A Third of Patients On Transplant List Are Not Eligible - washingtonpost.com

A Third of Patients On Transplant List Are Not Eligible - washingtonpost.com:

"The list of patients waiting for organ transplants, which is widely used to promote organ donations, includes thousands who are ineligible for the operations, according to statistics kept by the national network that manages the allocation of organs.

More than a third of the nearly 98,000 patients on the list at any one time are classified as 'inactive,' meaning they could not be given an organ if it became available because they are too sick, or not sick enough, or for some other, often unexplained, reason." ...

[C]ritics note that a significant number of patients have been inactive for more than two years and may never become eligible.

"The wait list is dishonest," said Donna L. Luebke, a nurse who said she was rebuked by UNOS officials when she complained about the list near the end of the three years she served on the organization's board of directors. "The public deserves to know the true numbers."

The revelation comes at a time when advocates of organ donation have come under fire for using increasingly aggressive strategies to obtain organs, justifying their efforts by citing the long and steadily growing waiting list. ..."If the number is not accurate, that's giving people the false impression that the situation is more serious than it is. It's deceptive."...

"It does help the political cause to push for legislation and policies to increase donor rates to use the bigger numbers," [Bioethicist Arthur] Caplan said. "It's not the accurate and truthful thing to be doing."

Advocates are also pushing a controversial strategy for obtaining organs from patients who are not yet brain-dead, known as donation after cardiac death, or DCD.

"The push for DCD is based solely on the idea that we have a huge disparity of organs," said Gail Van Norman, an anesthesiologist and bioethicist at the University of Washington.

"But if 30 percent of the names are the list are inactive, the data isn't a true reflection."

James Carville: Happy Easter, Bill

First a Tense Talk With Clinton, Then Richardson Backs Obama - New York Times:

"The reaction of some of Mr. Clinton’s allies suggests that might have been a wise decision. “An act of betrayal,” said James Carville, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton.

“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week."

And folks think Obama's friends are objectionable?

Responding to Michael Crowley: Wright AIDS

In response to Michael Crowley, The New Republic

20.03.2008

A Nagging Wright Question

As a scholar of bioethics and law, I am sorry to report that notions of a "white conspiracy" to unleash AIDS on the black community are extremely widespread among African-Americans (and some Africans as well). Such accusations find a ready audience in light of the awful history of abuse of black subjects and patients by medical researchers and physicians. Tuskegee is, of course, the most well-known instance, but it is far from the only one. Rev. Wright's image of "chickens coming home to roost" is all too appropriate in this context; African-Americans have abundant historical reason to be suspicious of the medical establishment.

There are a number of variants of the AIDS conspiracy in circulation. . Some of them--including use of African primates for testing polio vaccines decades ago--have a certain surface plausibility, although the scientific community finds little evidence to support them. . But it is not clear to me that these theories are more lacking in evidence than assertions that autism results from mercury-based compounds in various vaccines--which is not race-related and is far less subject to popular ridicule. And blacks have a lot more reason to be suspicious than middle class parents of children with autism.

Let me be clear: I do not believe that HIV and AIDS are the result of a racist conspiracy, and I have nothing positive to say about the perpetuation of this idea by Rev. Wright, or by anyone else. It feeds suspicion and hatred, and makes no contribution to efforts to control this epidemic. (I understand that Rev. Wright and his Church have been extremely active in responding more positively to the challenges of AIDS in the black community and beyond. I am personally "challenged" to understand how these pieces fit together.)

I do believe that this episode more generally illuminates the vast gulf in understanding between white and minority communities, and the ignorance among many whites as to the mores of many black churches. This AIDS business is perhaps the least understandable element overall.

There has been no better effort to understand and explain the complexities of these issues to a broad public than Obama's speech on race in America. The continuing pounding he is taking on his relation with Rev Wright bespeaks bad faith and an unwillingness to engage in civilized adult discourse.

March 22, 2008

Discouraging news on AIDS vaccines

Vaccine Failure Is Setback in AIDS Fight:

"The two-decade search for an AIDS vaccine is in crisis after two field tests of the most promising contender not only did not protect people from the virus but may actually have put them at increased risk of becoming infected.

The results of the trials, which enrolled volunteers on four continents, have spurred intense scientific inquiry and unprecedented soul-searching as researchers try to make sense of what happened and assess whether they should have seen it coming. ...

Numerous experts are questioning both the scientific premises and the overall strategy of the nearly $500 million in AIDS vaccine research funded annually by the U.S. government."

What kind of America do you want?

Do we want more of this kind of politics?

Happy Purim!

For Jews, it is Purim -- a festival of pun and paradox, in which the central text is a parody of history, telling the story of how a courageous woman and her uncle chose civil disobedience to save their people from a genocide -- and won. How a pompous, stupid king is bamboozled by an ambitious, arrogant , and genocidal Prime Minister -- one might almost say, Vice-President. How everything is turned topsy-turvy, so that the gallows where a Jewish leader was to be hanged becomes the death-place of their tormentor. How God never appears in this story that might seem miraculous.

And, the ancient rabbis taught, on this day Jews are to get so far beyond normal categories as to be unable to distinguish "Blessed Mordechai" (one of the saving team) from "Accursed Haman" (the genocidal minister).

On the surface, the two festivals might seem utterly different: one focused on solemnity, the other on a joke. Yet they have this in common: They pluck delight from disaster, they see the deep oddity of a universe, God's universe, in which God's Presence is achieved through God's absence, in which the fullest life comes from the most degrading death, in which arrogance is brought low by laughter. And they see this oddity not as absurd -- but fully meaningful.

From Arthur Waskow.

Of gaffes and "wha'?"

If, as Michael Kinsley has said, a gaffe is when a politician accidentally tells the truth, what are we to call a lie about a lie about an accidentally-told falsehood?

The Maverick Makes It Up

This week during a trip to the Middle East, McCain severely undermined his frequent claims to be "the one best to address a national security crisis" by repeatedly stating that Iran was supporting al Qaeda in Iraq. McCain claimed that Iranian operatives were "taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back." He insisted that it was "common knowledge...that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and coming back into Iraq from Iran." McCain's confusion over Iran and al Qaeda puts him in lockstep with the rest of the Bush administration. As the Washington Post notes, "The last five years have produced ample evidence that American leaders were woefully ill-informed about the country they came to rescue." ... At first, the McCain campaign claimed the senator simply "misspoke." Now the campaign is embracing the remarks, leaving voters all the more unsure about McCain's understanding of foreign policy. ...

WHERE'S THE STRAIGHT TALK?: After press coverage of McCain's gaffe, his campaign issued a statement claiming the senator "misspoke and immediately corrected himself." In an interview, McCain himself insisted that he "corrected it immediately," and that he "just simply misspoke." However, as video proves, it was not until Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) whispered a correction in his ear that McCain corrected his mistake. Moreover, McCain conflated Iran and al Qaeda at least three times, not including another time last month -- hardly a case of "misspeaking." By Thursday the McCain campaign had reversed course, insisting McCain did not misspeak at all. McCain advisor Max Boot asked Thursday, "[W]hat gaffe?" and insisted, "There is copious evidence of Iran supplying and otherwise assisting Al Qaeda in Iraq and other Sunni terrorist groups (including Al Qaeda central)."

From "The Progress Report" of the Center for American Progress

Obama's faith in the reasoning abilities of the American public

Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com:

"The entire premise of Barack Obama's candidacy is built upon the opposite assumption -- that Americans are not only able, but eager, to participate in a more elevated and reasoned political discourse, one that moves beyond the boisterous, screeching, simple-minded, ugly, vapid attack-based distractions and patronizing manipulation ... that has dominated our political debates for the last two decades at least.

Nobody actually knows which of these views are right because there hasn't been a serious national campaign in a very long time that has attempted to elevate itself above the Drudgian muck by relying (not entirely, but mostly) upon reasoned discourse and substantive discussions ... Obama's insistence that Americans are hungry for that sort of elevated debate and are able to engage it -- and his willingness to stake his campaign on his being right about that -- has been, in my view, one of the most admirable aspects of his candidacy.

But in Obama's faith in the average American voter lies one of the greatest weaknesses of his campaign. His faith in the ability and willingness of Americans to rise above manipulative political tactics seems drastically to understate both the efficacy of such tactics and the deafening amplification they receive from our establishment press. Even Americans who authentically believe that they want a "new, better politics" may be swayed by the same old Drudgian sewerage because it is powerful and ubiquitous. ...

Will it ever end? Can't we at least pretend to be grown-ups?

Obama and Race

New York Times: Nick Kristof:

"Many well-meaning Americans perceive Mr. Wright as fundamentally a hate-monger who preaches antagonism toward whites. But those who know his church say that is an unrecognizable caricature: He is a complex figure and sometimes a reckless speaker, but one of his central messages is not anti-white hostility but black self-reliance.

“The big thing for Wright is hope,” said Martin Marty, one of America’s foremost theologians, who has known the Rev. Wright for 35 years and attended many of his services. “You hear ‘hope, hope, hope.’ Lots of ordinary people are there, and they’re there not to blast the whites. They’re there to get hope.”

