I just discovered, via the Huffington Blog, that Jon Robin Baitz wrote episodes of the West Wing and Alias. He’s a playwright originally recommended to me by Alan Brody for the playwriting workshop. I just started rereading The Film Society so it was a nice little convergence.
Perhaps I should reconsider watching TV again. Nah.
In an earlier post I talked about my discomfort with the idea that a boycott of Israeli academic institutions is an appropriate or effective means of applying political pressure. These recent posts at Left2Right and Crooked Timber discuss a thoroughly backwards way of approaching the issue that may be adopted by a university professor’s union in the UK. According to the NY Times:
The boycott, which has prompted outrage in Israel, the United States and Britain, would bar Israeli faculty members at Haifa University and Bar-Ilan University from taking part in academic conferences or joint research with their British colleagues.
The resolution on the boycott, passed by the Association of University Teachers in late April, would allow an exception only for those academics at the two schools who declare opposition to Israeli policies toward the Palestinians.
This wrongheaded in so many ways that it makes me wonder how these people made it through grad school in the first place. Setting aside the issue of whether or not a boycott is appropriate in the first place, what could this possibly seek to accomplish? As a symbolic gesture it fails miserably because it’s trying to “call out” academics by threatening to make them academic pariahs. It is definitely not an effective way to apply pressure to the Israeli academy because it applies to only two universities. Finally, it’s an attempt to bind union members to a clearly controversial stance and represents an abuse (in my mind) of union power.
The whole thing is like one high school clique ignoring another or some kids giving one person the silent treatment. These guys wish it was like some sort of gang war or Noble Struggle, but it’s just childish and ignorant.
Don Herzog over at Left2Right has a nice post on the supposed reasons to oppose gay marriage and their mutual incompatibility. He says there are three basic arguments:
1. Family law belongs to state governments. But it’s outrageous for state courts to rule that gay marriage is constitutionally required. That decision belongs to the people or legislatures of each state.
2. “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” That’s Art. 4, sec. 1 of the Constitution. If one state marries gays, it looks like other states would have to recognize those marriages.
3. Same-sex marriage is wrong, period. Marriage must be between one man and one woman.
Now if you are a strong proponent of federalism, then (1) makes sense. However, many people hold (3) but then try to argue (1) while at the same time saying there should be a constitutional amendment to prevent the situations arising from (2).
In fact, I was at a party last year where I was arguing this case with someone and it was clear that they thought (3) but instead were making some specious claims about the state having a vested interest in making babies. When pressed further on that they retreated to (1) with a sprinkling of (2) for justification. I viewed it as a minor success that I could talk them out of the constitutional amendment.
Of course, an arsenal of counter-arguments is only half the battle. But arguing the benefits is much easier, I think. Unless you’re CNN of course. Sometimes the Daily Show makes me hate the world.
An article at Left2Right reminded me of the movie Slam which I saw recently. Compared to the defenders discussed in the article, that one seemed competent and honest, if a bit hopeless and mean. Essentially he told the protagonist to plea bargain or else, which is a tactic, not an argument. But the article is right — don’t blame the PDs, but blame the underfunded system that drives people away and encourages grifters.
My friend Brandon from high school is running for Urbana city council. Go vote for him!
At least someone has some balls:
Judge Robertson ruled that the administration could not under current circumstances try Mr. Hamdan before the military commissions set up shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks but could only bring him before a court-martial, where different rules of evidence apply.
In the 45-page ruling, the judge said the administration had ignored a basic provision of the Geneva Conventions, the international treaties signed by the United States that form the basic elements of the laws governing the conduct of war.
The hubris of our “leaders” never fails to astonish me. Apparently:
Government lawyers argued that the president had already used his authority to deem members of Al Qaeda unlawful combatants who would be deprived of P.O.W. status.
It’s lovely that our government is one in which if someone high enough vouches for something to be true then it is true. True enough to throw someone in prison,
true enough to sacrifice our soldiers, true enough to mortgage the future.
Prior to the election, quite a few progressives I had talked to were largely of the opinion “it has to get worse before it can get better.” Interestingly, those people were rather tight-lipped last week. Perhaps even here, in the bubble of Berkeley, the reality has hit them.
I for one, am more convinced now that it has to get worse before it can get better. Of course, I can say that in my comfortable over-educated academic engineer position.
“In the dark times will there be singing?
Yes, there will be singing about the dark times”
– Bertolt Brecht
I’m reminded of the first episode of Invader Zim. “I’m gonna sing the doom song! Doom doom doom doom doom doom doom doom doom doom doom doom doom doom doom doom doom doom doom doom doom doom…”
Berkeley Economics Professor Brad DeLong has a thought-provoking post on trade at his blog. He takes to task an article from Slate on the ethics of purchasing goods manufactured in developing countries under exploitative practices. The author of the article calls for a boycott of such goods, but DeLong points out that this only hurts the poor villagers. He then goes on to give a list of constructive actions to improve the situation, ending with this call:
Think analytically, people. Think hard about opportunity cost–what people’s options are–and how to expand those options, not narrow them. Think not about the first-round effects of actions, but their implications for equilibrium.
I admit that I have similar “liberal” knee-jerk reactions to labor issues like this, but after reading a proposal to improve labor standards I gained a better understanding of the complexities of the issue.
On my reading list at the moment (who knows when I’ll get to it): International Labor Standards, by Flanagan and Gould.
An Ergodic Walk 