Republican candidates seem ready “to provoke a constitutional crisis over abortion.”

NJ gets serious about school bullying.

What happened to Sarah Palin‘s political glamour?

British fashion designer, John Galliano, was convicted of “public insults for reasons of religion, race or ethnicity” for “dirty Jews” comment. While we may personally relish the conviction, freedom of speech is a better antidote for antisemitism and hatred generally, all things considered.

Federal court blocks Florida law preventing doctors from questioning patients about guns.

Also in Florida, representatives of the teachers union sues over the constitutionality of the recently passed merit pay bill.

The New Yorker‘s Reeves Wiedeman and Nick Paumgarten discuss the fall of Federer and the rise of Djokovic and Nadal.

R. Aharon Lichtenstein reflects on the anniversary of 9/11.

Let us know what you’ve been reading in the comments.

Rashi cites a midrash from Sanhedrin 46b that offers the following parable. Twin brothers lived in the same city. One became a king; the other became a criminal and was hanged. All who saw the hanging corpse would exclaim, “The king is hanging.” So similar is the human body to the divine image that we are concerned a passerby will mistake the former for the latter.

But is this really the Torah’s concern? One who sees the corpse probably won’t conclude that the King of Kings is hanging, but perhaps he should. If we recognize that each and every individual is created in the image of God and take that point seriously, then we may very well confuse the hanging corpse with God Himself, even if just for a moment.

Often, the Torah reflects the imperfect reality in which we find ourselves. An example of this is the eshet yefat to’ar, discussed earlier the same parashah. In such a case, the Torah teaches us how to respond when we find ourselves in a less than ideal situation. Here though, the Torah does the opposite. Burying the corpse on the same day as the execution prevents a passerby from mistaking the hanging body with the image of God. This mistake is reasonable, but only if we fully appreciate the relationship between the human being and the image of God. The two are, of course, not the same thing but are rather like twin brothers, (should be) easily confused with one another.

That’s what the cashier asked as I was checking out at Duane Reade the other day. Of course I understand that she was asking me for a donation to fight breast cancer and not for a donation that would give someone cancer.

Similarly, there are programs at hospitals for “Domestic Violence Advocates” – these laudable individuals rush to the hospital, often late at night, when a victim comes in having been attacked or raped and help see her (usually it’s a her) through the unfamiliar, and scary, hospital process.  But no one really thinks the title of “Domestive Violence Advocate” is someone who advocates for domestic violence. That would be absurd.

There’s value to society in figuring out norms and means for communication. We shrink “would you like to donate some money in order to conduct research that is focused on finding a cure for breast cancer” to “would you like to donate to breast cancer.” We lose some specificity, and if an alien came from outer space they might wonder why we’re so demented as to promote cancer, but that’s not really such a concern.

At the same time, figuring out what those shortcuts are can often lead you to an area ripe for disruption, a new product, startup, or a new way of looking at things. Communication shortcuts are just assumptions, examples of “this is always how it’s been done,” and often you can unleash great power and value when you question those very assumptions. And that’s what went through my head on the way from Duane Reade back to my office.

PS: Donate to the American Cancer Society  or DOVE (Domestic Violence Ended), two very worth organizations, today.

NYT’s John Tierney illustrates “decision fatigue” with an Israeli parole board.

Rebecca Traister’s excellent piece in the New York Time’s magazine criticizing the WWHHD (What Would Hillary Have Done) crowd.

The (hopefully) sarcastic musing on an abortion clinic “Hosing” obnoxious protestors.

An interesting take on the United States’s primary military rivals – China, India, and the Soviet Union?  Yeah, that is what I was afraid of too.

Watch hurricane tweets out-running Hurricane Irene in realtime.

This week’s NYT Magazine has a fascinating article on the unique intensity of professional tennis rivalries.

Slate‘s Terry Turnipseed thinks the president’s using an autopen to sign bills is unconstitutional.

Guest-blogging at Volokh Conspiracy, Mitch Berman discusses his recently published article, “Let ‘em Play”: A Study in the Jurisprudence of Sport.”

NPR has this wonderful county-by-county map of Florida’s average teacher salaries.

Florida’s legislature doing the people’s will by forcing kids (in school) to pull up their pants.  The only question is what is more important, banning sagging pants or bestiality – a question for the ages.

This New York Times op-ed about the problems of college athletics completely ignores that we are using and abusing the players themselves.

Let us know what you’ve been reading in the comments.

1. Israel finds natural resources and begins exploiting them;
2. The value of the NIS (New Israeli Shekel) increases due to currency inflows;
3. Israeli manufacturing including high-tech Intel chip becomes less competitive because Israeli products become more expensive elsewhere;
4. The most skilled and intelligent people go to work for the high-paying gas industry; and
5. Other Israeli industries become even less competitive because of the interaction between 3 and 4.