Professor Marty said that as a white person, he sticks out in the largely black congregation but is always greeted with warmth and hospitality. “It’s not anti-white,” he said. “I don’t know anybody who’s white who walks out of there not feeling affirmed.”"

Cartoonish political discourse

Talking Points Memo |: From Greg Sargent

"Obama's speech, throughout, asks its listeners to transcend themselves -- it asks them to choose nuance over cartoonish political controversy; it asks them to acknowledge stuff about race they don't want to acknowledge; it asks them to think big instead of small."...

"Obama is basically demanding here that the practitioners of our political discourse do better. It's a challenge to the commentators and to the rival campaigns, of course. But the Ferraro reference suggests that it's also a challenge that some of his own supporters should take as directed at them, too. To not do this would be at odds with the true spirit of his remarks."

Interesting perspective to juxtapose with other remarks on Ferraro, including my own, found below.

Yesterday's Daily Show did a great job lampooning how the mainstream broadcasters responded (that is, failed to respond) to Obama's invitation to serious adult conversation about the subject of race in America--or to serious adult conversation on virtually any matter of substantive consequence.

It is certainly clear that lots of our fellow citizens much prefer "cartoonish political controversy." Jon Stewart looked, ever so briefly, like he might be close to tears.

Lets Talk About Race

New York Times Blog: From Andrew Sullivan:

"I have never felt more convinced that this man’s candidacy - not this man, his candidacy - and what he can bring us to achieve - is an historic opportunity. This was a testing; and he did not merely pass it by uttering safe bromides. He addressed the intimate, painful love he has for an imperfect and sometimes embittered man. And how that love enables him to see that man’s faults and pain as well as his promise. This is what my faith is about. It is what the Gospels are about. This is a candidate who does not merely speak as a Christian. He acts like a Christian."

Sounds right for my team as well.

Althouse, Ferraro, Race, and Obama

My colleague Ann Althouse is mostly down on Obama's speech, and her very active blog has been widely quoted on the subject. That is not the first time Ann and I have disagreed, sometimes profoundly. She has just posted a response to Obama from Geraldine Ferraro (much offended by the implicit comparison of her to Jeremiah Wright, which I kind of thought served her right).

Many of Ann's fans (from what I can tell, mostly pretty right-wing, at least by my standards) commenting on her blog post go even further in their often tasteless and ill-informed critiques of both Wright (who isn't finding many fans outside the African-American community these days) and Obama (including, but not limited to, his speech on racism in America).

At risk of ruining my reputation among some feminist friends and allies (my long-suffering wife is long familiar with my views on Ms Ferraro), I'll cross-post my comment (with very slight editing, and in more telegraphic and less fully developed form than most of my postings here) from Ann's blog:

Geraldine Ferraro is in deep denial.

I'm not sure she has much of a reputation left, except as a gimmicky footnote to history. Clearly there was little to recommend her, beyond her gender, for the Vice Presidential nomination in 1984 (and can one imagine her as qualified for the Presidency/Commander-in-Chiefdom? What might she come out with at 3am?)

Ms Ferraro would do well to shut up post-haste. (When you are stuck in a deep hole, at least stop digging.)

More generally, I fear that many of the comments on the Rev. Wright show little or no appreciation for the realities of black life in America, or the historic functioning and role of black churches. While I would not choose to defend all of Wright's statements, and they are certainly problematic in the context of a political campaign (where, as Michael Kinsley reminds us, a gaffe is when a politician accidentally tells the truth), the nature and extent of the right wing reaction (especially given Obama's own sharply different political and oratorical style, temperament, and clear repudiation of many of Wright's most obnoxious remarks) betrays a willful ignorance of the realities of prejudice and discrimination in American history, including that of our own time.

Obama stated that racism is America's original sin. Those tempted to deny that truth refuse to confront the hard realities of our history.

I would add here that Rev. Wright provides a form of succor for his suffering community. I, and most whites, are not his intended audience, and, I strongly suspect, are ill-prepared to understand the meaning his followers take from his fiery sermons, which may well be more emotive than literal.

As statements from preachers go (I would include some ultra-Orthodox, and ultra-chauvinistic rabbis in their company), I'm not sure the Rev. Wright's are among the most offensive. My G!d does not inflict 9/11 on America in response to gay rights or reproductive freedom, or visit the Holocaust on European Jewry for defects in their mezuzahs or tefillin (or their acceptance of the European Enlightenment). If anything, I, with Lincoln, am more inclined to recognize a G!d whose justice would entail suffering for America's sins of slavery and racism, and for our neglect of the poor.

Obama offers what may be a way out and beyond, toward possible racial healing and reconciliation, and the continued perfection of our imperfect union.

What could be more important?

Who could do it better?

Prosecuting a transplant surgeon for an excess of zeal--and some dubious practices

An interesting case is currently unfolding in California, involving the prosecution of a transplant surgeon for inappropriate treatment of the patient from whom the desired organs were to be procured. I've been asked for comment. One never knows in these circumstances what will or will not be included in a journalistic piece, so let me set forth my comment in full here:


While organ transplantation currently enjoys a very good press, it was not always so. The field has been shadowed by a number of public suspicions and concerns since its inception (and even before, reflected in works of science fiction and horror--back to Frankenstein). A particularly salient concern, even today, is that physicians eager to "harvest" organs to save lives will disregard the interests of potential donors (really, organ "sources", since relatively few give personal permission) and/or exert inappropriate pressure on family members. There has been a particular horror that organs will be taken from the bodies of still living patients, causing their death, to serve the "superior" interests of potential recipients. The criminal law regards the removal (with or without permission) of a vital organ from a still living patient, causing that patient's death, as a homicide, and various procedures have been established to protect against the reality, and the perception, that transplant surgeons, and other medical personnel, "operate" with a conflict of interest of this sort. For precisely this reason, transplantation protocols, and many state laws and regulations governing them, insist that one team perform the transplantation, and another team, devoted solely to the interests of the patient from whom the organs are to be removed, attend to that patient, oversee the dying patient's care, and declare that patient's death. These procedures, if meticulously followed, serve to protect the entire transplantation enterprise from suspicions of abuse.

Recent protocols for so-called "donation after cardiac death" draw a very fine line between orchestrating the removal of life-sustaining measures and superintending the donor's dying process and the removal of organs for transplantation purposes. In this setting, it is especially important that the medical institution and professional teams be well prepared and trained to follow carefully worked-out protocols, both for the protection and proper care of the donor and to assure public confidence in the integrity of the process. Some experts (including myself and fellow bioethicists Renee Fox and Judith Swazey) have been wary of moving in this direction, fearing that the zealousness to procure organs (understandable, given their life-saving potential) will cause physicians and procurement teams to overstep appropriate boundaries intended to protect patient and process. Donation after cardiac death leaves a very narrow margin of error in this domain, and it is rather clear in this case that relevant lines were crossed. Whether that is best regarded as a matter for criminal prosecution or for civil penalties and professional discipline will depend on particular facts of the individual case, and I am in no position to speak to the facts of this particular case. From what has been written, though, it would appear that this is a textbook case of how not to do things, and a potent reminder of the powerful temptations to stretch, and perhaps break, the rules in the quest for life-saving organs. Ironically, in this case, no useful organs were procured, and public confidence in the integrity of organ procurement methods was significantly undermined.

Some bioethicists have argued that society should become even more zealous in its pursuit of organs, lessening requirements for consent, providing monetary incentives for donation, and even doing away with the so-called "dead donor rule", which prohibits harvesting vital organs from still-living patients, thus directly causing their deaths. I think this case provides a sobering reminder of some of the risks of ever more aggressive means of procuring organs for transplantation purposes.

From Andy Borowitz

“As far as the war is concerned, the facts speak for themselves,” Mr. Bush said. “So I won’t mention any of them.”

Mr. Bush acknowledged that the war still presented certain challenges, but concluded on an upbeat note: “Iraq today is in better shape than Bear Stearns.”

Wish fulfillment

I guess it is only fair to spill the beans.
Perhaps some of my enthusiasm for Obama's speech is understandable in light of this message I sent to my son on March 16:

Hi son.
Here's something that maybe we could work on together.
Basic idea: a speech by Barack on identity politics.
In the speech, Barack should address, very candidly, the issues of identity politics going on in the race and the need to move beyond them.
(This would be analogous to JFK on Catholics and much better than Romney on religion).
He should reject all the anti-woman, misogynistic crap that has been aimed at Hillary (iron my shirt) and insist that his supporters reject and oppose any such stuff.
He should acknowledge the complexity of his own makeup. He should explain the anger and resentment in much of the black community and the historical reasons for it, talk about progress that has been made and is yet to be made, and argue that we go forth best by trying to recognize the complex and painful history of race (and perhaps gender) in America and work together to heal and to progress.
He should acknowledge the many strands in his own personal history, including the influence of his experience in the Muslim world and his belief that in both policy and in his person, he would embody a different approach to the world, a willingness to meet and talk and listen, and for America to provide moral leadership (in a respectful way) in tackling the problems of environment, of poverty, of resentment, that lead to hostility against the United States and fuel recruitment of terrorists...Reject the culture of death, create realistic hopes that feed the desire to live, build, create a better world ...
It is difficult to be the target of racist assaults and personal attacks, but he is determined not to give in to temptation to strike back in kind, but to commit to tackling big issues facing America and the world, to include the American people in a deeper consideration of the challenges facing us and how, with some particulars, we can work together to address these challenges.

