Elmo Defends Katy Perry on Good Morning America

This is actually adorable. And really like that it seems like the cast of the show is genuinely enjoying themselves (you can hear producer-type folks laughing in the background).

Two and Two

I forgot to mention the most fascinating part of my trip thus far. We checked into our room in Las Vegas, and the coffee table is all wobbly. It turns out that the pillar was not securely attached to the base, like it had been jarred loose.

Closer inspection revealed one more oddity nearby -- one half of a broken pair of handcuffs.

Hmmm .... delightful.

This Isn't a Parody?

I can't believe the West Virginia Republican Senate nominee, John Raese actually said this in an interview:

LEWIS: Tell us a little bit about you and your business experience and how you got here.

RAESE: I made my money the old-fashioned way, I inherited it. I think that’s a great thing to do. I hope more people in this country have that opportunity as soon as we abolish inheritance tax in this country, which is a key part of my program.

Are you kidding me?

Man of the people!

Quote of the Evening

The quote, excerpted here, is cited to Moshe Lilienblum, The Future of Our People (1883):

The opponents of nationalism see us as uncompromising nationalists, with a nationalist God and a nationalist Torah; the nationalists see us as cosmopolitans, whose homeland is wherever we happen to be well off. Religious Gentiles say that we are devoid of any faith, and the freethinkers among them say that we are Orthodox and believe in all kinds of nonsense; the liberals say that we are conservative and the conservatives call us liberal. Some bureaucrats and writers see us as the root of anarchy, insurrection and revolt; and the anarchists say we are capitalists, the bearers of the biblical civilization, which is, in their view, based on slavery and parasitism. Officialdom accuses us of circumventing the laws of the land – that is, of course, the laws directed specifically against us….Musicians like Richard Wagner charge us with destroying the beauty and purity of music. Even our merits are turned into shortcomings: “Few Jews are murderers,” they say, “because the Jews are cowards.” This, however, does not prevent them from accusing us of murdering Christian children.

Off to Las Vegas tomorrow (my brother is turning 21). Vacation blogging schedules are in effect.

You Can Say That

God, John McCain is such an enormous prick.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Via.

Chambliss Staffer: "All Faggots Must Die"

They're not sure who the staffer is yet, but it looks like someone in the office of Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) left a comment on a gay blog declaring that "all faggots must die". The Chambliss office is investigating.

Reconsideration Roundup

The problem with going big or going home is that sometimes ....

* * *

Is Bibi thinking of selling the West Bank withdrawal to right-wing Rabbis by waving US security guarantees over their head?

Ahmadinejad blusters: "The United States doesn't understand what war looks like. When a war starts, it knows no limits."

Senate minority blocks the repeal of DADT. Relatedly: John McCain still a hack, Tony Perkins still a dick.

The stats of a "front-runner".

Like all other religions, Christianity has a broad array of different views on moral questions, and we shouldn't take the seemingly abhorrent perspectives advocated by some and paint the entire faith with a broad brush.

Nate Silver has a comperenehsive assessment of the likely impact of the Tea Party, on election day and beyond.

A neat map that tracks the racial divides in DC.

Setting the Boundaries

New York Democratic Rep. Nita Lowey's Republican opponent this fall is ... well, how to put this gently ... openly racist.

Longtime Democratic incumbent Rep. Nita Lowey's Republican challenger this fall is a Christian conservative author and activist whose writings have frowned on inter-racial marriage and movies like "Save the Last Dance," touted the benefits of studies linking race to IQ and said parents need to teach their kids "appropriate ethnic boundaries" for marriage and socializing.

Jim Russell, who's challenging Lowey in a repeat after trying to take her on in 2008, made the statements in an essay called "The Western Contribution to World History," which was published in a 2001 - 2002 edition of the Occidental Quarterly, and had also been featured on infamous former politician and Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke's website. It's since been taken down from there.

But it's still available in the back issues of the Occidental Quarterly, a far-right magazine that the civil rights-focused Southern Poverty Law Center dubbed a "racist" publication whose "editors and advisory board members have constituted a 'Who's Who' of the radical right, and its regular publication of extremists' articles has made it a favorite among academic racists in America."

