Perhaps you missed it, the case of the "Jena 6." These were the 6 black high school students from Jena, Louisiana whom national race hucksters like Al Sharpton, the NAACP, and the mainstream media attempted to turn into the Chicago 7 or the Guildford 4. Last December, they beat the living daylights out of a white student. Yet in a bizarre (and ultimately all-too-predictable) rendering of the story, the usual suspects swept in and turned this incident into the next Selma. Nearly 20,000 people gathered there last month to protest, and it is this incident that led Jesse Jackson to claim that Barack Obama was "acting white" for not joining him in the usual race-baiting hysterics.

The source of the left-wing ire about the Jena 6 was an incident earlier last year in which black students at Jena High School sat under what was alleged to be a "whites-only tree," only to find three nooses hanging from said tree the next day. What followed was a series of tit-for-tat incidents between black and white students, leading ultimately to the violent beating of Justin Barker, age 17.

I had suspected that there was something fishy in the liberal media's telling of this story (see Stanford Law School Professor Richard Thompson Ford's dispassionate analysis of the story in Slate), which is why I was a bit perturbed to see the Human Rights Campaign, the country's leading gay rights organization, take the side of the Free the Jena 6 protesters several weeks ago. If there was any "gay angle" to this series of events (and there isn't) it would be an expression of sympathy with the white student randomly set upon by 6 students and beat beyond unconsciousness simply because he was white. According those who support "hate crimes" legislation, this is a hate crime, unless they wish to retroactively change the definition of the proposed law so that only blacks can be victims and whites perpetrators. Change, furthermore, Barker's sexual orientation to homosexual, and you have the prototypical gay bashing. But no, the Human Rights Campaign, ostensibly a non-partisan organization, apparently wants some chits with the "black" and "progressive" "communities" and decided to cast any concern for the truth of the matter to the wind and join in this ridiculous spectacle.

Well, as with the Duke case, the situation in Jena was not what Al Sharpton and the perpetually over-earnest American Prospect (which is always seizing upon faux-incidents like the "Jena 6" to call for a "national conversation" about race, labor, or purple ponies) made it out to be. In yesterday's Christian Science Monitor of all places, Craig Franklin, an editor of the local Jena Times newspaper, offers a short and devastating analysis of the "distorted story of the Jena 6." He wrote the piece mostly as a response to the "hundreds" of calls his paper has received from national media looking for an accurate version of the events that took place. To put it bluntly, nearly every single aspect of this story has been sensationalized and mis-reported by mainstream media outlets." In fact, I have never before witnessed such a disgrace in professional journalism," Franklin, a career journalist, writes.

One might hope that Jackson, Sharpton, the Prospect, the Human Rights Campaign and everyone who shuttled down to Jena and back to have their photo taken would apologize to the people they slandered -- as in the Duke case -- and perhaps exercise a little more restraint the next time The Big Story That Exemplifies The Need For A National Conversation On Race comes over the transom. Don't count on it.

Calling all New York Jewcers: This Saturday night, the American Jewish Committee is hosting a free screening of the documentary Darfur Now. If you’re interested, RSVP to darfurnow@yahoo.com and we’ll hook you up, but act fast—we’ve only got room for the first 30 people.

When: Saturday November 11 at 10:30 PM
Where: The Angelica theater, 18 W. Houston St (at Mercer St)
RSVP: darfurnow@yahoo.com

Learn more at Participate.net.

A barrage of headlines came just a moment ago, all letting us know that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has followed up the deaths of 8 people in Gaza by threatening more comprehensive military action:

"We are getting closer to carrying out a widespread operation in Gaza which, for many reasons, has not taken place in the past weeks," Barak told Israel's Army Radio.

But a group of Israeli authors has a different idea--talk to Hamas about a ceasefire:

[A.B.]Yehoshua, one of Israel's most revered novelists, underpinned the call yesterday by pointing out that Israel had "many times" negotiated in the past with its sworn enemies...He said that he believed Hamas should be offered ceasefire talks before implementation of "extreme measures" against the population of Gaza.

"I do not know how Hamas will respond." But he said the offer of talks – which would be unconditional on both sides – "would throw the dice into the hands of Hamas and say stop the stupid rockets you are launching into Israel".

At this point, most of us are overfamiliar with the arguments as to whether negotiating with Hamas would be desirable or effective. The inspiring aspect of the writers' gesture, however, is that the notion that their declaration might enter the consciousness of Palestinians in Gaza "so that they would bring parallel pressures on Hamas for a ceasefire."

For whatever one thinks of the plausibility of encouraging Palestinian civil society pressure to influence Hamas, the general principle at work here is beyond reproach.

Jewcy is once again teaming up with No Place for Denial to protest the Anti-Defamation League cynical and immoral posturing with respect to the Armenian Genocide. Be there this Thursday, outside the ADL headquarters. Sevag Arzoumanian has the press release:

The ADL National Meeting is in town from Nov. 1st though Nov. 3rd

Join the good folks at Jewcy and No Place for Denial for a hastily organized, totally spontaneous demonstration in front of ADL Headquarters on Thursday, November 1 @ 7 p.m.: 605 3rd Avenue New York, NY

Youthful representatives of two ancient peoples will hit the pavement in front of the ADL offices to demand that the ADL come down on the right side of a key human rights issue: unqualified opposition to genocide denial.

Spontaneous, irreverent, unscripted, a celebration of Jewish-Armenian solidarity, hard hitting political messages transmitted through irony, parody and prose.

B.Y.O signs and slogans.

The University of St. Thomas in Minnesota has cancelled an appearance by Archbishop Desmond Tutu out of fear of offending the local Jewish community. Tutu has made several anti-Israel and anti-Zionist remarks in the past, and he’s been a proponent of divestment from Israel.

During one speech in support of divestment Tutu said:

My heart aches. I say why are our memories so short. Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon? Have they turned their backs on their profound and noble religious traditions? Have they forgotten that God cares deeply about the downtrodden?

About the cancellation, Doug Hennes, St, Thomas’s vice president for university and government relations said:

We had heard some things he said that some people judged to be anti-Semitic and against Israeli policy. We're not saying he's anti-Semitic. But he's compared the state of Israel to Hitler and our feeling was that making moral equivalencies like that are hurtful to some members of the Jewish community.

