Boxing Blogging Part IV

I missed most of tonight's Friday Night Fights card the first time around. My loss--I sat down just as Anthony Peterson (22-0, 16 KOs) was putting the finishing touches on a knockout win over Luis Ernesto Jose (27-4-2, 24 KOs). And when I watched the encore presentation, I got to see Peterson's older brother, Lamont (20-0, 8 KOs) get a relatively rare (and impressive) knockout win over 4-time title challenger John Brown (22-13-2, 11 KOs).

The Peterson brothers hail from D.C., and were fighting on their home turf tonight. The local factor definitely plays into their status as two of my favorite fighters. Another part is their incredible back story--abandoned and homeless as children, they survived on the streets before being discovered by a boxing trainer. They rapidly rose in the amateur ranks, both winning several national titles (Anthony fights at lightweight, Lamont at junior welterweight).

But far and away, the reason I like these two guys is because they can fight. Anthony has devastating power and fights to impress. Lamont is a slick and confident boxer who, as he showed tonight, can unleash some pretty vicious shots of his own (he was hitting an astounding 75% of his shots to the body against Brown). Lamont Peterson, by the way, is proof that one can have an exciting fight that doesn't end in a knockout, though he got one here tonight. He has extremely fast handspeed, stellar reflexes, and comes to fight.

Both Peterson brothers are setting themselves up for title runs, and I for one can't wait to see them against the elite of the division (though both could use a fight against at least one fringe contender type foe before really jumping to the big time).

Overall, I give them stellar marks for their performance tonight. Way to represent D.C.!

Guess the Speaker

A very well-known American, idolized by many and taken as a role model by several declared Presidential candidates, had the following views on immigration:

I . . . have thought of America as a place in the divine scheme of things that was set aside as a promised land . . . [A]nd the price of admission was very simple . . . Any place in the world and any person from these places; any person with the courage, with the desire to tear up their roots, to strive for freedom, to attempt and dare to live in a strange and foreign place, to travel halfway across the world was welcome here . . . I believe that God in shedding his grace on this country has always in this divine scheme of things kept an eye on our land and guided it as a promised land for these people.

40 years later, after a long career observing the political scene, his views had not changed. Still, he believed that America's immigration policy should make our nation open to people--of all backgrounds, colors, and creeds--who decided that wanted to make their new home in America:

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.

Who was this man? Answer here.

Wow I'm Too Busy Roundup

Finals are upon me and I am not pleased. So instead of a post, you get a round-up. Huzzah!

A Nobel Prize Winner in the Senate? It could happen. Minnesota's done weirder things (where's "The Body" nowadays?).

Noam Scheiber wants to turn "Goodling" into a common noun (as in, "The Bush administration cleaned house at FEMA and repopulated it with a bunch of goodlings."). I kind of like it as a verb though, as in "that department was running fine before it was goodlinged hardcore."

Eugene Volokh is generally against hate crime laws, but he's unconvinced by the "a murder is a murder" line of argument.

Even though it seems to have led to a reasonably good compromise, this story still makes me sad. I have to think that if I had been the customer at this store and this happened to me, I'd have been devastated and/or furious. And I honestly don't know how I'd respond (see also The Washington Post. Maybe its local-ness makes it hit closer to home).

The Congressional Black Caucus' partnership with Fox News always seemed like a weird match. Responding to a grassroots revolt against them by a group called Color of Change, the CBC tried tar them as "liberal activists". Which is weird, because a) obviously these Congresspeople's base consists of "liberal activists", b) most members of the CBC also probably would be considered "liberal activists", and c) why on earth should "liberal activist" be considered some sort of slur?

Paul Butler has an interesting post up on the education of poor students.

As more and more DOJ employees testify on Attorney-gate, the number of possible explanation for who created the infamous lists of attorneys to be fired is dwindling to immaculate conception.

Did John Edwards really say he's "not comfortable" around gays?

Matthew Yglesias is on fire:

But here's the thing: [Bernard] Lewis' views of Muslims are "quasi-racist" or whatever the appropriate term is for holding the sort of views about the members of a religious group that one would term "racist" were they held about a racial group. This is actually not inconsistent with the fact that Lewis is considerably more knowledgeable about the history of the Islamic world than I am, and my guess is that he knows more about this than Klein does as well. Colonial regimes in Africa were full of administrators who both new a bunch of stuff about Africa and also happened to be white supremacists -- both attributes were important job qualifications.

Meanwhile, Bush (and Podhoretz) aren't relying on Lewis to help them bone up before a Jeopardy appearance -- they're seeking expert support for their pre-existing commitment to the proposition that there's nothing wrong with U.S. policy toward the Muslim world that a little additional brutality couldn't fix.

You'd think that having a convicted robber as your predecessor in your post would make you look good by comparison. But you haven't met President Bush's Chief Domestic Policy Advisor, Karl Zinmeister.

And finally, I challenge you to be unhappy after reading about a gay Flamingo couple who just adopted a baby. Cuuuuute.

Boxing Blogging Part III

Tonight's fights were in Albuquerque, and in a rare happenstance the headline event was a woman's bout. Local favorite Holly Holm (17-1-2, 5 KOs) took on Chevelle Hallback (25-4-1, 11 KOs) in a bout that could set up a big fight between Holm and division champ Mary Jo Sanders.

But before that, we saw Clarence "Bones" Adams (42-6-4, 19 KOs) continue his comeback against a local of his own, David Martinez (17-2-1, 3 KOs). This fight was a relatively dry affair--Adams had far more experience and was able to use it to dominate the fight against Martinez, who, judging from his facial expression as the decisions were announced, seemed to think he had a shot at winning. Adams, who is only 32 but has a 15 year pro career, is looking to regain his position as an elite Lightweight. I'd say he still needs a few fights to work out the kinks (this is his second fight after a three year lay-off), but the potential is definitely there.

And Holm/Hallback? Holm won the fight handily (two cards of 100-90 and one 98-92, I had it 98-94). Hallback, who normally is an aggressive, come ahead fighter, was surprisingly tentative--all the more strange because Holm wasn't throwing her jab. As it was, Holm was able to use her superior reach and height to control the fight throughout.

And just as a general observation: The problem with women's boxing isn't any lack of talent, heart, desire, or even power among its participants. The problem is the ridiculous 2-minute round system. Why do they do that? Is it to protect the fighters? I'm sure they'd be the first to tell you, they don't need it. Hallback spars with top-ranked lightweight Nate "The Galaxxy Warrior" Campbell. She can handle herself. Two minutes just isn't enough to really develop the action. There were some good flurries in this fight, but at lot of good potential moments were sacrificed because the rounds were so short.

Friday we head to my home turf with the Peterson brothers (Anthony and Lamont) both fighting in Washington, D.C.. The brothers are a great story and even greater boxers, and I'm looking forward to seeing them again immensely.

