Books I read in 2005
I have discussed most of these things on amazon.com; you can read the reviews yourself. So I will not discuss them in detail here, though I have noted a few books that I especially thought worth reading.

POLITICS

1. Fixing Elections, Steven Hill
2. The True Believer, Eric Hoffer
3. Woodward, Bush at War
4. Frank, What’s the Matter with Kansas?

JEWISH STUFF

1. Being God’s Partner, Jeffrey Salkin
2. The Jews of Islam, Bernard Lewis
3. The Holy Fire, ed. Nehemiah Polen
4. Discourse on: The Law of the Eternal is Perfect, Nachmanides
5. Maimonides, Commentary on mishnah aboth
6. Joselit, The Wonders of America
7. Hailperin, Rashi and the Christian Scholars (not on amazon)
8. Lipstadt, History on Trial
9. Abravenel, Principles of Faith/Rosh Emunah
10. Saadia Gaon, Book of Opinions and Beliefs (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED)
11. El-Or, Educated and Ignorant
12. Jaffe, Two Jews can Still Be A Mixed Marriage
13. De Lange, Apocrypha
14. Raphael Jospe, Great Schisms in Jewish History
15. Shochet, The Hasidic Movement and the Gaon of Vilna
16. The Great Poems of the Bible, James Kugel
17. Freundel, Contemporary Orthodox Judaism’s Response to Modernity
18. Gordis, The Book of God and Man
19. Shapiro, The Limits of Orthodox Theology (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED)
20. Schnall, By the Sweat of Your Brow
21. Lorberbaum, Politics and the Limits of Law
22. Chafetz Chaim, Ahavat Chesed
23. Blidstein, Honor Thy Father and Mother
24. Meier, Moses: The Prince, The Prophet
25. Cordevero, Palm Tree of Devorah
26. Jacobs, Beyond Reasonable Doubt
27. Cernea, The Great Latke-Hamantash Debate
28. Bokser, The Essential Writings of Abraham Isaac Kook
29. Elazar and Geffen , The Conservative Movement In Judaism

URBAN AND SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT

1. Urban Sprawl and Public Health, Frumkin et al
2. Kushner, The Post-Automobile City
3. Cashin, The Failures of Integration
4. Katz et al, Redefining Urban and Suburban America (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED)
5. Bullard, Highway Robbery
6. Rae, City: Urbanism and Its End (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED)
7. Fogelson, Downtown
8. Lang, Edgeless Cities
9. Downs, Growth Management and Affordable Housing
10. Zoned Out, Levine (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED)

NOVELS

1. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
2. Englander, For The Relief of Unbearable Urges
3. Norris, Blue Plate Special
4. A couple of Lemony Snicket books (Miserable Mill, Reptile Room) - really too short to count as one book apiece
5. Burke, Missing Justice
6. Singer, Shosha
7. Louisa, Simone Zelitch

MISC

1. Hamburg, Will Our Love Last?
2. Johnson, History of Christianity

blogging from AALS
I just finished attending the AALS law professors' conference, and thought I would tell my readers (if there are any out there) about some of the more interesting discussions.

A. The Law of Imaginary Jewish Theocracies

On Thursday morning I went to a panel on the religious implications of Jews ruling over people of other faiths. Panelists included (but were not limited to) Rabbi Bleich of Cardozo, Shayna Sigman of Minnesota and Noah Feldman of NYU.

Prof. Feldman began by discussing Maimonides' laws of war and peace. Maimonides wrote a Jewish legal code which, among other issues, discussed wars by Jewish kingships and the aftermath of same.

He wrote that a Jewish kingdom governed by Jewish law should always give enemies a chance to peacefully surrender (See Deut. 20:10). Terms of
surrender, according to Maimonides, were to include (1) submission of course, (2) acceptance of Noahide laws (laws which, according to the Talmud, were given by God to Noah and Adam and are thus binding upon mankind- mostly ethical, but also including prohibitions upon (a) idol worship and (b) eating limbs torn from live animals), and (3) paying taxes.

Maimonides explained that submission did not just mean willingness to live in peace among the victorious Jews, but also being second-class citizens, "despised and subordinated" (according to my notes) and unable to hold public office. Prof. Feldman suggested that this definition of submission was essentially identical to Muslim doctrines of the time (i.e. that polytheists were to be wiped out, and that Jews and Christians could live in Muslim communities as second-class citizens). In support of this view, Feldman noted similarities between the words used by Maimonides and Arabic terms for submission.

Feldman also pointed out that later commentators disagree over how Maimonides interpreted "willingness to live by Noahide laws." Prof. Feldman argued that such "willingness" included acceptance of the laws by reason as well as by revelation. Other translators assert that only the latter constituted submission to the Noahide laws. In any event, Maimonides hardly endorsed freedom of religion by modern standards, since he (like the Muslims) did not endorse freedom of religion for polytheists.

Finally, Feldman pointed out that Maimonides did not hold that Jews had an affirmative obligation to conquer nonbelievers- only that, in the unlikely event they did so, they were to insist on observance of the Noahide laws. Why? Feldman's explanation is that the purpose of the doctrine is to protect Jews from being infected by idolatry, rather than to protect pagans from themselves. In other words, idol-worshippers can do as they please on their own, but not in a Jewish-ruled kingdom lest the Jews be seduced into idolatry.

Rabbi Bleich asserted that the whole discussion was nuts. He began by pointing out that later commentators radically expanded the Noahide laws as to include something very similar to Jewish ritual obligations. For example, some commentators asserted that if you don't slaughter an animal properly under Jewish law, eating the animal constitutes eating part of a "living animal" (for technical reasons that I'm not sure I can adequately explain- something about how the internal organs are treated as "living" if the animal is not properly slaughtered). Thus, not eating nonkosher meat would be part of a Noahide law, and thus Muslims, Christians, etc. are in violation of the Noahide laws unless they are vegetarians.

In other words, Maimonides' halacha, combined with broad interpretation of Noahide laws, would make religious freedom impossible- and even a narrower interpretation would gut religious freedom for polytheists, obviously a result incompatible with modern Western values of freedom of religion.

