Veteran Supreme Court observer Tom Goldstein has his picks for who a Democratic President might pick for his or her first open SCOTUS seat. They are:
Hon. Johnnie Rawlinson, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears, Georgia Supreme Court
Hon. Sonia Sotomayor, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Hon. Kim McLane Wardlaw, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
All four are, of course, extremely qualified. In terms of demographics, Judge Rawlinson and Justice Sears are African-American, while Judges Sotomayor and Wardlaw are both Hispanic. All four judges are women.
Without knowing anything about their decisions, relative politics, or any number of other pertinent information (in other words, going solely off bios), Judge Sotomayor seems to have the clearest path to confirmation. She's been serving in the judiciary as long or longer than any of the other three candidates, being appointed in 1992 (Justice Sears was also appointed to the Georgia Supreme Court in 1992). She has the advantage of being originally appointed to her district court seat by President Bush, before being elevated to the 2nd Circuit by President Clinton in 1997. Her credentials are the most overtly elite (Princeton/Yale), compared to North Carolina A&T/Pacific (Rawlinson), Cornell/Emory (Sears), and UCLA/UCLA (Wardlaw). Finally, she gets an advantage over Rawlinson and Wardlaw in that she doesn't hail from the 9th circuit, which, regardless of these judges' particular decisions, will inevitably tar them with the dread label, "activist." (For what its worth, Goldstein, who is far more informed than I, gives Wardlaw the inside track).
But regardless, it is quite pleasant to see a number of well-qualified minority women who could make it to the bench of America's highest Court under a Democratic administration. The "small pool" argument takes another dagger. I think that America's political institutions have at least some obligation (not a paramount obligation, but some obligation) to "look like the nation." Others lecture that pure academic, experiential, or intellectual qualification should be all that matters. Happily, we are now in a situation where both of our desires can be reconciled, as there are several excellent candidates for the Supreme Court who could make everybody happy.
Goldstein also created an expanded list of 30 potential nominees (PDF), which is worth taking a look at. Of the 30, 24 of them are either women or racial minorities. Seven (including Goldstein's first four) are both women and minorities. The three names in that category who did make Goldstein's final roster of first seat candidates were Vicki Miles-LaGrange (Federal Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma 1994-present, University of Ghana/Vassar/Howard), Patricia Timmons-Goodson (North Carolina Supreme Court 2006-present, UNC/UNC), and Martha Vasquez (Federal Judge for the District of New Mexico 1993-present, Notre Dame/Notre Dame).
Other names of note on the list include Harvard Law Dean Elena Kagan, Yale Law Dean Harold Honju Koh, former Stanford Law Dean Kathleen Sullivan, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, US Senators Ken Salazar and Barack Obama (though the latter, Goldstein concedes, might be otherwise occupied from 2008-2012), and former Solicitor General Seth Waxman. Gender-wise, the list is composed of 18 men and 12 women; race wise it includes 11 Whites, 6 Hispanics, 12 African-Americans, and 1 Asian-American.
I can't wait until 2008
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Boxing Blogging: July 11th, 2007
Haven't done this in awhile, but last night's WNF card had some interest, so let's hear it. Starting off with the undercard, which featured two "prospects", in the sense that they were undefeated, but neither of whom had faced any real challenges. Although both won, Daniel Lomeli (5-0, 0 KOs) looked far better in his match against Ronald Hurley (1-2-2, 0 KOs), than Anthony Salcido (13-0-1, 8 KOs) did against punching bag Sammy Ventura (25-18, 20 KOs). Lomeli had a built in advantage in that his fighter was willing to mix it up with him, giving us four exhilarating rounds that had no lack of action. But what impressed me most about Lomeli (aside from his first round knockdown) was his discipline in working the body. Good body punchers are tough to find, and its especially tempting to go head-hunting for the big shots in a short fight. For Lomeli to commit himself to that route, at this stage in his career, is a very good sign. Salcido got the knockout that was expected against Ventura (who has been knocked out in over 80% of his losses). But in general, he did not display the killer instinct required to really make it at an elite level. He did not seem to interested in mixing it up with Ventura, somebody who a genuine prospect would dispatch with no effort. Incidentally, I think that the stoppage was early--Ventura should have been assessed a technical knockdown given the way he fell against the ropes, but he deserved at least a count.
The main event, though, had genuine implications beyond developing a prospect. It featured top junior middleweight Joel Julio against "Contender" alum Cornelius "K9" Bundrage. Before the fight, I told my brother that it was either going to be a really good bout, or a mismatch, depending on whether K9 is for real. A lot of smack has been talked about how "Contender" fighters get too much exposure and are thus overrated and overmatched at the top levels. K9 was supposed to be one of the weaker fighters on the show, but gritted out some surprising upsets to take a bronze medal. Although Teddy Atlas said that he had never faced anybody at Julio's level, that isn't entirely accurate. His two losses have come to former titlist Steve Forbes, who probably is a step beneath Julio, and Sechew Powell, who definitely is in Julio's ballpark (Powell's only loss is to elite junior middleweight Kassim Ouma, and he has victories over an impressive roster of fighters). The problem for Bundrage is that his loss against Powell was a first round blowout where he went down twice in about a minute of action (the first was a double-knockdown, but Bundrage was clearly more hurt by it). From that, it was unclear whether he had the chin to stand up to the power punching Julio.
He couldn't. Julio doesn't look like a puncher to me, but records don't lie, and he's knocked out his opponents in all but three of his fights. Julio does have a killer instinct, and looked close to stopping the fight after knocking Bundrage down early in round three. To his credit, Bundrage managed to stay alive and even took the fourth round. But that was his only bright spot of the night, and Julio floored Bundadge again in round 8 and followed up with a flurry that forced the referee to stop the fight. Bundrage's problem (aside from the fact that he was just outclassed) is that he looks to the ref too much for help. At least three times throughout the fight, I saw him get tagged while looking away from Julio to complain. For a guy whose done his share of ethically ambiguous tactics, this is particularly annoying. Also, Bundrage's one advantage over Julio might have been that he's physically stronger, but he didn't make any effort to get inside. In an outside punching war, Julio had two hands and Bundrage had one, and he was going to go down.
Julio's record is now 32-1, 30 KOs, and he is about ready for a title shot. Bundrage falls to 26-3, 15 KOs.
The main event, though, had genuine implications beyond developing a prospect. It featured top junior middleweight Joel Julio against "Contender" alum Cornelius "K9" Bundrage. Before the fight, I told my brother that it was either going to be a really good bout, or a mismatch, depending on whether K9 is for real. A lot of smack has been talked about how "Contender" fighters get too much exposure and are thus overrated and overmatched at the top levels. K9 was supposed to be one of the weaker fighters on the show, but gritted out some surprising upsets to take a bronze medal. Although Teddy Atlas said that he had never faced anybody at Julio's level, that isn't entirely accurate. His two losses have come to former titlist Steve Forbes, who probably is a step beneath Julio, and Sechew Powell, who definitely is in Julio's ballpark (Powell's only loss is to elite junior middleweight Kassim Ouma, and he has victories over an impressive roster of fighters). The problem for Bundrage is that his loss against Powell was a first round blowout where he went down twice in about a minute of action (the first was a double-knockdown, but Bundrage was clearly more hurt by it). From that, it was unclear whether he had the chin to stand up to the power punching Julio.