Strip Tease

"Co-ed strips for her honors thesis, gets a B", shouts the CNN headline. No link to a story though, just a video pop-up (it's java, so I don't know how to permalink it). Stripping, of course, is too titilating not to do the whole video story. I had to dig quite a bit to find the actual story, which is here. That news station, by the way, filed it under "irresistible headlines."

The tenor of this story is obviously one of "crazy academics gone wild." Stripping? And she got a B? How dare they? Strippers should chastised for their sluttish ways, not encouraged in their sin with passing grades.

But honestly? Lay off. As her professor said, this is an important topic, and if someone is willing to do it, all power to them:

Her experience with customers and her fellow workers was guided and graded by professor Shireen Rajaram.

"I think it's a very worthwhile topic for us to look at," Rajaram said.

Rajaram applauded her student's courage. She said only through this kind of first-hand account can sociologists identify real issues and dispel stereotypes.

"I mean, it's a huge industry and so it's important for us as socio-anthropologists to shed light on the issues, especially the social injustices," Rajaram said.

Absolutely. Academic interest in this field is perfectly legitimate, and there is nothing qualitatively different her choosing this form of immersion study than anything else. I suspect that this thesis probably is significantly more likely to yield actual novel, useful insights than most undergraduate work, for the very reason that the topic is so stigmatized.

The Guest Worker Charade

So the Senate rejected an effort to strip the Guest Worker program from the immigration bill. Democrats tended to lean in favor of getting rid of the program, Republicans wanted to keep it.

Politically, the presence of the Guest Worker program appears to be a bit of a Catch-22. And I still lean in favor of passing the bill at large, if only because the status quo, miraculously, is even worse and I support anything that will get the millions of undocumented workers here on the citizenship track. But the really obnoxious thing about the Guest Worker program specifically is that it is a massive facade. Guest worker programs don't work. They never have, any place they've been tried. And why would they? When people move here and work for years, they understandably gain an affinity for America. All the more so when the alternative is grinding poverty in an unstable Latin American country. Why on earth should we be surprised that they're going to want to stay here rather than go home when their number is up? It's mind-boggling.

The only reason the guest worker program is in the bill is as a compromise so that Republicans can go home and not admit to letting millions of Latin Americans into the country with a chance to become citizens (gasp) and voters (shudder). From any objective standpoint (aside from pure partisanship--the GOP doesn't want tons of new minority voters entering the country, but it may not matter as they're on the verge of blowing the Latino vote for the next decade anyway), it is far better for everyone if immigrants can became stakeholders in the American dream. That requires the prospect of citizenship. It's better for American workers if immigrants can negotiate for wages and hours on a level playing field, something that indentured servitude Guest Worker programs almost definitely don't allow. And it's better for the entire country if we continue to move in a direction that celebrates diversity, immigration, drive, and ambition--the engines that have always and will continue to drive us forward to excellence.

The Guest Worker program will fail, because the same incentives which would drive someone to become a guest worker in America will also cut against them returning home when they're done. And since this program isn't exactly a historical anomaly, I have to assume every person voting in favor of it knows its going to fail. But what really aggravates me isn't that the law won't work, or that lawmakers are passing it knowing it won't work. No, what's really going to burst a blood vessel is when, in five or ten years, the same Republicans who demanded the inclusion of the provision use the utter failure of this bill as an example of why "amnesty" doesn't work or some other such non-sense. Crafting plans guaranteed not to succeed, then using them as examples for why the entire surrounding ideal is a bad idea, is a time-honored and repulsive tradition (Social Security privatization, anyone?). This is a train-wreck we can spot a mile away, and when the explosion comes don't let anybody let the GOP dodge its responsibility for the fall-out.

Cameron Crazies

Talk about a gaffe. The San Francisco Chronicle quoted anti-gay extremist Paul Cameron as a bona fide intellectual source--without even identifying who he really is. I cited referencing Cameron as one of my reasons for doubting the credibility of an academic anti-gay marriage article, and even though S.F. Chronicle shouldn't be held to the same standards as the University of Illinois Law Review, giving accurate background on Cameron shouldn't be that hard. Here's the quote from the article:

Focus on the Family's objection to same-sex parents is grounded in interpretation of biblical scripture and research by Paul Cameron, director of the Family Research Institute in Colorado. Cameron says gays and lesbians are unfit parents, are more likely to molest children of their same sex, switch partners frequently, have shorter life expectancies and cause their children embarrassment and social difficulties.

Sounds innocuous enough, no? But Cameron is not only discredited in the science community, he's a hateful bigot too.

He told the 1985 Conservative Political Action Committee conference that "extermination of homosexuals" might be needed in the next three to four years. He has advocated tattooing AIDS patients in the face, and banishment to a former leper colony for any patient who resisted. He has called for gay bars to be closed and gays to be registered with the government.

He was kicked out of the American Psychological Association, and his institute is considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. There is really no redeeming factor to this guy.

The thing is, this is actually an important story. That a major Christian group like Focus on the Family is basing its claims about homosexuality on a man analogized by the SPLC to Nazis (and they would know--they spend most of their time tracking neo-nazi groups in the US) is something people should know. This is a data point that should be entering our discussions.

Since this is San Francisco,, hopefully there will be a reader response that might provoke a clarification. But, nonetheless, teaching moment: Focus on the Family and other major Christian organizations are deeply invested in using pseudo-scientific research to buttress their anti-gay agenda. In doing so, they align themselves with folks like Dr. Cameron, who believes homosexuals should be "exterminated." You can tell a lot about people from their friends.

Diet of Music Playlist

Some of my friends at Carleton are doing something neat. They're organizing a massive music swap. You make a mix CD, put it in the ringleaders mailbox, he (anonymously) redistributes them, and you get a bunch of new music. Then, after listening to your assigned CD, they reveal the author of the mix, and you meet up for a music-date.

I think it's a great idea. I don't know if my musical taste is any good, but here is what my partner will receive:

1) Same Direction – Hoobastank (The Reason): 3:15

2) Counting 5-4-3-2-1 – Thursday (A City By the Light Divided): 3:19

3) The New Transmission – Lostprophets (Liberation Transmission): 3:32

4) It’s So Simple – Saosin (Saosin): 2:48

5) Let Go Control – Saosin (Saosin): 2:58

6) The Artist in the Ambulance – Thrice (The Artist in the Ambulance): 3:39

7) Heaven’s a Lie – Lacuna Coil (Comalies): 4:46

8) Blow Me Away – Breaking Benjamin (Halo 2 Soundtrack, Vol. 1): 3:25

9) Vitamin R (Leading Us Along) – Chevelle (This Type of Thinking (Could Do Us In)): 3:43

