Monday, January 10, 2011
Justice DeLayed....
Disgraced former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), found guilty on money laundering charges, was sentenced to three years in prison, plus ten years probation today.
Acclaimed
The University of Chicago college magazine has listed The Debate Link as one of its top ten best University of Chicago blogs: "Third-year law student David Schraub × (U.S. law + Israel) = funny, thoughtful, acclaimed blog." I'm listed alongside such luminaries as the Becker-Posner blog and "This is Jasmine". Hot.
Sunday, January 09, 2011
Getting Chippy
I was going to post on this yesterday, before the Giffords shooting became the key story.
Claiming it promotes racial hostility and "ethnic solidarity", the Attorney General of Arizona has ordered Tucson Unified School District's Mexican-American studies program shut down. Similar Arizona programs targeted at the life and history of Asian-Americans, African-Americans, and Native Americans were unaffected. The program is open to students of all backgrounds, although most of the students partaking are Latino. The Arizona AG, Tom Horne, has a history of tension with the Latino population in general and this program in particular -- students enrolled responded to a speech by one of Mr. Horne's aides designed to argue that Republicans were not anti-Latino by turning their backs and raising their fists in the air. And of course, this decision comes at a time when tensions between the White and Latino population of Arizona are at their peak. It's almost impossible to view the decision to outlaw this program as simply another salvo in the ongoing battle between White and Latino Arizonans as to whether the latter are truly equal members of the state.
Richard Jeffrey Newman has a good post on the topic at Alas, a Blog, and I wanted to riff a bit on a point I made in the comments over there.
There's a lot of talk regarding these sorts of programs that they play towards a politics of victimology, that they encourage these kids to see themselves solely as the beaten down, crushed, hopeless objects of White racism. As an alternative, the proposal is that we teach American history as the story of a bad past, albeit with some Whites who "got it", and then a progressive shift towards more and more White people "getting it" until today, when racial problems are mostly a thing of the past.
What is strange, though, is that this latter program seems to me to be sending a considerably stronger message of passivity towards Latino students. Teaching the history as the story of White people progressively "getting it" doesn't provide any agency to the Black or Latino or Native American communities. It reinforces their status as objects, passive recipients of the abuse and later grace of the White majority, and it doesn't provide any narrative elements by which they can build themselves up, as opposed to waiting for White justice to strike again. If anything, it is a far more "victimizing" narrative than the ethnic solidarity alternative, which tends to be very si, se puede (or, as the Black nationalists put it, “do it for self, brother”).
That's why these programs are typically associated with higher achievement levels, not lower ones (and that seems to be the case in Tuscon, where the students enrolled outperform those who are not). Sure, these programs say "you've gotten fucked over, hard". But any remotely historical program will teach that, and moreover, these kids are living their lives, so they’re going to know that anyway. But instead of saying "but then the White folks saw the light and it all got better, and if you're good boys and girls they'll do right by you too" — a very passive, objectifying, stultifying way of looking at it — it says "but our people fought back, and won our rights, and earned our spot, and if they can do it, you can do it too, no matter what obstacles you face." It's the educational equivalent of a halftime pep talk. "White people are racist, ergo, you're doomed" is a bad message. "There is racism out there, and it's still a big problem -- but look at all the people who fought it, and beat it, and made the world better for themselves and everyone around them," is a salutary, inspirational message.
The other sentiment floating around here is that these programs turn the enrolled students into radicals of some sort or another. This does seem to rest uneasily with the claim that it enforces Latino passivity -- radicals aren't exactly known for sitting on their hands -- but put that aside. As I noted a few years ago in a similar case, a young student being a radical for awhile isn't exactly the worst outcome in the world. Many of our great intellectuals (liberal and conservative) spent time as youthful radicals. I was far more radical when I was in high school than I am now, and I think I turned out alright.
