Noli Irritare Leones

I wasn’t going to post on the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque,” because much of what I’d have said has already been said by others. What changed my mind is this week’s report of a CNN poll in which, as Talking Points Memo puts it,

According to the new survey, 68% of Americans are against building the Cordoba House, a Muslim community center planned to be constructed two blocks from the former site of the World Trade Center. Twenty-nine percent favor the plan.

In interpreting such polls, the actual phrasing of the question makes a big difference. So, here’s the actual question to which those Americans were responding:

As you may know, a group of Muslims in the U.S. plan to build a mosque two blocks from the site in New York City where the World Trade Center used to stand. Do you favor or oppose this plan?

Note that the question does not ask, should the government allow the Muslims to build Cordoba House, given that it’s on private property, and given that we do have a First Amendment? It asks “Do you favor or oppose this plan?” This means that the 68% of respondents who marked “oppose” may include both people who have so lost sight of the Bill of Rights that they think Muslims should be prevented from building Cordoba House, and also people, who, if asked more directly, would agree that they should have the legal right to that land use, but who feel uneasy about a mosque close to Ground Zero, and wish that it would be built further away. As Nate Silver puts it,

I imagine there is a spectrum of about five different positions that one might take on Cordoba House:

1) I support the project: its goals seem laudable, and it would be a welcome addition to the neighborhood.

2) I am indifferent about the project itself — I can see the arguments both for it and against it. But this is a free country, and the developers certainly have a right to express themselves.

3) I’d rather that the project weren’t built, especially so near to Ground Zero. But it’s certainly not the government’s business to stop its construction.

4) I’m opposed to the project and hope that it isn’t built. But I’m indifferent about whether or not the City should act to stop it.

5) I’m definitely opposed to the project, and the City should exercise its authority to prevent it from being built.

Arguably, responses 3 through 5 all qualify as “opposition” to the project, whereas only the first one indicates clear support. But one’s personal position on the mosque is not necessarily the same as thinking that the City should take affirmative steps to prohibit its construction by eminent domain laws by or other means, a position held by only those in Group 5. This is somewhat analogous to asking: “do you support or oppose flag-burning?”.

Now, I’ll be plain. I don’t, myself, oppose the building of Cordoba House in any way, shape, or form. I’m just fine with its construction, for many reasons.

I’m fine with Cordoba House for the reasons Katha Politt gives.

Park51, a k a Cordoba House, won’t be a mosque; it will be a $100 million, thirteen-story cultural center with a pool, gym, auditorium and prayer room. It won’t be at Ground Zero; it will be two blocks away. (By the way, two mosques have existed in the neighborhood for years.) It won’t be a shadowy storefront where radical clerics recruit young suicide bombers; it will be a showplace of moderate Islam, an Islam for the pluralist West—the very thing wise heads in the United States and Europe agree is essential to integrate Muslim immigrants and prevent them from becoming fundamentalists and even terrorists. “It’s a shame we even have to talk about this,” says Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a longtime supporter of the project….

I’m fine with Cordoba House, because I’ve seen a Youtube video made by someone walking through the area in which it’s proposed to be built, and this area, two blocks from Ground Zero, appears in the video as an ordinary neighborhood, where life goes on, not some sort of set apart hallowed ground. There are lots of things within two blocks of Ground Zero: the grave of Alexander Hamilton, three gay bars, twenty-five different churches.

I’m fine with Cordoba House because having the kind of moderate Muslims Osama Bin Laden hates promoting interfaith understanding right near Ground Zero strikes me as a great way to stick it to Al Qaeda, and display the commitment to freedom for which I prize the country he chose to attack.

I’m fine with Cordoba House because, as a Facebook friend of mine put it in one of her status messages,

To those opposed to the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque”, I ask, what about the families of Mohammed Salman
Hamdani, or Mohammad Sallahuddin Chowdhury, or Tariq Amanullah, or of any of the number of Muslim victims who were murdered on 9/11? Don’t they deserve a place close to the site to pray while they are mourning the loss of their loved ones?

For all of these reasons, if I’d been asked to participate in that poll, I’d have marked myself among the 29% who “support” the building of Cordoba House rather than among the 68% who “oppose” it. I support the building of Cordoba House. But I’m not offended if you don’t.

I’m not offended if you don’t, because for me the difference between Nate Silver’s positions 3 and 5 is vast. There are many, many things that neither pick my pocket nor break my leg, that I nevertheless “oppose” in the sense that I’d rather you not do them. I oppose, vehemently, Scientology’s opposition to psychiatric medicines, but as long as they simply propagate their unscientific nonsense about psychiatry, and don’t try to prevent people like my husband from taking the medicines he needs as much as he needs the medicines he also takes for his diabetes, then they neither pick my pocket nor break my leg, and, as propagating their unscientific nonsense is covered by the First Amendment, they should be permitted to continue to do so. I oppose flag burning, and have helped to talk people out of it when they proposed to do it at demonstrations I attended, but I think it’s protected by the First Amendment. I oppose all use of religion to promote the oppression of women, whether the religion in question is Islam, Christianity, or some other faith. But as long as you’re using words to encourage women to consign themselves to a subordinate position, rather than force to keep them there, the old saying holds, that “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

And if you think the builders of Cordoba House are insensitive in their choice of location, if you wish they’d take their community center elsewhere, if you think building it two blocks from Ground Zero won’t promote the reconciliation between faiths that they say they want, if you really, really dislike the idea of seeing any sort of mosque that close to Ground Zero, but you agree that they have, and ought to have, the legal right to build Cordoba House on the private property where it’s proposed to be built, then I can accept your position. Because Cordoba House isn’t entitled to your approval, and it isn’t entitled to your love. What it’s entitled to, as a private property use that neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg, and that is protected by the First Amendment, is the same respect for its legal rights as we accord the twenty-five churches that are already in that two block radius. Mayor Bloomberg puts it well.

The simple fact is this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship.”The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right – and if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question – should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion?”

I would defend, as a matter of free speech, your right to say anything you damn well please about the group that is planning to build Cordoba House, and I’ll defend, as a matter of freedom of religion guaranteed by that same First Amendment, their right to build their community center, and not be blocked by someone pulling out eminent domain just because he doesn’t like their religion. The First Amendment holds for all private property, whether that private property is in Tennessee, or California, or two blocks from Ground Zero.

Technology News Department: The Ushahidi blog introduces Crowdmap.

Mashable on how to avoid a social media disaster.

Saudi Arabia is allowing Blackberries again. The Economist reflects on Spies, secrets and smart-phones.

Der Spiegel on the effectiveness of antivirus software, Google and privacy, and Wikileaks.

Racism and the Tea Party Department: David Weigel argues that it’s a myth that the Tea Party is racist.

Yes, there are racists in the tea party, and they make themselves known. But tea party activists usually root them out.

Lurleen at Pam’s House Blend argues the opposite.

I think that if you have to remind your whole membership not to carry signs that are racist, it’s a tacit admission that there’s plenty of racist propensity in the ranks.

Economic News Department: US expert calls for policies to avoid entry barriers to trade (via my sister).

The Economist says that London’s economy is coming up for air.

Kathimerini also sounds an optimistic note today.