He couldn't. Julio doesn't look like a puncher to me, but records don't lie, and he's knocked out his opponents in all but three of his fights. Julio does have a killer instinct, and looked close to stopping the fight after knocking Bundrage down early in round three. To his credit, Bundrage managed to stay alive and even took the fourth round. But that was his only bright spot of the night, and Julio floored Bundadge again in round 8 and followed up with a flurry that forced the referee to stop the fight. Bundrage's problem (aside from the fact that he was just outclassed) is that he looks to the ref too much for help. At least three times throughout the fight, I saw him get tagged while looking away from Julio to complain. For a guy whose done his share of ethically ambiguous tactics, this is particularly annoying. Also, Bundrage's one advantage over Julio might have been that he's physically stronger, but he didn't make any effort to get inside. In an outside punching war, Julio had two hands and Bundrage had one, and he was going to go down.
Julio's record is now 32-1, 30 KOs, and he is about ready for a title shot. Bundrage falls to 26-3, 15 KOs.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Order of the Phoenix Movie Review
Okay, let's start out with the most surprising detail before we get to the main text of the review: Voldemort looks quite cutting in the black suit, shirt, tie combination. I'm dead serious. He has a damn good tailor, whoever he is.
The movie itself was satisfactory, if not outstanding. The Order of the Phoenix was one of the two weakest books (along with Chamber of Secrets), and if anything it seemed like an even worse candidate for film adaptation. But, perhaps recognizing their constraints, it actually came to life about as well as could be expected. As usual with the HP flicks, people without a background in the series (i.e., at least having watched the other movies) will be completely lost, but these movies were always made under the assumption that its viewers were fans already. Within that framework, the movie rolls along, doesn't go for too much, and most importantly, doesn't focus on the parts of the book that would spell disaster for its cast (in other words, it didn't make Daniel Radcliffe act).
One of the movie's better lines is when Hermione Granger tells Ron that he has "the emotional range of a teaspoon," but honestly, that line would have better been spoken to Mr. Potter. Daniel Radcliffe has always been limited by the fact that he can't express more than one emotion, and this script must have taken that into account. In the early movies, the magic emotion was "surprise." In this movie, surprise is out, and glowering is in. Boy, can Radcliffe glower. And to be fair, glaring and steaming and smoldering is how Harry spends most of Book Five, which is one of the reasons it aggravated me so much. Mercifully, the movie's producers decided not to focus on that theme of the book, and so for most of the movie Harry is rather expressionless. Which is where he is at his best. Aside from that, little of the acting was worth note. The other main characters manage to hold themselves reasonably well. Dolores Umbridge was, in my view, overplayed, but my brother said she hit the target dead on. Luna Lovegood flirted with being really well done, but was a bit too affected even for such an outlandish character.
Shorter than its predecessors, the movie still has pacing problems, tending to drag when the producers get CGI-happy. The reverse problem, of course, is that the movie feels perpetually rushed--the product of cramming a book the size of Order into a watchable movie. Major plot events occur in a single scene, without expounding, lending the whole show a "blink and it's gone" feeling. Prioritization would have helped here--there were a lot of areas that got short-changed, and a few that could have donated some precious minutes. The time spent showing Harry training his DAers, especially, could have been shaved and redirected to prevent the movie from being spread so thin. The final battle in the Ministry of Magic got the right amount of time and rang reasonably true (Bellatrix Lestrange was played beautifully, by the way), so kudos there. However, as it went on, it began to over-reach itself. Too many flashing lights, too much wanton destruction, even the summoning of a monster. It felt like it was cribbed from a Dragon Ball Z cartoon, or a Final Fantasy "limit break" animation. If, after defeating Voldemort, the soundtrack had broken out into FF's "victory" theme (da-da-da-daaa-da-daa-da-daa-daaa!), I wouldn't have been the least surprised. This shouldn't happen.
All in all, it was a fine movie, worth seeing, but nothing ground-breaking or earth-shattering. Given how weak the movie series started, I'd be quite pleased if it managed to find its niche as solid but unremarkable, as it seems significantly more possible for the movies to get worse, then to get better.
6.5/10
The movie itself was satisfactory, if not outstanding. The Order of the Phoenix was one of the two weakest books (along with Chamber of Secrets), and if anything it seemed like an even worse candidate for film adaptation. But, perhaps recognizing their constraints, it actually came to life about as well as could be expected. As usual with the HP flicks, people without a background in the series (i.e., at least having watched the other movies) will be completely lost, but these movies were always made under the assumption that its viewers were fans already. Within that framework, the movie rolls along, doesn't go for too much, and most importantly, doesn't focus on the parts of the book that would spell disaster for its cast (in other words, it didn't make Daniel Radcliffe act).
One of the movie's better lines is when Hermione Granger tells Ron that he has "the emotional range of a teaspoon," but honestly, that line would have better been spoken to Mr. Potter. Daniel Radcliffe has always been limited by the fact that he can't express more than one emotion, and this script must have taken that into account. In the early movies, the magic emotion was "surprise." In this movie, surprise is out, and glowering is in. Boy, can Radcliffe glower. And to be fair, glaring and steaming and smoldering is how Harry spends most of Book Five, which is one of the reasons it aggravated me so much. Mercifully, the movie's producers decided not to focus on that theme of the book, and so for most of the movie Harry is rather expressionless. Which is where he is at his best. Aside from that, little of the acting was worth note. The other main characters manage to hold themselves reasonably well. Dolores Umbridge was, in my view, overplayed, but my brother said she hit the target dead on. Luna Lovegood flirted with being really well done, but was a bit too affected even for such an outlandish character.
Shorter than its predecessors, the movie still has pacing problems, tending to drag when the producers get CGI-happy. The reverse problem, of course, is that the movie feels perpetually rushed--the product of cramming a book the size of Order into a watchable movie. Major plot events occur in a single scene, without expounding, lending the whole show a "blink and it's gone" feeling. Prioritization would have helped here--there were a lot of areas that got short-changed, and a few that could have donated some precious minutes. The time spent showing Harry training his DAers, especially, could have been shaved and redirected to prevent the movie from being spread so thin. The final battle in the Ministry of Magic got the right amount of time and rang reasonably true (Bellatrix Lestrange was played beautifully, by the way), so kudos there. However, as it went on, it began to over-reach itself. Too many flashing lights, too much wanton destruction, even the summoning of a monster. It felt like it was cribbed from a Dragon Ball Z cartoon, or a Final Fantasy "limit break" animation. If, after defeating Voldemort, the soundtrack had broken out into FF's "victory" theme (da-da-da-daaa-da-daa-da-daa-daaa!), I wouldn't have been the least surprised. This shouldn't happen.
All in all, it was a fine movie, worth seeing, but nothing ground-breaking or earth-shattering. Given how weak the movie series started, I'd be quite pleased if it managed to find its niche as solid but unremarkable, as it seems significantly more possible for the movies to get worse, then to get better.
6.5/10
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Private Affairs
U.S. Senator David Vitter (R-LA), a key ally to GOP Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, has admitted his link to a D.C. "madam", who ran an "escort service" frequented by many of the city's high and mighty. Vitter apologized for his "serious sin" and remarked:
Certainly, I feel terrible that a man's marriage and personal life is about to be dragged into the public sphere as so much political football. These concerns are private, and should stay between Vitter and his family.