We can say that maybe turning your back on a public official and raising a fist isn't the most mature act in the world, but guess what -- teenagers aren't really known for their maturity. Certainly, this manner of acting out -- seeking to make a political statement, however misguided or inappropriately expressed -- is a far cry better than many of the other ways 17-year-olds can act immature. I'll trade a little juvenile political theater for higher graduation rates any day of the week.
Finally, lest we forget, we live in capitalist, competition-driven system. There's not only no harm in teaching kids to come out of school with a burning desire to fight for what they want, it's the whole point. If you're coming from a place where you don't have a lot of advantages and don't have a lot of social capital backing you up, it's probably a good thing to come out of school and into the real world with a bit of a chip on your shoulder -- a belief that you've got something to prove and a determination that you're capable of doing it. That, again, is something salutary. It shouldn't be discouraged.
Claiming it promotes racial hostility and "ethnic solidarity", the Attorney General of Arizona has ordered Tucson Unified School District's Mexican-American studies program shut down. Similar Arizona programs targeted at the life and history of Asian-Americans, African-Americans, and Native Americans were unaffected. The program is open to students of all backgrounds, although most of the students partaking are Latino. The Arizona AG, Tom Horne, has a history of tension with the Latino population in general and this program in particular -- students enrolled responded to a speech by one of Mr. Horne's aides designed to argue that Republicans were not anti-Latino by turning their backs and raising their fists in the air. And of course, this decision comes at a time when tensions between the White and Latino population of Arizona are at their peak. It's almost impossible to view the decision to outlaw this program as simply another salvo in the ongoing battle between White and Latino Arizonans as to whether the latter are truly equal members of the state.
Richard Jeffrey Newman has a good post on the topic at Alas, a Blog, and I wanted to riff a bit on a point I made in the comments over there.
There's a lot of talk regarding these sorts of programs that they play towards a politics of victimology, that they encourage these kids to see themselves solely as the beaten down, crushed, hopeless objects of White racism. As an alternative, the proposal is that we teach American history as the story of a bad past, albeit with some Whites who "got it", and then a progressive shift towards more and more White people "getting it" until today, when racial problems are mostly a thing of the past.
What is strange, though, is that this latter program seems to me to be sending a considerably stronger message of passivity towards Latino students. Teaching the history as the story of White people progressively "getting it" doesn't provide any agency to the Black or Latino or Native American communities. It reinforces their status as objects, passive recipients of the abuse and later grace of the White majority, and it doesn't provide any narrative elements by which they can build themselves up, as opposed to waiting for White justice to strike again. If anything, it is a far more "victimizing" narrative than the ethnic solidarity alternative, which tends to be very si, se puede (or, as the Black nationalists put it, “do it for self, brother”).
That's why these programs are typically associated with higher achievement levels, not lower ones (and that seems to be the case in Tuscon, where the students enrolled outperform those who are not). Sure, these programs say "you've gotten fucked over, hard". But any remotely historical program will teach that, and moreover, these kids are living their lives, so they’re going to know that anyway. But instead of saying "but then the White folks saw the light and it all got better, and if you're good boys and girls they'll do right by you too" — a very passive, objectifying, stultifying way of looking at it — it says "but our people fought back, and won our rights, and earned our spot, and if they can do it, you can do it too, no matter what obstacles you face." It's the educational equivalent of a halftime pep talk. "White people are racist, ergo, you're doomed" is a bad message. "There is racism out there, and it's still a big problem -- but look at all the people who fought it, and beat it, and made the world better for themselves and everyone around them," is a salutary, inspirational message.
The other sentiment floating around here is that these programs turn the enrolled students into radicals of some sort or another. This does seem to rest uneasily with the claim that it enforces Latino passivity -- radicals aren't exactly known for sitting on their hands -- but put that aside. As I noted a few years ago in a similar case, a young student being a radical for awhile isn't exactly the worst outcome in the world. Many of our great intellectuals (liberal and conservative) spent time as youthful radicals. I was far more radical when I was in high school than I am now, and I think I turned out alright.
