Muhammad Ali was in town last November for the funeral of Smokin’ Joe Frazier, but it turns out the boxing legend was back in the area on April 28 for the bar mitzvah of his grandson Jacob Wertheimer at Rodeph Shalom on North Broad Street.
Khaliah Ali-Wertheimer, Jacob’s mother, told Ali biographer Thomas Hauser that though her father raised his children Muslim, he was “supportive in every way. He followed everything and looked at the Torah very closely.”
“It meant a lot to Jacob that he was there,” she told Hauser, who reported on the bar mitzvah at TheSweetScience.com.
“I was born and raised as a Muslim,” Khaliah said, “but I’m not into organized religion. I’m more spiritual than religious. My husband is Jewish. No one put any pressure on Jacob to believe one way or another. He chose this on his own because he felt a kinship with Judaism and Jewish culture.” Her husband is attorney Spencer Wertheimer.
There are probably a million policy arguments about food, and what the government’s role in food safety ought to be.
Yesterday, my cousin–a respected cardiologist–sent me a document warning about the documented health dangers of drinking raw milk, and what he assured me is an ill-conceived and dangerous movement to change current laws that make selling raw milk illegal. Proponents of the change insist–in the face of overwhelming research suggesting otherwise–that raw milk is not only safe, but able to cure a variety of diseases.
In New York, Mayor Bloomberg is under attack from everyone from libertarians to Jon Stewart for his effort to ban the sale of sodas larger than 16 ounces. And the movement against genetically-enhanced foods continues to gain adherents. (I confess to sympathy with many of their arguments myself.)
These debates raise the threshold policy question: what is the role of government? Are rules against raw milk evidence that we live in a nanny state, or are those rules precisely the sort of protections for which government must be responsible?
Most citizens do not have access to scientific evidence nor the ability to interpret that evidence. I know I don’t. So what should government do when experts identify a “clear and present” danger?
Unsurprisingly, I think the answer is: it depends.
In some cases–perhaps most–government’s role should probably be limited to that of informer, publicizing the danger and ensuring that individuals possess the relevant information when making personal choices. But in other cases the danger is either too serious or the harm to others who haven’t chosen to risk the behavior too great. The smoking ban falls in the latter category.
The raw milk controversy underlines the most basic tension presented by the libertarian principle that we should be free to live and do as we wish unless and until we harm the person or property of a non-consenting other: what is harm?
To which we might add, what should government do when a harm is confirmed by science but not obvious to reasonable observers? Or when scientists disagree?
In an increasingly complex world, where technology and genetic manipulation make the accoutrements of everyday life more mysterious and impenetrable, these aren’t easy questions.
When I was in college, I read everything Ayn Rand wrote–and was immensely influenced by it.
The Cold War was still a reality, and Soviet communism was a genuine menace, ideologically and geopolitically. Rand’s books were a corrective (okay, an over-corrective) to the notion that the individual should live for the state, and her lack of balance was understandable coming as it did from someone who had escaped the Soviet Union when she was still a teenager.
Over the years, Rand’s books and philosophy took their place as one aspect of my own broader exploration of political philosophy. I still think they are a useful expression of radical libertarianism, even though the demise of the Soviet Union and communism have made her work seem increasingly dated and shrill.
People can agree or disagree with Rand’s philosophy, but what has bemused me is the appropriation of bits and pieces of her writing in ways that I think would probably infuriate her. Case in point: the head of a state agency who told a colleague of mine that he required his employees to read two books for inspiration: Atlas Shrugged and the Bible. Ayn Rand, a committed atheist who considered religion a weakness, would have been appalled.
I also had to laugh at the rash of bumper stickers and letters to the editor a few years ago from people self-identifying with Rand’s hero, John Galt. Virtually all of them were arguing for government policies that would benefit businesses–tax breaks, subsidies, regulatory changes and the like. Most of their arguments echoed those of Rand’s villain, James Taggart–the sniveling parasite who embodied the corporate behaviors of which Rand disapproved–rather than the ideology of her (very unrealistic) protagonist.
As the current political season heats up, we are once again seeing references to Rand–Eric Cantor, the architect of the GOP budget is said to be deeply influenced by her philosophy, and left-wing bloggers mutter darkly about her evil and pervasive influence–and I can’t help seeing parallels between the way people read Rand’s books and the way they read the bible or the Koran or the Constitution–which is to say, very selectively.
Homophobes point to three or four passages in the Christian bible to justify marginalization of gays. Anti-Muslim bigots point to isolated passages of the Koran to paint all of Islam with a broad, terrorist brush. People who don’t like the implications of government’s obligation to treat citizens equally and their belief systems neutrally use isolated provisions to justify revisionist interpretations. Those on the other side of the philosophical fence respond with their own cherry-picking.
Ayn Rand, like those who wrote our Constitution and other “holy books,” was a product of a particular time and place. In her case, she was reacting against a repressive, totalitarian regime. She really can’t be faulted for failing to recognize the threat posed by a radical individualism that didn’t exist in her world, just as Karl Marx can’t be faulted for failing to recognize the dangers of the communist revolution he was promoting.