What's that you say? Vitter voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment? Twice? Oh dear. I guess he thinks that marriage is something that deserves to be a public issue and political football. Well then. Game on.
In the same vein, Ann Althouse notes that:
LGM and Matt Yglesias make similar comments.
"Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there -- with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way."
Certainly, I feel terrible that a man's marriage and personal life is about to be dragged into the public sphere as so much political football. These concerns are private, and should stay between Vitter and his family.
What's that you say? Vitter voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment? Twice? Oh dear. I guess he thinks that marriage is something that deserves to be a public issue and political football. Well then. Game on.
In the same vein, Ann Althouse notes that:
I hate seeing people publicly humiliated for the sexual things they do in private. But the government is criminally prosecuting a woman, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, for what it says was a prostitution ring. These are federal charges, and the senator, David Vitter, has some responsibility for the laws that make this prosecution possible.
[...]
Palfrey can't say God has forgiven her and walk free. In fact, Vitter's statement hurts Palfrey because it strongly implies that Palfrey was doing what she's accused of. Vitter's confession -- intended to move us to mercy -- links him to criminal activity, but only she is facing criminal punishment.
Shouldn't the expiation of Vitter's sins wait until he has introduced a bill that would create a federal right to engage in the business of prostitution? It's not a matter to be resolved within the realm of church and family as long as Palfrey is being prosecuted.
LGM and Matt Yglesias make similar comments.
I'm #9!
According to SSRN download statistics for the past two months (May 11th to July 10th), my article is ranked #9 in downloads among all articles in the Law & Society: Public Law section. It reached that lofty position with 58 downloads.
The article, in case you've forgotten, is entitled When Separation Doesn't Work: The Religion Clauses as Anti-Subordination Principles, and it is forthcoming soon in the Dartmouth Law Journal. Thanks to everybody who has read and commented on it.
The article, in case you've forgotten, is entitled When Separation Doesn't Work: The Religion Clauses as Anti-Subordination Principles, and it is forthcoming soon in the Dartmouth Law Journal. Thanks to everybody who has read and commented on it.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Sheehan To Challenge Pelosi?
Cindy Sheehan has announced that, if Nancy Pelosi doesn't introduce articles of impeachment against George W. Bush, she'll take her on in the 2008 Democratic primary. John Cole has the best reaction:
My opinion on Cindy Sheehan was that she suffered a devastating loss, one that few of us could ever comprehend. I hold her no malice--I have no idea how I would respond in her shoes. But she isn't a credible political commentator, and she is not helping the party or the country.
Y’all created this monster, giving her the ABSOLUTE MORAL AUTHORITY to say whatever she wanted, regardless how ridiculous it was, so have fun with her. Now she is IN UR BASE AND KILLING UR D00Dz! Good luck.
My opinion on Cindy Sheehan was that she suffered a devastating loss, one that few of us could ever comprehend. I hold her no malice--I have no idea how I would respond in her shoes. But she isn't a credible political commentator, and she is not helping the party or the country.
Diamond in the Rough
This is what Conservapedia (the conservative, er, alternative, to Wikipedia) has to say about Sephiroth, the main bad guy in Final Fantasy VII:
"A highly dangerous psychopath with superhuman strength. He is also a leader of a dangerous cult known as Jenova's Witnesses. He is the main antagonist of the game and brutally murders Aeris in the Canadian Rockies."
On the one hand, the "Jenova's Witnesses" thing is brilliant. On the other hand, the above excerpt is from their entry on Trigonometry.
"The truth will set you free," indeed.
"A highly dangerous psychopath with superhuman strength. He is also a leader of a dangerous cult known as Jenova's Witnesses. He is the main antagonist of the game and brutally murders Aeris in the Canadian Rockies."
On the one hand, the "Jenova's Witnesses" thing is brilliant. On the other hand, the above excerpt is from their entry on Trigonometry.
"The truth will set you free," indeed.
Colorphobia
A post at The Ambrosini Critique has reminded me of a post I've been meaning to write for some time now, but have never gotten around to.
The apex of Chief Justice Roberts' opinion in the recent school desegregation cases, the line he hoped would be quoted and deified as a constitutional cornerstone, was this: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." It represents a vision by which the harms of racial hierarchy (represented by, though by no means limited to, discrimination) can only be overcome by strict color-blindness. Admitting color, even for remedial purposes, even without intending to stigmatize, even where it is sanctioned by both Black and White parents as in the best interests of their children, is and will be disastrous. Race and color must be avoided at all costs, lest we be consumed by the darkness of our racist past.
In my Race LASIK article, I noted the peculiarity of proudly naming a philosophical paradigm after a medical disorder. Few of us actually wish to be medically color-blind. I know I am quite happy that I can identify my laptop as black, my desk as white, my sheets as blue, and my New Jersey Devils jacket as red. And I certainly cherish that ability strongly enough such that I want to preserve it, even at the "expense" of also being able to see that this man is Black and this man is White. I assume most people are no different than I am in this respect. So right from the start, there is at least some dissonance in the "color-blindness" paradigm--it isn't really accurately describing the society we want to live in.
A better name for what most people call the "color-blind" mentality, I propose, is a "colorphobic" mentality. As a society, we are terrified of color (in terms of race), and we wish to banish it. Any admission of color into our city gates is poisonous, corrupting, corrosive. We can't handle it. And the mark of a mature society, one that has gotten beyond racism, is that it never uses race, never discriminates or differentiates on the basis of race, and does not, in fact, even notice race.
I want to quickly distinguish what I'm talking about here from a concept called "negrophobia", coined by Jody Armour in his article, "Race Ipsa Loquitur: Of Reasonable Racists, Intelligent Bayesians, and Involuntary Negrophobes" (later published as a book). Negrophobia refers to the condition of being afraid of Black people, generally as the result of some psychological trauma (for example, being mugged by a Black man). Armour examines whether such a condition could or should be used to excuse certain discriminatory behavior (see here for a scenario). This is not what I mean by "colorphobia." By colorphobia, I mean a fear of the entire concept of race, not necessarily (or specifically) of people of color.
To be sure, it is not entirely unreasonable for us to fear color. After all, the majority of America's history has used color to enact and legitimize some of the gravest and most horrifying injustices. Slavery. Jim Crow. Lynchings. Rape. Even genocide. White people who feel guilty about such atrocities, as most do, understandably do not want to return down that path. It is the site of our lowest moments as human beings. Instinctively, we are averse to anything that seems to even risk bringing as back there.
In our heads, race has become the villain, the perpetrator of these crimes against humanity. One could argue that this serves the function of shifting the blame from the shoulders of White people--now it's not the fault of people, it's the fault of a concept. That's a subject for another post. What I want to focus on is how this historical narrative has cast race as irredeemably corrosive to the functioning and maintenance of a civilized, liberal society. More so than any other distinction we might make, race is uniquely invidious in that it can never be used, regardless of motive, regardless of end. This construction of race as a larger-than-life, invincible, unconquerable foe, can be described by no other word but a phobia. Color-blindness is the political manifestation of hiding from a demon we fear we cannot tame, one that will consume us if admitted into our presence.