We can say that maybe turning your back on a public official and raising a fist isn't the most mature act in the world, but guess what -- teenagers aren't really known for their maturity. Certainly, this manner of acting out -- seeking to make a political statement, however misguided or inappropriately expressed -- is a far cry better than many of the other ways 17-year-olds can act immature. I'll trade a little juvenile political theater for higher graduation rates any day of the week.
Finally, lest we forget, we live in capitalist, competition-driven system. There's not only no harm in teaching kids to come out of school with a burning desire to fight for what they want, it's the whole point. If you're coming from a place where you don't have a lot of advantages and don't have a lot of social capital backing you up, it's probably a good thing to come out of school and into the real world with a bit of a chip on your shoulder -- a belief that you've got something to prove and a determination that you're capable of doing it. That, again, is something salutary. It shouldn't be discouraged.
Saturday, January 08, 2011
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) Shot in Tuscon
US Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was reportedly shot in the head at close range while hosting an event in Tuscon, Arizona. Several other members of her staff were also reportedly hurt by the gunman, who is now in custody.
There is no word on Rep. Giffords' condition as of yet. Though the shooting occurred at a constituent event, there is no report on the gunman's motives, or whether Giffords was targeted.
I'll update this post as more information comes out. Please keep Rep. Giffords and all those injured in your thoughts.
UPDATE: Earlier reports had said Rep. Giffords had died, but the latest news is that she is currently in surgery but still alive.
UPDATE #2: MSNBC reports that Federal District Judge John M. Roll is among the dead.
There is no word on Rep. Giffords' condition as of yet. Though the shooting occurred at a constituent event, there is no report on the gunman's motives, or whether Giffords was targeted.
I'll update this post as more information comes out. Please keep Rep. Giffords and all those injured in your thoughts.
UPDATE: Earlier reports had said Rep. Giffords had died, but the latest news is that she is currently in surgery but still alive.
UPDATE #2: MSNBC reports that Federal District Judge John M. Roll is among the dead.
The Yellow Star Bill
A new group of state legislators opposed birthright citizenship has made a first-step proposal to help differentiate citizens born to illegal immigrants from the rest of us: separate birth certificates.
I'm not the world's biggest John Marshall Harlan cheerleader. But if ever there was a time to refer back to his Plessy dissent, now was it. Our constitution "neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens." It's that simple. And marking certain disfavored citizen's birth certificate with an indicator that says "you are lesser, you are not truly one of us" -- it is difficult to find an idea more offensive to the spirit of our constitutional tradition.
I'm not the world's biggest John Marshall Harlan cheerleader. But if ever there was a time to refer back to his Plessy dissent, now was it. Our constitution "neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens." It's that simple. And marking certain disfavored citizen's birth certificate with an indicator that says "you are lesser, you are not truly one of us" -- it is difficult to find an idea more offensive to the spirit of our constitutional tradition.
The King is Dethroned
I wonder if praising his leadership's "mendacity" had something to do with this:
Rep. Gallegly isn't substantively all that different from Rep. King -- he even supports repealing part of the Fourteenth Amendment in order to eliminate birthright citizenship. Nonetheless, rhetorically he's nowhere near King's league (King once advocated adding a non-lethal electrical current to our border fence as a deterrent, saying "We do that with livestock all the time."). Presumably, King's extremism has reached the point where it is seen as an embarrassment to the House Republican leadership, and they're looking to clamp down.
And while sometimes a quieter voice for the same radical policies can be more effective and thus more dangerous, I don't actually think any of the most excessive Republicana anti-immigrant provisions are going anywhere, so it's only a good thing that the level of overheated hyperbole directed against undocumented immigrants (and their children) will be reduced at least a little bit.
The new Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Lamar Smith of Texas, has passed over an outspoken immigration hard-liner and member of the Tea Party caucus for chairman of the immigration subcommittee
In an announcement Friday, Mr. Smith unexpectedly gave the job of chairman of the subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement to Representative Elton Gallegly, a conservative Republican from California.