Continue reading...

Jewcy Folk,

Tonight Jewcy and the Armenian-American community's No Place for Denial campaign co-sponsor a rally outside the national ADL headquarters in Manhattan. For the next few days, the national ADL will be meeting somewhere in the City to consider, among other things, whether to continue supporting Turkey's ongoing campaign to deny recognition to the survivors of the Armenian Genocide.

I wish I could be at the rally rather than out here on the West Coast, but Michael Weiss will be there along with other Jewish speakers to represent Jewcy and all those of us in the Jewish community who believe that genocide denial is not a Jewish value, and that the ADL can never represent the Jewish tradition of social justice so long as it seeks to deny recognition to the survivors of genocide and to the descendants of those who perished.

Continue reading...

Is a vegan diet better for the environment than a vegetarian diet? Today, Slate asks that question. Either way, though, giving up meat is apparently good for the Earth: "going vegetarian has the same effect on carbon dioxide emissions as switching from a Chevrolet Suburban to a Toyota Camry."

Personally, I don't really give a crap which one is better for the environment. I'm a vegetarian for bleeding-heart ethical reasons, and the same ethical concerns force me to acknowledge that recent human history would have been safer, kinder, and gentler had the modern environmental movement never existed. It doesn’t take a carnivore to see that environmentalist hysteria takes on a consistent pattern: affluent Westerners decide that some long-enjoyed privilege of modern life is evil, and set about depriving the people of developing countries of that privilege.

Continue reading...

We—the children of the boomers, the privileged progressives—have a giving problem, which is that we don’t do it. Instead, we cloak ourselves in the trappings of charity. We carve out lives that appear to be socially just, full of free range chicken and Birkenstocks. We look good, even if we don’t do-good.

Revolution: Never looked so good.Hell, we ask for money, either as non-profiteers, or as individuals with pet projects. Each year, I get a handful of e-mails from friends requesting “charitable donations.” They want to take their band on the road, or they want to fly to Nepal to read bedtime stories to orphans, and they’re asking me to fund the trip. They have feral cats to foster, and co-operative gardens to maintain, and that’s great, but it does little to repair the world. Sure it’s nice to have live music in the park, but that that just makes our lives nicer, decorates our world.

Please understand, I’m in no position to judge, because I’m worst of all. Last year, while working for a Jewish charity I “rescued” Kareem, a stray pit bull living down the street from me. Then I spent SEVEN THOUSAND dollars to kill her slowly, with a fancy veterinary specialist, on credit, and then solicited Jewish donors to fund my hopeless project. And it worked. Which is insane.

I cared enough to nurse the damn dog, just not enough to put the bill on my own credit card, or take a second job to pay the bill.

SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS TO KILL A DAMN DOG!!! I wasn’t being a do-gooder, I was sucking the system, siphoning off money that could have been going to AIDS research or literacy. I got so caught up in what looked like charity that I lost all reason, not to mention my math skills.

I realize now that for years I’ve made the mistake of mixing up my progressive lifestyle for true charity, and I think maybe you have too.

Forget dogs: This mutt doesn't need your money. Ask yourself: Do you feel better about yourself when you shop at Whole Paycheck, or when you ride your bike to work? Do you imagine the world thinks you “look” progressive?

And how do you judge the world? Let’s say you spot a thirty-ish woman in a vintage sundress, carrying a cloth grocery bag to the farmers market while sipping a soy chai, and walking beside her is a middle aged woman in a salmon colored Capri pants-and-sweatshirt ensemble that surely came from Wal-Mart. A Disney outfit. She’s drinking a Big Gulp.

How might you imagine they stack up to each other with regard to charity? I bet the Wal-Mart mom gives a big chunk of change to her church each year, which—among other things—supports a soup kitchen. And I bet she doesn’t have a ringer-T that says so either.

Keep in mind, it’s still good to ride your bike to work, but if it makes you feel like you’ve “done your bit” there’s a problem. If your hemp pants make you feel like you don’t need to send some money to Louisiana, you’ve gotten off the path.

For some, the solution seems to be “getting involved” but that doesn’t take the place of giving either. So if you’re working in the development office of an environmental organization, however cool that is—you should be donating to that same organization as well. Because when you’re getting paid to do “good work”, it isn’t really charity. That’s just the non-profit sector supporting you.

Look up to Grandma: She was fashionable and gave to charity. Maybe we’re screwed up because we’re just plain bad with money, raised on credit cards and take-out, but there’s an illogic in place, because we think we’re progressive. We think we want to help. We’ve taken the Sesame Street aesthetics that our hippie parents fed us, and we’ve blended them with the greed of our own me decades, and the result is a lot of bumper stickers. We buy organic milk, and then get wasted on Cosmos, or we buy ethanol for our SUVs. The image of progressive living has a price tag., and so we don’t ever have enough to give to charity. Our appetites always exceed our resources, no matter how great our resources may be.

Face it. We just really like to buy stuff, and we live in a world designed to feed that passion. Despite our aesthetics of charity, despite our rocking of the vote—what does our generation value? TiVo. High speed Internet. Very pale beers with slices of citrus fruit floating in them. Whatever the billboards tell us to value, which means our discretionary spending is beyond belief.

Three years ago, a study based on more than 7000 households showed that just over one-half (53 %) of our generation made donations of $25 or more in 2000. Compare this to our post-Holocaust/Depression grandparents, 80% of whom gave at our age. Or our hippie parents, who donated at a rate of 75%. Bubbe and Zayde gave an average of $1,707. We give $532.

But Generation X, Y, and Z?

We refuse to share our good fortune. Despite the fact that a 30-year-old today (we’ll call him Mike) is 50% more likely to have a college degree than his dad (Steve), and despite the fact that Mike earns $5,000 more a year than Steve did 30 years ago (even adjusted for inflation), he isn’t giving any of it away. In fact, Mike probably doesn’t believe he can afford to give. Like many of us, he think he’ll have the money someday, talks about what he’ll do when that day comes, and then goes out for dinner. Like many of us, he thinks he’s “just getting by.”