Anyone who follows Greece closely will note that the intensity of true public discontent has been surprisingly low. It appears that however unhappy many people may be with a reduced income and the fact that their country has been shamed by thieves and incompetents, they also understand the need for reforms. There is far greater public tolerance of the need for reforms than we were conditioned to expect during the decades in which no government dared take on the unions nor do anything else to upset voters. This tolerance of change, however, has been offset by the way in which the bank employees’ deaths and the gangland-style murder of a journalist by terrorists have merged with the general image of Greece in international media. Again, Greeks have done about as much as they can to make their country’s image as bad as it is, but it is far from being a «war zone,» as the Sect of Revolutionaries sociopaths would like to portray it.

Miscellaneous Department: A Flickr pool of Greek vacation photos.

A potential new therapy for Alzheimers.

Muslim-baiting loses in Tennessee.

The Economist on Europe’s irreligious. It doesn’t surprise me that Greece turns out to be one of the countries with the highest church attendance (not that the Greeks I know are all super religious, but it’s hardly Belgium).

Ms. Magazine, in a global news round up, finds Kenya’s new constitution more women friendly than the previous version, and gives updates on a death sentence of stoning for adultery in Iran (for which you can sign a petition) and a report on gender benders in Sudan.

Rwanda is holding presidential elections today, amid criticism by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch of attacks on politicians and journalists prior to the polls. The Economist writes about President Paul Kagame under scrutiny. Thousands of Rwandans living in Uganda have came to a polling station to vote, as members of the Rwanda Diaspora around the world voted at their respective embassies a day ahead of the election in Rwanda. A twenty member team from the African Union is in Rwanda to observe the elections.

The UN plans to return its embassies and charitable organizations to Somalia in two months. The embassies and organizations have been based in Nairobi, capital of Kenya, since 1993.

Chris Blattman on Is aid depressing?

Charles E. Jackson on How Do Friends Know What They Know?

The Wall Street Journal has been doing an interesting series on What They Know. For instance, here’s an article on the holes in online anonymity, here’s one on stalking by cell phone, and here’s one on how to avoid prying eyes.

Marvin Ammori at Balkinization on Posting A Guide to the Network Neutrality Discussions at the FCC and About the Verizon/Google “Deal” on Net Neutrality (which may or may not come to pass, since the last word was that Google was denying it). See also Tim Wu’s Network Neutrality FAQ.

From the German business and finance magazine manager, an article about the reaction of German billionaires to the Gates and Buffett initiative to persuade other billionaires to join them in pledging to give away half their money, before or after they die, and an article on the hit the Greek retail trade is taking in the wake of the austerity measures. And a similar article in Der Spiegel about shops closing in Athens.

From the Greek news site in.gr, an article on how the new head of the organization of social security promises to crack down on tax evasion.

While I personally am expecting Vaughn Walker’s decision on Proposition 8 to get overturned on appeal (just on the general principle that the current Supreme Court has a conservative majority), I could prove wrong. Dahlia Lithwick argues that Vaughn Walker’s factual findings are both well reasoned and nicely tailored to influence swing vote Justice Kennedy, and Nate Silver argues that some intangibles might cause Kennedy to lean toward supporting same-sex marriage. Scott Lemieux still thinks Kennedy will probably come down against a right to same-sex marriage. Vikram Amar argues that the decisive battle may happen not in the Supreme Court, but in the Ninth Circuit, and also gives a reason for Walker’s stay of his own decision.

… California already saw firsthand in 2004 what happened when San Francisco began marrying gay and lesbian couples before the California Supreme Court’s recognition of a right to same-sex marriage. The result was, months later, those marriages were voided.

If licenses are issued based on Walker’s ruling, and the higher courts reverse Walker – a real possibility – then these interim marriages probably will be similarly undone….

Opinions on Gay Rights Vary a Lot by State, with majority support in several states. (The last poll result in California was a slender majority in favor of same-sex marriage, but a majority slim enough that it’s anyone’s guess whether Proposition 8 would win or lose if it were up for a vote today.)

Maybe I’m lucky I’m not all that pretty, given that I’m a computer professional. Pretty women face discrimination when applying for jobs that are considered masculine

Douglas Eby on Not Knowing – More Creativity.

An article in the New York Times on Battles Around Nation Over Proposed Mosques.

Ramadan begins tomorrow.

An article in the Economist on Defying gravity and history. Despite dire predictions of a repeat of the 1930s, trade is bouncing back.

Oxytocin increases trust, but only under certain conditions. And this is a good thing. Via Scarleteen’s Twitter feed.

Under Pressure: The Search for a Stress Vaccine.

Find Out Where You Can Recycle Rechargeable Batteries.

And a music video passed on by one of my cousins:

This will be one of those meandering posts where I try to figure out what I think about certain things, rather than the better organized sort where I’m already sure what my conclusions are. Here’s where I comment on several posts that are related only in the sense that they’re all somehow about sexual or romantic relationships. Let’s start with Jay’s account of how he found his ex-boy friend on Facebook, and his husband is just fine with that.

I don’t know what I expected when I friended him, but it wasn’t what has developed over the last year. John and I have an ongoing Email conversation; we talk on the phone a few times a week; we check in with each other when we’re traveling. We’ve written volumes about what happened way back then – about the choices we made, the places we went, the ways in which we hurt each other and helped each other and taught each other and loved each other. We’ve dug up old photos and traded new ones. We’ve had lunch together, alone, and we’ve visited each other’s homes. We’ve even visited each other’s mothers, who both still live in the houses we grew up in. John’s mother started to cry when she saw me walk in the door. My mother keeps asking when he’s coming back to visit her again.

And many of my friends are astonished and skeptical. Not my husband – Sam is unconcerned – but my friends. I didn’t expect that, either. “Playing with fire”, they observe. “I could never do that”. “Are you sure this is a good idea?” “Are you still attracted to him?” Well, yes, actually, I am, but that doesn’t mean we’re going to end up in a hotel room together.

To me, reconnecting (in a platonic way) with exes on Facebook is the epitome of a “your mileage may vary” situation. Sometimes, it’s playing with fire. Sometimes, not so much. It depends on the exes involved, and their current relationships, and so on. Some people are friends far longer than they’re lovers (or far more friends than lovers all along), while with others, once the passion’s gone, it turns out there wasn’t much friendship there. Different people have different comfort levels with their spouses’ friendships with exes. Some people have always connected and reconnected with exes with no problems, while with others, I think I’ll borrow a passage in which Hugo Schwyzer describes his own experience.

I’ve become fairly rigid about my boundaries in recent years, largely because in my past I got into so much trouble for not being so. In my youth, I had plenty of “platonic” friendships with women that sizzled with barely unexpressed sexual tension. I figured that infidelity was an action, not a thought or a desire; I allowed myself to indulge in the narcissistic pleasure of these non-sexual (but tense) friendships for years. Another thing I did to harm all three of my previous wives was to maintain strong, ultimately inappropriate friendships with exes and other women with whom I had a “past.”

I’ve heard stories of exes reconnecting on Facebook that fall everywhere from fairly screaming to me “these people are playing with fire,” to sounding as if these people and their current loves are going to be just fine.

My hunch is that, if there’s a piece of general advice here, it has to do with the questions you need to ask, in setting your boundaries with people you may have slept with or loved or had a crush on in the past, and not necessarily with what the actual boundary should be. And also with the way you and your actual partner communicate about all the exes. I’d feel uneasy either telling people in the kind of relationship where all exes are kept at a distance, or people in the kind of relationship where some of their exes are close friends, that they’re doing it wrong. Unless I think I have a good enough feel for what’s going on in that particular relationship to say something about its danger signs (and the person I’m talking to is likely to be open to that sort of advice).