Bleich therefore reasoned that the Noahide laws were not designed to be practical or relevant. Rather, they are for implementation only in Messianic times if at all. (As my notes describe his remarks- first the law is composed, then God creates a world in which it could be implemented).

Bleich told an amusing story. Supposedly, someone asked Rabbi Joseph Solovetchik (a great 20th-c. Jewish philosopher) what halachic experts would say about Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. The Rav responded "Thank Heaven they don't ask!' - the point being, that any response based on centuries-old writings would probably be highly impractical.

Prof. Sigman made more practical comments, focusing on marriage and divorce law in Israel. Marital law is based on pre-state Ottoman Empire law, which gave each religious community dominance over its own laws. There is no civil marriage. Some problems arising out of this system:

*What happens when one religion's marital laws are far more sexist than the general public policy of the state?

*What happens to people who aren't part of any religious community.


B. Federalism and the Environment

I then went to a more normal discussion about federalism and the environment.

Prof. Engel of Arizona discussed state attempts to regulate global warming. She suggested that these attempts were of questionable economic rationality given the possibility that any real limits on emissions would cause capital to flow to other states without having enough impact to really affect global warming. She suggested that most state-level proposals were purely symbolic. (I am not sure that even national or global policy changes would make a difference- but I'm no expert in the area, to put it mildly).

Prof. Nash of Tulane discussed the difficulty of relying on states to regulate the environment. States have occasionally sought to go beyond federal regulation- but when they do they are usually crushed by either political pressure or by the federal courts, who invoke federal preemption, the dormant Commere Clause, etc. So as long as the feds keep interfering, uniform national regulation is the only effective way to regulate environmental problems.

C. Punitives and Compensatory Awards

Prof. Sharkey of Columbia discussed a study on punitive damages caps, and asserting that where such caps were in effect juries tended to "compensate" by inflating compensatory damage awards (except in auto cases where damages tended to be pretty tangible). By contrast, no such compensatory effect existed in bench trials: judges gave the same amount of compensatory damages whether punitive caps existed or not.

D. Crime Rising and Falling

One of the best presentations was by Prof. Zimring of Chicago (who I think is one of the best public speakers I have ever seen- he'd be a great teacher!), discussing the drop in crime over the past 15 years. Zimring pointed out that crime declined for 10 years in a row (1991-2000) and in some categories was cut in half or nearly so. The most common explanations for the crime drop are (a) increased use of imprisonment, (b) economic prosperity, and (c) fewer crime-prone teenagers due to declining birth rates in the 1970s and 1980s. Zimring pointed out that the Canadians experienced a similar (though somewhat smaller) drop despite the absence of factors (a) and (b). Zimring didn't really answer the question of why the Canadians had a similar experience- just posed the question.

Zimring also noted that NYC's drop in crime was far greater than that of the rest of the country, despite the fact that NYC has more economic inequality than the rest of the country.

E. The Constitution and the Right

I saw Prof. Barnett of Boston Univ. and Prof. Sunstein of Chicago discuss conservatives and constitutional law. What I got out of the discussion is that inside-the-Beltway conservatives aren't really part of a theoretical school, but borrow liberally from two very different constitutional schools: libertarians like Richard Epstein who believe that the New Deal is unconstitutional but often support Warren/Burger Court socially liberal rulings, and "judicial restraint" theorists (like Lino Graglia of Texas) who believe that almost nothing is unconstitutional and thus would upheld both liberal economic legislation and conservative social legislation such as curbs on abortion. Commentators in both groups claim to be originalists (though Barnett says the libertarians are the real originalists). Justices Scalia and Thomas are not consistently in either group, but Thomas leans towards the libertarians, while Scalia leans more towards the judicial restraint group.

F. Kelo and related issues

As I mentioned on this blog some months ago, Kelo v. New London reaffirmed prior precedent allowing government to take land for economic development purposes as long as it compensated landowners. Prof. Merrill of Columbia, Prof. Garnett of Notre Dame, Prof. Salkin of Albany, and Prof. Been of NYU addressed issues related to Kelo.

Prof. Merrill talked about why Kelo is so controversial, and said the argument reflected a cleaveage between utilitarians and "moral rights" attitudes in the public. Utilitarians emphasized the public benefit from economic development, looking at the situation from the government's standpoint rather than that of the person whose property has been taken. Utilitarians tend to favor allowing government to make eminent domain decisions through cost-benefit analysis, while proponents of the "moral rights" view either has no idea where to draw the line or emphasizes blight as a "bright line" test (because someone who allows his property to become "blighted" is blameworthy and thus deserves to have land taken)

Prof. Garnett talked about eminent domain in the real world. First she sketched out a hypothesis of how eminent domain might work: that landowners are systematically undercompensated because they get fair market value (the minimum required under the federal Takings Clause) but don't get relocation expenses, business goodwill, etc.

Then she demolished the hypothesis, pointing out that her research showed that landowners usually get far more than the Constitution requires. Why might this be the case?

*To avoid a nasty court/public relations battle, governments will sometimes overpay landowners to avoid litigation.

*Government usually provides relocation assistance, because the federal government requires it for any federally funded program and some states require it as well. Sometimes, relocation assistance is negotiated. For example, when government took land to build an auto plant in Indiana it gave homeowners about $80K apiece in market value, but $40K more in relocation assistance.

Prof. Garnett added that she nevertheless thought that government does not overcompensate landowners, because giving money beyond fair market value (1) compensates landowners for the "dignitary harm" of losing their land and (2) deters wasteful economic development projects. In fact, she suggested that existing compensation might not be enough to deter wasteful projects, such states often are using federal money and corporations often "take the money and run" (that is, build a plant or office with eminent domain assistance and then move to another city a few years later).

