Back into Eden

An interesting post by Ian Ayres probing how God treats Free Will. It then side-steps into an analysis of God's punishment of Eve, and how it seems rather obsolete via modern advances:

Indeed, the trifecta reappearance in our world of painless childbirth, the appearance of different sex unions where the man does not rule over the woman (pace MacKinnon) and the appearance of women whose desire is not for their husband might all be signs that the punishment is no longer in effect. You see, sin without free will is not even possible. Pharaoh’s failure to let the Israelites go when his heart was hardened by God cannot in good conscience be considered sinful. The reappearance of choice – of women that choose whether or not to desire husbands – opens up the possibility for sin, but it does not indicate that same-sex desire is sinful. Indeed, it may be a sign that we are step closer to the garden, a step closer to grace.

I'm curious how else one can define it (time to call in a favor on Pseudo-Polymath). Perhaps it is humans blatantly flaunting God's will--but then, the Bible is rather clear about what happens when we do that. So--what? Have we finally achieved penance for original sin? And what does that entail for modern Christian theology?

I Love Jerry Kang

Jerry Kang is a Law Professor at UCLA. Why do I love him? Well, for one, he's just published a spectacular article, Trojan Horses of Race, in the Harvard Law Review (118 Harv. L. Rev. 1489). Essentially, the article runs through a bevy of research on implicit racism and then critiques specifically the role constant local newscasts of black criminality has in reifying racist attitudes. The article is superb, I can't recommend it highly enough.

But what really sells me on the good Professor is his answer in his FAQs to the charge that the whole thing is just "politically correct mumbojumbo." He retorts:

"First, it's now politically correct to be politically incorrect"

and then goes on to note that he has a mountain of scientific data backing him up.

Oh SO true. Political correctness is perhaps the most politically lethal characterization one can have today. It's so horribly misnamed, it's almost comical.

Exploding in a Puff of Straw

Jim Lindgren links to an interesting article by KC Johnson regarding the response in some quarters to recent studies showing a liberal slant in academia. While the comments to the article make what seem to be valid critiques of the methodology of the study, some of the responses--both those cited by Williams and those that came out in comments--are just crazy.

Once before, I blogged on an article in favor of a more ideologically diverse academic sphere that was so bad it made me want to run away from the position as fast as I could. Fortunately for everyone, now there is a leftist counter-balance, an argument against a more diverse academic sphere that is equally horrific in its explication.

The author of this "argument" is Montclair State Professor Grover Furr. Though rather lengthy (not that I have the right to complain about that), it basically comes down to the rather novel core that Liberal = Good and Conservative = Bad. Well, when you put it like that, hell yes we want more liberals! Why didn't I think of it before?

Of course, Professor Furr's "logic" only makes sense if you subscribe to a few of the logical leaps (to put it mildly) he makes along the way.

Ideologically, most college faculty are trained to use evidence, and to entertain and discuss differing viewpoints. This is congenial to "liberalism", and even more so to to Marxism, but not to certain dogmatic strains of thought, and modern "conservatism" is among the latter.

During the past 30 years or so the limits of acceptable opinion in the American academy, especially in the humanities and social sciences, have been greatly expanded. This in turn has meant that graduate students have been increasingly exposed to viewpoints that were formerly considered "taboo." It also means that subjecting traditional beliefs to scrutiny and doubt is far more common in higher education than it was a generation ago. This is itself a "liberal" ideology.

Most college faculty feel threatened by those who show any inclination towards censorship, especially in teaching. Those who advocate various kinds of censorship these days are overwhelmingly "conservatives."

I won't claim to be an expert on Marxism--my particular brand of liberalism leans more towards Deconstructionalism, Critical Theory, and Post-modernism. However, it seems rather odd to claim that Marxism is particularly open to differing views. Marxism is a totalistic philosophy--it claims class struggle is the root of all conflict and all social structures. Thus, it is inherently unreceptive to differing views of how the world came to be as it is--not just conservative claims of "objective merit" or the "invisible hand," but also liberal explanations like structural racism, sexism or tribalism. This isn't to say that Marxism hasn't informed many liberal social theories--it has, and it should, because it was an interesting (if in my view ultimately wrong) development in the philosophical field. But most modern liberal theories can't co-exist with Marxism all that easily, considering that they don't view class as the breeding ground of everything wrong in society. One also might note that the continued presence of true-believer Marxists represents pretty good prima facia evidence of their stubborn refusal to face the facts--after all, Marx was pretty much dead wrong in his predictions of how the world would respond to capitalism (let alone his claims that it was "inevitable").

Professor Furr's allegations of censorship is also rather peculiar, considering that he specifically argues that a minimization of conservative viewpoints is a bona fide goal colleges should strive towards ("...we can never have too few
'conservatives.'"). I think that skirts pretty close to the edge of censorship. But regardless of whether it is or is not, conservatives can make a pretty good case that liberals are no strangers to the censorship mentality. Black Liberal Harvard Law Professor Randall Kennedy has noted the actions of liberal groups targeting purveyors of "hate speech,"--sometimes correctly, sometimes overzealously. Liberal Law Professors Richard Delgado, Mari Matsuda, and Charles Lawrence III all have advocated for campus speech codes. We can debate the merit of these proposals--we can even debate whether they're advocating "censorship." But it certainly is a close enough call that Furr's sweeping claim that "conservatives" are the main proponents of censorship has to be called into question.