Gen-x: Spending all of our money on cosmos. But our generation has a strange concept of what it means to “get by.” We spend more on vacations than our grandparents ever dreamed of, and per trip expenditures have increased 66% over the past 5 years. While Steve spent a well-earned week in the Poconos, Mike flies off to Mali, and even if he has to slap it on the credit card, he feels totally entitled. In 1997, Generation X spent approximately $30 billion eating out, and we’re the highest consumers of fast food, beer, wine coolers (ugh!), and booze. When it comes to food, we lead the way with soda, chocolate, chips and beer, so then of course we spend a lot on gym memberships too.

So I’m making a resolution now, and I’m asking you to hold me to it.

I’m going to do better. In fact, I’m going to try to give away 7K next year, to make up for Kareem the dead dog. I’m going to research giving, and I’m going to stop eating out so fucking much. I’m going to try to figure out how the people who give make it work. That’s right, I’m admitting my ignorance and facing the music. I’m going to talk to my grandparents, and maybe a banker, or a rabbi, and I’ll get back to you when I have some answers.

In the meantime, what are you going to do?

* * *


Short quiz:

1.) Do you have bumper stickers or T shirts that advocate missions you haven’t actively contributed to in the last year?

2.) Do your organic purchases each week outnumber the quantity of organizations where you’ve volunteered?

3.) Have you traveled in a developing nation and then come home and bought items made in China?

4.) Is the amount of money you spend on alcohol each week more or less than the amount of money you spend of charitable causes?

5.) Do you belong to Working Assets? If so, how often do you actually make an additional donation when you pay your bill?

In an interview published October 26, 2007, Ami Eden of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency asked Abraham Foxman whether he had been wrong to refuse to describe the WWI-era systematic murder of 1.5 million Armenians by Ottoman Turks--an event known to historians as the Armenian Genocide--as a "genocide." Foxman replied,

"We said it is a massacre, an atrocity, we’ve said it for 40 years. The Armenians wanted us to say genocide. To me it was sufficient for us to say I’m not a historian we don’t adjudicate all the issues...

"I respect the Armenian community for wanting their memory, their pain, their suffering to be recognized globally in the most sensitive way or the most meaningful way. So we said it is an atrocity and it is massacre, but we just don’t think that Congress should [describe it as a genocide]."

The following news story was published fifteen years later.

Foreign relations Committee calls WWII Killing of Jews "Genocide."

September 24, 2022,
Los Angeles, CA
Aris Janigian—staff writer

On Wednesday, September 23, The House Foreign Affairs Committee voted 27 to 21 to condemn as genocide the mass killings of Jews in Germany during World War II. New Germany reacted angrily, recalling its ambassador from Washington and threatening to withdraw its support for the continuing War on Terror.

"America has crossed a line with this resolution," Foreign Minister Helmut Gottschalk said. "Petty domestic politics has trumped American national interests. The New German people can only take so much insult. We will see our next steps."

It was a harsh rebuke from one of America's closest allies, and sent shock waves through the White House. The resolution comes at a time when the United States is actively drumming up support for the War on Terror, and two deputies in the State Department departed for Berlin immediately after the vote in an attempt to forestall a diplomatic disaster. At home, Secretary of State Candid Price called the resolutionStill Waiting for Recognition: For the few remaining survivors of the Jewish tragedy, this year's resolution may be the last chance "irresponsible."

In a Rose Garden press conference President Hernandez acknowledged the Jewish tragedy, but sternly warned against the resolution. "This is not the right time or the right place for this kind of resolution," Hernandez said.

Jews, along with the large majority of historians outside New Germany, say that from 1939 to 1945 the German Nationalist Socialist Party carried out a systematic campaign to kill as many as six million Jews in Europe. They claim the killings amounted to "genocide," a term that the New German government fiercely rejects.

New Germany acknowledges that between 1 and 1.6 million Jews died during the war, but contends that a vast majority of those deaths occurred in the throes of war when disease and starvation was widespread. According to New Germany the intent to exterminate Jews is historically unfounded. "There was a context for these events. Many Germans died and suffered as well, far exceeding the number of Jews. These were the sad unintended consequences of war."

Since the establishment of New Germany, the influential Jewish American lobby has sought acknowledgment of their ancestors' suffering. The authors of the resolution are from heavily Jewish districts in California and Florida and New York. They note that the United States must recognize the Jewish tragedy while the few remaining survivors are still alive.

Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee Gregory Demerdjian, a descendent of survivors of the Armenian Genocide, said, "These events must be characterized for what they were: genocide. It is well documented in our own national archives that genocide of Jews occurred during the Second World War. This is merely an acknowledgment of America's own understanding of the events during that time. None of this should be construed to mean that New Germany is in the least responsible for these deaths." Demerjian said that he would soon introduce a resolution reinforcing America's strong and lasting relationship with the New Germany.

The Jewish tragedy is a sensitive issue in New Germany. Under a progressive movement called "Identity Reformation," the New Germans have radically reconsidered what an older generation had taken for granted. Historians in New Germany argue that between the First and Second World War Germany was caught between JewishTaking Pride in Our Past: The New German government has insisted that the alleged genocide is simply not consistent with the nobility of German history industrialists and Jewish socialists intent on overthrowing the German state. "They wanted to destroy the country from within," said New German Ambassador Norbert Sommer. "It was a difficult time. Everyone regrets the death of Jews, but wartime choices had to be made to save Germany's very existence."

Today, New Germany rejects the verdicts of the Nuremberg Trials that found members of the Nazi party guilty of war crimes, pointing out that Germans admitted to those crimes under duress from the prosecuting Allies. "No document has ever been produced that shows that Hitler ordered the extermination of Jews," Sommer said. "Indeed, many attempts were made by Germans at the time to find a safe harbor for Jews, including some negotiations with Zionists in Europe. It is a total fallacy that there was anything resembling genocide."

Continue reading...

Eight days of renewable energy: Greening the menorahThough we don't often think of it this way, Hanukkah celebrates the miracle of renewable energy—the renewable energy of the Maccabees, who pursued with much vigor their fight against the Assyrian-Greeks, and the renewable energy of some unusual olive oil, which kept the Temple's eternal flame alight for eight days instead of one.