Race has primarily been used for terrible things, that's true. And it is a truth admitted by all the advocates of color-conscious policy. However, they argue that in our current situation race is an indispensable tool for righting these wrongs, and for creating and ordering a more just society. We can't do without it. The color-blindness mentality has us run from our past through exile and banishment. This is no longer a tenable option. We have run for too long. We must use race without subordination. And to do that, we must show courage, face our fears, and overcome the monsters in our past.
The mark of mature society, of one that has gotten beyond racism, is not that it shuns race. That is the mark of an immature society still beholden to its past and unable to move beyond its phobia. The mark of a mature, post-racist society, is that it uses race without subordination and without fear. This does not mean that we use race uncritically. Like most tools, race can be a dangerous thing, and should not be wielded casually or with reckless abandon. But it cannot be avoided altogether. We must use it courageously, with noble purpose, to forge a path towards justice. Anything else is cowardice.
And in that way, race without fear will give us a world where nobody need fear race.
The apex of Chief Justice Roberts' opinion in the recent school desegregation cases, the line he hoped would be quoted and deified as a constitutional cornerstone, was this: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." It represents a vision by which the harms of racial hierarchy (represented by, though by no means limited to, discrimination) can only be overcome by strict color-blindness. Admitting color, even for remedial purposes, even without intending to stigmatize, even where it is sanctioned by both Black and White parents as in the best interests of their children, is and will be disastrous. Race and color must be avoided at all costs, lest we be consumed by the darkness of our racist past.
In my Race LASIK article, I noted the peculiarity of proudly naming a philosophical paradigm after a medical disorder. Few of us actually wish to be medically color-blind. I know I am quite happy that I can identify my laptop as black, my desk as white, my sheets as blue, and my New Jersey Devils jacket as red. And I certainly cherish that ability strongly enough such that I want to preserve it, even at the "expense" of also being able to see that this man is Black and this man is White. I assume most people are no different than I am in this respect. So right from the start, there is at least some dissonance in the "color-blindness" paradigm--it isn't really accurately describing the society we want to live in.
A better name for what most people call the "color-blind" mentality, I propose, is a "colorphobic" mentality. As a society, we are terrified of color (in terms of race), and we wish to banish it. Any admission of color into our city gates is poisonous, corrupting, corrosive. We can't handle it. And the mark of a mature society, one that has gotten beyond racism, is that it never uses race, never discriminates or differentiates on the basis of race, and does not, in fact, even notice race.
I want to quickly distinguish what I'm talking about here from a concept called "negrophobia", coined by Jody Armour in his article, "Race Ipsa Loquitur: Of Reasonable Racists, Intelligent Bayesians, and Involuntary Negrophobes" (later published as a book). Negrophobia refers to the condition of being afraid of Black people, generally as the result of some psychological trauma (for example, being mugged by a Black man). Armour examines whether such a condition could or should be used to excuse certain discriminatory behavior (see here for a scenario). This is not what I mean by "colorphobia." By colorphobia, I mean a fear of the entire concept of race, not necessarily (or specifically) of people of color.
To be sure, it is not entirely unreasonable for us to fear color. After all, the majority of America's history has used color to enact and legitimize some of the gravest and most horrifying injustices. Slavery. Jim Crow. Lynchings. Rape. Even genocide. White people who feel guilty about such atrocities, as most do, understandably do not want to return down that path. It is the site of our lowest moments as human beings. Instinctively, we are averse to anything that seems to even risk bringing as back there.
In our heads, race has become the villain, the perpetrator of these crimes against humanity. One could argue that this serves the function of shifting the blame from the shoulders of White people--now it's not the fault of people, it's the fault of a concept. That's a subject for another post. What I want to focus on is how this historical narrative has cast race as irredeemably corrosive to the functioning and maintenance of a civilized, liberal society. More so than any other distinction we might make, race is uniquely invidious in that it can never be used, regardless of motive, regardless of end. This construction of race as a larger-than-life, invincible, unconquerable foe, can be described by no other word but a phobia. Color-blindness is the political manifestation of hiding from a demon we fear we cannot tame, one that will consume us if admitted into our presence.
Race has primarily been used for terrible things, that's true. And it is a truth admitted by all the advocates of color-conscious policy. However, they argue that in our current situation race is an indispensable tool for righting these wrongs, and for creating and ordering a more just society. We can't do without it. The color-blindness mentality has us run from our past through exile and banishment. This is no longer a tenable option. We have run for too long. We must use race without subordination. And to do that, we must show courage, face our fears, and overcome the monsters in our past.
The mark of mature society, of one that has gotten beyond racism, is not that it shuns race. That is the mark of an immature society still beholden to its past and unable to move beyond its phobia. The mark of a mature, post-racist society, is that it uses race without subordination and without fear. This does not mean that we use race uncritically. Like most tools, race can be a dangerous thing, and should not be wielded casually or with reckless abandon. But it cannot be avoided altogether. We must use it courageously, with noble purpose, to forge a path towards justice. Anything else is cowardice.
And in that way, race without fear will give us a world where nobody need fear race.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Who's Irrational Now?
In a recent post, I described my irrational exuberance regarding Israel and the state of Jews in the world more generally--a feeling poorly grounded in fact, but the result of a collection of hunches, sentiments, and gut instincts that told me we may be on the verge of turning a corner.
CNN has just announced that the Arab League will be making a historic first visit to the state of Israel.
CNN has just announced that the Arab League will be making a historic first visit to the state of Israel.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Loose Precedents
Professors Mary Ann Glendon and Douglas Kmiec give the Roberts Court "high marks", noting, among other things, its great "respect for precedent." While I am a big fan of Glendon, at least, this is a truly unbelievable statement.
Okay, first of all, respect for precedent does not just mean refusing to overrule precedent. It also means actually going where precedent tells you to go in a given case. That Tinker and Grutter still have some theoretical application somewhere after Morse and Parents United does not negate the fact that those two rulings were contorted into nearly unrecognizable shapes through Roberts' "creative" efforts not to overrule them. All Roberts has done is recognize that unhelpful precedents can be isolated rather than overruled with much the same effects, and by operating that way he can still maintain his status as a "minimalist" among more credulous observers. Second, it is interesting that Glendon and Kmiec don't make an argument for how the two worst examples of this distinction-without-difference game was "respectful": The Hein case "not overturning" Flast v. Cohen, and Stenberg II "not overturning" Stenberg I. I believe the former is where Scalia did slam his colleagues for "faux restraint," so it might be worthwhile to tell us why that's not the case. In any event, it is difficult to see why taxpayer standing, insofar as it is accorded to legislative acts that violate the Establishment Clause, doesn't apply to executive acts that do the same (saying it applies to neither is at least consistent, as is saying it applies to both--one but not the other is absurdism). And the two Stenberg cases were nearly mirror images of each other. If a state law prohibiting "partial-birth" abortion needs to have a health exception, then a federal law likewise ought to need it.
The article concludes with lovely bromides about how law needs to be objective, and how people rely on it for guidance, and putting aside ideology, etc.. It's articles like these that make me ever more convinced that any result will be seen by its defenders as objective (especially conservative defenders who hang their hat on objectivity so heavily), and that those "constraining" forces like objectivity, precedent, stare decisis, and what have you, are no constraint at all. This is anti-persuasion--after reading this article, I'm further away from these author's positions than where I started.