Furr continues in his semantical quest which assures conservatives can only represent evil:

In my experience, there is considerable prejudice among academics against certain ideas that are strongly associated with the Republican party -- to its shame, I may add -- and so could be called "conservative."

Support for racism -- the Republican Party depends upon racism for success in national elections; support for dogmatic religious beliefs; for strongly authoritarian views of almost any kind, including "my-country-right-or-wrong" jingoism; for naked, unbridled exploitation; for knee-jerk anti-radicalism and anti-communism; in culture, for "tradition for the sake of tradition" -- these attitudes and ideologies, all of which are strongly associated with conservatism and the Republican Party, are rightly abhorred by most academics, who have excellent material reasons to identify with the "little guy."
[...]
And the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are themselves highly ideological. Lots of blue-collar workers would call themselves "conservative" if asked certain questions (e.g. about war, patriotism, homosexuality, etc.), but would have to be classified as "liberal", in fact, "radical", if asked about social policies (whether public employees should have the right to strike; about 'right-to-work' laws; the desirability of minimum-wage laws, etc.).

The blatantly distorted picture Furr draws of conservatism qua conservatism should be obvious by itself, but it is all the more ironic because, in his comment to the article itself he protests that Professor Williams "dishonestly equates 'liberal' with 'Left', an absurdity that lumps John Kerry with Marx or Lenin." Yet he seems utterly untroubled grouping "conservative" with "reactionary right." It is of course true that there are quite a few conservatives who (in effect if not in rhetoric) support these atrocious positions--and certainly one can find plenty to criticize in the modern Republican party. But a basic knowledge of Political Science would dictate that the views and positions of a party should not be presumed to represent those of all the parties members--especially in a two party state. Thus Furr makes his claims either a) knowing full well that many self-described conservatives would not support many of the policies he says they do (when's the last time you've heard a conservative say "I support naked, unbridled exploitation"?) or b) is so incredibly unaware of the world surrounding him that it is amazing he could have picked up his Ph.D. without getting run over by a truck on the way to the ceremony.

I suspect the former, though, because of his laughable efforts to group many conservatives into "liberalism"--at least when they say what he likes. For example, I don't think "right to strike" counts as a "radical" position anymore. What would happen if a conservative said that he considers himself a radical environmentalist--but based on his readings of economics he is convinced that the free market (mixed with, say, tax subsidies for environmentally friendly research) is the best way to fix the problem? I'd say he's wrong and misguided, perhaps. But certainly he isn't advocating "naked, unbridled exploitation." Is he actually a liberal, albeit one strayed from the path? I don't think we can play word games like that. Furr's claims only make sense if conservative is defined as in alignment with its most extreme wing--a claim that is akin to (and roughly as bad as) saying that all liberals are communists (which, as noted, Furr complains about!). If we agree there is such thing as a moderate conservative, or--perish the thought!--there are stalwart conservatives who still aren't racist, then there exists a vein of legitimate discourse that is as yet unfilled in colleges and universities.

At best, all I'm getting out of Furr's claims is that we should make Ms. Ann Coulter into Professor Ann Coulter. Okay, no argument. But should we chuck Professor Eugene Volokh on the street? I think it is rather absurd to call him a minion of evil. Indeed, this liberal wishes there were more professors like him.

Restrain Yourself

The VC links to a really interesting story regarding the controversial Kelo and Raich cases (eminent domain and medical marijuana, respectively).

Addressing a bar association meeting in Las Vegas, Justice Stevens dissected several of the recent term's decisions, including his own majority opinions in two of the term's most prominent cases. The outcomes were "unwise," he said, but "in each I was convinced that the law compelled a result that I would have opposed if I were a legislator."

In one, the eminent domain case that became the term's most controversial decision, he said that his majority opinion that upheld the government's "taking" of private homes for a commercial development in New London, Conn., brought about a result "entirely divorced from my judgment concerning the wisdom of the program" that was under constitutional attack.

His own view, Justice Stevens told the Clark County Bar Association, was that "the free play of market forces is more likely to produce acceptable results in the long run than the best-intentioned plans of public officials." But he said that the planned development fit the definition of "public use" that, in his view, the Constitution permitted for the exercise of eminent domain.

Justice Stevens said he also regretted having to rule in favor of the federal government's ability to enforce its narcotics laws and thus trump California's medical marijuana initiative. "I have no hesitation in telling you that I agree with the policy choice made by the millions of California voters," he said. But given the broader stakes for the power of Congress to regulate commerce, he added, "our duty to uphold the application of the federal statute was pellucidly clear."

A liberal judge voting against his policy preferences? Why, why, that's impossible! They're all activists--every last one of them.

And so it seems that some righties can't get there heads around the fact that Stevens might actually believe the law binds him to this particular result. Mike Rappaport, for example, says "give me a break" and thinks Stevens merely wants to deflect criticism from his role in an unpopular decision (why an 85 year old man with life tenure on the nation's highest court would be so concerned about self image goes unstated). What causes his immediate dismissal of the simple explanation--that Stevens actually believes what he says? Easy--"It is only judges who follow the [originalist] approach that are significantly restrained by the law." (Ethan Leib also weighs in on Rappaport's post).

