waldheim
Thursday, April 29, 2004
 
History and law in Pitcairn. The Head Heeb provides an excellent summary of a court case in which it was decided that Pitcairn is indeed controlled by Britain. (Via Crooked Timber.) It's fascinating how the court was forced to analyse imperial history. Of course, this isn't unique (the U.S. Supreme Court for instance relied on historical arguments somewhat in Lawrence v. Texas, for instance), but this case does seem to turn especially on history almost exclusively. Lawyers (judges) of course aren't necessarily given historical training, and I wonder what's lost in the historical analysis when it's done by a lawyer. What nuances of culture and what it meant, say, in the 18-whatevers to be under British sovereignty? Are judges equipped to analyse whether the residents of Pitcairn islands conceived of themselves as British citizens in a long-past period? This is, of course, the primary interest I'm interested in when it comes to the Holocaust and slavery reparations trials.

(Conversely, there are times when historians try--and often fail--to do the job of lawyers. For instance, much of the historiography of the Haymarket Massacre is devoted to analysing the trial of the Haymarket Martyrs--in whose honor this blog is named--which in my mind largely misses the point. As historians, we're not usually equipped to decide to what extent the law was followed in the Haymarket trial. Unless we're legal historians, we rarely have a good grasp on what murder law was in 1886. But we are able, or better able at least, to discuss to what extent Lingg et al. were part of an actual anti-state conspiracy. What should matter is not whether the prosecution in the case actually, legally proved its case--let "legal guilt" of the martyrs, if you will. What matters is the actual, "historical guilt," which the trial doesn't necessarily prove one way or the other.)

UPDATE: At A Fistful of Euros, Scott Martens discusses the Pitcairn case as it applies to Europe--particuilarly, how European overseas possessions fit into the European Union. Read the comments.
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
 
Antisemitism decreases in Europe; Abe Foxman confused. The JTA's Toby Axelrod reports on an ADL survey of Europeans that shows a significant decrease in antisemitism. At the same time, anti-Israel feeling increased. Abe Foxman, while hailing European governments that have worked to differentiate Israel from Jews, fails to do so himself and continues to equate the two.

MEANWHILE, in the continuing saga of how to spend the extra Swiss Bank settlement money, "Israeli officials are blasting recommendations that money from the $1.25 billion Swiss banks settlement should be used to help Holocaust survivors in the former Soviet Union before others." So reports the JTA.
 
The blog is dead. Long live the blog! In honor of his impending graduation, Zach shut down Education in the Streets. But then he started The Problem of Leisure. He may be a detached lunatic, but he's a lovable detached lunatic.
 
L'obsession de l'antisémitisme. Despite my best attempts, my French is not nearly good enough to read this article by Esther Benbassa, the director of studies at the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, and professor of modern Jewish history. (I also want to read her most recent book, "La République face à ses minorités. Les juifs hier, les musulmans aujourd’hui," but of course I won't be able to because I can't read French well enough.) But I was able to make it through the first few paragraphs. In describing the way France views its Jewish community, she argues that there's a change right now between the call of "devoir de mémoire" (roughly, the requirement to remember) and "devoir de vigilance" (the requirement of vigilance). She traces this change to a changing of the guard from Ashkenazi Jews to Maghrebi Jews. The Holocaust was largely an Askenazi experience, and thus is mostly foreign to North African Jews. When people "remember," they're remembering the Holocaust, and thus remembering the Ashkenazi experience. The foundational experience of modern French Jews under the "devoir de mémoire" regime is Ashkenazi. But the majority of French Jews today are Maghrebi, and they have their own traumatic modern foundational experience--their exile from North Africa. The perceived threats to Israel and threats to French Jews today more closely mirror the Maghrebi exile than the Ashkenazi Holocaust. (I use the term "perceived" not to suggest that those threats don't exist, but simply to emphasize that what matters is the perception.) Maghrebi Jews see their exile experience potentially repeated. This suggests a reason for the increased emphasis on equating antisemitism and antizionism, and the support of the French Jewish community for the anti-headscarf law.

Well, at least in France: it doesn't really explain any shift in, say, the U.S., where the Maghrebi community is much smaller.