Prof. Salkin discussed a wide variety of state and federal proposals to limit or overrule Kelo, nearly all of which are still under debate. The most meritorious of these proposals involved task forces to study the issue. Other ideas floating around include (1) requiring "blight"(whatver that is) for takings, (2) prohibiting takings for "economic development" (whatever that is), (3) defining "public use" by statute (as the Constitution requires that eminent domain be justified by a public use), (4) increasing compensation for landowners whose property has been taken, and (5) changing procedure (e.g. burdens of proof) in various ways.

Prof. Been pointed out that there is a lot we just don't know about eminent domain, and suggested a variety of avenues for further research. For example:

*What are the unintended consequences of reforms limiting eminent domain?

For example, if we bar economic development takings that give land to private businesses, will that lead to more government-run economic development enterprises (or more government subsidies to private businesses) to get around the restriction?

*Is eminent domain used primarily for infill or greenfield development? Will restricting government use of eminent domain lead to more of one or the other?

*One justification for eminent domain is that it is necessary to deal with "holdouts" (one of a large number of landowners who, rather than voluntarily selling to the government, holds out for an exorbitant price since the consent of every landowner on a parcel is necessary for something useful to be built). How common is the holdout problem?

*Are projects built using eminent domain usually useful or wasteful?

Silly suburbanites
Even though of course the Christian references aren't quite my cup of tea, I still found this amusing.

God Finds Out About Lawn Care
>
"Winterize your lawn," the big sign outside the garden store commanded. I've fed it, watered it, mowed it, raked it and watched a lot of it die anyway. Now I'm supposed to winterize it? I hope it's too late. Grass lawns have to
be the stupidest thing we've come up with outside of thong swimsuits! We constantly battle dandelions, Queen Anne's lace, thistle, violets, chicory and clover that thrive naturally, so we can grow grass that must be nursed through an annual four step chemical dependency.
>
> Imagine the conversation The Creator might have with St. Francis about this:
>
> "Frank you know all about gardens and nature. What in the world is going on
down there? What happened to the dandelions, violets, thistle and stuff I
started eons ago? I had a perfect, no maintenance garden plan. Those plants
grow in any type of soil, withstand drought and multiply with abandon. The
nectar from the long-lasting blossoms attracted butterflies, honey bees and
flocks of songbirds. I expected to see a vast garden of colors by now. But
all I see are these green rectangles."
>
> "It's the tribes that settled there, Lord. The Suburbanites. They started
> calling your flowers 'weeds' and went to great extent to kill them and
> replace them with grass."
>
> "Grass? But it's so boring. It's not colorful. It doesn't attract
> butterflies, birds and bees, only grubs and sod worms. It's temperamental
> with temperatures. Do these suburbanites really want all that grass growing
> there?"
>
> "Apparently so, Lord. They go to great pains to grow it and keep it green.
> They begin each spring by fertilizing grass and poisoning any other plant
> that crops up in the lawn."
>
> "The spring rains and cool weather probably make grass grow really fast.
> That must make the Suburbanites happy."
>
> "Apparently not, Lord. As soon as it grows a little, they cut it _ sometimes
> twice a week."
>
> "They cut it? Do they then bale it like hay?"
>
> "Not exactly, Lord. Most of them rake it up and put it in bags."
>
> "They bag it? Why? Is it a cash crop? Do they sell it?"
>
> "No, sir. Just the opposite. They pay to throw it away."
>
> "Now let me get this straight. They fertilize grass so it will grow. And
> when it does grow, they cut it off and pay to throw it away?"
>
> "Yes, sir."
>
> "These Suburbanites must be relieved in the summer when we cut back on the
> rain and turn up the heat. That surely slows the growth and saves them a lot
> of work."
>
> "You aren't going believe this Lord. When the grass stops growing so fast,
> they drag out hoses and pay more money to water it so they can continue to
> mow it and pay to get rid of it."
>
> "What nonsense! At least they kept some of the trees. That was a sheer
> stroke of genius, if I do say so myself. The trees grow leaves in the spring
> to provide beauty and shade in the summer. In the autumn they fall to the
> ground and form a natural blanket to keep moisture in the soil and protect
> the trees and bushes. Plus, as they rot, the leaves form compost to enhance
> the soil. It's a natural circle of life."
>
> "You better sit down, Lord. The Suburbanites have drawn a new circle. As
> soon as the leaves fall, they rake them into great piles and have them
> hauled away."
>
> "No! What do they do to protect the shrub and tree roots in the winter and
> keep the soil moist and loose?"
>
> "After throwing away your leaves, they go out and buy something they call
> mulch. They haul it home and spread it around in place of the leaves."
>
> "And where do they get this mulch?"
>
> "They cut down trees and grind them up."
>
> "Enough! I don't want to think about this anymore. Saint Catherine, you're
> in charge of the arts. What movie have you scheduled for us tonight?"
>
> "Dumb and Dumber, Lord. It's a real stupid movie about..."
>
> "Never mind I think I just heard the whole story."

Hanukah- the real story
When I was a child, I was taught that Hanukah is the festival of religious freedom. Some nasty Greeks (actually Greeks who ran a kingdom in Syria) tried to prevent Jews from practicing their religion. We revolted; we won.

But as a grownup, I learned about a counter-history: that the whole thing was just a civil war between more religious Jews and less religious Jews. The secular left likes this story because it makes the Maccabees look like the Taliban. (See here for an example). Some people on the ultra-Orthodox right likes it because it allows them to paint less observant Jews as the bad guys in the Hanukah drama (See here (December 19 post) for an example).

So which history is right? Josephus (a 1st-century writer who started off the War of 70 as a Jewish soldier and defected to the Romans because he preferred breathing to martyrdom) writes:

"About this time, upon the death of Onias the high priest, they gave the high priesthood to Jesus his brother; for that son which Onias left [or Onias IV.] was yet but an infant; and, in its proper place, we will inform the reader of all the circumstances that befell this child. But this Jesus, who was the brother of Onias, was deprived of the high priesthood by the king, who was angry with him, and gave it to his younger brother, whose name also was Onias; for Simon had these three sons, to each of which the priesthood came, as we have already informed the reader. This Jesus changed his name to Jason, but Onias was called Menelaus. Now as the former high priest, Jesus, raised a sedition against Menelaus, who was ordained after him, the multitude were divided between them both. And the sons of Tobias took the part of Menelaus, but the greater part of the people assisted Jason; and by that means Menelaus and the sons of Tobias were distressed, and retired to Antiochus, and informed him that they were desirous to leave the laws of their country, and the Jewish way of living according to them, and to follow the king's laws, and the Grecian way of living. Wherefore they desired his permission to build them a Gymnasium at Jerusalem. (15) And when he had given them leave, they also hid the circumcision of their genitals, that even when they were naked they might appear to be Greeks. Accordingly, they left off all the customs that belonged to their own country, and imitated the practices of the other nations . . .