Not that we're too self-assured or anything. I think it's abundantly clear that judges who are manifestly committed to an originalist understanding are quite capable of acting with reckless abandon (Scalia's opinion in Division of Employment v. Smith, anyone?). And of course, any principle worth its salt will restrain a judge from doing something he might otherwise like to do--I'm skeptical that devout Catholic Anthony Kennedy is a huge fan of sodomy, yet somehow he found the jurisprudential basis to realize the constitution "neither knows nor tolerates classes amongst citizens."

Other people are more sanguine. Helvidius thinks that it is probably true in at least some cases that Stevens really is voting against what he believes is "right," but posits that every judge has a "breaking point" at which time s/he ceases to interpret the constitution and instead searches for a rationale to justify the result s/he deems necessary. This is probably true to an extent--though of course it applies to all judges, not just liberals. PG of De Novo also hits on this--noting that Scalia's "duty" to protect criminal defendants from illegal processes seems to magically disappear once they've been convicted. Where do it go? But unlike Helvidius, PG is not so quick to label Scalia as giving in to mere "desire." That seems reasonable to me--there are many ways of interpreting the constitution, and I'm not so self-assured in my own method to tar those with opposing methods as being fundamentally ideological. Wrong, perhaps, but not deliberately so.

In any event, while I dislike the notion of judges deciding cases on partisan whim, I am far less alarmed at the supposed epidemic of activism than some of my peers. Frankly, I've seen no evidence that any judge on the Supreme Court consistently subverts constitutional interpretation to naked political desire. So Stevens' statement comes not as a shock or tragic exception, but as the way things are.

Hell of a Pedigree

Kos links to a story on Montana Governor (and Democratic rising star) Brian Schweitzer's plan for energy independence. Essentially, its a method developed eighty years ago that can derive gasoline from coal--and with skyrocketing oil prices, it's economical again.

Alright, so I'm intrigued. But oh, the history...

The Fischer-Tropsch technology, discovered by German researchers in 1923 and later used by the Nazis to convert coal into wartime fuels, was not economical as long as oil cost less than $30 a barrel.
[...]
The fuel that comes out of the Fischer-Tropsch method (also used by South Africa during their embargo years) burns cleaner than current fuels, stripping out sulfur, arsenic, and other nasty byproducts. [quoting from both the article and Kos]

Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa. Now there's a nice set of play mates.

Triumphant Return

So, I'm back from the beach. I know I said I'd blog, but I didn't count on going to a posh and trendy resort and having internet access that resembled a bad cell phone commercial. Aside from the fact that the moons had to be aligned in order to even connect at all, the rates sounded like something Verizon would mock: "75 cents for the first hour and 10 cents a minute after that!" What the hell?

But aside from that, it was a good trip--or as good as can be expected considering I don't like warm weather and don't like South Carolina. Read a bunch of books--a cheap sci-fi piece, but also Barack Obama's autobiography (stellar!) and Randall Kennedy's book "Nigger" (thought-provoking).

I'll re-enter the blog circuit full time (I swear!) tommorow.

Myrtle Beach Bound

Work's over for me, but I'm off to Myrtle Beach for the next few days--Sunday through Thursday. I'm bringing my computer up, but obviously posting rates will be dependent on the timing of various vacation-ly activities.

Which, sadly, means you'll probably see no drop in frequency.

People Please

Kevin Drum of The Washington Monthly has been writing a flurry of posts regarding an American withdrawal from Iraq. For example, here he links to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) demanding that the US get out of Iraq--possibly the first time Hagel has been this explicit on the matter. But the really interesting post is here, when he asks when pro-war liberal hawks are going to start proposing a timed withdrawal. While acknowledging that Democrats need to watch out for allegations they are weak on security, Drum seems to think that there is frankly no choice, and gives three solid reasons why a timed withdrawal is the best policy option:

The presence of American troops is what's largely fueling the terrorism-driven Iraqi insurgency in the first place. Announcing in a credible way that we plan to leave -- really leave -- would at least partially draw its fangs.

As long as American troops are around, Iraqi leaders don't have enough incentive to make the hard choices needed to agree on a constitution and train troops to guard their own country. A no-nonsense announcement from the U.S. would force them to get moving.

The military can't keep up its current tempo in Iraq for much longer, and sometime in 2006 a drawdown is probably going to become necessary no matter what. If that's the case, it's better to do it on our own terms instead of waiting to be forced into it.

I think these make a lot of sense. I have two concerns however.

My overriding framework for evaluating any Iraq policy is how it affects the people. No, not our people, the Iraqi people--the folks whose country we invaded. I think that too often the Iraqi people are getting lost in the Iraq debate. Liberals talk about dead American troops and mounting costs. Conservatives talk about all the terrorists we're killing. (And nutjobs talk about how awesome the terrorists killing American troops are). We have a moral obligation to not leave the people in a state of chaos, and unfortunately so far we've been performing miserably in that respect. For liberal hawks like myself, this has been THE most disappointing part of the invasion--that after all of this, we couldn't even guarantee Iraq a future. But I'm not quite ready to give up hope yet--I think there still must be some way that we can, if not "win" in Iraq, avoid a disaster. At this point, however, I'm open to arguments that withdrawing is the best way to help create a better Iraq--if not that we should abandon the project of creating a better Iraq all together.

