Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Away From Carleton
I'm taking a swing through the University of Virginia from Thursday through Saturday. My computer will tag along, but I have a pretty full schedule while I'm there, so if I don't communicate, see you next week!
Professor Congressman
Eugene Volokh reports that two law professors are either contemplating or participating in Congressional runs. First, the cool one, Stanford's Larry Lessig, who's filed an exploratory committee to possibly go for the late Rep. Tom Lantos' (D-CA) seat in California. You can see his introductory video here. Normally, I'd be skeptical of an outsider like Lessig's chances in a district where one has to think there are many, many well-entrenched Democrats looking for a promotion, but as Paul Gowder notes, this is Silicon Valley, where Lessig's status is somewhere between icon and demi-god. So he's got a shot.
The second candidate is Rutgers' Michael Livingston, who has announced his Republican candidacy to try and knock off Philadelphia Democratic Rep. Chaka Fattah. I only know Livingston from his blistering attack on affirmative action hiring at his law school -- an attack that seems to be compromised by the fact that the at least some of those minority faculty seem more qualified than he is. Oops. I also love his instincts in decrying the reduced "civility" in his department, which is due apparently to affirmative action, and not to his own screed against the qualifications of a huge chunk of his co-professors.
Anyway, Fattah's district is one of the most heavily Democratic in the country, so Livingston should be returning to his minority-dominated offices soon enough. And Lessig's election to the Congress would represent a major boon to the institution, which could use someone with his expertise on issues of copyright and intellectual property.
The second candidate is Rutgers' Michael Livingston, who has announced his Republican candidacy to try and knock off Philadelphia Democratic Rep. Chaka Fattah. I only know Livingston from his blistering attack on affirmative action hiring at his law school -- an attack that seems to be compromised by the fact that the at least some of those minority faculty seem more qualified than he is. Oops. I also love his instincts in decrying the reduced "civility" in his department, which is due apparently to affirmative action, and not to his own screed against the qualifications of a huge chunk of his co-professors.
Anyway, Fattah's district is one of the most heavily Democratic in the country, so Livingston should be returning to his minority-dominated offices soon enough. And Lessig's election to the Congress would represent a major boon to the institution, which could use someone with his expertise on issues of copyright and intellectual property.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Where Did All The Nationalism Go?
Scott at LGM provides a quote from the first Justice Harlan's dissent in the Civil Rights Cases:
Scott goes on to point out that "federalism" claims, outside a narrow swath of academics, have always been mere facades for substantive state interests and are thrown away at the drop of a hat when the national government is doing something the "federalists" like. Fugitive Slave Act on the table? National power! Civil Rights Act? But what about states rights? Oh boo hoo.
Incidentally, while I give Harlan credit for his dissent here, he's still no hero.
With all respect for the opinion of others, I insist that the national legislature may, without transcending the limits of the Constitution, do for human liberty and the fundamental rights of American citizenship what it did, with the sanction of this court, for the protection of slavery and the rights of the masters of fugitive slaves. If fugitive slave laws, providing modes and prescribing penalties whereby the master could seize and recover his fugitive slave, were legitimate exercises of an implied power to protect and enforce a right recognized by the Constitution, why shall the hands of Congress be tied so that -- under an express power, by appropriate legislation, to enforce a constitutional provision granting citizenship -- it may not, by means of direct legislation, bring the whole power of this nation to bear upon States and their officers and upon such individuals and corporations exercising public functions as assume to abridge, impair, or deny rights confessedly secured by the supreme law of the land?
Scott goes on to point out that "federalism" claims, outside a narrow swath of academics, have always been mere facades for substantive state interests and are thrown away at the drop of a hat when the national government is doing something the "federalists" like. Fugitive Slave Act on the table? National power! Civil Rights Act? But what about states rights? Oh boo hoo.
Incidentally, while I give Harlan credit for his dissent here, he's still no hero.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Why Say Sorry?
One of the typical arguments trotted out against official apologies for historical atrocities (slavery, genocide, apartheid, etc.) is that "we" (that is, the folks still alive) weren't the ones who did the wrong. Indeed, often times we're not even descended from the wrongdoers. So why should we say we're sorry?