What do you think?
Love you, abba

Hillary's Opportunity

It is the bad fortune of Hillary Clinton to seek the Presidency in a year in which she is in the presence of a competitor with the potential for true greatness, displayed in his speech earlier today. In other years, she might have merited the nomination, and election.

This is the moment in which she might rise above her personal ambitions for the good of her party, nation and world, and pledge her support to Barack Obama. There will not be a finer opportunity.

Somehow, from what I have seen of her campaign, I am not holding my breath. Perhaps there is a nobility in her character (or political astuteness in her husband's) that I have not yet perceived. I hope so.

Further Reflections on Obama's Speech

The speech is over, and I am now back from a medical appointment.

By my lights, the speech may have gone on a tad too long, and the middle portion descended from the oratorical heights of the prologue. Maybe a necessary compromise to address some grungy political realities. The end was strong.

The immediate commentaries were idiotic. Wolf Blitzer on how the speech will "play" with this constituency or that, and whether it will solve Obama's Jeremiah Wright problem. Some others calling this an excellent speech, but wondering whether it will make white audiences uncomfortable. The broadcast punditocracy is predictably pedestrian.

But a few voices, mainly from black commentators, recognizing the historic importance of the speech, and of the moment--this speech transcends Pennsylvania, the nomination, politics. Someone has finally talked to America with truth and candor and hope about the realities of our history and our lives

If America does not rally to Obama after this speech, we deserve what we get. This nation twice elected (more or less, sort of) George W. Bush to the Presidency. Are we capable of better?

To Move a Nation: Live Blogging Obama in Philadelphia

Barack Obama is still speaking.

I don't know what others will have to say.

For me, this is, simply speaking, a transcendent moment in the history of American democracy.

No one in my lifetime offers Obama's potential to bring Americans together to heal America's most profound ills and narrow the gap between the deeply flawed realities of our time and our most profound ideals and aspirations.

With this speech, Obama takes his place with Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Martin Luther King among the most resonant and enduring voices of America. This is the most important speech since "I Have a Dream." It far exceeds, in both depth and truth, candidate JFK's celebrated 1960 speech on his Catholicism.

On Michigan, Florida, and an online vote

I think we should be testing out new technologies allowing for ever greater and more inclusive participation in our political process. However, I am skeptical that adequate preparations can be made in time for Florida and Michigan in this cycle, and I don’t think testing in such a highly consequential set of elections is the best idea with untested technology. I am also concerned whether certain parts of the electorate (seniors, minority populations, and some others) will have adequate access and savvy to make fair and effective use of the technology.

— Posted by The Wise Bard (#319, March 17)

It looks like folks are addressing a wider range of issues than specifically invited, so I’ll spew my own as well.
I have no principled objection to allowing a re-vote (following opportunity for meaningful campaigning)in Michigan and Florida, assuming it can be paid for and administered fairly. These states are important to a Democratic victory in the Fall, and even a small level of resentment toward the party could be decisive in a close general election.

If this is not feasible, or cannot be paid for (and there are other good uses for the money, in both Presidential and down ballot races), then seat evenly split delegations from one or both states, which will not skew the balance achieved in jurisdictions that did follow the rules agreed to in advance by all the candidates.

I have no abiding commitment to the current ordering of primaries, and believe a system of regional primaries (perhaps following a rotating set of single states where retail politics is possible) has much to recommend it. But if we are to move to a fairer and more rational primary system –as I hope we will–there must be meaningful and credible incentives for states to follow the rules, whatever they may be. Senator Clinton’s after-the-fact attempt to game the system is unworthy, to say the least.

— Posted by The Wise Bard (#328, March 17)

A Debate with Richard Landes (latest installment)

To the Editor (SPME):

My undergraduate classmate Richard Landes and I had a civil and generally constructive private exchange on the important issues raised by the SPME Statement on the murders at Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav. His lengthy published piece in the latest (March 16) SPME Faculty Forum, quoting my initial letter and parts of our subsequent correspondence, makes an eloquent presentation of one important point of view in a difficult and painful debate. His ultimate call for frank and candid dialogue is one I generally share. However, I am disappointed that in his otherwise respectful treatment of my remarks, he chose not to quote some important sections of my private communication with him. These elisions result in a misleading presentation of my own perspective, making it easier for him to (mis-) characterize the position that I hold (albeit somewhat indirectly) as "profoundly misguided", mak[ing] us “useful idiots” in ignoring the dangers that threaten not only us, but every person on the planet...", and to assert further that "... it is based on a profoundly condescending view of Muslims in which we hold them to no standards... "

I wonder if your readers might find these characterizations somewhat less persuasive if they read the excerpts Richard selected from my letter in the full context in which they were made (emphasis added for those passages edited out of my original remarks):

"These presentations also tend to gloss over the consequences of such approaches [annihilation, expulsion, brutal suppression, etc.] on the souls of their perpetrators. I agree that mainstream Israeli and Jewish reactions to the Jewish murderer in Hebron, or the Jewish assassin of Prime Minister Rabin, differ from the widespread celebration in Arab streets after terrorist attacks targeting Israelis or other Jews, or in some cases, Americans. But that stops too soon. Jewish perpetrators of such acts also come out of a particular culture (or subculture), and have, disgustingly, been celebrated by them. And on the other side, there are Arabs, and Muslims, equally disgusted with terror and the obscene waste of human life and human opportunities inherent in the current Middle Eastern morass.

"My own conclusion, in a situation in which every potential course of action carries grave risks, is to accept those risks associated with the quest for a two-state solution, in which both Jews and Arab Palestinians can seek to realize their national aspirations consistent with the security needs of the other. The only hope I see is that living together with a modicum of mutual forbearance and respect may yield positive change over time. I believe we saw some harbingers of such change in the brief period between Oslo and Rabin's assassination, and my own conclusion is that Israeli recognition of the Palestinians' national aspirations and statehood, under terms consistent with Israel's core security needs (which do not entail a large settlement presence in most of the West Bank), may rekindle such progress. It will, for reasons you articulate, be slow going, and not free from setbacks. But I do not see a tolerable alternative. "

I am somewhat at a loss to understand Richard's selective use of my comments (I did not grant permission for them to be quoted in selective fashion), except as a device to undermine the balance and sophistication of the views he chooses to attack, and to shift attention from some of the painful realities from which Jews supportive of Israel's flourishing as a Jewish and democratic state might prefer to avert their eyes. Some part of Arab hatred--not all of it, but an important part--is responsive to hateful acts committed by Jews, who find support and sustenance within parts of the Jewish and Israeli worlds.
If we are to proceed toward a more candid and truthful dialogue, these are among the truths we must recognize.

I would appreciate your prompt publication of this response as submitted, without editing or selective presentation.

Sincerely, Alan J. Weisbard
Associate Professor of Law, Medical History and Bioethics, Jewish Studies, and Religious Studies
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI.

Black Rabbi Reaches Out to Mainstream of His Faith - New York Times

Black Rabbi Reaches Out to Mainstream of His Faith - New York Times:

"“I am a Jew,” said Rabbi Funnye, “and that breaks through all color and ethnic barriers.”

As a teenager, Rabbi Funnye said he felt disconnected and dissatisfied with his Methodist faith. He embarked on a spiritual journey, investigating other religions, including Islam, before turning to Judaism. He said he found a sense of intellectual and spiritual liberation in Judaism because it encourages constant examination. “The Jew has always questioned,” he said.

Like their rabbi, a majority of Beth Shalom’s members came to Judaism later in life, after wrestling with contradictions and questions that they found in their own earlier beliefs. Many refer to their religious experience as reversion, rather than conversion, and feel a cultural connection to the lost tribes of Israel. They say that Judaism has renewed their sense of personal identity."

A musical commentary on state of the Supreme Court

Around the U.S., High Courts Follow California’s Lead - New York Times

Around the U.S., High Courts Follow California’s Lead - New York Times: "“Not to be too petty about it,” one wrote in a detailed critique when asked by a reporter, “but a report by the chief supervising attorney of the Supreme Court of California and the reporter of decisions of California that concludes — voilà! — that California is the most ‘followed’ jurisdiction in the nation is presumptively suspect.” The justice was granted anonymity to allow him to be petty."

On Democratic nomination rules

I am generally an appreciative reader of John Dickinson's reports on the campaign.In this instance, however, I think he badly misstates the relevant question(s). For me, and I think for many others, the question is not whether the superdelegates may, under the rules, favor Sen. Clinton, even if she is trailing in pledged delegates, popular votes, states won, and prospects of building the party and attracting voters who might favor progressive candidates in other races to the polls (and to work for their election). The question is whether they should.