Via Jonathan Adler
Despite some ideological carping from those who lost cases that depended upon the extension of past decisions, Roberts and Alito have also shown themselves to be strongly respectful of precedent. Advocates this term urged overturning previous abortion decisions, a Warren Court ruling allowing taxpayers to sue in religion cases, and campaign spending limits. The new justices left those precedents in place, often resisting both their unwarranted extension to new facts and the urging of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas to overrule them.
This cannot fairly be dubbed faux deference. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969) still meaningfully invites robust discussion of political and social views in school, as Alito and Kennedy strongly reaffirmed in Morse v. Frederick, even though Tinker did not protect advocacy of illegal drug use. Likewise, the allowance in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) for race as one factor in pursuit of higher-education diversity was reaffirmed, notwithstanding the Court’s rebuff of outright racial balancing.
Okay, first of all, respect for precedent does not just mean refusing to overrule precedent. It also means actually going where precedent tells you to go in a given case. That Tinker and Grutter still have some theoretical application somewhere after Morse and Parents United does not negate the fact that those two rulings were contorted into nearly unrecognizable shapes through Roberts' "creative" efforts not to overrule them. All Roberts has done is recognize that unhelpful precedents can be isolated rather than overruled with much the same effects, and by operating that way he can still maintain his status as a "minimalist" among more credulous observers. Second, it is interesting that Glendon and Kmiec don't make an argument for how the two worst examples of this distinction-without-difference game was "respectful": The Hein case "not overturning" Flast v. Cohen, and Stenberg II "not overturning" Stenberg I. I believe the former is where Scalia did slam his colleagues for "faux restraint," so it might be worthwhile to tell us why that's not the case. In any event, it is difficult to see why taxpayer standing, insofar as it is accorded to legislative acts that violate the Establishment Clause, doesn't apply to executive acts that do the same (saying it applies to neither is at least consistent, as is saying it applies to both--one but not the other is absurdism). And the two Stenberg cases were nearly mirror images of each other. If a state law prohibiting "partial-birth" abortion needs to have a health exception, then a federal law likewise ought to need it.
The article concludes with lovely bromides about how law needs to be objective, and how people rely on it for guidance, and putting aside ideology, etc.. It's articles like these that make me ever more convinced that any result will be seen by its defenders as objective (especially conservative defenders who hang their hat on objectivity so heavily), and that those "constraining" forces like objectivity, precedent, stare decisis, and what have you, are no constraint at all. This is anti-persuasion--after reading this article, I'm further away from these author's positions than where I started.
Via Jonathan Adler
Friday, July 06, 2007
Yak Yak Yak
The Washington Post reports: "Stereotypes of Quiet Men, Chatty Women Not Sound Science." Two new studies have shown that men and women actually tend to speak roughly the same amount of words per day. The difference is that they tend be more or less chatty in particular contexts. But overall, it balances out.
So, what is the root of the stereotype? My intuition is it is a classic (if more literal) case of "mistaking the sound of one's own voice for silence." I've developed this theory in relation to majority reactions to minority counter-discourse--the all-too-common claim that minorities now "dominate" conversations, that they are the truly privileged in social spaces, that their opinions are given enhanced weight. The data rarely bears these complaints out--most decision-making in America, especially at high levels, is done by White people listening to the advice and perspectives of other White people. But because that norm has existed for so long, the sound of White people talking feels like silence, and the unfamiliar voice of color appears to be a thundering imposition no matter how marginal it may remain to the overall schema.
I See Invisible People posits that people tend to over-estimate the amount of words spoken in conversations they are not interested in. I think that's true, but I'd go further. In this case, I suspect men see their own speech as important, meaningful, relevant, and significant, and so don't hear it as "speech" as much as necessary "activity." Women's speech, by contrast, is minimized as irrelevant, low-brow, gossipy, or idle, and thus extraneous. I believe what is actually being said via the stereotype that women talk more than men is that women talk more unnecessarily then men--the conversation stands out because it doesn't fit within the prevailing (male) paradigm of what counts as important speech. This, of course, is representative of gender hierarchy (i.e., patriarchy) more than anything else, and is thus interesting on that front, but there's not much there to be said that hasn't been already.
These conclusions are all just supposition. But just based on my observations and reading of related literature, I think there is more than an insignificant chance that it holds at least a grain of truth.
So, what is the root of the stereotype? My intuition is it is a classic (if more literal) case of "mistaking the sound of one's own voice for silence." I've developed this theory in relation to majority reactions to minority counter-discourse--the all-too-common claim that minorities now "dominate" conversations, that they are the truly privileged in social spaces, that their opinions are given enhanced weight. The data rarely bears these complaints out--most decision-making in America, especially at high levels, is done by White people listening to the advice and perspectives of other White people. But because that norm has existed for so long, the sound of White people talking feels like silence, and the unfamiliar voice of color appears to be a thundering imposition no matter how marginal it may remain to the overall schema.
I See Invisible People posits that people tend to over-estimate the amount of words spoken in conversations they are not interested in. I think that's true, but I'd go further. In this case, I suspect men see their own speech as important, meaningful, relevant, and significant, and so don't hear it as "speech" as much as necessary "activity." Women's speech, by contrast, is minimized as irrelevant, low-brow, gossipy, or idle, and thus extraneous. I believe what is actually being said via the stereotype that women talk more than men is that women talk more unnecessarily then men--the conversation stands out because it doesn't fit within the prevailing (male) paradigm of what counts as important speech. This, of course, is representative of gender hierarchy (i.e., patriarchy) more than anything else, and is thus interesting on that front, but there's not much there to be said that hasn't been already.
These conclusions are all just supposition. But just based on my observations and reading of related literature, I think there is more than an insignificant chance that it holds at least a grain of truth.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
4.0
In his brilliant but chilling book, And We Are Not Saved, Derrick Bell writes a chapter entitled "The Unspoken Limit on Affirmative Action: The Chronicle of the DeVine Gift." Like all of Bell's chronicles, it is a hypothetical story, this one relating to the "small pool" argument for why there is not more minority representation at elite colleges and universities. A law school, thanks to the help of a well-connected businessman (DeVine Taylor), is able to find a virtually limitless supply of impeccably qualified minority scholars to hire onto its faculty. At first, it used the DeVine Gift to hire a flurry of new professors of color. But after the sixth minority scholar was hired and the faculty was approaching a quarter "of color", the hiring committee became uneasy. The school decided against hiring its seventh minority faculty member, despite his stellar credentials, as the heavy minority tint was starting to affect the image of the school. The dean explained to its first Black faculty member, who had spearheaded the DeVine Gift project, that "a law school of our caliber and tradition simply cannot look like a professional basketball team."
The story is a hypothetical, of course, and a cynical one at that. Bell uses it to illustrate the outward limit of affirmative action and speciousness of the "small pool" argument--even if the pool got larger, Bell suspects, the gatekeepers at colleges and universities would not willingly turn former bastions of White privilege into truly multi-cultural institutions
I always thought the story was a little overblown. The experience of California universities, which hang around a plurality of Asian-American students, would seem to cut against it (but see here for why Asians may be a special case). My intuition was that colleges would gleefully admit truly outstanding minority applicants--it's a cost-free way to increase diversity, proclaim commitment to meritocracy, and not resort to controversial affirmative action programs at the same time. Where minorities would lose out, I thought, was in cases where they were middle of the admissions pack and would consistently lose out due to a variety of "intangible" factors.