10) Feuer frei – Rammstein (Feuer frei – EP): 3:10

11) Evil Angel – Breaking Benjamin (Phobia): 3:40

12) Believer – Kill Hannah (Until There’s Nothing Left of Us): 3:46

13) Slipping Away – Trust Company (The Lonely Position of Neutral): 3:06

14) Famous Monsters – Saliva (Back Into Your System): 4:45

15) Genius – The Exies (Inertia): 3:49

Food and Loathing in Phoenix, Arizona

Following up on the Congressmen (Rep. Tim Ryan, D-OH, being the focus) trying to live on $21 dollars a week, to simulate the experience of living on food stamps, Hilzoy adds some excellent context to the discussion. Some folks had remarked that they had lived on similar amounts when they were in college or grad school. Duly noted. But there are still important differences beyond "pure" class that effect poor people in America and, say, the underfunded college student:

First, it makes an enormous difference that Rep. Ryan lives in DC, a city with decent public transportation. To experience the true joy of food stamps, one would need to go to, say, Phoenix. As one of the few people on earth ever to have actually tried to get around Phoenix on public transportation, it's pretty close to impossible: the number of lines is truly pathetic, they don't go to very many places, Phoenix blocks are enormous and walking to the (generally distant) bus station is a bitch, when I was there most of the busses ran around once an hour, making the experience of missing the bus incredibly frustrating, and to top it all off for most of the year taking the bus means walking and waiting in horrible, horrible heat.

Second, consider shopping by bus with children. Small children. The time I remember most clearly, I was shopping with someone who had four small kids. I honestly could not imagine how she managed on her own. (She had just left an abusive relationship, so help from the kids' father was not an option.) How do you carry the bags and hold your kids' hands? What do you do if one of them gets mischievous and runs off? Honestly: I have no clue what the answers to these questions were. I do remember thinking: Good Lord, she has to do this every time she wants to buy groceries?

This makes the absence of grocery stores in poor neighborhoods a much bigger deal. It's not just that heading out to the suburbs isn't an option (let alone taking advantage of the bulk purchasing possibilities of Sam's Club or CostCo, which absolutely require a car); it's that even a trip to the nearest grocery store can turn into something like the Odyssey. If the nearest grocery store requires a bus trip in a city with a lousy bus system and the nearest convenience store does not, it's not surprising that a mother with kids would opt for the latter sometimes. But if $21 is hard to live on when you shop at Safeway, it's a lot harder when you shop at 7/11.

If I was forced to live on $21 of food a week, it'd be really hard. But I'd have the advantage of being in walking distance of Econofoods, which would help immensely. Many people don't have that.

Hilzoy also remarks on a story about how the good Congressman lost his peanut butter and jelly--"4 or maybe 5 meals"--while going through TSA security, thus leaving him 33 cents and a bag of cornmeal for two days. Of course, most poor people aren't flying. But of course, as Hilzoy relates, "there are lots of ways for a jar of peanut butter to come to grief."

Your kid can eat it when you're not looking. Your grocery bag can break, leaving it shattered on the sidewalk. Similarly, the rats and roaches can get into your corn meal, or your wheat bread. There's just no end of catastrophes that might befall your $21 worth of food.

The point isn't to disparage Rep. Ryan's efforts. He's doing a public service here. But it's amazing how, even with the handicaps he placed on himself, he's still a mile away from simulating the actual, lived experience of uncountable poor Americans struggling with the basic problem of feeding themselves and their family.

Long Overdue

My plea for more forays into law and pop culture is answered, as Christine Corcos has begun the new Law and Magic Blog. Should be fun.

Whiteness Candidates and the Post-Racial America

In 1993, Cheryl I. Harris wrote a pathbreaking article in the Harvard Law Review entitled "Whiteness as Property." In it, she articulates how Whites view their Whiteness as a property interest, something they sought to keep "as unadulterated, exclusive, and rare." Whiteness has properties as well and these properties are not static. The meaning of Whiteness has changed as well as its contours. Though we tend to ascribe a permanence to racial categories, the people considered to be White have also evolved. Though the poles of "Black" (at the bottom) and Anglo-Saxon (at the top) have remained reasonably stable, aside from that there is significant latitude for groups to move up and down the racial ladder. For example, Arabs used to be considered White, but today probably would not be. Jews and the Irish, by contrast, were originally "not White" but today are reasonably well-entrenched as White.

Why do the members of Whiteness change? What benefits do Whites accrue by inviting other people into the group? By investigating how and why Whiteness selects its new racial recruits, we may be able to elucidate important properties of Whiteness, as well as gain clues to the future of race relations in America.

Before I proceed, I want to note two issues. First, throughout this post I treat Whiteness as having such anthropomorphic qualities such as "interests", "properties", and "desires". This is because I believe Whiteness as a social phenomenon has evolved beyond the control of any of its constituent parts--it is its own being, not under the control of anyone or thing. Obviously, it can be influenced, but by and large it represents a structuring property to American life that tends to guide us more than we guide it.

Second, my description of a particular group as "becoming" White is not meant to be derogatory (or a nod of approval) towards that group. Some theorists have implied that in pursuing Whiteness, a non-White group is "selling out" or turning its back on their peers who remain at the bottom of the racial hierarchy. For my part, I believe that given the massive perks and privileges available to those that become White, compared to the oppression and dehumanization (up to and including murder) of those who are left at the bottom, I can't critique groups that wish to escape from that fate. This is similar to my view of Jews who have hesitated in proclaiming a strong and unique independent identity in the wake of the Holocaust--it may be better if they did, but given that this path appears to lead right back to Auschwitz, it is quite understandable that many Jews would rather lay low and try to avoid provoking those who have killed them so many times. This is one of Whiteness' greatest weapons when offering incorporation to a minority group--the implicit alternative, of continued degradation and suppression. Ideally, I'd rather that people of color gain equality without having to "become White," just like ideally I'd like for Jews to be able to articulate independent Jewish perspectives without the fear of being slaughtered. But since Whites remain rather jealous of their privileged position, I believe there is a strong incentive for minority groups to take the offer of Whiteness. Similarly, the discussion of what makes a group a good "candidate" for Whiteness is not a statement as to these groups' worth--intrinsic or otherwise. It is deliberately quite calculated--I don't claim that the machinations of Whiteness are moral nor just.

I. The Interests of Whiteness

To begin with, I'll articulate three "interests" possessed by Whiteness. These are the goals that Whiteness seeks to pursue or maintain while drawing and redrawing its institutional and social boundaries and practices. Ideally, Whiteness tries to maintain itself in a manner that secures all three of these interests.

1) Whiteness seeks to remain exclusive.

This plays back into the image of Whiteness as a property. Whiteness is valuable insofar as it is rare--I have it and you don't. This is why Whiteness doesn't simply allow everyone to be White--that would dilute the value. And Whites have resorted to extreme measures to keep its "racial purity" intact. The infamous "one-drop" rules, by which anyone with even a sliver of non-White blood was considered to be of color, helped put up a firm wall against encroachment by racial outsiders, as well as discouraging inter-racial relationships. Because of the exclusivity principle, the decision by Whiteness to allow new members to its ranks is, I believe, a very serious one. It is not something Whiteness does except under duress. Because of that, I believe that the incorporation of new groups into the White category is a signal of weakness in Whiteness, and is a prime time for anti-racist activists to move and exploit that weakness.