My own view is that if the superdelegates succeed in wresting the nomination from Sen. Obama under conditions like those suggested above, they will demoralize the coming generation of potential progressive activists and deal a body blow to the Democratic Party for the coming generation .

Sadly, Senator Clinton, with her increasingly desperate and divisive campaign tactics, is well on the way to achieving this result. I have tried to believe that the Democrats were blessed with a multiplicity of excellent candidates; as the race has narrowed to two, and Senator Clinton has revealed some of her less admirable qualities, I am increasingly uncertain that I could support her in the general election.

---The Wise Bard

I can't help myself...

Sinbad Refutes Clinton Foreign Policy Cred

One of the few episodes Hillary Clinton's campaign has cited as evidence of her superior ability to serve as commander-in-chief was a trip she took to Bosnia in 1996. The trip included Sheryl Crow, a Clinton supporter, and comedian Sinbad. In an interview today with the Washington Post's Mary Ann Akers, Sinbad says that the trip was hardly the harrowing experience Clinton has made it out to be:

"I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'"

Clinton, during a late December campaign appearance in Iowa, described a hair-raising corkscrew landing in war-torn Bosnia, a trip she took with her then-teenage daughter, Chelsea. "They said there might be sniper fire," Clinton said.

Threat of bullets? Sinbad doesn't remember that, either.

"I never felt that I was in a dangerous position. I never felt being in a sense of peril, or 'Oh, God, I hope I'm going to be OK when I get out of this helicopter or when I get out of his tank.'"

Sinbad (who is supporting Barack Obama) twists the knife further:

In her Iowa stump speech, Clinton also said, "We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady."

Say what? As Sinbad put it: "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

When your main campaign theme is foreign policy experience, and that experience is persuasively refuted by a comedian, it's time to find a new theme.

--Jonathan Chait

Grim forebodings

Rocket Endangers Palestinian-Israeli Respite - New York Times:
"

The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, of the Fatah faction, criticized the use of rockets by the rival Hamas in a meeting with Jordanian newspaper editors, contending that they cause more harm to the Palestinians than to the Israelis. In remarks published in the Jordanian papers on Tuesday, he said “What resistance are we talking about? Are rockets and suicide attacks considered as resistance?”

In late February, Mr. Abbas recalled his own role in the early Palestinian resistance, and raised questions about his future commitment to peaceful negotiations. “At this time, I object to the armed struggle, since we are unable to conduct it; however, in future stages things may change,” he was quoted as saying in the Jordanian daily Al-Dustour."

A Response to a Statement on "Genocidal Acts"

Scholars for Peace In the Middle East Condemns Genocidal Acts At Yeshivas Mercaz Harav and Calls For War Crimes Trials For Genocidal Acts

By Edward S. Beck, President, SPME

March 6, 2008	For Immediate Release

In response to the cold-blooded murders at the Yeshiva Mercaz Harav in Jerusalem, the Board of Directors of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, on behalf of its nearly 20,000 participant faculty network at over 1500 colleges and universities around the world, wishes to express its condolences to the mourners of the victims and to the community of educators in which we are all bound together in the common goals to to both educate and enlighten.


The deliberate attack on this venerable institution of Jewish learning, a sacred seminary, cannot be interpreted as anything but an over act of premeditated, genocidal anti-Semitism not dissimilar from the acts of pogroms in Eastern Europe and Nazi SS raids on Jewish communities in Western Europe. Jews were killed simply because they were Jewish.


In no way can this be interpreted as an act of political liberation or of Palestinian self-determination and if the Palestinians insist that it is, then it must be interpreted as nothing less than an act of war against Jews and not just Israel.


Seminaries, synagogues and schools are meant to be solemn sanctuaries where scholarship, knowledge and learning is conducted in a safe and secure environment. When any school is violated with violence, there can be no justification for such actions and when those who attend a house of spiritual learning are violently violated in their sanctuary, such an action must be condemned in the strongest of terms.


We urge those who read this statement to urge their governments, especially those who are members states of the United Nations Security Council to call for an immediate pressing of war crimes charges of genocide against those who continue to perpetuate these genocidal acts upon innocent civilians.

Furthermore, we support the efforts of the Israeli and Palestinian Authority to work harder and more productively to bring an end to the long-standing conflict, but understand that Israel continues to maintain the right protect its civilians from genocidal attacks.

For more information on Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, visit www.spme.net or contact spme@spme.net.

Edward S. Beck Ed.D., CCMHC, NCC, LPC
Walden University; President, SPME

My response:

To signers of this statement:

Words have meaning.

It is important that words associated with extremes of human
conduct be used judiciously so that they retain their distinctive meanings, and so that proper uses of those words (and the experiences properly described by them) are not diminished through gratuitous overuse and dilution of meaning.

One such word is "genocide."

A second such word, one less extreme but nonetheless powerful and distinctive, particularly in Jewish historical context, is "pogrom."

My own view is that the invocation of these terms to describe the
clearly wanton and evil murder of religious students and scholars at Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav by a single individual (perhaps--it is not known at this point-- supported by one or another terrorist gang) is inexact and unhelpful. So are invocations of these terms (and of the term "holocaust") employed by enemies of the State of Israel to describe deaths (including those of civilian women and children, so-called "collateral damage") caused by targeted Israeli attacks on Palestinian militants/terrorists in Gaza and the West Bank.

I am making no claims regarding moral equivalence here, except to say that none of these acts, in my view, constitutes activity meaningfully or usefully described as genocidal. Certainly, if one applies such labels to the murders at Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav, one must do so equally for the slaughter at the Cave of Machpelah by a deranged co-religionist, whose name I decline to mention, at Purim time some years back.

Further, given the current and foreseeable composition and
proclivities of most international institutions in a position to apply such terminology with legal force, I do not think it serves the
interests of Israel, or of the worldwide Jewish community, to encourage the indiscriminate use of these incendiary terms in the context of today's Middle East—at least short of the use (or threat) of weapons of mass destruction.

The attack on the Yeshiva merits moral condemnation in strong terms. I also join your expression of sympathy and condolences to its victims, their families and communities. But the rhetorical escalation of language serves little good purpose here, and I would urge you to reconsider how best to express your justifiable outrage at this heinous act.

Sincerely, (Prof.) Alan J. Weisbard, University of Wisconsin

On torture, waterboarding, and international law

This is from a posting on one of my bioethics listservs. It is difficult to provide the full context without extensive quotations from others, which might be a violation of listserv ethics. Suffice it to say that I am responding to competing arguments on the definition of torture under the Geneva conventions and whether waterboarding constitutes torture under international and domestic law. Perhaps that is enough to render my posting somewhat intelligible:

Erich wrote:"... Is the US some sort of noble creation? Are we the beacon which leads to ever greater virtue? Nonsense. We advertise already in NY Harbor "give me your hungry and your poor, the seizing masses aiming to be free" (the seizing is wrong but I can't think of the correct word)--and then we blatantly violate and have always violated them. ..."

The correct line from Emma Lazarus' The New Colossus is as follows:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Note that the "huddled masses" are "yearning to breathe free"--not to be choked by water forced up their nostrils.

Re: Larry's argument about the second line on torture qualifying (in fact, swallowing) the first:
While not a specialist on international human rights law, I am a lawyer, and I too read the reference to sanctions in this context as referring to "collateral" consequences of legally imposed punishments for criminal offenses (which, for purposes of US law and under our Eighth Amendment, may not be "cruel and unusual"). It would be peculiar indeed for an international convention to give signatory states the right to negate the central purpose of the convention by an ipse dixit redefining the core term at the heart of the convention--and particularly to do so via a classified administrative decision rather than national legislation or judicial decision. Indeed, it would take the peculiar combination of unmoored legal "creativity", moral bankruptcy, and shamelessness characteristic of the Bush Justice Department (and John Yoo in particular) to offer up such an interpretation.

On a related matter, my recollection is that Alan Dershowitz argued for a "torture warrant", which presumably would require a legal showing acceptable to a judicial officer or tribunal of some sort, insuring at least a modicum of quasi-independent third party review. I wouldn't overstate the independence or civil liberties commitment of the existing FISA court, whose record of compliance with administration requests is nearly complete, but presumably it offers something a tad more objective/disinterested than the judgment of a CIA operative in the field.

Alan Jay Weisbard
University of Wisconsin (Law, Medical History and Bioethics, and Jewish and Religious Studies)
/*

More on Catholic Prayer

Here is a somewhat edited version forwarded to the Jewish Forward, where Prof. Neusner's article was originally published. (Issue of March 6)

I read with some distress Martin Marty's recent piece in Sightings, headlined "Jacob Neusner on Catholic Prayer," based on Jacob Neusner's contribution to the Forward Forum of March 6.

Jacob Neusner is a serious (and certainly prolific) scholar, and one with an unusual and distinctive history among Jews in relation to Catholic thought. He is certainly entitled to express his views, which should stand or fall on their intellectual merits, and not on his authority as a spokesperson for American Jews, many of whom consider Prof. Neusner an idiosyncratic and not a representative figure.

