… is that he might be the best this country can do.

If the standard-bearer of the Democrat party, the “most liberal” president, is someone who would pass healthcare reform without actually regulating insurance companies while at the same time mandating all U.S. citizens buy into a broken system of for-profit healthcare, run by the largest corporations in the world, then that demonstrates a pretty sorry state of liberalism (never mind real progressive change).  For some myth-debunking (for those who think it’s truly transformative) about the healthcare bill, see Jane Hamsher’s Fact Sheet: The Truth About the Health Care Bill.

An even greater indication of Obama’s failure to live up to the promise of his presidency is that he came out immediately in support of the Schumer-Graham immigration  bill, which is a draconian framework for immigration reform that entails all citizens to get an identification card with biometric information on it as well as further militarizing the U.S./Mexico border (among other things).

Tack on top of that an escalation of the Afghanistan war (whose surge of 30,000 troops alone costs $30 billion), the bailout of Wall Street, and so on … is this the best candidate that “progressives” can get?

The scary thing is that supposedly “liberal/progressive” organizations, like Planned Parenthood and the Reform Immigration for America have come out SUPPORTING passage of both of these extremely problematic pieces of legislation.  Despite Obama creating a signing statement to deny federal funds for abortion, Planned Parenthood has declared the passage of the healthcare bill in the House to be a “Victory!”, describing it as a “huge victory for women’s health”.

It appears (perhaps unsurprisingly) that organizations that are so desperate for any sort of victory that they’ll accept anything that even addresses their agenda.  That, or these institutions have such a craving to be associated with those with real power that they’ll carry all sorts of water.  In any case, real reform has gotten that much harder to reach.

Victory at what cost?

Posted under News, Politics, Uncategorized

One of my most unpleasant tasks as president of the Graduate Student Senate at UMass was having to interact with university executives. It would be only a slight overgeneralization to call them a bunch of snakes who combine the cleverness of academics with the slipperiness and amorality of corporate executives. They profess high-minded principles like intellectual achievement, academic freedom and humanistic values, while their actual concern is primarily to manage universities to respond to the technological, personnel and even ideological needs of the corporate and military sectors.

In 2007, hundreds of presidents of American universities signed a statement opposing a proposed boycott of Israeli academic institutions for their role in Israeli war crimes. The list of signatories is here:

http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42D75369-D582-4380-8395-D25925B85EAF%7D/NYTimes_College_Presidents_Full.pdf

In 2008-09, zero American university presidents condemned the incomparably worse Israeli bombing of the Islamic University of Gaza and the headquarters of its faculty association.

Many of us have been desensitized to this kind of vile double standard, but publicly pointing them out can still be a powerful moral action.

If your university’s president was among those who signed the statement, you might like to hold them accountable by making a public statement. I have written the following open letter, which for various strategic reasons, we have decided not to publish on my campus. Feel free to adapt it and use it on your own university campus. Remember to add a salutation and signature.

In 2007, you signed an open letter condemning an effort by British academics to hold Israeli academic institutions accountable for their collusion with the criminal Israeli occupation of Palestine. The academics opted for a selective boycott, which aimed to target culpable institutions while exempting Israeli academics who oppose Israel’s crimes.

Because of your open letter’s patent silliness – it called on the British academics to boycott American colleges and universities for not engaging in discrimination – and because it trivialized opposition to Israel’s severe war crimes as “political disagreements of the moment,” we assumed, along with the rest of the justice community, that you and the other signatories were motivated not by “fundamental values of the academy” such as “intellectual exchange,” as you claimed, but by the cheap, cynical Zionist partisanship that we have come to expect from the American elite.

We are pleased to present you with an opportunity to prove us wrong, by condemning the recent Israeli bombing of Palestinian academic institutions.

Several weeks ago, the Israeli Air Force bombed several academic buildings of the Islamic University of Gaza in six air strikes, including the science laboratory building and the “Ladies’ Building,” where women attend classes. More recently, Israel bombed the headquarters of the University Teachers’ Association.

Media reports on the Israeli bombing of the Islamic University were in near unanimous agreement that the university was targeted because it is a cultural symbol of Hamas. Astute observers have noted that these bombings are consistent with Israel’s policy of scholasticide – the systematic destruction of Palestinian education institutions, including, in the last several weeks, the destruction of at least four schools run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.

The Israeli government has made the unsubstantiated claim, disputed by Islamic University officials, that the university was used by Hamas for military purposes. In view of the Israeli government’s history of lying about its wartime actions, its extensive targeting of educational and other civilian institutions, and its refusal to permit independent observers into Gaza to verify its allegations, this claim cannot be taken seriously. The Israeli academic institutions targeted by the British boycott, in contrast, are known to made substantive contributions to Israel’s criminal aggression and occupation.

There can be no doubt that bombing universities and faculty buildings are a more severe form of interference with the “fundamental values of the academy” and with “intellectual exchange” than a nonviolent, targeted boycott, and therefore at least as worthy of condemnation. We invite you to publicly condemn these bombings.