But how far does your mileage actually vary, when it comes to choices about sex? Here I turn to the next post, from Jaclyn Friedman, a post on Feministe that was later carried on Jezebel entitled My Sluthood, Myself, in which Jaclyn Friedman describes the benefits of embracing her own sluthood through a series of casual Craiglist encounters.

I’m telling you this because juries still think women who even look like they might possibly be sluts are “asking for it.” I’m telling you this because some people still think it’s OK to drive a teenage girl to suicide because she was probably a slut. I’m telling you this because our policymakers would rather girls get sometimes-fatal diseases than be perceived as condoning sluthood. I’m telling you this because it’s important for everyone to understand: Sluthood isn’t a disease, or a wrong path, or a trend that’s ruining our youth. It isn’t just for detached, unemotional women who “fuck like men,” (as if that actually meant something), consequences be damned. It isn’t ever inevitable that sluthood should inspire violence or shame. Sluthood isn’t just a choice we should let women make because women should be free to make even “bad” choices. It’s a choice we should all have access to because it has the potential to be liberating. Healing. Soul-fulfilling. I’m telling you this because sluthood saved me, in a small but life-altering way, and I want it to be available to you if you ever think it could save you, too. Or if you want it for any other reason at all. And because even if you don’t ever want sluthood for yourself, you’re going to be called upon to support a slut. I’m telling you this because when that happens, I want you to say yes.

The lines that caught my eye here are “Sluthood isn’t just a choice we should let women make because women should be free to make even “bad” choices” and “even if you don’t ever want sluthood for yourself, you’re going to be called upon to support a slut.” Because they raise a question: What choices, actually, am I morally/ethically obliged to positively affirm as positive choices (for someone, if not for me), as opposed to simply accepting as choices people should be free to make even if they’re bad choices? To draw this out, I’ll imagine a set of choices that a person could make involving sex.

I could start by picturing these choices as if they were a single line, spanning a spectrum of how much you want your sexual activity tied to commitment and relationship. It might span from “I’m not even going to kiss until my wedding day” to “I routinely cruise for anonymous sex.” Probably many of us find the thought of some point on this continuum – perhaps even both ends of the continuum – viscerally unpleasant to imagine. Are all points on this continuum actually positive choices for someone? Do they all, if engaged in by consenting adults, deserve support, not just as “bad” choices that people should be free to make anyway, but as possibly liberating and positive choices?

Now let’s complicate the line by adding more options. Some might involve choices of a partner of whom someone else may disapprove (but with everyone being a consenting adult), perhaps interracial relationships or perhaps relationships where one person is barely legal and the other old enough to be the first one’s parent or grandparent. Some might involve different choices about how to handle attraction to your own sex. One person, perhaps, feels bound by Christian beliefs to stay celibate, another joins a program that offers to change his or her orientation to straight, a third looks for a gay-affirming church, and a fourth gives up on Christianity altogether precisely because of the sexual constraints of the church in which he or she was raised. Some might involve choices of what you do in bed, some might involve choices about how much care you take to protect yourself from STDs, and some might involve choices about when you are ready to have children. Some may involve having sex for pay, or paying someone else to have sex. Some might involve different boundaries about what you consider fidelity: Is porn a dealbreaker? What kinds of friendships with exes are you OK with? Have you agreed to be monogamous at all? Some might involve lifelong religious vows of abstinence, and others might involve never having sex because you’re simply asexual. But in all cases, everyone involved (well, except any children who may be born) is a consenting adult. Nearly all (everything except the choices involving sex for pay) are legal, and if you apply the “does not pick my pocket or break by leg” standard of libertarianism, you might well want all of them to be legal. But which of them are you bound to affirm as good choices?

I can imagine several answers, but they don’t entirely satisfy me.

First option: I ought to affirm anything consenting adults choose as a positive choice for them. This doesn’t satisfy me because I know that people make lots of choices that are lousy choices for them. I’ve done it. You’ve probably done it. Moreover, some choices may nearly always be lousy choices. Some choices may even always be lousy choices. Some choices don’t even seem possible to simultaneously affirm; while you may, in principle, both be able to support one person’s choice to save sex for marriage and another person’s choice to have tons of sex without any marriage plans, the choice to try to become ex-gay in practice depends on the belief that there’s something wrong with homosexuality.

Second option: I don’t have to affirm or support any of them. I might be obliged to leave them legal, since they don’t pick my pocket or break my leg, but neither do I pick anyone’s pocket or break anyone’s leg by believing their sexual choices to be bad choices. This one doesn’t entirely satisfy me either, because, though I certainly have the right to disapprove of any choices, at least some of the choices I’ve listed (such as, say, the choice to be in an interracial relationship) are ones where I’d think you wrong and bigoted if you object.

Third option: I owe your choices support, whether you’re choosing something I’d be willing to choose or not, if I can see that your choices are positive for you, and that other people’s condemnation does you harm. This comes closer to how I feel than the other two, but it’s still not quite the whole story, since I think there are at least some choices that should be presumed to be positive and deserving of support even if you don’t personally know anyone who’s made that choice.

To me, those would particularly be choices involving marriage, and the people you need to stand by in sickness and in health; “in sickness and in health” implies a need for social support, in the form of admission to that hospital bed, and time off from work, and the like. For that reason, as long as both people involved appear to be willingly making choices they’re happy about, I’d like the relationship to be presumed innocent, and the social support it gets to be as ungrudging as possible, unless one can come up with a really good reason to the contrary.

And then there are other questions: Suppose you do think someone’s choices are bad and foolish ones, what kinds of respect do you owe those choices anyway? For instance, maybe you think waiting to marry before you have your first kiss is just about the dumbest idea you’ve ever heard, but that the person who holds that boundary still deserves not to be harassed and pressured out of it. Or maybe you totally disagree with Jaclyn Friedman that casual sex can ever be a positive choice, but firmly agree with her that it’s wrong that

I’m telling you this because juries still think women who even look like they might possibly be sluts are “asking for it.” I’m telling you this because some people still think it’s OK to drive a teenage girl to suicide because she was probably a slut. I’m telling you this because our policymakers would rather girls get sometimes-fatal diseases than be perceived as condoning sluthood.

And, finally, if I say that my choices are making me happy, when is it OK for you to say I’m wrong, and that my choices aren’t making me happy? Never? Only directly to me, if you and I know each other well enough for me to offer that feedback, and I see the signs that you’re not as happy as you’re pretending? Or any time I think your argument is leading people astray? (Personally, I lean toward the second, “only directly to me, if you and I know each other well enough” option.)

And now come the final, totally unrelated post on which I want to comment, a post at a Psychology Today blog entitled Trading Roses for Weeds, that I found via a critique of the post at Jezebel. Psychology Today blogger Anastasia Harrell writes:

Your boyfriend makes fun of you for crying during The Notebook, even though you have already seen it twelve times. He criticizes your lack of culinary expertise (hey, even the great and powerful Paula Deen must have burned a few pots of spaghetti in her early years!). He even forces you to sit through both Transformers, (“No, no, I don’t think Megan Fox is hot. I’m just really into robots…”). Thinking back on the injustices we endure due to of our significant others, sensitivity always seems to be high on the list of attributes women find most attractive in a potential boyfriend. We say we want someone who surprises us with daisies just because it’s Tuesday, serenades us with his acoustic guitar, and bakes us brownies when we desperately need a chocolate fix. However, when brought face to face with a man who is truly devoted to romanticism, we quickly dismiss him. No longer considered swoon-worthy, his antics evoke discomfort and sheer terror in the hearts of women everywhere.

