The Indiana Law

I've written on this issue before, but I'll repeat: I'm skeptical.   People have a right to think whatever they want about marrying other men (women), Jews, etc.  But if you say "I won't follow that law because it violates my religious beliefs," that's a pretty broad exception.   Suppose that I have a deeply held belief that I shouldn't stand too close to women other than my wife.     Can I then say that no women can come into my store?    Wouldn't it make more sense to avoid retail sales and start another business?  

I realize this is an oversimplification: it's not an easy issue.   But the precedent remains dangerous.     It's hard to escape that the real argument is that gays have some lower level of protection than other minority groups.    And that's potentially quite troublesome.

more on oklahoma

As suggested here, the New York Times has reported that the racist song heard on a tape at the University of Oklahoma was nothing new, but had been taught at a national convention of the relevant fraternity and was part of the regular ritual of the local chapter.   The article also reports that both liberal and conservative experts believe the decision to expel the relevant students had no serious legal basis.

In good conscience, the university should admit that it made a mistake and readmit the students, following appropriate apologies and some effort to compensate the offended parties. This might take the form of community service or other work on behalf of minority groups.

The fraternity is another matter.   I still believe it was an error to close it down immediately because it made further investigation difficult.   But plainly the culture at SAE, and OU generally, was accepting or even encouraging of overtly racist sentiment, and further effort to root that out seems both necessary and appropriate.

last word on the election (i promise)

Peter Beinart has a column saying Netanyahu's win means it's impossible to change Israel and one has to turn to external pressure instead.   This apparently means American political pressure, some limited kind of sanctions (occupation products only), that kind of thing.   I think that's a mistake.

The Israeli left is only 6-8 seats from taking control, maybe less.   Herzog needs to go back and continue expanding Labor, maybe adding Meretz (or its members, anyway) or reaching some kind of long-term agreement with Lapid.   That takes him to 35-40 seats and he's already the largest party.   Meanwhile Netanyahu's coalition will be inherently unstable--he has to have at least one partner (Kulanu?) that wants major economic changes and he's totally alienated the US--and he can't be more than a few years from retirement, anyway.

I also think that "pressure" is harder to control than you think.  There's no obvious stopping point.   And it certainly won't strengthen the position of moderates within Israel.

Sometimes you have to take a deep breath and think things over.   Netanyahu is 65 years old.  Sooner or later, he is going to lose.  The question is what comes after him.      Taking a long view is harder than venting, but it's usually more productive.

israeli elections--part two

I don't think Netanyahu's "victory" changes much.   More than half the electorate clearly wants change of some kind, probably including some of the younger Likud people.   They don't quite trust the left to provide it, understandably given its past record, but they're looking for someone who will.

I think it will remain more or less logjammed until someone is able to put together a multi-ethnic, post-Zionist party that can win a clear plurality of the electorate.   Imagine if Obama said, "I want a progressive majority but I won't make deals with any Black or Hispanic leader in order to achieve it."   That's sort of the position the Israeli left is in now, and it's actually pretty impressive that they can reach an effective tie that way.   But not more.

the israeli elections--part one

Too early to tell what happens, probably a unity government, couple of other thoughts:

1.   Very impressive that Kulanu/Kahalon will get 10 seats or so.   There's no precise precedent for his movement.   It's much more than I would have expected.

2.   It's the beginning of the end of the narrow ethnic parties.   If you add Labor/Livni, Likud, Yesh Atid, and Kulanu it's something like 75-80 seats, if you count Meretz more.   The only really sizable ethnic party is the Combined Arab List and they aren't really one party, anyway.

3.  I think you're also seeing the beginning of the end of the exclusion of Israeli Arabs from meaningful political power.   There's just no way the center/left can get to a majority without working with them officially or otherwise.   As the ethnic strain begins to decline it will become more anomalous to exclude them.

It's interesting to think what would happen if Israelis and Palestinians held a joint election.   If everyone voted the way they do now, the largest single party would probably be Hamas followed by Likud, Labor, the PLO, and various narrower groupings.   But of course that wouldn't happen: someone would eventually figure out that a party appealing to Jews and Arabs was the only way to prevent the extremists of one side or another from taking control.   It was interesting, in this context, that Hamas called on people to vote for the Arab List rather than simply not participating.   Is it possible that, deep down, they know that it won't end with armed struggle, but with some kind of political settlement?

"There's no alternative . . . "

. . . to Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee.

I think this is basically nonsense.   Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, and any number of current or former Democratic governors or senators are as or more qualified than Obama was in 2008, or for that matter than several of the Republican candidates.   I think this is essentially a smokescreen being put up by the Clintons to distract attention from her obviously flawed rollout.   If Clinton were to drop out, within six weeks you would see a series of imperfect but very credible candidates.  

I just don't think it's convincing.

is oklahoma covering up a bigger scandal?

A scandal has arisen over a video showing members of the SAE Fraternity at U. of Oklahoma singing an openly racist song on a bus.   Although some words are hard to hear, the overall lyric seems clear:

There will never be a n----- SAE
There will never be a n----- SAE
You can hang him from a tree
But it will never start? with me 
There will never be a n----- SAE

There are a couple of interesting things here.   The first is that it's almost certain the song, or versions of it, go back a long way.   Nobody talks about lynching people today, and the italicized lines appear to constitute a promise that the singer will not break the chain of an all-white fraternity, which was in fact broken some time ago (there was at least one African-American member at Oklahoma and others at different universities).    It's also interesting that at least one participant was apparently a freshman, who most likely learned it from older members.

There is also evidence that the same or similar performances were made by other Oklahoma students, and by fraternity members at other universities, prior to this one.   A video of the SAE house mother repeating the n-word, supposedly miming a rap video, is currently making the Internet rounds.

I don't have any particular sympathy for the two dismissed students or the SAE Fraternity, although I think they should be provided with some kind of (preferably public) hearing, as a procedural matter and also to investigate whether others were involved.   But the rush to expel them and to close down the fraternity inevitably makes one wonder if a larger problem is being covered up.   As stated above, it boggles the mind to think that these kids came up with this on their own, and there's a wealth of emerging evidence that they did it.   Is OU President David Boren, a national political figure, really trying to get to the bottom of this, or acting to protect his own brand?

the senate iran letter

Didn't like it.  I think inviting Netanyahu was borderline--he made a good speech and the protocol issue is more complicated than it seems.  But writing to a foreign leader is over the line.   What if Nixon had written to Hanoi in 1968 saying, "Don't negotiate with these chumps, I'm going to be elected in November, I'll settle the thing."   He sort of did this, with his "secret plan," but at least he followed the rules.   This doesn't.

Now, if they threaten to drop Lindsey Graham on Teheran, that's a different story . . .

the clinton emails

I think the Democrats are making an enormous mistake in having effectively only one candidate and we're beginning to see why.

It's not that the emails are such a big scandal--it will pass.   It's that a one-person race almost demands constant scandals.  There must be a thousand reporters ready to cover the Democratic primaries.   If there's no race to cover, what are they going to do?   Look for scandals . . . or have nothing to write, and lose one of the biggest opportunities of their career.

The best thing the Democrats could do is come up with a serious challenger.   Warren, Webb, Woodrow Wilson it doesn't matter.    The frontrunner usually wins, anyway.   But trying to clear the field is a recipe for disaster.   It's already happening.