Monday, July 30, 2007
The End of the Road for PG?
Frequent Debate Link commenter PG has announced she's hanging up the spokes. I'm a bit skeptical--less than 12 hours after she wrote her farewell, she posted again, and she's planning on taking a long goodbye on De Novo. Certainly, I've seen plenty of bloggers say they're quitting, but have trouble going cold turkey. But if this is goodbye, it's been a good run, and hope to continue seeing you around the comments section here.c
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Report Card
In the comments to this post (linking here), one of my regular commenters asks how often people of various races file complaints against police officers. I have no idea how to find such information, but I want to explore the issues surrounding reporting police misconduct, and why it might not tell us as much about whether racial profiling (or police sexual harassment) is a problem as we might expect. The commenter herself relays that she considered and decided against filing a complaint when a police officer sexually harassed (I agree that term seems a bit bloodless for what we're talking about, but I don't know another) her, so perhaps she can tell us how well my thoughts cohere to her experience.
Making a formal, legal, complaint is not a cost-free process. There are countervailing pressures that push against formal protests against discriminatory conduct. Martha Minow, Professor of Law at Harvard University, explained some of these dynamics in her fantastic book, Making All the Difference: Inclusion, Exclusion, and American Law:
We assume that if nobody is complaining (or if nobody is winning their complaints), then nothing is going wrong. This is a severely misguided perception. I believe there are four factors that might influence whether victims of illegal treatment file a formal complaint.
1) Resources: It requires resources (monetary, and otherwise) to file these sorts of complaints. Some people can afford it. Others can't. Insofar as certain types of mistreatment disproportionately effect people with fewer resources, we'd expect to see fewer complaints.
2) Likelihood of success: It takes significant investments of time, resources, and energy to pursue certain claims. Most people only will do so if they feel there is a real chance that they will be vindicated at the end. Obviously, part of this factor is simply whether or not the victim feels like he or she can garner enough evidence to make the case. But also playing in to this factor is the perception the victim has of the adjudicating body. If she does not have faith in the integrity of the judicial process, or does not believe that her complaint will be adjudicated fairly, then she might not want to put herself through the ordeal knowing that she'll get nothing out of it. Police harassment is often he said/she said, and the "he said" has the authority of a badge behind it (and the "she said" a low-income youth who may or may not have a criminal record). It is entirely understandable that many victims of real wrongs are skeptical of their ability to be vindicated in court, regardless of what actually happened.
3) Personal costs during the proceedings: Certain types of complaints are more likely to result in attacks on the victim during the proceedings than others. Rape cases would be the paradigmatic example here: rape survivors are put on the stand and berated about their sexual history, implied to be sluts, and are forced to re-enact an extraordinarily traumatizing event in exquisite (some might say pornographic) detail. There really isn't any parallel to this in, say, a robbery case. There is heavy stigma attached to making certain claims, and not everyone wants to cast themselves in that role.
4) Costs of losing: Sometimes, losing a case just means you lost a case. Other times, it means much more than that. A rape trial that doesn't lead to a conviction often brands the survivor a liar. Losing a racial discrimination lawsuit makes one a "whiner" who tried to "play the race card" to hide his own incompetence and/or criminality. If you sue your employer for racial discrimination and lose, you've pretty much just wrote a ticket out of your job. A friend of mine complained about sexual harassment in her school, and was retaliated against severely by both the student body and the administration, escalating both the harassment and branching into physical violence. And ultimately, she got no remedy at all (I forget whether the administration white-washed her complaint, or she "voluntarily" dropped it). I found this out when she relayed this information to a co-worker who wanted to complain about sexual harassment they were both facing at their job, four states away from her old school (I worked there too, but in a different division). She wanted no part of it, she didn't want to risk going through it again. In this way, the cost of losing significantly increases the risk in filing complaints, deters legitimate victims, and thus makes it less likely that real cases will see daylight.
Certain types of wrongdoing are more likely to implicate these factors to a greater degree than others. As a result, these crimes are less likely to be reported, and the public perception as to their prevalence is likely to be low compared to their relative frequency. Crimes that have a sexual or racial dimension are disproportionately likely to touch on these factors, and that is something that needs to be kept in mind when discussing and addressing them.
Making a formal, legal, complaint is not a cost-free process. There are countervailing pressures that push against formal protests against discriminatory conduct. Martha Minow, Professor of Law at Harvard University, explained some of these dynamics in her fantastic book, Making All the Difference: Inclusion, Exclusion, and American Law:
“[A]ccording to one study, two-thirds of white women and members of minorities who report they have experienced discrimination on the job refrain from complaining to any third party, including legal officials, despite their rights under the laws against discrimination. Kristin Bumiller’s study of discrimination victims who do not sue concludes that they perceive the high costs of complaining and the real benefits [of] ‘lumping it,’ or absorbing the injury without complaint. Her interviews show that complaining through the civil rights laws means accepting the role of victim, which is itself demeaning and also ‘transforms the conflict into an internal contest to reconcile a positive self-image with the image of oneself as a powerless and defeated victim.’ In addition, complaining forces the individual into a visible role and, paradoxically, demands the differential treatment of public attention and dispute because of allegations of differential treatment. A new label, ‘troublemaker,’ also carries negative consequences for the individual. And besides risking a painful reconstruction of the discrimination event before an agency or court, the potential complainant may fear that the process will be unavailing. Other people may fail to confirm the story, or the legal system will prove unresponsive; meanwhile, the individual loses control over the incident and the process. There are special costs involved in hoping and then losing, costs that may even be more painful than never hoping at all.
Besides avoiding the negative consequences of complaining, people may discover direct benefits from enduring discrimination without complaint. Members of minority groups, especially minority women, come to expect discrimination as inevitable and may find an opportunity to exercise strength and pride in surviving without confrontation. The very act of submission may be an expression of autonomy and dignity precisely because it is a chosen response. Similarly, in her study of a religious Baptist town in Georgia, anthropologist Carol Greenhouse found women who tended to internalize conflicts within their families, coming to terms with such conflicts by refining their own roles and by focusing on their spiritual identities. Although this solution may work for some, it suggests complex reasons why people refrain from using the avenues of relief that law makes available. Most important, individual decisions to swallow injury fail to alter sources of hurt or discrimination, leaving those who cause harm undisturbed." (92-93)
We assume that if nobody is complaining (or if nobody is winning their complaints), then nothing is going wrong. This is a severely misguided perception. I believe there are four factors that might influence whether victims of illegal treatment file a formal complaint.
1) Resources: It requires resources (monetary, and otherwise) to file these sorts of complaints. Some people can afford it. Others can't. Insofar as certain types of mistreatment disproportionately effect people with fewer resources, we'd expect to see fewer complaints.