I lost the thread of the article around the middle or so, but at the end it becomes a complaint of how fear of the new antisemitism has stifled debate on Israel. I was particularly taken with this: "Nous, hier citoyens du monde, nous voici chaque jour plus prisonniers d’un nationalisme étroit qui dessert la cause d’Israël aussi bien que celle des juifs de la diaspora. S’il persiste, notre terrorisme intellectuel se retournera contre nous et nous asphyxiera nous-mêmes." In my extremely poor translation: "We [Jewish intellectuals], yesterday citizens of the world, are today living each day prisoners of a nationalism that holds that those who dessert the cause of Israel also dessert the cause of diaspora Jews. If this persists, our intellecual terrorism will return against us and asphyxiate us."
Saturday, April 24, 2004
 
Today's news (a running post). From the BBC: Frances closes its last coal mine.

History abounds in Saturday's Times: a new diary by a companion of Albert Einstein has been discovered in her Princeton personnel file. A very long article describes John Kerry's role in Vietnam Veterans Against the War. And a piece from Arts & Ideas about medieval manuscripts in Timbuktu and the challenges in perserving them today.

And finally (at least for now): "Keats? Big poet, Keats. Keats was dead by the time he was 26."

LATER: The CBC reports on an Environics poll that finds the Liberals are in minority government range: "The Liberals now have 39 per cent support among those polled. Conservatives have 29 per cent, New Democrats 19 per cent and the Bloc Quebecois 11 per cent."

STILL LATER (SUNDAY, IN FACT): Jewschool's Mobius points me to an interesting post by Douglas Rushkoff about Israel and anti-semitism. (Meanwhile, in the Jewschool Cafepress store, this is really funny.)
Friday, April 23, 2004
 
Today I am truly thankful that I am not Alan Brinkley. I have a professor friend who says that he is convinced that one cannot be a good person and be a high-level university administrator. Being dean, provost, or president seems to mean you have to always make bad decisions, and in order to do it well, you have to enjoy doing it. Alan Brickley is well known for being a liberal historian, and he professes a personal belief that "the decline in unions is one of the great catastrophes of our recent economic life." Yet as Columbia provost, he is forced to defend the univesity line on graduate employee unionization. I know, I know, if he really believed in unionization close to home, he could change policy. But I don't know that he could--after all, he has the president and the board of trustees to convince. By saying I'm glad I'm not Brickley, I'm not saying I forgive him--no, I'm much more in the Jesse Lemisch camp there in calling his refusal to suppor the union inexcusable--but I'm stil glad I'm not in his difficult position.

There are four parts to this HNN page: an interview with Brinkley, from which the quotes above and below are taken, a speech by Jesse Lemisch, a statement to a rally by Staughton Lynd, and a letter to Brinkley from one of my heros, David Montgomery.

The final three, all criticizing the Columbia administration (including Brinkley), are right. But there's something essentially tragic about this exchange:

Ady Barkan: A year ago in class I asked you, perhaps unfairly, for your opinion on student unionization, and you said you wouldn't oppose a graduate student union. And I'm curious whether your experience as a champion of liberalism, (or not, perhaps this is a separate issue)...I mean, is your personal position at odds with that of the Administration?

Alan Brinkley: Well, I can't answer that. I'm a great supporter of unionization. I think that the decline in unions is one of the great catastrophes of our recent economic life. I think there are many areas in economic life in which unions can play a constructive role, do play a constructive role, play an invaluable role. On this campus, we have lots of unions--we don't have unions for students. I don't know what else to say.


Some will, I'm sure, accuse me of going soft in feeling sorry for Brinkley, for reading pain in his voice when he says he can't answer the question. Those people aren't wrong in saying, Of course he can answer! In callying him a hypocrite or worse. They're not wrong. But his inability to answer still strikes me as above all sad.
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
 
Quick links. New York Jewish Week's Adam Dickter scoops the world in reporting that a heretofore secret Columbia committee is investigating the university's Middle East Studies department looking for "bias and intimidation."

Bill Tozier is running an eBay auction for an Erdos number of 5. He's writing about the experiment on his blog. Crooked Timberites are also writing about it. Also, I like the way Tozier has his blogroll.

On Jewschool, Mobius writes: "I'm getting really sick of having to defend my Judaism every day to other Jews who wish to dismiss me, my ideas, my site, etc., for presenting divergent opinions on the state of Israel than those offered by most of modern Jewry. It's unnerving to me that every day should be an uphill battle to verify that, no, I'm not an antisemite, and yes, it's okay to be critical of Israel—it's been a Jewish tradition since before the state even gained its independence." Read the whole post (though I warn you, the comments have rather degenerated into mudslinging.)

