Whatever I find interesting on the election, throughout the day. I've never live-blogged before, so this should be an interesting experiment. All times Central.
***
4:12 AM: I am done for the night. By my rough count, I had 164 updates on this post, spread across more than 13 hours. Wowzers. Thanks to all of the folks who stopped into read. It appears we're ending on a high note--both Tester (MT-Sen) and Marshall (GA-08) are seeing their leads expand (Marshall is over 1,000 votes ahead!). That said, I'm getting some sleep.
3:55 AM: 13 hours of non-stop blogging. Wow am I good. Let the record reflect that I did not check to see if I had any homework until 2 AM. Thank the Lord I didn't. There's no real movement in any of the races I'm following. Sali's lead is up to 5 and I see no reason to think he'll lose it. Trauner will definitely be within recount land against Cubin, but he'll enter the recount behind--the remaining votes to be counted can't make up even his 800 vote gap. Reichert is holding a 4 point lead over Burner in Washington, the count is at 25% and is going maddeningly slow. Ditto with Montana Senate, which is crawling along (Tester + 5,200 with 84% counted).
3:33 AM: The Washington Post reports that Democratic winds were so strong in the Maryland suburbs that there is a chance that there will no elected Republican at any level in either Montgomery or Prince George's County. A long-serving GOP county council member was already swept out, so now it's just Del. Jean B. Cryor holding on for dear life.
3:27 AM: McInerney will take Pombo's 11th District seat. That will be the Democrat's only pick up in California and possibly on the West Coast.
3:07 AM: Sali is still maintaining his 3 point lead in the Idaho 1st. Also, it appears the GOP evaded a Pennsylvania sweep, as Jim Gerlach jumped ahead of Lois Murphy at the last moment in the 6th. Murphy was leading all day, my my recollection.
3:04 AM: Apparently, the delay is do to a recount in Yellowstone County. Tester was leading by 1,300 votes in a "must-win-for-Burns" county. For reasons that haven't been made clear to me yet, they local board there has thrown out all their results thus far and is starting over again. Maybe I'm a bit jumpy, but this seems quite suspicious to me.
2:54 AM: Tester's lead is quietly fading. He's only up 4,000 with 81% counted. A friend tells me they aren't going to hear until 4-7, Mountain Time.
2:50 AM: I'm going to wait until CNN calls for Tester, then turn in. There will be several races still in the air, but I'll know most of what I need to know. Democratic House, Democratic Senate, and, assuming Marshall pulls through, not a single Democratic incumbent in the House, Senate, or Statehouse defeated. That feels good. That feels real good.
2:02 AM: Washington Post calls it for Pawlenty. One of the only GOP bright spots. McInerney's lead is holding together with 75% counted.
1:49 AM: McInerney is up 4 on Richard Pombo in California with 71% reporting. This is one of the few remaining Democratic pickup opportunities I see developing (not counting aforementioned races still in the margin of error).
1:40 AM: There are at least three races right now where the margin is less than 1,000 votes and the vote count is higher than 95% (but not yet done). They are the CT-02, GA-08, WY-AL. In the New Mexico 1st, Heather Wilson's lead is 1,200 votes with 99% counted.
1:32 AM: The Washington Post is projecting that Sarah Palin will win the Alaska Governor's race over Tony Knowles; a crucial hold for the GOP. Tim Pawlenty's lead over Mike Hatch around 23,000 with 91% counted. Assuming Pawlenty wins, I'll have exactly predicted the Governor's races as well.
1:26 AM: Jon Tester is holding steady with a 3 point lead over Conrad Burns. 69% of the vote is in.
1:20 AM: Heather Wilson has taken a 300 vote lead in her dead-even race with Patricia Madrid (NM-1). 95% of the vote has been counted.
1:19 AM: Webb's lead is now 8,000 votes. Allen is toast, even with the recount. And Chuck Robb can rest easy.
1:16 AM Porter (R) has won in the NV-03 by one point. That was far closer than it justifiably should have been for the GOP.
1:11 AM Missouri has been called for McCaskill. There still are more than 10% of votes to be counted, but I suspect they are in her strongholds. It's good to be wrong. And this was the last major roadblock to a Democratic Senate!
1:10 AM Angie Paccione has not been able to crack Marilyn Musgrave's 3 point lead in the CO-05. With 80% counted, it looks like Musgrave will hold on.
1:06 AM: Henry Bonilla (R) in the TX-23 looks like he'll only muster 47% of the vote (83% counted). He'll face a runoff against former Democratic representative Ciro Rodriguez.
1:02 AM: I'm looking around to see what eastern races have yet to be called. There are two Ohio races where the GOP candidate is winning by a good 2-3,000 votes with 99% or more tallied. I think we can call those safely. The Michigan 7th features a 5 point GOP lead, with 87% counted. That district leans right, so I don't expect that margin to change. The rest are in races already discussed--the two GOP Georgia targets, the Connecticut 2nd, the NC-11th, and the Iowa 2nd, which I'm comfortable calling a Democratic pickup even if CNN isn't.
12:56 AM: Now that the House is assured and the Senate is looking good too, the next thing on my wish list is that Democrats not lose any national seat, anywhere. The only two things standing in my way are the Georgia 8th and 12th districts. Right now, with around 95% of the vote counted in each, the Democratic incumbents lead by 600 and 3,300, respectively.
12:54 AM: 85% of the vote counted, McCaskill's lead is 25,000 votes and opening. I'm beginning to taste a Democratic Senate.
12:52 AM: NM-01, 94% reporting, Madrid's lead is 300.
12:51 AM 98% of precincts are in, Cubin still has a 600 vote lead over Trauner in Wyoming. Kleeb has not managed to close his 10 point gap in NE-03 (80% reporting).
12:47 AM: Bill Sali (ID-1) has a 3 point lead with 45% reporting in the Idaho 1st.
12:34 AM: CT-02: Joe Courtney's (D) lead over Rob Simmons is around 200 votes with 97% counted.
12:30 AM: I should congratulate Keith Ellison, who will be the first Muslim in Congress after winning Minnesota's 5th district with 65% of the vote.
12:29 AM: Tester appears to be cruising in Montana. All eyes on Missouri.
12:23 AM: 100% of the votes are in, Murphy has a 1,500 vote lead over Fitzpatrick. Color another seat blue (until the recount).
12:17 AM: McCaskill has the lead by 1 point with 81% reporting. Don't tease me, baby...
12:10 AM: Loebsack is up 600 votes with 99% reporting in the IA-02. But the remaining 1% all come from counties he's winning. It looks like the Cornell College Professor dug it out. They're going to be partying in Mount Vernon tonight!
12:09 AM: Pawlenty has pulled ahead of Hatch. He's got a 7,000 vote lead with 75% reporting.
12:06 AM: It's going to be close, but we're still on track for that Pennsylvania sweep: Governor, Senator, and 5 House seats. The 8th District remains deadlocked--99% is in and challenger Lois Murphy is up by a scant 1,300 votes.
12:03 AM: 85% of the vote is in, Walz is up by 6. Gutknecht is gone.
12:01 AM: People laughed when I said the NC-08 was in play. Well now the votes are in, and incumbent Robin Hayes has won...by less than 500 votes. Another recount coming up!
11:58 PM: With 69% counted in the Nebraska 3rd, Adrien Smith (R) is holding a 10 point lead over Scott Kleeb. Kleeb was a great story, but I don't think he'll pull this one out.
11:54 PM: Here in Minnesota, Hatch is still holding a narrow (9,000 vote) lead over incumbent Tim Pawlenty with 58% counted.
11:46 PM: Democrats pick up the 8th Wisconsin district formerly represented by Mark Green, who proceeded to lose the governor's race.
11:39 PM: Speaking of recounts, it appears I was a bit too quick writing off the Florida 13th. Vern Buchanan did pull it out, but with the precincts in, its a 400 vote margin. Coming up: A recount in Katherine Harris' old district!
11:37 PM: 85% of the vote in IA-02, Loebsack is up 2. The remaining counties seem to lean right though. Major upset if Loebsack takes this one.
11:35 PM: Keep an eye on the Iowa 2nd. Loebsack (D) is beating long time incumbent Jim Leach 52/48, with 59% in.
11:32 PM: Collins is now ahead of Marshall, possibly marking the only GOP pickup anywhere in the country this cycle (House, Senate, or Governorship). 94% of the vote has been counted there, the lead is 1,200. Barrow (D) still leads Burns by 900 votes, with 92% counted in the other critical Georgia race.
11:30 PM: With 94% of the vote in, Barbara Cubin (R) has taken a 400 vote lead in the Wyoming at large congressional race. This one is a nailbiter.
11:27 PM: Congratulations Jim Webb! I don't see Harold Ford coming back in Tennessee, which means that Dems need to sweep Missouri and Montana to take back the Senate. Can they do it? Tester is up early in Montana, and I still remember how he left the polling in his wake during the primary ballot. So I'm feeling good there. Missouri is the question. Again, I never feel good about Missouri. McCaskill is down 4 right now, with two thirds of the vote in. St. Louis and Kansas City got to pull through....
11:25 PM: The finals score in Virginia: D- WEBB 1,143,144 49.44%; R- ALLEN 1,140,879 49.42%. Webb goes into the recount with the lead, which is huge, especially since ballot issues tend to effect Democratic precincts worse, his lead might expand.
11:21 PM: Walz has expanded his lead to 6 with two thirds counted in the MN-1, and CNN is calling a Democratic pick up in the IA-01.
11:20 PM: Ryun goes down in the Kansas 2. A lot of people thought the DNCC was doing a head fake when it put money into this race. Guess they were wrong.
11:17 PM: Shays looks like he is going to survive his race, but Rob Simmons and Joe Courtney are locked into a dog fight--with Simmons ahead by less than 2,000 votes. Picking up 2 of 3 CT GOP seats would feel alot better than 1 of 3.
11:10 PM: Maryland is over. O'Malley is up by 3, Cardin is up by 6, and virtually all the remaining votes come from Democratic strongholds (MoCo, PG County, and the Baltimore metro area).
11:03 PM: The same-sex marriage ban is down 4 points in Arizona with 76% counted. It's up by the same margin with 55% counted in South Dakota (which appears likely to reject it's total abortion ban as well).
11:00 PM: The returns in PG County, Montgomery County, and Baltimore/Baltimore City Counties all have left me quite optimistic that Ehrlich and Steele are going down. But the National Review claims that their candidates are in fact overperforming, and also that the upcoming precincts in those jurisdictions are more GOP.
10:57 PM: Webb just took the lead over Allen! A 2,500 vote lead, to be sure, but still. And I'd eyeball that he has a narrow advantage in the remaining counties to be tabulated.
10:54 PM: Another GOP Representative whose been constantly on Democratic hit lists has gone down: Melissa Hart (PA-4) drops her seat 52/48. Of the five Pennsylvania seats in contention, this was supposed to be the toughest, although right now the Murphy/Fitzpatrick race is dead even, with Murphy holding a 2,000 vote lead over the incumbent with 87% counted.
10:49 PM: Richmond City is mostly in, and Allen's lead has shrunk to 6,000. Only 2% of the vote left to be counted, Charlottesville, Loudoun, Fairfax City are the big vote caches still left for Webb.
10:42 PM: 46% of the vote counted, Walz is up 4 over Gutknecht in the MN-01. This is a firewall district for the GOP--Walz is a great candidate, but Gutknecht was not considered vulnerable until recently.
10:38 PM: Republicans still don't have a pickup yet, and their two best shots in Georgia seem to be staying just tantalizingly out of reach. Marshall and Barrow are both holding two point leads with over 80% of the vote counted.
10:36 PM: Lampson picks up DeLay's old seat. I don't know if he'll be able to hold it, but damn it feels good.
10:29 PM: Trauner is fading in Wyoming--he's up 4 now with two thirds counted.
10:22 PM: I'm doing the math in my head, but Virginia is going to end razor thin. Richmond City still has to report a third of it's precincts, if they go in the same proportion they have been, that's 7,000 votes for Webb. There's a 1,000 more each remaining in Prince William's, Petersburg, and Newport News Counties. That's 10,000. Most of the rest of the vote has been tabulated--there a few small Allen counties that still have to count, and even fewer small Webb ones. This one will be a recount.
10:18 PM: The rest of Arlington County has reported, and, as I predicted (I so rock), Allen's lead has been slashed in half. It's currently at 11,000 votes.
10:16 PM: WY-AL, Trauner is still holding a 6 point lead over Cubin with 61% counted.
10:12 PM: Apparently, Mark Foley's seat is ours.
10:10 PM: Mitchell is up 7 over "bully" J.D. Hayworth in the Arizona 5th with over 2/3 counted (we've already won the 8th). Another race I'd love to win.
10:07 PM: Former Redskins QB Heath Shuler is coming to Congress as he knocks of Charles Taylor in the NC-11. Also, Democrat Zack Space will succeed Bob Ney, giving the big D machine it's first House pick-up in Ohio. Deborah Pryce looks like she'll stave off a spirited challenge and survive, but the 1st and 2nd districts are still in play.
10:05 PM: In the NY-20 and 24th, Democrats are up by 6 and 9 points, respectively, with 72% counted.
10:02 PM: Foley/Negron are down 2,000 votes with 92% counted. Democrats need to pull this one out--it is way too close for comfort.
10:00 PM: Cardin is obliterating Steele in PG County. He's up 75/25 in a place Steele had to make inroads to win.
9:56 PM: It is only because of the KS-02 that the NH-01 wouldn't be called the biggest upset. Democrat Shea-Porter is up 2 points with 90% of the vote counted.
9:54 PM: 59% of the vote is in, and the Kansas 2nd is still leaning our way. This might be the biggest upset of the cycle.
9:51 PM: Allen's margin is 28,000 with 95% of the vote counted. I don't want to keep hanging on false hope. But nearly all the jurisdictions of any size with any substantive amount of votes still to be counted are in Webb locales. At the very least, we're looking at a recount.
9:42 PM: The emerging wisdom is that this race is regional--blue areas are going to go blue, while red areas present tougher turf for Dems. What that means is that there will be a counter-alignment comparable to what the GOP did in the south in '94. All those hold out Republicans in the Northeast (and many in the midwest) will lose, but the GOP won't be swept out in its stronger regions (Virginia, Tennessee, Florida). The interesting thing to note here, then, will be the Mountain West, which has been trending Democratic lately. Trauner is up over Cubin in the WY-AL by 12 points, with 31% in what would be a stunning Democratic upset.