2) Likelihood of success: It takes significant investments of time, resources, and energy to pursue certain claims. Most people only will do so if they feel there is a real chance that they will be vindicated at the end. Obviously, part of this factor is simply whether or not the victim feels like he or she can garner enough evidence to make the case. But also playing in to this factor is the perception the victim has of the adjudicating body. If she does not have faith in the integrity of the judicial process, or does not believe that her complaint will be adjudicated fairly, then she might not want to put herself through the ordeal knowing that she'll get nothing out of it. Police harassment is often he said/she said, and the "he said" has the authority of a badge behind it (and the "she said" a low-income youth who may or may not have a criminal record). It is entirely understandable that many victims of real wrongs are skeptical of their ability to be vindicated in court, regardless of what actually happened.
3) Personal costs during the proceedings: Certain types of complaints are more likely to result in attacks on the victim during the proceedings than others. Rape cases would be the paradigmatic example here: rape survivors are put on the stand and berated about their sexual history, implied to be sluts, and are forced to re-enact an extraordinarily traumatizing event in exquisite (some might say pornographic) detail. There really isn't any parallel to this in, say, a robbery case. There is heavy stigma attached to making certain claims, and not everyone wants to cast themselves in that role.
4) Costs of losing: Sometimes, losing a case just means you lost a case. Other times, it means much more than that. A rape trial that doesn't lead to a conviction often brands the survivor a liar. Losing a racial discrimination lawsuit makes one a "whiner" who tried to "play the race card" to hide his own incompetence and/or criminality. If you sue your employer for racial discrimination and lose, you've pretty much just wrote a ticket out of your job. A friend of mine complained about sexual harassment in her school, and was retaliated against severely by both the student body and the administration, escalating both the harassment and branching into physical violence. And ultimately, she got no remedy at all (I forget whether the administration white-washed her complaint, or she "voluntarily" dropped it). I found this out when she relayed this information to a co-worker who wanted to complain about sexual harassment they were both facing at their job, four states away from her old school (I worked there too, but in a different division). She wanted no part of it, she didn't want to risk going through it again. In this way, the cost of losing significantly increases the risk in filing complaints, deters legitimate victims, and thus makes it less likely that real cases will see daylight.
Certain types of wrongdoing are more likely to implicate these factors to a greater degree than others. As a result, these crimes are less likely to be reported, and the public perception as to their prevalence is likely to be low compared to their relative frequency. Crimes that have a sexual or racial dimension are disproportionately likely to touch on these factors, and that is something that needs to be kept in mind when discussing and addressing them.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Apostrophe S
Why is it that I have so much trouble with apostrophes? I continually screw them up, in both directions. That is, I'll write a sentence that has both a plural and a possessive or contraction, and give an apostrophe in the former, but not the latter. E.g., "[T]o reiterate, the FRC has expressed no problem with teacher's [sic] leading their students in prayer--so long as its [sic] to Jesus." So it's not that I over- or under-use apostrophes, I just use them in the exact wrong cases. The same thing happens with "their" versus "there"--I flip them around constantly.
It just makes me feel like an idiot sometimes.
It just makes me feel like an idiot sometimes.
Hello Stribbers!
I was trolling through my hit counter, and I happened to notice that someone got to my site through Google Reader. My presumption was that only somebody I knew would be so kind as to put my site on a permanent feed, and I was curious if I could identify who it was. But according to the counter, the source of the hit was from somewhat at the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Neat-o, I thought, somebody from the vaunted Mainstream Media has my blog on ready alert!
So if I do, indeed, have a fan who works for the Strib, welcome!
So if I do, indeed, have a fan who works for the Strib, welcome!
Schizophrenia
USA Today has an interesting article reporting on complaints that some schools are giving Muslim students "special treatment." The examples range from building prayer centers at colleges, to special recess periods for mid-day prayers in elementary schools. The FRC is going ballistic, though they can't seem to figure out why. Half the time, it's because of the perceived lack of parity--they argue that Christians don't get similar accommodations. The other half, it's outrage that we're helping Muslims (icckkkky!). They're not really consistent positions--nothing that the Muslim students are receiving is beyond what the FRC wants for Christian students. The FRC continues to want prayer for me but not for thee, which is to be expected, I suppose. But it does put a damper in their righteous fury.
And my take? Well, I obviously approach such questions from an anti-subordination perspective, which recognizes that Muslim students are not the "norm" in American society and thus might require accommodation in order to freely practice their religion. This accommodation must then be balanced against other, competing values--such as non-endorsement of religion. Some of the examples cited in the article strike me as completely unproblematic. Colleges (public or private) providing facilities for their students to pray is nothing new at all, and I am glad that they are providing equal accommodations to Muslim students as to anybody else. On the flip side, there are some clear cases where lines were crossed--the teacher's aide that led students in prayer at a California elementary school is obviously over the line (although, to reiterate, the FRC has expressed no problem with teachers leading their students in prayer--so long as it's to Jesus). The special recesses are a harder case: unlike Christianity, Islam requires its adherents to pray at specified times. Even still (barring information I don't know), I'd prefer that there not be a special recess session only for Muslim students. Rather, recess should be scheduled so that it overlaps with the time Muslims need to pray, and anybody should be able to pray privately and unobtrusively at that time.
These are difficult issues. We are not served by demonization of those whose faith is different from ours, nor by reflexively falling back into old paradigms of Church/State relations that do not adequately account for religious pluralism in America. Sensitivity, as usual, is the order of the day.
And my take? Well, I obviously approach such questions from an anti-subordination perspective, which recognizes that Muslim students are not the "norm" in American society and thus might require accommodation in order to freely practice their religion. This accommodation must then be balanced against other, competing values--such as non-endorsement of religion. Some of the examples cited in the article strike me as completely unproblematic. Colleges (public or private) providing facilities for their students to pray is nothing new at all, and I am glad that they are providing equal accommodations to Muslim students as to anybody else. On the flip side, there are some clear cases where lines were crossed--the teacher's aide that led students in prayer at a California elementary school is obviously over the line (although, to reiterate, the FRC has expressed no problem with teachers leading their students in prayer--so long as it's to Jesus). The special recesses are a harder case: unlike Christianity, Islam requires its adherents to pray at specified times. Even still (barring information I don't know), I'd prefer that there not be a special recess session only for Muslim students. Rather, recess should be scheduled so that it overlaps with the time Muslims need to pray, and anybody should be able to pray privately and unobtrusively at that time.