Patrick Belton, to whom I owe thanks for interectly facilitating a fabulous time last night, reviews gmail. I haven't decided if I'm going to be among the first of those who try it out--I don't much like the idea of Google "reading" my email. Indeed, I don't much like my mail sitting on any third-party machine because of the severe decrease of fouth amendment protections. But I may use it as a holding site for large files--it is a gig of free, access-from-anywhere storage space, after all.
 
Mazel Tov! With some trepidation for what it means for my own blog-reading habits, I congratulate Elder Steven I. Weiss of Protocols for landing a staff writer and blogger gig at the Forward.
 
Historians and strikes. To no-one's (well, not mine) surprise, Jesse Lemisch is trying to get Historians Against the War--or at least historians against the war--to take a stand in support of striking Columbia graduate students. Via HNN.
 
Have they no shame? Yesterday, The New York Times (in the persons of Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Felicia R. Lee) finally picked up on the controversy about the Bush nominee for United States archivist, Allen Weinstein. Bush pushed out the long-time archivist and is trying to replace him with a historian notorious for being on the right (published a controversial book on Alger Hiss) and being secretive (won't release his notes on said book). More than that, Bush refused to consult with historical or archival organizations, despite that the law that created NARA requires that the archivist be chosen based on professional merit alone. This comes at a time when the danger and appeal of a partisan archives is all too apparent: there have already been controversies about the release of 9/11-related documents, and the release of Bush pere's papers is coming up. George Bush has continually shown himself to be the enemy of open and transparent government, and this is just another example.

The Times article is somewhat mediocre. For more information see the detailed description written up by Bruce Craig of the National Coalition for History, posted on H-NCH (also on HNN, but HNN isn't working right now). The Society of American Archivists has raised pointed questions about Weinstein and has called for Senate hearings. Joining the SAA are various archivists' and librarians' organizations, the American Historical Association, and the Organization of American Historians.

To quote Craig: "Concern is growing within the archival and historical communities regarding the Bush administration's hoped for 'fast-track' process to replace Archivist of the United States John Carlin with one of its own choosing -- historian Allen Weinstein. According to informed sources, the administration hopes to short-circuit the normal confirmation process and see Weinstein confirmed through an 'expedited' process. Their goal -- place Weinstein in the position prior to the November election."

Again: have they no shame?
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
 
South Africa and Israel. Via reader EAS, an article from the Sunday Washington Post suggesting that my "influence" continues. South African journalist Allister Sparks writes: "A South African solution in the Middle East would consolidate Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank into one country ruled by an elected majority, which soon would be Palestinian. The Jewish people would live as a minority group, albeit an economically dominant one. If that strikes anyone as improbable, then let it be the measure of judging South Africa's achievement -- one that has turned this country, so recently the racist polecat of the world, into a paradigm for a world riven by racial, ethnic and religious strife." Something I've been saying for years! Read the whole thing.
Monday, April 19, 2004
 
Nathan Newman still has it. I haven't been reading him for a while, but when I checked back today, there were a whole slew of good posts, mostly pointing to articles I hadn't bothered posting about. Check out his posts on this New York Times article that discusses how the US intentionally supported terrorism as a way to fight the Communists; an excellent roundup of recent labor news; and union busting universities (make sure to check out the comments). Among others--those are just my highlights.

Nathan also points me to a Times article about the UAW (the American United Auto Workers) and the CAW (Canadian Auto Workers, which split from the UAW in 1985) fighting over organizing the same plant. He makes the counterintuitive argument that competition among unions actually helps organizing. In keeping with my usually futile attempts to make this blog have a historical focus, I'll just mention the long history that the Canadian labor movement has of being dominated by the American labor movement. I'm most familiar with this in the context of the miners' union in eastern Nova Scotia. There, the United Mine Workers of America (that is, mostly of the U.S.) had a conflict of interest between its Canadian members and its American members. On one hand, the International required its locals (and districts) not to accept wage rollbacks. On the other hand, it refused to authorize a strike in Nova Scotia, and when local leaders did call one (so as not to have to accept wage cuts) the International refused to give any money, and then actively cooperated with the company to break the union. This isn't necessarily typical--just because the UMWA acted badly in 1925 doesn't mean that all U.S.-based Internationals are always going to destroy Canadian locals--but it does suggest the danger of Canadian workers relying too much on their U.S. brothers.
Sunday, April 18, 2004
 
Salon style art. When I get back to Washington, one of the things I'll be sure to do is head to the Renwick Gallery to see pictures from the collection of the National Museum of American Art hung salon style. Why? The Washington Post Magazine's Henry Allen explains far better than I could.
 