To present American Jews as having a mixed or "ambiguous" reception to the Vatican's recent actions on the Good Friday prayers (as Professor Marty does) is grossly misleading. Opinion is strong and virtually unanimous in opposition to Pope Benedict's marked backsliding from the considerable progress in Jewish-Catholic relations since Vatican II. Such disagreement as does exist reflects honest differences in perception as to the extent of the harm done and its long term consequences, not to the fact of harm. Differing formulations may also reflect, at least in part, tactical considerations by some of those engaged in long-term interfaith efforts (perhaps including Prof. Neusner himself).

The Hebrew prayer being referred to, the "Aleynu" (or "Aleinu"), does not call for conversion of all gentiles to Judaism; it does clearly privilege monotheistic faiths, reject what Judaism regards as idolatry, and express the eschatological hope (as Neusner correctly states) that all will come to acknowledge the one God. Normative Judaism has never viewed Islam as idolatrous. There have been varying interpretations over time on whether Christian worship before images or representations of Jesus constitute idolatrous practice, and whether Catholic concepts of the Trinity are consistent with, or violative of, Jewish notions of monotheism. For the most part, normative Jewish views in recent centuries have come to regard Christian faith as monotheistic.

The Aleynu prayer has a checkered history, and certain offensive passages have been--in my view, quite properly-- excised from the currently normative version of the text--much as Jews would prefer in the Good Friday Latin liturgy. Even in its current form, many liberal Jews (and some Jewish denominations), contra Neusner, choose to further modify the written or spoken text in a number of respects, rejecting some (but, for the most part, not all) of the passages cited by Professor Neusner, and reinterpreting others. The direction of change in the text and interpretation of this ancient prayer has, for the great majority of Jews, been toward a more ecumenical interpretation.

To the degree that Jews, Christians and Muslims (in my view properly) understand themselves as worshiping the same God (in the Christian case, God the Father), the current "Aleynu" text, calling on all humankind to invoke, worship, and give honor to God's glorious name, is, contra Neusner (and apparently Marty), far from fully parallel to the revised language in the Latin prayer, "Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men…grant that even as the fullness of the peoples enters Thy Church, all Israel be saved…" It is revealing that Professor Neusner declines even to cite the "that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men" in his mistaken missive. Jewish concern does not focus on the Catholic prayer's language that "God ...may illuminate their hearts" (which Neusner stresses, correctly, as a parallel theme to the Jewish prayer language), but on the explicit rejection of the validity of Jewish belief in favor of acceptance of Jesus' divinity and the exclusivity of the Christian path to salvation. One of the distinctive changes in Catholic theology in recent decades has been toward greater recognition of the permanence of God's covenant with the Jewish people; this recognition is a key pre-condition for educational efforts to instill greater respect for Jews and Judaism by contemporary Catholics, and it is hard to reconcile the language and implicit theology of the revised Good Friday Latin liturgy with these efforts.

Professor Neusner's theological musings are shockingly insensitive to the historical dimension of Good Friday prayers, and the significance of post-Holocaust (and particularly post Vatican II) efforts to chart a new, less destructive, and more mutually respectful course. Judaism does not have much of a recent (say, the past couple of thousand years) history of oppressing, proselytizing or forcing conversions to Judaism on Catholics, other Christians, Muslims, or members of other (non-Abrahamic) faiths. These deep historical patterns provide an essential context for evaluating the parallels, and non-parallels, in the respective prayers, and for assessing the impact of this distressing retreat from the post-Vatican II commitment to healing the rifts between Catholics and Jews. At best, with the Vatican's deletion of the adjective "perfidious" as applied to Jews, this is an instance of one step forward, two steps back.

Professor Marty's essay ends, "It is our duty to praise...". I would fill in his ellipsis as follows: "...that which is worthy of praise." Whatever the "right" of Catholics to pray as they wish, which I do not dispute, this latest development is unworthy of Jewish praise.

Alan Jay Weisbard

A Response to Martin Marty and Jacob Neusner on Catholic Prayer

From Sightings 3/10/08

Jacob Neusner on Catholic Prayer

-- Martin E. Marty

A week from Friday is Good Friday, a most solemn day for Christians. It is also a problem day for Jews, and for the evident Christian majority which is (or wants to be) sensitive to the sensibilities of Jews. For centuries the most painful element in the Roman Catholic liturgy came from the Good Friday litany in the Latin Rite, which began: "Let us pray for the perfidious Jews: That Almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord..." There was also reference to "Jewish faithlessness" and "blindness." In 1960 an offended and thoughtful Pope John XXIII deleted "faithless" (perfidis); in 1970 the prayer was radically altered. So far, so good.

Last summer Pope Benedict XVI allowed for reversion to the world and words of pre-1970, to a 1962 Missal version of the liturgy. This act was received ambiguously by American Jewish leadership. The American Jewish Committee expressed "appreciation" for some of the papal steps forward, but the Anti-Defamation League called the pope's action "a theological setback" and a "body blow" to Catholic-Jewish relations. On February 6 the Vatican announced an emendation of the 1962 Missal. Tradition-hungry Catholics will now pray this revision: "Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men…grant that even as the fullness of the peoples enters Thy Church, all Israel be saved…"

Recently I conversed with a Jewish professor of New Testament at a largely Christian theological school, and expected her to speak of "setback" and "body blow." To my surprise, she said that while all such prayers make Jews uncomfortable, given the painful history we inherit, she thought that the notion of one faith-community praying for the spread of its faith to others was not the highest offense. "Many do it." OK.

Then I chanced on this headline in the Jewish weekly Forward (February 29-March 7): CATHOLICS HAVE A RIGHT TO PRAY FOR US, above an op-ed by veteran Professor Jacob Neusner, a scholar of Judaism uncommonly informed about such matters. His main point will surprise many non-Jews and many Jews as well: "Israel prays for gentiles, so the other monotheists, the Catholic Church included, have the same right to do the same—and no one should be offended, as many have[.]"

Rabbi Neusner notes that a prayer "for the conversion of 'all the wicked of the earth,' who are 'all the inhabitants of the world,' is recited in normative Judaism not once a year, but every day." He quotes several passages from standard Jewish liturgies, which "leave no doubt that when holy Israel assembles for worship it asks God to illuminate gentiles' hearts." Prayers of both covenanted sets of people have "an eschatological focus and mean to keep the door to salvation open for all peoples. Holy Israel should object to the Catholic prayer no more than Christianity and Islam should take umbrage at the Israelite one."

Whoever thinks that in one short column even Dr. Neusner can deal with all the complexities and subtleties of the subject, or that his will be a last word—it's virtually a first, in the current context—should be ready for many rejoinders, reservations, and qualifications, because much goes on between now and the eschaton, "the fullness of time." Both sets of believers have work to do to express their hopes thoughtfully and to follow them up with empathic acts. But this first word might help make Good Friday more a day of solemn contemplation than of polemics. "It is our duty to praise…"

Alan J. Weisbard wrote (to Sightings):

I read with increasing distress Martin Marty's recent piece in Sightings, headlined "Jacob Neusner on Catholic Prayer."

For what it is worth, Jacob Neusner is regarded by many American Jews as an exceptionally peculiar and idiosyncratic figure. I would be cautious in taking his views as in any way representative of the American Jewish community. He is a serious (and certainly prolific) scholar, and one with an unusual and distinctive history among Jews in relation to Catholic thought. He is certainly entitled to express his views, which should stand or fall on their intellectual merits, and not on his authority as a spokesperson for American Jews.

To present American Jews as having a mixed or "ambiguous" reception to the Vatican's recent actions on the Good Friday prayers (as Professor Marty does) is grossly misleading. Opinion is strong and virtually unanimous in opposition to Pope Benedict's marked backsliding from the considerable progress in Jewish-Catholic relations since Vatican II. Such disagreement as does exist reflects differences in degree as to the extent of harm done and its long term consequences, not to the fact of harm, and, perhaps, tactical considerations by some of those engaged in long-term interfaith efforts.

The Hebrew prayer being referred to, the "Aleynu", does not call for conversion of all gentiles to Judaism; it does privilege monotheistic faiths and reject what Judaism regards as idolatry. Normative Judaism has never viewed Islam as idolatrous. There have been varying interpretations over time on whether Christian worship before images or representations of Jesus constitute idolatrous practice, and whether Catholic concepts of the Trinity are consistent with, or violative of, Jewish notions of monotheism. For the most part, normative Jewish views in recent centuries have come to regard Christian faith as monotheistic.

The Aleynu prayer has a checkered history, and certain offensive passages have been--in my view, quite properly-- excised from the currently normative version of the text--much as Jews would prefer in the Good Friday Latin liturgy. Even in its current form, many liberal Jews (and some Jewish denominations), contra Neusner, choose to further modify the written or spoken text in a number of respects, rejecting some (but not all) of the problematic passages cited by Professor Neusner, and reinterpreting others.