Ideally, we should all read widely–Rand and Marx, bible and Koran. But if we can’t read widely, at least we should read carefully.
I think about that every time I encounter a “bible-believing” Christian who identifies with Ayn Rand.
It’s all over but the shouting. The steady movement toward equality really is inexorable.
Earlier today, my husband and I rode our bikes to the Pride Parade. This was the 10th year for the Indy parade, and we were at the very first one–when, as my husband recalled, marchers outnumbered spectators even though only four or five groups marched. The parade has grown steadily–I stopped counting after fifty and it went on for a long time after that–and the crowd of spectators was massive.
The parade began at 10 and lasted until around 11:30, by which time the Pride Festival had begun. Even though the organizers had expanded the venue this year, going from the World War Memorial all the way up the Plaza to the library, it was so crowded I had trouble walking at some points. Parade and festival participants ranged from political candidates and officeholders, to banks, CPA firms and law offices, to local universities, to companies like Lilly, Cummins and Dow Agro. Local GLBT organizations were well represented, and so were area churches. (Out of 250 booths, I counted nine churches–and not just the “usual subjects.” The list included North United Methodist Church, Church of the Savior, Northview Church of the Brethern, All Saints Episcopal and Castleview Baptist, among others.)
So let me share some random observations:
The crowds weren’t just huge, they were significantly more diverse than they used to be. There were large numbers of African-Americans and Latinos this year, for example. In the past, the more conservative nature of their cultures has meant fewer black and Latino attendees. From the looks of this year’s crowd, those barriers have weakened. (Surprisingly, I even saw two Muslim women wearing headscarves.)
Organizers accommodated the greater number of children in attendance by erecting a Fun Zone with a couple of large blow-up “bouncy houses.” From the looks of it, the kids were bouncing themselves silly and having a great time.
There must be a lot of dog lovers in the gay community; I saw spay-neuter organizations, dog grooming salons, something called “Puppy Playground” and something else called the “Bark Tutor School for Dogs.” It wasn’t just dogs–a representative of PETA thrust a pamphlet into my hands with an adorable, fuzzy chick and the caption “If you knew me you wouldn’t eat me.”
A very persuasive young salesman nearly sold me a Chevy Volt. Chevrolet had several cars on display, but the Volt was clearly the star of their show.
The wonderful thing about capitalism is that it trumps bigotry every time. Literally hundreds of merchants were hawking their wares on the mall–from the jewelry and tee shirt vendors who reliably show up at every festival to realtors, printers, day spas, pizza joints and children’s camps. It was a great opportunity for marketing, and they were taking full advantage of it.
Also taking the opportunity for outreach were lots of government agencies, social services organizations, and a variety of non-profits hoping to attract new members.
Bottom line? Over the past decade, as old bigotries have steadily retreated, the annual Pride festival has come to look more and more like every other American celebration, with gays and straights, children and adults, vendors and politicians all mingling on the mall. That normalcy is what will finally defeat the remaining homophobic fringe characters who can look at lots of nice, normal people enjoying themselves on a sunny Saturday and see a group of fellow humans who somehow don’t deserve equal civil rights.
Fortunately, fewer and fewer people see what Eric Miller and Micah Clark see. That ship has sailed. Too bad they weren’t on it.
When I read about City-County Councilor Joe Simpson’s arrest last week for “disorderly conduct,” I immediately thought about an incident several years ago involving the then-Legal Director of Indiana’s ACLU.
He had been on his front porch when police descended on the house next door, and he took issue with aspects of their behavior which he believed violated the Constitution. He never left his porch, but he did enter into a verbal exchange with the police, who responded by arresting him for disorderly conduct. Being a lawyer–and an ACLU lawyer to boot–he sued for false arrest. For years thereafter, he liked to say that the City provided the downpayment for his new house.
I don’t know the details of the altercation between Joe Simpson and the police–although I do know that the parallels being drawn between his arrest and past legal problems of other Councilors are ridiculous: surely we can draw a distinction between mouthing off to the police and taking bribes. That said, perhaps his arrest was justified, perhaps not.
My problem is with laws that lack specificity. Laws against “disorderly” conduct and “loitering” are widely recognized as invitations to official abuse. Police are notorious for using these catch-alls to arrest people whose “crime” has been to challenge their authority. As I tell my students, the rule of law requires that laws be written with sufficient specificity and clarity to alert citizens to the sort of behavior that is being proscribed.
It is manifestly unfair to legislate against vague categories of behavior, without defining the elements of that behavior. If the legislature passed a measure outlawing “irresponsible” driving, for example, such a law would fail to provide any meaningful direction to drivers and would vest far too much discretion in traffic police. Instead, we spell out the behaviors we want to prohibit: speeding, texting while driving, failing to wear a seat belt, etc. Policymakers and citizens can agree or disagree about the propriety of those particular prohibitions, but we all know them when we see them.
There is no such clarity with laws against loitering or disorderly conduct.