This Hanukkah—as American power plants continue to emit roughly 10 percent of the world's annual global warming pollution, and as UN negotiators discuss whether they will solve the problem of climate change—we can celebrate the renewable energy of old by switching over to a new form of renewable energy called Green Power. Green Power is pollution-free electricity produced by wind turbines, low-impact hydroelectric systems, solar arrays and other renewable sources. Switching to Green Power cuts the average American household's greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent.

Of course, solar panels and small wind turbines are great ways to get in on the renewable energy action. But you don't need any special hardware to join the modern Maccabees. In many areas of the country you can get green power directly from local electric suppliers . The juice will still come through the same transmission lines and will still be serviced by your local electric company.

Green Power: Because God isn't making any more of that olive oil One of the best ways to find out how to buy Green Power is to visit the website of Center for Resource Solutions, an organization that certifies renewable energy. Click on "Buy Green-E Certified," and read the "Ways to Buy" so you understand the terms. Then enter your city and state into the search criteria. You will then see a list of suppliers who can talk you through the process of making the switch. They can also explain the effect that switching will have on your electric bill. (In most places, green power costs slightly more than the fossil-fuel-generated power that's cooking the planet.)

Another way to find a green power supplier is to Google "Renewable Energy," along with your city, county or state and check out what you find.

The rabbis of the Talmud debated which was the actual Hanukkah miracle: the seemingly impossible military victory? Or, that long-lasting organic olive oil? Who knows. But today, we can power our homes and businesses using nothing but thin air and pure light, with no superhuman effort necessary. That's pretty miraculous. By pursuing with great vigor the struggle against global warming, and embracing our own sources of renewable power, we appropriately honor the story of Hanukkah.

*****

Want more environmental tips for Hanukkah? Read Solving the Climate Crisis One Menorah at a Time, Arthur Waskow and Jeff Sultar's eight-day plan for the holiday.

Hindu-Jewish Leadership SummitYesterday's New York Times ran a story about Indian-Americans finding an activist role model, and sometime partner, in American Jews.

Indians often say they see a version of themselves and what they hope to be in the experience of Jews in American politics: a small minority that has succeeded in combating prejudice and building political clout.

Sanjay Puri, the chairman of the U.S. India Political Action Committee, said: “What the Jewish community has achieved politically is tremendous, and members of Congress definitely pay a lot of attention to issues that are important to them. We will use our own model to get to where we want, but we have used them as a benchmark.”

One instance of Indians following the example of Jews occurred last year when Indian-American groups, including associations of doctors and hotel owners, banded together with political activists to win passage of the United States-India Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation Act, which allows New Delhi to buy fuel, reactors and other technology to expand its civilian nuclear program.

I remember when Bush announced the passage of the United States-India Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation Act. One of the administration's finer foreign policy moments. An overlooked commitment to global outreach at a time when the U.S. was taking a lot of flack for its supposed unilateralism and cowboy diplomacy.

I think the U.S. relationship with India these days has taken on a similar tint to our relationship with Israel in the following aspect: Its a non-zero-sum game. On the biggest issue of the day The U.S, India, and Israel are up against the same menace. As the Times article goes on to say: "[A]mong Hindus, who are a majority in India and among Indian-Americans here, some assert that a vital bond they share with Jews is the threat to India and Israel from Muslim terrorists."

Although, some Indian-Americans are leery of emphasizing that commonality.

This makes me relatively suspicious, because there is the desire to reduce the complexity of the issues in a conflict,” said Vijay Prashad, professor of South Asian history at Trinity College in Hartford.

The India Community Center in Milpitas, Calif., represents the nonsectarian approach many Indian-Americans take to replicating the experience of American Jews. When Anil Godhwani began talking to other Indians in Silicon Valley about opening a center, “more than one person talked to us about making this a Hindu community center — sometimes in very strong terms,” he said. That was never his intention, though he was raised Hindu.

Indians have worked with The American Jewish Committee on immigration and hate crimes legislation. The American Jewish Committee has also organized group trips to Israel for Indian Americans.

This is a golden opportunity, one that must not be wasted. Jewish Americans and Indian-Americans must join forces and figure out how to conquer that most formidable of our common antagonists: our over-protective mothers.

He applauds the Armenian-Jewish* community for slamming Yerevan University's bestowal of an honorary doctorate on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

"It is one thing to provide a forum to speak, as universities are environments where freedom of speech should be promoted and encouraged," said Mr. Foxman. "However, it is quite another to confer degrees and awards on a dictator who denies the Holocaust and calls for the destruction of the state of Israel. Such tributes should be reserved for those academics and world leaders who rightfully deserve them."

Whoever wrote that statement for Foxman must have been cackling at his keyboard.

*Originally said Armenian-American community. Late day typo. Irony still stands given that quote. 

I learned the hard way that the Anti-Defamation League makes it tougher to defend Israel on a college campus.

It really isn't difficult to take apart a zealous college leftie spouting rubbish learned from some "fact sheet" about the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. You can show them that their information is wrong, or selective, or that they are applying their claimed principles inconsistently. Some will listen, some won't. Some will scoff and bluster in the heat of the moment, but mull it over at a later, less theatrical moment. But one thing almost all of them will do is try to strawman you, which too frequently means shouting off about some nonsense spouted by the ADL.

Continue reading...

If Jewcy had a politburo, this would be its first diktat. If we issued encyclicals, this would be the first to go out under the waxy Shin seal. Our communiqué to all Jewcers: please get behind the Domestic Jewish Agenda 2008.

In America, self-anointed ethnic leaders make smashing careers out of speaking on behalf of enormous constituencies to which they have dubious claim. Jewish America is no different. For too long, presidential candidates have assessed the concerns of the Jewish community by bending down and inviting professional Jewish gasbags such as Abraham Foxman and Malcolm Hoenlein to flatulate into their ear. Never heard of ‘em? Tough shit. They’re speaking on your behalf anyway.

Until now. Jewish Funds for Justice and JSpot have teamed up with Jewcy and a slew of other worthy partners to harness the decentralizing power of the internet and run an end-around of Organized Jewry in the upcoming presidential election. We’re canvassing all Jewishy people with an internet connection, and asking them to fill out this online petition.