To the degree that Jews, Christians and Muslims (in my view properly) understand themselves as worshiping the same God (in the Christian case, God the Father), the current "Aleynu" text, calling on all humankind to invoke, worship, and give honor to God's glorious name, is, contra Neusner (and apparently Marty), far from fully parallel to the revised language in the Latin prayer, "Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men…grant that even as the fullness of the peoples enters Thy Church, all Israel be saved…" It is revealing that Professor Neusner declines even to cite the "that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men" in his mistaken missive. Jewish concern does not focus on the Catholic prayer's language that "God ...may illuminate their hearts" (which Neusner stresses, correctly, as a parallel theme to the Jewish prayer language), but on the explicit rejection of the validity of Jewish belief in favor of acceptance of Jesus' divinity and the exclusivity of the Christian path to salvation.

Professor Neusner's theological musings are shockingly insensitive to the historical dimension of Good Friday prayers, and the significance of post-Holocaust (and particularly post Vatican II) efforts to chart a new and less destructive course. Judaism does not have much of a recent (say, the past couple of thousand years) history of oppressing, proselytizing or forcing conversions to Judaism by Catholics, other Christians, Muslims, or members of other (non-Abrahamic) faiths. These deep historical patterns provide an essential context for evaluating the parallels, and non-parallels, in the respective prayers, and for assessing the impact of this distressing retreat from the post-Vatican II commitment to healing the rifts between Catholics and Jews. At best, with the Vatican's deletion of the adjective "perfidious" as applied to Jews, this is an instance of one step forward, two steps back.

Professor Marty's essay ends, "It is our duty to praise...". I would fill in his ellipsis as follows: "...that which is worthy of praise."

That's some writer's block

From New York Times Book Review:

From a review of The Fortune Cookie Chronicles, by Jennifer 8. Lee, on a subject close to my heart:

Intrigued by the Powerball drawing of March 30, 2005, which produced an inordinate quantity of winning lottery tickets because the lucky numbers had turned up in fortune cookies all around the country, Lee rides her obsession on a three-year, 42-state, 23-country journey during which she discovers that fortune cookies, like so much about America’s Chinese restaurants, aren’t really Chinese. They originated in 19th-century Japan and were sold in Japanese confectionery shops in San Francisco until World War II, when Japanese-Americans were interned, at which point Chinese entrepreneurs took over the business. Lee tracks down Donald Lau, who spent a decade writing fortunes for the biggest cookie manufacturer until he suffered writer’s block and had to retire in 1995.

On, Wisconsin: "that godforsaken New York cheese..."

Many campus movements aim to boycott certain products. In Wisconsin, a state representative has introduced legislation that would bar any University of Wisconsin campus or state agency acting on behalf of a campus from purchasing cheese or “prepared food product” containing cheese — unless all of the cheese is manufactured or processed in Wisconsin. An aide to State Rep. Jeff Smith, the sponsor, said that while no data are available, the lawmaker has confirmed that some Wisconsin campuses are serving out-of-state cheese. Student opinion appears to be divided — at least judging unscientifically from op-eds in The Badger Herald of the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Bassey Etim, a senior, in a column called “Wisconsin cheese not just about pride; it affects the whole damn planet,” argues that buying out-of-state cheese reflects the waste of American society where food is shipped thousands of miles away while local products are overlooked. Etim also does cite the pride factor, writing that “when visiting Dairy State-funded universities, no one expects to eat Californian or that godforsaken New York cheese.” But Tim Williams, another senior, argues in “No matter how tasty, cheese won’t solve problems” that giving Wisconsin cheese producers a monopoly is inappropriate, and that the state and its university system have more serious needs than giving more of an edge to the home-state dairy industry. Williams offers this advice: “Wear the cheesehead with pride, Wisconsin — just as long as there’s a brain underneath.”

How might we count the ways in which this proposal might be unconstitutional, contrary to treaty obligations, otherwise illegal, or just plain dumb?

Long time Wisconsinites might recall prior state legislation, no longer in effect, forbidding oleomargarine sold in this State (in competition with pure Wisconsin butter) to be colored yellow. I am told there was a robust commerce in independently-sold yellow food coloring at the time.

Bush Aide Resigns Over Plagiarism - New York Times

New York Times:

WASHINGTON — A longtime aide to President Bush who wrote occasional guest columns for his hometown newspaper resigned on Friday evening after admitting that he had repeatedly plagiarized from other writers....

The aide, Tim Goeglein, had worked for Mr. Bush since 2001, as a liaison to social and religious conservatives, an important component of the president’s political base. Mr. Goeglein was influential in decisions on a range of questions important to that constituency, including stem cell research, abortion and faith-based initiatives.

You really can't make these things up!

Attacks Widen Rift Between Gaza and Israel

From The New York Times:
Among the militants killed was Hamza al-Hayya, the son of Khalil al-Hayya, a senior Hamas leader and legislator, the senior Mr. Hayya said. The Israeli Army said the attack was a strike against a squad about to launch rockets. Hamas confirmed that Hamza al-Hayya was leading a rocket squad.

In Gaza, reacting to the news of his son’s death, Khalil al-Hayya said, “I thank God for this gift,” according to The Associated Press, adding, “This is the 10th member of my family to receive the honor of martyrdom.”
*******************

Further comment might seem superfluous. It is hard to imagine progress toward peaceful co-existence amidst such a culture of death. Would that we could all thank God for the opportunity to live together in peace and mutual respect.

Obama on Israel and Jews

There is a lot of trash and slime circulating on the internet regarding Obama's attitudes toward Islam, Israel, and Jews. In the past couple of days, I have received a couple of personally addressed emails, of the form "I saw this on the internet and wondered if it were accurate/ if it were fair/ what you think about this...", followed by what seems to be to constitute hate speech insinuating that Obama is some kind of Manchurian candidate who will do various dastardly things. The claims are so preposterous on their face, and so easy to disprove with a minimum of research, that it is hard not to suspect the motives of those who send such crap around.

I am saddened that some of these hate messages have been attributed to various Jewish groups, including some kind of Republican Jewish group. I am in the process of trying to track this down, and cannot at this point know whether these attributions are correct.

In response, various collections of Obama's statements on Israel are also circulating. Some of these follow the formulaic AIPAC line to a degree that I, as an ally of Israel's peace camp (Peace Now, New Israel Fund, etc.) find them rather unsatisfying both politically and intellectually. However, there is some evidence of more thoughtful views on Obama's part. Here is an excerpt from a recent Obama speech before a Jewish audience, quoted on Nick Kristof's NYT blog:

"...one of the things that struck me when I went to Israel was how much more open the debate was around these issues in Israel than they are sometimes here in the United States. It’s very ironic. I sat down with the head of Israeli security forces and his view of the Palestinians was incredibly nuanced because he’s dealing with these people every day. There’s good and there’s bad, and he was willing to say sometimes we make mistakes and we made this miscalculation and if we are just pressing down on these folks constantly without giving them some prospects for hope, that’s not good for our security situation. There was a very honest, thoughtful debate taking place inside Israel. All of you, I’m sure, have experienced this when you travel there. Understandably, because of the pressure that Israel is under, I think the U.S. pro-Israel community is sometimes a little more protective or concerned about opening up that conversation. But all I’m saying though is that actually ultimately should be our goal, to have that same clear eyed view about how we approach these issues...."

This is very true, and suggests that Obama's understanding is considerably more subtle and nuanced than the uncritical blather that he and most high level American politics are forced to regurgitate on most occasions. I think such an understanding, and the courage to speak it before a Jewish audience, are conducive to effective American intermediation if peace between Israel and her neighbors is ever to come. I am highly aware of the arguments against, but I have come to the conviction that the risks for Israel in seeking peace are less daunting, and less dangerous in the mid-to-long run, than those of not doing so.

And for what it is worth, whether he rejects or denounces Farrakhan, Obama's comments on rebuilding relationships between Jews and African-Americans (and his willingness to denounce anti-Semitism within the black community in speeches to African-American audiences) touch me deeply.

On the Ohio Debate

Politics: Who's winning, who's losing, and why.
Most Improved Debater : In what may be the final debate, Obama shows how he's grown.
By John Dickerson
Posted Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2008, at 8:10 AM ET (Slate)

In the first Democratic primary debate 10 months ago, Hillary Clinton didn't have to charge that Barack Obama wasn't ready to be president on Day One. He did the work for her. He was halting, mumbling, and tentative. The only confidence he instilled was in Clinton. Nineteen debates later, he's improved so much that if he's not ready to be president on Day One, you could imagine he might get there after a little study. At what may be the last debate of the Democratic primary, Obama was commanding, at ease, and magnanimous. Clinton needed him to stumble, and he didn't. He won the night.

I think Dickerson nailed this.

What most astounds me about Obama's performances in the debates is his astonishing capacity for growth. I think last night was his best ever. Not only that--he now looks and feels "Presidential"--fully ready to step into the role "on Day One," as Hillary would have it. His mixture of gravitas, increasing command of the issues (less well displayed in his response on the incoming Russian President--although Hillary muffed that one as well), and gently self-effacing humor (which has, in the last two debates, utterly undermined Clintonian attacks, and made their purveyors look silly)--show his utter sense of command and, for me at least, recall several of JFK's most memorable political talents.