In the essay, Russell also praised T.S. Eliot and psychology professor Kevin MacDonald for looking to limit the proliferation of Jews. MacDonald, who's served on the advisory board of the Occidental Quarterly, has been criticized as an anti-Semite who's pushed the theory that Jews are essentially practicing group-think to outperform non-Jews. He also praises a book, "Camp of the Saints," that the SPLC has said is "revered by American white supremacists."

Some of the block quotes provided in the piece are real doozies.

On the Cheapness of a Harvard Honor

James Fallows and Ta-Nehisi Coates both have great posts on the burgeoning controversy over Harvard honoring Marty Peretz, who has a history of saying some pretty nakedly bigoted things. Coates' point, that one can be a bigot and a great journalist is particularly well-taken (regardless of whether Peretz qualifies as a great journalist or not):

The notion that we must choose between the two, that one mitigates the other, that good people don't do deplorable things, that deplorable people don't do great things, emanates from our own inability to understand that bigotry is not strictly the preserve of orcs.

Not Harvard's finest hour, to be sure.

The Fruits of Their Labor

The Washington Post has an interesting profile of Louisville's continued efforts to keep their schools integrated after the Supreme Court's Parents Involved decision. The short story is that what was originally a rather popular and cost-effective plan is now more expensive, more convoluted, more difficult to administer, less effective and far less popular.

But hey -- at least Chief Justice Roberts got a pithy quote out of it.

Day of Atonement

Hope everyone had an easy fast. It was also my anniversary with Jill today (fabulous timing, that) -- we broke the fast at Flaco's Tacos.

In any event, in honor of Yom Kippur, Rabbi Ovaida Yosef has issued a pretty strong apology after previously calling for the death of Mahmoud Abbas and a plague to fall upon the Palestinian people.

One of the hardest things for people to realize, I think, is that the peace process is probably going to have to rely on folks like Yosef -- folks who have taken some risible stands in the past, but may yet be willing to sign on the dotted line in the future. It is so easy to permanently disqualify folks from the public sphere in conflicts like these, for virtually everyone has a skeleton in their closet: Abbas' Holocaust denial, Netanyahu's rampant rejectionism towards Palestinian peoplehood. But ultimately, we need to look for routes to success, not excuses for failure.

Have a Good Time Spelling That

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) will run as a write-in candidate for Senate after losing her primary bid to Joe Miller. How this will effect the race is unclear, although early indicators say that it will actually help Miller and hurt Democratic candidate Scott McAdams.

* * *

I do have news, but unfortunately, I can't publicly reveal it yet. This is not meant to be a tease -- I honestly wasn't expecting events to turn out quite the way they did, and while I think I'm in a very good state, things are delicate right now.

You Tease You

So I know I promised news, and I actually do have news ... but I can't share it. A perfect storm of events has put things in a rather unique situation at the moment, which I am trying to untangle. It will happen, eventually, and the good "news" I can share is that there is no truly bad outcome. It's just very messy. Stay turned.

Remember the Massachusetts!

While Christine O'Donnell's upset victory over Rep. Mike Castle does turn a likely Democratic loss into a likely Democratic hold, my recollection of Scott Brown prevent me from crowing too hard. I do think Chris Coons will win this seat, but I don't want to count my chickens before they hatch.

That being said, Jonathan Chait is undoubtedly correct that the victories of (among others) O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, Marco Rubio, Rick Scott, and (we just found out) Carl Paladino over establishment-backed favorites is going to make it pretty hard for Republicans to recruit their preferred candidates into races next time around. Castle, for example, gave up a locked-down House seat for a race he never seemed that interested in running for, and which was not a sure shot (particularly when Beau Biden was considering the race). Now he's rewarded with an ignoble end to his political career. The national party simply can't be relied upon the clear the field for even its highest-profile recruits anymore.

Will this sink the GOP ship in 2010? Perhaps not -- the fundamentals are entirely in their favor, and they will still see significant gains in the House and the Senate. But in 2012 -- when, presumably, this wave will have crested -- that's when the pain will emerge, because that's when you very well could see a surprisingly large number of dangerous Republican candidates passing on competitive races for fear of being bounced in the primary season. And while they may be able to skate by on the fundamentals alone in 2010, I think in 2012 -- with the Democratic Party in full swing to promoting President Obama's reelection fight -- being stuck with a ton of subpar, far-right candidates will really come back to haunt them.