The petition describes ten domestic issues—child care, civil rights, education, environment, health care, housing, immigration, Katrina/Rita, seniors, and wages—and asks you to identify the five that will have the greatest influence on your presidential vote in 2008.

On May 29, the votes will be tallied and sent to every presidential candidate under the names of all signatories. We'll request a written explanation as to how that candidate will address the concerns of the American Jewish community. As candidates reply, their answers will be publicized here at Jewcy and at other partner websites.

So help us show that there's a bigger, broader Jewish agenda than is evident in the plenary meetings and press releases of a handful of sclerotic old Jewish organizations. Add your voice to the Domestic Jewish Agenda 2008.

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan has given her letter of resignation to the Daily Kos. Citing frustration with 'BushCo' as well as the peace movement, she's renounced partisianism, the Democratic Congress and put Camp Casey up for sale. She has relinquished her role as the "face" of the anti-war movement.

Sheehan claims in her letter that she sees only a "person's heart," not "party affiliation or nationality," which is bizarre because at the core of her argument is the belief that the continuing death of 'our' boys should come to an end. Fair enough--any decent person should share in that hope. But almost every assessment of Iraq's current dilemma--even by NGOs and human rights organizations--has shown that abandoning Iraq would likely lead to a worsening of the current humanitarian crisis. So what about 'their' boys, girls, women, and men who suffer at the hands of saboteurs who will murder anyone in order to prevent the success of democracy in Iraq?

Continue reading...

A Kansas City Missouri used bookseller recently burned a large part ofhis collection in protest. "This is the funeral pyre for thought in America today," he said before setting fire to his pile of books. The bookseller had recently tried to thin out his collection by trying to donate approximately 20,000 books to libraries and other bookstores, all of which were too full to accept them. He began burning his books in protest of "society's diminishing support for the printed word."

This reminds me of my last visit to [gasp!] Borders Books in downtown Boston where I waded through rows of candles and gift cards, tchotchkes and CDs and the few books sanctioned by Oprah or her ilk. It was a depressing experience, not only because it couldn't find my own book, but because it couldn't find five or six of the other books I was in search of either.

What is particularly depressing is that it is getting harder and harder to find and discover independent voices and literature, with book review pages being gutted all over the country and small publishers being gobbled up by conglomerations.

So, it's a bit ironic, I think, that the cover of my new novel, which is being published this fall by a small Canadian literary publisher, features a book burning on the cover. It is actually not a stock image, but the fruits of my publisher dashing out into the darkness of the fields around his Ontario farmhouse with a can of gasoline and setting fire to books until he found the right image. A bit strange that a Jew is sanctioning book burning, but in the case of my book, it is the right metaphor and the perfect image.

As my own reaction to societies diminishing support of the printed word I've teamed up with independent bookseller Back Pages Books outside of Boston to launch the 1001 Book Project, an attempt to sell out the entire modest print run before publication in September. We are hoping to create a sort of grassroots movement where readers become the taste makers, passing the book on to friends and family, becoming a sort of a Johnny Appleseed of good literature. We have already sold a hundred books in the first eight days, and hope your support we will reach 1001 soon.

Mik Moore is the editor of jspot.org, a project of Jewish Funds for Justice. This is his first contribution to the Daily Shvitz.

Earlier this week, I sat down for lunch with several co-workers to talk about our personal philanthropy. How did we make decisions about our tzedekah? What motivated us? Where did our money go?

Let me back up for a second and provide some context. This is a topic of no small interest in my job,Don't Write Off the Rambam!: Mik Moore makes the case for quiet charity because we are a public foundation. That means we give away money, but unlike most foundations you’ve heard of, we aren’t funded through an endowment. We raise our own budget each year.

In the Jewish world, we are unique – a Jewish foundation whose grantmaking is focused on supporting community organizing in low-income communities, mostly immigrants and people of color.

So, back to lunch. We all went around and spoke about our personal tzedakah. For many of us, myself included, we were not terribly strategic about our giving. Although there is consensus among us that poverty issues are a priority, we often gave significant amounts of money to support causes that had nothing to do with poverty. The reason for giving? Usually because we were asked to give by a close friend or relative. We were giving mostly for them, not for the cause.

As the conversation progressed, one of us raised the question of anonymous vs non-anonymous giving. The example cited with greatest disapproval was the practice by one Jewish Federation to publish and distribute a list the exact dollar amount of all of its contributors. This was an egregious enough sin to convince one of our lot to forgo future contributions.

Stop. Fast forward a few days. I’m reading Jewcy and enjoying the mutual admiration society forming between Joey Kurtzman and Peter Singer over whether or not the former should be pleasuring himself in front of the world for his $1000 contribution to fight global poverty.

Continue reading...

In an essay in this summer's Dissent (published online in advance of the print version), superstar American philosopher Martha Nussbaum speaks out against Britain's 120,000-strong University and College Union vote yesterday to endorse a motion to boycott Israeli universities. Though local branches will decide whether to support the endorsement, British academics are also called on to condemn the "complicity of Israeli academics in the occupation."

Nussbaum, wisely, doesn't get into the specific details regarding boycotts of Israeli individuals and institutions:

There are three reasons for this silence. First, I believe that philosophers should be pursuing philosophical principles—defensible general principles that can be applied to a wide range of cases. We cannot easily tell whether our principles are good ones by looking at a single case only, without inquiring as to whether the principles we propose could be applied to all similar cases.

Made "uneasy" by the single-minded emphasis on Israel, she also points out the irony of the situation --Americans really should not talk about boycotts of countries across the globe without considering our own policies and actions that "are not above moral scrutiny."

Nussbaum rightly identifies that there is a gross double standard when it comes to the world's critiques of Israel and all things Israeli. But what strikes me as especially disturbing is that few people seem to be pointing out the startling imbalances in the arguments of some of the countries (or their institutions) that are most vehemently opposed to Israel. The Naked Truth: Picture a Double Standard

Come on, people -- yesterday the emperor may have been only scantily clad, but today he is naked and about to run his ass through your living room. Thank G-d we have Nussbaum to call it like it is.