These are difficult issues. We are not served by demonization of those whose faith is different from ours, nor by reflexively falling back into old paradigms of Church/State relations that do not adequately account for religious pluralism in America. Sensitivity, as usual, is the order of the day.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
It Doesn't Wash Off
UNC Law Professor Eric Muller reposts a message sent to the Brown alumni listserv by a Black alum of the college. It's entitled "How Many Gun Barrels Have You Looked Down"? It shows how even wealthy, otherwise privileged Black people still face devastating racial harassment. This guy is by no means economically disadvantaged. He went to Brown. He has no criminal record. He has DOD clearance. And yet, he estimates he's faced a gun barrel aimed by a police officer around a dozen times. I'm in a roughly similar economic strata. My tally? Zero.
It is important to hear stories like this, and I've posted similar ones before. But by and large, these tales do not penetrate into mainstream (White) discourse. And that's problematic. It really plays into why I so strongly support diversifying social institutions. When writing on Barack Obama's judicial criteria including empathy with marginalized groups, I quoted Jack Balkin on the need to situate our view of the world within the confines of our particular social position:
I've discovered that the best check against the opinions of other groups appearing to be "unreasonable, bizarre, and even dangerous" is simply rote repetition. I recently chatted with a friend about this, and she said she'd had similar experiences as a woman talking about jogging in certain places at night. Some of her male friends dismissed her concerns as paranoia. As it happens, I have many female friends who have relayed similar concerns, so when she told me that there were certain paths she wouldn't run in the evening, I didn't find it odd or strange. But had I not talked to many women about this, I can certainly see how it might seem foreign. After all, I never feel any hesitation about walking or running where I want, when I want. Certainly, there are some high crime areas I might avoid. But there is no place at Carleton that I wouldn't feel comfortable at alone in the evening.
Similarly, reading just this piece, I may be able to dismiss the author's recollection as biased, or just aberrational. It rings so foreign to my own experiences. But I'll tell you--whenever I talk to my Black friends--of whatever social class, they tell the same stories. I went to a summer program at Yale University, and two Black girls in my unit were livid at being basically run out of a store in downtown New Haven. I shopped in New Haven all the time when I was there, never had anything remotely resembling a problem. A friend of mine at Carleton was pulled over by the cops outside of Northfield, on some random traffic thing, and they held her up for hours. Pretty much stranded her in a cornfield. She was in tears. This is a girl who grew up in Apple Valley, interned for a US Senator, and oh yeah, attended Carleton College. The only time I've seen the Northfield police is breaking up loud parties. What more should she be doing to insulate herself from police harassment? When I hear the same stories over and over again, from people I know and trust, verifies these happenings in a way that hearing a set of statistics, or even complaints from a civil rights leader, doesn't. There is no linking factor, no explanatory event, that connects these oh-so-similar stories other than race. Because, as the Brown alum explains, no matter how rich you get, what car you drive, what job you have, or what zip code you live in, being Black doesn't wash off.
And this emphasizes why it is important to have these diverse social connections. If every person I converse with about jogging is male, then of course talk of women feeling unsafe on certain jogging paths will feel odd. It doesn't cohere to our experience--we all jog and none of us have any problem. If I have no Black friends, then stories about police brutality or harassment will feel overstated or aberrational. You've faced a police gun twelve times? You must be doing something wrong--all of my friends are good, law-abiding men and women, and they've never faced anything like that. Jerome McCristal Culp has lamented the tendency of Whites to perceive the experiences of people of color as a kind of "shrill craziness," and this, I feel, help explains why. Remembering that our perspective may be constrained by our position is important, for it indicates that a monolithic social circle is also an incomplete one--that we cannot know it all by ourselves, and that we have to make sure our views and policies are informed by the experiences of a representative cross-sample of the community.
It is important to hear stories like this, and I've posted similar ones before. But by and large, these tales do not penetrate into mainstream (White) discourse. And that's problematic. It really plays into why I so strongly support diversifying social institutions. When writing on Barack Obama's judicial criteria including empathy with marginalized groups, I quoted Jack Balkin on the need to situate our view of the world within the confines of our particular social position:
If we do not investigate the relationship between our social situation and our perspectives, we may confuse our conception of what is reasonable with Reason itself. If we do not see how our reason is both enabled and limited by our position, we may think our judgments positionless and universal. We may find the perspectives of those differently situated unreasonable, bizarre, and even dangerous, or we may not even recognize the possibility of another way of looking at things.
I've discovered that the best check against the opinions of other groups appearing to be "unreasonable, bizarre, and even dangerous" is simply rote repetition. I recently chatted with a friend about this, and she said she'd had similar experiences as a woman talking about jogging in certain places at night. Some of her male friends dismissed her concerns as paranoia. As it happens, I have many female friends who have relayed similar concerns, so when she told me that there were certain paths she wouldn't run in the evening, I didn't find it odd or strange. But had I not talked to many women about this, I can certainly see how it might seem foreign. After all, I never feel any hesitation about walking or running where I want, when I want. Certainly, there are some high crime areas I might avoid. But there is no place at Carleton that I wouldn't feel comfortable at alone in the evening.
Similarly, reading just this piece, I may be able to dismiss the author's recollection as biased, or just aberrational. It rings so foreign to my own experiences. But I'll tell you--whenever I talk to my Black friends--of whatever social class, they tell the same stories. I went to a summer program at Yale University, and two Black girls in my unit were livid at being basically run out of a store in downtown New Haven. I shopped in New Haven all the time when I was there, never had anything remotely resembling a problem. A friend of mine at Carleton was pulled over by the cops outside of Northfield, on some random traffic thing, and they held her up for hours. Pretty much stranded her in a cornfield. She was in tears. This is a girl who grew up in Apple Valley, interned for a US Senator, and oh yeah, attended Carleton College. The only time I've seen the Northfield police is breaking up loud parties. What more should she be doing to insulate herself from police harassment? When I hear the same stories over and over again, from people I know and trust, verifies these happenings in a way that hearing a set of statistics, or even complaints from a civil rights leader, doesn't. There is no linking factor, no explanatory event, that connects these oh-so-similar stories other than race. Because, as the Brown alum explains, no matter how rich you get, what car you drive, what job you have, or what zip code you live in, being Black doesn't wash off.
And this emphasizes why it is important to have these diverse social connections. If every person I converse with about jogging is male, then of course talk of women feeling unsafe on certain jogging paths will feel odd. It doesn't cohere to our experience--we all jog and none of us have any problem. If I have no Black friends, then stories about police brutality or harassment will feel overstated or aberrational. You've faced a police gun twelve times? You must be doing something wrong--all of my friends are good, law-abiding men and women, and they've never faced anything like that. Jerome McCristal Culp has lamented the tendency of Whites to perceive the experiences of people of color as a kind of "shrill craziness," and this, I feel, help explains why. Remembering that our perspective may be constrained by our position is important, for it indicates that a monolithic social circle is also an incomplete one--that we cannot know it all by ourselves, and that we have to make sure our views and policies are informed by the experiences of a representative cross-sample of the community.