In his discussion about Australia's upcoming apology for "the lost generation" (where Aboriginal children were forcibly taken from their families on the grounds that the Aborigines were going to die out soon anyway), John Quiggin flagged the best response to that argument I've heard yet, from Raimond Gaita's book A Common Humanity. Simply put, "any moral position allowing pride in the achievements of our forebears and our community necessarily entails shame in their failings."
So, if I express pride in America's fight for freedom in WWII, or the emancipation proclamation, or the development of democratic political theory as part of my identity as an "American", then I similarly as part of that identity must express shame for the genocide of Native Americans, the enslavement of Black Africans, and the other myriad failings of American society. They're part and parcel of the same commitment I have as a member of this community. But too many people want the sweet without any of the sour.
In his discussion about Australia's upcoming apology for "the lost generation" (where Aboriginal children were forcibly taken from their families on the grounds that the Aborigines were going to die out soon anyway), John Quiggin flagged the best response to that argument I've heard yet, from Raimond Gaita's book A Common Humanity. Simply put, "any moral position allowing pride in the achievements of our forebears and our community necessarily entails shame in their failings."
So, if I express pride in America's fight for freedom in WWII, or the emancipation proclamation, or the development of democratic political theory as part of my identity as an "American", then I similarly as part of that identity must express shame for the genocide of Native Americans, the enslavement of Black Africans, and the other myriad failings of American society. They're part and parcel of the same commitment I have as a member of this community. But too many people want the sweet without any of the sour.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Socialized Medicine
Matt Yglesias has the poll, Ezra Klein digs into it deeper. Short story: the term "socialized medicine" doesn't turn people off like it used to. In fact, a plurality of Americans say they'd prefer socialized medicine to the current system.
Now, the immediate impact of this is indirect: what Democrats are proposing is not, in fact, socialized medicine, so all this polling does is indicate that the favored GOP talking point (can two words be a talking point?) against universal health care may not turn out to be as effective as they'd hope.
Yglesias, however, says that Dems should use this poll as cover to push for some attributes of actual socialized medicine. Without getting into the merits of that, I'm skeptical that these numbers will hold if folks actually began to proactively adopt the label "socialized medicine." It's like impeachment: even if it polls well now, two months of the media being aghast at how radical the Democrats have become and things will start to slip quick. I hate to say play it safe, but...play it safe, and be thankful that conservatives will have a harder time shutting down universal health care than they're expecting.
Now, the immediate impact of this is indirect: what Democrats are proposing is not, in fact, socialized medicine, so all this polling does is indicate that the favored GOP talking point (can two words be a talking point?) against universal health care may not turn out to be as effective as they'd hope.
Yglesias, however, says that Dems should use this poll as cover to push for some attributes of actual socialized medicine. Without getting into the merits of that, I'm skeptical that these numbers will hold if folks actually began to proactively adopt the label "socialized medicine." It's like impeachment: even if it polls well now, two months of the media being aghast at how radical the Democrats have become and things will start to slip quick. I hate to say play it safe, but...play it safe, and be thankful that conservatives will have a harder time shutting down universal health care than they're expecting.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Footnote Siberia
Citing the Russian, Eugene Volokh says that footnotes are the Siberia of your article. That's too bad. I always liked footnotes.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
FG(M/E/C/S)?
Plain(s) Feminist has a large post on how best to respond to Female Genital....well, a big part of the post is on what we should call it. Mutilation? Excision? Cutting? Circumcision? Surgery?
Thus far, I have not been hesitant to call it Female Genital Mutilation. The term seems to capture the brutality and barbarism of the procedure (and I want to here register my disagreement with the author that such terms can't be employed when the subject is African practices without being "imperialist". For that matter, there is a lot of things in the post I think are a bit off). Stepping back the rhetoric seems often like it is an excuse.