Naturally, I don’t recognize myself in this quote. My husband doesn’t make fun of me for crying over The Notebook, a movie I have never watched and haven’t the least desire to watch. He has shown no more interest in watching Transformers than I have in watching The Notebook. We’re both fine with the fact that he’s a better cook than I am. And when we admire hot actresses, we admire them together.

But most of all, the quote talks as if there’s one single thing called “romance” that we either crave or find terrifying, instead of various “romantic” things that people do, some of which we like and some of which fall flat. Do I really want “someone who surprises us with daisies just because it’s Tuesday, serenades us with his acoustic guitar, and bakes us brownies when we desperately need a chocolate fix”? Well, it’s hard to go wrong serenading me with your acoustic guitar. I love being serenaded, and I don’t much care whether you sing me “When I’m 64″ or “When You Are Old and Gray.” I’ve been charmed by “Like a Rolling Stone,” by “Four and Twenty Years Ago,” and by “Do me with your hot monkey love.” If someone, like the reality TV show contestant Anastasia Harrell describes, “performed an impromptu (off-key) serenade after a helicopter ride,” it’s very unlikely I’d be running for the exits because of the impromptu serenade.

But that doesn’t mean that I’d be charmed by the rest of the things he’s described as doing, and find them oh-so-romantic. Like Anna North at Jezebel, I don’t think being told I look imaginary sounds like all that charming a compliment, and having someone tattoo himself with my name before I’ve even indicated I like him sounds downright creepy, rather than romantic.

As for getting daisies just because it’s Tuesday, there are several gifts of flowers that I remember fondly. Not all of them are romantic; one is a bunch of roses that my parents brought me when I was four years old and miserable in the hospital (I remember Dad bringing the flowers and Mom bringing a book, but probably they both got both presents), and another is a flower picked for me by a five-year-old child. But some are; I got a couple of flowers from guys in college, that I loved and saved, and once, when I still worked swing shift and slept late, my husband slipped out in the morning for a bouquet of roses and brought it to me in bed. But I’ve also gotten tons of gifts of flowers about which I felt meh, carnations from merchants trying to sell me something or other. If I’m prepared to love you, I’ll love your flowers, but if not, you’re not guaranteed to get any mileage out of daises just because it’s Tuesday.

Romance, you see, really is one of those things where your mileage may vary. Faced with a man truly devoted to romanticism, I may love him or want to get away from him, depending on just what sort of romanticism he’s devoted to. I find my husband the most romantic guy I’ve ever dated, and I’m happy with that. But from the sounds of the reality star, and particularly the bit with the tattoo, I think I’d have dumped him.

Kenyans approved a new constitution in a referendum yesterday, in a landslide vote in which two thirds of the electorate voted YES (with only over 50% required to approve).

… The Yes campaign, led by President Kibaki, 79, and Prime Minister Raila Odinga, 65, had a disorganised start, although opinion polls consistently showed them leading.

The No group, led by several churches, a few dissident ministers, most notably Higher Education minister William Ruto, and former president Daniel arap Moi, 86, looked in good early form.

More impassioned, and exploiting the emotional issues of abortion, which it claimed (inaccurately) was being legalised by the proposed constitution through an ambiguous clause, and the fact the (Islamic family) kadhi courts had been retained, the No side was on message straight from when the whistle blew.

However, the document was loaded with too many attractive clauses to lose. Its bill of rights is easily the most ambitious in Africa. It dramatically reduces the power of the president, expands parliamentary oversight over the executive, and provides for dual citizenship….

While the No camp skipped a planned joint briefing with the Yes camp, “called to urge Kenyans to maintain peace during and after the referendum,” church leaders opposed to the new constitution had said in advance that they were prepared to accept the results of the referendum, and the de facto leader of the No camp has conceded defeat.

Bloggers on the new Kenyan constitution:

A summary by Kenyan blogger bankelele of the provisions of the new constitution.

Kenya’s referendum live updates from Global Voices.

Wanjiku’s Take writes

On the referendum day, the iHub was buzzing and there were more laptops than you can think, after all, there was proof that this was going to be a very tech day for the team monitoring via www.uchaguzi.co.ke

burekabisa.blogspot.com thinks that It’s The Media That Won It.

Well done to our media for the vigorous and positive campaign of backing the proposed draft constitution. The result is a thundering YES victory from the majority of Kenyans who voted overwhelmingly YES. As this famous front page from Britain’s biggest selling tabloid shows in 1992, The Sun helped the Tories to win. Well, I think in our case it’s the Media wot won it for all of us! Congrats!

The Godfather is proud of the vote.

Kenyans have today, 4th August 2010, risen to the occasion and shown the whole world that political maturity and level headed-ness can be real virtues and central fabric that hold a Nation together even when push comes to shove! The whole world waited and was almost certain that Kenya would boil over again at this crucial Decision making process but wapi? Kenyans trooped to polling centers countrywide a voted a resounding YES to pass a New Constitution. I hear Kibera residents, who in the 2007 regrettable election skirmishes uprooted the Kenya Uganda Railway in protest at the flawed election are today organizing themselves to wash that very Railway! lol (Twitter joke!)….

Harvest Tone blogs a Ghetto Radio account of Kenyan voters’ experiences.

Kenyan points of discord is jumping up and down for joy at the new constitution.

Drima the Sudanese Thinker shares a Youtube of a meeting of Muslim mystic An-Na’im with the Dalai Lama. An-Na’im is also a law professor at Emory University. Here is an article of his at the Huffington Post on Thomas Jefferson, Islam and the State.

On a gloomier note, 452 cases of polio have been confirmed in Tajikistan since February, a resurgence in a formerly polio free country that represents a major setback to the WHO’s effort to eliminate polio.

For much of the past decade, it appeared polio’s last stand would be in Africa and South Asia, which have borne the brunt of the viral disease in recent years. As recently as 2007, polio was restricted to just four nations. The roughly 600 cases so far this year are scattered across 16 countries.

Its arrival in Tajikistan and Russia, part of a region declared polio-free in 2002, illustrates the easy spread of germs in an era of global travel and the challenge of maintaining vigilance in impoverished regions.

Uganda: Drought Tolerant Maize Trials Approved.

… Uganda is among five countries that are participating in the five-year Wema project aimed at developing maize varieties that can withstand the semi-arid conditions that characterise the greatest part of Africa. Others are Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique and South Africa. It is a public-private partnership project led by the national agricultural research systems in the respective countries. Other institutions involved include the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre and Monsanto.

The Nairobi-based non-profit organisation, the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF) is coordinating the project while National Agricultural Research Organisation is leading the implementation of Wema activities in Uganda….

East Africa Private Sector Gets U.S.$1.8 Million Boost from the African Capacity Building Foundation.

SAPPI, South Africa’s most global company and the world’s biggest producer of glossy paper, is back in the black.

Nnedi Okorafor’s fantastic journey into Sci-Fi.

Innovation Clusters and Systems in Africa.

Achieving an Indigenous Green Revolution.

Media Moment: Newspapers Circulating in Africa.