9:29 PM: Some of these races are earlier than others, but there are 5 competitive Pennsylvania House races, and in all five the Democrat is leading. In the PA-10 (Sherwood) and PA-07 (Weldon), the lead is in double-digits with over two-thirds of the vote counted. Those two are in the bag--the question is, can we sweep?
9:26 PM: With 49% counted, Democrat Boydon is up 10 points on Ryun in the KS-02. Guess that DNC hail mary paid off.
9:19 PM: Sestak is still up 12 with 72% counted, and Weldon's base is already in. Score another Democratic pick-up.
9:16 PM: "Mark Foley" (aka, Joe Negron) has pulled back into the lead in his race, which makes Clay Shaw the only Florida Republican still down. He's trailing by 4 to Joe Klein with 57% counted. Oddly enough, Shaw was considered the safest of the three districts for the GOP.
9:12 PM: Allen's lead is 25,000 votes. Around half of that should be erased by when the rest of Arlington county comes in. The other half though, does not seem to be forthcoming. Loudoun and Prince Williams counties are going for Webb, but not by enough.
9:08 PM: MyDD reports that Nancy Johnson has conceded. One of the Connecticut three has gone down (and many thought she'd be the toughest)!
9:06 PM: 77% of the vote in and Geoff Davis has surged in the KY-04. He's up 7, and looks to hold his seat for the GOP.
9:04 PM: Bad news for the GOP: Marshall and Darrow, the endangered Georgia duo for the Dems, are both ahead with around 2/3 counted (albeit by very narrow margins).
9:03 PM: Correction--Hamilton County is not in Pryce's district. Which is tied 50-50 right now with 82% reporting, by the way.
8:57 PM: Bradley and Shea-Porter are still tied in New Hampshire. Democrats weren't even supposed to be close in this race.
8:54 PM, with 44% in, Joe Sestak is up 12 points on absolute nut Curt Weldon. That one will feel really, really good to win.
8:52 PM: Possibly the GOP's only two legit pickup opportunities in the House--the GA-08 and GA-12, are neck and neck, with around half the vote counted.
8:47 PM: Hodes is 7 points up on Bass in New Hampshire's first district. I'm guessing this will be another Democratic pickup. Heath Shuler is holding a 6 point lead over Charles Taylor in North Carolina, but only a third of the votes are in.
8:46 PM: I was right about Pryce's district. It's 51-49 Pryce with 55% counted. All the votes are from Hamilton county, which, if memory serves, is a GOP stronghold.
8:41 PM: With 96% of the vote in, Vern Buchanan looks likely to hold Katherine Harris' seat for the GOP. He's up 51-49. That's a blow. Thelma Drake is also up 52-48 in the VA-02 with 84% counted, though that hold was more expected. On the other hand, Ken Lucas has closed to a 1 point gap behind Geoff Davis in the KY-04 (54% counted).
8:34 PM: I'm starting to feel less optimistic about Virginia. It's still 50-49, but with 79% of the vote in, that's a 22,000 vote lead. There are still votes to be had in NoVA, but I'm not sure it will be enough.
8:32 PM: Another D pickup: with 83% in, it's Donnelly over Chocola, 53-47.
8:29 PM: Something's not right. CNN has Deborah Pryce (R-OH-15) up 90% to 10% over her Democratic challenger with 55% of the vote counted. Democrat Kilroy has less than 5,000 votes tallied. This was supposed to be a close race, and Kilroy was polling ahead. I'm willing to admit that perhaps we miscalculated, but not by this margin. What gives?
8:26 PM: KY-03 is over--with 100% of the vote in, Yarmuth tops Northrup 51-48.
8:24 PM: CNN calls Maryland for Cardin, but with only 1% reported (and Steele leading that 1%), I don't know why.
8:20 PM: Allen continues to hold the narrowest of leads, 50-48 with 74% reporting. Several major Webb counties still have yet to report, and the one's that have reported are so large there are plenty of votes left to give (Fairfax County, for example). This race will come down to Loudon and Prince Williams' counties, which as K-Lo notes, are traditional GOP turf that went to Kaine last year.
8:14 PM: As I say it, Foley's district flips--now the Democratic challenger Mahoney is up by 1 point with 49% counted. VA-02 continues to stay at 51-49 for Republican Drake with 67% counted--this is GOP turf, I don't think the Democrat is going to make it up.
8:12 PM: Also, a word of caution to Florida Republicans elated that Foley/Negron is still holding his lead. Palm Beach county, a vote rich Democratic stronghold, has yet to report.
8:10 PM: More nervousness reported from Ehrlich HQ. Meanwhile, Ehrlich and Steele have admitted to handing out those misleading flyers mentioned below (the one's that said they were Democrats).
8:09 PM: I'm ready to call the KY-03. Yarmuth's lead just expanded to 51-48 with 96% counted. That's a massive Democratic pickup--Northrup's been confounding us for years.
8:06 PM: There are three Democratic targets in Kentucky: Districts 2, 3, and 4. The 3rd district is Northrup's--there has been no movement changing Yarmuth's 50-49 lead there (88% counted). In the 2nd district, Democrat Mike Weaver is down just 48-52 behind Ron Lewis (29% counted), and in the 4th District, Ken Lucas continues to trail 49-46 to Geoff Davis (35% reported).
8:03 PM: "Mark Foley" is clinging to a 49-48 lead with 40% counted. I guess voters did decide to "punch Foley" and vote for Negron.
8:00 PM: Allen is still up by that same 50-49 margin. NoVA continues to lag. About half the NoVA vote is win, and Webb is cleaning up there. Anyone know when I'll see some MD results?
7:50 PM: With about 50% counted in each district, Donnelly is +6 on Chocola in the IN-02, and Hill is +2 over Sodrel in the IN-09.
7:44 PM: Paul Hodes beating Charles Bass would not be a surprise (he's well ahead, but only 9% of the vote has been counted). However, if the other New Hampshire House seat flipped, that would be stunning. Right now, Democrat Carol Shea-Porter is holding a narrow 51-49 lead over incumbent Jed Bradley with 33% counted.
7:38 PM: 36% counted in the VA-02, and Kellam is up over Drake by literally one vote.
7:36 PM: Two great K-Lo moments. #1: "I'm hearing a lot of — and am prone to myself — anger toward voters for what may be seeing tonight." Welcome to my world, circa 2002-04. #2: Rush Limbaugh is "one of the clearest thinkers I've heard lately."
7:33 PM: Buchanan continues to hold a surprisingly strong 53-47 lead with 41% counted to retain Katherine Harris' seat for the GOP. Yarmuth is still barely ahead of Northrup with 88% counted, but Northrup has not seemed able to get over the hump.
7:30 PM: Washington Monthly gives an update on the climate in Minnesota. My adopted state is one of the few places I'm pessimistic about--I predict Klobuchar to be our next Senator, but Pawlenty to hold the Governor's mansion and Tim Walz to fall just short in the MN-01.
7:27 PM: Allen is up 50-49 with 40% reporting in the tight Virginia Senate race. Again, with the exception of Fairfax (which is now about 75% in), most of NoVA has not reported. Webb is winning Fairfax 59-40.
7:24 PM: In the VA-02, an outside Democratic pickup chance, incumbent Thelma Drake is up by less than 200 votes (a 50-50 tie, statistically) with 24% of precincts reporting.
7:23 PM: A bunch of precincts just reported in the IN-09--with 42% of the vote in, Hill has expanded his lead over Sodrel to 50-46.
7:19 PM: Aside from the Hostettler race, two other Indiana districts are in dogfights. Democratic challenger Donnelly leads Chris "The Count" Chocola 59-41 with 26% reporting. While I expect that to close, Hotline tells me that Chocola is running behind his 2004 numbers. Same deal in the Indiana 9th, where Baron Hill is up 49-47 over Republican Mike Sodrel with 28% reporting. Sodrel is also underperforming compared to last cycle (which he won by the slimmest of margins).
7:17 PM: CNN projects Ellsworth over Hostettler--giving the Democrats a pick-up in IN-8. Yarmuth continues to cling to his 50-49 lead over incumbent Northrup in the KY-03 with 83% counted.
7:14 PM: Kos calls pick ups in Ohio (Senate and Governor), as well as Massachusetts (Governor). Also, he calls a hold for the Democratic governor in Illinois (which looked like a close contest for awhile).
7:09 PM: 23% counted, Webb is leading Allen by 50-49 margin. About half the votes have been counted in Fairfax, aside from that, Northern Virginia still is not in.
7:05 PM: 38% counted, Republican Vern Buchanan is up 54-46 in the race for Katherine Harris' old seat. This was supposed to be a key Democratic pickup.
7:00 PM: Rightwing pundit Bill Kristol: "Do you want perverts and child molestors to be let out of prison?" Personally, I'll settle for letting them out of Congress.
6:57 PM: 81% counted in KY-03, Yarmuth is still up 50-49. This one is going to the wire.
6:55 PM: Hotline claims that Alexandria City (N. VA) is voting the same split as it did in the '05 Governor's race, with higher turnout. That's great news for Webb, since he needs a big NoVA turnout and Democrats won the governor's mansion in 2005.
6:49 PM: Allen is up 55-44 in Virginia with 10% counted. Northern Virginia has not started reporting however.
6:45 PM: Dogfight in the Indiana 9th where Democrat Baron Hill is trying to recapture his seat from Mike Sodrel, who beat him last year. Sodrel is up 150 votes with 19% counted. Meanwhile, Yarmuth is closing strong, up 51-48 with 74% counted in the KY-03.
6:41 PM: Only 18% of the vote has been tabulated in John Hostettler's 8th Indiana district, but his Democratic challenger is up 70/30. Worse news for Hostettler--most of that 18% is from his district's 2nd largest county, where Democrat Brad Ellsworth is running 17 points ahead of his 2004 peer. Worse yet: Ellsworth's home county has yet to report.
Republican's will be pleased to note that Hostettler was long since abandoned for dead by his party, so this really isn't a surprise.
6:36 PM: K-Lo at the National Review reports the exact opposite situation in Maryland compared to Hotline--Steele worried about low turnout in heavily Black PG county.
6:35 PM: No vote has been counted, but pundits are already calling Ohio's governor race for Democrat Ted Strickland. That makes for the first seat pickup by either party tonight.
6:31 PM: I keep hearing conflicting things from Maryland. Now Hotline is reporting skyhigh Black turnout in MD, with many of those voters going for Steele out of frustration that the Dems didn't nominate a Black candidate.
6:21 PM: KY-03 continues to be the only competitive race with a significant amount of votes counted. With 64% of the vote counted, Yarmuth has moved back in front with a 2,600 vote (50-49) lead.
6:18 PM: 55% of the vote counted, Northrup has taken a narrow lead (50-49) in the KY-03.
6:16 PM: Hotline is posting live from here on out, so I can't give you permalinks, but they're reporting Virginia's same-sex marriage ban will pass (tragically).
6:08 PM: Kos calls Vermont for Sanders. Never really in doubt, but it's still interesting to have a socialist Senator. Also, he calls Lugar winning re-election as Indiana's Senator.
6:06 PM: Maryland Governor Bob Ehrlich is still worried about turnout--apparetnly, he still isn't seeing the numbers he wants.
6:03 PM: Democrats got one third of the evangelical vote, according to exit polls. Is that good?
5:57 PM: 37% of precincts reporting, Yarmuth's lead is holding steady.
5:53 PM: High turnout in Wyoming, probably for the at-large congressional district held by Barbara Cubin. Again, opinion is split as to who this benefits, but my money is on Democratic challenger Trauner.
5:51 PM: Yarmuth (D) takes an early lead over Northrup (R) with 15% reporting.
5:50 PM: Conrad Burns: "I'm not in prison." Not yet, anyway.
5:23 PM: I'm grabbing a quick dinner so I can back for the first returns at 6.
5:19 PM: Heavy turnout in Tom Reynolds' New York district. Normally, I'd say this is good for the Democratic challenger, but he's kept a low profile all race and Reynolds claims he's been going all out on GOTV.
5:16 PM: Fox has exit polls on 11 key House races, with Dems up in 6, GOP up in 3, and 2 tied. No word, unfortunately, on which 11 those races are.
5:08 PM: Something is up with the exit polling. Ryan Lizza claims to have seen 5 different results. However, he says that while the margins differ, across every poll Democrats are up in every race but Tennessee, where they are down or tied.
5:06 PM: Ehrlich and Steele are complaining that uniformed men are confiscating their campaign literature. I wonder if it is the same campaign literature that calls them Democrats?
5:04 PM: MoveOn is offering a $250,000 reward to evidence leading to a felony conviction for voter suppression.
5:03 PM: These numbers look a bit more realistic. Still good news for the big D.
Dem Leads:
VA: 52-47
RI: 53-46
PA: 57-42
OH: 57-43
NJ: 52-45
MT: 53-46
MO: 50-48
MD: 53-46
GOPer leads:
TN: 51-48
AZ: 50-46
4:59 PM: The Plank is reporting first wave exits. So far, good news for the Donkey. Numbers are D/R:
OH: 63.7/36.3
CT: 47.6/44.5 (Lieberman/Lamont)
NJ: 59.7/42.1
TN: 50/50
RI: 55.4/44.6
VA: 55.8/44.2
MO: 53.3/46.7
4:57 PM: 70% turnout in Connecticut? I don't think the Senate race is competitive anymore, but that could swamp the three endangered House Republicans trying to hang on there.
4:55 PM: Turnout appears to be high in several crucial races: Virginia, Montana, Missouri, and Tennessee.
4:52 PM: A conflicting report says Dems are happy with what they're seeing in Tennessee. From the same source: Maryland Democratic turnout not what they'd like in Baltimore, but counterbalanced by overperformance in heavily Democratic Montgomery and Prince George's County.
4:50 PM: Took a break to play Halo. No new exit polling data I've seen, but there is some Webb excitement even outside his Northern base.
4:31 PM: Outside of Tennessee, a Dem operative says the exit polls are looking great for Democratic Senate seats. Here's hoping the exits don't break my heart again like they did last time....