But Plains Feminist makes one very compelling counterargument: the women who undergo this procedure -- including many who oppose it -- don't use the term "mutilation." More importantly, they don't like it when we say they're "mutilated." They don't see themselves as mutilated. That doesn't mean they don't oppose the violation. They just don't want their experience named for them in terms they don't themselves, recognize. And that seems like a legitimate grievance.
Now, I don't have any empirical backing as to whether PF's claim here is true. I suspect some women whom have experienced it would claim that it is mutilation. And furthermore (despite what conservative politicians would have you believe) nobody likes to cast themselves in the role of the victim, so people are always going to be resistant to language that fully expresses the degree of violation foisted upon them. So this "name your own oppression" thing, while tempting, may not ultimately be the way to go. And provisionally, I'm sticking with FGM.
But it was a intriguing argument, and I wanted to throw it out there for comment.
Via Alas, a Blog.
Thus far, I have not been hesitant to call it Female Genital Mutilation. The term seems to capture the brutality and barbarism of the procedure (and I want to here register my disagreement with the author that such terms can't be employed when the subject is African practices without being "imperialist". For that matter, there is a lot of things in the post I think are a bit off). Stepping back the rhetoric seems often like it is an excuse.
But Plains Feminist makes one very compelling counterargument: the women who undergo this procedure -- including many who oppose it -- don't use the term "mutilation." More importantly, they don't like it when we say they're "mutilated." They don't see themselves as mutilated. That doesn't mean they don't oppose the violation. They just don't want their experience named for them in terms they don't themselves, recognize. And that seems like a legitimate grievance.
Now, I don't have any empirical backing as to whether PF's claim here is true. I suspect some women whom have experienced it would claim that it is mutilation. And furthermore (despite what conservative politicians would have you believe) nobody likes to cast themselves in the role of the victim, so people are always going to be resistant to language that fully expresses the degree of violation foisted upon them. So this "name your own oppression" thing, while tempting, may not ultimately be the way to go. And provisionally, I'm sticking with FGM.
But it was a intriguing argument, and I wanted to throw it out there for comment.
Via Alas, a Blog.
Contempt Citations Issued
After petulant obstruction by House Republicans (where they, among other thins, deliberately disrupted Rep. Tom Lantos' memorial service), the House of Representatives has voted to issue contempt citations against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton for the refusal to testify in front of the committee.
And now for a statement that fills me with optimism and hope: The ball's in Mukasey's court now.
Unfortunately, there's no drama here, because Mukasey has already said he won't enforce the citations. Federal court, here we come!
UPDATE: On the Lantos thing, it appears there is some blame to be cast on both sides. I don't know why House leaders called the chamber back in session during the middle of the service. But there were no votes scheduled at the time, so its simply wrong that Republicans "had" to immediately get back to obstructing the debate. They could have waited 20 minutes, and then been as childish as they wanted. But instead they made a choice to get back on the horse right then and there, and they deserve to take all the flack for that free decision.
And now for a statement that fills me with optimism and hope: The ball's in Mukasey's court now.
Unfortunately, there's no drama here, because Mukasey has already said he won't enforce the citations. Federal court, here we come!
UPDATE: On the Lantos thing, it appears there is some blame to be cast on both sides. I don't know why House leaders called the chamber back in session during the middle of the service. But there were no votes scheduled at the time, so its simply wrong that Republicans "had" to immediately get back to obstructing the debate. They could have waited 20 minutes, and then been as childish as they wanted. But instead they made a choice to get back on the horse right then and there, and they deserve to take all the flack for that free decision.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Getting Specific
Back in the day, I noted the absurdity of anyone railing on Obama's "lack of experience" while giving anything but scorn to Rudy Giuliani. Alas, Hizzoner's brilliant campaign strategy ("1.Lose state after state by resounding margins. 2. ? 3. Victory!") somehow foundered, so that rule is now moot. However, we have a replacement: neither John McCain nor his supporters get to complain about Obama's supposed lack of specificity, or his supposed lack of policy knowledge, or his supposed appeal that is based solely on his personal attributes.
Of course, this is St. McCain we're talking about, so rest assured he'll never be called on it.
