Marcus' World

Darfur Rally Sunday

This Sunday the Save Darfur coalition is holding a rally in Washington, DC to keep the world's attention on the ongoing genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan.  I am heading down for the day.

A year or so ago I wrote often about Darfur in this space. It seemed like the least I could do, but eventually even that became too much because it felt pointless.  Now it is very gratifying to see the world coming together to stop the slaughter. 

The first challenge will be keeping the momentum going towards complete restoration of civility in Darfur.   Later on the Sudanese government and its henchmen must be tried and punished for condoning and committing atrocities.  Finally, we will all have to do our part (however small) to ensure that this never happens again.  Everyone says that every time, but obviously there is still work to do.

No Longer Employed

I haven't been happy with the new job I took in January, and it showed.  Today I was asked to leave, with no warning.

Certainly being fired was  not in my expectation list.  I find that many libraries are looking for time-card punchers rather than thoughtful professionals.  But I know several great colleagues all around the world, who have been wonderful today. I will bounce back and find something better.

Third Rail Discussions: "The Israel Lobby"

The academic world is ablaze because of a paper by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt that charges that Israel has too much influence upon United States foreign policy.  Outraged accusations of anti-Semitism are flying.  Harvard's Alan Dershowitz has even compared the paper to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a virulently anti-Semitic work: Download dershowitzreply.pdf

Throughout history Jews have been easy scapegoats for any social ill, and anti-Semitism is alive and well today.  But there should be a way to have a debate about US foreign policy while being sensitive t0 this reality. 

Dershowitz's response is a way to foreclose debate, not to have one.  It typifies what I call a "third rail discussion."   In these discussions, no real conversation takes place. 

Last year Bill Cosby was excoriated for suggesting that inner-city youngsters would have a better chance if they learned to read.  And Larry Summers resigned as Harvard president for musing aloud about the differences in math and science attainment between men and women.

Obviously we must be sensitive to the ongoing reality of racial and gender discrimination.  But in practice, this sensitivity translates into meek silence about confronting any difficult issue.  Instead of real dialogue, platitudes abound.  This way, nothing ever changes.

Sir! No Sir!

Last night I saw "Sir! No Sir!",  a new documentary about the resistance to the Vietnam War from within military ranks.  Even discounting somewhat for its activist zeal, the film makes a strong case for the potency of US soldier's resistance to the atrocities they were asked to commit.   Movie director David Zeiger was on hand to answer questions, and the War Resisters League had a table in the theater lobby.  Several questioners wanted to know how to get the movie in the hands of soldiers in Iraq.

One of the saddest stories was about Billy Dean Smith, a soldier falsely accused of "fragging," or lobbing a hand grenade at his commanding officer.  Although Smith was eventually cleared of all charges, his 22-month military detention left him a broken man.

The strongest part of the movie was a refutation of the myth that rude hippies spit on returning soldiers all across America.  Perhaps it happened on occasion, but never on a large scale.  Even so this "fact" is seared into our national consciousness, in a deft bit of Orwellian spin doctoring.  The subtext of the myth is that protest is wrong, and America is right.  If this is the type  of democracy we're loading onto Iraq, the war is even more tragic than I realized.

Is Liberal Faith in Government Warranted?: A Guest Blog Posting

Our good friend Uri Kogan asks the following thoughtful question; your thoughts are welcome.

Certainly any liberals should respond, but since this is a free country we'll take conservative perspectives as well!

"One of the bedrock beliefs of liberals is that government can be a force of good, smoothing out some of the economic and social rough edges of a laissez-faire society. But the Bush years have clearly shown that the force of government can be directed as its leaders see fit, getting in the way of science, common sense, etc. Does/should this shake our liberal belief in the ameliorative power of government, and therefore, tragically, make us more conservative?"

Pulitzer to Times for Wiretapping Story

Today the story that President Bush sought to suppress--regarding his illegal authorization of wiretaps of the American people--won a Pulitzer Prize. 

What sweet justice on tax day.  Our government may have abdicated its role to protect our civil liberties, but the government's watchdog is still doing its job.

A Lover's Quarrel with His Country

I did not know much about the Reverend William Sloane Coffin until he died this week at the age of 81.  Treasured by the left, vilified by the right,  Coffin maintained what he called a "lover's quarrel with his country" for decades.  From positions of influence in the pulpits of Yale University and Riverside Church, Coffin spoke up for civil rights and against the war in Vietnam.  Most recently he criticized our midadventure in Iraq.

A lover's quarrel, perhaps, is what I've been maintaining myself.  I've always recoiled at the easy certitude of the statement, "America, love it or leave it."  My view is that the concept of the nation-state itself is outdated, even though we're stuck with it.  I sense echoes of Coffin in this perspective, if not in the exact viewpoint then at least in its thrust. Here is a passage from his last sermon at Riverside Church, in the fall of 2003: 

""Let us resolve to be patriots always, nationalists never. Let us love our country, but pledge allegiance to the earth and to the flora and fauna and human life that it supports — one planet indivisible, with clean air, soil and water; with liberty, justice and peace for all."

Anarchism and National Boundaries

Who wants to be an anarchist?  The word conjures up images of chairs crashing through windows at Starbucks.

Although I'm not yet ready to call myself an anarchist,  David Graeber's interview with Charlie Rose last week caused me to have second thoughts.  Graeber, an avowed anarchist, controversially lost his position in the Yale anthropology department last year.

Faculty politics are boring, but I was intrigued by Graeber's argument that anarchism--far from being a raucous melee-- is "democracy without government." Rules are grass roots under anarchy, and not nonexistent.

The weaknesses of such an approach come easily to mind, but it is an intriguing thought.  I was most taken by another claim of Graeber's: that national boundaries are meaningless political fictions.   I have believed this for a long time.  For more than two years this quote by Pierre Teilhard du Chardin has been my e-mail signature:

"The age of nations is past
The task before us now, if we are to survive
Is to shake off our ancient prejudices, and
Build the earth."

There is little chance that nation-states will dissolve, certainly not in my lifetime and perhaps not ever.  Even so, grass grows the same way on both sides of a border.  Perhaps good fences make good neighbors, due to the limitations of human nature.  That doesn't mean they make sense.

Zacarias Moussaoui, Future Martyr

Now that Zacarias Moussaoui has been found eligible for the death penalty, the inexorable march toward his execution has begun.  Most civilized societies abandoned state-sponsored death many years ago, but the United States limps along on its medieval course.

The death penalty is always wrong; this time it will also be a threat to American security.  Zacarias Moussaoui, a wretched lunatic, will die a martyr for radical Islam.  Future death missions will be carried out in his name.  We are playing into the hands of those who wish to do us harm.

An Illusory IRA Deduction

Tax time is when everyone becomes a Republican (temporarily, at least).  This year Helen and I learned that our with-holdings were not keeping pace with our apparently lavish earnings.

In short, we owe.  A lot.

Today we got excited about the possibility of opening up an IRA and reducing our tax liability.   Citibank seduced us, with their web ad about funding dreams and reducing taxes at the same time.  They get into the messy details later, but the opening page is somewhat deceptive.   We went all the way through with it, before reading the fine print: we make too much to qualify for the deduction.  We then spent a lot of the day figuring how to revoke the IRAs, because without the tax benefit we could use our money better elsewhere.

Our tax situation grows more complicated every year; this is the last year of tax soldiering on our own.  There is no doubt that we are well off, but we do not feel particularly rich.  We'll know we've arrived when we finally set up our tax shelter in the Caiman Islands.