North to the Future Roundup

Flying to Minnesota tomorrow -- I may or may not be posting tomorrow and Thursday. I also may or may not give an election update with the primary results tonight.

* * *

The Tea Party begins its Jewish outreach project as part of a broader diversification campaign. Why Jews first? "I think that there is a more open debate to be had (in the Jewish community), but there is no genius behind that. I had to start somewhere." Don't tell Karol de Gucht.

A few days old, but James Fallows regrets the harsh things he didn't say to Marty Peretz.

Like Ta-Nehisi Coates and Matt Yglesias, I find it strange that resisting British colonialism is now a slur. If you're African (if you're White, it's a Tea Party!).

Meanwhile, Adam Serwer's post on how this whole "Kenyan anticolonialism" thing is a blatant racial dog-whistle is excellent.

No link, but a conservative friend of just cried out over Facebook: "Why don't Delaware Republicans want to win the Senate?"

American support for Israel is up following the relaunch of peace talks.

Engage lists its greatest hits.

Is Donna Edwards really threatened in her primary race (I voted today, but she's not my Congresswoman).

Where the Danger Really, Really Lies

Commenting (indirectly ) on Carlos Ball's allegation that Villanova University refused to hire him on account of his status as an openly gay man and his writings on LGBT rights, Robert George posts the following hypothetical under the heading "Where does the danger actually lie?"

On the more general point, let me put a question to everyone, Let's imagine that Joe is a candidate for an entry level law teaching position at Villanova, Georgetown, Boston College, and Loyola of Los Angeles. He is a secular person who self-identifies as gay and is living in a sexual partnership with a man. He has thought carefully and read widely about issues of sexual morality and marriage, and has arrived at the view that any sexual act can be morally good so long as it does not involve coercion or deception and the parties performing the act find it mutually pleasant and fulfilling. He has also formed the conviction that state marriage laws should recognize same-sex partnerships as marriages. Sam is a candidate for a law teaching position at Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and Stanford. He is a Catholic who has thought as deeply and read as widely as Joe has about issues of sexual morality and marriage, but has arrived at different judgments. He believes that fornication, adultery, and sodomy are immoral acts and that the law ought to define marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife.

Now, as it happens, Joe and Sam, despite their differences, have some things in common. Both are summa cum laude graduates of Williams College. Both were Rhodes Scholars who earned D.Phil. degrees in philosophy from Oxford. Both were law review editors at Harvard Law School. Both were Supreme Court clerks. Both are outstanding young scholars and promising teachers. And one more thing: Both are good friends of yours, and have sought your advice on the same question: How big a risk would I be taking if I decided not to conceal the facts about myself and my views having to do with sexual morality and marriage?

Does anyone think that Joe would be taking a bigger risk than Sam? Indeed, does anyone think that the risk is equal? What would you tell Joe? How would you advise Sam?

The problem with this hypothetical is that it blurs together two different things: personal status and political/moral/academic views. But these are obviously separate, and disentangling them makes the story far more complicated than George would admit.

Joe, we're told, is an openly gay man living in some form of sexual partnership with another man. We are not told of Sam's relationship status (itself rather revealing), but the true hypothetical parity would have Sam happily ensconced in a heterosexual marriage. That covers both of their personal relationship status. Separately, there are their political, moral, and academic views on matters of LGBT rights -- Joe in favor, Sam, opposed.

It may be true that on the policy side, it is more "risky" on the academic market to be opposed to LGBT rights than to support them. But George cannot plausibly maintain that Sam should be "advised" to hide his heterosexual marriage in the same way that Joe very plausibly might want to cover his gay relationship. We might dispute whether the academic risk of outing yourself as gay is minor or significant, but surely we can agree that the academic risk of outing yourself as straight is non-existent. And this doesn't even get into the other ways which being gay circumscribes one's choices aside from who is willing to hire you; as anyone who has been to Carleton knows, there are other barriers to being a gay man in Northfield other than whether the school itself is welcoming.

Moreover, by blending together the personal and the political, George (and, to be fair it seems, Ball) elides the fact that the two are descriptively detachable -- there most certainly are straight men who support LGBT rights, and, while perhaps uncommon, there are definitely gay men who oppose them. There are four potential permutations: (1) Personally gay and politically pro-gay rights (Joe), (2) Personally straight and politically pro-gay rights (for example, me), (3) Personally straight and politically anti-gay rights (Sam), and (4) Personally gay and politically anti-gay rights (Larry Craig?).