McCain takes a strong interest in foreign policy, to be sure, but his main public appeal has been to endless remind voters of his history as a POW. On economics, he's repeatedly admitted that he knows very little. And on social issues, he doesn't even know what his own positions are. (See this hilarious report from last year.)
McCain is like Obama in that he's appealed to voters largely on the basis of broad themes and his personal charisma and history. The difference is that Obama is a former law professor who's actually done his homework on the policy, and McCain is still winging it.
Of course, this is St. McCain we're talking about, so rest assured he'll never be called on it.
Creeper of the Day
Tennessee State Senator Doug Henry, arguing that (sigh) rape just isn't what it used to be:
Via Feministing, who got it from Ema.
Shall we debate whether his implicit claim that marital rape is impossible is more or less appalling than his implicit claim that raping a woman who isn't "chaste" is impossible? No, let's not.
UPDATE: Here's the YouTube of the speech. Right after the quoted part, Sen. Henry says something unintelligible that has variously been interpreted as "that isn't rape" or "that is rape." I can't make heads or tails of it myself.
“Rape, ladies and gentlemen, is not today what rape was. Rape, when I was learning these things, was the violation of a chaste woman, against her will, by some party not her spouse. Today it’s simply, ‘Let’s don’t go forward with this act.’ ”
Via Feministing, who got it from Ema.
Shall we debate whether his implicit claim that marital rape is impossible is more or less appalling than his implicit claim that raping a woman who isn't "chaste" is impossible? No, let's not.
UPDATE: Here's the YouTube of the speech. Right after the quoted part, Sen. Henry says something unintelligible that has variously been interpreted as "that isn't rape" or "that is rape." I can't make heads or tails of it myself.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
We Can't Win. We Can't Leave.
Most shrewd military observers, writes William Arkin, now believe we cannot win in Iraq. Unfortunately, as David Brooks writes, a Democrat who actually tried to withdraw from Iraq would immediately sink his or her Presidency into a partisan mosh pit from which it might never emerged. But if that President decides to delay withdrawal, the left flank of the party will go ballistic.
While 2009 will be a welcome relief from the current presidency, lets not forget just how doomed we are.
Via Kevin Drum
While 2009 will be a welcome relief from the current presidency, lets not forget just how doomed we are.
Via Kevin Drum
Monday, February 11, 2008
Che Hillary
The Feministe gals have pictures of some of the shirts being sold at CPAC. For the most part, they're standard, uncreative affairs: Roe v. Wade equals the Holocaust, stop illegal immigration, people are poor because they're stupid and lazy. But one in particular caught my eye: the one comparing Hillary Clinton to Che Guevara.
Over the past few years, I've seen a concerted effort by American conservatives to push back against the image of Che as some hip, cool hero. Che, they argue, was a brutal thug, a wanna-be totalitarian who caused countless deaths [Interesting digression: my roommate, a Republican-turned-Marxist, has a big poster of Che in our room -- complete with a time line of his life. A friend of mine and I spent about 20 minutes looking it over, trying to find "oversaw the deaths of untold Cuban peasants in show trials." "Maybe it's under 'Minister of Labor'?"]. And of course, they're right.
But now they say Hillary = Che. Isn't this unbelievably demeaning to all the victims of Che's barbarism that they say they care oh-so-much about? These are the folks who have a seizure every time some jerk on a comment thread writes "Bushitler". But they're playing the same game, and at one of their largest and most prestigious conferences. It's disgusting.
Over the past few years, I've seen a concerted effort by American conservatives to push back against the image of Che as some hip, cool hero. Che, they argue, was a brutal thug, a wanna-be totalitarian who caused countless deaths [Interesting digression: my roommate, a Republican-turned-Marxist, has a big poster of Che in our room -- complete with a time line of his life. A friend of mine and I spent about 20 minutes looking it over, trying to find "oversaw the deaths of untold Cuban peasants in show trials." "Maybe it's under 'Minister of Labor'?"]. And of course, they're right.
