirely (Walsh is getting support from some fringe right-wing groups and is under heavy fire from J Street).
As de Talleyrand famously put it: "This is worse than a crime, it's a blunder." We'll put aside the part where pro-Israel groups should oppose Walsh because Walsh's views are fundamentally dangerous for Israel by the terms of these own groups' statements. Taking out Walsh is in these groups' best interest on a host of levels.
First of all, if Walsh stays in Congress he is showing that one can defy the American pro-Israel consensus with impunity. Obviously, part of being an effective advocate is showing that opposition comes with political costs -- a reputation that takes a hit when a first-term Congressman appears to have the big bad Israel Lobby running scared. And in a sense, Walsh is more dangerous to the pro-Israel establishment than most because he's at the vanguard of a movement seeking to strip "pro-Israel" away from mainstream Jewish groups and turn it into an evangelical Christian construct which doesn't care a whit about Jewish lives or Jewish values. Does anyone think Walsh actually has a use for groups like AJC in directing the future of pro-Israel? Of course not. The more the power of people like Walsh waxes, the more that of the mainstream Jewish community wanes.
Second, a critical element of the pro-Israel community's Washington strategy is to maintain support for Israel as a bipartisan value. Yet that image is increasingly under threat as the heavy pro-Israel hitters are beginning to be seen as essentially arms of the right. There are left-wing politicians they will attack for insufficient support of Israel (sometimes rightly, sometimes not), but there is no way one can be anti-Israel from the right (save Pat Buchanan-esque crpyto-conservatism). Given that, liberal organizations are naturally going to wonder if the supposed bipartisanship of the pro-Israel community, really is. Taking on Congressman Walsh -- demonstrating that they're willing to police their right flank as well as their left one -- would do much to reestablish the fraying centrist credibility of these groups.
And finally -- taking on Walsh is likely a freebie. Walsh is a far, far right-wing Republican who was elected in a wave year and whose seat got even more liberal in redistricting. Most prognosticators think he's going down anyway. So why not line up on the winning side? Even if one is misguided enough to think Walsh is anything other than a massive liability, there's no reason to not jump on the bandwagon here, given the benefits outlined above. If pro-Israel groups can't challenge right-wing Republicans even when the odds are stacked in their favor, what good are they?
Joe Walsh is, almost without a doubt, the single most anti-Israel Congressman serving in Washington today. He needs to be taken down, and hard. And it is a disappointing commentary on the state of the American pro-Israel lobby that they seem unable to muster the balls to take him on.
Walsh's extremist views have made Israel a surprisingly large issue in his suburban Illinois race. Walsh's district isn't very Jewish (good thing too, because he views most Jews with contempt), but by being so clear in opposing one of the bedrock principles of American pro-Israel advocacy, he has put himself in the crosshairs.
Or he should be. I've already noted the deafening silence that has met the rise of one-stateism on the American right. And as The Forward reports, many of the middle-of-the-road pro-Israel groups are ducking this race entirely (Walsh is getting support from some fringe right-wing groups and is under heavy fire from J Street).
As de Talleyrand famously put it: "This is worse than a crime, it's a blunder." We'll put aside the part where pro-Israel groups should oppose Walsh because Walsh's views are fundamentally dangerous for Israel by the terms of these own groups' statements. Taking out Walsh is in these groups' best interest on a host of levels.
First of all, if Walsh stays in Congress he is showing that one can defy the American pro-Israel consensus with impunity. Obviously, part of being an effective advocate is showing that opposition comes with political costs -- a reputation that takes a hit when a first-term Congressman appears to have the big bad Israel Lobby running scared. And in a sense, Walsh is more dangerous to the pro-Israel establishment than most because he's at the vanguard of a movement seeking to strip "pro-Israel" away from mainstream Jewish groups and turn it into an evangelical Christian construct which doesn't care a whit about Jewish lives or Jewish values. Does anyone think Walsh actually has a use for groups like AJC in directing the future of pro-Israel? Of course not. The more the power of people like Walsh waxes, the more that of the mainstream Jewish community wanes.
Second, a critical element of the pro-Israel community's Washington strategy is to maintain support for Israel as a bipartisan value. Yet that image is increasingly under threat as the heavy pro-Israel hitters are beginning to be seen as essentially arms of the right. There are left-wing politicians they will attack for insufficient support of Israel (sometimes rightly, sometimes not), but there is no way one can be anti-Israel from the right (save Pat Buchanan-esque crpyto-conservatism). Given that, liberal organizations are naturally going to wonder if the supposed bipartisanship of the pro-Israel community, really is. Taking on Congressman Walsh -- demonstrating that they're willing to police their right flank as well as their left one -- would do much to reestablish the fraying centrist credibility of these groups.