I think it is fair to say that holding the other variables constant, being personally gay is disadvantageous. While all those who work on LGBT issues in the academy have to deal with the notion that their work isn't "rigorous" or "real law" (this is true regardless of the content of the scholarship), if the author is gay him or herself then s/he has to deal with the added burden of his/her work being dismissed as personal pleading or emotional attachment. And whatever disadvantages anti-LGBT rights positions have on the market, I have to think they'd be magnified for a gay or lesbian adherent of it.

But even acknowledging, as I think George must, that being gay is far more "dangerous" than being straight on the academic market, this still leaves us with the other half of the equation: the assertion that holding the political or academic position against LGBT rights is more dangerous on the market than its pro-LGBT equivalent. There's some truth to this as far as it goes, though I'm not sure it extends to candidates who are not just pro-LGBT in some abstract sense but actually devote their scholarship to it (see above regarding the generic presumption that such work is trivial and unserious -- this is definitely a sentiment I've run across, and I have been told before to at least soft-pedal my scholarly interest in these topics). But even granting the point generally, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take away from it.

Being a law professor is an academic, policy-oriented position. The question of LGBT rights is a normative, political question. It goes to the heart of what a professor does. If someone gets that question "wrong", is there any reason why I can't evaluate them more harshly on the merits of their candidacy? How else is one supposed to evaluate it? This gets to the deep tension within academia: academic freedom means letting people take whatever position they like and pursue any line of inquiry they desire; academic merit necessarily requires judging those positions and inquiries as good or bad. I don't mean to discount the possibility that somebody can take a position that I think is wrong while conceding that they argue for it in a powerful and sophisticated fashion. I do mean to say that the deeper ingrained a particular commitment is, the less likely that one will believe the dispute to be one of reasonable disagreement, rather than simply the other side making a profound moral error.

Gays and lesbians are disadvantaged compared to straights on the job market because of who they are and who they love. If it is true that anti-gay politics are disfavored in academia, that still means only that adherents of that position are being "punished" for holding an ideology that their fellows think is in grave error -- and being in that situation is likely to have negative impacts on a job candidacy no matter what the field is and no matter what particular dissenting view one holds. The real danger, in other words, is in being an academic whom most other academics think has gotten an important element of their research wrong.

The Crazy Day-z

It's been a rather crazy last few days. But hopefully soon, I will have some news. In the meantime, I am headed off to my once and perhaps future home, Minnesota, on Wednesday afternoon. Anybody who is around and wants to hang Wednesday night, let me know.

When a Boy Isn't Just a Boy

We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 551 (1896).

The 11th Circuit has once again reversed a verdict finding racial discrimination a Tyson Foods factory, holding (among other things) that the evidence whereby a White supervisor had called the Black plaintiff "boy" was insufficient to provide evidence of discriminatory bias.

This case had already been up to the Supreme Court once, where they reversed a prior 11th Circuit decision holding that "boy" could never be evidence of racial prejudice unless accompanied by a modifier like "Black" or "White". The Supreme Court chastised the lower court:

Although it is true the disputed word will not always be evidence of racial animus, it does not follow that the term, standing alone, is always benign. The speaker's meaning may depend on various factors including context, inflection, tone of voice, local custom, and historical usage.

Not taking the hint, the 11th Circuit continues insist that there was simply not conceivable way a jury could have interpreted the usage of "boy" as evidencing a discriminatory attitude.

Obviously, it's true that whether "boy" is malevolent or benign depends on the factors the court laid out. And you know who is, if not really good at examining those factual elements, then at least is legally tasked with sorting them out? Juries! They're the ones who know the most about local custom, and inflection, and tone of voice, and how comparable "boy" is to the n-word. Not, say, three judges on the 11th Circuit reviewing trial transcripts after the fact.

That One Quote

Great cartoon on MLK's unlikely membership in the Tea Party.

In DC

Jill and I made it in alright, except that I came across this story, which is more horrifying than anything I could possibly imagine. I mean, you thought the DOJ was politicized under Gonzalez....