I owe a big fat thank you to Elder Shleve at Protocols for giving me what may have been my highest-traffic day ever, and certainly my highest traffic weekend. If only my post about Rue des Rosiers had been better!

UPDATE: Also to IsraBlog, although I have no idea what it's saying. Could anyone who comes to this site from there do me a favor and translate it for me?
 
The Oklahoma Senate race. I've written before about how I believe that the presidential race this year--and perhaps the Senate--rests on Oklahoma, a state that Democrats seem to have given up on. There are two key parts to this reasoning. First, there's an open Senate in the state, because Don Nickles (R) is retiring. Second, two strong Democratic constituencies cut their teeth on a successful effort to elect a Democratic governor two years ago--labor and Native Americans. Plus, despite its conservative reputation, and Bush's strong showing in 2000, registered Democrats actually outnumber registered Republicans (according to this Mother Jones article that's rather skeptical of the Democrats' chances in OK.) Here's the plan I would put into place if I could: put lots of money into the Senate race, with a particular emphasis on Indian and organized labor turnout. If Kerry wins the state, it'll be because of the Senate race--he's too liberal for Oklahoma, I gather, on issues like gun control. But treating the Senate race seriously helps Kerry's chances, and it helps us regain the Senate, too.

Happily, people seem to be taking my advice. (Um, yes, of course it was my advice was was what made the difference.)

The AP's Robert Gehrke (here in the Grand Forks Herald) reports on an effort the National Congress of American Indians to register 1 million Indians this year. He points out that Indians may play a decisive role not only in Oklahoma but in South Dakota, Alaska, and Colorado. He credits Indians for the Democrats' successes in South Dakota and Oklahoma in 2002: "In 2002, Indian voters decided a House race and governor's race in Oklahoma, and swung the South Dakota Senate race for incumbent Tim Johnson. On election night, Johnson trailed Republican Rep. John Thune by 700 votes, but Johnson surged as ballots came in from the Pine Ridge Reservation, where 4,000 new Indian voters had registered."

Brad Carson, the leading Democratic candidate (and an Indian), has raised $1,130,645--almost double the leading Republican and way more than the other Democrat. (According to the Center for Responsive Politics; this AP article reported on Friday he only raised $718,000; I can't explain the discrepancy.) This includes money from national Democratic money machines: the DSCC ($34,000), trial lawyers ($14,116 from PACs), and unions ($92,000 from PACs), and Democratic leadership and candidate PACs ($38,000)--suggesting that the race really is attracting national attention. A full 18% of Carson's money has come from outside the state (and 22% of his Democratic opponent's money), compared to 4% from the leading Republican. Indeed, Carson's top five donor metro areas are Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Washington, Dallas, Nashville, and Philadelphia. (There are some great tools to do this sort of analysis on CRP's website; see here for Carson's page.)

An April 11 article by Susan Milligan in the Boston Globe emphasizes that the US Senate could switch to the Democrats, and does mention the tailcoat effects for the presidential election. But she does add to the story of Oklahoma that, as in Pennsylvania, the Republicans are split between the establishment candidate and an ultraconservative.

Or, perhaps there's another reason to consider Oklahoma up for grabs by Kerry, unrelated to Carson (although national support for Carson would still seem to be important). Oklahoma blog Awe Contraire (via Okiedoke) suggest that Kerry is competitive in Oklahoma because Democratic governor Brad Henry, that same one who was helped by labor and Indians, is so popular. (He sites Dales' Electoral College Breakdown, which still shows the state as strongly for Bush.)

Among my goals for the coming weeks is to monitor the Oklahoma race, and I'll post here what I find.