And finally -- taking on Walsh is likely a freebie. Walsh is a far, far right-wing Republican who was elected in a wave year and whose seat got even more liberal in redistricting. Most prognosticators think he's going down anyway. So why not line up on the winning side? Even if one is misguided enough to think Walsh is anything other than a massive liability, there's no reason to not jump on the bandwagon here, given the benefits outlined above. If pro-Israel groups can't challenge right-wing Republicans even when the odds are stacked in their favor, what good are they?
Joe Walsh is, almost without a doubt, the single most anti-Israel Congressman serving in Washington today. He needs to be taken down, and hard. And it is a disappointing commentary on the state of the American pro-Israel lobby that they seem unable to muster the balls to take him on.
Friday, July 13, 2012
Maine Gov. LePage Calls IRS "Gestapo" -- Twice
I had vaguely heard of this before reading LePage had apologized, but I didn't really look into the specifics -- I just figured it was yet another case of embarrassingly overheated Tea Party rhetoric. But The Forward's more comprehensive coverage manages to shock even me.
Generally, casual Nazi references are done pretty thoughtlessly -- the speaker tends not to flesh things out too much because doing so would pretty rapidly demonstrate the absurdity (and moral depravity) of the comparison. But LePage was hardly being casual or off-the-cuff -- here are his remarks to a Vermont alternative paper after the original firestorm from the first time he called the IRS the Gestapo:
If I can have a moment of levity before I return to outrage -- "frankly", the Governor doesn't want the Holocaust to repeat itself? Why thank you -- I'm so glad you can be frank with us. It's so rare to have someone willing to boldly stand up for unpopular positions like "I don't want mass genocides to reoccur."
But anyway, Gov. LePage makes it very clear that when he is talking about the IRS-as-Gestapo, he is talking about mass slaughter, and that he does think that the IRS is "headed in that direction". The warrant for that is, naturally, the ACA -- I wouldn't say I was joking when I called the GOP's perspective on the ACA "taxing the rich to exterminate the poor", but I didn't expect a state governor to come out and say it so directly.
Generally, casual Nazi references are done pretty thoughtlessly -- the speaker tends not to flesh things out too much because doing so would pretty rapidly demonstrate the absurdity (and moral depravity) of the comparison. But LePage was hardly being casual or off-the-cuff -- here are his remarks to a Vermont alternative paper after the original firestorm from the first time he called the IRS the Gestapo:
“What I am trying to say is the Holocaust was a horrific crime against humanity and, frankly, I would never want to see that repeated. Maybe the IRS is not quite as bad - yet,” LePage said.
Asked if the IRS was headed in that direction, LePage responded, “They’re headed in that direction.”
Asked if he knew what Adolf Hitler’s secret police did during World War Two, including the imprisonment and murder of millions of Jews, LePage said, “Yeah, they killed a lot of people.” Asked whether the IRS “was headed in the direction of killing a lot of people,” LePage answered: “Yeah.”
If I can have a moment of levity before I return to outrage -- "frankly", the Governor doesn't want the Holocaust to repeat itself? Why thank you -- I'm so glad you can be frank with us. It's so rare to have someone willing to boldly stand up for unpopular positions like "I don't want mass genocides to reoccur."
But anyway, Gov. LePage makes it very clear that when he is talking about the IRS-as-Gestapo, he is talking about mass slaughter, and that he does think that the IRS is "headed in that direction". The warrant for that is, naturally, the ACA -- I wouldn't say I was joking when I called the GOP's perspective on the ACA "taxing the rich to exterminate the poor", but I didn't expect a state governor to come out and say it so directly.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Keeping Things On the Table
I nominate "off the table" as the dumbest concept in foreign policy. It's why Alan Dershowitz says J Street isn't "pro-Israel" -- they allegedly demand that the military option be "off the table" with respect to Iran (J Street denies that's their position, they simply think a sanctions-based approach makes more sense).
But what, exactly, does "off the table" even mean here? Unless J Street has secretly sabotaged our nation's armed forces, the "military option" is always "on the table". We still have planes! They can still bomb things! That's always available. Even if we decide not to do it now, we can change our mind later -- the military will still be there. Now, of course, at some point it might be too late -- but that could be the case if the military option is "on the table" but ultimately not used.
Compare, for example, if Iran said they were developing nuclear weapons, but using them offensively was "off the table". Would you be comforted? No, of course not -- in part because we might not trust them, but in larger part because even if they're being genuine they can always change their mind instantly. As can we -- military capacity isn't a perishable good. It'll keep.
But what, exactly, does "off the table" even mean here? Unless J Street has secretly sabotaged our nation's armed forces, the "military option" is always "on the table". We still have planes! They can still bomb things! That's always available. Even if we decide not to do it now, we can change our mind later -- the military will still be there. Now, of course, at some point it might be too late -- but that could be the case if the military option is "on the table" but ultimately not used.