Towards a Feminist Theory of Rape Defense
I remarked once before that one of my recurring fears is of being falsely accused of a crime. I have no idea why this particularly misfortune sticks in my head so persistently, but it does. As a result, in my various writings and musings on feminism and its related topics, I have been perpetually intrigued by the question: How does a feminist defend himself against rape charges? While I have seen many (very justified) criticisms of a variety of common rape-defense tactics (slut shaming, “she was asking for it”, etc.), to date, I have never seen any examination or recommendation of what would constitute a morally acceptable defense against the accusation of rape. I myself do not have the answer, so I pitch it to the blogosphere, so that voices wiser than mine might find a solution.
I understand why this question may have been overlooked. Feminists are principally concerned with getting society to take seriously rape and sexual violence against women. By and large, our problem is certainly not that we are provide insufficient opportunities for accused rapists to get off. Many feminists, quite understandably, feel that society pays far greater attention and directs greater sympathy to the perpetrators of such violence than it does to the survivors of it. Devoting time and attention towards defending the accused seems to divert resources away from some of the most vulnerable women and straight into the hands of the patriarchy. Perhaps most importantly, treating the question of innocent accused rapists as one of paramount importance may have the effect of buttressing the all-too-common and all-too-dangerous perception that false accusations of rape are prevalent and predominant.
I am not unsympathetic to those concerns. And I want to stress that I do not write this post gleefully, as a “gotcha”, nor as the brave crusader leading feminists into waters they dare not tread. There are excellent reasons for why the feminist movement focuses on what it does. Yet, I feel like the question I pose is an important one for several reasons. First, and obviously, there are some false accusations out there; ideally, having theory and practice available to handle such situations will not be confused with endorsing that situation as paradigmatic. Second, believing that a rape happened is not the same thing as believing that the particular person charged is the guilty party. Remembering that rape prosecutions are part of the criminal justice system writ large, we cannot ignore the racial aspects inherent in this discourse. The racial inequities present in all parts of the criminal justice systems surely are just as extant (if not more so) in rape cases as they are anywhere else. The gap in the theory that currently exists does not fall equally—like so many other things, it disproportionately affects members of subordinated races and classes. Third, not providing avenues for rape defense that are consonant with feminist conceptions of justice drives the accused into the arms of our enemies. We do not expect the guilty, much less the innocent, to forfeit their defense against criminal charge; if the only viable defense procedure is one that denigrates and degrades women, then that is the one they will use. Fourth, perhaps most abstractly, not theorizing in this area makes us the enemy for a class of people which—for better or for worse—has significant social visibility. People who see a given institution or community clamoring for their criminal conviction, without providing any hearing or consideration to their protestations of innocence, will quite understandably be hostile to that institution or community. The American community, to stress, is not clamoring to convict the perpetrators of sexual violence. But insofar as the feminist community only speaks to guilt and not innocence, it can reasonably be viewed in this manner. People who are falsely accused of crimes have (fairly, I think) a lot of moral force in American political discourse. We do not want them devoting that power towards dismantling the feminist project. Bluntly, I don’t think our footing is solid enough to withstand the assault.
Depending on how cynical one is, one may not believe that any theoretical feminist-friendly rape defense will be use often, if at all. This, I submit, is not relevant. While I do think that there is someone, somewhere, would want to defend himself against rape charges without contributing to the perpetuation of patriarchal hierarchy, the utilization of the defense is only part of its function. Also, and equally, it serves as a presented substitute for the status quo. Judges are not going to sustain objections to illegitimate defense tactics if there is no known alternative way for the accused to defend himself. Our norms regarding a fair trial and innocent until proven guilty require the judiciary to leave open some mechanism by which the accused can plead his case. Without alternative defense procedures, the current set appears to be inevitable, inalterable, and unchangeable. Working to develop a rape defense strategy that is both feminist and viable will put a crack in that wall. I do not mean we should in any way abandon our stance as protectors and advocates for the survivors of sexual violence. But the status quo is serving nobody’s interests. We need to step beyond comfortable turf here, if we are to make progress, and create a justice system that convicts the guilty, frees the innocent, and protects the dignity of all.
***
Two further notes:
1) For purposes of this discussion, what difference does it make whether the person proclaiming his innocence is a) truly “the wrong guy”—he never met the accuser, b) concedes having sex with the accuser, but argues it was consensual, or c) simply lying?
2) What do we do when unambiguously guilty parties use the projected defense? Part of its purpose, recall, is to mitigate the effects of defense tactics that turn upon further denigrating or marginalizing women. That won’t occur if guilty parties do not see the tactic as viable. Yet, the prospect that a “feminist” project may allow guilty rapists to go free is repellent. Is there any way around this?
I understand why this question may have been overlooked. Feminists are principally concerned with getting society to take seriously rape and sexual violence against women. By and large, our problem is certainly not that we are provide insufficient opportunities for accused rapists to get off. Many feminists, quite understandably, feel that society pays far greater attention and directs greater sympathy to the perpetrators of such violence than it does to the survivors of it. Devoting time and attention towards defending the accused seems to divert resources away from some of the most vulnerable women and straight into the hands of the patriarchy. Perhaps most importantly, treating the question of innocent accused rapists as one of paramount importance may have the effect of buttressing the all-too-common and all-too-dangerous perception that false accusations of rape are prevalent and predominant.
I am not unsympathetic to those concerns. And I want to stress that I do not write this post gleefully, as a “gotcha”, nor as the brave crusader leading feminists into waters they dare not tread. There are excellent reasons for why the feminist movement focuses on what it does. Yet, I feel like the question I pose is an important one for several reasons. First, and obviously, there are some false accusations out there; ideally, having theory and practice available to handle such situations will not be confused with endorsing that situation as paradigmatic. Second, believing that a rape happened is not the same thing as believing that the particular person charged is the guilty party. Remembering that rape prosecutions are part of the criminal justice system writ large, we cannot ignore the racial aspects inherent in this discourse. The racial inequities present in all parts of the criminal justice systems surely are just as extant (if not more so) in rape cases as they are anywhere else. The gap in the theory that currently exists does not fall equally—like so many other things, it disproportionately affects members of subordinated races and classes. Third, not providing avenues for rape defense that are consonant with feminist conceptions of justice drives the accused into the arms of our enemies. We do not expect the guilty, much less the innocent, to forfeit their defense against criminal charge; if the only viable defense procedure is one that denigrates and degrades women, then that is the one they will use. Fourth, perhaps most abstractly, not theorizing in this area makes us the enemy for a class of people which—for better or for worse—has significant social visibility. People who see a given institution or community clamoring for their criminal conviction, without providing any hearing or consideration to their protestations of innocence, will quite understandably be hostile to that institution or community. The American community, to stress, is not clamoring to convict the perpetrators of sexual violence. But insofar as the feminist community only speaks to guilt and not innocence, it can reasonably be viewed in this manner. People who are falsely accused of crimes have (fairly, I think) a lot of moral force in American political discourse. We do not want them devoting that power towards dismantling the feminist project. Bluntly, I don’t think our footing is solid enough to withstand the assault.