Nor should we fail to investigate relevantly comparable cases concerning other nations. For example, one might consider possible responses to the genocide of Muslim civilians in the Indian state of Gujarat in the year 2002, a pogrom organized by the state government, carried out by its agents, and given aid and comfort by the national government of that time (no longer in power). I am disturbed by the world’s failure to consider such relevantly similar cases. I have heard not a whisper about boycotting Indian academic institutions and individuals, and I have also, more surprisingly, heard nothing about the case in favor of an international boycott of U.S. academic institutions and individuals. I am not sure that there is anything to be said in favor of a boycott of Israeli scholars and institutions that could not be said, and possibly with stronger justification, for similar actions toward the United States and especially India and/or the state of Gujarat.

The breakdown of impartiality in the case of the boycott of Israeli institutions is as clear as day.Let Me Break it Down for You, Says Nussbaum: Six Alternatives to Boycotting

By failing to consider all the possible applications of our principles, if we applied them impartially, we are failing to deliberate well about the choice of principles. For a world in which there was a boycott of all U.S., Indian, and Israeli scholars, and no doubt many others as well, let us say those of China, South Korea, Saudi Arabia (on grounds of sexism), and Pakistan (on the same grounds, though there has been a bit of progress lately) would be quite different from the world in which only scholars from one small nation were being boycotted, and this difference seems relevant to the choice of principles.

What's great about Nussbaum's piece is that she doesn't simply rail on and on about the problems with the boycott without offering a solution. In fact, she offers six alternatives to the boycott:

1. Censure

Censure is the public condemnation of an institution, usually by another institution. Thus, for example, a professional association might censure an academic institution that violates the rights of scholars. Censure takes various forms, but the usual form is some sort of widely disseminated public statement that the institution in question has engaged in such and such wrongful action. Professional associations have also censured governments, or government policies, such as the Iraq War.

2. Organized Public Condemnation

Sometimes organized movements carry on campaigns to alert the public to the wrongful actions of an institution. Most of the international consumer protest movement against the apparel industry has taken this form. Thus, movement members will try to circulate documents to customers of the retail outlets where objects made by child labor are being sold and will try to make customers aware of the behavior of the corporation in question. The customers themselves can then choose whether to buy from the retail chain or not. This sort of public condemnation is very different from a boycott of the retail outlets, because it allows the individual consumer to choose and does not directly threaten the livelihood of workers.

3. Organized Public Condemnation of an Individual or IndividualsMartin Heidegger: Would be publicly condemned by Nussbaum.

When it is believed that certain individuals bear particular culpability for the wrongs in question, then it is possible to work for the condemnation of those individuals. Thus, if Martin Heidegger had been invited to the University of Chicago, I would have been one of the ones conducting a public protest of his appearance and trying to inform other people about his record of collaboration with the Nazi regime. Again, in the approach I am considering, there would have been no attempt to prevent people from going to hear Heidegger: the emphasis would have been on informing, persuading, and promoting personal choice.

4. Failure to Reward

Some modes of interaction are part of the give and take of daily scholarly business; others imply approval of an institution or individual. Without going so far as to censure the institution or individual, people might decide (whether singly or in some organized way) that this individual does not deserve special honors. The debate resulting in Margaret Thatcher’s being denied an honorary degree from Oxford University fits in this category. By conferring an honorary degree, a university makes a strong statement about its own values. Harshness to the poor and the ruin of the national medical system, not to mention then-Prime Minister Thatcher’s assault on basic scientific research, were values that the Oxford faculty believed that it could not endorse.

5. Helping the Harmed

Usually, when wrong has been done, some people have suffered, and one response would be to focus on helping those who have been harmed. Thus, many scholars concerned about the Gujarat genocide put aside their other engagements and went to help the victims find shelter, take down their eyewitness testimony, help them file complaints, and so on. Others occupied themselves in defending scholars who had been threatened with violence by the Hindu right, publicizing their situation and protesting it.

I wonder if number 5 should have been the first line of defense in this boycott alternative lineup.

6. Being Vigilant on Behalf of the Truth

Often, people who commit wrongs shade the truth in their public statements, and one thing that it is extremely important for scholars to do is to combat falsehoods and incomplete truths. Here again, the case of the Hindu right is instructive. It has its own cherished but quite false view of ancient and medieval history, according to which Hindus are always peaceful and Muslims are always villains. When they put this version of history into textbooks for public schools in India, there was a tremendous outpouring of scholarship showing exactly what was and is wrong with it. After the election of 2004, those textbooks were withdrawn, and the field of combat shifted to the United States, where the Hindu diaspora community is very involved with the Hindu right.

Nussbaum goes on to discuss boycotts, those "blunt instruments," at length. She concludes:

As for the academic boycott, it is a poor choice of strategies, and some of the justifications offered for it are downright alarming. Economic boycotts are occasionally valuable. Symbolic boycotts, I believe, are rarely valuable by comparison with the alternatives I have mentioned, and the boycott in this case seems to me very weakly grounded.

She's right, of course (in my mind), and this kind of protest against boycotts in general might be the most effective way to go about rectifying the situation. But . . . I still can't help but think that the root of the problem -- many countries' deep-seated hatred of Israel -- is not going to go away any time soon . . .

What do fascist Islamists hate more than the freedom of expression? Women who express themselves freely. And what could possibly be worse than a woman speaking her mind? A woman unafraid to condemn the whole lot of fanatical, backward bullies on the airwaves. That's most likely why Zakia Zaki, a hero of dissident Afghan radio journalism, was recently murdered in her home in front of her three year-old son.

Zakia Zaki started her radio career eight years ago. At the time Parvan province was one of the few areas in the country to be controlled by anti-Taleban forces.

The Independent Association of Afghan Journalists has condemned the murder, describing it as an example of how difficult the working environment has become for journalists and especially for women.

"She believed in freedom of expression, that's why she was killed," the association's head Rahimullah Samander told Reuters.

Stateside, the Afghan Freedom and Security Support Act of 2007 is proposing to send $135 million over a period of three years to the Afghan Ministry of Women's Affairs, the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, and Afghan-led non-profits as part of the bill's Afghan Women Empowerment Act. You can honor Zaki's legacy by showing your support.