2) Whiteness seeks to remain dominant.

For virtually all of American history, Whites have been the dominant racial group. They like it at the top. It gives them privileges. And so, Whiteness has an interest in maintaining those privileges. The desire to remain dominant both encourages and undermines the exclusivity principle. It encourages it because it mandates sharp divisions between what Whites receive as dividends of their Whiteness (thus maintaining the value of Whiteness) and what non-Whites receive that marks them as discrete and inferior. This is related to what W.E.B. Du Bois and later David Roediger called the "wages of Whiteness" argument. Whites of all social classes receive a psychological wage by virtue of being White. No matter how oppressed or downtrodden they are, they can always look back and know there are people beneath them. Incidentally, this is an example of how racial hierarchy can hurt Whites too--if working class Whites weren't focused on insuring that there was always a class beneath them and consequently reassuring themselves that their position isn't that bad, they'd be more likely to forge coalitions with their fellows and press for structural reforms that would provide them real, tangible benefits (yes, I'm aware this is heavily Marxist in tint).

However, the desire for dominance can also undermine the exclusionary principle. This is mostly a numbers game--as demographics shift, Whites find themselves in a position where they might no longer be in the majority. Some Whites have managed to maintain dominance as a minority anyway, at least for a little while (think South Africa). But America's democratic instincts make that an unappealing prospect. Better to shore up the ranks by bringing in some new members. For example, the influx of Southern and Eastern European immigrants (as well as Irishmen) at the turn of the 20th century severely threatened the dominance of Whiteness, as these locales were not considered to be "White." There are scores of writings, speeches, and warnings from the late 19th century arguing why these people were racially inferior to America's Anglo-Saxon stock. Nonetheless, faced with the prospect of being swamped and rendered a (non-dominant) minority, Whites simply changed the contours of the race, and voila! Poles, Greeks, Italians, Jews and the Irish were all White. But note that the gates were not flung open entirely--at the same time that non-Anglo-Saxon Europeans were beginning to gain their White stripes, a series of court cases emphatically declared that Asians were not, in fact, White, and could be excluded from the privileges Whiteness entailed. This is the line Whiteness walks--carefully allowing some new groups in, but likewise careful to maintain borders and boundaries to preserve the exclusivist property.

3) Whiteness seeks to be colorless.

This is a more recent development, and probably going to be controversial, but I think it's true. In its least controversial form, describing the Whiteness' desire to be colorless merely states that Whiteness seeks to be the norm, the center, the measuring stick by which all other groups are based off of. However, I believe it goes beyond that. I believe that in contemporary, post-Civil Rights revolution America, Whiteness seeks to assure itself that it is not a racist hierarchy. It wants to believe that it is not a system of racialized privilege. That doesn't mean that Whites wish to give up the privileges they gain from Whiteness. They just want to believe that they are "earned", meritocratic, legitimate, and theoretically open to everyone who is willing to work hard and play by the rules. They want the guilt-release of being able to blame those on the bottom for their plight. The Just World Theorem dictates that, rather than radically restructuring society to become truly egalitarian, Whites will try and convince themselves that the status quo is an accordance with their ideals of justice, equality, neutrality, etc.. This is probably the weakest of the three instincts--throughout history, Whiteness has been perfectly willing to jettison every liberal value in the book if necessary to maintain its dominant and exclusionary character. Even still, I believe that if possible, Whiteness will seek to negotiate its position in a manner that allows it to at least claim consistency with prevailing liberal, democratic values.

They colorless instinct of Whiteness is obviously in tension with the exclusionary principle, and partially with the dominance principle as well. So my query is: How will Whiteness evolve in the coming years to satisfy all three of its interests?

II. The Candidates for Whiteness

As you may have suspected, I believe that we are approaching a point where new groups will be incorporated as "White." There are two reasons why I think this. First, demographic trends are, once again, threatening Whites with minority status in the foreseeable future. Historically when faced with this prospect, Whites have responded by changing the boundaries of Whiteness so as to stave off the day, and I see no reason why they won't do it again. Second, the persistent presence of "model minorities", especially Asians, poses a severe threat to the dominance principle of Whiteness. It is not possible for Whites to indefinitely maintain their position at the top of the racial hierarchy when they are persistently being bested in academic achievement and test scores. Incorporating Asians into Whiteness would allow Whites to maintain their stance at the apex of American society, a prime interest of Whiteness.

So, what will Whites do? I believe there are two prime candidates for inclusion into Whiteness: Asians, and Latinos. Asians I think present a much stronger case (in fact, were it not for relatively small numbers in America I'd predict they'd be the only candidate), but both have their pros and cons.

1) Asians

a) Advantages

As articulated above, the "model minority" issue poses a legitimate threat to the dominance of Whiteness, one which I can't believe Whiteness does not wish to head off. Incorporation would solidify the White monopoly at the top of the social and academic sphere. It would also serve international interests by strengthening our ties with the growing East and South Asian powers (China, Japan, India, and the various tigers and dragons). The work of Derrick Bell and Mary Dudziak has shown that responding to international concerns can be a powerful motivator in domestic racial politics. Furthermore, my intuition is that there is relatively greater acceptance of Asian presence in the spheres normally reserved by Whites for Whites. Interracial relationships between Whites and Asians seem to raise fewer eyebrows than other racial pairings. The heavy enrollment of Asians at elite colleges and universities has both conditioned Whites to an Asian presence at the top circles, and forced Whites to accept Asians as, to some extent, peers. Finally, Whites have already sought to pull Asians into their political orbit and away from other people of color on several issues, most notably affirmative action. This seems like a first step towards inviting them to join the White club entirely.

b) Disadvantages

Numbers is the big one--there are not anywhere near as many Asians in America as there are Blacks or Latinos. Changes in immigration patterns could possibly fix that, but it's not guaranteed. Though it's a close call, my feeling is that the perception of Asians as a distinct and separate "race" is more deeply ingrained than it is for Latinos, which could make it psychologically more difficult to incorporate Asians into Whiteness. Finally, the growth of Asian powers--specifically China's emergent challenge to US hegemony--may allow Asian-Americans to resist the pressure to become White and maintain cultural independence.If this last scenario happens, it could cause a serious breakdown in the entire schema of White dominance. On the other hand, this potential prospect again might motivate Whiteness to try and strike before Asians can mount an independent challenge.