Of Drum's three arguments, the third is irrelevant to the "people first" framework, and the second argument I just don't think is true. A sudden withdrawal I think is likely to create a panic amongst political leaders in Iraq. MAYBE this will result in them pushing aside silly differences and creating a working government, but somehow I'm skeptical. More likely, the panic will exacerbate pre-existing tensions and make the problem worse, not better. I mean, it's not like liberal values are doing so great in the constitutional process even with--in effect--unlimited time for negotiations. Push comes to shove, and I think everybody becomes a lot more testy and thus a lot more radical.

Whether or not you believe my likely conclusion or Drum's depends a lot on how you evaluate argument one. I'll assume, arguendo, that our troops are the root of most of the current terrorism against us. The question, then, is whether Iraq has passed the "tipping point" where it is so destabilized that it cannot support itself without outside assistance (IE, US troops doing right). After all, even if most of the terrorists are drawing their support right now as resisters against the occupation, it is a bit fanciful to assume that if we leave, they'll quietly disarm and go away. So, if you think that without the aggravating factor of US troops Iraq will be able to right itself, then withdrawal will seem like a good option. If you think that a withdrawal will lead to a power gap that will likely be filled by violent militias and a bloody civil war, then US troops (for all their flaws) become the last bulwark before disaster. Cynic that I am, I believe the latter.

Basically, if liberal withdrawal advocates want to win over liberal hawks to their position, they have to show some methodology by which Iraq won't obliterate itself the minute the US leaves. Barring that, I'll stick with the occupation I know, rather than the Lebanese-style civil war I know even better.

Ethics in Ohio

Embattled Ohio Governor Bob Taft just was found guilty of several ethics violations and was forced to pay $4000 in fines.

While I could use this as a jumping off point for my usual tirades against corruption and power-madness in the GOP, I won't. Why? Because aside from the lapse itself, I think Gov. Taft handled this exactly as a good statesman should. He plead "no contest" to the charges and immediately apologized. Furthermore, Governor Taft has fired several folks over corruption charges--though how much of it he himself was linked to, I'm not sure.

I wouldn't be so quick to give the Governor a free pass except the violations in question were extremely minor--a few unreported golf trips. If the Governor is implicated in the Coin Pension Fund scandal though (which he might), then you won't see me quite so conciliatory.

Troubled Youth

If you don't see any posts from me tonight, it's because I'm out committing a crime spree with my friends. Specifically, a college-bound neighbor is hosting a "pirating party," where we all can exchange music, movies, and other such media files before we head back to college.

I, personally, will not be partaking, since it is rather redundant--anything you can get here will be available at college: someone in the dorm is bound to have it.

But alas, some criminals are just irredeemable...

The Invisible Hand Just Groped Me!

Most people seem a bit more conciliatory (in comments here and here) toward Roberts' stance against equal-pay/equal-work than I did. The general argument is that so long as we're talking about different jobs that require similar educational levels (as opposed to two people doing the exact same thing), then we should defer to the invisible hand's assessment of their "actual" worth rather than relying on judicial determination.

If it were that simple, I'd be in that camp too. But the problem is that I don't think you can divorce the issue of female pay from lingering sexism in American modes of the thought. It remains true that "woman's work" is devalued in American culture (when it is paid at all), females often constitute "invisible labor" that is just assumed to be available at all times. Formal antidiscrimination laws allow us to remedy the most egregious manifestations of this (such as unequal pay for the same exact job), but it does nothing where the jobs are different and have been laced with gender-based tropes that positively or negatively effect their value.

Is it possible that all "female jobs" would still be worth less than "male" ones if both were stripped of their sexual tenors? Possibly. But the problem is we have absolutely no idea. However, at best, the invisible hand would seem to indicate randomness--that is, if we've truly transcended sexism, then "similar" formerly male and female jobs might not all pay the same, but there wouldn't be a discernible pattern where one is consistently worth more than the other.

The argument that women are paid less because of pregnancy and such also doesn't hold water. First of all, it makes at least as much sense that the labor would be worth more because it is scarcer--assuming that these studies are adjusted for hours worked (which seems elementary), the built-in absences mean there are, on average, fewer women available for the same quantity of work (since there isn't anything that shows female jobs require less productivity than their male equivalents), and thus the reduced supply should drive prices up. But more importantly, this reifies one of the key points made by radical "second wave" feminists like Catherine MacKinnon--it acts like motherhood and pregnancy should be seen as freebies worth nothing--a devaluation if I've ever seen one.

Also, riffing off what PG says, I still think that the equal pay/equal work stance is more controversial than the opposition to Wallace. Again, this isn't because I think Wallace is less defensible, indeed, considering I'm a church/state zealot I'm probably one of the biggest supporters of Wallace there is. Like PG, I consider myself to be a social liberal and economic moderate. However, my generic line of thought is basically the following: If you asked the average American the following two questions:

1) Woman are paid an average of 60 cents for every dollar a male makes. Do you think that the government should try to reduce this disparity?

and

2) Alabama tried to reincorporate prayer in school by passing a law allowing voluntary, silent prayer during a mandatory "moment of silence." Do you think this is unconstitutional?