But now they say Hillary = Che. Isn't this unbelievably demeaning to all the victims of Che's barbarism that they say they care oh-so-much about? These are the folks who have a seizure every time some jerk on a comment thread writes "Bushitler". But they're playing the same game, and at one of their largest and most prestigious conferences. It's disgusting.
RIP Tom Lantos
California Congressman, staunch protector of human rights, and Holocaust survivor Tom Lantos has died.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Political Prognostication
Maybe I'm not the best at it (Louisiana is Hillary Country!), but you know whose thoughts I really don't care about? George W. Bush's!:
It ranges from inane (the race is far from over!) to meaningless (I didn't realize anybody said Bill Clinton's a racist. I do recall them saying he made a cheap-shot attack, which is not the same thing.) to smear (maybe Obama's thoughts are just on a higher plane than yours, chimpanzee boy).
Also, on McCain's travails with conservatives:
I'm sure McCain can't wait for 26% to start stumping for him.
The president weighed in on the Democratic race, saying it "seems far from over to me." And he rejected criticism of former President Clinton's work on the campaign trail for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.
"I can understand why President Clinton wants to campaign hard for his wife. And those accusations that Bill Clinton's a racist, I think is just wrong. I just don't agree with it."
As for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Bush said, "I certainly don't know what he believes in."
It ranges from inane (the race is far from over!) to meaningless (I didn't realize anybody said Bill Clinton's a racist. I do recall them saying he made a cheap-shot attack, which is not the same thing.) to smear (maybe Obama's thoughts are just on a higher plane than yours, chimpanzee boy).
Also, on McCain's travails with conservatives:
Asked about some leading conservative pundits who oppose McCain's nomination, Bush said, "I think that if John's the nominee, he's got some convincing to do to convince people that he is a solid conservative. And I'd be glad to help him if he's the nominee."
I'm sure McCain can't wait for 26% to start stumping for him.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Friday, February 08, 2008
Boxing Blogging: 2/08/08
The Ding-a-Ling Man was back in action on ESPN2 tonight against undefeated B.J. Flores, along with two journeyman schmoes nobody has heard of. We'll start with them.
Dhafir Smith (20-16-6, 4 KOs) UD8 Rayco Saunders 15-9-2 (7 KOs)
Not exactly the fight ESPN2 match-makers wanted to put up, no? Saunders was coming off a 14 month layoff and hadn't won a match since 2005. Dhafir Smith is the epitome of a journeyman, but he's someone I had heard of. Why? Because his name always seems to pop up when looking at the records of solid guys. Look at some of his losses: Andre Ward, Curtis Stevens, Max Alexander, Wayne Johnson, Henry Buchanan. Not elite guys, necessarily, but solid opposition. And it prepared him to do just a little bit more to beat Saunders. I won't belabor this one, because it's a meaningless fight. But Smith can win against fellow journeymen, and his record is slightly underinflated from all the fights he's taken against folks well above his level.
B.J. Flores (21-0-1, 13 KOs) UD12 Darnell Wilson (22-6-3, 19 KOs)
118-112? 118-112!?! What cocaine is that judge on? I will admit that my scoring (116-112 for Wilson) was possibly giving too much credit for Wilson's aggression, and there is one round, at least, which I gave to Wilson which I felt uncomfortable about (round seven). So really, I saw it 115-113 for the Takoma Park based Wilson. Teddy Atlas, too, had it 115-114 for Wilson, and I for one simply can't reward a fighter for simply running away. Boxing I can handle. If Flores had been throwing out the jab, and simply frustrating Wilson by utilizing range, that'd be one thing. But he didn't throw at all. He just backpedaled. Wilson landed more shots, and harder shots, and deserved to win, period. A 118 scorecard for Flores means that judge had him winning or even in all but two rounds. Given that Flores was being battered around the ring in at least two rounds (eight and twelve), that means that judge literally gave nothing else to Wilson, and that's absurd.