George Bush was quite deliberate in picking last week as the time to announce his vast expansion of US HIV/AIDS relief efforts in Africa. It was all about social pressure. With the G8 summit coming up this week, most of the member states had so far failed to fulfill their promises to Africa made at the historic 2005 G8 summit in Gleneagles. Most of us expected that they would now at least act to mitigate any appearance that they were poorer global citizens than the neoliberal Evangelical war chimp. That being Bush.

But no. It appears that all the G8 states other than the UK and the US will be slinking back home without meeting their promises, and without even discussing the issue in this week's sessions.

Continue reading...

This past weekend at a book expo, Naomi Klein plagiarized Gandhi a bit when she said of the war with Islamic fundamentalism :

I’m not against fighting for civilization and all that,” Klein said, “It’s just that I’m still not sure where ‘civilization’ is… I’m still looking.

Post-colonial and subaltern studies have rightfully made us suspicious of using the term 'civilization' without great care. From what privileged vantage point is anyone allowed to say what is and isn't 'civilization?' This is a familiar enough argument even to those unfamiliar with the hotshot philosophers that made this worldview popular. While it didn't originate with 20th century French thinkers, the most recent vintage of this thought was almost certainly fermented in the casks of existentialism.

In a nutshell, existentialists believed that the Ultimate and Divine, and the revealed capital 'T' Truth are falsehoods (or in some cases, the Divine did exist but was unknowable due to its Divinity and all). The Klein principle translates to 'civilization' insofar as it emphasizes that there isn't a perfect arbiter to flawlessly reveal what is 'civilized,' and so one is forced into an agnostic position. But existentialists made a big deal out of responsibility--i.e., 'if God isn't responsible for me and the truth, then I am.' Definitions are more grey, more difficult and less comforting because they are always up for debate and redefinition, however we must take the leap--do something and say something in spite of the fear that uncertainty brings, in spite of the near certainty that somebody will come along at some point with something better. The one who refuses (or who is incapable) of taking that leap is the tragic figure--not the principled hero--of the existentialist world.

It may be true that none of us can or should be so arrogant as to say we know about Civilization and everybody else had best get on board with it. But today, the most well-meaning people think this position excuses them from the hard work of trying to define what is civil, what civilization is, and then fighting to make sure it survives. They seem almost too disappointed in the lower-case 'c' to put any force of will behind the struggle.

Then again, Klein may not be mired in a philosophical conundrum. In her case it's probably just idealism gone haywire. Since the current state of things doesn't meet her standard, she won't be pinned down saying anything definitive about civilization. This is a cop-out and its dangerous--it makes the best the enemy of the good. Besides, existence is a clear-cut issue. Either one exists or one does not, which means that there can be no agnosticism-- no matter how idealistic--in an existential struggle.

As for Klein's confusion, somebody should tell her to take a glimpse at the Islamic civilization that is wrecked on a daily basis by Islamic fundamentalists. A picture of Kandahar 100 years ago compared with today maybe? Or how about Bamiyan? Might Ms. Klein agree that the gargantuan stone statues represented a great many hours when people were carving rock instead of killing or maiming one another? More importantly, the Afghan peoples' reverence for them as historic and cultural landmarks was testament to their pride in the accomplishments of humanity. It was a very pluralist respect for others--a respect for art, religious difference, and shared history that the Taliban blew apart. Irresponsible is too mild a way to characterize those who won't come right out and say that the fight against people who do this is a fight for civilization.

Saturday's WaPo has a great article on the campaign to develop a domestic Jewish agenda for 2008 jspot.org has been running in partnership with more than 20 friends and allies (including Jewcy.com). It does a good job spotting something new going in with this particular effort:

But some longtime Jewish advocates and historians say the campaign is as much about a new generation of activists trying to gain influence and inject their style of social justice work as it is about anything else. The new crop of groups is trying to spread influence through cultural efforts, such as JDub Records and the Jewschool blog, as well as through such traditional grass-roots groups as Jews United for Justice, which focuses on issues such as housing and labor in the D.C. area.

“It's true that established groups haven't spoken with one voice on domestic issues, but they have advocated for those things," said Pamela S. Nadell, professor of history and director of Jewish studies at American University. "What's happening is these new groups -- which are very exciting -- are trying to band together to exercise larger political clout."

I join Professor Nadell in her excitement over the possibilities revealed by this collaboration. There are dozens of independent organizations and blogs that share an upstart mentality, if not necessarily the same specific policy agendas. As I mention at the bottom, this campaign is part of our effort at jspot.org to develop a Jewish netroots.

WaPo also notes that

Continue reading...

Where to start with the excellent quotations from a recent article in Adbusters on the sad state of the modern American left? I might actually start by first noting how refreshing it is to see a piece like this published in the premiere magazine of the anti-Swoosh, bomb Starbucks left. I am myself an apostate of this movement, having once been the type of fellow who read Adbusters founder Kalle Lasn's manifesto Culture Jam in zealous thrall. But taking it all seriously and getting involved has serious consequences for the serious-minded:

Anyone who’s ever been to a lefty political meeting knows the deal – the problem is the “spirit of inclusiveness” stretched to the limits of absurdity. The post-sixties dogma that everyone’s viewpoint is legitimate, everyone‘s choice about anything (lifestyle, gender, ethnicity, even class) is valid, that’s now so totally ingrained that at every single meeting, every time some yutz gets up and starts rambling about anything, no matter how ridiculous, no one ever tells him to shut the fuck up. Next thing you know, you’ve got guys on stilts wearing mime makeup and Cat-in-the-Hat striped top-hats leading a half-million people at an anti-war rally. Why is that guy there? Because no one told him that war is a matter of life and death and that he should leave his fucking stilts at home.

Taibbi gets so much right: the repulsive tone-of-voice, the farcical re-enactments of the 1960s, the disconnection from working class experience. At his best, he recognizes that the modern American left needs to pay attention to the dynamics of the current battles and fight them instead of pretending all the new fights are the same as the old ones and substituting the whines of victims for the real exercise of power.