I will now give a particular account of what concerns this king, how he subdued Judea and the temple; for in my former work I mentioned those things very briefly, and have therefore now thought it necessary to go over that history again, and that with great accuracy.

King Antiochus returning out of Egypt (16) for fear of the Romans, made an expedition against the city Jerusalem; and when he was there, in the hundred and forty-third year of the kingdom of the Seleucidse, he took the city without fighting, those of his own party opening the gates to him. And when he had gotten possession of Jerusalem, he slew many of the opposite party; and when he had plundered it of a great deal of money, he returned to Antioch.

4. Now it came to pass, after two years, in the hundred forty and fifth year, on the twenty-fifth day of that month which is by us called Chasleu, and by the Macedonians Apelleus, in the hundred and fifty-third olympiad, that the king came up to Jerusalem, and, pretending peace, he got possession of the city by treachery; at which time he spared not so much as those that admitted him into it, on account of the riches that lay in the temple; but, led by his covetous inclination, (for he saw there was in it a great deal of gold, and many ornaments that had been dedicated to it of very great value,) and in order to plunder its wealth, he ventured to break the league he had made. So he left the temple bare, and took away the golden candlesticks, and the golden altar [of incense], and table [of shew-bread], and the altar [of burnt-offering]; and did not abstain from even the veils, which were made of fine linen and scarlet. He also emptied it of its secret treasures, and left nothing at all remaining; and by this means cast the Jews into great lamentation, for he forbade them to offer those daily sacrifices which they used to offer to God, according to the law. And when he had pillaged the whole city, some of the inhabitants he slew, and some he carried captive, together with their wives and children, so that the multitude of those captives that were taken alive amounted to about ten thousand. He also burnt down the finest buildings; and when he had overthrown the city walls, he built a citadel in the lower part of the city, (17) for the place was high, and overlooked the temple; on which account he fortified it with high walls and towers, and put into it a garrison of Macedonians. However, in that citadel dwelt the impious and wicked part of the [Jewish] multitude, from whom it proved that the citizens suffered many and sore calamities. And when the king had built an idol altar upon God's altar, he slew swine upon it, and so offered a sacrifice neither according to the law, nor the Jewish religious worship in that country. He also compelled them to forsake the worship which they paid their own God, and to adore those whom he took to be gods; and made them build temples, and raise idol altars in every city and village, and offer swine upon them every day. He also commanded them not to circumcise their sons, and threatened to punish any that should be found to have transgressed his injunction. He also appointed overseers, who should compel them to do what he commanded. And indeed many Jews there were who complied with the king's commands, either voluntarily, or out of fear of the penalty that was denounced. But the best men, and those of the noblest souls, did not regard him, but did pay a greater respect to the customs of their country than concern as to the punishment which he threatened to the disobedient; on which account they every day underwent great miseries and bitter torments; for they were whipped with rods, and their bodies were torn to pieces, and were crucified, while they were still alive, and breathed. They also strangled those women and their sons whom they had circumcised, as the king had appointed, hanging their sons about their necks as they were upon the crosses. And if there were any sacred book of the law found, it was destroyed, and those with whom they were found miserably perished also."

In other words, at first there was some intra-Jewish dissension, which arose out of sordid personal rivalries. Eventually, some of the participants tried to get Antiochus on their side, and told him that the dispute was reallly about matters of high principle. But the whole thing didn't blow up into a full-fledged war until King Antiochus intervened and started stealing money, plundering temples and killing people.

(And this is from a Jew who lived in Rome and had every incentive to emphasize intra-Jewish rivalry as opposed to misconduct by pagans!)

So the kiddie version of history may actually to have been closer to the truth: the Maccabeean wars were wars for national independence and religious freedom (at least for Jews- presumably pagan religious freedom was a dicier matter!)

What I've been reading (updated)
my amazon.com reviews

A new link with an amusing entry
My newest link, CJ Heretic has a highly amusing Dec. 5 entry on combining Hanukah and Christmas. I highly recommend it.

I am part of an online panel on sprawl at
Property Professors' Blog.

I beat up on Joel Kotkin beating up on Portland
Joel Kotkin wrote this strange and often-silly article for the Portland paper, so I thought I give it the treatment it deserves. I expected more from him.

Portland lost in its own reflection

Few cities in North America are as widely feted as Portland. For many, Portland represents the epitome of "smart" urbanism, a paragon that puts other, less-brainy places to shame.
Pilgrims travel once or twice a month from as far as California and Canada to study Portland's transit system, economic development and land-use strategies. Lots of educated people, trees, clean air and good buzz help Portland get on all the right lists -- from "most livable," "most fit," "healthiest," "most competitive," "most literate" and "best for walking."
It's enough to make even a modest city booster blush. But before you all turn red, is all this praise deserved?
Much like its bigger soul mate, San Francisco, Portland isn't an old-style "city of big shoulders" but a lifestyle choice for the enlightened elite. They're the people who read more than average, walk or bicycle regularly and drink lots of good coffee.

COMMENT: Note the naked class warfare appeal. How dare they drink good coffee? And what the heck is a “City of Big Shoulders” anyhow?

Portland is becoming what I call an Ephemeral City. What do ephemeral cities do? Not much by traditional standards. They don't create a lot of jobs for working or middle-class people. Instead they mostly exist to celebrate themselves and provide an attractive setting for visitors and would-be migrants.