Representative Steve King of Iowa, who was the senior Republican on the subcommittee in the last Congress and was expected to take over as chairman, was named vice chairman instead. Mr. King is known for his high-profile support for measures to crack down on illegal immigration.
In an interview late Friday, Mr. King made no secret of his surprise and disappointment. “I don’t know I can explain it,” he said.
Rep. Gallegly isn't substantively all that different from Rep. King -- he even supports repealing part of the Fourteenth Amendment in order to eliminate birthright citizenship. Nonetheless, rhetorically he's nowhere near King's league (King once advocated adding a non-lethal electrical current to our border fence as a deterrent, saying "We do that with livestock all the time."). Presumably, King's extremism has reached the point where it is seen as an embarrassment to the House Republican leadership, and they're looking to clamp down.
And while sometimes a quieter voice for the same radical policies can be more effective and thus more dangerous, I don't actually think any of the most excessive Republicana anti-immigrant provisions are going anywhere, so it's only a good thing that the level of overheated hyperbole directed against undocumented immigrants (and their children) will be reduced at least a little bit.
Friday, January 07, 2011
Oh, the Mendacity of it All
Rep. Steve King (R-IA) is one of my "favorite" congressional Republicans. If Michelle Bachmann is the queen of the GOP crazies, Rep. King is a front-runner for the title of emir of Republican idiots. Here he is defending the "mendacity" of the House Republican leadership.
Some of Rep. King's other greatest hits include describing Barack Obama as our "urban" President, describing the Watergate scandal as "a little break-in by a couple of guys," voting against Katrina aid, claiming President Obama would lead us into a "totalitarian dictatorship", and decrying Obama using his middle name in his swearing in.
On the other hand, he did inspire one of my favorite photo-shops ever, so I guess he has that going for him.
"As I deliberate and I listen to the gentleman from Tennessee, I have to make the point that when you challenge the mendacity of the leader or another member, there is an opportunity to rise to a point of order, there is an opportunity to make a motion to take the gentleman's words down, however many of the members are off on other endeavors and I would make the point that the leader and the speaker have established their integrity and their mendacity for years in this Congress and I don't believe it can be effectively challenged and those who do so actually cast aspersions on themselves by making wild accusations," King said.
Some of Rep. King's other greatest hits include describing Barack Obama as our "urban" President, describing the Watergate scandal as "a little break-in by a couple of guys," voting against Katrina aid, claiming President Obama would lead us into a "totalitarian dictatorship", and decrying Obama using his middle name in his swearing in.
On the other hand, he did inspire one of my favorite photo-shops ever, so I guess he has that going for him.
Thursday, January 06, 2011
Ted Williams Reunites with his Mother
I've been following the Ted Williams story (the homeless man with the golden radio voice), and it's definitely been having an effect on me. But this video, where he finally reunites with his mother after so many years, really is causing me to tear up.
Good luck, Mr. Williams. We're all rooting for you.
Good luck, Mr. Williams. We're all rooting for you.
Blog Cite Alert
My 2008 blog post, Second Thing We Do, Objectify All The Men, has been cited in Ann R. Fischer, Sonya K. Bettendorf, and Yu-Wei Wang Contextualizing Sexual Objectification, 39 Counseling Psych. 127, 131 (2011) (subscription only).
Eventually my actual scholarly work will catch up with this blog, but today is not that day.
Eventually my actual scholarly work will catch up with this blog, but today is not that day.
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Self-Immolation
If I remember my history correctly, one of the things which stymied the advance of the John Birch Society was its inability to keep its wild conspiracy-mongering contained merely to leftward targets. When Dwight D. Eisenhower became the subject of the JBS' ravings, it proved the last straw for respectable conservatives, and the power of the organization was broken once and for all.
Over the past few weeks, there's been a bit of a crack-up regarding the participation of gay Republican groups in CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference). CPAC's refusal to ban gay organization has led to a boycott movement by several members of the social right, such as the Family Research Council.