4:26 PM: Some early exit poll data. Most important issue: 42%(!) corruption, 40% terrorism, 39% economy, 37% Iraq. Both parties get equal trust on terrorism, so that's a wash. 56% of voters want to leave Iraq, and National Issues are more important than local ones by a 2:1 margin.
4:16 PM: Not that I'm impatient, but it's 5:16 eastern time, and I still don't see any exit polls. I thought they were supposed to be out by 5?
4:12 PM: Apparently, O'Malley is also nervous about sub-par voter turnout.
4:09 PM: Two bits of news from Nevada: Some anecdotal signs that Democrats are running even in rural regions (which woud be huge). On the other hand, equal anecdotal signs that the scandal around Republican Jim Gibbons is not sticking.
4:03 PM: Maryland is apparently ground-zero for sleazy GOP campaign tactics. We better grind these people into dust.
3:58 PM: Kentucky turnout is also high, again, it's unclear who this benefits (Republican GOTV or Democrats getting out their softer supporters?). Another data point indicating that Virginia voters are pouring in.
3:56 PM: Black voters do not appear warm to Michael Steele. Good news to those not looking forward to my prospective suicide.
3:52 PM: Harold Ford is going to have enough trouble without worrying about if his base will turnout.
3:45 PM: Virginia turnout is apparently sky-high. Apparently this is true across the board (blue Northern Virginia as well as red Southeast), so the question is, who does it help? Although Virginia's red tilt makes me nervous, I think Webb benefits for three reasons: 1) High turnout classically helps Dems, 2) Allen's GOTV operation is not supposed to be all that great, suggesting that it isn't his voters coming out, and 3) Who the hell is energized by Allen at this point?
3:43 PM: Took a nice shower (I played tennis earlier today). Also, I have a message for my fellow Marylanders: If you re-elect Ehrlich, I'll be displeased. If you elect Steele, I'll hang myself.
3:27 PM: "Punch Foley to Vote Negron". It's a good campaign slogan for the GOP's uphill race to keep Mark Foley's seat (Foley's name is still on the ballot, so voters who actually want to vote for Negron will have to mark Foley's name).
3:22 PM: Southern Appeal's Feddie and I probably don't agree on much regarding this election, but we do agree on this.
3:17 PM: I'd vote for this guy over maybe half the candidates in the field today.
3:10 PM: Republicans are claiming intimidation from "teachers' union thugs" in the OH-15 (Deborah Pryce's district). Meanwhile, there are reports of a shortage of provisional ballots in GOP precincts in Heather Wilson's NM-1. Both districts are key Democratic pickup targets.
3:02 PM: GOP flyers in Maryland show Republicans Ehrlich and Steele running as Democrats. I suppose its fitting, since they've been running their whole campaign pretending to be Dems anyway. Also, early reports have Ehrlich worried about turnout in key areas for him. Chafee, on the other hand, continues to rise.
2:58 PM: Voting Democratic will get you raped by a scary Black man.
2:57 PM: Indiana may be the House bellweather. 3 hours until the polls close there, with 3 legitimate Democratic pickup opportunities.
2:55 PM: Steve Benen has a list of a few of the assorted nasty things happening around the country as people decide to vote.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Monday, November 06, 2006
Racism and Disloyalty
Following up on my post about the weird "random" comparison warning that a Deval Patrick administration in Massachusetts would show what a Barack Obama presidency would look like, the author of the article (Jules Crittenden) doubled-down in my comments and claimed my post was itself foreshadowing Obama's White House reign. Specifically, he claimed that it indicates that any criticism of Obama would immediately be met with cries of racism. I want to interrogate that claim for a little bit, because I find it interesting.
Let's start with what should be an uncontroversial assumption: In an Obama administration, there will be some criticisms that will be legitimate and others that will be racist (regardless of what we think the actual proportion of each will be). Furthermore, we can be assured that there will be some errors of misidentification--legitimate criticisms tagged as racist and vice versa. Operating from the null hypothesis that "X criticism of Obama is not racist", there are two types of errors we can commit. A "Type I error" would be rejecting that hypothesis when it is, in fact, true--e.g., falsely claiming racism when there is no racist element. This is the type of mistake Mr. Crittenden is worried about. A "Type II error" is the reverse: accepting the null hypothesis when it is really false--e.g., deciding that a criticism is not racist or motivated by racism when it was.
My first observation is that Mr. Crittenden seems utterly unconcerned with the potential for Type II error. That is, he seems quite confident that all or most accusations of racism are false positives, and that it is highly unlikely that they have any grounding in reality. Yet, this seems to be somewhat of a leap--surely, America's history with racism is not so far removed that we can so sure that racism actually is not playing a role in these critiques? That's wildly optimistic in my view, and not born out by the relevant data on how race and racism continues to play a role in modern society. Second, it mistakes how these accusations tend to play out in the media. With rare exceptions, the original claim of racism does not "stick". What does stick is the claim that a Black politician is "playing the race card." In other words, the general public is overwhelmingly likely to accept the null hypothesis (even when it is explicitly challenged), making it more likely that Type II errors are occurring relative to Type I errors. Obama is particularly vulnerable to this, as his status as a Black politician with "cross-over appeal" to Whites makes any accusation that he's lapsing into old "race-card" politics particularly damaging.
Also, I'd like to make a comparative point with how race is being used here. The comparison I'm going to make is to accusations of disloyalty. That is, the claim that X criticism of a Repubican Presidency is a disloyal act. Certainly, it happens (see, e.g., here for Richard Nixon; here, here and here for Bush). And like with race, when the accusation is leveled without cause, it should give us pause--false claims of disloyalty are serious offenses that undermine the political process and pervert democratic legitimacy. So if we are more likely to make false IDs of "disloyal" criticisms compared to false IDs of "race" criticisms, then we should be more concerned with candidacies that seem likely to exacerbate this pre-existing bias.
Again, of all the criticisms, there is some proportion that are in fact "disloyal" and some proportion that aren't. Of course, an actual case where a disloyal or treasonous criticism is made is quite serious (just like actual racism is quite serious). And likewise, there are undoubtedly cases of false positives where a critique is tagged as "disloyal" but really isn't. With a null hypothesis of "X critique is not disloyal", we can apply the same Type I/Type II error question and see how it stacks up with race.
A quick look at history shows that accusations of disloyalty rarely actually pan out. Across the Red Scare, Japanese Internment and McCarthyism (to name a few), the trend has generally been that we've accused people of being disloyal when there was no grounds for it (Type I errors). There's no reason to think differently of the modern day--for all the talk about Democratic disloyalty, Nancy Pelosi has not been caught spying for al-Qaeda and Baghdad Bob was not Harry Reid in disguise. With race, by contrast, we historically make Type II errors--that is, the historical trend is for America to claim it isn't acting racist when it in fact is. Even in the depths of Jim Crow, you'd be surprise how often die-hard southerners would claim that, no, their laws weren't racist, they were perfectly neutral, constitutional statutes and any disenfranchisement of Black voters is pure coincidence.
Basically, historically we've been more likely to "miss" real acts of racism and less likely to falsely identify legitimate acts as racism. Conversely, we've also historically been more likely to falsely identify "traitors" than we have been to miss real Benedict Arnolds. But despite being more rational, this fear that electing GOP officers raises the likelihood of criticisms being silenced under the guise of "disloyalty" is rarely brought up vis-a-vis the constant fretting over the race card. I'd assert that this, in of itself, is indicative of racial bias--we over-estimate the "threat" of a Black president ("We couldn't challenge him--everything would be called racism!") compared to threats associated with other more mainstream actors.
Special shout-out to my Statistics 115 class for giving me the tools to write this post!
Let's start with what should be an uncontroversial assumption: In an Obama administration, there will be some criticisms that will be legitimate and others that will be racist (regardless of what we think the actual proportion of each will be). Furthermore, we can be assured that there will be some errors of misidentification--legitimate criticisms tagged as racist and vice versa. Operating from the null hypothesis that "X criticism of Obama is not racist", there are two types of errors we can commit. A "Type I error" would be rejecting that hypothesis when it is, in fact, true--e.g., falsely claiming racism when there is no racist element. This is the type of mistake Mr. Crittenden is worried about. A "Type II error" is the reverse: accepting the null hypothesis when it is really false--e.g., deciding that a criticism is not racist or motivated by racism when it was.
My first observation is that Mr. Crittenden seems utterly unconcerned with the potential for Type II error. That is, he seems quite confident that all or most accusations of racism are false positives, and that it is highly unlikely that they have any grounding in reality. Yet, this seems to be somewhat of a leap--surely, America's history with racism is not so far removed that we can so sure that racism actually is not playing a role in these critiques? That's wildly optimistic in my view, and not born out by the relevant data on how race and racism continues to play a role in modern society. Second, it mistakes how these accusations tend to play out in the media. With rare exceptions, the original claim of racism does not "stick". What does stick is the claim that a Black politician is "playing the race card." In other words, the general public is overwhelmingly likely to accept the null hypothesis (even when it is explicitly challenged), making it more likely that Type II errors are occurring relative to Type I errors. Obama is particularly vulnerable to this, as his status as a Black politician with "cross-over appeal" to Whites makes any accusation that he's lapsing into old "race-card" politics particularly damaging.
Also, I'd like to make a comparative point with how race is being used here. The comparison I'm going to make is to accusations of disloyalty. That is, the claim that X criticism of a Repubican Presidency is a disloyal act. Certainly, it happens (see, e.g., here for Richard Nixon; here, here and here for Bush). And like with race, when the accusation is leveled without cause, it should give us pause--false claims of disloyalty are serious offenses that undermine the political process and pervert democratic legitimacy. So if we are more likely to make false IDs of "disloyal" criticisms compared to false IDs of "race" criticisms, then we should be more concerned with candidacies that seem likely to exacerbate this pre-existing bias.
Again, of all the criticisms, there is some proportion that are in fact "disloyal" and some proportion that aren't. Of course, an actual case where a disloyal or treasonous criticism is made is quite serious (just like actual racism is quite serious). And likewise, there are undoubtedly cases of false positives where a critique is tagged as "disloyal" but really isn't. With a null hypothesis of "X critique is not disloyal", we can apply the same Type I/Type II error question and see how it stacks up with race.
A quick look at history shows that accusations of disloyalty rarely actually pan out. Across the Red Scare, Japanese Internment and McCarthyism (to name a few), the trend has generally been that we've accused people of being disloyal when there was no grounds for it (Type I errors). There's no reason to think differently of the modern day--for all the talk about Democratic disloyalty, Nancy Pelosi has not been caught spying for al-Qaeda and Baghdad Bob was not Harry Reid in disguise. With race, by contrast, we historically make Type II errors--that is, the historical trend is for America to claim it isn't acting racist when it in fact is. Even in the depths of Jim Crow, you'd be surprise how often die-hard southerners would claim that, no, their laws weren't racist, they were perfectly neutral, constitutional statutes and any disenfranchisement of Black voters is pure coincidence.
Basically, historically we've been more likely to "miss" real acts of racism and less likely to falsely identify legitimate acts as racism. Conversely, we've also historically been more likely to falsely identify "traitors" than we have been to miss real Benedict Arnolds. But despite being more rational, this fear that electing GOP officers raises the likelihood of criticisms being silenced under the guise of "disloyalty" is rarely brought up vis-a-vis the constant fretting over the race card. I'd assert that this, in of itself, is indicative of racial bias--we over-estimate the "threat" of a Black president ("We couldn't challenge him--everything would be called racism!") compared to threats associated with other more mainstream actors.
Special shout-out to my Statistics 115 class for giving me the tools to write this post!
Last Call
Alright, here are my final predictions:
Senate: Democrat net gain of 5. Democratic pick-ups in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Rhode Island, Montana, and Virginia. Democrats hold Maryland and New Jersey, Republicans hold Arizona, Tennessee, and Missouri in a squeaker.
Governor: Democrat net gain of 6. Democratic pick-ups in Massachusetts, New York, Maryland, Arkansas, Colorado, and Ohio. Pawlenty pulls it out in Minnesota, Knowles surge comes too late in Alaska.
House: Democratic net gain of 27.
Now, we wait.
Senate: Democrat net gain of 5. Democratic pick-ups in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Rhode Island, Montana, and Virginia. Democrats hold Maryland and New Jersey, Republicans hold Arizona, Tennessee, and Missouri in a squeaker.
Governor: Democrat net gain of 6. Democratic pick-ups in Massachusetts, New York, Maryland, Arkansas, Colorado, and Ohio. Pawlenty pulls it out in Minnesota, Knowles surge comes too late in Alaska.
House: Democratic net gain of 27.
Now, we wait.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Crescat's Moved
Crescat Sententia, home of Will Baude and his army of minions, has moved. The new URL is http://www.crescatsententia.net. Because of the technicalities behind the move (his old domain was bought by another company), he can't post a notification at his old site, and needs to rely on word of mouth. Which I'm providing.
Crescat is a spectacular blog, and deserves your patronage. It's a bit spartan right now as Will and company try and build it back up, but I assure you that it will be worth your time in the coming weeks and months. So update your blogrolls, and check it out.
Crescat is a spectacular blog, and deserves your patronage. It's a bit spartan right now as Will and company try and build it back up, but I assure you that it will be worth your time in the coming weeks and months. So update your blogrolls, and check it out.
Warning: Black Leaders Ahead!
The Boston Herald has a rather pecuilar column on how Massachusetts impacts national politics. The thesis is that Massachusetts' true blue voting habits "show America what could be and America generally sees it and acts accordingly: runs in the other direction." Okay, sure, I guess--although I'm not sure the reverse dynamic doesn't occur with Mississippi, South Dakota, or even Texas. But what really struck me was this line--almost a throw-away:
How does Patrick link to Obama? Well, they're both Democrats. But there are lots of Democrats out there--surely Patrick isn't the first one that will make voters realize that Democrats do run some major states (Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan...). It's highly unlikely that the author is trying to connect Patrick to Obama's demonstrated policy brilliance, since the point of the piece is to warn us of the prospective threat of Obama on the horizon. They're both rather progressive, but again, that hardly is a unique bond they share, and since this sort of writer is the type to merge every Democrat to the left of Zell Miller into one indistinguishable blob of scary liberalism, that's hardly persuasive. To these authors, Patrick will be as indicative of "liberal" Obama as "liberal" Hillary Clinton as "liberal" Evan Bayh as "liberal" Kent Conrad. Moreover, a Patrick administration (a progressive Democrat presiding over the most liberal state in America) would likely be very different from an Obama presidency (a progressive Democrat presiding over a still divided and rather moderate country). So what could it be, what could it be?