I think far more persons would fall on Roberts' side on the latter question than the former. Hence, I consider the former to be more "radical," notwithstanding my stringent objections to the latter.

PS: I'm not entirely alone. Suburban Guerilla also seized upon the equal pay issue for specific condemnation. Kevin Drum just wants to know what's so much more radical than this that the Bush administration refuses to release the memos containing it.

Forgotten Histories

You know, if you listened to some of the stuff coming out of right field, you'd almost forget our entire nation was founded by illegal immigrants.

Throughout our nation's history, we've had relapses into fervent anti-immigrant hysteria. The Know-Nothings, Chinese Exclusion Laws, 1920s quotas, and today Samuel Huntington's "American Creed" all have two things in common. First, they demonstrate an amnesia about how immigration has constantly made our nation stronger, more diverse, and more powerful. Second, they all are directed at certain hated ethnic groups: Germans, Chinese, Southeast Europeans, Mexicans, etc.. In all cases, this ethnic group is imputed to be inferior to the "stock" American, somehow having bad habits and traits that will prove detrimental in the long run. The fact that history has time and again proved us wrong appears to be no object--whoever first decided (probably less than 20 years after our nation's founding) that America had received enough immigration and we hitherto were perfect created an evil power which appears to be immortal.

In this context, Fox News' framing of the illegal immigration issue draws on a long history of xenophobia, racism, and American triumphalism which has long been the source of some our nation's greatest failings.

"Illegal immigrants--violent, carrying disease, and with possible ties to terrorism?"

Of course, some immigrants are violent, are carrying disease, and are tied to terrorism. But it is absurd to essentialize the entire group like that--there just isn't any justification to it.

There has been but one immigration movement this nation has seen that has been characteristically "violent, carrying disease, and [tied] to terrorism." But it isn't this wave. This isn't anti-Americanism. The sins of past bear no guilt on the denizens of the present--so long as we face up to them. But to insist on an asymmetry where they are the disease carrying violent hordes is to deny solid history, and is reminiscent of the worst forms of white supremacy.

Americans speaking on immigration need to look inside the mirror.

Swinging Both Ways

I meant to link to this earlier, but forgot. In a way, it represents a lot of what I feel about Iraq.

The link points you to two stories. One is on the Bush administration finally starting to admit that its wildly optimistic assessments of Iraqi Democracy were completely unrealistic. As a supporter of the Iraq war on humanitarian grounds, I've been forced to deal with this more than most anyone. I can't just say "I was deceived by WMDs," because I wasn't. I believed in this mission. I can't stand the thought of leaving another child under the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. So when President Bush says: "We can get that bastard out and spread freedom," I'll admit I'm all ears.

As Dan Savage notes, the liberal hawks wanted this thing to succeed more desperately than anyone else. For us, it wasn't about abstract notions of "the war on terrorism" or "punishing evildoers" (though we thought it would help those too). It was about changing lives, about freeing oppressed people from the most horrific of tyrannies. I can live with failing to find Saddam's WMDs (if there were any). I can't live with the notion that we raised the hopes of millions only to plunge a nation back into chaos.

The worst part is the what ifs. Leftist anti-war supporters are crowing that this war was doomed from the start. The US can't just expect to waltz in and pull democracy out of thin air in a fractured and balkanized environment like Iraq. Is that true? I don't know. I prefer to think that the incredible series of blunders the Bush administration made in its handling of the post-war occupation fumbled what could have been a golden opportunity. Of course, preferred is a relative term: In this case, it merely means that I think completely discrediting the philosophy of spreading freedom and aiding the oppressed is better than that philosophy being futile in the first place. Hurray.

The second story is optimistic. It's about Sunnis uniting against efforts by insurgents to drive Shiites from Ramadi. The solidarity I hoped, prayed, would emerge. Could it be true? After so many disappointments, I fear to take too much stock. It may be an aberration, it may be a trend. It may mean a lot, or perhaps nothing at all. Only time will tell.

The latter story gives me a sliver of hope against the former's confirmation of my worst fears.

The Radical Within Roberts Stirs

See? If it weren't for the release of memos, we'd have never known about this:

On the issue of gender equality on worker wages, Roberts was critical of three Republican congresswomen who supported the concept.

Roberts referred to a 1983 case in which the Washington state supreme court found the state guilty of discrimination for paying women less than men for jobs of "comparable worth."

Roberts said in a February 3, 1984, memo that the ruling smacked of judicial activism. "This is a total reorientation of the law of gender discrimination," he concluded, since "it mandates nothing less than central planning of the economy by judges. Under the theory judges, not the marketplace, decide how much a particular job is worth."

Later that month, Roberts again addressed the issue, noting three GOP lawmakers applauded the ruling. One was then-Rep. Olympia Snowe, now the senior U.S. senator from Maine. The congresswomen complained women at the time earned only 60 cents for every dollar earned by men.

"I honestly find it troubling that three Republican representatives are so quick to embrace such a radical redistribute concept. Their slogan may as well be 'From each according to his ability, to each according to her gender,'" said Roberts.