But that apparently isn't enough. Now, CPAC opponents are saying that -- you guessed it -- the hosting organization is a front for efforts to bring Sha'riah law to America. No, really.
The wild-eyed conspiracies that the Muslims are taking over American law and life have became staples of Republican discourse (Sharron Angle famously alleged that Shariah had taken hold in Dearborn, Michigan, and Frankford, Texas). But it's the sort of allegation that can very easily stop promoting esprit de corps and start being fratricidal, and that's where I think we're heading. Which is a good thing. Watching this vile nonsense rip apart its progenitors would be a rare example of political karma.
Over the past few weeks, there's been a bit of a crack-up regarding the participation of gay Republican groups in CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference). CPAC's refusal to ban gay organization has led to a boycott movement by several members of the social right, such as the Family Research Council.
But that apparently isn't enough. Now, CPAC opponents are saying that -- you guessed it -- the hosting organization is a front for efforts to bring Sha'riah law to America. No, really.
The wild-eyed conspiracies that the Muslims are taking over American law and life have became staples of Republican discourse (Sharron Angle famously alleged that Shariah had taken hold in Dearborn, Michigan, and Frankford, Texas). But it's the sort of allegation that can very easily stop promoting esprit de corps and start being fratricidal, and that's where I think we're heading. Which is a good thing. Watching this vile nonsense rip apart its progenitors would be a rare example of political karma.
Bachmann for Prez!
Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN), the doyen of the "crazy" caucus of the GOP, is considering a run for the Presidency. For those of you unfamiliar with the Minnesota Congresswoman, she's like if you took Sarah Palin, and injected a metric ton of LSD into her eyeballs.
Unfortunately, this quality makes it hard for me to know what she would bring to a primary that Sarah Palin wouldn't. And unlike Palin, who has a professional class of worshippers who have managed to persuade themselves that she's not utterly toxic, even Republicans seem to realize that Bachmann is a nutjob.
But I shouldn't be greedy. Successful primary campaign or no, I'm sure Rep. Bachmann will continue humiliating Republicans on the front pages of newspapers nationwide.
Unfortunately, this quality makes it hard for me to know what she would bring to a primary that Sarah Palin wouldn't. And unlike Palin, who has a professional class of worshippers who have managed to persuade themselves that she's not utterly toxic, even Republicans seem to realize that Bachmann is a nutjob.
But I shouldn't be greedy. Successful primary campaign or no, I'm sure Rep. Bachmann will continue humiliating Republicans on the front pages of newspapers nationwide.
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Flare-Up
Another skirmish with my laptop's wireless capabilities today, but one which I eventually pulled out a decisive victory (by changing my IP address).
Monday, January 03, 2011
This
Jon Chait:
By contrast, raising taxes on the wealthy as a step towards deficit reduction carries with it the support of 61% of all Americans.
The constituency for entitlement cuts -- which is the sine qua non of any serious reduction in the size of government -- is 7% of the population. Which is to say, actual small government conservatism -- as opposed to opposition to unspecified waste or a misunderstanding of the size of the foreign aid budget -- is essentially nonexistent at the popular level.
By contrast, raising taxes on the wealthy as a step towards deficit reduction carries with it the support of 61% of all Americans.
Sunday, January 02, 2011
Who Could It Be?
I saw the headline: "GOPer calls Obama administration 'corrupt'", and immediately guessed "Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA)!"
And, no surprise, I was right!
Apparently, Issa realized he might of stepped too far when he said Obama himself was "corrupt", but still -- let the witch-hunts begin!
And, no surprise, I was right!
Apparently, Issa realized he might of stepped too far when he said Obama himself was "corrupt", but still -- let the witch-hunts begin!
