Pre-Thanksgiving Quick Hits

Here is some brief commentary on a few of the stories that have crossed my way this morning:

The Mail & Guardian reports that Iran wants to throw its support behind Zimbabwe in the face of hostile nations, such as those noted tyrants the English. This pretty much tells you all you need to know. The "Axis of Evil" was a monumentally reductionist and poorly thought-out construction, but there are nation states whose leadership is irredeemable. Mugabe falls into this category, and if we needed moral clarity on this, Iran's embrace of them shines a pretty bright light.

At The New Republic online, Conor Clarke goes after the Congressional Black Caucus. While some of his shots hit their mark, I cannot help but wonder if his syllogism -- is the CBC good for blacks or really just good for black Congressmen -- does not miss the point of the CBC. I think that there is no shame in the idea that the CBC does exist to provide support, succor, guidance, and what have you for the black delegation in Congress. This is especially so when one considers how small that delegation was at the founding of the CBC. I also think some of his examples are sloppy, fo example when he acknowledges that the CDC promotes a program that is undoubtedly good for black Americans -- but it does not differ all that much from the Democratic agenda. Well whop-de-doo. If the question is how good is the CBC for blacks, and you acknowledge that their agenda is in fact good for blacks, then you have sort of answered your own question, haven't you? Or when he argues that the CBC rallied behind Louisiana Representative William Jefferson after Jefferson's recent shenanigans (including the mysterious decision to hide $90,000 in his freezer) one wonders if Clarke has been paying attention -- if there is cynicism on this front it is Congress-wide, as even Republicans were up in arms over the way the search was carried out. Why focus on the CBC on the Jefferson issue then?

Also at TNR online, James Kirchick gives the one-woman show "My Name is Rachel Corrie" what appears to be a well-deserved pummelling. Rachel Corrie was a victim of her own naivete. What happened to her is tragic, and I think that at points in the article Kirchick might be a bit uncharitable. But those who have decided to take on Corrie as their embodiment of righteousness are fools. Those who have compared her to Anne Frank are idiots. Ther article does a nice job of cutting the cult of Corrie off at the knees.

Meanwhile, a Republican student group at Boston University has taken it upon themselves to offer scholarships for whites to point out what they call "the absurdity of any race-based scholarship." There is absurdity afoot at BU, but it is not on the part of BU's support of whatever (and I would bet my lunch their numbers and scope are overstated) race-based scholarships Commonwealth Avenue's great private university offers. Here is the deal: The purpose of race-based scholarships is to do two things: To bring in members of historically underrepresented groups to campus who might otherwise go elsewhere and to close gaps that historic protection of whites created. The idea that white students somehow represent a morally equivalent group to black Americans is an odd reading of history and of the concept of "absurdity." But beyond that, you get with your racialist selves, BU Republicans. Offer a scholarship to whomever you would like. Because your approach is certainly going to do wonders for the perception of the GOP among the rest of us, and surely won't apply any stigma at all for the student recipients of your let's-hamhandedly-prove-a-point scholarships in the larger community. There are ways to discuss and debate affirmative action. I would submit that cheap stunts probably are not the way to go. The BU student Republicans have just added to the Jackassization of the current political climate without offering anything of substance. Huzzah.