I respect Senator Clinton's policy knowledge and general sense of competence (not always well displayed in her Campaign). I do not want, especially as a male, to employ language suggestive of a sexist critique (and I was thrilled by her coming to the White House in 1992, and by her designation to head the (ill-fated) health care reform effort.) But the more I see of her in this campaign, the less I like her. Part of it is her world-leading sense of entitlement. Part is her increasingly obvious psychological projection, blaming others (including but not limited to Obama) for campaign tactics and motivations in a way that is more revealing of herself (and not in a positive sense) than illuminating about Obama, who is now able to shrug them off as campaign silliness. Senator Clinton is in real danger of making herself look ridiculous. I'll leave it there for now.

On naming Madison's new primary school

It is apparently still possible to send communications on the naming of Madison's new primary school to comments@madison.k12.wi.us. Here is a copy of my contribution:


Thank you for this opportunity to add my voice to those supporting naming our new primary school in memory of Jeff Erlanger.

When the naming issue first emerged a couple of years back, I was one of those who suggested Howard Temin's name. I have the greatest admiration and respect for Prof. Temin, and hope that there will emerge a suitable opportunity to honor him within the Madison School System. If and when consideration is given to naming Madison high schools for individuals, or naming a school with a magnet-type math/science/health orientation, I think his name belongs at the very top of the list. He was a world renown scientist, a dedicated educator at all levels, a great humanitarian, and a wonderful human being that all might seek to emulate. The level of his transcendent scientific achievements might, however, seem a bit distant and beyond reach for some primary school students.

I cannot imagine a more accessible and worthy model for primary school students than Jeff Erlanger. I knew Jeff (and know his family) well, and worked with Jeff on a couple of small projects over the past two decades. What a truly amazing individual. Only at his funeral, however, did I come to realize how many people Jeff had touched, and in what profound ways. Jeff's story is inspiring in a way that touches us all, and is readily understandable to primary school students. My understanding is that he was the first individual with his level of physical disability to be mainstreamed through the Madison public schools. With his resolute, hopeful and optimistic disposition and commitment to live his own life to the full, and to bring and make meaning (and, in a word of the moment, change) through efforts on behalf of others, he set a model for all of us of what a single person can accomplish in this world--a model likely to be especially meaningful to primary school students.

Having listened to several of Jeff's assistants talk about the impact Jeff had on their lives, I am struck by the ways in which Jeff's life turns around our usual narratives of dependency, and enriches our concepts of human interconnection and the ways in which individuals bring meaning into one another's lives.

One final point: the available documentation of Jeff's life, including videos with Mr. Rogers, provide a living legacy that will be pedagogically meaningful for future generations of students who attend this school, and others in the Madison district. It will continue to signify something, beyond a name on the wall, for students who can come to realize what it means, in very personal terms, to attend the Jeff Erlanger School. Jeff will continue to touch and inspire students, much as he did through his all too brief life, lived to the fullest.

Thank you again for this opportunity to contribute to your deliberations....

On The NYT McCain Fiasco

Here is a copy of my response to the now notorious NYT piece on John McCain's lobbyist associations. I sent this on the afternoon of Feb.22, before the appearance of NYT Public Editor Clark Hoyt's column on the same subject. Hoyt came to rather similar conclusions.

To the Editor:

I continue to struggle to make my mind up on this article. I am inclined to wait to see what new facts emerge before reaching any final judgment. My guess--and my hope--is that The Times knows more than it is yet prepared to publish, and that further facts are yet to emerge to fill in the story. If that is incorrect, my judgment will be more harsh.

I appreciate the detailed examination of Senator McCain's contacts with and responsiveness to lobbyists for the rich and powerful of corporate America, particularly given his powerful role as (former) Chair of the Senate Commerce Committee. The new wrinkle, given Senator McCain's self-promoted image as a crusading reformer, is that he is apparently so convinced of his personal rectitude that he is largely oblivious to situations that would raise legitimate concerns if they involved others. That is a recipe for disaster, particularly in a potential President. An article effectively raising and shedding light on this issue is clearly justified.

My concern is with the series of decisions made on how to play the "romantic"/sexual innuendo piece of the story. I think this aspect was peripheral, rather than central, to the main focus of the story. While it did, to some degree, advance the central thesis of the story, it was predictable that attention paid to the sexual angle would overwhelm everything else, as has in fact been the case. This was made significantly more likely by the decision to play this issue at the top of the story, despite the lack of harder documentation and identified sources. In an effort to play it cute--or perhaps to avoid legal attack--The Times highlighted the salacious sexual innuendo, with its predictable impact on the privacy of the individuals concerned, while seeking to avoid responsibility for stating and proving its case. The added news value of the suspected romantic relationship seems to me insufficient to justify playing this aspect at the top of the piece, as opposed to leaving it out altogether or running it much deeper in the story, as an illustration of concerns raised by McCain's closeness to lobbyists.

I can imagine a response saying that would amount to burying the lede. But that is precisely my point. If the lede is to be the romantic/sexual allegation, than state your allegation and prove it, using more than anonymous sourcing. If you are unable to do so, and are not able to name your sources or provide more in the way of proof, than this does not belong anywhere near the lede, and perhaps not in the story at all.
Can you explain the news judgment that you feel justifies organizing the story as you did?

On Superdelegates

From a response to Susan Estrich on Superdelegates
This is a somewhat unconventional view from an Obama supporter.

Posted By: The Wise Bard on Tuesday, February 19, 2008

The world has changed quite a bit since the time Susan is discussing. Many more states have elections and broad-scale caucuses. And the complexion of the superdelegates has changed to something more (if not fully) representative of the party, and of America.

There is a long time between the Iowa and New Hampshire contests and the Convention, and as we are learning, things can change quite a lot over the long primary season. Superdelegates provide a useful set of non-pledged delegates who can respond to these changing conditions, including the identity of the opposing major candidate(s) and things learned about the competing Democratic candidates over the long process of testing leading to the conventions. Ideally the superdelegates should stay unpledged until the convention (which many are not currently doing). If their participation in deciding the nominee reeks of a back room deal objectionable to a large faction of voters, the Party and its candidates (beyond the Presidential nominee) are likely to suffer in November--and the superdelegates know that.

And some followup in response to a challenge from another reader:
Posted By: The Wise Bard on Tuesday, February 19, 2008

In response to the gratuitously nasty comments of Mr. Thelen:

A large proportion of the superdelegates are elected officials--elected, that is, by the people, and responsible (and ultimately accountable) to them. Who exactly are the "regular" delegates? Can you name five of them, anywhere in the country? To whom are they accountable, particularly if the Convention goes beyond a first (committed) ballot?



If there were a single national primary, the likelihood of an insurgent candidate successfully challenging the "Establishment" is virtually nil. Insurgent movements build over time (at least if the insurgent is not a billionaire able to self-finance a campaign), and require proving oneself over time, best done in smaller jurisdictions (not necessarily Iowa or N.H.) less dependent on tv commercials and more open to retail-style politics. Obama, for instance, wouldn't have had a prayer of prevailing against Hillary Clinton in a one shot national primary. Tonight, here in Wisconsin (and with my enthusiastic support) he is taking his ninth straight event against the previous establishment favorite. Further, in a Presidential (as opposed to Parliamentary) system, with no "shadow Cabinet", the primary process, over time, provides a useful test of relevant leadership capacities of the candidate and his/her team, and tends to improve their abilities as campaigners and future leaders. That improvement has been evident in the Obama, Clinton, and Edwards campaigns this year, not to speak of the Republicans.

Perhaps we might have a system in which all states follow the same rules, but conduct their primary elections over time, to meet the objections to a single national primary. I would have no great objection to that, but I am inclined to favor a mix of primary elections and caucuses, which seem to do a better job of measuring enthusiasm and depth of commitment of each candidate's supporters, which may also favor insurgent candidacies.

It is also worth noting, contrary to Mr Thelen's initial remarks, that the superdelegates have a potentially significant impact on the ultimate nomination only in cases of close and prolonged contests, not where a candidate clearly prevails in the primary process. We heard little, if anything, about superdelegates in 2004, 2000, 1996...and my memories are not that clear about 1992 or 1988. We have to go back probably to 1984 for a clear instance of their impact.

To be sure, any political mechanism ultimately depends on the behavior of human beings, and can be subverted by bad behavior. My strong preference is that superdelegates withhold public statements of support or endorsement prior to the Convention. My guess this year is that an effort, say, by Clinton forces to "steal" a nomination earned by Obama would be self- (and party-) defeating, much as was the 1968 fiasco--and the superdelegates are likely to understand that. Of course, I could be wrong--and the fact that I can imagine the Clintons pursuing such a strategy is one among many reasons I am supporting Obama.