Bringing in 2011
I figured I needed to get a post up before this new year gets ancient. So -- Jill and I are sick, suffering from a bad case of the 24 minute flu. It was kinda bizarre, actually -- we both have had a pretty stuffy head cold, and then (about two hours apart last night -- she had it first) we both suddenly felt really sick (nausea, chills, that sort of thing). That lasted about a half-hour, and then it went away and we were back to the head cold.
Weird. Anyway, it seems like literally everyone I talk to is sick with something or other. So feel better, everyone, and have a happy new year!
Weird. Anyway, it seems like literally everyone I talk to is sick with something or other. So feel better, everyone, and have a happy new year!
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Jon Swift Memorial Roundup
The Vagabound Scholar has resurrected the late "Jon Swift's" yearly roundup "The Best Posts of the Year, Chosen by the Bloggers Themselves". It was a great thing Jon did, and a great thing the Vagabound is doing, both for the blogosphere community and to honor Jon's memory.
Head over and check it out.
Head over and check it out.
Punishment and Reentry -- The Case of Michael Vick
Over the past several years, the case of Michael Vick has registered a continual and deep discomfort with a lot of how we talk about (and practice) crime and punishment, and the disjuncture between the moral justification of punishment and the way it is actually operationalized in our society. As Vick is enjoying a successful year in the NFL, there are still those who are outraged that he is even allowed to play in the NFL -- that he is permitted to return post-punishment with seemingly no permanent disabilities.
I was in the let Vick play camp well before the President registered his agreement on the subject, and I think that point is pretty clear. I also still maintain that, gravity of Vick's crime notwithstanding, there was a deep loss of perspective in those who labeled it a crime against humanity.
But there's a bigger point here worth exploring, and it goes into the psychology of punishment and how we go about rationalizing the state-inflicted violence that is the penal system.
When I say state-inflicted violence, I don't mean it as a judgment. Sometimes violence is acceptable -- in self-defense, in just wars -- and incarceration (the coercive locking-away of a person under pain of severe injury or even death if he tries to leave) as punishment for crime is one of those cases. But violence needs justification, and so, in order to rationalize punishment, we have to tell ourselves that the person is a bad person. Which of course, in a way, he is -- people who drown dogs or beat women or rob banks are bad people. But only so much so. The problem is that whereas criminal penalties are generally temporally limited (e.g., a jail sentence of two years), moral judgments have no such borders. Having concluded that someone is a bad person is the warrant that justifies the incarceration, but it does not fade away upon their release. We find, post-release, that our thirst for retribution hasn't been quenched. After all, there is a bad guy out there, living his life freely, successful, even happy. There is a disjuncture between the formalized, limited, moral judgment of incarceration, and the broader narrative of wrongfulness that sustains our ability to render that judgment under law -- a narrative that enjoys no such bounds or constraints, a narrative that, may, fundamentally, be incompatible with any sentence for felons other than life without parole.
Philosophically speaking, this is a problem for retributivist accounts of criminal punishment. But practically speaking, it's an even bigger problem for successfully reintegrating felons back into the mainstream of American life. Both in absolute and per capita terms, the US has the highest rate of incarceration in the world. It is both social and moral folly to permanently write off our entire population of convicts as irredeemable (which, in effect, is what we have done ever since we officially abandoned rehabilitation as a goal of incarceration). Frankly, if we don't think anyone will successfully turn away from a life of crime -- and we consider it an injustice upon their victims when they do and meet with success in their new lives -- then our criminal justice system is a farce. Why do we bother letting folks out of prison in the first place, if we think they're doomed to fail and are aggrieved when they don't accommodate?
Needless to say, I'm not endorsing mandatory life sentences. I'm endorsing a broader shift in how we think about criminals -- one that demands considerably more agility than "they are bad people". The narratives by which we justify imposing punishment on the offender have to include an ending through which we impose an obligation on society to forgive once the punishment is included. Our stories can't end with the bad man. They must contain a restorative element, or they will fail.
I was in the let Vick play camp well before the President registered his agreement on the subject, and I think that point is pretty clear. I also still maintain that, gravity of Vick's crime notwithstanding, there was a deep loss of perspective in those who labeled it a crime against humanity.