Roberts also opposed the Court's ruling in Wallace v. Jaffree. There, the Court ruled that an Alabama law which nominally only affirmed the right of students to pray silently during a moment of silence, but whose legislative history made it clear it was designed as an end-run around prior School Prayer cases like Engel v. Vitale, was unconstitutional under the 1st amendment. Though this case is nearer and dearer to my heart, I recognize it is far more controversial. Roberts' position on gender equality, by contrast, seems absolutely fringe. The "market" should decide what a woman's job is worth? If there was ever a clear cut example of a market failure, it seems like this was it (60 cents versus a dollar--come on). And Roberts' comparison of judicial efforts to remedy rather blatant sex discrimination in the work place to "central planning" is just absurd. This is precisely the type of ideological blindness to clear facts that I hoped Roberts would avoid.

My support is slipping.

Well This is Disheartening

You think Americans have shallow support for civil liberties? Compared to the rest of the free world, we're a nation of ACLUites. Orin Kerr brings us some revealing poll data from Canada:

What measures for the war on terrorism do Canadians support?

Deporting or jailing anyone who publicly supports terrorists or suicide bombers.

Oppose/strongly oppose: 15%
Strongly support/support: 81%
Don't know: 4%

Having video cameras in all public places.

Oppose/strongly oppose: 25%
Strongly support/support: 72%
Don't know: 2%

Giving the U.S. any information it requests about Canadian citizens whom they suspect of being terrorists.

Oppose/strongly oppose: 33%
Strongly support/support: 62%
Don't know: 5%

So the winner, by Technical Knockout...America. Congratulations on being the best of the mediocre.

Nice Guys Finish Last

That's it in a nutshell isn't it? Democrat-allied group runs distortive and disgusting attack message (NARAL Ad), and get nailed by their fellow Dems for the lie. So they withdraw it. Republican-allied group runs distortive and disgusting attack message (SBVT), and not a single GOPer bats an eye. So they win an election.

Kevin Drum has more. And I for one, am at a loss. I detest this sort of evil, manipulative, predatory politiking that characterizes Swift Boats. And yet, damn it all to hell, it works. You can't win without it anymore.

And the bad mood continues...

Right and Wrong

Is That Legal points us to Jackson, Wyoming, where new citizens were praised by Rep. Barbara Cubin for becoming citizens "the right way".

The feature immigrant/citizen in the story was an Irish Salon owner who learned to ski on the east coast and decided to try the West (Jackson Hole has great skiing).

So, if moving from a first world country to live in a ski resort is the "right way" to become a citizen, what then is the "wrong way" to become a citizen? It can't be via illegal immigration--we don't give them citizenship (not even an amnesty program would do that). Mysteries, mysteries...

Wait--I've got it! The wrong way to become a citizen is to be from a poor, third world country who wants to try for a better life! Because how dare they flee poverty and authoritarian dictatorships to try for freedom? It's...It's...It's unamerican is what is!

How improper of them.

UPDATE: I had completely forgotten that it was Rep. Cubin who decided all Blacks were drug dealers. On the House floor debating gun control, the lovely lady said the following:

My sons are 25 and 30. They are blond-haired and blue-eyed. One amendment today said we could not sell guns to anybody under drug treatment. So does that mean if you go into a black community, you cannot sell a gun to any black person, or does that mean because my --

At this point she was interrupted by Rep. Melvin Watts who demanded the remarks be striken from the record as inappropriate. She refused to back down. Upon full House consideration, not a single Republican decided that the worldview of "Black as presumptive drug-dealer" was offensive enough to be striken from the record (these are the same folks who were "outraged by the outrage" over Abu Gharib).

So at least she's in good company. And folks wonder why America is still skeptical over Chairman Mehlman's "mea culpa" to the NAACP.

Firefly, Won't You Shine Your Light

I watched the first episode of Firefly today. I'd already seen it (but only this episode), so it didn't tell me anything new. I had forgotten how LONG it was though--1 and a half hours. This made the trade I made with my brother--one game of Ping Pong in exchange for him watching it with me--seem slightly unfair. But I'ma bad mood anyway (see below), so my sympathy is limited.

Also, note to self: While taking slapshots in the basement is a wonderful stress reliever, the good effect is largely eliminated when you break a picture frame.

Finally: This Post's Title is based not on the TV show I just watched, but rather the song of the same name (but no apparent relation) by Breaking Benjamin. It's also quite good (though I prefer "So Cold," "Forever," "Rain," and "Forget It" on my personnnel BB depth chart).

Why the Conspiracy?

N.S.T. points me to this story on Black perceptions of the AIDS virus. The findings are disturbing:

More than one-quarter [of surveyed Blacks] said they believed that AIDS was produced in a government laboratory, and 12 percent believed it was created and spread by the CIA.

A slight majority [53.4%] said they believe that a cure for AIDS is being withheld from the poor. Forty-four percent said people who take the new medicines for HIV are government guinea pigs, and 15 percent said AIDS is a form of genocide against black people.

At the same time, 75 percent said they believe medical and public health agencies are working to stop the spread of AIDS in black communities. But the responses, which varied only slightly by age, gender, education and income level, alarmed the researchers.

