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?

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.

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.

And so, such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.

In 1957, a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years, we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which has now justified the presence of U.S. military advisors in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counterrevolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Cambodia and why American napalm and Green Beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru.

It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin…we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.

These are drawn from Dr. King’s Riverside Church speech against the Vietnam War, the speech in which he famously said, “… I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government.”

Dr. King was extensively harassed by the FBI for his activities. The following is an excerpt from Congress’s Church Committee report on the FBI’s practices.

I. INTRODUCTION

From December 1963 until his death in 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr. was the target of an intensive campaign by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to “neutralize” him as an effective civil rights leader. In the words of the man in charge of the FBI’s “war” against Dr. King:

No holds were barred. We have used [similar] techniques against Soviet agents. [The same methods were] brought home against any organization against which we were targeted. We did not differentiate. This is a rough, tough business. 1

The FBI collected information about Dr. King’s plans and activities through an extensive surveillance program, employing nearly every intelligence-gathering technique at the Bureau’s disposal. Wiretaps, which were initially approved by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, were maintained on Dr. King’s home telephone from October 1963 until mid-1965; the SCLC headquarter’s telephones were covered by wiretaps for an even longer period. Phones in the homes and offices of some of Dr. King’s close advisers were also wiretapped. The FBI has acknowledged 16 occasions on which microphones were hidden in Dr. King’s hotel and motel rooms in an “attempt” to obtain information about the “private activities of King and his advisers” for use to “completely discredit” them. 2

FBI informants in the civil rights movement and reports from field offices kept the Bureau’s headquarters informed of developments in the civil rights field. The FBI’s presence was so intrusive that one major figure in the civil rights movement testified that his colleagues referred to themselves as members of “the FBI’s golden record club.” 3

The FBI’s formal program to discredit Dr. King with Government officials began with the distribution of a “monograph” which the FBI realized could “be regarded as a personal attack on Martin Luther King,” 4 and which was subsequently described by a Justice Department official as “a personal diatribe … a personal attack without evidentiary support.” 5

Congressional leaders were warned “off the record” about alleged dangers posed by Reverend King. The FBI responded to Dr. King’s receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize by attempting to undermine his reception by foreign heads of state and American ambassadors in the countries that be planned to visit. When Dr. King returned to the United States, steps were taken to reduce support for a huge banquet and a special “day” that were being planned in his honor.

The FBI’s program to destroy Dr. King as the leader of the civil rights movement entailed attempts to discredit him with churches, universities, and the press. Steps were taken to attempt to convince the National Council of Churches, the Baptist World Alliance, and leading Protestant ministers to halt financial support of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), and to persuade them that “Negro leaders should completely isolate King and remove him from the role he is now occupying in civil rights activities.” 6 When the FBI learned that Dr. King intended to visit the Pope, an agent was dispatched to persuade Francis Cardinal Spellman to warn the Pope about “the likely embarrassment that may result to the Pope should he grant King an audience.” 7 The FBI sought to influence universities to withhold honorary degrees from Dr. King. Attempts were made to prevent the publication of articles favorable to Dr. King and to find “friendly” news sources that would print unfavorable articles. The FBI offered to play for reporters tape recordings allegedly made from microphone surveillance of Dr. King’s hotel rooms.

The FBI mailed Dr. King a tape recording made from its microphone coverage. According to the Chief of the FBI’s Domestic Intelligence Division, the tape was intended to precipitate a separation between Dr. King and his wife in the belief that the separation would reduce Dr. King’s stature. 7a The tape recording was accompanied by a note which Dr. King and his advisers interpreted as a threat to release the tape recording unless Dr. King committed suicide. The FBI also made preparations to promote someone “to assume the role of leadership of the Negro people when King has been completely discredited.” 8

The campaign against Dr. King included attempts to destroy the Southern Christian Leadership Conference by cutting off its sources of funds. The FBI considered, and on some occasions executed, plans to cut off the support of some of the SCLC’s major contributors, including religious organizations, a labor union, and donors of grants such as the Ford Foundation. One FBI field office recommended that the FBI send letters to the SCLC’s donors over Dr. King’s forged signature warning them that the SCLC was under investigation by the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS files on Dr. King and the SCLC were carefully scrutinized for financial irregularities. For over a year, the FBI unsuccessfully attempted to establish that Dr. King had a secret foreign bank account in which he was sequestering funds.

