Shutting down the comments today. Some of the comments have devolved into arguments between a small handful of people. Comments and replies are fine. Running arguments belong on Twitter. I will have to figure this out. Apologies to everyone who wanted to post today.
I got the perception gap comparison to Europe perception discussion no problem.
I wonder if Americans are generally more pessimistic and angry these days than our European counterparts. As for the economy, I too feel the effects of inflation. As I have done multiple times in the past. Still, I don’t think the president and his administration can do much about these economic cycles, so I generally don’t blame them. The exceptions are those who choose to give big tax cuts to the wealthy. I didn’t believe the whole trickle down delusion in 1980 and I certainly don’t believe it now. Biden’s idea to grow the economy from the ground up and the middle out is just what we need. We do not need more Musks, Bezos, Koch’s, etc. There is too much wealth and power concentrated in too few people. As for those who say Musk and his ilk earned their billions, I say, yeah, on the backs of their workers.
Honestly, lately I've avoided reading anything with the word "T***p" in it - my head wants to explode whenever I do happen to read about the latest outrageous statements he spews out. This is also partly because I have had an overwhelming amount of real life bad news to deal with since Nov. 5, and need to start looking for a new job soon, among other things. It's been an unfortunately "interesting" 4th quarter of 2023 and I don't want to jinx myself by hoping that Q1 2024 will be better.
So mostly I read yours and Joyce Vance's essays and feel immense gratitude for the existence of the two of you (among many other notables here on Substack) and hope you stay healthy and safe through the holiday season, as there's a noticeable uptick in respiratory illnesses in recent weeks globally and most likely soon here in the U.S.
It is not evident in the extensive reporting on the subject of questioning by Elise Stefanik during the hearing Mr. Hubbell refers to in this post, that those writing about this event watched the video of Ms. Stefanik's questioning. I have provided medical-legal testimony hundreds of times and it requires extensive experience to respond appropriately when questioning is carried out in the tone and manner as exhibited by Ms. Stefanik. She utilizes the technique of rapid-fire delivery in an imperious tone which is intimidating to those with little experience being interrogated as a hostile witness would be. She also uses the technique of asking a long complicated question and demanding that it be answered yes or no. She also used the method of adding the word, "Correct?" at the end of a statement, thereby channeling the witness into endorsing how the interrogating party wishes to phrase things, rather than speak their own words. She also would interrupt the witness, which is intimidating and, frankly, disrespectful and bullying. In my view, Ms. Stefanik's questioning was not designed to explore or illuminate. It was designed to intimidate and sandbag the witness, and, reading the commentary about it, that proved successful. This was Ms. Stefanik's first question to Dr. Gay that included the word "intifada": "You are president of Harvard, so I assume you are familiar with the term 'intifada', correct?" It is evident from the response that the witness was not familiar with the term. She said, "I have heard that term, yes." Having heard a word and being "familiar" with it are two different things. Beyond that, being familiar with a word does not mean that a person is intimately aware of the precise definition of it. Therefore, Dr. Gay did not express familiarity - she only said she had heard it, which allows that she might not be familiar with the meaning of it. Ms. Stefanik than asserted, "And you understand that the use of the term 'intifada' in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict is indeed a call for violent, armed resistance against the state of Israel including violence against civilians and the genocide of Jews. Are you aware of that?" First, that characterization of the use of the word intifada is not accurate, since the word refers to a wide variety of actions resisting military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza following the 1967 war, and considered illegal under international law since that time, and the right of occupied populations to resist that occupation is recognized as legitimate. The first intifada, which began in 1987, was predominantly peaceful, for example (the first suicide bombing, for example, did not place until 1993), and the violence that did occur in the first 13-months of the first intifada brought about the deaths of 12 Israelis and 332 Palestinians. Therefore, Dr. Gay's answer should have been that Ms. Stefanik's characterization of "intifada' as synonymous with a call for genocide of Jews was inaccurate. Instead, Dr. Gay replied, "That type of personal speech is personally abhorrent to me." That answer is tangential and does not endorse that Ms. Stefanik's characterization of the meaning of the word "intifada" was correct. Ms. Stefanik then said, "And there have been multiple marches at Harvard with students chanting. 