COMMENT: Only 10.3% of Portland households earned over $100,000, according to the 2000 Census. Only 9.9% of them had income under $10,000 per year. That leaves about 80% of Portland households in the “working and middle classes.” That seems like a lot of working- and middle-income households to me. By contrast, in Houston (a city Kotkin praises a few paragraphs down) 11.8% of households earn more than $100,000 (MORE than Portland’s 10.3%) and 11.6% earn under $10,000 per year (again, slightly MORE than Portland’s 9.9%).

In other words, Portland has MORE working- and middle-class people than Houston. Presumably most of them have jobs. So Portland may actually have more middle- and working-class jobs than Houston.
Maybe Kotkin doesn’t think that Portland jobs are “real” jobs. If so, he should educate readers on what his “traditional standards” are and why Portland meets them less than Houston does.But can a city survive -- and thrive -- primarily as a marketer of an urban experience?

COMMENT: And the evidence that Portland in fact survives “primarily as a marketer of an urban experience” is, um, um.... well, I don’t know because Kotkin doesn’t tell the reader. (Having only been to Portland once for about 12 hours, I don’t know any more than Kotkin does).

An ephemeral city doesn't compete with lesser places -- you know, those ugly cities with functional warehouses and factories, Wal-Marts and strip malls -- for jobs, companies or investors. An ephemeral city's economy relies largely on a high level of self-esteem among its residents.

COMMENT: No “functional warehouses and factories?” Then how come 12.5% of Portlanders work in manufacturing (again, MORE than Houston’s 10%). And according to the Wal-Mart website, there are actually two Wal-Marts in Portland zip codes, and a few more in neighboring cities. And where there are Wal-Marts, I think there are probably strip malls. But I’ll have to concede one point to Kotkin: evidently he has somehow learned that those Wal-Marts and factories rely on their customers’ and employees’ “high level of self-esteem.” I know how to dig up information on Census websites, but they don’t give me any information on cities’ self-esteem levels.

Four decades ago, author Neil Morgan used the term "narcissus of the West" to describe an already self-indulgent San Francisco. Now it's time for the City by the Bay to move over -- the City of Roses wants to take its place in front of the mirror.

To some extent, this high regard, like that of any well-chiseled middle-age narcissist, reflects something of a Portland reality. Portland, as its boosters are forever telling everyone, is a physically attractive place. Parts of the city -- like the much ballyhooed Pearl District -- look very much like famed urbanist Jane Jacobs' idealized urban district.

Rhapsodizers often miss the differences between Portland today and Jacobs' gritty Manhattan neighborhoods of more than 40 years ago. Those New York areas were home to large numbers of families and immigrants; they boasted both real bohemians (those without money) as well as people who worked with their hands. Most residents were there for employment and family; many hoped they'd move up into a nicer neighborhood someday.

Upward mobility was the common theme of the time. Urbanites wanted to get ahead -- not "soak" in the ambience -- and saw the city as a means to get there. "A metropolitan economy, if it is working well, is constantly transforming many poor people into middle class people . . . greenhorns into competent citizens," Jacobs suggests. ". . . Cities don't lure the middle class, they create it.”

Contrast that with genteel Portland, which increasingly places its bet largely on luring the hip, cool, iPod-toting creative class -- "the young and the restless," as one story recently put it. These hipsters are supposedly the engine of the city's future.

COMMENT: Who is the “Portland” Kotkin refers to? The mayor? The city council? His friends who live in Portland? And whoever Kotkin defines as “Portland”, how can it “place its bet” on anything? ? Has Kotkin visited Portland’s bookie population to find out what the city’s residents are betting on? Has the city council passed some sort of law stating that “we only want the hip, cool, iPod-toting creative class” but excluding “real bohemians . . . as well as people who worked with their hands.” ? I don’t know. And Kotkin doesn’t tell us.
But who isn't high on this agenda? Certainly it can't be families. Portland already has one of the lowest percentages of little tykes among American cities. The city schools are emptying out, down 14 percent in 10 years.

COMMENT: According to the 2000 Census, there are about 112,000 people under 18 in Portland. (And according to the 2004 Census estimate, there are now 113,000 under-18 Portlanders). By contrast, in 1990 there were just over 95,000. So the number of Portlanders under 18 has increased by about 17 or 18% since 1990.

Kotkin’s statement that Portland has one “of the lowest percentages of little tykes among American cities” is both meaningless and contradicted by Census data. Meaningless because Portland is growing, which means that its population is increasing among all age groups even if the percentage of its population in the under 18 age group is small. By contrast, many cities are losing population hand over fist (as Kotkin himself has pointed out in numerous articles). As of 2000, 6.6% of Portland residents were under 5- only slightly fewer than the 7% national average. 21.7% of Portlanders were under 18, compared to the 25.5% national average. Less than the national average? Sure.

But more than a lot of other cities- for example, both hip Boston (5.4% under 5, 19.8% under 18) and anything-but-hip Knoxville (5.9% under 5, 19.7% under 18).

According to the 2000 Census, 16% of Portland households were married couples with children. That’s almost as high as the national central city average (18%), and higher than such brawny, un-hip cities as Buffalo (12), Knoxville (13), Louisville (12), Richmond (10), Baton Rougte (15) and Birmingham (13). The lowest, Washington, clocks in at 8 percent. In other words, Kotkin is just dead wrong.

Nor, despite the obligatory liberal genuflection, it can't be ethnic minorities, either. Portland has one of the lowest percentages of minorities and immigrants of any major city on the Pacific Coast. Hardworking Latin laborers or opportunistic Asian traders -- the canaries in the economic coal mine -- seem to be opting instead for less-lovely but more commercially vital places such as Los Angeles, Phoenix or Houston.

COMMENT: It is true that Portland is less Hispanic than the cities Kotkin mentions (perhaps because they are closer to Mexico). But on the other hand, Portland is becoming more like those cities over time. Between 1990 and 2000, Portland’s Latino population more than doubled (from just under 14,000 to about 36,000). Portland’s Asian population increased from about 23,000 to about 33,000 (a 40% increase).