UPDATE: This article from Native Times adds two more things. First, it explains the difference between the $718,000 (how much Carson's raised this year) and the $1.1m number (total). Second, it points out that Carson has raised the most money of any Senate candidat e. My influence again, I'm sure. See also this article from The Oklahoman: "Oklahoma is expected to be a major battleground state for the U.S. Senate. Although the state has been reliably Republican for the last 10 years, the election of Democrat Brad Henry in 2002 as governor and Carson's candidacy have convinced both parties that the U.S. Senate race will be competitive."
Saturday, April 17, 2004
 
From the "No Surprises" Department.
Bob Herbert
You are Bob Herbert! You're not the most sparkling writer, but one of the most solid and selfless on the Op-Ed staff. You focus on New York politics, the poor, race issues, and civil liberties. You like to quote others, and rarely place yourself in your columns. You keep it real. Seriously.


Which New York Times Op-Ed Columnist Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

You can read what I wrote as a college op-ed columnist and see if you agree.
 
Fun with Google. So yesterday, someone came across this blog with the Google search "Cape Breton blowjobs." Makes me feel somewhat bad for him (I assume it was a him) given what is actually on this site. But when I ran the search, I was especially amused by the other sites that came up, and what the excerpts from the pages were that Google displayed. To wit: "cape breton Milf distrist school board made him suck my cock, hot thong"; "cape breton ghost Bondage!" and last but certainly not least, "(suggested tourism slogan: "Cape Breton -- Dreary, but ... No unsimulated blowjobs".
Friday, April 16, 2004
 
Some quick links. A New Yorker profile of Aaron McGruder by Ben McGrath. (Via Josh, although his permalinks don't seem to be working properly.)

The New York Times's Campbell Roberts on a young persons' Kerry fundraiser.

The Nouvel Observateur on the coming fight over who will lead the Socialist Party in the European Parliament. (In French. I read it all by myself the other day!)
 
Juifs contra les hipsters. This winter, the Edlers had a series of posts about the fight between Hasidim and hipsters in Brooklyn's Williamsburg. (The definitive post is here; see also here, which points to a New York Times article, the link for which will work here but not there.) It's not exactly the same, but right here in my neighborhood in Paris, the Marais, there's a similar story playing out.

The Marais, like most of the center of Paris, is a very old neighborhood. It's had a lot of ups and downs, swing from slum to chic neighborhood several times. During the last downswing (which lasted, I believe, roughly the last 150 years, but don't quote me on that), it became the home of one of the major Jewish communities in Paris, the Pletzl. Before the Occupation, the Jewish quarter, centered around a street called Rue des Rosiers, was filled with immigrants from Eastern Europe. After the Occupation, once the Jews who had lived there were either dead, refugees, or upwardly mobile into the suburbs, it became a for Jewish refugees from French North Africa. Tourists often know the neighborhood for the dozen or so falafel restaurants and the Judaica stores. The Marais, as is the wont for crummy neighborhoods, has also been an artists' quarter, and is also the location of Paris's main gay neighborhood. As in the U.S., artists + gays + cheap rent = rapidly trendy and gentrifying neighborhood. So now the Marais is on the upswing, and that's where the trouble begins. The City of Paris wants to make the Rue des Rosiers a pedestrian zone, at least on Sunday afternoons. But the Jewish merchants and neighbors are raising a stink about it, saying that it will put them out of business. (A few weeks ago there was an article in the Times about this issue, but it's been archived now and I can't make a free link because I don't have the original URL. Sorry.)

This raises a host of interesting questions. First, to my eye, I just don't understand the objections. Here's my bad translation of an article from the newspaper of the Paris Jewish Community: "This matter consistes, according to the [current plan] of closing a good part of the Pletzl on Sundays. And this would mean major work: removing the sidewalks, changing the traffic patterns on certain streets, establishing a central gutter... The extent of this eventual roadworks, the fear that the pedestrianization will be extended to other days, and the resultant nuisances for those who live in or frequent the neighborhood are provoking the genuine opposition of most of the merchants." Merchants (and others who support them in the Jewish community) are afraid that closing the street will make deliveries difficult and will prevent people from shopping at their stores. "Well now, if the stores disappear, they will be quickly replaced by bars and other branch stores. It is well understood that the Jewish memory of the place will be the cost of the operation." Like I said, I don't really understand why making the street pedestrians only will prevent people from shopping. If anything, I would have thought that it would encourage more foot traffic and thus more customers. The best guess I have is that most of the shops are not tourist driven--that is, they are not the visible Judaica and falafel shops--but rather are tailors and kosher butchers and whatnot that tourists don't shop at and that are dependant on suburban Jews coming in to shop.