'There is only one solution, intifada revolution', and 'globalize the intifada', is that correct?" Dr. Gay replied, "I have heard that thoughtless, reckless and hateful language on our campus, yes." Here, Ms. Stefanik has effectively sandbagged Dr. Gay into appearing to endorse the incorrect characterization of what those phrases mean. For example, I take the "intifada revolution" to mean resistance of an illegal military occupation, which can refer to a wide variety of actions, including marching and chanting, as the students were doing, and that such actions should be carried out around the globe in solidarity with the aims of the Palestinians of the occupied territories to end that occupation. No doubt some would take the meaning further and advocate for violence, but those options do not define the term intifada as explicitly calling for genocide, which is what Ms. Stefanik is claiming it means. Ms. Stefanik then proceeded in her method of corralling Dr. Gay, she said, "So, based upon your testimony, you understand that this call for intifada is to commit genocide against the Jewish people in Israel and globally, is that correct?" That misstates Dr. Gay's testimony, which a review of the above summary makes clear. Dr. Gay then reverted to her boilerplate response about her personal abhorrence at this "hateful" speech. In her next question, Ms. Stefanik then expanded her claim that the term intifada and phrases that include it calls for "the elimination of Israel." That makes her characterization of the term even more inaccurrate. This is yet another method used in questioning by prosecutors facing a hostile witness. She then again mischaracterized Dr. Gay's testimony, claiming that she had testified that this was Dr. Gay's understanding of the word 'intifada." Similar close analysis of the remainder of Ms. Stefanik's additional 3-minutes of questioning of Dr. Gay reveals similar methods and mischaracterization. Unfortunately, the sound bites and headlines fail to reflect an appreciation for the complexity here. Frankly, this carelessness led to Mr. Hubbell to endorse the narrative that the responses of these three university presidents qualified as anti-semitic endorsement of genocide against the Jewish people. That is a gross mischaracterization, as the additional 3-hours of testimony, including the opening statements by each of the witnesses made clear. With regard to the question about whether Harvard would rescind admission offers or take other disciplinary students against students using the phrase "from the river to the sea" or the word "intifada advocating for themurder of Jews", here again, Rep. Stefanik further expands her assertion to name a different phrase, which is a sandbagging rhetorical device, for which this witness was not prepared. Mr. Hubbell claims that "As the question was starkly framed by Rep. Stefanik, that answer was self-evident." I disagree, and the above explication of the question-and-answer by Ms. Stefanik demonstrates. It is important to note that Ms. Stefanik's support of Israel is unqualified. In March of this year, when President Biden expressed concern about the state of democracy in Israel, in light of the effort to overhaul the judicial system to make it subordinate to the legislative branch, which Netanyahu directed as P.M. (efforts that brought about the most longstanding and massive protests Israel has ever seen), Ms. Stefanik said the next day 3/30/2023 that President Biden's remarks were "hostile" and "shameful." In the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict, it is crucial that words and phrases, and questions and the answers to them, be very carefully analyzed to avoid miscommunication that can then be exploited for political purposes.
I understand Judge Chutkan has to let these things play out to avoid the risk of the whole case getting tossed on a technicality, but are Trump’s attorneys intentionally trying to send their own careers and reputations down the crapper by pulling this kind of junk? Have they no dignity, or are they taking legal advice from the firm of Guiliani, Powell & Eastman? And Hunter Biden? And abundance of caution has given the special prosecutor too much leash and now the whole thing is an abundance of embarrassment that sounds like a Trump play for what he plans to do to ordinary private citizens.
Lawrence O’Donnell’s opening monologue tonight was an attack on the appeals court, which has yet to rule after many weeks about reinstating the gag rule. He’s arguing that Trump is a judicial terrorist, who is now succeeding in bullying the courts – although so far not judge Tanya. The three judge panel of appeals court judges must back her up. All pressure must be directed toward them, for not understanding the extraordinary threat that we face by allowing Trump to defy judicial authority. And garland is beneath contempt.
Robert, thank you for continuing to write, despite not feeling 100% well.
When a good chunk of your informed and motivated pro-democracy readers misread or misinterpret your columns, it's not surprising that less informed and motivated Americans are confused or uninformed about Biden's accomplishments, the complexity of border reforms, the implications of the wars against Putin's and Hamas's terrorism; the idiocy, ignorance, and traitorous intentions of many Congressional Republicans; etc., etc. I wish there were a cure so every American would pay attention and keep themselves informed and engaged. It's a complex world that demands our attention, and it can feel overwhelming. So much depends on each voter.
Yesterday, I read that WaPo article about the judge granting the pregnant woman leave to have an abortion. I gotta say, it felt like I was living in the Twilight Zone reading about this woman being treated like property, her fate in the hands of "those who know better."
Since R's are so obsessed with property rights over and above civil rights, her husband should countersue the State of Texas for tampering with his "property." Which leads me to the idea that maybe it should be up to the men who donated their sperm to decide whether a woman should have an abortion, and not the state. Rant over.