The FBI campaign to discredit and destroy Dr. King was marked by extreme personal vindictiveness. As early as 1962, Director Hoover penned on an FBI memorandum, “King is no good.” 9 At the August 1963 March on Washington, Dr. King told the country of his dream that “all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, ‘Free at last, free at last. Thank God almighty, I’m free at last.”‘ 10 The FBI’s Domestic Intelligence Division described this “demagogic speech” as yet more evidence that Dr. King was “the most dangerous and effective Negro leader in the country.” 11 Shortly afterward, Time magazine chose Dr. King as the “Man of the Year,” an honor which elicited Director Hoover’s comment that “they had to dig deep in the garbage to come up with this one.” 12 Hoover wrote “astounding” across the memorandum informing him that Dr. King had been granted an audience with the Pope despite the FBI’s efforts to prevent such a meeting. The depth of Director Hoover’s bitterness toward Dr. King, a bitterness which he had effectively communicated to his subordinates in the FBI, was apparent from the FBI’s attempts to sully Dr. King’s reputation long after his death. Plans were made to “brief” congressional leaders in 1969 to prevent the passage of a “Martin Luther King Day.” In 1970, Director Hoover told reporters that Dr. King was the “last one in the world who should ever have received” the Nobel Peace Prize. 13

The extent to which Government officials outside of the FBI must bear responsibility for the FBI’s campaign to discredit Dr. King is not clear. Government officials outside of the FBI were not aware of most of the specific FBI actions to discredit Dr. King. Officials in the Justice Department and White House were aware, however, that the FBI was conducting an intelligence investigation, not a criminal investigation, of Dr. King; that the FBI had written authorization from the Attorney General to wiretap Dr. King and the SCLC offices in New York and Washington; and that the FBI reports on Dr. King contained considerable information of a political and personal nature which was “irrelevant and spurious” to the stated reasons for the investigation. 14 Those high executive branch officials were also aware that the FBI was disseminating vicious characterizations of Dr. King within the Government; that the FBI had tape recordings embarrassing to Dr. King which it had offered to play to a White House official and to reporters; and that the FBI had offered to “leak” to reporters highly damaging accusations that some of Dr. King’s advisers were communists. Although some of those officials did ask top FBI officials about these charges, they did not inquire further after receiving false denials. In light of what those officials did know about the FBI’s conduct toward Dr. King, they were remiss in falling to take appropriate steps to curb the Bureau’s behavior. To the extent that their neglect permitted the Bureau’s activities to go on unchecked, those officials must share responsibility for what occurred. The FBI now agrees that its efforts to discredit Dr. King were unjustified. The present Deputy Associate Director (Investigation) testified:

Mr. Adams. There were approximately twenty-five incidents of actions taken [to discredit Dr. King] … I see no statutory basis or no basis of justification for the activity.

The CHAIRMAN. Was Dr. King, in his advocacy of equal rights for black citizens, advocating a course of action that in the opinion of the FBI constituted a crime?

Mr. ADAMS. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. He was preaching non-violence was he not, as a method of achieving equal rights for black citizens?

Mr. ADAMS. That’s right … Now as far as the activities which you are asking about, the discrediting, I know of no basis for that and I will not attempt to justify it. 15

The FBI conducted its investigation of Dr. King and the SCLC under an FBI manual provision — called COMINFIL — permitting the investigation of legitimate noncommunist organizations, suspected by the FBI of having been infiltrated by communists, to determine the extent, if any, of communist influence. The FBI’s investigation was based on its concern that Dr. King was being influenced by two persons — hereinafter referred to as Adviser A and Adviser B — that the Bureau believed were members of the Communist Party.

Officials in the Justice Department relied on the FBI’s representations that both of these advisers were communists, that they were in a position to influence Dr. King, and that Adviser A in fact exercised some influence in preparing Dr. King’s speeches and publications. Burke Marshall, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights from 1961-1965, testified that he “never had any reason to doubt [the FBI's] allegations concerning [Adviser A].” He recalled that the charges about Adviser A were “grave and serious,” and said that he believed Attorney General Kennedy had permitted the investigation to proceed because:

Stopping the investigation in light of those circumstances would have run the risk that there would have been a lot of complaints that the Bureau had been blocked for political reasons from investigating serious charges about communist infiltration in the civil rights movement. 17

Edwin Guthman, Press Secretary for the Justice Department from 1961 through 1964, testified that Attorney General Robert Kennedy “viewed this as a serious matter,” that he did not recall “that any of us doubted that the FBI knew what it was talking about,” and that although the question of whether Adviser A was influencing Dr. King was never fully answered “we accepted pretty much what the FBI reported as being accurate.” 18

We have been unable to reach a conclusion concerning the accuracy of the FBI’s charges that the two Advisers were members of the Communist Party, USA or under the control of the Party during the FBI’s COMINFIL investigation. However, FBI files do contain information that Adviser A and Adviser B had been members of the Communist Party at some point prior to the opening of the COMINFIL investigation in October 1962. FBI documents provided to the Committee to support the Bureau’s claim that both men were members of the Communist Party at the time the COMINFIL investigation was opened are inconclusive. Moreover, the FBI has stated that it cannot provide the Committee with the full factual basis for its charges on the grounds that to do so would compromise informants of continuing use to the Bureau.