Medical Investments in East Africa.

Kenya Airways in ‘Year of Peace’ Campaign with AU.

African Entrepreneurs You Should Know.

TRY Women’s Oyster Harvesting Association.

I had already planned, this morning, to talk a little about Turkey (including a short news round up). And, checking Hurriyet, I see that today is an eventful day to pick, for the top headline reads Turkey to help probe Israeli flotilla raid.

Israel has agreed to cooperate with an international inquiry into its deadly raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla, as urged by U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon, who announced Monday that Turkey would take part in the probe.

According to the secretary-general, the four-member panel probing the incident will be chaired by former New Zealand Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer and include both an Israeli and a Turk. The panel will begin its work Aug. 10 and submit its first progress report by mid-September.

Maybe this means Israel and Turkey will be settling their differences after all. I suppose we’ll see.

Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post confirm, with the Haaretz headline reading Netanyahu: Israel has nothing to hide from UN Gaza flotilla probe.

This is the first time Israel has ever agreed to participate in a UN probe regarding the Israel Defense Forces. It is also the first time Israel will be represented on a UN committee dealing with its activities.

In Monday’s statement, Netanyahu said that Israel had decided to be a part of the probe since it had “nothing to hide.”

“The opposite is true,” the premier said, adding that it was in “Israel’s national interest to ensure that the factual truth regarding the flotilla incident would be exposed for the world to see,” saying truth was “the principle we are promoting through this decision.”

Corresponding with Netanyahu’s affirmation of Israel’s participation, UN Secretary General Ban officially announced Israel’s participation in the international inquiry, calling it an “unprecedented development.”

But what I meant to say about Turkey is that I feel that US hawks have a pattern of seeing it in black and white, our great friend one moment, and, well, very much not our friend the next moment. I can remember back when Andreas Papandreou was Prime Minister of Greece (of which his son George is now Prime Minister), reading an editorial in which someone grumbled that Greece wasn’t much of an ally because it was spending its time quarreling with our good friend Turkey instead of supporting US foreign policy, and thinking, hello, can you really not see that Turkey has its share in that quarrel? And I can remember later, when Turkey (already supporting the US with troops in Afghanistan) showed reluctance to leap to our support in the planned way with Iraq, seeing some similar comment about how Turkey wasn’t much of a friend, and thinking, hello, can you really not see why Turkey might not want a war right next to it that might further stir up its own Kurds?

Of course, there are times when our interests with our ostensible allies may diverge enough that we may reasonably wonder whether we’re allies any more (see the reports about Wikileaks documents showing continuing support for the Taliban from the ISI in Pakistan). But Turkey, Greece, and Israel, whatever any of us may think of their policies past and present, are all pretty clearly currently allies to the US. Just allies with their own concerns and interests.

Since conflict with Turkey is not now nearly at the top of Greece’s current concerns, and Greece’s foreign policy not nearly at the top of anyone’s current concerns about Greece, I’ll move on soon to the Turkish news part of this round up, but not before noting what today’s top stories from Greece actually are. A truck driver strike has ended, Greece continues to work on reforms to satisfy the IMF, and Athens hopes to mediate between Serbia and Kosovo. Also, unsurprisingly for the ruling party in a country whose economy continues to suck, PASOK’s approval ratings are waning.

Back to Turkey. Andrew Sullivan notes an aspect to Turkish foreign relations that isn’t about Israel, relaying comments from one of his readers on Turkey, Britain, and Oil.

The recent screeching coming from the neocon stands with regard to Turkey seem to miss the fact Turkey is emerging as the major energy broker of the region with the help of the UK. Take the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline for instance. As its name implies, this pipeline takes crude oil from the Caspian fields all the way to the Mediterranean Turkish sea port of Ceyhan. The pipeline, which came into full operation in May 2006, has for its largest shareholder a company called BP (30.1%). Then there is the South Caucasus pipeline (December 2006), which takes natural gas along the same route as the previously mentioned pipeline but ends up at Erzurum in Turkey instead, where it is joined by the Tabriz-Ankara pipeline coming from the gas fields of Iran (yes, Iran). BP is also an important shareholder of the South Caucasus pipeline (25.5%). The geo-strategic aims of these two projects were to diversify the energy supplies and lessen Europe’s dependence on Russian oil and gas.

This may explain UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s recent support for a Turkish membership in the EU. The BBC has a round up of reactions to Cameron’s remarks, both positive and negative, among the British press.

Another question of interest, in considering Turkey’s foreign policy, is what the actual differences are between the two main parties, the ruling AKP and the opposition CHP. The other day, Hurriyet has an article on The CHP’s foreign policy stance.

To sum it up, K?l?çdaro?lu’s remarks about Iran reflects a clear-cut stance against the government’s policy. According to the CHP chairman, the support that the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, government provides to Iran and the “exchange” agreement signed with Iran have caused isolation of Turkey in international arena. As K?l?çdaro?lu put, the P-5+1 group was not in content with efforts of Turkey.

However, the CHP leader said that he doesn’t want any of our neighboring countries to own nuclear weapons.

Remarks of K?l?çdaro?lu on the Mavi Marmara humanitarian aid ship assault are quite interesting. The CHP holds the government party responsible because of the deaths on board. And the CHP asserts that the ship was sent to the area despite Israeli warnings and the government knew it. K?l?çdaro?lu claims some dark forces were involved in the crisis and the AKP aimed to change political agenda in the country. He asked the release of information that has been held so far.

K?l?çdaro?lu kept on criticizing the government on the Hamas issue as well. Of the AKP siding with Hamas is a deadly mistake, K?l?çdaro?lu said.

Clearly, there are sharp differences between the two parties on foreign policy. At the same time, the Central Asia Caucasus Institute Silk Road Studies Program has an article that predates the flotilla incident by two months, discussing the ways in which, under either party, Turkey still has some foreign policy interests that diverge from the West.

On a personal level, both parties’ foreign policy is shaped by three former ambassadors, ?ükrü Elekda? and Onur Öymen in theCHP and Deniz Bölükba?? in MHP. Their respective diplomatic careers have been dominated by issues – Cyprus, the Armenian problem, and the PKK – that for years have brought Turkey and its Western partners into conflict. Turkish nationalists tend to suspect Turkey’s Western allies of harboring designs against Turkey’s territorial integrity. Indeed, it is principally against this emotional backdrop that the secularist nationalists assail the foreign policies of the AKP.

One of the significant political players in Turkey is the army. An article yesterday in Haaretz discusses the ways in which the struggle between Turkey’s secular army and Erdogan’s moderate Islamist AKP party have heated up in the past week.

One of the current political struggles in Turkey is over a proposed constitutional referendum on September 12, which the AKP supports and the CHP opposes. Here, the CHP has made a recent attempt to politically outmaneuver the AKP.

The main opposition party has proposed a change to the law governing the internal operations of the Turkish Armed Forces, or TSK, that it says is needed to de-legitimize future military coups in the country….

Critics interpreted the move, however, as a way for the party to avoid being seen as pro-coup because of its opposition to the Sept. 12 constitutional referendum, which the ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, has sought to position as a referendum on the 1980 coup.