Could it be that Patrick and Obama are both Black?
Am I reaching? The standard I use on these things is "unexplainable but by race." In other words, we assume that race is operating on at least some level (even if subconscious) if there is no other persuasive reason why the racial parallel is drawn. There really is little that uniquely distinguishes Obama and Patrick particularly from other progressive Democrats (that a conservative would be willing to admit) aside from the fact that they are rising Black politicians who have demonstrated cross-over appeal to Whites. Black politicians = scary. Don't be fooled by their sterling pedigrees and soothing speeches. They're still Black (and they don't publicly kowtow to far-right conservative orthodoxy ala Blackwell or Steele). And thus, to the right, they can't be trusted--even more than comparable White liberals.
Via Powerline.
With the likely election of Deval Patrick as governor, we'll give America a brave new Dukakis, not to mention an advance glance at an Obama administration. Watch and learn. It is perhaps the best 2008 gift we, Massachusetts, could give the GOP.
How does Patrick link to Obama? Well, they're both Democrats. But there are lots of Democrats out there--surely Patrick isn't the first one that will make voters realize that Democrats do run some major states (Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan...). It's highly unlikely that the author is trying to connect Patrick to Obama's demonstrated policy brilliance, since the point of the piece is to warn us of the prospective threat of Obama on the horizon. They're both rather progressive, but again, that hardly is a unique bond they share, and since this sort of writer is the type to merge every Democrat to the left of Zell Miller into one indistinguishable blob of scary liberalism, that's hardly persuasive. To these authors, Patrick will be as indicative of "liberal" Obama as "liberal" Hillary Clinton as "liberal" Evan Bayh as "liberal" Kent Conrad. Moreover, a Patrick administration (a progressive Democrat presiding over the most liberal state in America) would likely be very different from an Obama presidency (a progressive Democrat presiding over a still divided and rather moderate country). So what could it be, what could it be?
Could it be that Patrick and Obama are both Black?
Am I reaching? The standard I use on these things is "unexplainable but by race." In other words, we assume that race is operating on at least some level (even if subconscious) if there is no other persuasive reason why the racial parallel is drawn. There really is little that uniquely distinguishes Obama and Patrick particularly from other progressive Democrats (that a conservative would be willing to admit) aside from the fact that they are rising Black politicians who have demonstrated cross-over appeal to Whites. Black politicians = scary. Don't be fooled by their sterling pedigrees and soothing speeches. They're still Black (and they don't publicly kowtow to far-right conservative orthodoxy ala Blackwell or Steele). And thus, to the right, they can't be trusted--even more than comparable White liberals.
Via Powerline.
Put Out
Best response yet to the Ted Haggard scandal: He went gay because his wife didn't put out enough.
I'm reminded of the classic Simpsons exchange:
In any event, clearly the solution to the homosexual agenda is for women to become more "sexually available." I'm glad the Christian right is on board.
Via Andrew Sullivan
Most pastors I know do not have satisfying, free, sexual conversations and liberties with their wives. At the risk of being even more widely despised than I currently am, I will lean over the plate and take one for the team on this. It is not uncommon to meet pastors' wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband's sin, but she may not be helping him either.
I'm reminded of the classic Simpsons exchange:
Bart: Why can't we wear sandals to church? Jesus wore sandals!
Homer: Well, maybe if he had proper arch support, they wouldn't have caught him!
In any event, clearly the solution to the homosexual agenda is for women to become more "sexually available." I'm glad the Christian right is on board.
Via Andrew Sullivan
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Baby Killers
Referring back to Chaz Bufe's definition of "pro-life", the New York Times has a stellar example of a conservative rule that puts tens of thousands of born babies at risk, the better to pursue their vendetta against undocumented immigrants.
The pediatric community came out hard against this change, because the delay in receiving documentations (and the likelihood that illegal immigrants parents may not want to waltz into a government agency) deprives babies of care at some of the most critical points in their development. But what's really twisted is that there is literally no conceivable purpose beyond this bill other than harassment of illegal immigrants. Specifically, since anyone who is born in America automatically has US citizenship under the 14th amendment, it is almost physically impossible for a child born in a US hospital to not be a citizen eligible for Medicaid, even if their parents are illegal. So any claims that this is necessary verification are disingenuous.
Even if that weren't true, I'd say that putting innocent born children at greatly increased risk of death to buff up one's anti-immigrant bona fides is just wrong. Bufe appears to be right: Pro-lifers are "Vitally concerned with the wellbeing of "babies" right up to the moment of their birth--at which time they become "welfare cases" and "future criminals" undeserving of such luxuries as housing, health care, adequate nutrition, and a decent education."
Via Steve Benen
Undocumented immigrants are generally barred from Medicaid, but can get coverage for treatment of emergency medical conditions, including labor and delivery. In the past, once a woman received emergency care under Medicaid for the birth of a baby, the child was deemed eligible for coverage as well, and states had to cover them for one year from the date of birth.
Under the new policy, an application must be filed for the child, and the parents must provide documents to prove the child's citizenship.
The documentation requirements took effect in July, but some states have been slow to enforce them, and many doctors are only now becoming aware of the effects on newborns.
Obtaining such documents can take weeks or months in some states, doctors said. Moreover, they added, illegal immigrant parents may be reluctant to go to a state welfare office to file applications because they fear contact with government agencies that could report their presence to immigration authorities.
The pediatric community came out hard against this change, because the delay in receiving documentations (and the likelihood that illegal immigrants parents may not want to waltz into a government agency) deprives babies of care at some of the most critical points in their development. But what's really twisted is that there is literally no conceivable purpose beyond this bill other than harassment of illegal immigrants. Specifically, since anyone who is born in America automatically has US citizenship under the 14th amendment, it is almost physically impossible for a child born in a US hospital to not be a citizen eligible for Medicaid, even if their parents are illegal. So any claims that this is necessary verification are disingenuous.
Anne Marie Murphy, the Medicaid director in Illinois, said: "The new policy will be a barrier to Medicaid enrollment for citizen children. If we pay medical claims for childbirth at a hospital in Illinois, we know that the child was born here and is eligible for our program, based on income. It would be physically impossible for the child not to be a citizen."
Even if that weren't true, I'd say that putting innocent born children at greatly increased risk of death to buff up one's anti-immigrant bona fides is just wrong. Bufe appears to be right: Pro-lifers are "Vitally concerned with the wellbeing of "babies" right up to the moment of their birth--at which time they become "welfare cases" and "future criminals" undeserving of such luxuries as housing, health care, adequate nutrition, and a decent education."
Via Steve Benen
Friday, November 03, 2006
Off Judging
I'll be judging the Apple Valley "Minneapple" debate tournament this weekend. It's one of the best high school tournaments out there, and always a blast. So I might not post until the end of the weekend.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Allen's Battery
Headline from CNN: Senator Won't Scold Backers for Tackling Heckler. The Senator refers to George Allen of Virginia.
Sometimes, you read these stories and you realize that the whole story about "hitting" or "attack" is wildly overblown. Here, it's not. This was assault, plain and simple.
If Allen loses this race, it will be because he didn't learn from Jerry Kilgore's mistake in 2005: In Virginia, there is a limit to how low you can go before the voters turn on you. Refusing to condemn assault and battery is one. Accusing your opponent of pedophilia is another. Webb seems to have the late momentum, and maybe Allen's fate will send a message to similar-minded GOP politicians with dreams of the gutter.
Sometimes, you read these stories and you realize that the whole story about "hitting" or "attack" is wildly overblown. Here, it's not. This was assault, plain and simple.
If Allen loses this race, it will be because he didn't learn from Jerry Kilgore's mistake in 2005: In Virginia, there is a limit to how low you can go before the voters turn on you. Refusing to condemn assault and battery is one. Accusing your opponent of pedophilia is another. Webb seems to have the late momentum, and maybe Allen's fate will send a message to similar-minded GOP politicians with dreams of the gutter.
Early Voting as Poll Proxy?
Daily Kos has been hyping early voting returns as a sign of excellent Democratic trends, using Montana, New Mexico and Arizona as examples. Indeed, in the latter case, the margins are so strong for challenger Jim Pederson that Kos thinks he has a better chance of scoring an upset than "golden boy" Harold Ford in Tennessee. Given that many Democrats had completely given up on Arizona, this would be a shocker.
I don't know anything about how well early returns predict future outcomes. Does anyone know what type of salt I should be taking this data with?
I don't know anything about how well early returns predict future outcomes. Does anyone know what type of salt I should be taking this data with?
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Paranoid Fantasies
Like Kevin Drum, I am loathe to comment on the whole John Kerry flap. Kerry's apologized...again, and there really wasn't any story here in the first place. It's self-evidently obvious that Kerry meant his comment as an attack on the Bush administration (that they, because they didn't concentrate on their studies, got us stuck in Iraq), which not only is a plausible reading of the text as is, but is verified by common sense and the original copy of the speech.
But the real reason I'm not commenting is because it's impossible to respond to the conservative argument here. I was on my political radio show, and it was quite clear. They genuinely, truly believe that Kerry--reflecting what they imagine is a common liberal belief--really disrespects the troops and finally let it slide in a moment of political weakness. The fact that Kerry is a vet? Irrelevant. The text of his actual speech which shows verifies his stated intended argument? Immaterial. The recognition that insulting the troops is political suicide for any politician any time, any where? Unconvincing. They've got a paranoid fantasy about what Democrats believe, and they'll stick to it through hell or high water.
There's nothing more I can say other than that they're wrong. And if they weren't so committed to their visions of the evil scary liberal demon, they might get that.
But the real reason I'm not commenting is because it's impossible to respond to the conservative argument here. I was on my political radio show, and it was quite clear. They genuinely, truly believe that Kerry--reflecting what they imagine is a common liberal belief--really disrespects the troops and finally let it slide in a moment of political weakness. The fact that Kerry is a vet? Irrelevant. The text of his actual speech which shows verifies his stated intended argument? Immaterial. The recognition that insulting the troops is political suicide for any politician any time, any where? Unconvincing. They've got a paranoid fantasy about what Democrats believe, and they'll stick to it through hell or high water.
There's nothing more I can say other than that they're wrong. And if they weren't so committed to their visions of the evil scary liberal demon, they might get that.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Happy Halloween!
May failed wars, limitless deficits, genocide in Sudan, immoral tax policies, hatred for homosexuals, environmental catastrophes, torture, and violence throughout the world scare you a lot less than they deserve to.
Monday, October 30, 2006
Law & Battlestar Galatica
Cross-Posted at First Movers
Chris Borgen thinks Battlestar is ripe for legal analysis (akin to that accorded to Star Trek or perhaps Harry Potter).
I don't watch the show, but I actually do think he's on to something. I wrote in my very first post at First Movers that legal scholars should pay more attention to how law is perceived by those unschooled in law. As Borgen notes, literature (defined broadly here--film, TV, etc. counts) can give interesting counter-factuals that press us on some of our important moral (including legal) commitments. As for myself, I'm interested in what issues are not not interrogated, what aspects of human interaction, society, structure, etc. are taken to be so fundamental that they are just assumed even in worlds that are otherwise taken to be wildly different. In Harry Potter, for example, the presence of Christianity is very revealing given the great pains Rowling takes to separate the Muggle and Wizarding world.
So, do any of my lovely cohorts have the opening salvo in the emerging Law and BSG genre?
Chris Borgen thinks Battlestar is ripe for legal analysis (akin to that accorded to Star Trek or perhaps Harry Potter).
I don't watch the show, but I actually do think he's on to something. I wrote in my very first post at First Movers that legal scholars should pay more attention to how law is perceived by those unschooled in law. As Borgen notes, literature (defined broadly here--film, TV, etc. counts) can give interesting counter-factuals that press us on some of our important moral (including legal) commitments. As for myself, I'm interested in what issues are not not interrogated, what aspects of human interaction, society, structure, etc. are taken to be so fundamental that they are just assumed even in worlds that are otherwise taken to be wildly different. In Harry Potter, for example, the presence of Christianity is very revealing given the great pains Rowling takes to separate the Muggle and Wizarding world.
So, do any of my lovely cohorts have the opening salvo in the emerging Law and BSG genre?
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Cardin/Steele Debate
Oliver Willis has clips up of the Steele/Cardin debate on Meet the Press. Willis is a Dem, so I'd imagine the clips are edited to favor Cardin. Still, I think they do provide some good insights on the dynamics of this race.
Steele is a very, very, good speaker and has strong political skills. His ads are unique and effective (in a way it's unfortunate that he "will chiefly be remembered after the elections for an amusing television ad in which he espoused his love of dogs."), and I give him credit for a great campaign. In many other states, including some blue ones, he'd be a force to be reckoned with. But, as Willis points out, Maryland voters possess unusual political savvy. We do tend to privilege substance over style, and we are quite willing to elect the type of thoughtful, policy-minded wonks that are necessary to pass the best laws for the nation, not for flashy campaign ads.
This isn't to say Steele is running a bad campaign--I can't think of another route he could go given how far out of sync his views are with the median Maryland voter. And it is not an attack on Steele's intellect, either--he comes off as a very thoughtful man who thinks wrong on many issues. But it is a credit to my home state that we can see past the flash and recognize that Ben Cardin is a better choice to reflect our ideals and our values.
Steele is a very, very, good speaker and has strong political skills. His ads are unique and effective (in a way it's unfortunate that he "will chiefly be remembered after the elections for an amusing television ad in which he espoused his love of dogs."), and I give him credit for a great campaign. In many other states, including some blue ones, he'd be a force to be reckoned with. But, as Willis points out, Maryland voters possess unusual political savvy. We do tend to privilege substance over style, and we are quite willing to elect the type of thoughtful, policy-minded wonks that are necessary to pass the best laws for the nation, not for flashy campaign ads.
This isn't to say Steele is running a bad campaign--I can't think of another route he could go given how far out of sync his views are with the median Maryland voter. And it is not an attack on Steele's intellect, either--he comes off as a very thoughtful man who thinks wrong on many issues. But it is a credit to my home state that we can see past the flash and recognize that Ben Cardin is a better choice to reflect our ideals and our values.