If, God forbid, something horrible happens to that woman in Texas trying to save her own life, I hope there are teams of lawyers lining up to charge Ken Paxton and Greg Abbott with murder. On the optimistic end - I hope she travels to a rational state with no Texas style interference. And I hope high school graduates previously focusing on attending UT, Rice, Texas Tech, etc, shift their goals in their very own interests of safety and apply to colleges in states where they can be safer.
The US Holocaust museum and almost everyone else defines genocide as: "an internationally recognized crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group." Advocating genocide is less like free speech and more like a threat to the people who are the object of the proposed genocide. The three college presidents and the university trustees who are their bosses, should recognize that and act appropriately.
Erroneously describing an act as genocide is another matter. The Israeli response to the October 7th atrocities was particularly furious because they saw the violence as part of a plan and a promise to destroy the people of Israel. There is justification in seeing the atrocities in that way. The acts of the Israeli settlers on the West Bank, not nearly as well publicized, but murderous, nonetheless, could also be seen as part of a plan and a promise to destroy the Palestinians living in Palestine. That the government of Israel is arming and supporting and protecting those settlers is disgraceful.
The Israelis, however, have made clear the purpose of the bombing in Gaza -- initially, primarily, in the north and now primarily in Khan Yunis. The Israelis are attempting to destroy the tunnels deep underneath, tunnels that are the site of government and military organization, tunnels that are the haven of Hamas -- the imposed leaders of Gaza. The Israelis urged the people of northern Gaza to move south. Now they urge the people of specific areas within Khan Yunis to move. This is an imperfect way to protect civilians, but the bombing is not an act of genocide. It is not part of a plan or a promise to destroy Palestinians.
Until a few days ago, I could say the above with assurance. Then, Netanyahu announced a plan to occupy Gaza and remove many Palestinians, a plan, in effect, to make them no longer Palestinians. In making that proposal, in combination with the support for the settlers, Netanyahu makes his country more legitimately subject to charges of genocide, to charges that his bombing campaign are not really targeting Hamas, but are intended to destroy Gaza's Palestinians.
'
We can be grateful for Joe Biden's leadership. He has already denounced any plan for Israel to occupy Gaza. He is committed to creating a Palestinian state. Joe Biden has not achieved every single goal of his presidency, but he has achieved a lot. He may be able to achieve this goal, to create a Palestinian nation that, with the support of the international community, thrives and does not have genocidal intentions toward Israelis and Jews.
Joe Biden may be able to make Netanyahu and/or his supporters accept a Palestinian nation. Some Israelis have criticized Joe Biden for interfering in what are properly Israeli decisions. Netanyahu and his supporters, long ago, lost the right to make that argument. No foreign official has interfered with American politics more than Benjamin Netanyahu.
As you know, I was one of the people who commented on the "perception problem". My point is that Democrats have not learned from the very effective Republican playbook. Most everyone on this forum wants Biden and team to elaborate on the terrific things that the administration has achieved. And they are many and wonderful.
But that is not how elections are won. People need to hear how things will be better if they vote for someone. True. But many people don't vote on an aspirational level. You and I might. Many here might. But most people are focused on their personal travails. Democrats need to clearly explain how so many efforts to improve America have been BLOCKED by Republicans. We need to play the same blame game - with the truth!
Immigration is a big problem. And WE have attempted to fix it. But the Republican Congress won't work with us to get it done. Turn the tables! Videos of families being separated. Videos of hard working folks from around the world building a better America. Videos of Ron DeSantis shooting innocent people at the border - yes, he just said we should do that!!!
Republicans call out their opponents vociferously. We should be doing the same thing! Senator Tuberville could be the poster child for treason! How many voters have a member of the military as friends or family? This is a gift of an ad. Tuberville endangers our troops. Video of Trump fawning over Putin. Audio: "What were these two men talking about in their secret meeting in Helsinki? Why are there no transcripts? No notes. What is this man hiding?" "Why are Republicans helping the enemy?"
What are we waiting for?
Most do want to know how the next administration will help with the list. Childcare, healthcare, homecare, eldercare...housing, clean water and food security. But they should know how the MAGA white supremacists are blocking progress on those issues.
Call them out! Videos of Clarence Thomas and Leonard Leo on vacation. Audio: "How was your vacation this year, did you enjoy that yacht and the fancy dinners aboard?" Video of Republican Oligarchs at a party. Audio: "This guy paid no taxes last year. What did you pay? Thanks Republicans!"
We are playing softball. MAGA is playing hardball. Time to change the game. And spend twice as much putting these attack ads on TicTok as we do MSM. It's where young people live and it's young people who will determine whether we fall into fascism or not.