II. Latinos

a) Advantages

As I said, I think the primary argument for why Latinos will be incorporated into Whiteness is the numbers game. Latinos are America's largest minority group, so bringing them into Whiteness would remove the demographic threat for the foreseeable future. The immigration issue also could cut in the favor of Latinos--with the forthcoming amnesty, Americans will have to get used to the idea of millions more Latinos on the track to citizenship, and it might decide it is preferable to try and incorporate them (probably using our pre-existing positive immigration narrative from Ellis Island) rather than maintain the current hostile stance. Finally, Latinos can claim some historical link towards Whiteness (the connection to Spain), and are already classified as "White" in the census (in that I check my box as "non-Hispanic White"). So in that respect they've already got their foot in the door.

b) Disadvantages

The degree of hostility flowing towards Latinos dwarfs that directed towards Asians and is rising, not falling. In contrast to the "model minority" portrayal of Asians, Latinos face a bevy of mostly negative stereotypes (lazy, unproductive, dirty) that would seem to clash with the Whiteness' dominance principle. By this I don't mean to imply Asians don't have their own negative stereotypes, just that the ones for Latinos seem to be far more prevalent and controlling in the White public eye at this time. Right now, the language of political discourse has taken a definitive turn towards seeking to exclude Latinos from Whiteness (the exclusionary principle seems to be the operative one right now, in other words), we'd have to see that reversed for Latinos to stand any chance of becoming White.

III. Outcomes

My prediction is that Asians will be effectively incorporated into Whiteness in the near-to-medium future, and that Latinos will follow if the demographic threat doesn't dissipate. The advantages/disadvantages section hopefully explained why this move will occur to satisfy the first (exclusionary) and second (dominance) principles of Whiteness. However, what of the third (colorless) principle? That, I believe, will occur in the mechanics of the incorporation, and it strikes me as potentially a very revealing event.

As I argued above, a significant shift in the interests of Whiteness in recent years is that it wants to see itself as egalitarian, liberal, fair, and not reminiscent of the Jim Crow hierarchies of old. This is not just me being idealistic--Critical Race Theorists have observed that there appears to be a genuine sentiment among White folks that racism is something bad, and it is bad to be racist. Unlike years past, the battle against racism, as Mari Matsuda notes, "has legitimating force." Since the majority of Whiteness' existence has been predicated on racism being okay and the key signifier of White dominance, this change requires adaptation by Whiteness if it wishes to maintain its dominance and exclusion. This is what I mean by "post-racial" America. I do not mean that racism is or will become absent, and I reject whole-heartedly that we are "post-racist." However, the press by Whites to try and erase race-talk and race categories (California, for example, is barred by law from even collecting data categorized by race) is highly symbolic--it articulates the sentiment that race is something dirty, a scary remnant of our darker past that should be buried away. This is misguided (the problem of the color-line was not the presence of race, it was the presence of racism), but a very active sentiment. And so, paradoxically, the oppression we are and will continue to be seeing in the future will, increasingly, be racism without race.

The relative absence of (and to some extent, social disfavor against) speaking in racial categories, ironically, may allow Whiteness to de facto include Asians without ever explicitly saying "you're White now." It will instead express the feeling that they "might as well be White, they're so similar." It would erase the difference in character, but preserve the formal distinction. Why? Because by incorporating Asians this way, Whiteness could stake a claim to the third interest (colorless) as well. This would turn Asians into the racial equivalent of what Derrick Bell calls "contradiction closing cases," that show "the system is not so bad after all," that the deck is fair and that anyone can "make it" in America. If someone argued that America is dominated by Whites, Whites could point to Asians as a counter-example, thus "proving" the neutrality of the system (while at the same time ignoring that Asians have been made effectively White). This would change Whiteness from a unitary category to somewhat of an alliance, but I don't think it would effectively change the dynamics of Whiteness, as the property is evolving away from biological essentialism and into a system of preserving and structuring the distribution of privileges. This, I believe, will be able to account for nominally different groups being placed under the same banner of Whiteness--allowing us to claim diversity (and with it, all the liberal ideals of fairness and equal opportunity) without really redressing the groups that are not accorded the privileges of Whiteness.

IV. Afterthoughts

None of this is inevitable. First, I could be wrong about the progress of true racial egalitarianism. We might turn the corner; racial equality may be right on our doorstep. In that case, happily, none of these predictions will bear fruit. However, this post also operates from the perspective of Whiteness; it is my understanding of what I believe Whiteness "wants" to do. As I noted above, the candidates for Whiteness have strong incentives to cooperate with the White agenda. But that is not the same as being inevitable. As I expressed above, Asian-Americans may move into a position where they will be able to mount a challenge to White supremacy--something that would throw the whole strategy for a loop. That may be extreme, but there is more that can be done aside from outright revolution. Historically, as Frank Wu has argued, Whites have conditioned inclusion into Whiteness on acquiescing to the system of White supremacy. However, I noted my belief that Whites seek the incorporation of other groups when they feel threatened or weak. The candidates, therefore, are in a temporary position of relative strength, they can leverage their inclusion into Whiteness to secure concessions by Whites in favor of the non-Whites that are not be included. This sort of infiltration strikes me as one of the best opportunities to really gain some ground--it is the cousin of my own belief that (current) White people should use their privileged position (and the "credibility" that entails) to press for real racial reform. However, Whiteness candidates may be better suited towards making that maneuver, as they are more closely tied to the oppressed and may thus make better and more informed advocates.

The preceding post may feel a bit grim, because it operates within a paradigm that Whiteness will remain dominant, that it will continue to pursue and maintain its dominance, and then seeks to predict what will result from those principles. Obviously, I'd be thrilled if my baseline assumptions turned out to be untrue. But even if they are, there are chinks in the armor that can be exploited. If people of color and their allies prepare well, they may be able to catch Whiteness with its guard down. And that could yield a genuine opportunity to undermine the system of racial superiority that has plagued American history for so long.

Scary

Doing a bit of research for grad school, I read the profile of an alum of one of the programs I'm looking at. It turns out he went to Carleton, like me, and was a Political Science major, also like me. Unlike me, he graduated Summa Cum Laude (my grades are good, but nowhere near summa territory). And then he went and got his law degree from a top-10 law school, along with a Ph.D from the same school in a program that looked very exciting.

He's now teaching political science at a community college.

This is not heartening news.

Boxing Blogging Part II

Boring card tonight out in Oklahoma. It's unfortuate that I don't get HBO here, because tomorrow's fight between Edison Miranda (28-1, 24 KOs) and Kelly Pavlik (30-0, 27 KOs) should be spectacular. I'm a huge Miranda fan, but both of them are spectacular punchers. I got my first taste of Miranda in his one round demolition of Willie Gibbs, who was supposed to be a real contender in the division. He followed that up by handing white hot prospect Allan Green his first defeat (I think Green was a bit over-rated, but it was still a great victory). For his part, Kelly Pavlik's last fight ended in a highlight reel knockout of former Olympian Jose Luis Zertuche. I'm calling Miranda by KO, but any outcome is possible here.

