Bring back the Whalers

Apparently it might just happen.

-Mr. Alec

Further proof of "Israeli Lobby" thesis?

USA Today reports:

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, responding to allegations that an anti-Israel bias is rampant on college campuses, approved recommendations Monday aimed at ensuring that Jewish college students are protected from anti-Semitic harassment.

The recommendations grew out of a November hearing at which speakers cited examples of anti-Semitic incidents. One frequently cited involved a 2004 documentary that said Middle East Studies faculty at Columbia University were intimidating Jewish students who defended Israel. (A faculty committee investigated and found no evidence of anti-Semitism.) Last September, a non-profit group called "StandWithUs" showed a 45-minute documentary depicting examples of anti-Israel speakers on campuses.

The commission, an independent, bipartisan federal agency that does not have enforcement powers, also urged university leaders to "set a moral example by denouncing anti-Semitic and other hate speech," and to ensure that Middle East studies departments protect the rights of all students.

A couple aspects of this rub me the wrong way:

First, why the hell is the reason for this recommendation the result of an incident that never happened? I'm referring to the Columbia University incident, in which the faculty committee not only found no evidence of anti-Semitism, but actually found that the academics in question had themselves been intimidated. No why would you launch a commission to protect something on an entirely corrupt premise?

Second, to me, this seems to dramatically cheapen the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. This is a governmental organization that has, and must to continue to ensure that the Voter Rights Act is enforced, or that egregious discrimination does not occur. This commission first started as the Civil Rights Commission in 1957, which was the dramatic first step towards civil rights legislation in this country. And now what is it doing? Wasting its time on a couple dozen professors who are just critical of Israel, but are regardless cast by some as having an anti-Semitic bias?

Apparently there is a demand that Jewish heritage be defined as a "national origin." But in what way is that "national origin" related to the state of Israel? Would such a clarification would that make criticism of the state of Israel an infringement on the rights of those who have Jewish heritage? If so, I can't think of something that would more dramatically retard academic inquiry into the politics and history of the Middle East.

But honestly, the type of "anti-Semitic" bias we are talking about here is not professors who assign the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as the gospel, we are talking about a handful of professors who are (overly) critical of Israeli governmental policies. How the hell does that infringe on anyone's rights, especially when the rest of the field is made up of scholars equally critical of the Arab and Palestinian regimes? What a waste of time for a once righteous commission.

-Mr. Alec

Healthcare progress

While Federal healthcare reform is unlikely to be attainable in the near future, it is great to see actual steps forward on the issue today, in Massachusetts (as opposed to Maryland's fantastic Wal-Mart law earlier this year, which I commented on here).

I am, of course, talking about a bill just hammered out that will come to as close to universal coverage as it gets. The plan is complex, but after skimming over it, it might just accomplish its goals at minimal costs—something the U.S. has yet to figure out.

Honestly, this is socialism I can get behind. Economically, I think markets have failed miserably at providing efficient health care in the U.S. On top of that, there is definitely a moral imperative to provide basic healthcare to citizens of this country. Right now that is not being accomplished. Bravo to Massachusetts for trying something new.

-Mr. Alec