And Kotkin’s “opportunistic Asian traders” (to use his sterotype-clogged language) actually seem to prefer Portland to Houston and Phoenix. Portland’s population is 6.4% Asian, while Houston’s is 5.3% Asian and Phoenix’s is 2% Asian.

If they're the leading drivers of Portland's future, what is the local "creative class" creating? So far, nothing exceptional in the way of jobs or new companies. Now clearly on the rebound, Oregon's economy started lagging the country's five years ago.

But so far the data suggests that the rebound is stronger in places like Medford and Eugene, as well as the burgeoning suburbs which, compared to their high-priced counterparts in California, are attractive not so much to hipsters but to families.

COMMENT: See data above (noting that Portland continues to attract families). And Kotkin’s point would be more persuasive if he actually cited some data instead of referring ominously to unspecified “data.”

"People like the downtown, but the growth is elsewhere," notes local economist John Mitchell.
But the economy isn't the only place suburbia is doing better than the sophistos suggest.

COMMENT: Note the pointlessly insulting reference to "sophistos." This sort of writing belongs in a high school newspaper.

Like the "creative class," the city's much ballyhooed "green" planning policy has been less than wildly successful.

Even before Al Gore, looking out from one of his estates, discovered sprawl, Portland's planners declared war on single-family homes, backyards and insufficiently dense development. To stomp out such deviant behavior, the city -- to the hosannas of the planning profession -- proudly imposed tough restrictions, notably the urban growth boundary, on new development.

COMMENT: According to the Census Bureau, over 60 percent of Portland’s housing units are single-family homes. This hardly constitutes “war on single-family homes.” The urban growth boundary affects where single-family homes and other development is built, not whether it is built. In fact, the number of single-unit detached structures (i.e. single-family houses) in Portland increased during the 1990s, from 124,000 to 143,000.

Unfortunately, Portland's green urbanism has produced some unexpected results. As regulation helped boost the housing prices in the close-in areas, the middle class has moved farther and farther out. It turns out that most families -- yes, they still exist -- usually opt not to raise their kids inside sardine cans if they can at all help it.

COMMENT: On the one hand, Kotkin says Portland isn’t attracting immigrants. On the other, it isn’t attracting the “middle class” either. So who are those 17,000 children who moved to Portland between 1990 and 2000? And as noted above, Portland has plenty of people with middle-class incomes.

So Portland's sprawl has continued to spiral about as much, or even more, than most American regions, notes demographer Wendell Cox.

COMMENT: I think this argument is not completely nuts. But it seems to contradict Kotkin's attacks on the evils of Portland's planning system. Either Portland is not like everyplace else (in which case we can argue about the merits of the policies that led to that situation) or it is like everyplace else. If the latter is correct, there's no point attacking Portland's policies because obviously they are not radical enough to have a significant impact on anything.


Over the past few years Portland's population growth has slowed considerably, with the overwhelming majority of the Portland area's increases coming outside the city limits, and that percentage appears to be growing.
Some of this may be traced to the little-acknowledged fact about the creative class -- at some point many grow up and move out. One prime destination appears to be fast-growing Washington County, which beat the pants off Portland in a recent ranking of most-tech-savvy places in USA Today.

COMMENT: Kotkin does have a point here. The 2004 Census estimates were less kind to Portland than the 2000 Census data. But three caveats: First, many other cities actually lost population - as Kotkin himself has pointed out (See, e.g. http://www.joelkotkin.com/Urban_Affairs/WP%20City%20Of%20the%20Future.htm) ; compared to those cities, Portland is still a success. Second, the Census estimates are only estimates based on statistical projections, and may be less accurate than decennial Censuses. Third, Portland grew hand over fist for the past two decades, growing as fast as its suburbs. During both the 1980s and 1990s, Portland grew by over 20%, while America’s 100 largest central cities grew by only 6% in the 1980s and 9% in the 1990s.

Mass transit, the other linchpin of the Portland legend, also may be less a triumph than reported. According to the most recent Texas Transportation Study, drivers in greater Portland are stuck in traffic 39 hours a year, not far behind notoriously gridlocked Seattle, with 47 hours.

COMMENT: If Kotkin thinks Seattle is “notoriously gridlocked” he needs to travel more. According to TTI, the average metro area experienced 47 hours of congestion delay per traveler- as many as Seattle, and more than Portland. Los Angeles has more than twice as much congestion as Portland (93 hours), Houston over 50% more (63 hours). See http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/congestion_data/tables/national/table_4.pdf

So if Portland's present accomplishments are less than stellar, what does the future hold ? Actually, it won't be too bad for those who like the way things are.
Given current trends, Portland's inner city will continue to be attractive to its core demographic niches. As an attractive Ephemeral City, it will remain a lifestyle pit stop for wayward twentysomethings and a lure for the financially secure's quest for quality of life.
It also might remain a blessed place for aging hipsters who can "create" for each other without enduring the hard competitive scene of Los Angeles, New York or even Seattle.
Population pressures may help. As the country grows to 400 million by 2050 -- due largely to the children of immigrants and babies raised out in the burbs -- there'll be enough young people, childless couples and nomadic rich to keep the Pearl District hopping. Suburbanites may still wander into town on weekends to take in a play, a game or some high-quality cuisine.
There even may still be a buzz about the place. Burdened by the complexities of managing mid-21st century super-sprawl, planners might still come to marvel at a preserved, archaic urban environment, much like today's visitors to Florence or Venice.
It will likely be an aggressively pleasant place, kind of a nice post-graduate college town -- a museum for 1960s values, a testament to good intentions and the enduring power of self-regard.

COMMENT: The last paragraph or two makes Portland seem pretty good compared to most older American cities. So why is Kotkin wasting its time attacking its "less than stellar" record?

two more recipes (both kosher as always)
A "red-red" bean and tomato dish.

A very gooey honey cake (if it even counts as cake at all!)