Saturday, October 28, 2006
"Mistakes Were Made"
One of my best Professors, a Religion and Judaic Studies specialist here at Carleton, once remarked on the propensity of bureaucrats to use the passive voice. "If you want to avoid accountability for someting, always use the passive voice."
The context for the discussion was on how the US State Department responded to pleas by the American Jewish community to more forcifully address--rhetorically, militarily, any way at all--the Holocaust during WWII. The responses were all in the passive voice: "reservations were expressed", "the issue was raised", "proposals were taken under consideration." No trail, no specifics, no actor, no agent, no nothing. And, sure enough, the US continued to downplay the genocide occurring--refusing to allow in Jewish refugees, not bombing tracks leading to death camps--until it was far too late.
The Holocaust is an extreme example, meant only to show just what this rhetorical tactic can be made to justify (or, more accurately, ignore). I suppose it shouldn't surprise us, then, when it pops up in compartively lighter situations. NATO General David Richards admitted that "mistakes were made" in a NATO strike that killed 70 Afghani civilians. Begging the General's pardon, but "mistakes weren't made", someone made mistakes. Finding that someone or someones and why they made their mistake or mistakes is a moral imperative when you have that many innocent lives on your hands. The NATO Supreme Commander, James Jones, promised a thorough investigation, but this type of bureaucratic obfuscation is not a promising start.
It's late, I'm tired, and this was probably an unjustified rant. Sometimes the passive voice is just the passive voice. But I am sick of this culture of unaccountability, and I am sick of not being able to detect a pulse among the polity to the end of holding people accountable for their sins. Something needs to change.
The context for the discussion was on how the US State Department responded to pleas by the American Jewish community to more forcifully address--rhetorically, militarily, any way at all--the Holocaust during WWII. The responses were all in the passive voice: "reservations were expressed", "the issue was raised", "proposals were taken under consideration." No trail, no specifics, no actor, no agent, no nothing. And, sure enough, the US continued to downplay the genocide occurring--refusing to allow in Jewish refugees, not bombing tracks leading to death camps--until it was far too late.
The Holocaust is an extreme example, meant only to show just what this rhetorical tactic can be made to justify (or, more accurately, ignore). I suppose it shouldn't surprise us, then, when it pops up in compartively lighter situations. NATO General David Richards admitted that "mistakes were made" in a NATO strike that killed 70 Afghani civilians. Begging the General's pardon, but "mistakes weren't made", someone made mistakes. Finding that someone or someones and why they made their mistake or mistakes is a moral imperative when you have that many innocent lives on your hands. The NATO Supreme Commander, James Jones, promised a thorough investigation, but this type of bureaucratic obfuscation is not a promising start.
It's late, I'm tired, and this was probably an unjustified rant. Sometimes the passive voice is just the passive voice. But I am sick of this culture of unaccountability, and I am sick of not being able to detect a pulse among the polity to the end of holding people accountable for their sins. Something needs to change.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Take That, Rewind Brownback
Sammy B's got the voice that make my head go smack.
The Senator from Kansas is blocking a federal appellate court judge nominaton because the nominee attended a commitment ceremony for a lesbian friend. She didn't officiate, it had no legal standing, she participated in no legal or judicial capacity, and she's made this very clear to the Senator. In her words, "The ceremony, which was entirely private, took place in Massachusetts, where I had no authority to act in any official capacity and where, in any event, the ceremony had no legal effect" (she is a Michigan judge). One of the women involved had lived next-door to her family for decades. Yet the erst-while bold advocate for "up-or-down votes" continues to hold the nomination up.
Kevin Drum says that Brownback is trying to strip James Inhofe of the "worst Senator" title. A while back, I specifically put the Oklahoma delegation ahead of the Kansas set for worst Senate delegation. I also wrote an article urging Democrats to Be Like Sam on the topic of human rights.
That being said, this story reminds us that he is and remains a nut.
The Senator from Kansas is blocking a federal appellate court judge nominaton because the nominee attended a commitment ceremony for a lesbian friend. She didn't officiate, it had no legal standing, she participated in no legal or judicial capacity, and she's made this very clear to the Senator. In her words, "The ceremony, which was entirely private, took place in Massachusetts, where I had no authority to act in any official capacity and where, in any event, the ceremony had no legal effect" (she is a Michigan judge). One of the women involved had lived next-door to her family for decades. Yet the erst-while bold advocate for "up-or-down votes" continues to hold the nomination up.
Kevin Drum says that Brownback is trying to strip James Inhofe of the "worst Senator" title. A while back, I specifically put the Oklahoma delegation ahead of the Kansas set for worst Senate delegation. I also wrote an article urging Democrats to Be Like Sam on the topic of human rights.
That being said, this story reminds us that he is and remains a nut.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
French Role in Rwandan Genocide
International Law specialist Julien Ku reports that Rwanda is looking into evidence of French involvement in the 1994 genocide there. This is the second report of a nation revisiting foreign involvement in a 1994 atrocity this week.
Most of the allegations refer to the French training the participating militias who engaged in the killing, or standing aside and giving the killers access to their victims. However, perhaps the most shocking claim is that French helicopters specifically airlifted people out of the cities to be executed in isolated forests.
France is apparently cooperating with the probe, which is good news.
Most of the allegations refer to the French training the participating militias who engaged in the killing, or standing aside and giving the killers access to their victims. However, perhaps the most shocking claim is that French helicopters specifically airlifted people out of the cities to be executed in isolated forests.
France is apparently cooperating with the probe, which is good news.
Arrest Warrant For Ex-Iranian President
And it's not from Israel. It's from Argentina, relating to the 1994 Hezbollah attack on a Buenos Aires Jewish center that killed dozens:
Wow. Wow.
I don't have any data on it, but I imagine its spectacularly rare for a country to make such a bold move unless it has really strong evidence on the matter. Notions of international propriety and sovereignty generally preclude putting out an arrest warrant on another nation's leaders. Argentina clearly feels like it has enough data on the matter so it's willing to take the diplomatic hit.
Rafsanjani is apparently considered a moderate in Iranian politics, which just goes to show you what passes for moderation in the Tehran regime today.
Meanwhile, Modernity Blog reminds me to ask for comments from the "We Are All Hezbollah Now" protest wing.
Lest we get too excited, the proceeding judge does not have to act on this recommendation immediately, or indeed, under any time limitation. And since the suspects are not in Argentina, the call is for an international arrest warrant, which would require foreign compliance. This obviously will not be forthcoming. So I don't expect any actual trial to go forward. But hopefully this will be another data point in showing that the Iranian government is not anti-Zionist, but anti-Semitic.
Argentine prosecutors on Wednesday asked a federal judge to order the arrest of former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani and seven others for the 1994 bombing of a Jewish cultural center that killed scores of people.
Prosecutor Alberto Nisman told a news conference that the decision to attack the center "was undertaken in 1993 by the highest authorities of the then-government of Iran."
He said the actual attack was entrusted to the Lebanon-based group Hezbollah.
The bombing of the Jewish cultural center was the worst terrorist attack on Argentine soil. Eighty-five people were killed and more than 200 others injured when an explosive-laden vehicle was driven near the building and detonated.
Iran's government has vehemently denied any involvement in the bombing, following repeated accusations by Jewish community leaders and others here. Iranian authorities in Buenos Aires declined to comment.
Prosecutors urged the judge to seek international and national arrest orders for Rafsanjani, who was Iran's president from 1989 to 1997. They also asked the judge to detain former intelligence chief Ali Fallahijan and former foreign minister Ali Akbar Velayati.
In addition, they urged the arrest of two former commanders of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, two former Iranian diplomats and a former Hezbollah security chief.
Wow. Wow.
I don't have any data on it, but I imagine its spectacularly rare for a country to make such a bold move unless it has really strong evidence on the matter. Notions of international propriety and sovereignty generally preclude putting out an arrest warrant on another nation's leaders. Argentina clearly feels like it has enough data on the matter so it's willing to take the diplomatic hit.
Rafsanjani is apparently considered a moderate in Iranian politics, which just goes to show you what passes for moderation in the Tehran regime today.
Meanwhile, Modernity Blog reminds me to ask for comments from the "We Are All Hezbollah Now" protest wing.
Lest we get too excited, the proceeding judge does not have to act on this recommendation immediately, or indeed, under any time limitation. And since the suspects are not in Argentina, the call is for an international arrest warrant, which would require foreign compliance. This obviously will not be forthcoming. So I don't expect any actual trial to go forward. But hopefully this will be another data point in showing that the Iranian government is not anti-Zionist, but anti-Semitic.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Obama's Record
Given my well-known adoration of the junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, it would be fair if some of my readers wondered if, to use to the current President's parlance, he might be "all hat and no cattle." Well, Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings has a round-up of Sen. Obama's key initiatives since entering congress. She identifies four issues particularly praise-worthy, both on substance and because they tend to not get the attention they should. They are non-proliferation, Avian Flu (before it was a hot topic!), regulating genetic testing, and reducing medical malpractice suits without harming the rights of legitimate plaintiffs. As for the rest, well, decide for yourself:
Hilzoy identifies several themes latent in how Obama approaches legislation:
Hilzoy's post is chock full of links that I don't provide, so I recommend the whole thing. I'm with Hilzoy, the wonk in me loves seeing a high-profile figure work so hard at getting legislation passed on issues that are important even if they don't hit the news waves. That shows he cares more about the good of the country than the good of his next press release. That's what I want in leader. That's what I want, dare I say, in a President.
-A "health care for hybrids" bill (previously blogged upon here)
-An Energy Security Bill
-Various bills on relief for Hurricane Katrina, including aid for kids and a ban on no-bid contracts by FEMA
-A public database of all federal spending and contracts
-Trying to raise CAFE standards
-Veterans' health care
-Making certain kinds of voter intimidation illegal
-A lobbying reform bill (with Tom Coburn), which would do all sorts of good things, notably including one of my perennial favorites, requiring that bills be made available to members of Congress at least 72 hours before they have to vote on them.
-A proposal to revamp ethics oversight, replacing the present ethics Committee with a bipartisan commission of retired judges and members of Congress, and allowing any citizen to report ethics violations. This would have fixed one of the huge problems with the present system, namely: that the members have to police themselves.
-Introducing legislation to make it illegal for tax preparers to sell personal information.
-Legislation on chemical plant security.
-Legislation on lead paint.
Hilzoy identifies several themes latent in how Obama approaches legislation:
I do follow legislation, at least on some issues, and I have been surprised by how often Senator Obama turns up, sponsoring or co-sponsoring really good legislation on some topic that isn't wildly sexy, but does matter. His bills tend to have the following features: they are good and thoughtful bills that try to solve real problems; they are in general not terribly flashy; and they tend to focus on achieving solutions acceptable to all concerned, not by compromising on principle, but by genuinely trying to craft a solution that everyone can get behind.
His legislation is often proposed with Republican co-sponsorship, which brings me to another point: he is bipartisan in a good way. According to me, bad bipartisanship is the kind practiced by Joe Lieberman. Bad bipartisans are so eager to establish credentials for moderation and reasonableness that they go out of their way to criticize their (supposed) ideological allies and praise their (supposed) opponents. They also compromise on principle, and when their opponents don't reciprocate, they compromise some more, until over time their positions become indistinguishable from those on the other side.
This isn't what Obama does. Obama tries to find people, both Democrats and Republicans, who actually care about a particular issue enough to try to get the policy right, and then he works with them. This does not involve compromising on principle. It does, however, involve preferring getting legislation passed to having a spectacular battle. (This is especially true when one is in the minority party, especially in this Senate: the chances that Obama's bills will actually become law increase dramatically when he has Republican co-sponsors.)
So my little data point is: while Obama has not proposed his Cosmic Plan for World Peace, he has proposed a lot of interesting legislation on important but undercovered topics. I can't remember another freshman Senator who so routinely pops up when I'm doing research on some non-sexy but important topic, and pops up because he has proposed something genuinely good. Since I think that American politics doesn't do nearly enough to reward people who take a patient, craftsmanlike attitude towards legislation, caring as much about fixing the parts that no one will notice until they go wrong as about the flashy parts, I wanted to say this.
Hilzoy's post is chock full of links that I don't provide, so I recommend the whole thing. I'm with Hilzoy, the wonk in me loves seeing a high-profile figure work so hard at getting legislation passed on issues that are important even if they don't hit the news waves. That shows he cares more about the good of the country than the good of his next press release. That's what I want in leader. That's what I want, dare I say, in a President.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Follow the Leader
The UN is having trouble pressuring countries to stop torture. Why? Because these countries claim they're only doing what the US is doing.
Steve Benen had the heads up, and notes sadly that only a few years ago we could condemn these people with a straight face. No longer. Now their sins are on our heads too. Over a year ago I lamented this:
So it goes.
Steve Benen had the heads up, and notes sadly that only a few years ago we could condemn these people with a straight face. No longer. Now their sins are on our heads too. Over a year ago I lamented this:
For better or for worse, the US is a beacon. Other countries look to us to understand what freedom and democracy means. That is a privilege that the US has earned over years of being the world's most consistent shining light for humanity. But it comes with a heavy responsibility, to conduct ourselves within the most scrupulous ethical guidelines, to not take the easy way out, to try an elevate the status of moral behavior around the world rather than depressing it and/or trying to get away with the absolute bare minimum. When the world sees America the Free locking up persons in isolated detention camps with no trials, no attorneys, and no rights, is it any wonder that they go back and do the same?
So it goes.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Minnesota Ailments
I love Minnesota, but one of the few drawbacks of livng here is that I seem to get sick very easily in the climate here. My allergies are a constant problem, and on top of that I usually catch some form of nasty cold at least a few times a term.
The good new is that I have a pretty well developed response to sickness--I sleep. I am a crack sleeper--if I were a superhero, it would easily be my superpower. I can do it any time, for any length, anywhere. So last night, when I started to feel a bit under the weather, I thought: "Aha! I'll just get to bed, have a nice night's sleep, and wake up tommorrow refreshed and ready!"
I then proceeded to go to bed. And stare at the ceiling for the next eight hours.
Insomnia! Curses!
I finally did fall asleep at 9:30 AM, which pretty much destroyed any hope of me attending classes today. Fortunately, when I was telling this story at dinner, I got some good advice on my dilemma. A friend of mine, known only by her shadowy moniker of "K-Bar", suggested some Benadryl. Where might I find some? Well, it just so happens K-Bar might have a container full of it in her backpack. Would I like some?