But then I read Charles Lawrence III's account of UC-Berkeley's admissions behavior after it was forbidden, by referendum, from using affirmative action. Specifically, this information:
Lawrence draws this conclusion by simply looking at the rejection data. "Comparing applicants to the freshman class admitted for the fall of 1998 with GPAs of 4.0 or higher, African-American, Latino, and Filipino-American students were denied admission at far higher rates than white students. Berkeley admitted 48.2% of white applicants with GPAs of 4.0 or higher, but only 31.6% of Filipino-American, 38.5% of African-American, and 39.7% of Latino applicants with such GPAs."
The problem, of course, is that with AP classes and other such programs, it is possible to boost one's GPA far higher than 4.0--possibly up to a 5.0. Yet, since not all schools offer AP classes (and some offer far more than others), many students are at an intrinsic disadvantage simply from where the graduate. Should a student with a 4.0 average at a school with no APs (in other words, the very best score he could receive) be looked upon unfavorably compared to a student with a 4.2 average at a school with 20? I am an example of the latter student and even I don't think that, on that information alone at least, I am the superior candidate.
This is shocking data. It appears to verify Bell's chronicle. Impeccably qualified minority students, students who did everything right, are still being denied admission to elite colleges at a higher rate than their White peers. What more do we ask of these kids? What more do they need to do? Is the problem on their end, or on ours?
The story is a hypothetical, of course, and a cynical one at that. Bell uses it to illustrate the outward limit of affirmative action and speciousness of the "small pool" argument--even if the pool got larger, Bell suspects, the gatekeepers at colleges and universities would not willingly turn former bastions of White privilege into truly multi-cultural institutions
I always thought the story was a little overblown. The experience of California universities, which hang around a plurality of Asian-American students, would seem to cut against it (but see here for why Asians may be a special case). My intuition was that colleges would gleefully admit truly outstanding minority applicants--it's a cost-free way to increase diversity, proclaim commitment to meritocracy, and not resort to controversial affirmative action programs at the same time. Where minorities would lose out, I thought, was in cases where they were middle of the admissions pack and would consistently lose out due to a variety of "intangible" factors.
But then I read Charles Lawrence III's account of UC-Berkeley's admissions behavior after it was forbidden, by referendum, from using affirmative action. Specifically, this information:
Berkeley is the UC system's most selective school, and of the 25,796 applicants for the 1999 freshman class, 9,858 had GPAs of 4.0. n56 But a white applicant with a straight "A" average has a much better shot at getting into Berkeley than a black, Latino or Filipino applicant with the same grades. [Charles R. Lawrence, Two Views of the River: A Critique of the Liberal Defense of Affirmative Action, 101 Colum. L. Rev. 928, 942-43 (2001)]
Lawrence draws this conclusion by simply looking at the rejection data. "Comparing applicants to the freshman class admitted for the fall of 1998 with GPAs of 4.0 or higher, African-American, Latino, and Filipino-American students were denied admission at far higher rates than white students. Berkeley admitted 48.2% of white applicants with GPAs of 4.0 or higher, but only 31.6% of Filipino-American, 38.5% of African-American, and 39.7% of Latino applicants with such GPAs."
The problem, of course, is that with AP classes and other such programs, it is possible to boost one's GPA far higher than 4.0--possibly up to a 5.0. Yet, since not all schools offer AP classes (and some offer far more than others), many students are at an intrinsic disadvantage simply from where the graduate. Should a student with a 4.0 average at a school with no APs (in other words, the very best score he could receive) be looked upon unfavorably compared to a student with a 4.2 average at a school with 20? I am an example of the latter student and even I don't think that, on that information alone at least, I am the superior candidate.
This is shocking data. It appears to verify Bell's chronicle. Impeccably qualified minority students, students who did everything right, are still being denied admission to elite colleges at a higher rate than their White peers. What more do we ask of these kids? What more do they need to do? Is the problem on their end, or on ours?
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
That's Just The Scotch Talking
Kevin Andre Elliot of Slant Truth has given me a "Thinking Blogger" award--simply put, a list of five blogs that make him think. The five people then give their own list of five blogs, and so the meme progresses. How I made it on Kevin's list remains somewhat of a mystery, though I think the scotch he admits to imbibing plays a large role. In any event, I am most flattered and honored, and am pleased to push the meme forward to a new generation.
First off, the rules:
1. If, and only if, you get tagged, write a post with links to 5 blogs that make you think,
2. Link to this post so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme,
3. Optional: Proudly display the ‘Thinking Blogger Award’ with a link to the post that you wrote (There is an alternative silver version if gold doesn’t fit your blog).
Okay, now, the blogs.
1) Let's start with the newest edition to my blogroll: Harry's Place. Normally, I'd wait a bit longer and read a bit more before bestowing such an honor--but then, few blogs have by themselves inspired an entire mood swing in me. For that, I thank them.
2) Obsidian Wings. I'm fortunate that Publius has moved here from his old haunt, otherwise I'd have to use two spots instead of one. He, Hilzoy, and all the rest are unfailingly brilliant (and have a great mascot).
3) Half the Sins of Mankind is the home-base of the prolific PG, someone who I've previously admitted an intellectual crush on. And the comment she writes, oh, the comments she writes! PG is one of the few bloggers who I consider to be more than just someone I read and who reads me. She is a genuine (if virtual) friend.
4) There are a cluster of feminist bloggers I read who all occupy a similar "niche" in my head, and it is well-nigh impossible to decide between them. But I will represent them with the great Feministe, which was probably the earliest I found and the one which has impacted my own thinking the most.
5) I was really wavering on the last one. But Lawyers, Guns, and Money has me consistently nodding along with nearly whatever they write. That's gotta be worth something.
This is obviously a truncated list of the many, many blogs I love and who deserve love. On a different day, and in a different hour, I'd probably write an entirely different list of five. All of these, however, rank to my mind as top-notch members of the blogosphere. And I am happy to give them my own minor seal of approval.
First off, the rules:
1. If, and only if, you get tagged, write a post with links to 5 blogs that make you think,
2. Link to this post so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme,
3. Optional: Proudly display the ‘Thinking Blogger Award’ with a link to the post that you wrote (There is an alternative silver version if gold doesn’t fit your blog).
Okay, now, the blogs.
1) Let's start with the newest edition to my blogroll: Harry's Place. Normally, I'd wait a bit longer and read a bit more before bestowing such an honor--but then, few blogs have by themselves inspired an entire mood swing in me. For that, I thank them.
2) Obsidian Wings. I'm fortunate that Publius has moved here from his old haunt, otherwise I'd have to use two spots instead of one. He, Hilzoy, and all the rest are unfailingly brilliant (and have a great mascot).
3) Half the Sins of Mankind is the home-base of the prolific PG, someone who I've previously admitted an intellectual crush on. And the comment she writes, oh, the comments she writes! PG is one of the few bloggers who I consider to be more than just someone I read and who reads me. She is a genuine (if virtual) friend.
4) There are a cluster of feminist bloggers I read who all occupy a similar "niche" in my head, and it is well-nigh impossible to decide between them. But I will represent them with the great Feministe, which was probably the earliest I found and the one which has impacted my own thinking the most.
5) I was really wavering on the last one. But Lawyers, Guns, and Money has me consistently nodding along with nearly whatever they write. That's gotta be worth something.