The thing is, Wilson, who was being totally ducked by all the top cruiserweights, shouldn't have had to take this fight to get a title shot in the first place. Four straight knockout wins over Daniel Judah, Dale Brown, Kelvin Davis, and Emmanuel Nwodo should have been more than enough. Wilson admitted that Flores had precisely the style to give him trouble. But because nobody was willing to give him the shot he deserved (and I'm not saying he would win a title fight, just that he deserved one), he had to take a fight that he really shouldn't have.
And let's be clear, this wasn't a sterling performance by Wilson. He did have trouble landing effective offense. Flores was much bigger, quicker, and longer than he was. Flores did make him miss -- often wildly -- and a top cruiserweight could make him pay for that. Wilson is in many ways one dimensional, and if he doesn't catch you, he's actually rather ordinary. All of this would have mattered if Flores was actually throwing punches. He wasn't. You can't win fights without throwing punches. Except apparently a USBA title.
This was an IBF Title Eliminator. That's Steve "U.S.S." Cunningham's belt, who was watching in studio. Cunningham will take Flores apart, and frankly, I hope he does. Flores may have won the fight, but he set himself way back in my eyes by fighting scared, by fighting ineffectively, and by coming away with a gift decision.
Oh, and what a sucky night for ESPN! One of their most watchable stars takes a loss, on a card where one fight was utterly meaningless and the other was a stinker. Network executives have nightmares over evenings like this.
Yuck.
Dhafir Smith (20-16-6, 4 KOs) UD8 Rayco Saunders 15-9-2 (7 KOs)
Not exactly the fight ESPN2 match-makers wanted to put up, no? Saunders was coming off a 14 month layoff and hadn't won a match since 2005. Dhafir Smith is the epitome of a journeyman, but he's someone I had heard of. Why? Because his name always seems to pop up when looking at the records of solid guys. Look at some of his losses: Andre Ward, Curtis Stevens, Max Alexander, Wayne Johnson, Henry Buchanan. Not elite guys, necessarily, but solid opposition. And it prepared him to do just a little bit more to beat Saunders. I won't belabor this one, because it's a meaningless fight. But Smith can win against fellow journeymen, and his record is slightly underinflated from all the fights he's taken against folks well above his level.
B.J. Flores (21-0-1, 13 KOs) UD12 Darnell Wilson (22-6-3, 19 KOs)
118-112? 118-112!?! What cocaine is that judge on? I will admit that my scoring (116-112 for Wilson) was possibly giving too much credit for Wilson's aggression, and there is one round, at least, which I gave to Wilson which I felt uncomfortable about (round seven). So really, I saw it 115-113 for the Takoma Park based Wilson. Teddy Atlas, too, had it 115-114 for Wilson, and I for one simply can't reward a fighter for simply running away. Boxing I can handle. If Flores had been throwing out the jab, and simply frustrating Wilson by utilizing range, that'd be one thing. But he didn't throw at all. He just backpedaled. Wilson landed more shots, and harder shots, and deserved to win, period. A 118 scorecard for Flores means that judge had him winning or even in all but two rounds. Given that Flores was being battered around the ring in at least two rounds (eight and twelve), that means that judge literally gave nothing else to Wilson, and that's absurd.
The thing is, Wilson, who was being totally ducked by all the top cruiserweights, shouldn't have had to take this fight to get a title shot in the first place. Four straight knockout wins over Daniel Judah, Dale Brown, Kelvin Davis, and Emmanuel Nwodo should have been more than enough. Wilson admitted that Flores had precisely the style to give him trouble. But because nobody was willing to give him the shot he deserved (and I'm not saying he would win a title fight, just that he deserved one), he had to take a fight that he really shouldn't have.
And let's be clear, this wasn't a sterling performance by Wilson. He did have trouble landing effective offense. Flores was much bigger, quicker, and longer than he was. Flores did make him miss -- often wildly -- and a top cruiserweight could make him pay for that. Wilson is in many ways one dimensional, and if he doesn't catch you, he's actually rather ordinary. All of this would have mattered if Flores was actually throwing punches. He wasn't. You can't win fights without throwing punches. Except apparently a USBA title.