Depending on how cynical one is, one may not believe that any theoretical feminist-friendly rape defense will be use often, if at all. This, I submit, is not relevant. While I do think that there is someone, somewhere, would want to defend himself against rape charges without contributing to the perpetuation of patriarchal hierarchy, the utilization of the defense is only part of its function. Also, and equally, it serves as a presented substitute for the status quo. Judges are not going to sustain objections to illegitimate defense tactics if there is no known alternative way for the accused to defend himself. Our norms regarding a fair trial and innocent until proven guilty require the judiciary to leave open some mechanism by which the accused can plead his case. Without alternative defense procedures, the current set appears to be inevitable, inalterable, and unchangeable. Working to develop a rape defense strategy that is both feminist and viable will put a crack in that wall. I do not mean we should in any way abandon our stance as protectors and advocates for the survivors of sexual violence. But the status quo is serving nobody’s interests. We need to step beyond comfortable turf here, if we are to make progress, and create a justice system that convicts the guilty, frees the innocent, and protects the dignity of all.
***
Two further notes:
1) For purposes of this discussion, what difference does it make whether the person proclaiming his innocence is a) truly “the wrong guy”—he never met the accuser, b) concedes having sex with the accuser, but argues it was consensual, or c) simply lying?
2) What do we do when unambiguously guilty parties use the projected defense? Part of its purpose, recall, is to mitigate the effects of defense tactics that turn upon further denigrating or marginalizing women. That won’t occur if guilty parties do not see the tactic as viable. Yet, the prospect that a “feminist” project may allow guilty rapists to go free is repellent. Is there any way around this?
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Deathly Hallows Review
*WARNING: SPOILERS*
The final chapter of what arguably is the biggest literary event since the Bible is upon us, in the form of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. With a legion of die-hard fans ready to snap up millions of copies on the day (hour, moment) of release, there was a stronger than normal risk of let down. But while shaky at some of the seams and an ending that feels just a little bit forced, altogether Rowling has put together a quite satisfying and pleasurable finale to her seven part extravaganza.
Hallows continues right where Book Six left off with the death of Albus Dumbledore. While much has been spoken about the growing darkness of the series, the fact remains that Rowling has generally shied away from killing off any characters that are too close to the reader’s heart—in this, Dumbledore and Sirius Black are the lone exceptions. This poses a problem—the purpose in eliminating Harry’s mentor figures is to reinforce the sentiment that he is completely alone, and must face the threat of Voldemort himself, yet unless the series was to take a serious change in tone, Ron and Hermione will be at Harry’s side throughout his quest. Rowling is left in a bit of a bind, forced to isolate Harry without harming those closest to him. However, her solution to this dilemma is masterful. As any boxing fan knows, the most severe injuries are not done with the highlight reel headshots, but rather are suffered from an accumulation of solid but unspectacular punches. This is a lesson Rowling has learned well, and brought into being with the elimination of Harry’s owl, wand, and his house-elf friend Dobby. Three of Harry’s oldest links to the wizarding world, their absence has much the same effect as if she had gone for the big name slaughter, while also being far more subtle work (indeed, Ron’s brief departure, intended to be an emotional swing for the fences, ended up affecting me far less). The flip side of this is the early resolution of some of Harry’s more minor feuds—winning Kreacher’s loyalty, reconciling with Dudley, and even coming to terms with Malfoy sharpened the focus of the book to where it belonged—the ultimate confrontation between Harry and Voldemort.
On the other hand, the action sequences seem just barely under Rowling’s control, as if she is holding the book together with both hands. This created an unfortunate whiplash effect—pages upon pages of relatively slow reading, punctuated by occasional outbreaks of pure anarchy. In many of the most intense sequences, it was difficult to follow exactly what was happening, and I had to reread passages two or three times to ascertain what exactly had happened. This led to one of my more peculiar reactions—aversion to the book for fear of the film. I noted in my review of the Order of the Phoenix movie that, at its climatic moments, it was closer to a Final Fantasy boss fight than actual cinema, and Book Seven has many, many moments that seem ripe for CGI hell. There were too many moments where too much was happening, and Rowling’s skills were not up to the task of keeping it all straight and clear. This was an unfortunate distraction, and one that will, undoubtedly, be magnified on the big screen.
But in a large part, Hallows benefits by standing on the shoulders of its gigantic predecessors. The book sags a bit in the middle, but Harry Potter is a large enough object to exert its own gravitational pull, dragging the reader along simply because she must know how it ends. Indeed, the entire book is in some sense window dressing for the conclusion. That’s the part we care about, and that’s the part on which the book will be judged. In this, I say that Rowling gets an A on the picture and a C+ on the details. Snape had surprisingly little face time, but his abiding love for Lily Potter was extremely well-presented, emotionally moving, and did an excellent job tying together a great many of the loose ends in Snape (and Dumbledore’s) behavior (admittedly, I could be clouded by pride here—I predicted this ending nearly as soon as I’d finished Half-Blood Prince). For an ending that focused so much on Lily’s childhood, however, far too little attention was paid to Petunia’s character. Voldemort, too, was—if I dare use the term—humanized in the end, which was an excellent addition that I was not expecting. And finally, the arcs of the Malfoy family were masterfully completed. While many foresaw Draco’s turn—if not to good, than away from evil—few would have predicted the behavior and starring role of his parents. This set the stage for a truly first-rate conclusion.