This is obviously a truncated list of the many, many blogs I love and who deserve love. On a different day, and in a different hour, I'd probably write an entirely different list of five. All of these, however, rank to my mind as top-notch members of the blogosphere. And I am happy to give them my own minor seal of approval.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Disqualified
The AP reports that Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who is in the process of divorcing his wife, "is in a relationship with a Spanish-language television reporter." Steve Benen snarkily remarks that "if he were a Republican, he’d still be well positioned to run for president," presumably referring to the marital history of the front-running Republicans, who also have had their fair share of divorces and affairs.
But Benen is far too loose with the standards of Republican voters. They would never vote for someone like Villaraigosa. I mean seriously, a Spanish-language television reporter? What would Tancredo say?
But Benen is far too loose with the standards of Republican voters. They would never vote for someone like Villaraigosa. I mean seriously, a Spanish-language television reporter? What would Tancredo say?
Irrational Exuberance
I don't know why, but over the last couple of days, I've been feeling awash in a wave of unsupported optimism about the state of Jews in the world--especially global views towards Israel. There's no particular reason for this to be so--certainly, most of my recent posts give me no grounds for it, nor is there a shortage of contemporary news that normally would send me into a heap of depression. And yet, here I am.
Some of it stems from having heard of a growing segment of the Muslim community that is expressing, openly, its view that Israel is a legitimate state that deserves respect and equal standing in the international community. Such a view, of course, does not negate the stance that Palestinians deserve a state as well--nor should it. But it seems to me a possible signal of a broader fatigue with spending infinite time and energy to trying to dislodge the Jewish state from its tiny perch on the Mediterranean. Am Yisrael Chai, as the Jewish saying goes, and the sooner everyone accepts that reality, the faster we can progress. The years since the second intifada began have been dark ones for supporters of the Jewish State. But they have likewise shown the Palestinian people that spending seven years throwing themselves in blind fury at the Jewish State does nothing except sap resources (and lives) that could better be spent coming to a long-term consensus. The (belated) recognition by many Palestinians that Hamas is perfectly willing to plunge their nation into anarchic civil war for no perceptible gain is the straw that might finally break this camel's incredibly resilient back.
But I think a significant part of my feeling of optimism stems from blogging at Harry's Place, a (I believe) British-based site that talks about Israel from a position that, to my ears, seems to a) be unabashedly progressive and b) take seriously issues of anti-Semitism that inform contemporary anti-Israel and anti-Zionist discourse around the world. I first linked to Harry's Place at this post, where I explored how a progressive view of democratic nationalism requires all on the left to support both an Israeli (Jewish) and Palestinian state. This has been my position for some time, but for much of it I've felt quite lonely--I haven't felt like there has been the development of a left-wing theory of anti-Semitism that would buttress such a stance, hence, the normal pillars of theoretical and philosophical support I depend on were missing. Harry's Place has helped fill that gap, and told me that I am not alone in my instincts on this matter. It has also pointed me to the Engage Website, currently working against the boycott Israel movement in the UK, which is exploring similar themes.
I firmly believe that the only way to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is via a progressive stance that adequately takes into account the positions, interests, lives, and aspirations of both Jews and Palestinians. Until now, I've felt like I've had very few comrades in this endeavor. But now I know I have at least a few fellow travelers. And that makes all the difference.
Some of it stems from having heard of a growing segment of the Muslim community that is expressing, openly, its view that Israel is a legitimate state that deserves respect and equal standing in the international community. Such a view, of course, does not negate the stance that Palestinians deserve a state as well--nor should it. But it seems to me a possible signal of a broader fatigue with spending infinite time and energy to trying to dislodge the Jewish state from its tiny perch on the Mediterranean. Am Yisrael Chai, as the Jewish saying goes, and the sooner everyone accepts that reality, the faster we can progress. The years since the second intifada began have been dark ones for supporters of the Jewish State. But they have likewise shown the Palestinian people that spending seven years throwing themselves in blind fury at the Jewish State does nothing except sap resources (and lives) that could better be spent coming to a long-term consensus. The (belated) recognition by many Palestinians that Hamas is perfectly willing to plunge their nation into anarchic civil war for no perceptible gain is the straw that might finally break this camel's incredibly resilient back.
But I think a significant part of my feeling of optimism stems from blogging at Harry's Place, a (I believe) British-based site that talks about Israel from a position that, to my ears, seems to a) be unabashedly progressive and b) take seriously issues of anti-Semitism that inform contemporary anti-Israel and anti-Zionist discourse around the world. I first linked to Harry's Place at this post, where I explored how a progressive view of democratic nationalism requires all on the left to support both an Israeli (Jewish) and Palestinian state. This has been my position for some time, but for much of it I've felt quite lonely--I haven't felt like there has been the development of a left-wing theory of anti-Semitism that would buttress such a stance, hence, the normal pillars of theoretical and philosophical support I depend on were missing. Harry's Place has helped fill that gap, and told me that I am not alone in my instincts on this matter. It has also pointed me to the Engage Website, currently working against the boycott Israel movement in the UK, which is exploring similar themes.
I firmly believe that the only way to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is via a progressive stance that adequately takes into account the positions, interests, lives, and aspirations of both Jews and Palestinians. Until now, I've felt like I've had very few comrades in this endeavor. But now I know I have at least a few fellow travelers. And that makes all the difference.
The Dawn of a New Era
I start my LSAT prep course today. Wish me luck!
...Well, that was a delightful exercise in terrifying. For the record, I did great on everything, except the logic games, which, well, let's just say I haven't gotten spanked that hard since Ilast roomed with Paddington on a debate trip was a toddler. Well, that's what the prep course is for, I guess.
Still, the sooner the forces of post-modernism overthrow the hegemony of logocentrism, the happier I'll be.
...Well, that was a delightful exercise in terrifying. For the record, I did great on everything, except the logic games, which, well, let's just say I haven't gotten spanked that hard since I
Still, the sooner the forces of post-modernism overthrow the hegemony of logocentrism, the happier I'll be.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Double Instinct
With the ruling by a three-judge panel that Scooter Libby cannot defer his jail sentence pending appeals, the pressure on President Bush to pardon his VP's former Chief of Staff is about to increase astronomically. The panel was majority Republican (as was the prosecutor and the trial judge), so it will be difficult to label this a partisan move (though I have no doubt people will try).
So, will Bush pardon Libby? I think so.
Two instincts, I think, are in play here. The first is loyalty. Many of Libby's prominent defenders have tried to impress upon Bush's reputed sense of loyalty to his subordinates to press for a pardon:
Bush's famous loyalty is not unlimited--while he expects unconditional support from his underlings, he has been willing to throw some of his people to the wolves if it would help him with his base (e.g., Harriet Miers). But nonetheless, the President has stood by many of his appointees and associates long after most administration's would have given them the heave-ho. Alberto Gonzalez and Donald Rumsfeld would be the most prominent names here, but there are others.
The second instinct, which I think conditions the first, is the President's vindicative attitude towards Democrats. If there is one governing principle of this administration, it is that he loves to stick it to the Democratic Party at every possible opportunity. It overrides his national security interest (e.g., Department of Homeland Security), it overrides his political interests (his targeting of friendly, moderate Democrats in the 2002 election)--whatever the situation, Bush loves to cause pain to the left. And with his poll numbers in the low 20s with no hope of resurrection, I believe this bitterness will only increase his lashing out.