Without access to the factual evidence, we are unable to conclude whether either of those two Advisers was connected with the Communist Party when the “case” was opened in 1962, or at any time thereafter. We have seen no evidence establishing that either of those Advisers attempted to exploit the civil rights movement to carry out the plans of the Communist Party.

In any event, the FBI has stated that at no time did it have any evidence that Dr. King himself was a communist or connected with the Communist Party. Dr. King repeatedly criticized Marxist philosophies in his writing and speeches. The present Deputy Associate Director of the FBI’s Domestic Intelligence Division, when asked by the Committee if the FBI ever concluded that Dr. King was a communist, testified, “No, sir, we did not.” 20

The FBI’s COMINFIL investigation appears to have centered almost entirely on discussions among Dr. King and his advisers about proposed civil rights activities rather than on whether those advisers were in fact agents of the Communist Party. Although the FBI conducted disruptive programs — COINTELPROs — against alleged communists whom it believed were attempting to influence civil rights organizations, the Bureau did not undertake to discredit the individual whom it considered Dr. King’s most “dangerous”‘ adviser until more than four years after opening the COMINFIL investigation. 21 Moreover, when a field office reported to FBI headquarters in 1964 that the Adviser was not then under the influence and control of the Communist Party, the FBI did not curtail either its investigations or discrediting program against Dr. King, and we have no indication that the Bureau informed the Justice Department of this finding. 22 Rather than trying to discredit the alleged communists it believed were attempting to influence Dr. King, the Bureau adopted the curious tactic of trying to discredit the supposed target of Communist Party interest — Dr. King himself.

Allegations of communist influence on Dr. King’s organization must not divert attention from the fact that, as the FBI now states, its activities were unjustified and improper. In light of the Bureau’s remarks about Dr. King, its reactions to his criticisms, the viciousness of its campaign to destroy him, and its failure to take comparable measures against the Advisers that it believed were communists, it is highly questionable whether the FBI’s stated motivation was valid. It was certainly not justification for continuing the investigation of Dr. King for over six years, or for carrying out the attempts to destroy him.

Our investigation indicates that FBI officials believed that some of Dr. King’s personal conduct was improper. Part of the FBI’s efforts to undermine Dr. King’s reputation involved attempts to persuade Government officials that Dr. King’s personal behavior would be an embarrassment to them. The Committee did not investigate Dr. King’s personal life, since such a subject has no proper place in our investigation. Moreover, in order to preclude any further dissemination of information obtained during the electronic surveillances of Dr. King, the Committee requested the FBI to excise from all documents submitted to the Committee any information which was so obtained. We raise the issue of Dr. King’s private life here only because it may have played a part in forming the attitudes of certain FBI and administration officials toward Dr. King.

Many documents which we examined contained allegations about the political affiliations and morality of numerous individuals. We have attempted to be sensitive to the privacy interests of those individuals, and have taken care not to advance the effort to discredit them. We have excised many of the Bureau’s characterizations from the documents quoted in this report. In some cases, however, in order fully to explain the story, it was judged necessary to quote extensively from Bureau reports, even though they contain unsupported allegations. We caution the reader not to accept these allegations on their face, but rather to read them as part of a shameful chapter in the nation’s history.

2. An analysis of some of the international law issues raised by the massacre, prompted by a piece by Alan Dershowitz that gets the law completely wrong (has he ever been right about anything?), can be found here.

3. The New York Times has an article on its web site in which it describes Israel as rebuffing peace efforts. In the sixty year history of Israel rebuffing peace efforts, has the NYT ever reported this in a headline before?

4. My quick thoughts on the “human shields” arguments that are being used by apologists for the massacre.  It has not been claimed that Hamas is using human shields in the normal sense of the word, the way Israel, for example, has done from time to time. The criticism is that when Hamas fires rockets from civilian areas, it is using the civilians in those areas as human shields. There are big problems with this criticism.

First, where is Hamas supposed to go? The Gaza Strip is a sealed area with the same geographical size and the same population size as the city of Philadelphia. Can you picture a place in the city of Philadelphia that is remote enough from civilians to permit a guerrilla group to operate from there without endangering civilians?