Posted under Uncategorized

It may be a leftist cliche by now, but Dr. King’s radical legacy needs to be rescued from those who would paint him as a cuddly let’s-all-just-get-along figure.

So let’s remember Dr. King’s revolutionary spirit, in his own words.

The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality…and if we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves organizing “clergy and laymen concerned” committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end, unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy.

Read More…

Posted under Uncategorized

1. The Magnes Zionist runs an unpublished op-ed by Joseph Levine, a UMass philosopher and an excellent commentator on the Israel/Palestine conflict. Levine suggests a thought experiment: imagine that in the targets that Israel is attacking, all civilians were Israelis and not Palestinian. Would you then support the attacks? If not, then you are immoral if you support the actual Israeli attacks.

Read More…

Posted under Uncategorized

“Union boss” is a common epithet used by people who despise unions, seek to weaken unions, or are involved in a particular anti-union campaign. Despite my having observed many campaigns against the leadership of a particular union, and once having participated in such a campaign, I have not heard the term “union boss” used by union members who acknowledge the value of unions, no matter how bitterly antagonistic their relationship with the union leadership.

This suggests that “union boss” is a term of abuse and/or propaganda, not of analysis. My question here: are there circumstances in which the term is legitimately used?

Read More…

Posted under Culture, Economy, Politics, Uncategorized

Banner: Stop Watching, Get Out Into the Streets

The riots and protests that started almost two weeks ago in Greece are not only persisting, but intensifying.  In addition, there doesn’t seem to be any particular organization or political figure leading the protests – it appears that the resistance is non-hierarchal (thus causing news organizations to term what’s happening as “anarchy”).  Information (at least in the English press) is not very prolific, but of note are the following:

• After breaking into the state TV studio (NET), protestors blocked the broadcast of a speech by the prime minister, unfurled a banner (seen above).  They released a statement:
  

  “Our action is the result of an accumulated pressure which is robbing us of our lives, and not only an emotional explosion based on the murder of Alexis Grigoropulos by the police. We are one more collective, a piece of the revolt which is taking place.

  Against pacification by the mass media, we are carrying out an intervention-interjection in the flow of the program of ERT [state television]. It’s our view that the mass media systematically cultivates fear. Rather than informing, they misinform. They are presenting a multifaceted revolt as a blind release.

  They are explaining the social explosion in penal rather than political terms. They are selectively concealing the actual facts. They are representing a revolt as another spectacle which we should simply follow until the next soap opera begins. The mass media is daily turned into a means of suppressing free and public thought.

  Let’s organize ourselves. No authority can offer solutions to our problems. We need to meet with other human beings. To turn our public places, the streets, the squares, the parks, the schools, into places of unmediated expression. To find ourselves face to face so that we can transform together our thought and actions.

  
  Let’s not be afraid. Let’s turn off our televisions, go out of our houses, continue to lay claim to our life, to take it into our hands.

  We condemn the police violence, immediate release of the arrested demonstrators. For human emancipation and freedom.” (translation by Amee Chew from Dollars and Sense)

• This is not confined to one area – clashes with police are taking place in Athens, Thessaloniki, and other parts of the country.  Banks are being targeted with gas bombs, as well as government property and offices.
• Political figures seem eager to attribute this to a small segment of society:

(Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyannis): I expected something like this would happen sooner or later. We have a group of people with ultra-leftist ideologies, the active Black Bloc anarchists. There have recently been repeated clashes with them. As of late, their organization has been improving and becoming more flexible, they are using the Internet and text messages. At the same time, we have to weather difficult reforms. That is the deeper reason for the protests, this is why the anarchists have suddenly been joined by disgruntled young people. (Speigel, http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,596439,00.html)

• Major sectors of society have been brought to a standstill by the people working in them.  Not only are many universities and high schools occupied and closed, but radio stations are being taken over, air traffic controllers are on strike, and so on.
  

One shared misconception by many media sources is the “spontaneous” nature of the protests.  But after the conviction of 8 police officers for abusing a youth a few years ago, combined with rising discontent about the ordering of Greek society in general, previous roadblocks by farmers, protests by dockworkers, it appears this is a long time coming.  The key question is – what will be shaped from all of this foment?

Posted under Uncategorized

1. Most opponents of legal gay marriage, at least those aiming at respectability, say their movement is not anti-gay, but rather aimed at preserving the sanctity of marriage.

But in all of the states that have legalized gay marriage, to the best of my knowledge, the legalization has been of civil marriage, with no impact on religious marriage.

But sanctity is a religious concept. Will the opponents of gay marriage who say it’s about the sanctity of marriage own up to imposing a religious value on a secular state institution? Is it fundamentally different from supporting a ban on stores opening on the weekend, to preserve the sanctity of the Sabbath?

2. Why are so many “libertarians” – that is, people who profess support of capitalism, opposition to government programs, and love of liberty and the free market – so hostile to immigration? I’m thinking of prominent people like Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin, who are way more immigrant-hating than even the Republican Party mainstream.