Planet Money purports that Norway has escaped Dutch disease (as does this article – to an extent), but how?  Norway did the following:

1. Limited general wage increases;
2. Exercised fiscal discipline (pay back debts, establish Petroleum Fund, protect economy from excess demand);
3. Developed local ability to develop natural resource;
4. Used natural resource money for education, research, and development;
5. Used resource rents to counteract recessions;
6. Maintained centralized wage negotiation system; and
7. Maintained knowledge/expertise in non-natural resource activities.

Escaping the Resource Curse and the Dutch Disease? When and Why Norway Caught up with and Forged ahead of Its Neighbors.

Query whether Israel is willing and able to enact these significant and important policies to combat the looming resource curse.  One thing is certain, if there truly is as much gas in the Leviathan Oil Field as experts project – Israel must at least seriously consider what policy tacks are most appropriate.  Israel’s failure to react appropriately to these real risks may harm Israel’s economy as it has other industrialized nations like Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Ireland, and (perhaps) the United States.  Israel’s significantly developed institutions will hopefully prevent at least some of the negative effects of the resource curse, but there are many other advanced countries with highly developed institutions which also suffered from the resource curse.

There’s plenty to criticize about The Response, for example, its emphasis on piety and Jesus over our more this-worldly injustices and dangers. But criticizing the public display of religiosity, as many groups did, is dangerous for both religion and secularism.

The ADL, for example, sent a letter to Perry, expressing concern “with [his] official encouragement of citizens and fellow elected officials to attend and participate in a sectarian Christian prayer meeting.” Other Jewish groups opposed the rally on similar grounds and several lawsuits were filed for an injunction (see here and here).

As Paul Horwitz, law professor at the University of Alabama, notes in a thoughtful opinion piece several weeks ago, Perry’s critics have “plenty of ammunition” but they went after the wrong target: public religion.

Religion plays too important a part in many people’s lives to be denied a role in the public square. To be sure, there are some things the state can’t do, like demand that schoolchildren pray each day. But elected officials, like other citizens, are free to have and express religious views. And voters are entitled to support or reject public officials for all kinds of reasons, including their religious views. To hold that elected officials can’t publicly invoke their religion won’t help a country of believers, agnostics and atheists reach any kind of consensus. It will only impoverish the conversation, depriving many citizens of the ability to make, and judge, arguments that reflect their most cherished views.

Preventing public officials from openly expressing their religious convictions, either by public pressure or judicial intervention, undermines religious freedom in a fundamental way. I’ve written before about the tension between religion and democracy (see also here) and, more recently, about how religion is treated by our courts (see also Jason’s post on circumcision). When we expect personally devout political leaders to check their God at the door, we effectively require them to split their personality in a way we don’t demand of non-religious politicians. That’s unfair and unconstitutional. It’s also imprudent and diminishes the quality of public debate.

Some people think we would be better off without religion in public life. In the long run, however, we would lose much more than we gain. Our debates may be more contentious if we allow religion in, but they will also be more committed and honest. Just as the Constitution allows Mr. Perry to stake his political future on “The Response,” it allows the rest of us to answer back.

Economists have long recognized that natural resources do not always result in increased GDP or quality of life for that nation’s citizens.  For example, from 1965 to 1998, OPEC countries per capita growth declined on average by 1.3% while non-OPEC developing countries grew on average 2.2%.  Additionally, natural resources are a frequent cause of conflict, and have often hurt countries and their residents rather than helping them.

Causes

One of the leading causes of the natural resource curse is that large amounts of natural resources provide the wrong incentives for governments.  Whereas resource weak countries earn revenue through the productivity of its citizenry and laborers, some countries with significant natural resources collect most of their state monies through the exploitation and control of the natural resources – resource rich states are subsequently called “rentier states” meaning countries which “derive all or a substantial portion of their national revenues from the rent of indigenous resources to external clients.”

The “rentier” nature of natural resource rich states is one of the reasons why some of the worst dictators have risen to power in countries with vast natural resource wealth – for example, Libya, Iraq (under Saddam Hussein), Charles Taylor, and countless others.  This is, of course, not to say that dictators cannot exist in resource poor countries – although in my limited research I was unable to locate any (even North Korea has significant natural resources) – merely that dictators came to power in resource wealthy countries in large part because of those resources.