Second: Suppose Hamas had a place to go. What would be the effect of them going there? The effect would be that Israel would wipe the Hamas fighters out in a single attack. Nobody would counsel a guerrilla resistance group rooted in the population to separate itself from the population so it can be easily wiped out, except those who support the colonial project.

Third, what do the Palestinians prefer? The large majority of Palestinians support the resistance to Israeli occupation and terror, even with the knowledge that the result could be mass death. What purpose would be served by Hamas leaving civilian areas? Not the purpose of resistance and national liberation. Are there Palestinians living in Gaza, or non-collaborator Palestinians living in the West Bank, who call on Hamas to leave the civilian areas? Not that I have heard.

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?

A boss is someone who can fire or demote you, subject of course to legal and practical constraints. Bosses tell you what to do – if you don’t listen, you get fired. They hold power over you. You don’t elect them, though you may have the ability to walk away from them if the abuse gets to be too much, possibly at a substantial cost.

Union leaders are in most cases elected. If a union is functioning properly, the leaders don’t tell members what to do – members tell them what to do. They can’t get rid of you, but you can get rid of them. In short, they are elected officials, and therefore the servants of members, not their bosses. They are no more the bosses of unions than the President of the United States is the boss of the country.

Now, all of this is how it is supposed to work in the abstract. In reality, there are all kinds of constraints on bosses that may prevent them from firing you. For instance, you may belong to a union that has a just cause contract with the employer, requiring your boss to have a legitimate reason for firing you. Or you may be in a non-union workplace, but you’re such a productive and useful employee that while your boss can fire you in principle, she is constrained by the fact that she would lose money by doing so.

The reality is also that unions are not perfect democracies, just like our political system is not perfectly democratic. There are plenty of union leaders who are incompetent and corrupt, just like there are politicians who are incompetent and corrupt. Union leaders can subvert democratic processes, just like politicians can. Union leaders can try to act as though they are the bosses of the union, just like President Bush acts like he’s the boss of the country. But a key difference between a union leader and the President is that there are many more mechanisms of accountability in place to keep union leaders honest than there are to keep the President honest.

One is that people are free to opt out of their union, while one may not opt out of the legal regime of the country. In many states, individual workers cannot opt out of paying for the benefits that they receive from the union, in terms of better wages and working conditions. This is for the same reason that you can’t opt out of paying taxes, namely, that you’re “free riding” by taking the benefits of collective action without contributing to the costs. Workers who are *really* bothered by the union’s leaders can quit their job, just like if you *really* don’t like the president, you are free to leave the country.

If a majority of workers decide they don’t like the union’s leadership, they can petition to decertify the union. There is no analogous decertification process for Presidents, although there are automatic elections every four years.

Unions are typically guided by elected executive or steering committees, who are above the union president in the decision-making hierarchy. Typically, the highest decision-making body is the membership, which is asked to decide important questions, with the executive in charge of implementing the decision. The U.S. President, on the other hand, is the supreme executive authority. In theory, the Congress sets the agenda and the President implements it; in reality, the President wields a tremendous amount of independent power.

Perhaps most importantly, unions are subject to overall democratic and judicial oversight and regulation. In the U.S., unlike in most of the world, the fundamental rights of workers to unionize and bargain collectively are not recognized. Instead, they are subject to legislation. This provides another mechanism of accountability that is lacking in an institution like the Presidency. If unions become too corrupt, the public can step in and impose anti-corruption measures, as it did in the Landrum-Griffin Act.

So overall, characterizing union leaders as “bosses” is grossly inaccurate. There are, however, one circumstances in which it fits, and one in which it maybe, kinda, sorta fits.

With respect to the union’s staff under the direct control of the leadership, they are in a boss-worker relationship with the leaders. They can be fired or demoted by the leadership. This does not make the union leaders the bosses of the union, however, any more than the President is the boss of the nation because he can hire and fire White House staff.

The other situation, the one which kinda, sorta fits, is when a national union imposes a trustee on a local union. Trusteeships are permitted by the Landrum-Griffin Act in order to remedy corruption, mismanagement, or failure on the part of local leadership to run the union democratically. Trustees are imposed by the elected national leadership, not elected by the local, and they can themselves be highly undemocratic. When I was a union steward in UAW Local 2322, I participated in an effort to oppose imposition of a trusteeship on the local by the international. These days, they are highly controversial within the SEIU, with locals of the United Healthcare Workers West accusing the national SEIU of imposing trusteeships against the will of the members in order to control the locals.