Isn’t free movement of people a fundamental liberty and an essential component of free markets?

Posted under Uncategorized

Over at the Magnes Zionist, I posed the question (in the comments) of when we might expect to see the first Palestinian Prime Minister of Israel. My guess, rather generous to Israel, I think, is 2037. I view this as generous in light of the fact that Palestinians are politically marginalized as a matter of law and of practice to a degree far greater than that to which black people are politically marginalized in the US.

Those who are subjected to the Zionist propaganda that permeates Western culture, and don’t have or don’t use the requisite intellectual self-defense, could be forgiven for viewing the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians as analogous to the relationship between the US and black people. This analogy follows from the liberal Zionist script: Israel is a democracy, albeit an imperfect democracy that has a race problem, just like the United States; and just like the United States, things are getting better for Palestinians in Israel.

Read More…

Posted under Uncategorized

On the assumption the Presidential election isn’t stolen, here are some people President Obama might consider for a Supreme Court appointment.

1. Ralph Nader. This would help the Democrats strengthen the Republican-Democrat duopoly, and would get Obama credit for putting an American hero on the court who also happens to be immensely qualified. Downsides: he might get borked by petty Democrats; he would likely turn down the nomination; and as Jeff has pointed out, he’s a little on the old side.

2. Marjorie Cohn. The President of the National Lawyers Guild, she’s a criminal law specialist but is also well knwon as a defender of Constitutional rights.

3. Nadine Strossen. She’s stepping down as president of the ACLU, so she must be looking for another job.

4. Deval Patrick. Shouldn’t there be a slot on the Court for a sensible person of color? Downside: not liberal enough.

5. Alan Dershowitz. Just kidding, but he would make a good Supreme Court mascot. And he is slightly smarter than Sarah Palin.

6. John Ashcroft. Okay, he’d be a terrible justice, but he sure can sing!

7. Lani Guinier. She deserves another chance.

8. Brian Leiter. A University of Chicago professor who’s a good legal scholar and philosopher. Potential problem: he might be seen as partisan/divisive. In my opinion, there’s nothing wrong with partisanship on the Supreme Court, which is after all a political court, right-wing howling to the contrary notwithstanding. The Court might do better if it had a partisan leftist or two to counter the Scalia/Thomas partisanship on the right.

Posted under Uncategorized

A couple of weeks ago I posted about McCain’s possible ineligibility for the office of President, based on his being born in the Panama Canal Zone.

But having a good legal argument is just step 1 for successful litigation when a Constitutional matter is at stake. You also need to clear the various hurdles set up by the judicial system to get the courts to hear your case, particularly the hurdles of ripeness, political question, and standing. So far, three legal challenges to the eligibility of Obama and McCain have been dismissed for lack of standing. See here, here, and here. (Richard Winger says – see the first link of the three – that there’s another McCain challenge that was dismissed for lack of standing. But I don’t know anything about it.)

Basically, the doctrine of standing dictates that only certain individuals are able to take certain controversies to court. Typically, you have to be a party that was harmed. If I steal money from Jeff, he can sue me for restitution, but his neighbor can’t. In other cases, a law might specifically say who can bring a legal action. An example is the recent ruling by the Supreme Court that the Ohio Republican Party doesn’t have standing to challenge Ohio’s Democratic Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, for alleged violations of the so-called Help America Vote Act. Even though the state Republican Party could be injured by illegal election-related acts committed by a Democratic official, the Court found that under HAVA only the Federal Department of Justice can bring such actions.

For the last three months I have been advocating an alternative approach that has been picked up, or perhaps independently arrived at, by election law scholar Daniel Tokaji. This approach calls for challenging McCain’s eligibility in state courts.

Many states have provisions for challenging elections based on a candidate’s eligibility. These include states which McCain has a good-to-excellent shot of winning, such as Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, and Indiana. These five states have 81 electoral college votes among them. The provisions tend to be narrow, and do not allow ordinary voters to contest presidential election results, but losing candidates are allowed to contest, and Indiana’s law allows county-level party officials of losing parties to contest. Subject to how the state courts interpret these laws, this may resolve the issue of standing. A party official who might be denied standing in federal court, as in Robinson v. Bowen, would have standing in state court if the state’s statute says she does.

It might seem odd for a state court to make a decision about a federal constitutional issue. But I don’t think there’s anything judicially improper in this. What the state level court would be doing is making a factual determination regarding whether the candidate is eligible under the federal constitution. It would not be contradicting federal judicial precedent, since the federal courts have never ruled on the issue (the district courts keep dismissing it on standing grounds). It might be thought improper because the state court might harm McCain by wrongly deciding a federal issue. But McCain would not be harmed, because he would be able to appeal this decision up to the U. S. Supreme Court.

It would therefore seem appropriate for those seeking to challenge McCain’s candidacy to do it through the state courts.

Posted under Politics, Uncategorized