That's what makes the pardon more likely than not. Bush cuts loose his subordinates only when they draw anger from his right flank. Libby's crimes are being trumpeted by the left. But Bush doesn't care about what the left thinks. Hell, at this point, he doesn't care what anybody thinks--the dead-end 25 percent who still supports him probably would still stand by him if al-Qaeda occupied New York. So what's to stop him? Bush revels in seeing impotent liberal rage. Now that the Democrats control Congress, that rage is not so impotent anymore. But a pardon is something they can't do anything about. Pardoning Libby gives Bush one last hit of the heady, early days. And that's why he'll do it.
So, will Bush pardon Libby? I think so.
Two instincts, I think, are in play here. The first is loyalty. Many of Libby's prominent defenders have tried to impress upon Bush's reputed sense of loyalty to his subordinates to press for a pardon:
“I hope it puts pressure on the president. He’s a man of pronounced loyalties and he should have loyalty to Scooter Libby,” said former Ambassador Richard Carlson, a member of Libby’s defense fund. “It would be a travesty for him to go off to prison. The president will take some heat for it. So what? He takes heat for everything.”
Bush's famous loyalty is not unlimited--while he expects unconditional support from his underlings, he has been willing to throw some of his people to the wolves if it would help him with his base (e.g., Harriet Miers). But nonetheless, the President has stood by many of his appointees and associates long after most administration's would have given them the heave-ho. Alberto Gonzalez and Donald Rumsfeld would be the most prominent names here, but there are others.
The second instinct, which I think conditions the first, is the President's vindicative attitude towards Democrats. If there is one governing principle of this administration, it is that he loves to stick it to the Democratic Party at every possible opportunity. It overrides his national security interest (e.g., Department of Homeland Security), it overrides his political interests (his targeting of friendly, moderate Democrats in the 2002 election)--whatever the situation, Bush loves to cause pain to the left. And with his poll numbers in the low 20s with no hope of resurrection, I believe this bitterness will only increase his lashing out.
That's what makes the pardon more likely than not. Bush cuts loose his subordinates only when they draw anger from his right flank. Libby's crimes are being trumpeted by the left. But Bush doesn't care about what the left thinks. Hell, at this point, he doesn't care what anybody thinks--the dead-end 25 percent who still supports him probably would still stand by him if al-Qaeda occupied New York. So what's to stop him? Bush revels in seeing impotent liberal rage. Now that the Democrats control Congress, that rage is not so impotent anymore. But a pardon is something they can't do anything about. Pardoning Libby gives Bush one last hit of the heady, early days. And that's why he'll do it.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
The Putnam Study
John Leo reports on a diversity study by Robert Putnam that raises troubling questions about the benefits of diversity. Specifically, he finds that living in diverse areas is correlated to a bevy of negative effects on the residents:
Putnam does say that these harms are across the short and mid-term, and in the long-run diversity remains an overall benefit. Still, these are findings to give one pause.
I first came across the study at MvdG's place (this is an expansion of the comment I left there), and have seen it in several other locales since then. As I blog rather frequently on the perks of diversity, and consider myself a cheerleader for its benefits, I feel it's only fair to blog on this study as well.
The Putnam study is indeed distressing. The one variable I didn’t see him control for (and he may have, I'm relying on a summary) was comparing people who grew up in diverse surroundings versus those who moved in at adulthood. Most of the research I’ve seen as indicated that childhood is a crucial time for getting people to accept and thrive in diverse environments–and that they experience performance leaps as a result. Putnam’s study might indicate that these benefits don’t accrue if you start too late (this is also buttressed by his findings of long-term gains to offset the short- and mid-term losses). If Putnam's study is to be synthesized with the studies that do find long-term benefits for children who grow up and are educated in diverse environments, it would suggest that integrating schools is a "try-or-die" situation--if you don't catch kids early enough, simply putting them in diverse situations later on will blow up in your face.
That being said, Putnam's study does impress that diversity is not a panacea. It has benefits, especially along the axis of racial distributional justice. But its pursuit can have costs as well, and it is unfair not to take those costs into account. Ultimately, I think the best use of our brightest minds, confronting Putnam's work, is to figure out how to eliminate the relationship he's finding. More than the study itself, I am worried by the people reacting to it with satisfaction bordering on glee. Regardless of what you think about various state-incentivized plans to encourage diverse living, everybody is hurt when simply living next door to someone of another culture risks lowering your quality of life--not because of increased crime or worse schools, but because of psychological discomfort and distress. Putnam's study doesn't just describe a finding, it describes a problem.
It's a problem--but I don't believe that it is an immutable one. People can grow comfortable around those who previously thought to be inscrutably, exotically different. It's a problem, but one that we can solve. So, let's solve it.
Diversity does not produce “bad race relations,” Putnam says. Rather, people in diverse communities tend “to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.” Putnam adds a crushing footnote: his findings “may underestimate the real effect of diversity on social withdrawal.”
Neither age nor disparities of wealth explain this result. “Americans raised in the 1970s,” he writes, “seem fully as unnerved by diversity as those raised in the 1920s.” And the “hunkering down” occurred no matter whether the communities were relatively egalitarian or showed great differences in personal income. Even when communities are equally poor or rich, equally safe or crime-ridden, diversity correlates with less trust of neighbors, lower confidence in local politicians and news media, less charitable giving and volunteering, fewer close friends, and less happiness.
Putnam does say that these harms are across the short and mid-term, and in the long-run diversity remains an overall benefit. Still, these are findings to give one pause.
I first came across the study at MvdG's place (this is an expansion of the comment I left there), and have seen it in several other locales since then. As I blog rather frequently on the perks of diversity, and consider myself a cheerleader for its benefits, I feel it's only fair to blog on this study as well.
The Putnam study is indeed distressing. The one variable I didn’t see him control for (and he may have, I'm relying on a summary) was comparing people who grew up in diverse surroundings versus those who moved in at adulthood. Most of the research I’ve seen as indicated that childhood is a crucial time for getting people to accept and thrive in diverse environments–and that they experience performance leaps as a result. Putnam’s study might indicate that these benefits don’t accrue if you start too late (this is also buttressed by his findings of long-term gains to offset the short- and mid-term losses). If Putnam's study is to be synthesized with the studies that do find long-term benefits for children who grow up and are educated in diverse environments, it would suggest that integrating schools is a "try-or-die" situation--if you don't catch kids early enough, simply putting them in diverse situations later on will blow up in your face.
That being said, Putnam's study does impress that diversity is not a panacea. It has benefits, especially along the axis of racial distributional justice. But its pursuit can have costs as well, and it is unfair not to take those costs into account. Ultimately, I think the best use of our brightest minds, confronting Putnam's work, is to figure out how to eliminate the relationship he's finding. More than the study itself, I am worried by the people reacting to it with satisfaction bordering on glee. Regardless of what you think about various state-incentivized plans to encourage diverse living, everybody is hurt when simply living next door to someone of another culture risks lowering your quality of life--not because of increased crime or worse schools, but because of psychological discomfort and distress. Putnam's study doesn't just describe a finding, it describes a problem.
It's a problem--but I don't believe that it is an immutable one. People can grow comfortable around those who previously thought to be inscrutably, exotically different. It's a problem, but one that we can solve. So, let's solve it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