The CHP submitted a parliamentary motion Thursday requesting a partial change to Article 35 of the TSK’s Internal Service Law, which currently describes the task of the Armed Forces as “to watch over and protect the Turkish country and the Turkish Republic designated by the Constitution.” …

Meanwhile, the Kurdish situation remains a matter of ongoing concern in Turkey. Sabah’s English edition today carries a front page story about how

An outburst by Sabri Özdemir, who lost three siblings to a mine explosion set up by the PKK terrorist organization, resulting in forcing a committee of Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) members to leave the funeral ceremony.

Your brain surfing the Internet.

10 Reasons to Stop Apologizing for Your Online Life (via my sister).

The Spam Scam Slam Game.

Britain joins the cyber security race.

Quantum cryptography: Secure cryptography is only as safe as its weakest link.

Conservative blogger Reihan Salam defends Journolist and thinks the right can learn from it.

Taiwan’s computer animated history of Sarah Palin.

The EFF on why people jailbreak their iPhones.

How Facebook is like television. (I’m not sure how far I agree with this one. As happens everywhere else, people do share the most flattering and happy things about themselves on Facebook, but it actually looks more slice of life and less cool-things-I’ve-done than the average news from my classmates in my alumni magazine.)

On the other hand, if you want to follow this advice, you probably don’t want your Facebook feed to be all about your drunken escapades and screw ups: 7 Secrets to Getting Your Next Job Using Social Media.

Want to know how to value that charitable donation? Here’s a Salvation Army page that will help.

Predicting the Unpredictable and why worry doesn’t help you much.

Sometimes Aunt Beth wonders where she misplaced her memory. Such were her thoughts last night, as she laid out her medications for the week. She placed the orange pill bottles next to the box, with its slots for morning, noon, and night of each day of the week. Metformin for her diabetes, check. Lovastatin to lower her cholesterol, check. Calcium each day, to keep osteoporosis at bay, check. But where was the Cardizem for her blood pressure? Hadn’t she picked it up from the pharmacy just yesterday? Could she have forgotten to check?

A call to the pharmacy confirmed that they still had it. With half an hour to closing time, Aunt Beth took the back road, the dimly lighted one that winds along steep hills. Aunt Beth always says that she has young eyes, that her night vision is still as sharp as it ever was. She swerved past the Catholic abbey, past the motorcycle bar.

Aunt Beth likes the motorcycle bar. It reminds her of how she used to ride behind Cussin’ Jim, her arms wrapped around his waist, and her hair flying in the wind. Cussin’ Jim abandoned his motorcycle and Aunt Beth, in the end, to find himself at an ashram in India. But Aunt Beth still grins every time she tells the story of her favorite motorcycle rides with him.

Perhaps it was the memory of Cussin’ Jim, or perhaps the canopy of trees under which she drove, but Aunt Beth felt better, calmer, by the time she reached the pharmacy. She stood two yards back from the counter, a spot marked to allow for customer privacy, and glanced around. In front of her, a bald and red-faced man addressed the pharmacist on duty, Fatima Tehrani, brusquely. To his left, a young woman browsed the pregnancy tests. Aunt Beth wondered whether she hoped for a positive result, or feared one. A little behind her hung a chart to help in selecting reading glasses, and directly to her right stood a large picture of an elderly woman on a motorized wheelchair, posed as if racing in the Indianapolis 500 of motorized wheelchairs.

The red-faced man stalked off with his purchases. Aunt Beth approached the counter. She smiled at Fatima, asked after her family, gave her last name, though surely Fatima remembered it.

But as Fatima started to turn toward the bags with the filled orders, a young man pushed up to the counter. Aunt Beth heard a squeak from the young woman browsing the pregnancy tests. She turned and saw the glint of a handgun.

“Freeze,” said the young man to Aunt Beth, and then, to Fatima, “Give me all your cash.”

Aunt Beth could see pregnancy test woman take a couple of slow steps backward, her eyes wide with fear. Fatima remained calm. She walked to the cash register, removed money, and handed it to the man. The man placed his gun on the counter and then reached to take the money. Aunt Beth dashed in and grabbed the gun.

“Stop,” Aunt Beth said, “I’ve got his gun.”

Aunt Beth had never touched a gun before. She held the gun awkwardly, and stared at it. How do I unload this damn thing, she thought. She backed away from the counter a few steps.

The young man turned, and stepped toward her. He reached for the gun.

“Stop,” said Aunt Beth, “Don’t come any closer.”

Her hand shook as she aimed the gun slightly over his shoulder. He continued to approach, as Aunt Beth continued to back away. He knew she would never use the gun. Aunt Beth knew she would never use the gun – right up until the moment she heard it go off.

Pregnancy test woman screamed. The young man fell. Fatima picked up a phone. Only now, as Aunt Beth stared at the fallen man, did she notice just how young he looked, surely not as old as twenty, and how his hair was long and dirty blond like the hair of Cussin’ Jim.

Now it’s the day after. I came to stay with Aunt Beth as soon as she called, and have taken the day off work to fend off the media. I’ve unplugged her landline, and taken charge of her cell phone. I allow her old college roommate through, and tell reporters she’s not available. Then I play a game of solitaire on my own cell phone while Aunt Beth paces the apartment. On the top of the trash can sits the morning’s local paper. Its headline tells of a feisty old woman who fought off a robber. Aunt Beth took one look at it, and tossed it.

“Great,” she said, “Now I’m the new Bernard Goetz.”

Aunt Beth, in times of stress, will straighten and clean. I’ve seen her do this often. When grandfather had his fourth heart attack, Aunt Beth threw herself into the task of dusting his bookshelves and arranging the stacks of books on top of the shelves so that their corners perfectly aligned.

Now she goes to her stove. She takes a spray bottle that holds a cleaning formula she’s made herself, green, earth friendly, of baking soda and vinegar. She sprays the top of the stove, and attacks a grease spot. She attacks it with a sponge. She attacks it with an old toothbrush. She attacks it with a bristly pad. The spot is maybe half an inch in diameter, but in Aunt Beth’s eyes it looms large. She scrubs and scrubs.

Damn. Will that spot never come out?

Ganeida on what unprogrammed Quaker worship is like.

UUA: “Second Person Intimate” Monday morning meditation.

Commonweal on Stanley Hauerwas as a “theologian’s theologian.”

Daisy Deadhead on her growing appreciation of Buddhism.

A Muslim chaplain does interfaith work.

The Economist talks with Christine Lagarde, the French finance minister, on proposed eurozone voting sanctions, the European bank stress test, and whether France has an austerity program.

Only seven of the 91 participating European banks failed the stress test. The German (and German language) magazine manager talks about the market’s reaction to the bank stress test results.

Edward Hugh at A Fistful of Euros on the European bank stress test results.

Felix Salmon on the European bank stress test results.

Also from manager: the largest Indian micro-credit financer seeks more money from the stock market, and Brüderle wants to do away with guarantees that pensions will stay at a certain level.

On crowdfunding (in Greek).

Frank Pasquale of Balkanization on Credit Scoring: Faces at the Bottom of the Bell Curve.

Chris Blattman on Development economics: shaped by the data not the question?

Paul Krugman clarifies his views on the Fed and argues that Keynes works in Asia.

Henry at Crooked Timber discusses Keynes and Germany and Keynesianism as an inadequate substitute for social democracy. The latter piece leads with a quote from Martin Wolf at the Financial Times.

Whatever the rhetoric, I have long considered the US the advanced world’s most Keynesian nation – the one in which government (including the Federal Reserve) is most expected to generate healthy demand at all times, largely because jobs are, in the US, the only safety net for those of working age.