Thank you for the link to Michelle Goldberg’s article. I agree. I was horrified by what I saw of the hearings, but not for the reasons that the media is seizing on. The panel felt like a McCarthyist rerun. The presidents failed precisely because instead of actually standing up for different perspectives on Israel and Palestine, they ended up with platitudes which were unconvincing. They could have given a clear answer about the horrors of genocide AND highlighted that being anti the state of Israel is in fact not antisemitism. That Jews around the world have different perspectives on Zionism and to demand allegiance with one view on campus is to limit every one’s freedom of speech and to undermine the very point of a university. In refusing to explicitly defend diverse ideas, they came across as beholden to donors and insincere.
Thank you for these (yet again) - even more so knowing you have been feeling poorly.
I am in full agreement with your take on The Three University Presidents.
A few thoughts on this:
1. It is mind-blowing that they either received no or terrible media training. Did no one think to tell them that "rolling your eyes contemptuously and sneering 'it depends on context' is not a great response."
Or that "when you say 'if it turns into conduct' that 99% of people will not grasp that you are making a subtle legal distinction and instead will hear "When they actually, you know, start killing the Jews, then it becomes an issue." -- that this is a national television audience, not a seminar room.
And that all three took the same miserable tactic... and now Elise Stefanik (of all people!!!) is the Great Defender of the Jews and enjoying, as today;s top NYT headline put it, "a viral moment."
2. This comes on the heels of another tone deaf Dems-in-the-House move where Raskin, Goldman and Nadler got caught up on the fact that the GOP bill denouncing antisemitism had an overly broad definition and so chose to tell their fellow Dems to vote "present" - and all they got for their efforts was a slew of "Dems In Disarray" headlines and an electorate that had little idea why they were doing what they did, giving the House GOP another big win. Too often our candidates get caught up in the fine print when national politics is a game of headlines.
3. If there is a silver lining to all this, it is that the "Woke Left" (for lack of a better term) has been thoroughly discredited over the past two months, especially those in academia. While it is important to note that none of these people are actually elected Democratic officials, Fox and their Friends have been adept at painting them as Democrats and stirring up outrage over the rantings of random adjunct professors.
So their implosion takes a key tool away from the Right Wing Media who can only report on how outraged former Sanders supporters are about his refusal to call for a cease fire for so long.
So yes, we will have moments where Laurence Tribe, Doug Emhoff and Josh Shapiro are praising Elise Stefanik rather than.a House Democrat, but in the long run, the ability to claim the center as Trump veers further and further right and deep into fascism, bringing the GOP along with him, is only going to be a good thing.
Yes, there will be a period of "Dems in Disarray" as all of the Squad and their supporters are being primaried. (Jayapal is allegedly in the crosshairs now too, for her disgraceful dismissal of the rape of Jewsih women on CNN), but once they are out, the Democrats can run as the party of the center and normalcy and common sense-- all the things that worked for Biden in 2020.
Sorry, Robert, but Michelle Goldberg is right and you are wrong. And I'm particularly surprised that you, a trial lawyer, did not see it. The hearing with the college presidents was a set up from the beginning,. First, Stefanik defined "intifada" to mean genocide. In Arabic it has come to mean an uprising or rebellion, but not genocide. (As the first modern use was against the Hashemite monarchy in Iraq in the 1950s, it cannot have included genocide.) The presidents should have objected to the definition, but--having been poorly advised by their lawyers--they did not. Then, later, Stefanik's question about student conduct and genocide built on her original, maliciously wrong, definition. What the presidents should have done was to question the question, to say, "Excuse me, Congresswoman, but I am not aware that any of our students called for genocide." Which, as far as I know, is the truth. And there are a couple of other factors here. First, college codes for behavior are not self-enforcing, and a single instance even of "hate speech" would not be likely to earn more than an admonition. And second, college kids say stupid things. As I've noted out here, in 1935, the Oxford Union declared that its members would not die for king and country, but many of them did a few years later. I'm going on too long, so I'll conclude that the presidents did not acquit themselves very well, but they were poorly advised. They need to think more about public appearances like the one this week. And fire the lawyers who "advised" them.
I worry that justice will not prevail, that the courts are too courteous to Trump's continued delays. Lawrence O'Donnell said the courts are too slow and could go much faster.
I feel that we are being barraged with obstruction (the House Republicans) and the media continues to tout negative polls.
I wonder, too, about the perception of the economy and blaming Biden. The families who lost their child tax credit are indeed suffering but who are the Americans who are out there spending for the holidays, traveling with lower gas prices and lower airfares but also complaining about inflation?
I guess we hang tight and vote Blue in 2024.
It is hard to be patient while Trump's supporters cheer him on.