But in the particulars, Rowling’s magic fades just a bit. In part, this is due to the aforementioned problem with action sequences—the final battle was nearly Lord of the Rings-esque in its scope and fury, and it perpetually felt ready to burst through its seams and devolve into utter chaos. But more importantly, the ultimate resolution simply doesn’t feel natural or proper—as if the author lost her nerve at the very end. Rowling says that a character that was meant to die got a reprieve, and it shows. I would say that the lucky boy is Harry (the circumstances that led to his survival felt distinctly coerced into being), but for the fact that Hagrid is left alive for entirely inexplicable reasons—literally, the impression is that she changed her mind after the fact and hastily changed a few sentences in Microsoft Word. Ultimately, the entire scene could have used a bit more daring on Rowling’s part—whether to kill her main character, or murder a wider array of the familiar faces from the book (50 deaths in the Hogwarts battle, and only a half-dozen are worth mentioning?), or show a bit more panic in Harry’s steely resolve (look to Frodo for advice on how to pull this off), or something that would dissipate the persistent sense that she played down the ending she really wanted so as to not frighten the children.
Finally, I object to the fact that the close doesn’t really provide closure. Perhaps this is unavoidable—fans such as I do not want such a magical series to finish. But if this is the end, than Rowling should provide us with a little bit more wrap-up than the tiny meager epilogue. Geek that I am, I would have enjoyed a “where are they now” for the whole cast of characters, but I don’t feel out of line in asking for more than what I received. For example, Dolores Umbridge, incredibly, manages to become even more evil and loathsome in this book than she was in Book Five, yet there is no indication as to her ultimate fate (I was hoping that this would be where Harry snapped—torturing and/or killing the little toad. Nobody would blame him, and it would provide a nice break from his grim, heroic, and incredibly monotonous determination). The deaths of Lupin and Peter Pettigrew were surprisingly anti-climatic—especially given that they represented the last surviving members of James Potters’ old crew. Meanwhile, the orphaning of Ted Tonks felt like a cheap effort to replicate Harry’s experience all over again. I only pray that this isn’t the opening to the worst sequel/spin-off idea ever.
So the final verdict? Hallows is definitely better than the two low points in the series: Chamber of Secrets and Order of the Phoenix. After that, however, it becomes murky. A significant amount of its appeal, tension, and suspense were built by the efforts of its predecessors. Where Hallows is forced to stand on its own two feet, it tends to stumble. However, it does a stellar job tying up and reconciling the myriad loose threads Rowling had created along the way. The final book in the series, I feel, was never meant to be read stand-alone—it was intended to be and should be judged solely as a crystallization of that which came before it. In this, Rowling did a fine job, and certainly, nobody will finish the Harry Potter series feeling cheated.
The final chapter of what arguably is the biggest literary event since the Bible is upon us, in the form of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. With a legion of die-hard fans ready to snap up millions of copies on the day (hour, moment) of release, there was a stronger than normal risk of let down. But while shaky at some of the seams and an ending that feels just a little bit forced, altogether Rowling has put together a quite satisfying and pleasurable finale to her seven part extravaganza.
Hallows continues right where Book Six left off with the death of Albus Dumbledore. While much has been spoken about the growing darkness of the series, the fact remains that Rowling has generally shied away from killing off any characters that are too close to the reader’s heart—in this, Dumbledore and Sirius Black are the lone exceptions. This poses a problem—the purpose in eliminating Harry’s mentor figures is to reinforce the sentiment that he is completely alone, and must face the threat of Voldemort himself, yet unless the series was to take a serious change in tone, Ron and Hermione will be at Harry’s side throughout his quest. Rowling is left in a bit of a bind, forced to isolate Harry without harming those closest to him. However, her solution to this dilemma is masterful. As any boxing fan knows, the most severe injuries are not done with the highlight reel headshots, but rather are suffered from an accumulation of solid but unspectacular punches. This is a lesson Rowling has learned well, and brought into being with the elimination of Harry’s owl, wand, and his house-elf friend Dobby. Three of Harry’s oldest links to the wizarding world, their absence has much the same effect as if she had gone for the big name slaughter, while also being far more subtle work (indeed, Ron’s brief departure, intended to be an emotional swing for the fences, ended up affecting me far less). The flip side of this is the early resolution of some of Harry’s more minor feuds—winning Kreacher’s loyalty, reconciling with Dudley, and even coming to terms with Malfoy sharpened the focus of the book to where it belonged—the ultimate confrontation between Harry and Voldemort.
On the other hand, the action sequences seem just barely under Rowling’s control, as if she is holding the book together with both hands. This created an unfortunate whiplash effect—pages upon pages of relatively slow reading, punctuated by occasional outbreaks of pure anarchy. In many of the most intense sequences, it was difficult to follow exactly what was happening, and I had to reread passages two or three times to ascertain what exactly had happened. This led to one of my more peculiar reactions—aversion to the book for fear of the film. I noted in my review of the Order of the Phoenix movie that, at its climatic moments, it was closer to a Final Fantasy boss fight than actual cinema, and Book Seven has many, many moments that seem ripe for CGI hell. There were too many moments where too much was happening, and Rowling’s skills were not up to the task of keeping it all straight and clear. This was an unfortunate distraction, and one that will, undoubtedly, be magnified on the big screen.
But in a large part, Hallows benefits by standing on the shoulders of its gigantic predecessors. The book sags a bit in the middle, but Harry Potter is a large enough object to exert its own gravitational pull, dragging the reader along simply because she must know how it ends. Indeed, the entire book is in some sense window dressing for the conclusion. That’s the part we care about, and that’s the part on which the book will be judged. In this, I say that Rowling gets an A on the picture and a C+ on the details. Snape had surprisingly little face time, but his abiding love for Lily Potter was extremely well-presented, emotionally moving, and did an excellent job tying together a great many of the loose ends in Snape (and Dumbledore’s) behavior (admittedly, I could be clouded by pride here—I predicted this ending nearly as soon as I’d finished Half-Blood Prince). For an ending that focused so much on Lily’s childhood, however, far too little attention was paid to Petunia’s character. Voldemort, too, was—if I dare use the term—humanized in the end, which was an excellent addition that I was not expecting. And finally, the arcs of the Malfoy family were masterfully completed. While many foresaw Draco’s turn—if not to good, than away from evil—few would have predicted the behavior and starring role of his parents. This set the stage for a truly first-rate conclusion.
But in the particulars, Rowling’s magic fades just a bit. In part, this is due to the aforementioned problem with action sequences—the final battle was nearly Lord of the Rings-esque in its scope and fury, and it perpetually felt ready to burst through its seams and devolve into utter chaos. But more importantly, the ultimate resolution simply doesn’t feel natural or proper—as if the author lost her nerve at the very end. Rowling says that a character that was meant to die got a reprieve, and it shows. I would say that the lucky boy is Harry (the circumstances that led to his survival felt distinctly coerced into being), but for the fact that Hagrid is left alive for entirely inexplicable reasons—literally, the impression is that she changed her mind after the fact and hastily changed a few sentences in Microsoft Word. Ultimately, the entire scene could have used a bit more daring on Rowling’s part—whether to kill her main character, or murder a wider array of the familiar faces from the book (50 deaths in the Hogwarts battle, and only a half-dozen are worth mentioning?), or show a bit more panic in Harry’s steely resolve (look to Frodo for advice on how to pull this off), or something that would dissipate the persistent sense that she played down the ending she really wanted so as to not frighten the children.