Meanwhile, while Jermain Taylor's (26-0-1, 17 KOs) man-handling of game but undersized Kassim "The Dream" Ouma (perhaps my favorite fighter) should turn me off on a repeat performance against a bulked-up junior middleweight (this time Cory Spinks (36-3, 11 KOs)), I'm optimistic that fight could have some moments too. It's certainly better than the original bout, which scheduled Taylor to walk over fight "Contender" star Sergio "The Latin Snake" Mora. Mora said he withdrew due to location, but I think it's because he knows he would have gotten taken apart. Spinks is much smaller than Taylor, but he's a slick boxer and a better stylistic matchup than Ouma was. I think Taylor lost to Winky Wright when they fought (he escaped with a draw), and it's high time he lost that zero at the end of his record. The winner of Miranda/Pavlik is a mandatory for Taylor if he wins, and that could be spectacular. Miranda, particularly, has been calling Taylor out, noting that if he defeats Spinks on top of Ouma, he'll be "the best Junior Middleweight in the world. Unfortunately, he's supposed to be the Middleweight champion."

But back to Oklahoma. The undercard featured Shaun George (13-2-2, 6 KOs) against former three-time light heavyweight title challenger Richard Hall (27-6, 25 KOs). Hall had the reputation as a puncher, but he was never able to hurt (or even really connect) with the very slick George, who outboxed him the whole night. However, George faded badly after the second half of the 7th round (it was an 8-round fight), and spent most of the remainder running away. George clearly has boxing skills, but what he doesn't seem to have is a killer instinct. And I wonder if a more accurate puncher might cause him significant problems, as his defense mostly involves running away. Hall did not body punch effectively, but George won't be able to count on that his whole career. George won a comfortable unanimous decision.

The main event had lightweight Zahir Raheem (27-2, 16 KOs) fighting against Cristobal Cruz (34-10-1, 22 KOs). Raheem's two losses were both against top flight opposition--one to then undefeated Rocky Juarez in a very controversial fight (one where the ref docked him several points for holding), and the other against Acelino "Popo" Freitas in what was universally described as a close but ugly and choppy fight. Raheem does own a win over Eric Morales, and was looking to use this fight to impress folks and vault him back into elite competition.

Raheem, to put it bluntly, did not impress. Oh, he won (on the scorecards anyway--I had it a draw) alright. But he did not do anything eye-raising. Cruz continually pressed forward and turned it into an ugly fight, precisely what the slick and speedy Raheem did not want. Raheem also was completely spent in the last few rounds, falling to the canvas no less than three times (all three were ruled slips, much to Cruz's dismay). Finally, Cruz kept jumping inside, and Raheem did nothing but tie him up. All. Fight. Long. It was not just boring, it made me wonder whether all those "controversial" deductions against Juarez were justified. Teddy Atlas said both fighters were to blame, but I disagree--I thought that Cruz was making a genuine effort to work on the inside. And he landed a fair amount of solid body work. Raheem apparently had difficulty making weight for this fight, so that might be to blame. But he did absolutely nothing to show he was an elite fighter tonight, and even with the win raised more questions than he answered.

Finally, I should note the scorecards--I had it a draw (96-96). Teddy Atlas had it, I believe, 98-93, Raheem. The judges at ringside, by contrast, meted out one 99-91 and two shutouts, 100-90. That, to my mind, is ridiculous. And while Oklahoma is trying to make itself a fight destination, I have been consistently disappointed with their judging. The majority decision win they gave to Brian Vera over Samuel Miller was questionable, to say the least. And while I thought he won the fight, the margins they gave Allan Green in his defeat of Emmett Linton (97-92, 98-91, 98-91) struck me as a bit of home cooking, to say the least. It's a problem when in every card I've seen in Oklahoma, at least one of the fights has seen scoring that's raised my eyebrows.

Politics Big Willie Style

I've relayed before that my political perspective is very much conditioned by being a Democrat whose first three elections (that I followed) were 2000, 2002, and 2004. Not great times to be a Democrat, and I wrote some pretty despondent material. Now, of course, people are starting to see the light a bit. Democrats won huge in the 2006 elections. People are fleeing the Republican Party in droves, and the remaining partisans are turning on each other with a fury. Good, competent officials are emerging. And Congress is beginning to re-establish its oversight powers.

So am I pleased by this development. Yes, obviously. But, on the other hand, I'm a bit exasperated. What took you so long! I could have told you that this administration would end in catastrophe seven years ago. As usual, my words as better expressed by Will Smith in Men in Black II:

[on the train]
Agent J: Please move to the forward car, we've got a bug in the system.
[He is ignored by the passengers]
Agent J: YO! WE GOT A BUG IN THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM!
[a huge bug smashes through into the compartment, the passengers flee]
Agent J: Oh! Now y'all runnin' Now y'all... No, no, no, no, sit down, sit down, It's only a 600 foot worm!

Is this uncharitable of me? Of course it is! And I have no doubt there are not a few Iraq war opponents thinking the same thing about me now. But, nonetheless, this is how I feel.

Agent J: Could I have your attention for a moment, please?
[neuralyzes the crowd]
Agent J: Thank you for participating in our drill. Had this been an actual emergency, y'all would have been *eaten*. 'Cause you don't listen! You're ignorant! That's the problem with y'all New Yorkers, you're hardheaded. "Oh, we've seen it all." I come in, I ask you nicely... how's a man gonna come busting through the back of a subway - then the worm comes in, and it's, "Oh, another 600 foot worm. Save us, Mr. Black Man!" You all...
[neuralyzes the crowd again]
Agent J: The City of New York would like to thank you for participating in our drill. Hopefully you enjoyed our smaller, more energy-efficient subway cars. Watch your step, you will have a nice evening.

Today's Watergate

Former Reagan and Bush-the-elder attorney Douglas Kmiec tries to take down the breath-taking testimony of former Deputy Attorney General James Comey. For those of you who don't know, while then-AG John Ashcroft was lying sick in a hospital recovering from surgery, Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card tried to get him to sign off on Bush's domestic survaillence program. Horrified at this attempt to take advantage of a man so sick he had signed over his powers to Comey, he rushed to the hospital, beating Gonzales and Card to Ashcroft, and tried to get him alert enough to know what was going on. He even felt compelled to get a personal order from the head of the FBI demanding that he was not to be evicted from the room by Gonzales or Card under any circumstances. At the end of day, Ashcroft, displaying "a strength that I had never seen before," explained point-by-point his objections to the program, and refused his assent. President Bush then authorized the program anyway.

So, Kmiec's got his work cut out. He spends a lot of time arguing as to whether Bush had the authority to ignore the advice of his own Justice Department. Maybe he does, but the point here is less about the interplay of executive agency authority than it is as to whether a) Bush's ultimate determination was lawful and b) whether or not it is remotely ethical to try and take advantage of a virtually incapacitated man in order to seize a massive amount of new executive power. And so, here Kmiec has a simple argument: It's not Watergate.

Now, I'm not sure who has made the Watergate comparison thus far. Indeed, while Kmiec calls Comey's testimny "histrionic," the clip seems to show otherwise. And furthermore, as Orin Kerr notes, there is significant space between "not Watergate" and "not newsworthy," in which this case very well might fall. Nixon seems to have spoiled us--there are Presidential scandals that fall short of breaking and entering, and this seems to be an obvious case.