The only thing American college kids have left to fight for are the royalties for their myriad appearances in Girls Gone Wild videos. Which is why they look ridiculous parading around at peace protests in the guise of hapless victims and subjects of the Amerikan neo-Reich. Rich liberals protesting the establishment is absurd because they are the establishment; they’re just too embarrassed to admit it.

Hear, hear: let's just be down-and-dirty Marxists about this for a second--in the culture business, how much potential capital exists in claiming a liberal/left political ID? Ask Matt Damon, Gus Van Sant, George Clooney, and just about any rock and roll band around! And that's just culture, to say nothing of the academic ivory tower (I still shudder every time I realize how much debt a working class kid like me had to incur in order to hit the classrooms with the liberal/left/Marxist elite intelligentsia.)

Lasn's idea of incisive media analysis manifested recently as an edition of Adbusters on American neoconservatives with the headline 'Why Won't Anyone Say They Are Jewish?' Apparently it escapes him that neoconservatism is an ideology without an ethnic requirement and that there are a great many philosophical criticisms to raise without delving into yet another ill-concieved diatribe about Jewish conspiracy (I don't even have to ask if he'd publish an edition on terrorism with the headline 'Why Won't Anyone Say They Are Muslims?). I get the impression from this article that Taibbi is smarter than Lasn--perhaps their views diverge when it comes to ethnic conspiracy.  But I do wonder: what would Taibbi would do if, seeing this current milieu minus the 60's lens, he were to discover that his liberal, left and progressive principles were being championed by people known as neoconservatives?

Continue reading...

• Michael Moore's team transported former Grand Zero workers to Cuba for free health care

• Trojan's condom-toting pigs

• An L.A. Times series on Jerusalem 40 years after the 1967 war

• China to show off Olympic torch at Everest via $20 million highway

• The Vatican's defensive driving course

(This post edited to preserve the integrity of China's highway dept., for not spending $20 billion)

There's a vigil right now at UN Plaza for Haleh Esfandiari, the Iranian-American professor who was tossed into Evin Prison as a "spy" after visiting her aged mother in Tehran.

SPEAKERS TO INCLUDE SHAUL BAKHASH, HUSBAND OF HALEH ESFANDIARI, AND ZAINAB AL-SUWAIJ OF THE AMERICAN ISLAMIC CONGRESS

WHERE: Dag Hammarskjold Plaza at 1st Avenue and 47nd Street across from the United Nations Plaza. Noon - 1 PM.

Strawn and I will be there with camera. Blogging to follow.

Amnesty International, among other human rights organizations, sponsored a vigil today at Dag Hammarskjold Plaza for Dr. Haleh Esfandiari, an Iranian-American scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Institute, who has been incarcerated in solitary confinement for over a month in Tehran's gruesome Evin Prison. The charge against her? Spying for the United States. She had traveled back to Iran to visit her ailing mother and was arrested by Iran's secret police.

Below are some photos I took this afternoon of what turned out to be a pretty impressive event, given the time of day and also the oppressive heat.

I managed to speak briefly with Shaul Bakhash, Dr. Esfandiari's husband. Had the Iranian regime issued any statement as to Haleh's treatment and well-being? Mr. Bakhash said she's been interrogated around the clock, denied visitors and contact with legal representation. He personally has not spoken to or communicated with her since her arrest. She's apparently been allowed to talk to her mother over the phone for a total of two minutes per week. I asked Mr. Bakhash if he thought the United States was doing all it could to hasten his wife's release. He replied that given the status of U.S.-Iranian dialogue, there wasn't much Washington could do except pressure other international actors to lobby on Haleh's behalf, something they have been doing dutifully, if to no avail.

Here's a portion of the letter Shirin Ebadi, the Nobel Prize-winning Iranian human rights lawyer, who's taken Dr. Esfandiari as her client, wrote to the head of the Iranian judiciary Ayatollah Sharoudi:

The punishment for rape according to the criminal law is death. How is it that a researcher and university professor, Haleh Esfandiari, and a translator and journalist, Parnaz Azima, have come to be regarded by the angel of justice as more dangerous than a criminal [taxi] driver, so that one of them has to remain in prison in solitary confinement, while the other remains banned from traveling even after posting bond [fifty] times the amount set for a law-breaking driver. [Note: As reported in an Iranian newspaper, the clipping of which was attacked to Ebadi's letter, a taxi driver raped a female passenger earlier this month. The victim took the driver's registration papers, and he was easily apprehended by the police. He went to prison after being unable to post a modest bail of 100 million rials, or $12,500. Dr. Esfandiari's bail is set at 500 million tomans, or $600,000. --ed]

Unfortunately, similar examples are not few in the judiciary and suggest that the politically accused are treated even more harshly than ordinary accused; and that the rights extended to the ordinary accused are denied the politically accused.

This reflects the intrusion of politics in the administration of justice. I hope that, in the order that you will issue, such practices will end and that my clients will be freed immediately and can return to their houses and homes.

Other politically accused captives of the Islamic Republic include:

Dr. Kian Tajbaksh, an urban planner and social scientist affiliated with the New School for Social Research in New York City. He's been held in Evin Prison since May 11 after being arrested at home in Tehran.

Ali Shakeri, a businessman and peace activist native to California. In March 2007, he also traveled to Iran to visit his ailing mother who died while he was there. Shakeri was "disappeared" shortly after her funeral, as he prepared to board his plane back to the U.S. The Iranian government is holding him in Evin Prison for "conducting activities against national security."

Parnaz Azima, an employee of Radio Farda, Persian language division of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. While visiting her family in Tehran, she had her passport and suitcases confiscated by the authorities. She was told to visit a government office in 10 days to reclaim them, and upon her arrival there she was asked to cooperate with the Iranian intelligence services. She refused. The charge against her is related to her work with Radio Farda, which the regime claims "spreads propaganda against the Islamic Republic." Azima posted bail of $440,000 and remains under house arrest.

Free Haleh protestors: Outside Dag Hammerskjold Plaza

Freedom for Muslims: A representative of the American Islamic Congress demands Esfandiari's release

Free Kian, Too: A protestor calls for the release of jailed Iranian-American Dr. Kian Tajbakhsh