Finally, I object to the fact that the close doesn’t really provide closure. Perhaps this is unavoidable—fans such as I do not want such a magical series to finish. But if this is the end, than Rowling should provide us with a little bit more wrap-up than the tiny meager epilogue. Geek that I am, I would have enjoyed a “where are they now” for the whole cast of characters, but I don’t feel out of line in asking for more than what I received. For example, Dolores Umbridge, incredibly, manages to become even more evil and loathsome in this book than she was in Book Five, yet there is no indication as to her ultimate fate (I was hoping that this would be where Harry snapped—torturing and/or killing the little toad. Nobody would blame him, and it would provide a nice break from his grim, heroic, and incredibly monotonous determination). The deaths of Lupin and Peter Pettigrew were surprisingly anti-climatic—especially given that they represented the last surviving members of James Potters’ old crew. Meanwhile, the orphaning of Ted Tonks felt like a cheap effort to replicate Harry’s experience all over again. I only pray that this isn’t the opening to the worst sequel/spin-off idea ever.
So the final verdict? Hallows is definitely better than the two low points in the series: Chamber of Secrets and Order of the Phoenix. After that, however, it becomes murky. A significant amount of its appeal, tension, and suspense were built by the efforts of its predecessors. Where Hallows is forced to stand on its own two feet, it tends to stumble. However, it does a stellar job tying up and reconciling the myriad loose threads Rowling had created along the way. The final book in the series, I feel, was never meant to be read stand-alone—it was intended to be and should be judged solely as a crystallization of that which came before it. In this, Rowling did a fine job, and certainly, nobody will finish the Harry Potter series feeling cheated.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Update from Massachusetts
I briefly have internet access, so I'm just updating to reassure y'all that I am alive, and that I finished Harry Potter in five lovely hours of reading. It was fantastic. I'll review it in full when I get back.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Berkshire Bound
I'm vacationing in Massachusetts until next Wednesday. I'll have my computer, but I expect internet access to be spotty, at best. So, if I don't post until then, find other things to do.
Plame's Suit Tossed
A U.S. Federal District Judge has dismissed former CIA operative Valerie Plame's suit against members of the Bush administration for leaking her identity. The judge was George W. Bush appointee John Bates. You can access the opinion here.
I know nothing about the relevant laws in question, so I have no comment as to whether the ruling was legally correct. I have to presume the order will be appealed, though.
I know nothing about the relevant laws in question, so I have no comment as to whether the ruling was legally correct. I have to presume the order will be appealed, though.
The Past is Now: The Jena Six
The case of the Jena Six is one of those that even I, massive cynic that I am on the state of America's racial progress, thought was a thing of the past. It is reminiscent of nothing more than the "legal lynchings" that characterized the Jim Crow South. Its facts are appalling. It is an unbelievable display of state-sponsored racism that dwarfs even the Genarlow Wilson case in terms of raw injustice. Here is the Seattle Post-Intelligencer with the scoop:
Color of Change has a petition you can sign urging their freedom, and here is another petition asking the DOJ to open a civil rights investigation.
More:
Pandagon
While Seated
Bill Quigley, a law professor at Loyola University-New Orleans, gives his account of the story at Counter Currents
Racialicious: "The racism in the behavior of the local government is as flagrant as anything that occurred during segregation. The institutions of government in Jena, Louisiana are operating on de-facto Jim Crow; they carry out through cultural practice what was once law."
Elle, Ph.D
Free the Jena Six!
This story begins in the small, central Louisiana town of Jena. Last September, a black high school student requested the school's permission to sit beneath a broad, leafy tree in the hot schoolyard. Until then, only white students sat there.
The next morning, three nooses were hanging from the tree. The black students responded en masse. Justin Purvis, the kid who first sat under the tree, told filmmaker Jacquie Soohen: "They said, 'Y'all want to go stand under the tree?' We said, 'Yeah.' They said, 'If you go, I'll go. If you go, I'll go.' One person went, the next person went, everybody else just went."
Then the police and the district attorney showed up. Substitute teacher Michelle Rogers recounts: "District Attorney Reed Walters proceeded to tell those kids that 'I could end your lives with the stroke of a pen.' "
It wouldn't happen for a few more months, but that is exactly what the district attorney is trying to do.
Jena, a community of 4,000, is about 85 percent white. While the black community gathered at a church to respond, others didn't see the significance. Soohen interviewed Jena town librarian Barbara Murphy, who reflected: "The nooses? I don't even know why they were there, what they were supposed to mean. There's pranks all the time, of one type or another, going on. And it just didn't seem to be racist to me." Tensions rose.
Robert Bailey, a black student, was beaten up at a white party. Then, a few nights later, Robert and two others were threatened by a white man with a sawed-off shotgun, at a convenience store. They wrestled the gun away and fled. Robert's mother, Caseptla Bailey, said: "I know they were in fear of their lives. They were afraid that this man was going to shoot them, you know, especially in the back, running away from the scene."
The next day, Dec. 4, 2006, a fight broke out at the school. A white student was injured, taken to the hospital and released. Robert Bailey and five other black students were charged ... with second-degree attempted murder. They each faced 100 years in prison. The black community was reeling.
Independent journalist Jordan Flaherty was the first to break the story nationally. He explained: "I'm sure it was a serious fight, and I'm sure it deserved real discipline within the school system, but he (the white student) was out later that day. He was smiling. He was with friends ... it was a serious school problem that came on the heels of a long series of other events ... as soon as black students were involved, that's when the hammer came down."
The African American community began to call them the Jena Six. The first to be tried was Mychal Bell, 17 years old and a talented football player, looking forward to a university scholarship. Bell was offered a plea deal, but refused. His father, Marcus Jones, took a few minutes off from work to talk to me: "Here in LaSalle Parish, whenever a black man is offered a plea bargain, he is innocent. That's a dead giveaway here in the South."
Right before the trial, the charges of attempted second-degree murder were lowered to aggravated battery, which under Louisiana law requires a dangerous weapon. The weapon? Tennis shoes.
Mychal Bell was convicted by an all-white jury. His court-appointed defense attorney called no witnesses. Bell will be sentenced on July 31, facing a possible 22 years. The remaining five teens, several of whom were jailed for months, unable to make bail, still face attempted second-degree murder charges and a hundred years each in prison.