I know, I know, this is how addictions start, but I was desparate. So I have four pills of Benadryl (two at a time, six hours between doses) sitting in my room now. And K-Bar has probably expanded her undoubtedly massive drug dealing empire by one Carleton student.
Actually, K-Bar is a Student Wellness Advisor, so I'm skeptical she actually is the local drug kingpin. Indeed, knowing what I know about K-Bar, I'd label it extraordinarily improbable. But "shadowy figure named K-Bar offers some pills she just 'happens' to have lying around" makes a better story than "Friend and Student Wellness Advisor offers me some medicine after I get sick." Let nobody say I don't know how to market. Besides, how else did she get the nickname "K-Bar"?
Anyway, thanks K-Bar.
The good new is that I have a pretty well developed response to sickness--I sleep. I am a crack sleeper--if I were a superhero, it would easily be my superpower. I can do it any time, for any length, anywhere. So last night, when I started to feel a bit under the weather, I thought: "Aha! I'll just get to bed, have a nice night's sleep, and wake up tommorrow refreshed and ready!"
I then proceeded to go to bed. And stare at the ceiling for the next eight hours.
Insomnia! Curses!
I finally did fall asleep at 9:30 AM, which pretty much destroyed any hope of me attending classes today. Fortunately, when I was telling this story at dinner, I got some good advice on my dilemma. A friend of mine, known only by her shadowy moniker of "K-Bar", suggested some Benadryl. Where might I find some? Well, it just so happens K-Bar might have a container full of it in her backpack. Would I like some?
I know, I know, this is how addictions start, but I was desparate. So I have four pills of Benadryl (two at a time, six hours between doses) sitting in my room now. And K-Bar has probably expanded her undoubtedly massive drug dealing empire by one Carleton student.
Actually, K-Bar is a Student Wellness Advisor, so I'm skeptical she actually is the local drug kingpin. Indeed, knowing what I know about K-Bar, I'd label it extraordinarily improbable. But "shadowy figure named K-Bar offers some pills she just 'happens' to have lying around" makes a better story than "Friend and Student Wellness Advisor offers me some medicine after I get sick." Let nobody say I don't know how to market. Besides, how else did she get the nickname "K-Bar"?
Anyway, thanks K-Bar.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
B.D., Doonesbury, and Trudeau
The Washington Post has a fantastic article on Doonesbury's most famous storyline. For those of you who don't know, main character B.D. (the first character to appear in the strip) had his leg blown off in Iraq several years ago. Since then, the strip has followed B.D.'s ardorous recovery and therapy sessions. It's been critically acclaimed from all quarters, including the military, which gave Doonesbury writer Garry Trudeau special access to recovering military amputees.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Must Be Nice...
To be a crook who can fire the cops. Republican Rep. Jerry Lewis, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, is under investigation for corruption (a Republican congressman? Corrupt? Shocking!). Lewis has spent over $800,000 in legal fees defending himself. That apparently wasn't enough for him, so he used his committee position to fire the investigators on his case. The committee got rid of 60 of its 76 investigators, some of whom were rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse (by Lewis and others), some of who were on other projects, like Katrina aid abuse. Now they're gone.
Crooked GOPers just keep on one-upping each other. It'd be impressive if it wasn't so depressing.
Crooked GOPers just keep on one-upping each other. It'd be impressive if it wasn't so depressing.
How Israel Does It
A couple items on the agenda. First, Martin Peretz points us to a stellar editorial by Harvard Law Professors Gabriella Blum and Martha Minow. Like Peretz, I am unfamiliar with Blum, but know (of) Minow. Her book, "Making All The Difference: Inclusion, Exclusion, and American Law" ranks as one of my all time favorites, and her work on genocide and post-conflict resolution issues has been superb. All and all, she is a cutting-edge liberal legal theorist and someone with mucho credibility.
Anyway, Blum and Minow call the US out on our appalling detainee treatment bill by referring us to the example of...Israel, which is a) under a significantly higher risk of attack and b) has far, far more human rights protections for its detainees than we do. If they can abide by basic norms of procedural protections, why can't we? Blum and Minow elaborate on the Israeli policy:
The rules are slightly different for Palestinians held from the West Bank, but they too are (to quote Peretz now) "either tried by criminal courts or detained by administration detention. In either case, these prisoners' detention is reviewed every three or six months, also with a right of appeal to a Supreme Court justice."
One can argue that this isn't ideal, but it surely represents a better way of handling this situation than the Bush administration "screw rights, we talking about terrorism!" approach. Israel is in a far more precarious state than we are, and yet it managed to pass a detainee treatment law liberals here can only dream of. When it comes to detainee treatment, the left would do well to push America to emulate the Israeli model.
Second, the US is pushing Israel to relax restrictions on Arab-Americans visiting the Palestinian territories. Which is good--I am not a fan of these increased restrictions, which don't seem to be justified by whatever marginal security benefits might flow from it. The bad part is how we're phrasing the request:
I see. How dare they treat these law abiding Americans as if they were Arab? The horror! The shame! No wonder Israel doesn't give them any rights. If they only knew this people were Americans this whole mess could have been avoided.
I humbly submit that all persons, regardless of race or background, should be treated like first-class citizens no matter where they live. Insofar as these restrictions are justified, they are justified applying to all persons traveling to the Palestinian territories, regardless of background (which is why blanket, race-based prohibitions are not justifiable). Certainly, there are good reasons why Israel might want to restrict some people (primarily but not exclusively Arab) from traveling to the Palestinian territories. There are plenty more people who do not fall within those "good reasons", and they should be given the chance to travel, American or not.
Finally, a New Republic article lays the groundwork for a possible emerging Saudi-Israel alliance. I've actually heard whispers in this direction myself--much of it stemming out of the surprisingly pro-Israel response that come out of the Arab nation during the start of the most recent Israel/Lebanon conflict. The article claims that a full-blown public bond is still far-fetched (but, then, it was for Israel and Egypt as well). However, both Israel and Saudi Arabia share a fear of growing Iranian hegemony, as well as a fair amount of other regional interests in common. Saudi Arabia seems ready to revive talks on their stalled 2002 peace plan, and Israel has become more vocal in its openness to talks with the country.
All of which is to say, very little concrete has manifested itself...yet. But the pieces are moving into position, and this could revolutionize Middle East politics as we've known it.
Anyway, Blum and Minow call the US out on our appalling detainee treatment bill by referring us to the example of...Israel, which is a) under a significantly higher risk of attack and b) has far, far more human rights protections for its detainees than we do. If they can abide by basic norms of procedural protections, why can't we? Blum and Minow elaborate on the Israeli policy:
Unlike the US bill , the Israeli law provides for a first hearing of the detainee before a high-ranking officer immediately upon his detention; a detainee has a right to legal representation; a first judicial review of the detention warrant has to take place in a district court no longer than 14 days after the first arrest, and every six months thereafter; and the detainee can appeal his detention before a Supreme Court judge. The court must revoke the detention order if it finds that the release of the detainee would not threaten national security or if there are other special reasons that justify it.
Regulations promulgated under the law stipulate conditions for detention. These include provisions on medical treatment, clothing, food (including the right to purchase items in a canteen), outdoor exercises, religious practices, correspondence with the outside world, and even cigarettes. Unlike the US bill, in Israel, the detainee also has a right to meet with representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross. The chief of general staff can permit other visitors, such as family members.
The rules are slightly different for Palestinians held from the West Bank, but they too are (to quote Peretz now) "either tried by criminal courts or detained by administration detention. In either case, these prisoners' detention is reviewed every three or six months, also with a right of appeal to a Supreme Court justice."
One can argue that this isn't ideal, but it surely represents a better way of handling this situation than the Bush administration "screw rights, we talking about terrorism!" approach. Israel is in a far more precarious state than we are, and yet it managed to pass a detainee treatment law liberals here can only dream of. When it comes to detainee treatment, the left would do well to push America to emulate the Israeli model.
Second, the US is pushing Israel to relax restrictions on Arab-Americans visiting the Palestinian territories. Which is good--I am not a fan of these increased restrictions, which don't seem to be justified by whatever marginal security benefits might flow from it. The bad part is how we're phrasing the request:
"They are being treated as Arabs and not Americans," one senior official said. "They basically treat them as second-class citizens."
I see. How dare they treat these law abiding Americans as if they were Arab? The horror! The shame! No wonder Israel doesn't give them any rights. If they only knew this people were Americans this whole mess could have been avoided.
I humbly submit that all persons, regardless of race or background, should be treated like first-class citizens no matter where they live. Insofar as these restrictions are justified, they are justified applying to all persons traveling to the Palestinian territories, regardless of background (which is why blanket, race-based prohibitions are not justifiable). Certainly, there are good reasons why Israel might want to restrict some people (primarily but not exclusively Arab) from traveling to the Palestinian territories. There are plenty more people who do not fall within those "good reasons", and they should be given the chance to travel, American or not.
Finally, a New Republic article lays the groundwork for a possible emerging Saudi-Israel alliance. I've actually heard whispers in this direction myself--much of it stemming out of the surprisingly pro-Israel response that come out of the Arab nation during the start of the most recent Israel/Lebanon conflict. The article claims that a full-blown public bond is still far-fetched (but, then, it was for Israel and Egypt as well). However, both Israel and Saudi Arabia share a fear of growing Iranian hegemony, as well as a fair amount of other regional interests in common. Saudi Arabia seems ready to revive talks on their stalled 2002 peace plan, and Israel has become more vocal in its openness to talks with the country.
All of which is to say, very little concrete has manifested itself...yet. But the pieces are moving into position, and this could revolutionize Middle East politics as we've known it.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Brick Wall
I never thought I'd say, but kudos to Bill O'Reilly. He questioned Bush quite aggressively about waterboarding, and didn't back down. Andrew Sullivan has the excerpt.
His superb efforts notwithstanding, O'Reilly did not get any actual information out of the obfuscator-in-chief. Bush almost comically defiant in answering O'Reilly's questions.
Re-read the answer to that last question. Question: How can the public judge your policy if you refuse to tell us what your policy is? Answer: "You can rest assured" we won't tell you the policy!
Gosh, I'll rest easy! That's not an answer, that's Bush telling me he won't answer and I better like it, dammit! I suppose I should thank him for the privilege that he deigned to tell me that much.
Of course, substantively, Sullivan notes that any terror suspect who hasn't figured out that waterboarding is a possibility is a moron. So Bush's refusal to say exactly what policies he is implementing "to make America safer" isn't because it's a security risk. It's because Bush has a pathological fear of oversight. And given some of the abuses that haoccurredred and have been endorsed under his watch, I'd say he has good reason to fear.
His superb efforts notwithstanding, O'Reilly did not get any actual information out of the obfuscator-in-chief. Bush almost comically defiant in answering O'Reilly's questions.
O'REILLY: Now Brian Ross of ABC said — reported the CIA water boarded Mohammed. That is dunked him in water, tied him down and then that broke him. Is that true?
BUSH: We don't talk about techniques. And the reason we don't talk about techniques is because we don't want the enemy to be able to adjust. We're in a war.
O'REILLY: Is water boarding torture?
BUSH: I don't want to talk about techniques. And — but I do share the American people that we were within the law. And we don't torture. We — I've said all along to the American people we won't torture, but we need to be in a position where we can interrogate these people.
O'REILLY: But if the public doesn't know what torture is or is not, as defined by the Bush administration, how can the public make a decision on whether your policy is right or wrong?
BUSH: Well, one thing is that you can rest assured we're not going to talk about the techniques we use in a public forum. No matter how hard you try because I don't want the enemy to be able to adjust their tactics if we capture them on the battlefield.
Re-read the answer to that last question. Question: How can the public judge your policy if you refuse to tell us what your policy is? Answer: "You can rest assured" we won't tell you the policy!
Gosh, I'll rest easy! That's not an answer, that's Bush telling me he won't answer and I better like it, dammit! I suppose I should thank him for the privilege that he deigned to tell me that much.
Of course, substantively, Sullivan notes that any terror suspect who hasn't figured out that waterboarding is a possibility is a moron. So Bush's refusal to say exactly what policies he is implementing "to make America safer" isn't because it's a security risk. It's because Bush has a pathological fear of oversight. And given some of the abuses that haoccurredred and have been endorsed under his watch, I'd say he has good reason to fear.
Fighting Terrorists and Dark Wizards
I know I'm not the first blogger to link to Rick Santorum's rather ludicrous "Eye of Mordor" article. I love The Lord of the Rings as much as anyone, but I'm not sure I want to create foreign policy around it. But anyway, that isn't the point. I just want to express my amazement at a particular argument I've heard made that I think has serious moral problems. Rick isn't the only one whose made it by any means, but he certainly framed it more colorfully than most:
Generally, the more sober version of the argument is the classic "better to fight terrorists in Iraq rather than here at home." (Or as a classic Doonesbury had an Iraq-deployed soldier question Bush "You really think Iraqi troops are poised to invade Yankton, South Dakota....I mean, yes, better here than in Yankton, sir!"). The problem with this line of reasoning, from a moral perspective, is it basically justifies plunging any random country into chaos and destruction so they have to bear the brunt of al-Qaeda's assualt instead of us. It effectively uses Iraqi civilians as human shields in our conflict with terrorism. If the terrorists who would have been attacking America are now attacking Iraq, then the counterfactual is that if we weren't in Iraq, the terrorists wouldn't be attacking Iraqi civilians either (because they'd be fighting us here). Now, like Garry Trudeau's soldier, I'm skeptical that Salafist radicals were poised to attack Yankton. But, under this line of argument, the reason we should be celebrating the Iraq war is because it's worthless Iraqis who are dying, not precious America lives. That's wrong morally, and utterly demolishes any claim these advocates have that we truly care about the prosperity and well-being of the Iraqi people.
"As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else," Santorum said, describing the tool the evil Lord Sauron used in search of the magical ring that would consolidate his power over Middle-earth.
"It's being drawn to Iraq and it's not being drawn to the U.S.," Santorum continued. "You know what? I want to keep it on Iraq. I don't want the Eye to come back here to the United States."