Posted By: The Wise Bard on Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Here is an interesting piece from Slate on the complexities of superdelegate voting, and the limitations of oversimplistic appeals to pure democracy:



http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/101526/ShowForum.aspx?ArticleID=2184677




















The primary process, like our system of government more generally, is not designed to be a pure democracy, but a more complex mechanism responsive to multiple concerns. The state rules for selecting their delegates vary pretty widely, and test candidates in a variety of ways. If we wanted pure democracy, we would have a national primary. There are some pretty good reasons that we don't.


We might well consider varying strict proportionality (perhaps adopting winner-take-all by Congressional district, not by State), and perhaps reducing the proportion of superdelegates in the overall mix, to reduce the likelihood that superdelegates will have the determinative voice in a close and prolonged primary battle, but I think the flexibility that they add to the process makes some sense, if exercised wisely.

On Clinton vs. Obama on individual adult mandates for health coverage

A number of prominent health care experts, most former officials in the previous Clinton Administration, have lent their support to Senator Clinton's attack on brochures distributed in recent weeks by the Obama campaign, linking the brochure to the infamous "Harry and Louise" ads of 1993-4. The issue is discussed in a posting on the online blog site of The New Republic. Herewith my response:

I strongly favor a single payer financing system with universal coverage for health care. Such a system would not solve all the problems of American health care--no system would. But it would move us closer to universal coverage than any alternative, would provide the best basis for administrative simplification and cost savings , and would provide the strongest basis for controlling high and rapidly rising costs of pharmaceuticals, technology, and fees. The plans advocated by Clinton, Edwards, and Obama don't come close.

As between the variants proposed by Edwards/Clinton and Obama, I prefer the plans with an individual mandate covering both children and adults to one covering children only, and believe that some such arrangement will ultimately be necessary if we move down this particular road. But this is, I think, a matter of timing and a study in grays, not an earth-shattering, epic battle between virtue and vice. An individual mandate is very tough to enforce effectively and without negative side-effects. I am inclined to believe that Hillary's plan would cover somewhat more individuals than Obama's, but both would be vast improvements over existing policy, and neither would effect the major advantages, including but not limited to scope of coverage, of single payer.

The signers of this letter--the vast majority of whom held senior positions in the (first?) Clinton Administration--address the brochure in question devoid of political context. Senator Clinton has been trying to clobber Senator Obama with what is likely an exaggerated version of the coverage limits of his plan, and an exaggerated version of the benefits of hers. She suggests that Obama simply doesn't care about achieving universal coverage, and refuses utterly to credit that he might have plausible policy and political /strategic reasons (looking to the general election, and to the political negotiations that will be required to win Congressional approval for any major health care reform package) for downplaying an (only partially effective) individual adult mandate from the outset. On policy, I am closer to Clinton than to Obama on this point. But politically (in terms of both the general election and future Congressional negotiations), I think it is a tough call, and one well beyond my expertise.

But the relevant point here, I think, is that Hillary has not sought a measured discussion and debate over the complex tradeoffs involved, and has refused to acknowledge that her approach involves some casts and risks as well as benefits. Her approach to Obama has been punishing and demagogic (on a variety of issues, not limited to this one). All purity is with her. It was particularly ironic in the Texas debate when she invoked Social Security and Medicare in favor of her plan and against Obama's, while studiously ignoring the fact that those programs are much more akin to single payer than to any of the Clinton/Edwards/Obama approaches.

Signers, what exactly would you have Obama do in these circumstances? Is Hillary free to say what she will, while Obama is debarred from explaining the factors that led him to make a somewhat different set of tradeoffs in what are fundamentally very similar plans? This sounds all too much like a call for unilateral disarmament, in the tradition of Kerry's inability to respond quickly and effectively to the Republican slime attacks of 2004. Obama needs to show he can and will fight back. Senator Clinton's angry whining in response seems, yet again, a likely instance of her own psychological projection, accusing her opponent of tactics (and motivations) all too present in her own campaign. Signers, I fear that you are at risk of becoming enablers in this regard.

I very much doubt Senator Obama would be distributing a brochure highlighting the tradeoffs implicit in any system of individual mandates had Senator Clinton not placed her central campaign focus (beyond "experience", from which she seems to have learned all too little) on demagoguing a debatable tradeoff in Obama's health policy by accusing him, repeatedly, of indifference to their shared goal of vastly expanding the scope of health coverage.

More (or less?) on individual mandates

In response to a piece by Jules Witcover:

Posted By: The Wise Bard on Saturday, February 23, 2008

I prefer Hillary's version of a universal health plan that would mandate coverage for both children and adults, to Obama's position, at least for the initial stage, to hold back on an adult mandate (which I think will become necessary and inevitable if the core policy wins legislative adoption). But the irony of Hillary's invocation of Social Security and Medicare to support her position is that both are, essentially, single payer systems, and many of their benefits (including very low-cost and reasonably efficient administrative systems) depend upon that. Their universality is in large part responsible for their widespread political support and relative untouchability.

Hillary fiercely resisted single payer in 1993-94, and again in this campaign. I am disappointed that Obama (whom I greatly admire and support) was not more ready to go in that direction.--The Wise Bard

Catching up on old posts to other lists

As per (unsolicited) request:Here are some old comments from The Fray in Slate. Feel free to look up the complete quotes:

*
Re: Honesty about judicial activism
I've blogged extensively on a number of recent decisions. Take a look. This was not the time or place for a comprehensive analysis (and I agree that specifics are appropriate for a more scholarly venue--I haven't noticed much of that here, or on most boards). You are also correct that my posting reflects outrage, although an outrage born of ...
Posted to Jurisprudence by The Wise Bard on July 19, 2007
*
Honesty about judicial activism
It's been a very long time--more or less since 1938--since political liberals/progressives have had this much reason to fear activist courts, and the Supreme Court in particular, or to rethink their commitment to venerating the special legitimacy of judicial action (or the fund of moral capital once possessed by the Court). For me, the ...
Posted to Jurisprudence by The Wise Bard on July 18, 2007
*
Thank you for the discussion
I'd especially like to thank Walter for his exceptionally moving reflections before and after the schools case came down on the real life meanings of segregation and racial difference in this society--truly America's original sin passed down from generation to generation (and thanks for the Charlie Black quote!). I'm not generally such a great ...
Posted to The Breakfast Table by The Wise Bard on June 29, 2007
*
Greenfield on Iowa
I am a long time fan of Jeff Greenfield's reporting and commentary, and I find much of value in his skeptical discussion of the Iowa caucuses (several key points were made previously by Chris Hitchens and the NYT, as Jeff properly acknowledges). I disagree, however, on Jeff's apparent view that secret ballots are an essential constituent of any ...
Posted to Politics by The Wise Bard on January 3, 2008
*
nomination politics
So, a question I continue to ponder: should Louis Brandeis' nomination have been defeated (as it almost was) because of open opposition to his political views, and, let's say, a minority filibuster? Is that a necessary cost of Bazelon's implicit position here? Is it a cost worth paying (or does this presuppose a principled consistency that is ...
Posted to Jurisprudence by The Wise Bard on June 29, 2007
*
Mitt's secret of success
I think he has now perfected the skill--or perhaps the art form-- of looking authentically inauthentic. We need someone willing to say anything to anybody to get ahead. After all, by the odds, he will be right some of the time. A stopped clock is right twice a day. It takes a President of conviction like W to fall below that level.
Posted to Politics by The Wise Bard on January 16, 2008
*
Re: Had to be wrong
I think this is an insult to Aaron Burr. For better or worse, Gore Vidal has an amusing book on the subject.
Posted to Jurisprudence by The Wise Bard on June 29, 2007
*
Kinsley on NYT
Michael, you have written a masterpiece. NYT, QED. --The Wise Bard (H'71).
Posted to Readme by The Wise Bard on February 25, 2008

He's baaaaacccccck!

Hi everyone.
The blog has been on hiatus during my effort to return to teaching.
I was delighted to have one more go at "Bioethics and the Law", trying this time to incorporate my and my family's difficult experiences with several deaths and serious diseases into the more theoretical and formal empirical approaches of prior iterations of the course. It helped, and perhaps forced, me to integrate the cognitive and the felt, the distanced and less personal analysis with the personal experience--both in my own person, and in what I was trying to convey to my students. I am grateful for that opportunity.
Unfortunately, though my spirit was more than willing, my body was weak, and not up to the physical and mental demands of returning to my prior life. I have, sadly, had to return to medical leave, and perhaps to a more permanent decision.
During my time teaching, I confined postings to leaving occasional comments in response to articles on other sites. These were, for the most part, signed as "The Wise Bard", and should (mostly) be searchable that way. I may try to retrieve some of those of continuing interest for reposting here, as time allows.
My intent on coming back to this blog is to focus more on my own comments and less on showcasing articles from elsewhere. While that was fun for a while, and I was pleased to share valuable nuggets I discovered elsewhere with readers of this blog, it proved enormously time consuming, and in the end, squeezed out time and energy for my own (more direct) self-expression. So with this mid-course course correction, let's see where we go.