Conclusion

Israel and Israelis must be wary of the significant potential that the Leviathan gas fields will harm the state and, more importantly, its citizens.  Natural gas (and other resources) can be an important part of a nation’s economy, but when a nation becomes overly dependent on resource revenue, that resource may well become a curse.  Perhaps most importantly, Israel has had great success in building a modern, first-world-ish, service economy (not withstanding the Heritage Institute’s relatively poor rating of Israel).  Israel’s capitalist economy with strong social programs for the poor and a strong eduction system with (relatively) strong civil rights has fostered many start-up firms and has grown rapidly over the last sixty years.  For example, oil rich Saudi Arabia had a per-capita gdp approximately the same as Israel in 1986.  Currently Israel’s per capita gdp is greater than $26,000 per year while Saudi Arabia’s gdp is less than $15,000 – Israel’s gdp is more than 56% higher than Saudi Arabia.  On a ppp basis (i.e., accounting for the relative cost of living), Israeli’s per capital gdp is nearly $28,000 while Saudi Arabia’s is only $23,900.

As Milton Friedman famously said: “there’s no such thing as a free lunch.”  In other words, the money that Israel makes off its gas reserves will cost it – the question is merely how much and in what currency.

VC’s David Bernstein has an interesting post on the housing-cost demonstrations in Israel. Michael Walzer has a different take. Amoz Oz, another take.

Jihadi Jew suggests that Jews can relate to Ramadan (via).

Fareed Zakaria makes the case for cutting the defense budget.

Steve Benen thinks “Obama is the most effective politician since Reagan, and depending on the day, perhaps even the most effective politician since LBJ.”

Rabbi Eric Yoffie has “no patience for survival Judaism.”

Shoshie, guest-blogging at Feministe, has an interesting post on why she is religious, in a feminist context.

A black and Jewish Hollywood writer describes her struggle with affirmative action.

SCOTUSblog is hosting a series of essays on the constitutionality of ObamaCare.

As it turns out, the Supreme Court relies on legal scholarship more than the Chief Justice thinks.

Rosie, the first judicially approved courtroom dog in New York, comforts a young girl while she testifies about being raped, sparking legal debate.

Slate‘s William Saletan has a sobering article on twin reductions and abortions.

How the “hottest training camp in the NFL” deals with losing “collective[ly] 450 pounds of fluid during each two-hour practice last week.”

Op-ed piece from the Wall Street Journal completely misrepresenting Buffet’s Tax piece in the New York Times while failing to actually meaningfully disagree on the issues.

Let us know what you’ve been reading in the comments.

Unfortunately, it might not have been. This year, although he’s produced plenty of runs (32 HRs, 86 RBI), his career-low .249 BA is hard to understand for a guy who, until last year, hadn’t hit below .280 since his rookie year. Teixeira knows that, at 31, he’s too young to be physically declining and especially so since his power numbers remain strong. But numbers don’t lie. So to what does he attribute it?

Asked to identify why a hitter who was once so complete might have experienced such a noticeable drop, Teixeira said he believed one factor was the defensive alignments teams are increasingly using against him when he bats left-handed.

In the shift, three of the four infielders move to the first-base side of the diamond to neutralize his tendency to pull the ball.

“Obviously I’m losing hits to the shift,” Teixeira said. “How much? I don’t know. But I’d guess something.”

According to Yankees hitting coach Kevin Long, Tex is losing 15-20 points off his batting average to the shift. I didn’t crunch the numbers myself but it makes sense. It explains why Tex still gets his walks, strikes out about the same, and hits for power. I started getting nervous when he went on a home run tear in June. Obviously, he was seeing the ball well, but during that span his batting average only hovered around .260. The power meant he wasn’t slumping. Something else had to be going on.

At the end of the day, a .850 OPS is nothing to sneeze at and the Yankee lineup is certainly deep enough to pick up any slack. But long-term, Tex has to adjust if he’s to continue contributing over the next few years. This isn’t a slump he has to get out of, like must of us assumed last year. Teams just figured out how to defend him.

There’s no shortage of ballplayers who have a few good years and flame out at 30. I’ve been a fan of Tex since the trade rumors about the Yankees first surfaced in ’08. At the time, I considered him one of the most complete players in the game. He hit .300, hit for power, drew walks, and played a Gold Glove first-base. But he’s on the verge of withdrawing into irrelevance if he doesn’t adjust his game. Next year will make or break Tex’s legacy. If he’s the elite hitter I always thought he was, we should see a dangerous Mark Teixeira back at the heart of the Yankee lineup.

Ezra Klein outlines the winners and losers of the debt-ceiling deal.

The New Yorker‘s Hendrik Hertzberg on how terminology influenced the debt-ceiling negotiations.

WaPo’s Charles Krauthammer has a thought-provoking article on competing visions of American greatness, as illustrated by the debt-ceiling debate.

Will Wilkinson on presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s “theology of exceptionalism“.

Failed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork thinks the Balanced Budget Amendment is a bad idea.

Lawyer up in 15 minutes – will this make society MORE litigious (as if that is possible)?

Eugene Volokh has an excellent post on the meaning and scope of free speech.

Let us know what you’ve been reading in the comments.