Or maybe, like most people, they're just afraid of change. I don't know. For people who know their neighborhood, it can be scary to see new people moving in. But I don't have a lot of sympathy for that, because change happens. Yes, there may be some new people in their apartement buildings. Yes, there might be so non-Jewish stores on the street. But that's not the destruction of Jewish memory.

But if ACHERP--the Association of Shopkeepers, Residents, and Landlords--is right, they do have a point. It's really a matter of historic preservation. Especially in France, it's important to maintain lieux de memiore--sights of memory--about the Jewish community. That doesn't mean that places can't change. Indeed, the Pletzl has changed a lot in the past 100 years or so, shifting from a largley Ashkenazi community to a Sephardi one. But it's important to keep a working memory of the vibrant French Jewish community. For instance, around the corner is a Memorial to the Unknown Jewish Martyr (which I haven't seen, because it's under renovation), which is different from the Ile-de-la-Cite Deportation Memorial. Without a Jewish Rue des Rosiers, the Memorial to the Unknown Jewish Martyr will still exist, but it will exist entirely within a vacuum. Now, one sees the memorial and the remains of the Pletzl, and one is reminded of the community from which Jewish deportees were taken; without the Pletzl, it would be simply an empty flame.
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
 
Marvin Lender update. Before Rue des Rosier, an update on Marvin Lender, whom as you may remember had the nerve to give a talk on Jewish business ethics. Josh Eidelson wrote an opinion piece for the Yale Daily News describing the event; the article appears to be an edited version of something he posted on his blog. (If you're only going to read one, read the blog version.)
 
Sorry for the long absence--when I got back to Paris the computer wasn't working. But blogging shall recommence tomorrow, probably with a discussion of the Rue des Rosiers.
Saturday, April 03, 2004
 
Welcome! To a new addition to the blogosphere, er, "Pesotta."
 
It's not just historians; or, Sue their asses off! Historians have taken a lot of flack for a string of plagiarism scandals in the past few years. Meanwhile, George Bush has gotten away with two shocking examples of taking trademarked slogans of political oponents and twisting them into his own slogan. First it was taking "Leave No Child Behind"--the trademarked slogan of the Children's Defense Fund--which Bush appropriated as "No Child Left Behind." Now he's taken Planned Parenthood's "Responsible Choices" and turned it into "Responsible Choice"--an abstinence-only education program. Planned Parenthood is fighting. (Via Little Wild Bouquet.)
Friday, April 02, 2004
 
Okrent replies to my email about Shaw's. (See also here.) His reply in full (with his permission to post):

Dear Mr. Remes,
I passed your comments about the Shaw's piece along to business editor Lawrence Ingrassia. This is his reply:

The reader raises a legitimate point. Newspapers should seek to get and
report the points of view of various parties affected by a story. When
warranted, that includes workers and their union representatives. We
often do write what workers think and how they're affected; less so,
probably what union officials think. There are some occasions when we
ought to but don't.

I think this was one of them. Thanks for writing.

Yours sincerely,

Daniel Okrent

Thursday, April 01, 2004
 
Congratulations! Brett got married! I extend a hearty best wishes to Brett and Anita.

MORE, and in the department of willful misunderstanding: Brett writes that his chair pointed something out. To which I wonder if he teaches at Hogwarts.
 
Quick links. "AFL-CIO out of Venezuela!" could summarize this is Kim Scipes article in Labor Notes. Scipes documents how the AFL's Solidarity Center has worked with the neo-liberal and undemocratic union center in Venezuela to overthrow the democratically elected Hugo Chavez. This is especially troubling because under John Sweeney the AFL has largely cleaned up its international act and has for the most part supported the creation of strong, democratic unions in the global south as a way of making globalization more fair. The continued Cold War-style operations in Venezuela go a long way in undermining the good the AFL is doing abroad. (Via Little Wild Bouquet.)

Two notes from Yale: Activists protesting Coca-Cola's murderous practices in Colombia stage a die-in at a a speech by Coke's CEO on, of all things, business ethics. The Yale Daily News's Justin Ash reports that the protesters were successful in forcing Douglas Daft to acknowledge the issue and made him so uncomfortable that he abandoned a post-lecture reception early. And Zach reports (sort of) on a talk by Marvin Lender, this blog's favorite whipping boy, when he had the chutzpah to lecture on Jewish business ethics.

Powered by Blogger Listed on Blogwise