Shutting down the comments today. Some of the comments have devolved into arguments between a small handful of people. Comments and replies are fine. Running arguments belong on Twitter. I will have to figure this out. Apologies to everyone who wanted to post today.
I got the perception gap comparison to Europe perception discussion no problem.
I wonder if Americans are generally more pessimistic and angry these days than our European counterparts. As for the economy, I too feel the effects of inflation. As I have done multiple times in the past. Still, I don’t think the president and his administration can do much about these economic cycles, so I generally don’t blame them. The exceptions are those who choose to give big tax cuts to the wealthy. I didn’t believe the whole trickle down delusion in 1980 and I certainly don’t believe it now. Biden’s idea to grow the economy from the ground up and the middle out is just what we need. We do not need more Musks, Bezos, Koch’s, etc. There is too much wealth and power concentrated in too few people. As for those who say Musk and his ilk earned their billions, I say, yeah, on the backs of their workers.
Honestly, lately I've avoided reading anything with the word "T***p" in it - my head wants to explode whenever I do happen to read about the latest outrageous statements he spews out. This is also partly because I have had an overwhelming amount of real life bad news to deal with since Nov. 5, and need to start looking for a new job soon, among other things. It's been an unfortunately "interesting" 4th quarter of 2023 and I don't want to jinx myself by hoping that Q1 2024 will be better.
So mostly I read yours and Joyce Vance's essays and feel immense gratitude for the existence of the two of you (among many other notables here on Substack) and hope you stay healthy and safe through the holiday season, as there's a noticeable uptick in respiratory illnesses in recent weeks globally and most likely soon here in the U.S.
Thank you.
It is not evident in the extensive reporting on the subject of questioning by Elise Stefanik during the hearing Mr. Hubbell refers to in this post, that those writing about this event watched the video of Ms. Stefanik's questioning. I have provided medical-legal testimony hundreds of times and it requires extensive experience to respond appropriately when questioning is carried out in the tone and manner as exhibited by Ms. Stefanik. She utilizes the technique of rapid-fire delivery in an imperious tone which is intimidating to those with little experience being interrogated as a hostile witness would be. She also uses the technique of asking a long complicated question and demanding that it be answered yes or no. She also used the method of adding the word, "Correct?" at the end of a statement, thereby channeling the witness into endorsing how the interrogating party wishes to phrase things, rather than speak their own words. She also would interrupt the witness, which is intimidating and, frankly, disrespectful and bullying. In my view, Ms. Stefanik's questioning was not designed to explore or illuminate. It was designed to intimidate and sandbag the witness, and, reading the commentary about it, that proved successful. This was Ms. Stefanik's first question to Dr. Gay that included the word "intifada": "You are president of Harvard, so I assume you are familiar with the term 'intifada', correct?" It is evident from the response that the witness was not familiar with the term. She said, "I have heard that term, yes." Having heard a word and being "familiar" with it are two different things. Beyond that, being familiar with a word does not mean that a person is intimately aware of the precise definition of it. Therefore, Dr. Gay did not express familiarity - she only said she had heard it, which allows that she might not be familiar with the meaning of it. Ms. Stefanik than asserted, "And you understand that the use of the term 'intifada' in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict is indeed a call for violent, armed resistance against the state of Israel including violence against civilians and the genocide of Jews. Are you aware of that?" First, that characterization of the use of the word intifada is not accurate, since the word refers to a wide variety of actions resisting military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza following the 1967 war, and considered illegal under international law since that time, and the right of occupied populations to resist that occupation is recognized as legitimate. The first intifada, which began in 1987, was predominantly peaceful, for example (the first suicide bombing, for example, did not place until 1993), and the violence that did occur in the first 13-months of the first intifada brought about the deaths of 12 Israelis and 332 Palestinians. Therefore, Dr. Gay's answer should have been that Ms. Stefanik's characterization of "intifada' as synonymous with a call for genocide of Jews was inaccurate. Instead, Dr. Gay replied, "That type of personal speech is personally abhorrent to me." That answer is tangential and does not endorse that Ms. Stefanik's characterization of the meaning of the word "intifada" was correct. Ms. Stefanik then said, "And there have been multiple marches at Harvard with students chanting. 