A short documentary on experiencing psychosis.

Genes influence the long term effects of being bullied.

Media coverage of race in Obama’s first year.

Noah Milmann on why he changed his mind about same-sex marriage.

Scientists study Antarctic octopus venom.

The real pets of Orange County.

The last talk that I attended was “New Developments in the Research of Balkan Jewish Genealogy,” by Yitchak Kerem. It ran from 5:00PM-6:30PM on Wednesday, July 14th, and there were still things happening when I left; since most of the people attending the conference are staying in the hotel itself, they have sessions going pretty much from first thing in the morning till midnight.

As soon as I stepped in the room, during the few minutes before the talk began, I met someone whose ancestors, like mine, lived in Constantinople. As she and I were talking with Kerem before the talk, I mentioned that, though I didn’t have any source for the family in Constantinople, I had used the LDS microfilms to check out civil records in Thessaloniki; this is when I found out that those microfilms may have gotten lost when sent for duplicating (I’ll have to try ordering some, to find out whether this problem was temporary or still persists, since the time when they were found to be unavailable was several years ago, and the time when I used them several years before that).

Professor Yitchak Kerem is associated with the Foundation for Jewish Diversity, which focuses on the heritage of Sephardic and Mizrahi Judaism.

Few books have been written on Balkan Jewish genealogical sources. Even Jeff Malka’s book on Sephardic Jewish genealogy has very little on the Balkans. In his talk, Kerem focused only on the newer sources, both books and archives, ones that had just become available in the past few years. He covered several countries: Greece, the several countries of former Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Albania, Romania, and Turkey.
Read the rest of this entry »

It has hit me, these past couple of years, that a lot of people on the right of the political spectrum respond to charges of racism the way I respond to quite a different sort of suggestion. For me, there’s one kind of criticism that ought to be off limits, unless you can darn well prove it. Namely, all suggestions that someone’s a less real American, or doesn’t love this country the way we do, or just loves our country’s enemies. Part of this is that I have the sense that, once it comes down to deciding who the more real and trustworthy Americans are, people like me will always be on the out side, and that being on the outside of that is something I was born to rather than something I got to choose. I’m as small town a girl as anyone by upbringing, raised in a town with only one grocery store, a volunteer fire department, and a little drug store that we kids could freely walk to and buy candy and comics. There were caves in the woods to explore, and a pond on the street where all the kids gathered to ice skate in the winter, though it belonged to one family in particular. But this very small town was a small town in the shadow of New York City, and good old small town American values, in political rhetoric, never sound as if they’re meant to include people like me, people who have lived their whole lives in either New York or California.
Read the rest of this entry »

Having checked out the other resources, in the afternoon and evening I went to talks. I attended three of these: The Captives Return: Descendants of Forced Iberian Converts Find Their Way Back to Judaism, by Jonina Duker, The Lost Tribes of Poland: Apostasy, Intermarriage And Jewish Genealogy, by Yale J Reisner, and New Developments in the Research of Balkan Jewish Genealogy, by Yitzchak Kerem.
Read the rest of this entry »

An introduction video to SCRUM in under ten minutes. To those of my readers who don’t know what SCRUM is, it’s an Agile development methodology, and Agile is a way of organizing software development that involves frequent inspection and adaption, as opposed to the slower turnaround of the waterfall methods of handling the software development cycle.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Internet Needs.

Joel and I wound our way around the street barriers – someone was filming something – to reach the parking area for L.A. Live. Our destination, the Jewish genealogy conference being held this year in LA.

I’d signed Joel up for the film only pass, and myself for the conference (but just one day out of the week – taking a whole week off so close to a software release not being a good idea). It was his ID, though, that sported the name people keep taking for Jewish. Sax, in itself, can be either a Jewish or a Gentile name, but add the Old Testament “Joel” in front, and you find yourself in line for a steady stream of Jewish-oriented junk mail. Just the other week, we got mail attempting to sell us a plot at what was advertised as the best Jewish cemetery in LA.

I, though, with my not at all Jewish sounding name, was the one whose ancestor led us to the conference. The ancestor, my father’s mother, belongs to the only Veniamin, or Benjamin, family that I’ve yet found in Thessaloniki (Salonika) that isn’t Jewish. Eleftheria Veniamin was born early in the 20th century, when Thessaloniki was still under Ottoman rule. Growing up in a city so full of Sephardic Jews that I’ve read it was known as “Jerusalem of the Balkans,” she spoke, I’ve been told, fluent Judaeo-Spanish, along with fluent Turkish and Greek. But, beyond the surname, I’ve found no evidence that my own particular family was Jewish. I have a baptismal certificate for my grandmother’s younger brother, her father and his father bear the names of Orthodox saints, and my father, when asked, thought it unlikely they’d ever been Jewish, given what he said were the low intermarriage rates in those days. Still, disentangling my own ancestors, in the civil records microfilmed by the LDS, from all the other Thessaloniki Veniamins, has led me to a Yizkor book commemorating the Jewish community of Thessaloniki, and a Sephardic Jewish genealogy mailing list, and now to this conference. And, who knows, given that Madeleine Albright learned only late in life that her own parents were Jewish, it’s always possible that my family along that line at some point was Jewish and forgot that fact. But it’s also possible that my father’s theory, that they’re a Gentile family that happened to be descended from someone named Benjamin (Dad told me the name was sometimes given to youngest sons in Greece), is the correct one.

We passed a photo display of Jewish pioneers of the old West: gold miners, an optometrist, a judge, the Emperor Norton (the source of Joel’s online nom de plume), Wyatt Earp’s wife. I’ve been to the graves of the last two, when we lived in northern California and Joel used to take me to Colma, the city of graveyards, as he photographed graves for his web site. I dropped Joel off at the room where the films were showing, and assured him that there was plenty to eat around the hotel. Then I set out to check out the conference. The Wednesday talks I had the most interest in were in the afternoon and evening, so, arriving in the late morning, I had some time to check out other parts of the conference.

The vendor room: Various tables sold books, T-shirts, jewelry, scarfs, etc. I was naturally most interested in the books. In one of them, a list of the meanings of Russian Jewish surnames, I found several possible meanings for my brother-in-law’s surname, Shostak. It could be either derived from a town named Shostaki, or from a town named Shestaki, or, my favorite, a word for someone with six fingers. True, if it’s the town, the name would give more real information about where his family came from, but I like the image of some long ago six fingered ancestor being commemorated.

The raffle: We each got two raffle tickets with our registration, which could be put in a cup for various genealogical offerings. I put both of mine in for a translation from Hebrew of a Yizkor book necrology, since I am the Yizkor book translation coordinator, for the Yizkor Book Project, for Zikhron Saloniki, a Yizkor book for Thessaloniki. I’m not the best of Yizkor book translation coordinators, since I’ve only managed to get a bit of it translated, and none for a good while, but when I tried to resign in hopes of getting a more effective person in my place, there was no one to replace me, and at least as long as I do it I can answer questions and accept offers if anyone turns up to help.