This was an IBF Title Eliminator. That's Steve "U.S.S." Cunningham's belt, who was watching in studio. Cunningham will take Flores apart, and frankly, I hope he does. Flores may have won the fight, but he set himself way back in my eyes by fighting scared, by fighting ineffectively, and by coming away with a gift decision.
Oh, and what a sucky night for ESPN! One of their most watchable stars takes a loss, on a card where one fight was utterly meaningless and the other was a stinker. Network executives have nightmares over evenings like this.
Yuck.
Pre-Birthday Roundup
Again, I deeply apologize for the lack of substantive blogging. My birthday is on Monday, and I've decided that I will undoubtedly be rejected from some school that day for the simple reason that the universe can't resist that sort of irony. It's just too cute. But in the meantime, I plan to celebrate over the weekend as I prepare to turn 22 (21, incidentally, is my lucky number -- does this mean my luck's run out?).
Anyway, here's what's been attracting my browsing eye of late:
ZOMG, Sharia law! Conservative law professor Eugene Volokh dispels the panic.
Also at Volokh, Dave Kopel draws attention to a split amongst civil rights groups on the Heller case (constitutionality of D.C.'s handgun prohibition) before the Supreme Court. The NAACP defends the law and notes the rates of Black victimization in handgun death cases. But the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE, which I didn't even know still operated) instead takes note of the long tradition in America where gun control laws have been discriminatingly enforced in order to render Blacks vulnerable to political and social violence. The NAACP responds by saying that's a 14th amendment issue, not a second amendment issue, and should be resolved accordingly.
Matt Yglesias and Kevin Drum talk about the mis-match between what the lefty blogosphere imagines the authentic Democratic view on foreign interventionism and what it actually is. Contra the assumption that any inclination towards interventionism is merely political cowardice, and not the expression of a genuine view, both Yglesias and Drum observe that Democrats occupy a whole spectrum of space on this issue, and many are genuinely conflicted. Drum is correct that the left-blogosphere has caused some genuine movement on this issue (which you can observe in yours truly), but I, too, still am not quite on-board with how far I "should" be on the issue.
Commenting on the liberal vs. progressive debate, Robert Farley notes that the latter makes life much easier for IR profs trying to convince their students that Foreign Policy "liberalism" has nothing to do with American-political "liberalism."
One of the all-time immigrant crazies is running for Congress in the PA-11.
One of my arch-conservative friends (he supported Thompson, then Romney) ruefully remarked on his switch to McCain, "you don't have to fall in love, you just have to fall in line." Republican Senators whose relationships with McCain have been iffy, at best, are taking the same advice. My friend, incidentally, is thinking of supporting Clinton over McCain in the general (this is the sort of guy who in years past referred to her as "the Hildebeast").
The latest Senate line is up at The Fix.
Phoebe Maltz critiques the latest "why aren't Jews bestest friends with Evangelicals?" article.
Stay classy, Coulter (and who on earth is fooled that she wasn't "officially" invited to CPAC? She's speaking there, they're responsible).
Bookstores are doomed. It's sad.
The Philippines has created an all-female police unit focusing on domestic abuse and violence against children. Probably a good idea, albeit some of the rhetoric floating around it is eyebrow raising.
Joss Whedon is a BAMF.
Finally, I'd like to welcome The Faculty Lounge to the blogosphere.
Anyway, here's what's been attracting my browsing eye of late:
ZOMG, Sharia law! Conservative law professor Eugene Volokh dispels the panic.
Also at Volokh, Dave Kopel draws attention to a split amongst civil rights groups on the Heller case (constitutionality of D.C.'s handgun prohibition) before the Supreme Court. The NAACP defends the law and notes the rates of Black victimization in handgun death cases. But the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE, which I didn't even know still operated) instead takes note of the long tradition in America where gun control laws have been discriminatingly enforced in order to render Blacks vulnerable to political and social violence. The NAACP responds by saying that's a 14th amendment issue, not a second amendment issue, and should be resolved accordingly.