But you know what? As Steve Benen puts it, if you want to talk Watergate, let's talk Watergate:

Attorney General Richardson and DAG Ruckelshaus did not resign in October 1973 because they concluded there had been a "burglary for purposes of political dirty tricks," in Kmiec's words. The burglary was an old story. They resigned because the President insisted that they fire prosecutor Archibald Cox when Cox subpoened Nixon's tapes. In other words, Nixon was trying to subvert the established procedures of the Justice Department. As were Bush and Gonzales.

Cox, I'd imagine we would hear now, served "at the pleasure of the President" as well.

Let's be clear--there is very strong evidence that the program President Bush had been and wished to continue to operate was illegal, and that's a crime. We shouldn't minimize that. But as Watergate (among others) reminded us, sometimes it isn't the crime, it's the cover-up. And for all the trouble I have with the idea of warrant-less domestic survaillence, the behavior of this administration in trying to get legal approval--though not a "cover-up"--betrays a disrespect for established procedures and basic integrity that threatens the entire character of the US government. That, amazingly, might be the worse sin here.

Rep. Paul on Race

I know there's a group of Republicans who are excited about a potential candidate who isn't obsessed with making things explode, but before we get too committed, be advised: he seems to have a bit of a race problem:

Reporting on gang crime in Los Angeles, Paul commented: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Paul, a Surfside obstetrician who won the GOP nomination in the 14th District runoff by defeating incumbent Rep. Greg Laughlin, said Wednesday he opposed racism.

He said his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."
[...]
Writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, Paul commented about black men in the nation's capital.

Citing statistics from a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia, Paul concluded in his column:

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"These aren't my figures," Paul said this week. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report.

He also wrote: "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered "as decent people."

Via The Plank.

They Could Care Less

The Shin Bet (Israel's equivilant of the FBI) has uncovered a plot by a Palestinian member of Doctors Without Borders to assassinate Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. He got weapons and unarmed combat training from terrorist organizations in Gaza (it appears he had connections with the PFLP--Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine). Fortunately, they caught him before he was able to kill anybody, but like The Forward, I was a bit perturbed by Doctors w/out Borders' response:

I don’t think embarrassed would be the right word. We are very sad for Bashir who has been working for us for almost six years. But we would like to make it very clear that we make a distinction between his professional work and what he does on his personal time in the sense that all our staff is hired for professional reasons and I don’t think our organization can be held liable for every aspect of their life.

Errr....what? I doubt that, as an organization, Doctors without Borders was in any way linked to this plot. Nonetheless, they have at least some responsibility to insure that their employees do not abuse the trust of their host governments by assassinating world leaders. The rhetoric here is just astounding--they're "sad for Bashir," and they describe this as something he was doing "on his personal time." I really think that they have an obligation to respond more forcefully than this.

Any further statements by the group would be appreciated, but as it stands this is an appalling level of apathy. And, call me cynical, but I have to wonder if the politics of this group makes them sympathetic to their wayward employee's goal here (again, I'm not accusing them of knowledge or participation. But this is not the response of someone who is revolted at the thought of seeing the Israeli Prime Minister dead).

Boxing Blogging Part I

I'm developing into a real boxing fan since I've been at Carleton. If Matt Yglesias can break from serious blogging to do basketball, and the LGM crowd has hockey covered, then why can't I do a little boxing?

Unfortunately, since I don't get HBO at Carleton, I'm pretty much limited to the Wednesday and Friday Night Fights cards shown on ESPN. So we'll start with yesterday's Wednesday Night Fights in Hollywood, Florida, which featured three televised fights.

The first pitted prospect puncher "Mean" Joe Greene (14-0, 11 KOs) against a journeyman veteran named Jose Spearman (27-12-4, 11 KOs). Both, interestingly, were Golden Gloves champions, but Spearman's career had not gone well--as Teddy Atlas put it, all his wins came against "C+" opposition or worse. Meanwhile, when he stepped up, he had been knocked out a whopping 7 times--a problem going against the undefeated Greene, who had the reputation as a knockout artist.

Greene was impressive, flooring Spearman in rounds two and four, but I can't help but think he should have gotten him out of there within the distance. Perhaps he was putting rounds under his belt against probably his strongest opposition to date. And to be fair, the fourth round knockdown, where he had Spearman seriously hurt, came at the very end of the round and enabled Spearman to recover in his corner. It wasn't a bad performance, to be sure, but if Greene really has the power people say he does, someone like Spearman should be hitting the floor and not making it up.

The second fight pitted Joel "Love Child" Julio (30-1, 28 KOs) against Mauro Lucero (42-11-1, 28 KOs), a former lightweight fighting the tail end of his career at junior middleweight. This is the third time I've seen Julio fight--the first being his upset loss to also-then-undefeated Carlos Quintana. Julio's been on the comeback trail since then, but the problem is that in the fight immediately following the Quintana loss, Julio escaped with only a tight decision against a faded Cosme Rivera, which couldn't help his confidence. His first round knockout of Lucero should help, but it's probably time for him to get back to more solid competition.

I don't want to leave Julio without mentioning Thomas Davis, the third fight I've seen Julio in (it came after Rivera but before tonight) and a fighter he dispatched in 7 rounds. Davis, an ex-marine, is a fighter who intrigues me, and not just because of his platinum pink trunks. He's currently 11-4-1 with 7 knockouts, not a particularly impressive record. But three of his four losses have come against very strong opposition--Julio, 21-1 Oscar Diaz, who later became the NABF welterweight chmapion, and Luis Collazo, who became the world champion in the Welterweight division before losing a pair of fights to Ricky Hatton and Shane Mosley. Those are some serious names for a young fighter. Moreover, he has a no-decision againt dangerous Richard Guitterez (whose only loss comes to Joshua Clottey) and he owns a first round knockout victory over Kendall Holt, Holt's only loss as he gears up to fight for a welterweight world title shot of his own against Ricardo Torres (to be fair, Davis was getting battered by Holt before catching Holt going for the knockout). In essence, we're talking about at least three world-class boxers for a guy who has yet to break 20 fights. Davis is extremely tough, and I feel like if he could get a promoter who would develop him a bit rather than throwing him directly in with the lions, he could really blossom as a fighter.

Finally, the main event pitted Glen Johnson (44-11-2, 29 KOs) against Montell Griffin (48-6, 30 KOs). Both were former light heavyweight titlists who were fighting an eliminator to get a shot against IBF champion Clinton Woods, who took the title off of Johnson last year. Though Griffin's slickness let him a take a few early rounds, Johnson settled in and figured him out, controlling the entire second half of the fight before Griffin's corner stopped the fight in the 11th. Johnson's loss to Woods was a razor-thin split decision, and you know he's back for revenge. His come-forward, consistent style isn't exactly flashy, but it isn't boring either, and could make for a great fight against Woods, who has already fought Johnson three times (splitting the contests 1-1-1, this one is the tie-breaker).