The resource room: There were several parts to this room. First, there were a bunch of books that you could borrow (within the room, and after presenting ID, with a small suggested donation). I was most interested in books related to Sephardic Jews, and so I noted that they had a couple of well known books about Sephardic genealogy by Mathide Tagger and by Jeff Malka (these particular books were also for sale in the vendor area). You could also look at some more difficult to find books, such as Yizkor books. Second, there was an Internet cafe. Third, there was a lending area for microfilms from a local LDS Family History Center. I checked whether they had the Thessaloniki civil records, where I have in the past found a number of Veniamins (both the Christian ones of my own family, and the Jewish ones who don’t seem to be related to me). They didn’t. I would later hear from the speaker for the talk on Balkan Jews that these microfilms became inaccessible some years after I used them, when the LDS sent them to be copied; I can only hope that they weren’t at the conference only because no one had requested them, and not because they’re still inaccessible, because they were a really good resource when I used them.

But the part of the resource room where I wound up spending my time was a set of computers that had been set up to access a University of Southern California collection of videotaped interviews with Holocaust survivors. You could search this location by location, name, language, etc. I started with an interview, in Greek, with a woman in Larissa (who looked rather like my father’s sister). Greek is only my third best language, so I was able to make out some of it, where she described her family, talked about how beautiful the synagogue had been, and some sort of dessert they used to make. But when she got to talking, for example, about a bris, all I could make out was that one repeated word, and not whatever else she was saying about it. So, partway through the interview, I bailed and went to another, in German (my second best language), for the satisfaction of listening to a foreign language where I can understand nearly every word. After that, I checked out an interview in English, but of someone from Thessaloniki, and one in Ladino, just to hear what it sounds like (I know my grandmother could speak it, but no one since her, in our family, has spoken it). Ladino sounded mostly like Spanish, with a touch of French, and I could actually make a bit of it out, from the Spanish that anyone picks up who lives in California for a while (though I understand Spanish rather less well than I understand Greek). By the time I had listened to parts of four interviews (I plan to go back to the site on the net and listen to a couple of them again, this time all the way through), it was time for the talks. But not without being snagged first on the way by …

The blood marrow registry: The people at this table had swabs for your cheeks and a form to fill out, with the usual list of questions about health and how to contact you. They approached Joel separately, but of course he had to decline, because with his multiple health problems and medications, you really don’t want him to donate anything to you, medically speaking. I, though, got listed, and then went on to the talks. I’ll tell you about those in my next post.

Since I Write Like is making the rounds among my blog and Facebook and Twitter friends, I was curious to see how consistent it is in who it says I resemble. So I fed it text from three blog posts, one blog post in progress, eleven short stories, one novel, and two screenplays, for eighteen total different texts. The results are that I write like the following authors once each: Raymond Chandler, Kurt Vonnegut, Margaret Atwood, Anne Rice, J. K. Rowling, James Joyce, Daniel Defoe, and Chuck Palahniuk. I write like the following authors twice each: Stephen King, Dan Brown, Isaac Asimov, David Foster Wallace, and H. P. Lovecraft. I’m sure this analysis says something about my writing style, but I’m not sure what.

Now for the Andre Braugher round up, since my Google feed has had more than the usual amount of stories about him lately.

Andre Braugher talks about his Emmy nomination for “Men of a Certain Age.”

Which episodes the various competitors have submitted for that Emmy statue (for Braugher, it’s “Powerless,” where Owen Thoreau has to deal with the city bureaucracy over his house having its electricity cut off).

The first season of “Men of a Certain Age” comes out on DVD.

“Superman Batman: Apocalypse” will be available from Warner Home Video on September 28th; Braugher is playing the villain Darkseid.

Salt, in which Andre Braugher plays a Secretary of Defense, is coming out in just a few days (starring Angelina Jolie and Liev Shrieber).

Next post will be an account of one day at the International Association of Jewish Genealogical Societies Conference in Los Angeles. But first, just to be self-referential, I’m feeing this post into I Write Like. And, once again, I write like Dan Brown.

Paul Krugman thinks the Fed is feckless for not doing more to fight off the threat of deflation, and lists some things the Fed could still do, when conventional monetary policy reaches its limit.

Neil Irwin, at the Washington Post’s new political economy blog, explains why the Fed won’t be doing any of these things.

Ezra Klein thinks it boils down to the Fed not taking the current situation seriously enough.

Steve Waldman thinks that an emphasis by macroeconomists on containing “sticky prices” has led to an overemphasis on making sure that wages don’t increase.

… If my tone betrays a certain disdain for this account, that is because, in my view, central bankers have used it to harm people and blame the victims. The policy regime that we have crowed over from Volcker through Bernanke and Trichet “naturally” led to the conclusion that (1) central banks should stabilize inflation, so that predictable price adjustments are mostly sufficient to keep things in equilibrium; and (2) that central banks ought to focus especially on stabilizing the stickiest prices, leading to distinctions between overall and “core” inflation. Among the stickiest prices, of course, is the wage rate. In practice, from the mid 1980s right up through 2008, the one thing modern central bankers absolutely positively refused to tolerate was “inflation” of wages. God forbid there be an upcreep in unit labor costs, implying that a shift in the income share away from capital and towards workers. Central banks jack up interest rates right away, because what if the change in relative prices is a mistake? We wouldn’t want that to stick, oh no no no no no. But when the capital’s share of income shifted skyward while deunionization and globalization sapped worker bargaining power? Well, we learned the meaning of an asymmetric policy response.

Even today, now that it has all come apart, economists maintain a laser-like focus on the stickiness of wages. Why can’t Greece compete? Because its “cost structure” has grown too high. In English, that means people expect to be paid too much. The solution is “adjustment”: workers’ real wages must be reduced to restore competitiveness….

Felix Salmon wonders, Can behavioral economics cause real harm?

Brad DeLong quotes Dylan Matthew on the Congressional Deficit Turkey Vultures.

Megan McArdle thinks we should Just Say No to Extending the Bush Tax Cuts.

A link from back in February: Former CBO director Alice Rivlin on Moving to a Fiscally Sustainable Budget.

The Economist writes on Forget it! A study involving children’s car seats suggests that consumers might be better at filtering out bad information than previously thought.

What is Voice of Kibera?

Economist on new online giants, including one in Africa.

A motorbike that runs on dung.

Just a few quick links while I wait for Joel to get ready for us to leave for a conference that has nothing whatsoever to do with liquidity traps or anything else in this post.

Greeks take to social media like Facebook and Twitter to react to the fiscal crisis and austerity measures. Also, the Acropolis is closed in a dispute over unpaid wages.

Hannelore Kraft, the new Minister-President in North Rhine Westphalia, is increasing deficits while her colleagues in other German states look for budget cuts.

Edward Hugh on Oh It’s All Gone Quiet Over In The Eurozone!

We all know that the Federal Reserve raises and lowers interest rates. But what else does it do?

Paul Krugman explains the liquidity trap.

Joseph E. Gagnon, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, on what monetary policy can still be effective in a liquidity trap (written in November 2009, but still seems relevant).

I hope our good Alexandria blog master will forgive my tweaking him a bit with this headline. I don’t, of course, mean it seriously. It’s just that his and Scott’s remarks, on my last post, questioning my argument that federal aid to states in a recession is warranted, reminded me of a certain long ago incident, involving a request by New York City for federal loans.

Those of us of a certain age will remember the incident, and the rest of you may have heard of it. It happened while Ford was president, that New York City ran into financial trouble, and asked the US government for loans to bail it out. Ford expressed some reluctance to supply the loans, and the New York Daily News related this reluctance with a headline surely more colorful than what Ford actually said: “FORD TO CITY: DROP DEAD.”
Read the rest of this entry »