Compare, for example, if Iran said they were developing nuclear weapons, but using them offensively was "off the table". Would you be comforted? No, of course not -- in part because we might not trust them, but in larger part because even if they're being genuine they can always change their mind instantly. As can we -- military capacity isn't a perishable good. It'll keep.
J Street Attacks Walsh's One-Stateism
J Street has released ads attacking Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) for supporting a one-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (apparently parallel ads are up attacking Rep. Allen West as well). This is a tactic I've been urging for some time now. But while I like the concept, I think the execution needs work -- as the ad language is still too defensive for my tastes.
I don't think the ad emphasizes enough the consensus view amongst mainstream Jews that such plan means the end of Israel -- not a bigger Israel. And at the end, when it says that supporting one state "isn’t pro-Israel", I'd instead have said "is anti-Israel". In general, I think political rhetoric is strongest when it takes as a given the point it is trying to make, rather than make it seem like the point of controversy. The ad here should have acted as if it is simply accepted that to be a one-stater is to be anti-Israel (easy to do, given the plethora of quotes by respected Jewish groups saying just that), and then flambé Rep. Walsh for his anti-Israel views.
Part of the problem is that J Street has been framing this campaign as trying to cut against the norm of "Israel right or wrong". But good project or not, here the Israeli government isn't wrong -- as the ad points out, the Israeli government has consistently stated that the two-state solution is the solution it wants. It's Walsh who has decided to stake out a position critical of the Israeli government and most Israelis and Jews, so why shouldn't he get the (mostly fabled, but still) "classic" treatment that people "critical of Israel" are said to get?
This ad hits Republicans on Israel "from the left", and that's important. But it could have been more visceral about hitting Republicans for being anti-Israel from the left -- thus helping bring back a form of genuine progressive pro-Israel politics as well as documenting the way in which conservative Republican stances on Israel are hostile to many of Israel's core values and security concerns.
I don't think the ad emphasizes enough the consensus view amongst mainstream Jews that such plan means the end of Israel -- not a bigger Israel. And at the end, when it says that supporting one state "isn’t pro-Israel", I'd instead have said "is anti-Israel". In general, I think political rhetoric is strongest when it takes as a given the point it is trying to make, rather than make it seem like the point of controversy. The ad here should have acted as if it is simply accepted that to be a one-stater is to be anti-Israel (easy to do, given the plethora of quotes by respected Jewish groups saying just that), and then flambé Rep. Walsh for his anti-Israel views.
Part of the problem is that J Street has been framing this campaign as trying to cut against the norm of "Israel right or wrong". But good project or not, here the Israeli government isn't wrong -- as the ad points out, the Israeli government has consistently stated that the two-state solution is the solution it wants. It's Walsh who has decided to stake out a position critical of the Israeli government and most Israelis and Jews, so why shouldn't he get the (mostly fabled, but still) "classic" treatment that people "critical of Israel" are said to get?
This ad hits Republicans on Israel "from the left", and that's important. But it could have been more visceral about hitting Republicans for being anti-Israel from the left -- thus helping bring back a form of genuine progressive pro-Israel politics as well as documenting the way in which conservative Republican stances on Israel are hostile to many of Israel's core values and security concerns.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Boobirds
Mitt Romney delivers a speech before the NAACP. Mitt Romney promises to repeal "Obamacare". Mitt Romney is met with a chorus of boos.
My favorite part is how the video cuts just as Mitt Romney starts to mention "a survey of the Chamber of Commerce." That'll win 'em back, Mitt!
In any event, I'm curious what the impact of this booing will be. The odds are nothing -- it's no news that Black people disagree with Republican policies. But assuming we do care what Black people think, there is something notable about this. Sometimes a politician can go into a group's backyard, elicit boos, and come out ahead -- spin it as telling "tough truths" or "tough love". But that doesn't quite work here -- the GOP's attack on the ACA hasn't been that it is good for some but ultimately unaffordable. It is that it is a moral catastrophe loathed and despised by everyone. That narrative can't really countenance people booing at eliminating it -- it's predicated off of pretty universal disdain for the program.
My favorite part is how the video cuts just as Mitt Romney starts to mention "a survey of the Chamber of Commerce." That'll win 'em back, Mitt!
In any event, I'm curious what the impact of this booing will be. The odds are nothing -- it's no news that Black people disagree with Republican policies. But assuming we do care what Black people think, there is something notable about this. Sometimes a politician can go into a group's backyard, elicit boos, and come out ahead -- spin it as telling "tough truths" or "tough love". But that doesn't quite work here -- the GOP's attack on the ACA hasn't been that it is good for some but ultimately unaffordable. It is that it is a moral catastrophe loathed and despised by everyone. That narrative can't really countenance people booing at eliminating it -- it's predicated off of pretty universal disdain for the program.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
