Ann Salisbury reminds us all to get off our butts and register to vote Right God Damn Now. She is, as she almost always is, absolutely right.
As disgusted as I am by the Governor’s race between “SkyBox/ATM” Davis and “Daddy’s Money/Simple” Simon, I’ll be flogged if I’m going to miss my chance to cast a vote in this. Even if it is to write in Obi-Wan Kenobi, or just simply vote Green.

In polar opposition to the stupidity below, Barry over at Ampersand had the class to email me and ask me to clarify what he thought was my position on divestment and anti-semitism, an area where we have disagreed in the past. He stated that he wanted to have an argument around my real position, rather than a strawman, and went out of his way to privately contact me and try and confirm what he understood my position to be.
We may disagree on issues, but for this he’s the Blogger Of The Day as far as I’m concerned. My reply to him is below:

OK, here’s a first cut:
>As I understand it, the argument you’re making connecting divestment
>campaigns to anti-Semitism can be summed up this way:
>
>1. Anti-Semitism is bigotry against Jews.
OK
>2. “Divestment from Israel” campaigns single out Israel, among all the
>nations (many of which are worse than Israel), for activist opposition.
Unlike other ‘divestment’ candidates (South Africa the best example), the threat to Israel is external and real; South Africa faced no meaningful threat to it’s existence as a nation, nor did the white or colored South Africans face a real, organized threat to their lives. Divestment supporters don’t take this into account when criticising Israel’s actions, nor to they have a realistic response. Mandela wanted to see non-whites get their equitable share of political and economic power; the core positions of the Palestinian political powers remain a vague commitment to a two-state solution in English, and ‘from the river to the sea’ in Arabic. None of this is dealt with or remarked on in the pro-‘peace’ or pro-divestment comments I’ve read.
>3. There is no reason to single out Israel, except that Israel is a Jewish
>state.
I don’t believe that’s why the divestment campaign has focussed on Israel; I think it is for a variety of reasons: 1) I think that the philosophical bent is linked to the anti-colonial, anti-modern philosophical strains I’ve discussed at length in the blog, and Israel represents both colonialism – both in its foundation after WW2, and in it’s effectrive treatment of the Occupied Territories – and modernity, in its embrace of technology, markets, and pluralism. I wonder what the discussion would have been like if Israel’s identity was as self-consciously socialist as it was in the 50’s. 2) I think that it is the natural inclination to root for the underdog, and (as when I was in school) the visual rhetoric of powerful war machines bearing down on a peasant population tends to drive arguments.
>4. Therefore, the reason pro-divestment activists have singled out Israel
>is
>that Israel is a Jewish state.
Don’t think that.
>5. Therefore, pro-divestment activists are anti-Semites.
I do think they are anti-Semitic in a variety of ways; they accept the hateful rhetoric promulgated by many of the Palestinian organizations (how would the broad student community react to a poster suggesting that the secret ingredient in Afican-American ‘soul food’ was white babies? No one in this half-century would have even _thought_ of saying or doing such a thing), and I think the pro-PA student movement discredits itself by excusing that kind of behavior; and more, importantly I do connect the existence of Israel as a predominantly Jewish state (this has its own problems that I’ll probably write about soon) with the ‘state’ of the Jewish people thoughout the world (note: I’m not Jewish; but I did grow up in a predominantly Jewish community). And what I do not see on the part of the divestment activists or any of the pro-Palestinian ‘peace’ community is any thoughful response to the real threat to the existance of Israel and the people who live there. The best I can see is the possibly sincere hope that if they lay their arms down, the Palestinians will do the same; something sadly not borne out in recent history.
I think Israel has done some illegal, immoral, and stupid things, partly from a knee-jerk reactiveness, partly out of fear. I do think that the palestinians have been screwed over, by the israelis on one side, and by the other Arab states and their own insane leadership on the other.
As I’ve said many times in the blog, I think that the average Palestinian isn’t a monster, but someone who wants food, shelter, work, the love of their family and a better future for their children – none of which are in wide supply today.
Does this help stake out a position that’s clear??
And thanks for asking me to explain…in careful discussion, we have a chance to find a common ground in this mess.
A.L.

So open the mailbox this morning, and have a pair of emails from Ralph Albertson. I haven’t got any really stupid or abusive email so far. I’m genuinely impressed at the level of comments and email I’ve received to date, so I’m going to quote these screeds in full and comment:

Your pro-gun arguments are specious to the point of being farcical. Perhaps you are merely unaware of the large number of children that are injured, maimed, or slain by “accidents” involving guns in their homes or perhaps you actually love your guns more than your children. In any even, if you will list your home address, I will be more than happy to report to the your nearest child protection agency for child endangerment.
Now there is another NRA nutcase sniper shooting people at random. That is another excellent example of your argument in action. In Stockton, one of your people uses a similar weapon to shoot up a schoolyard and murder children. Rather than act to protect the lives of children as the English did in a similar case by banning weapons, NRA people like you fought regulation, which proves again that you love your guns more than your children. The blood of thousands of innocent American who are murdered by guns in this country every year is on your hands. You must be proud to be gun scum.
http://www.childhealthmonitor.org/DirectorySearch.php?topic=84
http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm

and

Professor InstaCracker Seeks To Deflect Attention Away From NRA
Professor InstaCracker, gunloon and NRA water-carrier, is beating the drums complaining nobody is looking into the Maryland (Montgomery County) Shootings as a potential Al Qaeda terrorism attack. Professor InstaCracker vaguely cites Al Qaeda training manuals as ‘evidence’ this could be a terrorist attack.
While terrorism as a motive for these crimes cannot be discounted, it should be noted the Al Qaeda manuals advised would-be terrorists to take advantage of lax US gun laws (the very same laws Professor InstaCracker would do away with) to obtain firepower.
However, this shooting spree doesn’t really fit the mold of a terrorist attack; one would think a terrorist would select crowds and would attack in a more dispersed area in order to maximize terror. I suspect InstaCracker knows this as well but is engaging in a bit of misdirection to deflect attention from the far greater possibility these senseless murders are the result of yet another of the NRA’s apocryphal “law-abiding citizens” exercising the NRA’s interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Another NRA killer on the loose.

Ralph, you’re a moron.
You’re not a moron for opposing guns; that’s a legitimate position to take, albeit one that I think is wrong (albeit is a long word that means ‘although’). You’re a moron for believing that overheated rhetoric and namecalling will do anything except vent whatever personal frustrations you may have with your life, and make you look foolish in public, which in the long run will add to the personal frustrations you have with your life. It’s a sad negative feedback loop.
You want to challenge my beliefs or Glenn Reynolds’ beliefs, step up and challenge them. That’s what this is about. But you’ll have to actually do some thinking and work to do so.
I’d suggest that you start with the CDC databases, where you’ll learn that swimming pools are far more dangerous to American children than guns are, something sadly borne out in my personal experience (I have two friends who have lost children in swimming pool drownings). So your concern isn’t with the safety of children, but with banning guns, and you’re shilling behind dead children to make your argument. OK, that’s sleazy, but you need to make a case. And unless you’re prepared to actually attempt to construct an argument, do it someplace else.
You see, this is arguments…abuse and stupidity are down the hall.

Back from a great weekend in Monterey and a stupendous motorcycle ride back down most of the two-lane roads in Central California. Blogging will resume shortly.
I obviously (and sadly) forgot to tell people not to kill anyone or blow anything up while I was gone…

FYI:
DIAGNOSIS CRITICAL:
An Urgent Call for a Healthy Los Angeles
A Town Hall Meeting on health care issues in your community
Sunday October 20th, 2002
2:30 – 5:30pm
Agape International Spiritual Center 5700 Buckingham Pkwy Culver City, CA 90230
with featured guest speakers:
Warren Olney – Panel Moderator from Radio Station KCRW
Assemblyman Gil Cedillo – California State Assembly
Dr. Thomas Garthwaite – Director and Chief Medical Officer for the LA County Department of Health Services and Local Community Leaders
Eleven public health clinics and all school clinics closing. Trauma centers threatened. Reductions in hospital beds and funding for private clinics anticipated. 5000 jobs lost. 2.5 million residents without health care covereage.
There are solutions for a healthy LA. Find out what we can do!
PARTNERS
Community Health Councils
Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace
Office of the Americas
www.NonviolenceWorks.com
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Councilman Mark Ridley Thomas
Agape International Spiritual Center
SEIU Local 434B
The Gas Company
T.H.E. Clinic
–thanks to Bob Morris!

In Monterey being a corporate spouse…back Monday.

In recent news, Los Angeles County is hustling to keep from rolling down the shutters on a large portion of the public healthcare infrastructure.
Meanwhile, voters in Oregon are looking at a statewide ‘one-payer’ plan (which appears to be getting mixed reviews, at best).
So here’s another thought-question for the folks out there: How would we know when the public health system here had collapsed? What would that collapse look like, and how would we react?
The problem seems pretty simple; Hospitals are morally and legally mandated to care for patients with little regard for their ability to pay. Some of those costs are covered by state and local government, some by the owners of hospitals (who are simultaneously declaring record profits on one hand, and going out of business on the other), and some by insured patients, who face cost pressures as hospitals try and stay solvent.
So the cost of taxes and insurance goes up, meaning fewer people can pay until < sarcasm> there is only one insured, tax-paying patient, and he (Bill Gates) is covering the costs for all the rest of us.< /sarcasm>
Clearly, we’re in an untenable position, and headed into deeper water on a leaking boat.
So, back to my original question: How do we know when the system has finally broken? What will it take to get the necessary political will to deal with the problem?

Frequent commenter Mostafa works in the securities industry and has now started his own blog (hopefully we will keep at least some of his frequent and smart comments, even if he persists in disagreeing with me once in a while). He’s starting a series on the markets which promises to be interesting.
Permalinks aren’t working (is happening to me as well, so it’s a Blogger problem), so just go to meaux’s stream of consciouness…

Here’s someone who has some concrete suggestions to make:nathan_lott. He manages to both applaud the move of the African-Amercian polity to the mainstream (driven, I imagine by the black soccer moms I now see here in the formerly lily-white South Bay), and make some concrete and excellent suggestions (schools and housing) on what ‘reparations’ for Jim Crow might look like.
I’m wary of ‘reparations’ for slavery (or even for Jim Crow) as a justification for doing the right thing. I think the books on slavery were balanced by the blood of white boys spilled to free slaves during the Civil War…a simplistic construction, but nontheless true.
But that doesn’t mean nothing needs to be done. I like to think of it as nation-building…for our own nation.
Check nathan out and see what you think.