But there's a bigger point here worth exploring, and it goes into the psychology of punishment and how we go about rationalizing the state-inflicted violence that is the penal system.
When I say state-inflicted violence, I don't mean it as a judgment. Sometimes violence is acceptable -- in self-defense, in just wars -- and incarceration (the coercive locking-away of a person under pain of severe injury or even death if he tries to leave) as punishment for crime is one of those cases. But violence needs justification, and so, in order to rationalize punishment, we have to tell ourselves that the person is a bad person. Which of course, in a way, he is -- people who drown dogs or beat women or rob banks are bad people. But only so much so. The problem is that whereas criminal penalties are generally temporally limited (e.g., a jail sentence of two years), moral judgments have no such borders. Having concluded that someone is a bad person is the warrant that justifies the incarceration, but it does not fade away upon their release. We find, post-release, that our thirst for retribution hasn't been quenched. After all, there is a bad guy out there, living his life freely, successful, even happy. There is a disjuncture between the formalized, limited, moral judgment of incarceration, and the broader narrative of wrongfulness that sustains our ability to render that judgment under law -- a narrative that enjoys no such bounds or constraints, a narrative that, may, fundamentally, be incompatible with any sentence for felons other than life without parole.
Philosophically speaking, this is a problem for retributivist accounts of criminal punishment. But practically speaking, it's an even bigger problem for successfully reintegrating felons back into the mainstream of American life. Both in absolute and per capita terms, the US has the highest rate of incarceration in the world. It is both social and moral folly to permanently write off our entire population of convicts as irredeemable (which, in effect, is what we have done ever since we officially abandoned rehabilitation as a goal of incarceration). Frankly, if we don't think anyone will successfully turn away from a life of crime -- and we consider it an injustice upon their victims when they do and meet with success in their new lives -- then our criminal justice system is a farce. Why do we bother letting folks out of prison in the first place, if we think they're doomed to fail and are aggrieved when they don't accommodate?
Needless to say, I'm not endorsing mandatory life sentences. I'm endorsing a broader shift in how we think about criminals -- one that demands considerably more agility than "they are bad people". The narratives by which we justify imposing punishment on the offender have to include an ending through which we impose an obligation on society to forgive once the punishment is included. Our stories can't end with the bad man. They must contain a restorative element, or they will fail.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
New Year's Resolutions 2011!
It's that time of year: New Year's Resolutions! Here are the lists from 2010, 2009, 2008, and 2007. And of course, we begin by evaluating my performance of the previous year's goals.
Met: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 (but I overcooked it), 7, 9, 10 (barely), 11, 12.
Missed: 13, 15 (but it wasn't a very good game anyway).
Pick 'em: 5 (I supposed I should never be satisfied with my performance on this one), 8, 14.
Again, I'd say a decent performance! But onward we go, to next year's ambitions:
(1) Succeed as a teacher (Pick 'em)
(2) Get Sticky Slopes published (Missed -- through no lack of effort, unfortunately)
(3) Solidify post-clerkship plans (Missed)
(4) Explore new facets of my love of Jill, and expand the horizons of our relationship (Pick 'em)
(5) Be more appreciative of the things Jill and I already share and adore about each other (Pick 'em)
(6) Enjoy my first foray into being a real adult with a real (well, "real") job (Met)
(7) Make friends in Champaign-Urbana (Met)
(8) Keep track of law school friends, and keep in contact with law school profs, after graduation (Met)
(9) Write at least a full draft of a new law review article (Met)
(10) Link up with the Jewish community in Champaign-Urbana (Missed)
(11) Tolerate awkwardness better (Missed)
(12) Finish law school strong (Met)
(13) Keep the blog posts flowing (but don't let it interfere with #9) (Met)
(14) Visit Carleton (Missed)
(15) Holistically speaking, look back in 2011 and feel content. (Met)
Met: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 (but I overcooked it), 7, 9, 10 (barely), 11, 12.