'There is only one solution, intifada revolution', and 'globalize the intifada', is that correct?" Dr. Gay replied, "I have heard that thoughtless, reckless and hateful language on our campus, yes." Here, Ms. Stefanik has effectively sandbagged Dr. Gay into appearing to endorse the incorrect characterization of what those phrases mean. For example, I take the "intifada revolution" to mean resistance of an illegal military occupation, which can refer to a wide variety of actions, including marching and chanting, as the students were doing, and that such actions should be carried out around the globe in solidarity with the aims of the Palestinians of the occupied territories to end that occupation. No doubt some would take the meaning further and advocate for violence, but those options do not define the term intifada as explicitly calling for genocide, which is what Ms. Stefanik is claiming it means. Ms. Stefanik then proceeded in her method of corralling Dr. Gay, she said, "So, based upon your testimony, you understand that this call for intifada is to commit genocide against the Jewish people in Israel and globally, is that correct?" That misstates Dr. Gay's testimony, which a review of the above summary makes clear. Dr. Gay then reverted to her boilerplate response about her personal abhorrence at this "hateful" speech. In her next question, Ms. Stefanik then expanded her claim that the term intifada and phrases that include it calls for "the elimination of Israel." That makes her characterization of the term even more inaccurrate. This is yet another method used in questioning by prosecutors facing a hostile witness. She then again mischaracterized Dr. Gay's testimony, claiming that she had testified that this was Dr. Gay's understanding of the word 'intifada." Similar close analysis of the remainder of Ms. Stefanik's additional 3-minutes of questioning of Dr. Gay reveals similar methods and mischaracterization. Unfortunately, the sound bites and headlines fail to reflect an appreciation for the complexity here. Frankly, this carelessness led to Mr. Hubbell to endorse the narrative that the responses of these three university presidents qualified as anti-semitic endorsement of genocide against the Jewish people. That is a gross mischaracterization, as the additional 3-hours of testimony, including the opening statements by each of the witnesses made clear. With regard to the question about whether Harvard would rescind admission offers or take other disciplinary students against students using the phrase "from the river to the sea" or the word "intifada advocating for themurder of Jews", here again, Rep. Stefanik further expands her assertion to name a different phrase, which is a sandbagging rhetorical device, for which this witness was not prepared. Mr. Hubbell claims that "As the question was starkly framed by Rep. Stefanik, that answer was self-evident." I disagree, and the above explication of the question-and-answer by Ms. Stefanik demonstrates. It is important to note that Ms. Stefanik's support of Israel is unqualified. In March of this year, when President Biden expressed concern about the state of democracy in Israel, in light of the effort to overhaul the judicial system to make it subordinate to the legislative branch, which Netanyahu directed as P.M. (efforts that brought about the most longstanding and massive protests Israel has ever seen), Ms. Stefanik said the next day 3/30/2023 that President Biden's remarks were "hostile" and "shameful." In the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict, it is crucial that words and phrases, and questions and the answers to them, be very carefully analyzed to avoid miscommunication that can then be exploited for political purposes.
I understand Judge Chutkan has to let these things play out to avoid the risk of the whole case getting tossed on a technicality, but are Trump’s attorneys intentionally trying to send their own careers and reputations down the crapper by pulling this kind of junk? Have they no dignity, or are they taking legal advice from the firm of Guiliani, Powell & Eastman? And Hunter Biden? And abundance of caution has given the special prosecutor too much leash and now the whole thing is an abundance of embarrassment that sounds like a Trump play for what he plans to do to ordinary private citizens.
Lawrence O’Donnell’s opening monologue tonight was an attack on the appeals court, which has yet to rule after many weeks about reinstating the gag rule. He’s arguing that Trump is a judicial terrorist, who is now succeeding in bullying the courts – although so far not judge Tanya. The three judge panel of appeals court judges must back her up. All pressure must be directed toward them, for not understanding the extraordinary threat that we face by allowing Trump to defy judicial authority. And garland is beneath contempt.
Robert, thank you for continuing to write, despite not feeling 100% well.
When a good chunk of your informed and motivated pro-democracy readers misread or misinterpret your columns, it's not surprising that less informed and motivated Americans are confused or uninformed about Biden's accomplishments, the complexity of border reforms, the implications of the wars against Putin's and Hamas's terrorism; the idiocy, ignorance, and traitorous intentions of many Congressional Republicans; etc., etc. I wish there were a cure so every American would pay attention and keep themselves informed and engaged. It's a complex world that demands our attention, and it can feel overwhelming. So much depends on each voter.
Thank you, Robert.
Yesterday, I read that WaPo article about the judge granting the pregnant woman leave to have an abortion. I gotta say, it felt like I was living in the Twilight Zone reading about this woman being treated like property, her fate in the hands of "those who know better."
Since R's are so obsessed with property rights over and above civil rights, her husband should countersue the State of Texas for tampering with his "property." Which leads me to the idea that maybe it should be up to the men who donated their sperm to decide whether a woman should have an abortion, and not the state. Rant over.