Generally, the more sober version of the argument is the classic "better to fight terrorists in Iraq rather than here at home." (Or as a classic Doonesbury had an Iraq-deployed soldier question Bush "You really think Iraqi troops are poised to invade Yankton, South Dakota....I mean, yes, better here than in Yankton, sir!"). The problem with this line of reasoning, from a moral perspective, is it basically justifies plunging any random country into chaos and destruction so they have to bear the brunt of al-Qaeda's assualt instead of us. It effectively uses Iraqi civilians as human shields in our conflict with terrorism. If the terrorists who would have been attacking America are now attacking Iraq, then the counterfactual is that if we weren't in Iraq, the terrorists wouldn't be attacking Iraqi civilians either (because they'd be fighting us here). Now, like Garry Trudeau's soldier, I'm skeptical that Salafist radicals were poised to attack Yankton. But, under this line of argument, the reason we should be celebrating the Iraq war is because it's worthless Iraqis who are dying, not precious America lives. That's wrong morally, and utterly demolishes any claim these advocates have that we truly care about the prosperity and well-being of the Iraqi people.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Interfaith Exchange
Well this is just precious:
There's something deliciously ironic about arresting someone for preaching tolerance. All I can say is, hopefully Keith Ellison fares better.
A Muslim journalist facing charges of sedition for advocating ties with Israel was recently attacked and beaten by a crowd in Bangladesh that allegedly included leading officials of the country's ruling party, The Jerusalem Post has learned.
Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, editor of the Weekly Blitz newspaper, an English-language publication based in the Bangladeshi capital of Dhaka, was working in his office on October 5 when nearly 40 people stormed the premises.
[...]
No arrests were made, and police refused to allow Choudhury to file charges against his attackers.
As the Post first reported last month, Bangladesh is moving forward with plans to try Choudhury on charges of blasphemy, sedition, treason and espionage in connection with his articles critical of Islamic extremism and favorable to Israel.
After several delays, his trial is due to start in Dhaka on Thursday. If convicted, Choudhury faces the death penalty.
The charges stem from November 2003, when Choudhury was arrested at Dhaka's International Airport as he was preparing to board a flight on his way to Israel, where he was due to deliver a speech on promoting mutual understanding between Muslims and Jews.
There's something deliciously ironic about arresting someone for preaching tolerance. All I can say is, hopefully Keith Ellison fares better.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Keith Ellison To Visit Israel
Keith Ellison, who, if (as is expected) elected, would become the first Muslim representative in Congress, has announced he will visit Israel immediately upon election, Shmuel Rosner reports in the prestigious Israeli paper Ha'Aretz. Ellison, who is running in a Minneapolis-based district, has received the endorsement of local Jewish groups, but has been plagued by allegations of anti-Semitism and links to the the Nation of Islam (Powerline has been pushing this line rather hard). The trip to Israel can be seen as an effort to show Jewish voters he's not antagonistic to his interest. I took with particular note his rhetoric on the current status of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict:
That's strong (and sensible) language, and it sounds legitimate to me. Rosner notes that a Muslim congressman giving support to Israel is important--worth the trade-off even if he votes with Israel 70% of the time as opposed to 100% for an AIPAC peon. Of course, that depends on what the particular votes are (in both directions: blind support for Israeli policies--or more accurately, AIPAC's conception of Israeli interests--benefits nobody, including the Jewish community). But in general, I think it is important to build these bridges, and I hope soon-to-be Rep. Ellison can serve in that role. Certainly, his issues page on the subject is all I could ask for and more.
In a somewhat related note, Israeli PM Ehud Olmert called for peace talks with Lebanon and a face to face meeting with Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora, who rejected the proposal within hours. Saniora proclaimed that Lebanon would be the "last Arab state" to make peace with Israel. But assuredly, they can be trusted to disarm Hezbollah.
"The template set forth by the roadmap for peace currently provides the best outline for achieving a two-state solution to bringing about a lasting settlement. Right now Hamas represents the greatest obstacle to this path, and until Hamas denounces terrorism, recognizes the absolute right of Israel to exist peacefully and honors past agreements, it cannot be considered legitimate partners in this process."
That's strong (and sensible) language, and it sounds legitimate to me. Rosner notes that a Muslim congressman giving support to Israel is important--worth the trade-off even if he votes with Israel 70% of the time as opposed to 100% for an AIPAC peon. Of course, that depends on what the particular votes are (in both directions: blind support for Israeli policies--or more accurately, AIPAC's conception of Israeli interests--benefits nobody, including the Jewish community). But in general, I think it is important to build these bridges, and I hope soon-to-be Rep. Ellison can serve in that role. Certainly, his issues page on the subject is all I could ask for and more.
In a somewhat related note, Israeli PM Ehud Olmert called for peace talks with Lebanon and a face to face meeting with Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora, who rejected the proposal within hours. Saniora proclaimed that Lebanon would be the "last Arab state" to make peace with Israel. But assuredly, they can be trusted to disarm Hezbollah.
Schlesinger Takes The Hard Line
The three-way Connecticut Senate debate between Ned Lamont, Joe Lieberman, and Alan Schlesigner just went off. Apparently the line is that Schlesigner was surprisingly strong. But I just wanted to focus on the "hard-line" approach he took on immigration:
A better life for themselves? For shame! We must stop them at once!
Kos says this rhetoric might result in Schlesigner peeling away enough White blue-collar voters from Lieberman to give Lamont the victory. I shudder to think that criticizing the desire for a better life suddenly became a winning political tactic.
"Alan Schlesigner is the only one on this stage who has a tough policy. I want to build the walls. I want to make sure there is no road to residency. I am the son of a legal immigrant. There are people today who attempted to come here as legal immigrants and died. Now we've got people flooding into this nation for no other reason than they want a better life for themselves...."
A better life for themselves? For shame! We must stop them at once!
Kos says this rhetoric might result in Schlesigner peeling away enough White blue-collar voters from Lieberman to give Lamont the victory. I shudder to think that criticizing the desire for a better life suddenly became a winning political tactic.
Classic Homophobia
University of Minnesota Law Professor Dale Carpenter helps illustrate how the conservative response to the Mark Foley scandal falls into classic homophobic patterns that have been used to discriminate against homosexuals for generations. He cites Yale Law Professor William Eskridge as arguing that
And goes on to show how the Republican response to Foley illustrates all three; hysteria by trying to transport Foley's problem onto the gay community as a whole, obsession by conjuring an uber-powerful "Velvet Mafia" that tied the hands of the GOP leadership and protected Foley from punishment, and narcissism by arguing to themselves that the only way to check future Foleys is to reinforce their radical right, anti-gay agenda.
It's good stuff. H/T: VC
anti-gay prejudice has been marked historically by three characteristics. These are: (1) "hysterical demonization of gay people as dirty sexualized subhumans"; (2) "obsessional fears of gay people as conspiratorial and sexually predatory"; and (3) "narcissistic desires to reinforce stable heterosexual identity . . . by bashing gay people." The primary historical traits of homophobia are thus hysteria, obsession, and narcissism.
And goes on to show how the Republican response to Foley illustrates all three; hysteria by trying to transport Foley's problem onto the gay community as a whole, obsession by conjuring an uber-powerful "Velvet Mafia" that tied the hands of the GOP leadership and protected Foley from punishment, and narcissism by arguing to themselves that the only way to check future Foleys is to reinforce their radical right, anti-gay agenda.
It's good stuff. H/T: VC
Friday, October 13, 2006
Class Application
Some of my veteran readers may remember my posting on Fisher v. Lowe, a 13 line Michigan court decision distinguished only by the fact that it is presented in rhyming couplets. It's funny in of itself, but I never thought it would have any real significance, classroom or otherwise.
But alas, today I was proven wrong, as my Political Science professor used Fisher to press on the issue of what makes something recognizably a judicial opinion (drawing from Stanley Fish, Working on the Chain Gang: Interpretation in Law and Literature, 60 Tex. L. Rev. 551 (1982)). Because while Fisher is certainly not a classic opinion, most people, upon reading it, would recognize it as one--especially if they saw it in a legalistic context (e.g., a reporter). But of course, not everything a judge writes would be so recognized--if a judge sent West a copy of his grocery list and said "report this", there would probably be some push back.
So what about it? What makes an opinion recognizably judicial?
But alas, today I was proven wrong, as my Political Science professor used Fisher to press on the issue of what makes something recognizably a judicial opinion (drawing from Stanley Fish, Working on the Chain Gang: Interpretation in Law and Literature, 60 Tex. L. Rev. 551 (1982)). Because while Fisher is certainly not a classic opinion, most people, upon reading it, would recognize it as one--especially if they saw it in a legalistic context (e.g., a reporter). But of course, not everything a judge writes would be so recognized--if a judge sent West a copy of his grocery list and said "report this", there would probably be some push back.
So what about it? What makes an opinion recognizably judicial?
Thursday, October 12, 2006
So Very Very Tired
This week has been brutal, and things don't look to clear up until at least the weekend. And right now I got a booming headache for no discernable reason. So that's why posting has been so sporadic. Sorry guys.
The Cynic In Me
"Do not commit the error, common among the young, of assuming that if you cannot save the whole of mankind you have failed." --Jan de Hartog
Blog emperor Jim Chen (no offense, Paul Caron!) has revealed that he regrets his decision to go to law school. Over at Joint Strike Weasel, law student Ivan Ludmer explains why he does not want to become a legal academic, contrasting himself to little ol' me, for whom it is the "dream" job. Dissatisfaction in the ranks? Maybe I should re-evaluate.
So why do I want to become a law professor? Well, just in terms of tangible concerns, it's a pretty sweet gig. Good benefits, solid pay, interesting work, and "time off" in the summer. Yes, I know that this "time off" isn't actually just downtime, but that's just it: I actually enjoy this stuff. It isn't "work" in the sense that pushing papers or filling in data sets is.
But generally, there is another context in which I end a statement with "that's why I want to become a professor." It stems from pure and total disillusionment. One of Ivan's objections to the noble professoriate is that the vast majority of the scholarship is both unread tripe. And even if it is read, it isn't being read by the right people. I think he might be slightly overstating the case, but I'll concede the general point. Insofar as I still hang on to my "save-the-world" mentality, a professor is in a surprisingly bad position to do it. However, I'm sufficiently disenchanted with the world such that I don't think I'll be able to save it (or that it is savable) from any positon I choose to take.
Hence we get our phrase. "That's why I want to a professor. I want to sit back and hurl rocks at the establishment from my Ivory Tower." The ideal, of course, is that one of them might bludgeon a stray politician on the way down, and he, upon waking up, might pull a Paul of Tarsus and see the light. That's the dream. And just in case I hit that lottery, I want to be in a position so that my rocks actually contain good ideas. Put differently, if I became, say, a lobbyist, the odds that I'd have an impact on the world would be significantly higher than the odds as a professor, but the odds that the impact would be good would be quite a bit lower. I'd rather fail at doing good, than succeed at doing evil (or to be more charitable, succeed while remaining acquiescent in the big injustices).
But at the end of the day, my desire to become a professor isn't really dependent on even that tiny beacon of hope that I might not only have the freedom to create The Idea That Saves Humanity, but implement it as well. I don't believe it will happen. I just want to be left alone. You can continue to make dumb arguments, and oppress gay people, and wonder just how excruciating the pain has to be before torture becomes torture. Just let me have my little slice of tenure, and stay off my turf.
One can certainly chide me on this regard. It's a cheap way out to assert that, just because the world doesn't behave exactly as you like it, the solution is to retreat into a few isolated fortresses of intellegensia and barcade yourself from external hate and misery. Hit the trenches, man! Charles Fried once admonished: "As so often happens, the skeptic here is a disappointed absolutist, taking his revenge on the world for depriving him of all the right answers at once." Maybe so. But when the world continually answers wrong on the simple yes/no question, "it's okay to tolerate genocide", I feel some degree of cynicism is justified. I'd turn the question around: If I'm not the only academic-prone person who feels this way (and I know I'm not), what is causing this ailment? What is it that is causing despair to win out over hope?
The cynic, as I once read, is rarely someone who doesn't care but someone who cares too much. And while the post comes on a downswing, I do vacilate between focusing on the possibility that the world could come to its senses on the issue of, say, genocide (yay!) versus the reality that it hasn't (boo!). Even so, and even though I may be a particularly bad case, I do think that this sort of disenchantment is setting in earlier than normal on my generation. And I think we have to ask ourselves why.
Blog emperor Jim Chen (no offense, Paul Caron!) has revealed that he regrets his decision to go to law school. Over at Joint Strike Weasel, law student Ivan Ludmer explains why he does not want to become a legal academic, contrasting himself to little ol' me, for whom it is the "dream" job. Dissatisfaction in the ranks? Maybe I should re-evaluate.
So why do I want to become a law professor? Well, just in terms of tangible concerns, it's a pretty sweet gig. Good benefits, solid pay, interesting work, and "time off" in the summer. Yes, I know that this "time off" isn't actually just downtime, but that's just it: I actually enjoy this stuff. It isn't "work" in the sense that pushing papers or filling in data sets is.
But generally, there is another context in which I end a statement with "that's why I want to become a professor." It stems from pure and total disillusionment. One of Ivan's objections to the noble professoriate is that the vast majority of the scholarship is both unread tripe. And even if it is read, it isn't being read by the right people. I think he might be slightly overstating the case, but I'll concede the general point. Insofar as I still hang on to my "save-the-world" mentality, a professor is in a surprisingly bad position to do it. However, I'm sufficiently disenchanted with the world such that I don't think I'll be able to save it (or that it is savable) from any positon I choose to take.
Hence we get our phrase. "That's why I want to a professor. I want to sit back and hurl rocks at the establishment from my Ivory Tower." The ideal, of course, is that one of them might bludgeon a stray politician on the way down, and he, upon waking up, might pull a Paul of Tarsus and see the light. That's the dream. And just in case I hit that lottery, I want to be in a position so that my rocks actually contain good ideas. Put differently, if I became, say, a lobbyist, the odds that I'd have an impact on the world would be significantly higher than the odds as a professor, but the odds that the impact would be good would be quite a bit lower. I'd rather fail at doing good, than succeed at doing evil (or to be more charitable, succeed while remaining acquiescent in the big injustices).
But at the end of the day, my desire to become a professor isn't really dependent on even that tiny beacon of hope that I might not only have the freedom to create The Idea That Saves Humanity, but implement it as well. I don't believe it will happen. I just want to be left alone. You can continue to make dumb arguments, and oppress gay people, and wonder just how excruciating the pain has to be before torture becomes torture. Just let me have my little slice of tenure, and stay off my turf.