First things first--let's note what this doesn't show. It doesn't show that "blacks are delusional about AIDS." The only negative statement in the poll that garnered a majority view was also the one that was arguably true--one could plausibly note that we a) have treatments for AIDS that b) aren't making it to poor communities. We can debate about causes, problems, and extents, but the point at least is debatable. Aside from that, all of the questions fell short of a majority, and the statement with the most support was that Blacks thought medical and health communities are trying to stop the spread of AIDS.

Second, I was distressed by the rhetoric the reporter used to frame the issue. The article was a classic case of he-said/she-said journalism. As such, it presents two competing views that nominally are opposites. But I think the views are distorted and, if framed properly, could be perfectly compatible. The author writes:

The findings were also no surprise to Na'im Akbar, a professor of psychology at Florida State University who specializes in African American behavior.

"This is not a bunch of crazy people running around saying they're out to get us," Akbar said. The belief "comes from the reality of 300 years of slavery and 100 years of post-slavery exploitation."

Akbar cited the Tuskegee experiment conducted by the federal government between 1932 and 1972. In it, scientists told black men they were being treated for syphilis but actually withheld treatment so they could study the course of the disease.

Today, he said, African Americans are more likely to live in communities near pollution sources, such as freeways and oil refineries, and far from health care centers. "There are a lot of indicators that our lives are not valued," Akbar said.

Phill Wilson, executive director of the Black AIDS Institute in Los Angeles, said past discrimination is no longer an excuse for embracing conspiracies that allow HIV to fester.

"It's a huge barrier to HIV prevention in black communities," Wilson said. "There's an issue around conspiracy theory and urban myths. Thus we have an epidemic raging out of control, and African Americans are being disproportionately impacted in every single sense."

In a nutshell, then, the two "sides" are presented as "The belief 'com[ing] from the reality of 300 years of slavery and 100 years of post-slavery exploitation," versus "past discrimination is no longer an excuse for embracing conspiracies that allow HIV to fester."

But I don't the quote following the latter statement justifies the position it purports to uphold. All Mr. Wilson says is that the effect of the conspiracy theory is to harm efforts to stop AIDS' progress. He doesn't say that the longstanding abuse of Blacks in America doesn't "justify" their paranoia--even if in this case it is false.

Instead of being oppositional, I think these two statements can be read together as saying: "Centuries of racial subjugation have affected Blacks' entire way of seeing the world. Having been (and continuing to be) the victims of white exploitation for so long, they now see their hand in all problems facing the black community. In the context of the AIDS virus, this is having drastic and intolerable negative consequences that are preventing health workers from stopping the epidemic." Viewed this way, the question is "how can we convince Blacks of our goodwill--given that our past history makes us less than trustworthy partners?" This, in turn, reifies what Crits have been saying all along--that in order to address the problems plaguing Black society, one has to deal with racism first. We can't stop AIDS when the entire Black community is in a state of psychic shock over centuries of hate. Telling them to "just trust us" is akin to telling a rape victim who has been raped again by her last 20 doctors to trust this next one. Even assuming that this doctor really does have good intentions, the strategy isn't likely to work. The problem falls on our end to rebuild trust within racial communities that is desperately needed and sorely lacking.

Dissections of Power: Can Blacks Be Racist To Whites?

First things first. I've added Alas, a Blog to my blogroll, both because their posts are superb and because their comments are intellectually invigorating. I'm glad I've stumbled across them, and hope that we have many more intelligent conversations.

The comments this post have veered into an interesting discussion of whether it is possible for blacks to be racist against whites. Everyone agrees they can be prejudiced, but the argument is that racism is a power relation--it is not just the thought but the effect of subordinating someone due to their race. Furthermore, racism cannot be separated from racist histories--that is, racism draws upon past inequalities to justify and reify present ones. Since blacks are not and were not in a position of power in America's racial scheme, they cannot cause racially disparate effects and thus cannot be racist.

If you prefer, here's the more technical form of the argument. Joe Feagin and Hernan Vera write:

"Racism is more than a matter of individual prejudice and scattered episodes of discrimination. There is no black (or other minority) racism because there is no centuries-old system of racial subordination and discrimination designed by African Americans to exclude white Americans from full participation in the rights, privileges, and benefits of this society. Minority racism would require not only a widely accepted racist ideology directed at whites, but also the power to systematically exclude whites from opportunities and rewards in major economic, cultural, and political institutions."

Marilyn Friedman continues:

[L]et us consider what an incident of racism might be like when isolated conceptually from a social pattern of racism. In such a case, a perpetrator would express or enact hatred or scorn toward a targeted person in virtue of her race, but there would be no history, or prevalent pattern of racism that pertained to the target person's racial identity. There would be no commonly known stereotypes of members of the target's racial group. There would be no commonly known slang words available for insulting such persons. In addition, if the targeted person were not relatively socially disadvantaged, it would be difficult to shame her on economic grounds let alone associate that shame with her racial group. There would simply be no racebased context of hatred or scorn for making sense of such an act. A conceptually isolated act of racism becomes little more than an act of mere hatred or scorn that happens to be prompted by the race of the target person quite independently of the culture in which it occurs or the history of that culture.