That’s why when I hear someone say “union bosses,” I first check to see whether they’re talking about the relationship between union staff and the elected leadership, or about an imposed trusteeship. If they are not (and inevitably, they are not), I pretty much tune them out.

Postscript

I had been relatively disengaged from this blog for the last few weeks. This is not due to post-election having-nothing-to-talk-about, but rather due to me having to write several exams and one major paper. The paper is a linguistic analysis of a dispute between Justice Stevens and Justice Scalia in the District of Columbia v. Heller gun control case about the significance of the word “to”. I will post a link to it once I refine it a little bit and put it on the web, just in case someone is interested in seeing what such an analysis might look like.

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?

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?

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.

The analogy is wrong. The status of Palestinians in Israel is more like American blacks in the mid-1860′s, after slavery was ended but before the 14th Amendment guaranteed them equal rights. Palestinians are second-class citizens, subject to all kinds of laws, regulations and practices designed to marginalize and exclude them from political and civil life. Israel is an apartheid state by the standard of the United Nations’ Convention on Apartheid.

The greatest source of political marginalization is something virtually never noticed in the West, even by leftists. It is the fact that only a small fraction of Palestinians are treated as Israeli citizens. We get so used to treating Israel and Palestine as separate entities, that we forget that Palestinians, as the indigenous people of Palestine at the time of the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, are entitled to Israeli citizenship. That means all Palestinians – the residents of the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the refugees, as well as those living in Israel. The arbitrary, illegal and systematic denial of Israeli citizenship on a racial basis is the most important instrument of marginalization. (It also makes it clear that Israel is not a democracy – but that’s a subject for another day.)

But even if we only consider Palestinian citizens of Israel, the level of marginalization is extreme. To begin with, Palestinians are legally treated as second class citizens. As documented most extensively by Uri Davis, Israeli Palestinians are subjected to an array of laws and regulations in such areas as eligibility for citizenship, land use, and army service, with the overall effect of giving the benefit of the laws to Jews and not to Palestinians. Most importantly for political marginalization, Israel’s election rules permit the government to disqualify political parties that advocate racial equality from participating in elections.

Israel’s racial supremacy has significant differences from American racial supremacy. For one, Zionists are outnumbered by Palestinians in a way that white Americans are not (yet) outnumbered by minorities, and its policies are therefore more aimed at keeping the minority in political control, while in the US, racial policies, embodied in the police and prison systems, are focused on economic control. (Though restrictive immigration policy is more in line with the kind of demographic warfare that Israel wages.) Another important difference is that the US is committed formally to racial equality, while Israel is formally committed to racial supremacy. That’s why Israel has all kinds of laws on the books that would be immediately ruled unconstitutional in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment if enacted in the US.

There’s one Israeli racial practice that’s not a law but is very important for keeping Palestinians politically marginalized, and that is the cooperation among Jewish political parties to exclude Palestinian individuals and parties from positions of power. There has been some progress recently, with the first appointment of a Palestinian-Israeli, Ghaleb Majadele, to the Israeli cabinet about a year and a half ago. But one other historic practice continues unchanged: Jewish Israeli leaders will not rely on an Arab party to hold the balance of power in forming coalition governments. Israeli leader Tzipi Livni has repeated this practice of late. In other words, Jewish political leaders in Israel would rather suffer political defeat than give Arab parties too much political power. That’s some serious racial supremacy.

In summary, Israel has a ways to go before it is as racially tolerant as the US. I’m calling 2037 as the year that Arab Israelis break through the political barrier in part as an aspirational, rather than a predictive goal. Achieving this goal will not just require a major cultural change among Israeli Zionists towards greater tolerance, it may also require the elimination of some of the legal apparatus that is used to systematically keep the Palestinians politically marginalized.

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.

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.

What can I say, except these guys seem to be closer on the issues than McBama is. Maybe we should start calling them “McNader.” Not only do they seem to agree on almost everything, they seem to agree with the American majority about everything, too.

Nader even made a pitch for contributions to McKinney’s campaign, and the Green Party. And the support is not just one way. When I saw McKinney speak in Miami this past summer, I asked her to name some people she would consider nominating to the Supreme Court, and she mentioned Ralph Nader as one of her top choices. [BTW if Democrats feel electorally threatened by Nader, shouldn't they appoint him to the Court so he stops running for President?]

Given their virtual indistinguishability on the issues, I can only imagine the negative campaign ads that they would have to rely on to distinguish themselves.

But it doesn’t matter how big the Christian god (what’s his name, anyway?) is. The Hindu gods can take him in a fight. Numbering 330,000, they would overwhelm him with their sheer numerosity.

My hat is off to my fellow writers, and I’m happy to share this space with them.