One can certainly chide me on this regard. It's a cheap way out to assert that, just because the world doesn't behave exactly as you like it, the solution is to retreat into a few isolated fortresses of intellegensia and barcade yourself from external hate and misery. Hit the trenches, man! Charles Fried once admonished: "As so often happens, the skeptic here is a disappointed absolutist, taking his revenge on the world for depriving him of all the right answers at once." Maybe so. But when the world continually answers wrong on the simple yes/no question, "it's okay to tolerate genocide", I feel some degree of cynicism is justified. I'd turn the question around: If I'm not the only academic-prone person who feels this way (and I know I'm not), what is causing this ailment? What is it that is causing despair to win out over hope?
The cynic, as I once read, is rarely someone who doesn't care but someone who cares too much. And while the post comes on a downswing, I do vacilate between focusing on the possibility that the world could come to its senses on the issue of, say, genocide (yay!) versus the reality that it hasn't (boo!). Even so, and even though I may be a particularly bad case, I do think that this sort of disenchantment is setting in earlier than normal on my generation. And I think we have to ask ourselves why.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Homosexuality versus Pedophilia
Mark E. Pietrzyk has a quite fascinating article on the alleged link between homosexuality and pedophilia. He examines the question on two axes: The scientific data as to whether homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles, and the analytic argument as to whether liberal views on sexuality are breaking down the "traditional" norms present in the Judeo-Christian ethos which serve as the primary barrier to adult-child sexual relations. In both cases, he finds that the Christian right has completely abused the statistics and the history to suit its agenda. The scientific data proves the exact opposite of their point, and the history of both Medieval Judaism and Medieval Christianity show a shocking acquiesence to pedophilia, especially regarding the sexual betrothment of pre-pubescent girls. In fact, he argues, the modern taboo against child sexual relations has only recently (past two centuries) begun to solidify, and reflects the enlightenment liberal tradition which places particular emphasis on the ability of children to consent (as well as more modern liberal norms about the automatic power imbalance between adults and children in a relationship, and the physical and psychological harms such relationships can cause).
A brief snippet of the scientific section, because I think that point is really important:
The religion part of Pietrzyk's article is eye-opening. The science section is just a classic smackdown. The entire thing is worth reading.
H/T: Andrew Sullivan
A brief snippet of the scientific section, because I think that point is really important:
A. Nicholas Groth is a pioneer in the scientific study of sexual offenders against women and children, who has treated over 3000 child molesters over the course of two decades. A former director of the Sex Offender Program at the Connecticut Department of Corrections, Groth is the author of Men Who Rape: Psychology of the Offender, a work widely regarded as a classic textbook on the psychology of sexual violence. In his work, Groth has found that approximately one‑third of all cases of child molestation involve an underage boy and an adult male, a statistic which has been used incessantly by certain conservative activist groups in an effort to prove that homosexuals are disproportionately responsible for acts of child molestation. However, Groth explicitly states that it is a myth that men who molest boys are homosexual.
According to Groth, child molesters can be divided into two types: "fixated" and "regressed." The fixated offender is attracted primarily to children and has little or no interest in adult relationships; such a person is known in clinical terms as a "pedophile." The regressed offender is interested in and capable of adult sexual relationships; however, this person may on occasion regress to sexual encounters with children, often as a result of difficulties and frustration in his adult relationships.
Groth writes that the fixated offender, or pedophile, tends to select boys more often than girls, but for reasons having nothing to do with homosexuality:In general, fixated child molesters are drawn to children sexually in that they identify with the child and appear in some ways to want to remain children themselves. It is for this reason that the trend for fixated offenders is to target boys as victims. . . . They see the boy as a projected representation of themselves. They feel themselves to be more child than adult – more boys than men – and therefore find themselves more comfortable (especially sexually) in the company of children. . . .
Groth stresses that "these same individuals are uninterested in adult homosexual relationships. In fact, they frequently express a strong sexual aversion to adult males, reporting that what they find attractive about the immature boy are his feminine features and the absence of secondary sexual characteristics such as body hair and muscles." The second type of offender, the regressed offender, is predominantly heterosexual. However, he may temporarily turn to boys or girls as a result of complications in his adult relations. Although regressed offenders are more likely to choose girls than boys as victims, writes Groth, what attracts the regressed male offender to boys are the feminine characteristics of pre‑ pubescents. Groth found no cases of boy molestation in which the offender had an adult homosexual orientation. Concludes Groth,Homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia are not synonymous. In fact, it may be that these two orientations are mutually exclusive, the reason being that the homosexual male is sexually attracted to masculine qualities whereas the heterosexual male is sexually attracted to feminine characteristics, and the sexually immature child’s qualities are more feminine than masculine. . . . The child offender who is attracted to and engaged in adult sexual relationships is heterosexual. It appears, therefore, that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater sexual risk to underage children than does the adult homosexual male.
The religion part of Pietrzyk's article is eye-opening. The science section is just a classic smackdown. The entire thing is worth reading.
H/T: Andrew Sullivan
Monday, October 09, 2006
Midget Insurgents and Other Tales
Via Kevin Drum, Time Magazine printed a letter from a Marine officer stationed in Iraq, kind of a High School year book "best..." "most..." "coolest..." "worst..." type of thing. There's plenty of depressing news in it, I'll spare you the details. Instead, I'll just pick out the funniest stories.
Oh, by the way, the Marine has been IDed. He's Col. Pete Devlin, Chief of Intelligence for the Marine Corps, and the author of the report claiming that we have lost the Anbar province. Interesting.
Most Surreal Moment -- Watching Marines arrive at my detention facility and unload a truck load of flex-cuffed midgets. 26 to be exact. We had put the word out earlier in the day to the Marines in Fallujah that we were looking for Bad Guy X, who was described as a midget. Little did I know that Fallujah was home to a small community of midgets, who banded together for support since they were considered as social outcasts. The Marines were anxious to get back to the midget colony to bring in the rest of the midget suspects, but I called off the search, figuring Bad Guy X was long gone on his short legs after seeing his companions rounded up by the giant infidels.
[...]
Coolest Insurgent Act -- Stealing almost $7 million from the main bank in Ramadi in broad daylight, then, upon exiting, waving to the Marines in the combat outpost right next to the bank, who had no clue of what was going on. The Marines waved back. Too cool.
[...]
Best Chuck Norris Moment -- 13 May. Bad Guys arrived at the government center in a small town to kidnap the mayor, since they have a problem with any form of government that does not include regular beheadings and women wearing burqahs. There were seven of them. As they brought the mayor out to put him in a pick-up truck to take him off to be beheaded (on video, as usual), one of the Bad Guys put down his machinegun so that he could tie the mayor's hands. The mayor took the opportunity to pick up the machinegun and drill five of the Bad Guys. The other two ran away. One of the dead Bad Guys was on our top twenty wanted list. Like they say, you can't fight City Hall.
Oh, by the way, the Marine has been IDed. He's Col. Pete Devlin, Chief of Intelligence for the Marine Corps, and the author of the report claiming that we have lost the Anbar province. Interesting.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Swift-Boated
Navy Lt. Commander Charles Swift, military attorney for Salim Hamdan (e.g., the plaintiff in the landmark case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld), is out of the Navy (involuntarily) after being denied a promotion to full Commander. The Navy has an "up-or-out" system whereby persons not promoted to Commander are then retired from the Navy. Swift received word he would not be promoted two weeks after defeating the Bush administration in front of the Supreme Court as to the subject of whether the President could unilaterally deprive Hamdan and other detainees of due process rights and the right to a trial in front of a regularly constituted courts (rather than the mutant abominations of justice we call military tribunals). The Seattle Times illuminates just how unjust this decision is:
"Quite a coincidence" indeed. Let's be clear: the above accolades show quite clearly that Swift was not denied his promotion because he was unqualified. He was denied it because he was too qualified. Swift was a Pentagon appointee to this case, and apparently they were taken aback by the zeal with which he defended his client. So they got rid of him.
It's also worth noting that this sordid episode obliterates any claim towards the independence of the "military tribunals" that Bush wants to be the ultimate arbiters of guilt and innocent for detainees. Swift did his job as a defense attorney for the military. And he was kicked out. I'm quite confident all the other JAGs and military personnel who would be assigned to defend alleged terrorists have got the message loud and clear.
In the spirit of a true Navy lawyer, Swift says that he would do it all over again, even if he knew that defending Hamdan woul lead to the premature end of his military service. Good for him. And thanks to the broke no dissent culture of the Bush administration, the Navy has lost one of its best.
n the opinion of Washington, D.C., attorney Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, Swift was "a no-brainer for promotion," given his devotion to the Navy, the law and his client.
But, he said, Swift is part of a long line of Navy defense lawyers "of tremendous distinction" who were not made full commander and "had their careers terminated prematurely."
"He brought real credit to the Navy," said Fidell. "It's too bad that it's unrequited love."
Swift's supervisor, the Pentagon's chief defense counsel for Military Commissions, said the career Navy officer had served with distinction.
"Charlie has obviously done an exceptional job, a really extraordinary job," said Marine Col. Dwight Sullivan, a former American Civil Liberties Union attorney, calling it "quite a coincidence" that the Navy promotion board passed on promoting Swift "within two weeks of the Supreme Court opinion."
In June, the prestigious National Law Journal listed Swift among the nation's top 100 lawyers, with such legal luminaries as former Bush administration Solicitor General Theodore Olson, 66; Stanford Law constitutional-law expert Kathleen Sullivan, 50; and former Bush campaign recount attorney Fred Bartlit, 73.
"Quite a coincidence" indeed. Let's be clear: the above accolades show quite clearly that Swift was not denied his promotion because he was unqualified. He was denied it because he was too qualified. Swift was a Pentagon appointee to this case, and apparently they were taken aback by the zeal with which he defended his client. So they got rid of him.
It's also worth noting that this sordid episode obliterates any claim towards the independence of the "military tribunals" that Bush wants to be the ultimate arbiters of guilt and innocent for detainees. Swift did his job as a defense attorney for the military. And he was kicked out. I'm quite confident all the other JAGs and military personnel who would be assigned to defend alleged terrorists have got the message loud and clear.
In the spirit of a true Navy lawyer, Swift says that he would do it all over again, even if he knew that defending Hamdan woul lead to the premature end of his military service. Good for him. And thanks to the broke no dissent culture of the Bush administration, the Navy has lost one of its best.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Tasty, Tasty Diversity
One of things that is rarely noticed in the affirmative action debate is that business loves AA. And the reason is because a diverse workforce is a more productive and a more profitable one. Workplace Prof Blog tells the interesting story of Frito-Lay utilizing its diversity to drill its introduction of "Guacamole" flavored Doritos. The Wall Street Journal elaborates on how businesses are starting to devote more attention and manpower to diversity issues, giving the executives in charge a greater mandate, and greater top-level executive involvement. The article also outlines five challenges diversity programs face today:
In related news, Eric Rauchway comments on Walter Benn Michaels's new book, The Trouble with Diversity, whose thesis is getting kicked around the blogsphere. Michael's thinks that liberals focus too much on diversity, and too little on inequality. I think that diversity is a really important way to end inequality, primarily because inequality is a particularly non-diverse descriptor.
Challenge 1: The difficulty of communicating effectively when diversity-related data include sensitive information such as age, gender, ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation.
Challenge 2: The slowness of change and progress brought about through diversity initiatives, which is especially difficult in fast-paced cultures that want to see immediate results.
Challenge 3: Obstacles to ensuring the consistent and rigorous implementation of diversity programs across large, dispersed organizations.
Challenge 4: "Diversity fatigue," which occurs when employees become desensitized to the many diversity messages they receive through diversity training, recruitment programs and outreach projects.
Challenge 5: Keeping white males from feeling overlooked in diversity programs.
In related news, Eric Rauchway comments on Walter Benn Michaels's new book, The Trouble with Diversity, whose thesis is getting kicked around the blogsphere. Michael's thinks that liberals focus too much on diversity, and too little on inequality. I think that diversity is a really important way to end inequality, primarily because inequality is a particularly non-diverse descriptor.
Target Identified
Michael Crowley reports on a recent MSNBC talkingfest, where conservative pundit Armstrong Williams called for hawkish action against North Korea, and its mysterious leader "Jon Kim Il" (aka "Jon Kim Yung"). Of course, the actual leader of North Korea is Kim Jong Il. But no matter, it is absolutely, positively crucial that we attack what-his-face over there!
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Pluralism Among The Survival Set
Twisty of the well-known "I Blame The Patriarchy" blog remarks on women who defend their enjoyment of certain patriarchal trappings (think Carleton's "Feminists for the use of mascara" group):
There's something to this, but I'd modify it to say that it is very difficult to disentangle a genuine preference from a "survival skill" in a world as bound up in patriarchy as this one. I'd unwilling to simply assert that these preferences are (period, stop) the result of patriarchy. Counterfactuals are tough, and people are idiosynchratic. I'm skeptical of folks who think they have The Answers when it comes to why people choose the way they do, especially when it comes down to structurally deterministic factors. This isn't to say that Twisty's point is wholly without merit--I have no doubt that women subsume the impact of patriarchal structure on their decisions for precisely the reasons Twisty says they do. I'm just not willing to say that represents the whole story for the whole gender.
Via Feministe
[P]atriarchy, though ubiquitous, is largely invisible. Women are understandably reluctant to concede that their deep attachment to the trappings of patriarchy (marriage, femininity, gender, fashion, porn, religion, beauty, the nuclear family, pink tool kits, et al) is not the manifestation of empowered personal autonomy, but rather a survival skill.
There's something to this, but I'd modify it to say that it is very difficult to disentangle a genuine preference from a "survival skill" in a world as bound up in patriarchy as this one. I'd unwilling to simply assert that these preferences are (period, stop) the result of patriarchy. Counterfactuals are tough, and people are idiosynchratic. I'm skeptical of folks who think they have The Answers when it comes to why people choose the way they do, especially when it comes down to structurally deterministic factors. This isn't to say that Twisty's point is wholly without merit--I have no doubt that women subsume the impact of patriarchal structure on their decisions for precisely the reasons Twisty says they do. I'm just not willing to say that represents the whole story for the whole gender.
Via Feministe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