I might start my disagreement by noting that I think this definition of racism is wrong. We might quarrel over whether racism with significant effects is more morally culpable than racism without it (I'd agree it is), but I don't think that the latter is not racism. Furthermore, it neglects forms of voluntary power construction. While I might have the option of maintaining myself at the top of America's racial hierarchy, I don't. Because of my beliefs, I voluntarily make part of my sense of wellbeing contingent on what the disadvantaged think of me--I want them to know me as someone who cares for their plight and is working to remedy it. In other words, I give them power over my self-esteem--their comments matter to me. So if a minority tells me, "you're just a racist cracker like all the rest," that draws on the power I've ceded to them in order to harm my self-image--on account of my race. That I "chose" to construct my sense of well-being in this manner in no way obviates the power the relationship has over me. I think we've all said to someone who we care about who utters a hurtful word to us, "well, I don't care what you think!"--and we all know what a lie it is. Power does not just lie in coercion, often, it is part and parcel of our own decision about what we deem important.

But even if we make coercive power the litmus test for racism, I still think it is possible for Blacks to be racist against Whites. Power operates on many levels. In ABA's comments, for example, one person noted that Jesse Jackson probably has power over his white Janitor. It was responded that an individualist view on racism obscures the way structures are racist--Jackson may be more powerful than the Janitor, but when they drive home from work, it'll be the reverend who gets pulled over on a DWB.

We blind ourselves when we ignore any level of power--individual, structural, or what I term "mid-range." As has been noted, individual racist acts can occur by any race--I do believe that a black owner of a grocery store who continually berates his white employee with racial taunts, refuses to promote him, and blames him for all the store's misfortunes, has the requisite power level and thus is engaging in racism. By contrast, on a structural level, whites rule and thus overarching structures are racist towards minorities.

Where things get interesting, in my opinion, is at the "mid-range" between the overarching superstructure and the individual level. This would include communities that are subsidiary to the overall community--for example, Academia or Politics. Mid-range race discourse is not necessarily the same as at the levels above or beneath it. Take academia, for example. Academia still operates within a superstructural racist climate in America. And individual students at a college may still utter racist remarks or engage in other racist conduct. But at the mid-range, colleges and universities in America have thrown themselves entirely against racism. The structure of academia has wholeheartedly embraced (as I do) Critical Race Theory, Standpont Theory, Intersectionality, and other post-modern anti-racism remedies. In this context, a new empowered group emerges--consisting of the minority scholars and writers crafting/applying these theories, and their allies. They can, if they wish, use this power as leverage against persons, including whites, they dislike (I'm not saying this happens often, only that it can and occasionally does). If they claim that a certain professor's work is racist, that guy will be in serious trouble (especially if he isn't tenured). The very notions of "standing" and such that Crits are so proud of will make it almost impossible for him to give a defense--he is not considered "competent" to speak on race issues since he isn't a minority--an odd inversion of the "rules of racial standing" Derrick Bell talks about in our daily life. Even if he is cleared, the stigma will remain--he might not get invited to conferences and his articles may get blackballed, a hostile work environment (who wants to associate with a racist?) might drive him out of his job altogether. This power, to both make the accusation and demolish the framework by which the accused can conduct a defense, is a power that blacks arguably have over whites in the context of academic discourse. Other examples abound. The explicit argument that Whites should stop writing (or write far less) on a given topic is legitimized. Claims that white culture is fatally defective are seriously discussed and argued. All of this occurs inside a power matrix where, ironically, the very black professors who hold power over their white counterparts still might be pulled over on the way home from work, and still might have to suffer through racist comments overheard in the Cafeteria.

Politics operates similarly. The battle against racism, as Mari Matsuda notes, has "legitimating force." Those who are seen as against racism are deemed as good, those who are not, bad. Who controls the label of "racist" in this context becomes critical--which is part of why the right and left love to fight over it so much. Insofar as someone is effectively dubbed as "racist", their career is pretty much over. Yet the process is very inexact. John Cornyn gives a police officer whose false drug accusations imprisoned an entire town's worth of black persons (often for life) "Lawman of the Year" award, he is elected Senator from Texas (thankfully the sentences were eventually overturned). Trent Lott praises Strom Thurmond, and is forced to resign is leadership post, though it is difficult to see (aside from whether Lott was wrong) how his comment was worse than Cornyn's act. But in political groups which do value the voice of color (and there are some), there is a very real opportunity for black persons to use their position as "definers of racism" to tar politicians they simply dislike. If they choose to do this, it is racism. And of course, that does not get into Black-majority cities--where the political establishment as a whole (which is as big a power player as there is) is controlled by African-Americans. If that government chooses to race-bait, that qualifies pretty clearly as racism.

The idea contained in this is that power can operate at cross-purposes even within the same system. Blacks can be both dismpowered and empowered within even the same context--which brings along with it the possibility of cross-currents of racism. If racism is a function of power, than anytime blacks are given the power they have been unjustly denied there is the potential for racism. Even accepting the obvious truth that racism still overwhelmingly is skewed against Blacks, it still does not affect the pockets of Black power where they have the opportunity to be racist against whites.

This isn't to create a misperception that this sort of minority-on-majority racism happens all the time. It doesn't, and even when it does it pales in comparison to the volume of white-on-black racism in the world. But the anti-racism crowd does itself no favors by falsely universalizing power to one group. To do this denies contemporary realities and reduces the credibility of the anti-racist message as a whole.