Matt Yglesias and Kevin Drum talk about the mis-match between what the lefty blogosphere imagines the authentic Democratic view on foreign interventionism and what it actually is. Contra the assumption that any inclination towards interventionism is merely political cowardice, and not the expression of a genuine view, both Yglesias and Drum observe that Democrats occupy a whole spectrum of space on this issue, and many are genuinely conflicted. Drum is correct that the left-blogosphere has caused some genuine movement on this issue (which you can observe in yours truly), but I, too, still am not quite on-board with how far I "should" be on the issue.
Commenting on the liberal vs. progressive debate, Robert Farley notes that the latter makes life much easier for IR profs trying to convince their students that Foreign Policy "liberalism" has nothing to do with American-political "liberalism."
One of the all-time immigrant crazies is running for Congress in the PA-11.
One of my arch-conservative friends (he supported Thompson, then Romney) ruefully remarked on his switch to McCain, "you don't have to fall in love, you just have to fall in line." Republican Senators whose relationships with McCain have been iffy, at best, are taking the same advice. My friend, incidentally, is thinking of supporting Clinton over McCain in the general (this is the sort of guy who in years past referred to her as "the Hildebeast").
The latest Senate line is up at The Fix.
Phoebe Maltz critiques the latest "why aren't Jews bestest friends with Evangelicals?" article.
Stay classy, Coulter (and who on earth is fooled that she wasn't "officially" invited to CPAC? She's speaking there, they're responsible).
Bookstores are doomed. It's sad.
The Philippines has created an all-female police unit focusing on domestic abuse and violence against children. Probably a good idea, albeit some of the rhetoric floating around it is eyebrow raising.
Joss Whedon is a BAMF.
Finally, I'd like to welcome The Faculty Lounge to the blogosphere.
Obama's Unity
At the VC, Ilya Somin critiques Obama's reliance on "unity" rhetoric. But I think he misunderstands. Somin is correct that calls for unity can suppress the legitimate political differences that constitute democracy. But Obama's rhetoric, as I've heard it, is a reaction not against the existence of disunity but against the creation of it -- the Rovian politics that actively tries to divide the nation so that it's easier to mobilize your side to a victory against the "enemy."
Juxtaposed against this, I think Obama is right that we should remember our unity as fellow citizens, fellow Americans, neighbors, friends, and countrymen. As he put it in his famous DNC speech:
The line about "slice-and-dice" is indicative -- it's the creation of division that he objects to. Indeed, later on in the same passage he actively concedes political division and affirms the patriotism of both those who supported and those who opposed the Iraq war. So I think it's better to read Obama's unity rhetoric not as a political agenda, but as a critique of a particular political strategy that has been dominant in American politics for quite some time now.
Juxtaposed against this, I think Obama is right that we should remember our unity as fellow citizens, fellow Americans, neighbors, friends, and countrymen. As he put it in his famous DNC speech:
The pundits, the pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an "awesome God" in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.
The line about "slice-and-dice" is indicative -- it's the creation of division that he objects to. Indeed, later on in the same passage he actively concedes political division and affirms the patriotism of both those who supported and those who opposed the Iraq war. So I think it's better to read Obama's unity rhetoric not as a political agenda, but as a critique of a particular political strategy that has been dominant in American politics for quite some time now.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
No Waterboarding Investigation
Surprising nobody, Attorney General Michael Mukasey has announced that he will not open a probe into CIA waterboarding, despite conceding it was probably illegal. The stated reason is the Nuremberg Defense that it would "send a message that Justice Department opinions are subject to change.":
Or it would, you know, send the message that just because President Bush says it's okay to torture, it's still not okay to torture. But whatever.
It infuriates me to no end that everyone is going to get away with this.
"Essentially it would tell people, 'You rely on a Justice Department opinion as part of a program, then you will be subject to criminal investigations ... if the tenure of the person who wrote the opinion changes or indeed the political winds change,'" he said. "And that's not something that I think would be appropriate and it's not something I will do."
Or it would, you know, send the message that just because President Bush says it's okay to torture, it's still not okay to torture. But whatever.
It infuriates me to no end that everyone is going to get away with this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