Missed: 13, 15 (but it wasn't a very good game anyway).
Pick 'em: 5 (I supposed I should never be satisfied with my performance on this one), 8, 14.
Again, I'd say a decent performance! But onward we go, to next year's ambitions:
(1) Succeed as a teacher (Pick 'em)
(2) Get Sticky Slopes published (Missed -- through no lack of effort, unfortunately)
(3) Solidify post-clerkship plans (Missed)
(4) Explore new facets of my love of Jill, and expand the horizons of our relationship (Pick 'em)
(5) Be more appreciative of the things Jill and I already share and adore about each other (Pick 'em)
(6) Enjoy my first foray into being a real adult with a real (well, "real") job (Met)
(7) Make friends in Champaign-Urbana (Met)
(8) Keep track of law school friends, and keep in contact with law school profs, after graduation (Met)
(9) Write at least a full draft of a new law review article (Met)
(10) Link up with the Jewish community in Champaign-Urbana (Missed)
(11) Tolerate awkwardness better (Missed)
(12) Finish law school strong (Met)
(13) Keep the blog posts flowing (but don't let it interfere with #9) (Met)
(14) Visit Carleton (Missed)
(15) Holistically speaking, look back in 2011 and feel content. (Met)
Safety First
Spotted on twitter: "Think I'll have my daughter do some pole dancing videos. That way if she ever disappears the cable networks will cover it 24/7."
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Lieberman Tirade Shows Weakness of Israeli Government
Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman unleashed a shocking string of vitriol at a recent Foreign Ministry meeting, attacking, among others, the Israeli government, the Palestinian Authority for its stated goal of reaching an agreement before the end of 2011, the state of Turkey, and South American nations which have announced their recognition of the state of Palestine. In the course of the speech, Lieberman declared that there is no foreign policy Israel could pursue which would garner the approval of all coalition members.
Criticism of Lieberman has poured in from all sides, with PM Netanyahu stating that only he gets to set Israeli policy. But it was the opposition-leading Kadima Party which raised the most salient point, stating: "Lieberman said what every citizen in Israel knows: Israel has a government with no real policies, a government without direction and a government without leadership." It's a governing equivalent of a headless chicken -- it just wanders aimlessly from one crisis to another, half of them the result of the government's own incompetence.
Avigdor Lieberman has been an unmitigated disaster as foreign minister -- which is what happens when a state takes a Russian Sarah Palin and put him in charge of international relations. And the inability of the rest of the Israeli government, most notably Netanyahu, to effectively rein him in demonstrates the fundamental inability of the Israeli government to function at the level it needs to in order to solve the dire problems it faces today. One wonders how long this government can even last at this point. I just hope that the Israeli populace is beginning to recognize that its government can't govern. Say what you will about Kadima -- and they have their faults -- but they're a serious party in a country whose political class is rapidly devolving into farce.
Criticism of Lieberman has poured in from all sides, with PM Netanyahu stating that only he gets to set Israeli policy. But it was the opposition-leading Kadima Party which raised the most salient point, stating: "Lieberman said what every citizen in Israel knows: Israel has a government with no real policies, a government without direction and a government without leadership." It's a governing equivalent of a headless chicken -- it just wanders aimlessly from one crisis to another, half of them the result of the government's own incompetence.
Avigdor Lieberman has been an unmitigated disaster as foreign minister -- which is what happens when a state takes a Russian Sarah Palin and put him in charge of international relations. And the inability of the rest of the Israeli government, most notably Netanyahu, to effectively rein him in demonstrates the fundamental inability of the Israeli government to function at the level it needs to in order to solve the dire problems it faces today. One wonders how long this government can even last at this point. I just hope that the Israeli populace is beginning to recognize that its government can't govern. Say what you will about Kadima -- and they have their faults -- but they're a serious party in a country whose political class is rapidly devolving into farce.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