If, God forbid, something horrible happens to that woman in Texas trying to save her own life, I hope there are teams of lawyers lining up to charge Ken Paxton and Greg Abbott with murder. On the optimistic end - I hope she travels to a rational state with no Texas style interference. And I hope high school graduates previously focusing on attending UT, Rice, Texas Tech, etc, shift their goals in their very own interests of safety and apply to colleges in states where they can be safer.
P.S., Robert. I did not know you are not feeling well. Please take care of yourself first.
The US Holocaust museum and almost everyone else defines genocide as: "an internationally recognized crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group." Advocating genocide is less like free speech and more like a threat to the people who are the object of the proposed genocide. The three college presidents and the university trustees who are their bosses, should recognize that and act appropriately.
Erroneously describing an act as genocide is another matter. The Israeli response to the October 7th atrocities was particularly furious because they saw the violence as part of a plan and a promise to destroy the people of Israel. There is justification in seeing the atrocities in that way. The acts of the Israeli settlers on the West Bank, not nearly as well publicized, but murderous, nonetheless, could also be seen as part of a plan and a promise to destroy the Palestinians living in Palestine. That the government of Israel is arming and supporting and protecting those settlers is disgraceful.
The Israelis, however, have made clear the purpose of the bombing in Gaza -- initially, primarily, in the north and now primarily in Khan Yunis. The Israelis are attempting to destroy the tunnels deep underneath, tunnels that are the site of government and military organization, tunnels that are the haven of Hamas -- the imposed leaders of Gaza. The Israelis urged the people of northern Gaza to move south. Now they urge the people of specific areas within Khan Yunis to move. This is an imperfect way to protect civilians, but the bombing is not an act of genocide. It is not part of a plan or a promise to destroy Palestinians.
Until a few days ago, I could say the above with assurance. Then, Netanyahu announced a plan to occupy Gaza and remove many Palestinians, a plan, in effect, to make them no longer Palestinians. In making that proposal, in combination with the support for the settlers, Netanyahu makes his country more legitimately subject to charges of genocide, to charges that his bombing campaign are not really targeting Hamas, but are intended to destroy Gaza's Palestinians.
'
We can be grateful for Joe Biden's leadership. He has already denounced any plan for Israel to occupy Gaza. He is committed to creating a Palestinian state. Joe Biden has not achieved every single goal of his presidency, but he has achieved a lot. He may be able to achieve this goal, to create a Palestinian nation that, with the support of the international community, thrives and does not have genocidal intentions toward Israelis and Jews.
Joe Biden may be able to make Netanyahu and/or his supporters accept a Palestinian nation. Some Israelis have criticized Joe Biden for interfering in what are properly Israeli decisions. Netanyahu and his supporters, long ago, lost the right to make that argument. No foreign official has interfered with American politics more than Benjamin Netanyahu.
Robert,
As you know, I was one of the people who commented on the "perception problem". My point is that Democrats have not learned from the very effective Republican playbook. Most everyone on this forum wants Biden and team to elaborate on the terrific things that the administration has achieved. And they are many and wonderful.
But that is not how elections are won. People need to hear how things will be better if they vote for someone. True. But many people don't vote on an aspirational level. You and I might. Many here might. But most people are focused on their personal travails. Democrats need to clearly explain how so many efforts to improve America have been BLOCKED by Republicans. We need to play the same blame game - with the truth!
Immigration is a big problem. And WE have attempted to fix it. But the Republican Congress won't work with us to get it done. Turn the tables! Videos of families being separated. Videos of hard working folks from around the world building a better America. Videos of Ron DeSantis shooting innocent people at the border - yes, he just said we should do that!!!
Republicans call out their opponents vociferously. We should be doing the same thing! Senator Tuberville could be the poster child for treason! How many voters have a member of the military as friends or family? This is a gift of an ad. Tuberville endangers our troops. Video of Trump fawning over Putin. Audio: "What were these two men talking about in their secret meeting in Helsinki? Why are there no transcripts? No notes. What is this man hiding?" "Why are Republicans helping the enemy?"
What are we waiting for?
Most do want to know how the next administration will help with the list. Childcare, healthcare, homecare, eldercare...housing, clean water and food security. But they should know how the MAGA white supremacists are blocking progress on those issues.
Call them out! Videos of Clarence Thomas and Leonard Leo on vacation. Audio: "How was your vacation this year, did you enjoy that yacht and the fancy dinners aboard?" Video of Republican Oligarchs at a party. Audio: "This guy paid no taxes last year. What did you pay? Thanks Republicans!"
We are playing softball. MAGA is playing hardball. Time to change the game. And spend twice as much putting these attack ads on TicTok as we do MSM. It's where young people live and it's young people who will determine whether we fall into fascism or not.