Dvar Torah- Vayetze
A few quotes of interest:

When evening came, he [Laban] took his daughter Leah and brought her to him [Jacob]; and he cohabited with her….When morning came, there was Leah! So he said to Laban, “What is this you have done to me? I was in your service for Rachel! Why did you deceive me?” Laban said, “It is not the practice in our place to marry off the younger before the older. [Genesis 29:23-26]

Meanwhile Laban had gone to shear his sheep, and Rachel stole her father’s teraphim [household idols]. [ibid. 31:19]

In the evening they came to lead her [Leah] into the bridal chamber and extinguished the light. … The whole of that night he [Jacob] called her ‘Rachel’, and she answered him. In the morning, however, “there was Leah” Said he to her: ' What, you are a deceiver and the daughter of a deceiver! ' ‘Is there a teacher without pupils,’ she retorted; ‘did not your father call you " Esau ", and you answered him! So did you too call me and I answered you! “So he said to Laban What is this you have done to me? I was in your service for Rachel! Why did you deceive me?” Laban said, “It is not the practice in our place to marry off the younger before the older. [Genesis Rabbah 70:19]

My former rabbi, Arnold Goodman, points out that Jacob and Rachel seem to be part of a cycle of deception. Jacob deceives Israel by pretending to be Esau, and in return he is deceived by Leah. Rachel is also victimized by her father (who "dumps" her by substituting Leah as Jacob's bride) and, perhaps in retaliation, deceives him by stealing his idols and lying about it (Gen. 31:33-35).

Jacob, Leah and Rachel are all occasionally economical with the truth (to put it charitably). Yet they are the parents of the Jewish people, constantly mentioned in our prayers. The Torah is trying to tell us that nobody's perfect - that even our great leaders can be dishonest once in a while. By giving us this message, perhaps the Torah is creating an extra safeguard against idolatry, reminding us that no leader, spiritual or political, is infallible.

another link

Dvar Torah-Toldot
This week's Torah portion has one of the more familiar Torah stories- Jacob (after being mercilessly egged on by his mother Rebecca) deceives his father Isaac to get a blessing, thus making his brother Esau extremely mad (and in fact a bit homicidal).

A few things leap out at me.

1. Why was Isaac's blessing (assuming it really was just a blessing of words and/or spiritual leadership rather than a tangible gift of
property)* worth deceiving Isaac and sundering a family over? To the extent anyone other than Jacob is responsible for Jacob's destiny, only God can really affect Jacob's destiny. His father's predictions are about as important as my predictions as to who's going to be elected President in three years - valid insofar as he knows his children, but not something that can actually affect their fate.

One possible (but not very traditional, I think) spin: Rebecca was just benighted and superstitious. If so, maybe the story is trying to tell us to trust God and to ignore superstition.

2. After Isaac learns that he has been deceived, he tells Esau that he has made Jacob "a lord . . . over you" (Gen. 27:37, Artscoll translation) and then he gives the following blessing: "Behold, of the fatness of the earth shall be your dewlling and of the dwe of the heavens from above. By your sword you shall live, but your brother you shall serve; yet it shall be that when you are aggrieved, you may cast your yoke from upon your neck." (Id., 28:39-40).

S.R. Hirsch points out that none of this really happens till Messianic times, when Esau's descendants serve the Jews.

So why couldn't Isaac have just been a bit more tactful, by substituting a personal prophecy for a national one? He could have just told Esau about what would happen during Esau's life (i.e. that Esau would be filthy rich, have lots of kids, and basically have a pretty good life)** and just let it go at that?***

*Which may not be the case. Shlomo Riskin suggest that the "blessing" was really a double portion of property traditionally given to the firstborn. If this is so, the story of course makes more sense.

**As far as I can tell from Gen. 36, which states that Esau's "wealth was too abundant for them [Jacob and Esau] to dwell together." (Gen. 36:7)

***Of course, he would have had to explain what made Jacob's blessing better. But anything he said would have been more tactful than Gen. 27:37- for example, that Jacob would be a great spiritual leader or something.

a neat story
I spent this Shabbos reading the writings of Israel Salanter, a 19th-century East European rabbi who was very involved in the Mussar movement.

One story struck me: the Talmud cites a story about a man "vexed" by his wife who goes to sleep in a cemetery that night.

Why a cemetery? Salanter explains that the man "felt indignant." Such indignation is "a weakening of the trait of humility [because] . .. The mark of true humility is to not feel any effrontery or indignation whatsoever." (p. 273)

The man realized his flaw, and thought that sleeping in a cemetery would make him more humble by reminding him that he will wind up in the cemetery as "food for worms."

I'm not sure that I want to spend my nights in cemeteries (or even know where the nearest one is) but do think many people (including me) could do with a little less righteous indignation in their lives.

a few things I am thankful for
I was at a Thanksgiving lunch at a local shul today, and we were asked to name something we are thankful for.

Of course, I am thankful for all the things most Americans of my age and social class are (e.g. good health, not living in the Third World, family, etc.).

But I am also thankful for a few more me-specific things, including but by no means limited to:

1. That I can afford to live two blocks from work;
2. That my apartment hasn't had any roaches (at least not yet);
3. That I can live in a neighborhood with a vibrant Jewish life and STILL live two blocks from work;
4. That I like my job.

Yet another of my old articles available online
on sprawl as a conservative issue.

great article on Israel
Some American Jews talk about Israel as if everyone there is either a haredi (aka "Ultra-Orthodox") or completely irreligious.

This article is a welcome corrective to that illusion, pointing out that most Israel Jews are somewhere in between. For example, the majority aren't regular shul-goers- but 69% of Israeli Jews have kosher homes, and 63% never eat pork or shellfish. In short, the average Israeli Jew is not a complete secularist, and in fact is more observant than most American Jews.