Signaling Effect

Politicians love to talk about how they're "tough on crime." However, one crime that seems to be met with a resounding shrug is men killing their wives, girlfriends, or exs. Domestic violence by men against women, in general, tends to get downplayed in the criminal justice system. Oh, we deny it--we say that we treat these crimes with revulsion and disgust, and punish the perpetrators harshly. But the stats don't lie--and the story Tulane Law Professor Tania Tetlow tells is chilling in that respect:

Everette Simpson married three times, and three times he murdered his wife. Simpson stabbed his first wife 16 times with a butcher knife and then served nine years in prison. He stabbed his second wife with a hatchet, was allowed to plead guilty to manslaughter and served 11 years before being paroled. Last month in Slidell, Simpson beat his third wife and her brother to death and then set the house on fire to conceal the murders. He died in the fire, so at least he won't be released and marry again.

Sheriff Jack Strain asked how a "monster" like this could have been free to kill again. The answer is simple -- the national average sentence for men who kill their female partners is two to six years in prison. Criminal justice systems and juries do not, on average, treat the murder of women by their husbands terribly seriously.

In contrast, women who kill their male partners are sentenced to an average of 15 years, three times as much as male defendants, despite the fact that many of these women killed in self-defense.

Men who kill their spouses don't usually "get away with it", but they often get off light. Two to six years is not particularly impressive for homicide--and don't think it doesn't send a signal. These are not the types of sentences that deter men bent on exacting vengeance on their partners.

And the women who are stuck in these relationships? Well, they're pretty much left to fend for themselves. And if "fending for themselves" involve killing their abusers, well, then the hammer comes down:

Women in abusive relationships find themselves trapped. They know that the system will not, or sometimes cannot, protect them from husbands who promise to track them down and kill them. Ashley Ruffins was stabbed to death last year after the police in both Orleans and Jefferson parishes failed to answer her repeated begging to enforce a protective order. Even when the police respond immediately, as they did in Mandeville last month, they could not protect Adrienne McGee from being shot down in the middle of the street in broad daylight.

But if these women try to save their own lives, fight back and end up killing their batterers, they often face life sentences in prison. Their children are effectively orphaned. Three recent New Orleans trials, all held in the same month, illustrate this fact:

In March, an Orleans Parish jury convicted Catina Curley of second-degree murder for shooting a husband who had abused her. Catina provided police records and witness testimony that her husband had beaten her for years, broken her nose and dislocated her shoulder. Catina testified that she shot him in fear for her life, but the jury was neither willing to acquit her or convict her of a lesser charge of manslaughter. Second-degree murder carries a mandatory sentence of life without parole.

Another jury offered different justice to Clarence Warden for beating his girlfriend to death with a banister. Warden claimed that he acted in self-defense. Given disputed evidence of a physical fight between the two, the jury erred on the side of acquittal of the male defendant.

A third jury convicted Jeremy Colbert of manslaughter rather than murder. Prosecutors provided evidence at trial that Colbert stalked and beat his ex-girlfriend for years. When he saw her speaking to a male friend (an acquaintance she had only known for a few weeks), Colbert shot and killed the man. Colbert's lawyer successfully argued to the jury that Colbert's ex-girlfriend "riled him up" so he should not be subject to a murder conviction.

The high school LD topic this past fall (November/December) dealt with whether women should be allowed to respond with lethal force to men who repeatedly abused them. The evidence some of these debaters mustered was truly horrifying--for all our supposed outrage, there is a persistent trend among our nation's law enforcement apparatus that seems far more interested in protecting the abusers over the abused, the batterers over the battered. We don't have the resources available to help these women, and we really aren't showing that much interest in remedying the situation. Thus, Professor Tetlow ends her piece with what will surely be a controversial, but telling, comparison:

When we look at other cultures overseas, we understand that violence against women is a function of power. We know that honor killings and bride burnings systematically exclude women from public life and make women fear for their lives if they disobey the rules.

But in our own country, despite more than 1,000 such murders a year, we see domestic violence as aberrant, the result of a bad upbringing or mental illness. We treat domestic violence as sad but inevitable, as irrelevant to our own safety, as having nothing to do with the status of women.

I've blogged on this point before: We have no right to be as smug as we are in this respect. Are we better than Saudi Arabia? Yes. But "better than Saudi Arabia" is no rallying cry. And American women, faced with a criminal justice system that is utterly unresponsive to their beatings, their murders, have every right to wonder whether our claims to care are so much hot air. The disparities between how we are treating men and women are striking, and a very strong signal about what type of violence we are willing to overlook or condone. We don't have the evidence on our side. And the onus is on us to start remedying that situation--and in the interim, not act surprised when women facing repeated violent abuse sometimes try to turn on their attackers.

Via Feminist Law Profs

Why I Support Reproductive Rights for Young Women

This is Shark-Fu's post on the aftermath of the rape of a fourteen-year old friend. It's the type of story that literlly left me shaking with rage:

When she told me I was horrified for her…deflated because this young woman has already been through a lot of shit in her life...and angry that rape was now being added to a list that reads like an indictment of our society’s devaluing of human dignity and life.

Then I asked her if she was offered emergency contraception.

She wasn’t.

I asked if she knew what emergency contraception is.

She did, but admitted that she was too upset to even think about asking for it.

That’s when I got angry.

As I drove her to Planned Parenthood…I offered that as a way to get a handle on her options and she accepted…my blood pressure shot through the roof.

A 14 year old was raped…she did the right thing and went to the hospital…she was offered tests and counseling…but she wasn’t offered emergency contraception.

As a sister in the struggle I am beyond words.

A 14 year old was raped and she wasn’t offered the emergency contraception I have personally spent time working to make available to all women who find themselves in such situations.

I certainly want 14 year old rape victims to be given the option.

I sure as shit wanted the young woman in question to have been.

When we arrived at Planned Parenthood we got another dose of reality. It was too late for emergency contraception but too early to find out if the monster who raped her had also gotten her pregnant.

With an appointment having been set we left…walked out and got into my car…drove past the crowd of anti-choice protesters who chose that moment to thrust dead baby pictures at my window…and out onto the road.

I drove…and then I pulled over, turned and folded her into my arms.

We wept…rocking back and forth on the side of the road...and I have no idea who was comforting whom.

The thing is...this young woman is strength.

That 14 year old is the very definition of what strength is.

But I am struggling to turn rage back into usable energy…frustration into action.

This is one of the reasons I support access to birth control to women of all ages, no questions asked. What this young women went through, no person should be forced to endure. That she might become pregnant after this ordeal, because emergency contraception isn't considered the default option after a rape is appalling. We can't ask for anything more from this survivor. It's our job, as a society, to give her what she needs--and what she needs is appropriate health care. Stories like this obliterate whatever sympathy I had towards society's hang-ups on this issue. Get over it, and get her the care she needs.

And the anti-abortion protesters...Good Lord. I hope God has mercy on them for what they did, because I sure don't.

Via Majikthise