Thank you for the link to Michelle Goldberg’s article. I agree. I was horrified by what I saw of the hearings, but not for the reasons that the media is seizing on. The panel felt like a McCarthyist rerun. The presidents failed precisely because instead of actually standing up for different perspectives on Israel and Palestine, they ended up with platitudes which were unconvincing. They could have given a clear answer about the horrors of genocide AND highlighted that being anti the state of Israel is in fact not antisemitism. That Jews around the world have different perspectives on Zionism and to demand allegiance with one view on campus is to limit every one’s freedom of speech and to undermine the very point of a university. In refusing to explicitly defend diverse ideas, they came across as beholden to donors and insincere.
Thank you for these (yet again) - even more so knowing you have been feeling poorly.
I am in full agreement with your take on The Three University Presidents.
A few thoughts on this:
1. It is mind-blowing that they either received no or terrible media training. Did no one think to tell them that "rolling your eyes contemptuously and sneering 'it depends on context' is not a great response."
Or that "when you say 'if it turns into conduct' that 99% of people will not grasp that you are making a subtle legal distinction and instead will hear "When they actually, you know, start killing the Jews, then it becomes an issue." -- that this is a national television audience, not a seminar room.
And that all three took the same miserable tactic... and now Elise Stefanik (of all people!!!) is the Great Defender of the Jews and enjoying, as today;s top NYT headline put it, "a viral moment."
2. This comes on the heels of another tone deaf Dems-in-the-House move where Raskin, Goldman and Nadler got caught up on the fact that the GOP bill denouncing antisemitism had an overly broad definition and so chose to tell their fellow Dems to vote "present" - and all they got for their efforts was a slew of "Dems In Disarray" headlines and an electorate that had little idea why they were doing what they did, giving the House GOP another big win. Too often our candidates get caught up in the fine print when national politics is a game of headlines.
3. If there is a silver lining to all this, it is that the "Woke Left" (for lack of a better term) has been thoroughly discredited over the past two months, especially those in academia. While it is important to note that none of these people are actually elected Democratic officials, Fox and their Friends have been adept at painting them as Democrats and stirring up outrage over the rantings of random adjunct professors.
So their implosion takes a key tool away from the Right Wing Media who can only report on how outraged former Sanders supporters are about his refusal to call for a cease fire for so long.
So yes, we will have moments where Laurence Tribe, Doug Emhoff and Josh Shapiro are praising Elise Stefanik rather than.a House Democrat, but in the long run, the ability to claim the center as Trump veers further and further right and deep into fascism, bringing the GOP along with him, is only going to be a good thing.
Yes, there will be a period of "Dems in Disarray" as all of the Squad and their supporters are being primaried. (Jayapal is allegedly in the crosshairs now too, for her disgraceful dismissal of the rape of Jewsih women on CNN), but once they are out, the Democrats can run as the party of the center and normalcy and common sense-- all the things that worked for Biden in 2020.
Sorry, Robert, but Michelle Goldberg is right and you are wrong. And I'm particularly surprised that you, a trial lawyer, did not see it. The hearing with the college presidents was a set up from the beginning,. First, Stefanik defined "intifada" to mean genocide. In Arabic it has come to mean an uprising or rebellion, but not genocide. (As the first modern use was against the Hashemite monarchy in Iraq in the 1950s, it cannot have included genocide.) The presidents should have objected to the definition, but--having been poorly advised by their lawyers--they did not. Then, later, Stefanik's question about student conduct and genocide built on her original, maliciously wrong, definition. What the presidents should have done was to question the question, to say, "Excuse me, Congresswoman, but I am not aware that any of our students called for genocide." Which, as far as I know, is the truth. And there are a couple of other factors here. First, college codes for behavior are not self-enforcing, and a single instance even of "hate speech" would not be likely to earn more than an admonition. And second, college kids say stupid things. As I've noted out here, in 1935, the Oxford Union declared that its members would not die for king and country, but many of them did a few years later. I'm going on too long, so I'll conclude that the presidents did not acquit themselves very well, but they were poorly advised. They need to think more about public appearances like the one this week. And fire the lawyers who "advised" them.
I worry that justice will not prevail, that the courts are too courteous to Trump's continued delays. Lawrence O'Donnell said the courts are too slow and could go much faster.
I feel that we are being barraged with obstruction (the House Republicans) and the media continues to tout negative polls.
I wonder, too, about the perception of the economy and blaming Biden. The families who lost their child tax credit are indeed suffering but who are the Americans who are out there spending for the holidays, traveling with lower gas prices and lower airfares but also complaining about inflation?
I guess we hang tight and vote Blue in 2024.
It is hard to be patient while Trump's supporters cheer him on.