Dvar Torah- Vayera
In this week's Torah portion, the city of Sodom is destroyed for its evil deeds (Gen. 13:13). According to the Talmud, Sodom's most common problem was hostility towards charity for the poor and hospitality towards non-natives. The Talmud writes:

The men of Sodom waxed haughty only on account of the good which the Holy One, blessed be He, had lavished upon them...They said: Since there cometh forth bread out of (our) earth, and it hath the dust of gold, why should we suffer wayfarers, who come to us only to deplete our wealth. . .[an overly charitable maiden suffered the following punishment:] they daubed her with honey and placed her on the parapet of the wall, and the bees came and consumed her. Thus it is written, And the Lord said, The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah, because it is great (rabbah): whereupon Rab Judah commented in Rab's name: on account of the maiden (ribah)."(Sanhedrin 109a)

In other words, the Sodomites wanted to prevent outsiders from coming in and burdening them, and were quite willing to use the coercive power of the state to meet this goal.

Sound familiar? It should. American local governments use the coercive power of the state to keep out outsiders, through the miracle of exclusionary zoning. If a landowner wants to increase the housing supply or build cheaper housing, the neighbors will squawk (because less expensive housing might weaken the community's tax base and/or bring in less affluent residents), and the politicians will keep out newcomers by refusing to rezone property.

In other words, just as the inhabitants of Sodom sought to use the coercive, punitive power of government to keep out outsiders, so do American suburbs. (Thankfully, Americans don't use "death by bees", or even less painful forms of capital punishment, to enforce their selfishness).

Of course, a few liberals and civil rights types condemn this practice- but of course, few Americans care what THEY link.

One would think that economists devoted to the free market would condemn this practice- but some don't.

A book I recently read (Zoned Out, by Jonathan Levine)* describes one economist's view: "households would seek to locate in communities with average housing consumption higher than their own and, by keeping their property tax burden lower than their neighbors, would effectively enjoy a subsidy- high-level schools, police protection, and the like at a discount . . . the route out of this bind ran via exclusionary zoning policies. [The commentator's] main assumption was that each community is authorized to enact a zoning ordinance which states, 'No household may reside in this community unless it consumes at least some minimum amount of housing."

In other words, some argue that bureaucratic interference with property rights is terrible when it helps the poor or the environment, but is somehow "efficient" because it keeps out people who don't buy big houses, that is- "wayfarers, who come to us only to deplete our wealth" (in the words of the Sodomites quoted above).

The city of Sodom comes and goes, but its ideology lives on. Can't America do better?


*To purchase this book go to
http://www.rff.org/rff/RFF_Press/CustomBookPages/Zoned-Out.cfm

amusing
Thanks to Baraita:

Aleph for Abihu, struck down by the Lord
Bet is for Balaam, cut off by a sword

Gimel for Gomorrah, dissolving in fire
Dalet for Dathan, sucked into a mire
Drat! See comments --

Gimel for Gad, who died out in Goshen
Dalet for Dathan, buried in slow motion

Hay is for Haran, who merely died young
Vav is for Vofsi's son*, plagued by his tongue

Zayin for Zimri, impaled in mid-bout
Chet is for Chur, who's just written out

Tet is for Tovia**, dead on the last page
Yud is for Yitzchak, who reached his old age

Kof is for Kozbi, whose prince was at fault
Lamed is for Lot's wife, turned into salt

Mem is for Miriam, healed before dying
Nun is for Nadav, in strange fire frying

Samech is for Sichon, slain by martial might
Ayin for Og -- same deal, different fight

Pay is for Pharaoh, who got in some licks
Tzadi for Tzelophehad, who gathered some sticks***

Kuf is for Korach, devoured by earth
Reish is for Rachel, dying through birth

Shin is for Shelomit's son who was stoned;
Taf is for Talmai, slain in Hebron.****


* -- Nahbi the son of Vofsi was one of the ten spies who reported falsely on
the land of Canaan and who, according to Numbers 14:37, died in the
resultant plague God sent against them. There aren't a heck of a lot of
"Vav" names out there, y'know.
** -- According to assorted medieval commentators with too much time on
their hands, a clever reading of Exodus 2:2 yields "Tov" or "Tovia" as the
original Hebrew name of Moses. As I noted above, there are even fewer "Tet"
names than "Vav" names.
*** -- At least, the midrashic tradition links the nameless man who is put
to death for gathering sticks on Shabbat (Numbers 15) with the deceased
Tzelophehad whose daughters sued for their father's portion of land in
Canaan (Numbers 27).
**** -- This is also cheating, as Talmai appears in Numbers but is not
killed till Joshua and is not identified as killed until Judges.
Unfortunately, "the elders of Taberah" doesn't fit the meter -- and "Hebron"
looked like my best rhyme for "stoned" in any case.

Dvar Torah- Lech Lecha
This week's Torah portion begins with God saying to Abraham (then Abram):

"Go for yourself from your land, from your relatives, and from your father's house."

In other words, sometimes to change your life you have to move around a bit. As someone who has moved around quite a complete, and am interviewing with law schools* on Friday so I can have the opportunity move around yet again, I can relate!

*I am interviewing at the AALS faculty hiring conference, and so far none of my interviews are with schools here in Washington.

And one minor outrage....
Rybczynski's article (a favorable review of an apparently pro-sprawl book) calls that book "iconoclastic."

There is nothing iconoclastic about defending the status quo.

And in particular, there is nothing iconoclastic about defending a status quo supported by $100 billion in state and federal highway money, virtually every zoning board in America, the real estate lobby, and the highway-building lobby. "Iconoclastic" means fighting the status quo.

If the book in question said we should stop building highways in places without bus service, so that people without cars could get to work after rush hour ... well, THAT would be iconoclastic.

But of course, the "we're the underdogs" claim is a scam pulled by every defender of every elite sooner or later. In normal democratic politics, both Ds and Rs pretend to be the horny-handed sons of the soil oppressed by the corrupt Big Business (to Ds) and Media (to Rs) Elites, even as their palms are greased by every concievable lobby.

Sometimes this scam takes more ominous forms. The history of anti-Semitism is the history of majorities pretending to be oppressed by the Jews (even though, like today's Christians in America and today's Muslims in half the world, they hold every conceivable lever of power).

Similarly, the history of anti-Zionism is the history of dozens of Arab dictators surrounding one Jewish state- and filling their subjects' heads with fantasies about being oppressed by that tiny state.