In a valiant effort to keep from becoming the perpetual ‘Gun Channel’ of the Blogoverse, I went to Barry’s reply to my post on calling Jews ‘Nazis’.
My points included:

The issue is that insult derives from context and intention.
To call me a ‘Nazi’ because I’m obsessed with and rigid about safety, or a women a ‘Nazi’ because she is obsessed with or rigid about feminism, or an ecologist a ‘Nazi’ because they are obsessed with or rigid about ecology is a different thing than to call someone by the name of the enemy who specifically targeted them out and attempted to exterminate them.

and:

The issue in criticizing Israel’s sometimes misguided policies is to distinguish one key fact: do you support Israel’s right to exist? As a Western and predominantly Jewish state? Because while I have been and will continue to be critical of many of their loonier policies, their right to exist trumps a whole range of other issues for me, and their opponents refusal to meaningfully agree to their right to exist and to take concrete steps to back up that agreement devalue their claims almost to zero.

In reply, Barry takes me to task for being dismissive of ‘feminazi’ as an insult, giving it roots in Rush Limbaugh’s overheated prose and pointing out in addition it is more hurtful in that most feminists are Jewish. I’ve never listened to Rush (really!), and the term may have a more overtly political history than I’ve granted it; I’ll take that under advisement.
But then he jumps the shark, as we say here in L.A. He explains that I missed his main point:

Unfortunately, none of the folks who responded to me explained how someone saying “I favor divestment from Israel to pressure the Israeli government to remove settlements” is anti-Semitism. Instead, people responded to me about the word “feminazi.”

I thought my second point address this, but he goes on. I’d like to collapse his argument, but it’s tough to do, so I’ll just quote extensively:

It’s not Cathy Young’s opinion; it’s not Larry Summers’ opinion; and I presume it’s not the opinion of anyone who agreed with Summers’ speech. Why? Because Summers’s speech presented a radical new idea of anti-Semitism: anti-Semitism in effect, even when there isn’t anti-Semitic intent. In this new version of anti-Semitism, an anti-Semitic action is one that hurts Jews, whether or not prejudice against Jews – “intent” – is involved. (Say, if an earthquake levels a Jewish neighborhood in Brooklyn, is that anti-Semitism?).
But here’s my problem with Israel’s paritsans – they want to have it both ways. When it comes to criticizing liberals, they use the broadest definition of anti-Semitism imaginable, so that even a purely political action against the government of Israel, conducted by folks who have never shown any sign of anti-Jewish prejudice, is
anti-Semitism.

Here he makes the leap from Point A: I’m dismissive of a (potentially insulting) term that he argues is anti-Semitic (‘feminazi’); to Point B: I’m opposed to divestment and while divestment may harm the State of Israel, it has nothing to do with Jews – and therefore I’m a hypocrite, because I embrace a ‘tight’ standard in one case, and a ‘loose’ standard in another.
First, let me plant a flag on the hypocrisy issue. Lacking other values, it seems that the only meaningful criticism available to Bad Philosophers is internal inconsistency. The reality is that human thought and behavior is complex and ambiguous. Consistency is valued, but it isn’t the only value, nor, in my mind, the highest. I’m sure we’ll be talking about this later.
Next, in my original post, I concluded with the demand that Israel’s critics take a clear position on the survival of Israel, and it’s survival ‘as a Western and predominantly Jewish state’. My issue with Barry’s defense of the divestment petition and other criticisms of Israel’s actions – or one criticism, because as Meryl points out there are a host of others – is that they fail to either a) take a stand that says ‘Israel is an illegitimate country and needs to be dismantled,’ or b) ‘Israel has a right to exist in the face of outside attacks and here is a plan whereby it can do so.’
Because last time I looked, ‘Palestine from the river to the sea’ was still the rallying cry.
When ‘peace’ activists propose a plan in which they act as human shields in Israeli restaurants and schools, instead of for terrorist leaders, I’ll take the quotes off their label.
Meanwhile, I’m unconvinced, and I’m afraid Barry and I will have to agree to disagree for a while. I’ll think about the feminazi thing though (although it’s never been a term I’ve used, it has been one I’ve tolerated use of in my presence…I’ll think about that).
There’s more, and some of it even includes criticism of Israeli politics that have helped create the situation, and an interesting questions raised by correspondent Evan Weisberg:

Third — although this is less a point than a question — what does it mean for Israel to have a “right” to remain a “Western” state? What does it mean for it to have a “right” to remain a “predominantly Jewish” state? Does Australia have a right to remain Western? Does Armenia have a right to remain predominantly Christian?

This will serve as fodder for some interesting talk later, I’ll bet.