Color of Change has a petition you can sign urging their freedom, and here is another petition asking the DOJ to open a civil rights investigation.
More:
Pandagon
While Seated
Bill Quigley, a law professor at Loyola University-New Orleans, gives his account of the story at Counter Currents
Racialicious: "The racism in the behavior of the local government is as flagrant as anything that occurred during segregation. The institutions of government in Jena, Louisiana are operating on de-facto Jim Crow; they carry out through cultural practice what was once law."
Elle, Ph.D
Free the Jena Six!
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
To Know is To Understand
Continuing on the Obama beat, Ann Althouse brings us word of the criteria Obama says he will use to select judges: "The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."
Now, unlike some I am not worried that the judges a President Obama would appoint would lack knowledge of law or would be bereft of formal qualifications. And within that confine, I think that what Obama is talking about is a valid and important quality to consider in judicial appointments. Two early posts I wrote explained why I thought "sympathy" could be a valid part of judicial decision-making procedure. More concretely, I recently examined how a diverse array of experiences is really important for a good judiciary. A diverse institution brings a tighter understanding of the actual, material impact of certain laws or policies than a monolithic judiciary does. For example, in determining whether a given law constitutes "an undue burden on a woman's right to choose", men only have a second-hand experience with the situation and facts in question. That doesn't mean they're incapable of ruling, but it does mean that their decision is likely to be less well-informed than it would be if there was a female voice on the bench. In other cases, perhaps castration, it might be important to have a male voice on the panel, because the material effects of castration on one's bodily autonomy might be clearer to him than to a female judge (by and large we have no shortage of male judges, so this isn't a problem, but the point is that experiential diversity cuts all ways). By contrast, when the judiciary is monolithic or monochromatic, fundamentally subjective positions and a particularized standpoint are draped in the cloak of "The Law" and become unchallengeable Truth or Reason. Jack Balkin explains:
To sum up: The idea that there is a trade-off between judges who are best at interpreting the law, and judges who "understand" the experiences of those whose voices are least likely to have elite import, is a fallacy. Contributing to the experiential diversity of the court (or at least being cognizant that these differing experiences matter) is part of what makes one a good judge. If President Obama nominates judges with an eye towards this quality, along with, of course, their formal qualifications and experience, he'd be doing the judiciary and America a great service.
Now, unlike some I am not worried that the judges a President Obama would appoint would lack knowledge of law or would be bereft of formal qualifications. And within that confine, I think that what Obama is talking about is a valid and important quality to consider in judicial appointments. Two early posts I wrote explained why I thought "sympathy" could be a valid part of judicial decision-making procedure. More concretely, I recently examined how a diverse array of experiences is really important for a good judiciary. A diverse institution brings a tighter understanding of the actual, material impact of certain laws or policies than a monolithic judiciary does. For example, in determining whether a given law constitutes "an undue burden on a woman's right to choose", men only have a second-hand experience with the situation and facts in question. That doesn't mean they're incapable of ruling, but it does mean that their decision is likely to be less well-informed than it would be if there was a female voice on the bench. In other cases, perhaps castration, it might be important to have a male voice on the panel, because the material effects of castration on one's bodily autonomy might be clearer to him than to a female judge (by and large we have no shortage of male judges, so this isn't a problem, but the point is that experiential diversity cuts all ways). By contrast, when the judiciary is monolithic or monochromatic, fundamentally subjective positions and a particularized standpoint are draped in the cloak of "The Law" and become unchallengeable Truth or Reason. Jack Balkin explains:
If we do not investigate the relationship between our social situation and our perspectives, we may confuse our conception of what is reasonable with Reason itself. If we do not see how our reason is both enabled and limited by our position, we may think our judgments positionless and universal. We may find the perspectives of those differently situated unreasonable, bizarre, and even dangerous, or we may not even recognize the possibility of another way of looking at things.The alternative is to proactively try and create a judicial system that is at least somewhat representative of the polity it is ruling upon (and thus will have access to as good a cross-section of perspectives as possible). As Cass R. Sunstein remarks, "In a system of free expression, exposure to multiple perspectives will offer a fuller picture of the consequences of social acts. This should help make for better law."
To sum up: The idea that there is a trade-off between judges who are best at interpreting the law, and judges who "understand" the experiences of those whose voices are least likely to have elite import, is a fallacy. Contributing to the experiential diversity of the court (or at least being cognizant that these differing experiences matter) is part of what makes one a good judge. If President Obama nominates judges with an eye towards this quality, along with, of course, their formal qualifications and experience, he'd be doing the judiciary and America a great service.
Things That Make My Life Happier
Comics Curmudgeon (especially reviews of "Family Circus")
xkcd
Secret Asian Man
Sartre Cookbook
Nietzsche's tech support
Bash.org (sometimes)
Wizard People, Dear Reader (youtube it)
xkcd
Secret Asian Man
Sartre Cookbook
Nietzsche's tech support
Bash.org (sometimes)
Wizard People, Dear Reader (youtube it)
D.C. Mayor for Obama
In what has to be the highest profile endorsement to have absolutely no significance whatsoever, DC mayor Adrian Fenty has announced his endorsement of Barack Obama for President. Along with Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, Fenty is the most visible face of D.C. politics today. Of course, the D.C. primary is not considered to be particularly important, and it's fair to say that its three electoral votes will not exactly be up for grabs in 2008, so his true influence is somewhat limited. Maybe it will shore up Obama's support in the Black community?
Fenty is a good guy, and I think he has a lot of potential to continue the District in the revival started by former mayor Anthony Williams. He also holds the distinction of having won all 142 DC precincts in his race to become mayor, which is pretty incredible no matter how liberal the city is.
Fenty is a good guy, and I think he has a lot of potential to continue the District in the revival started by former mayor Anthony Williams. He also holds the distinction of having won all 142 DC precincts in his race to become mayor, which is pretty incredible no matter how liberal the city is.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Killing Spree
Last year, I blogged, appalled, on a quote from a good American citizen who said that we should "just shoot" any illegal immigrants we find crossing the border. Then I got a comment from a charming fellow who told me that "We could shoot them all in the back of the head and line huge pits with their bodies and their is no harm-no foul. These people don't have a right to breathe my air let alone to be treated 'humanely.'"
And today, US Senator Tom Coburn joined the fun, asking why agents couldn't just shoot people fleeing them at the border, even if they're unarmed, even if they pose no threat. Ummm....because that'd be murder? But don't let that stop you. People say rap music encourages violence? Let's start with the US Senate!
Awwww Fuck! Chuck's on a killing spree again
With guillotines for men
I walk around town with a frown on my face
Fuck the whole world, fixin' to catch a murder case
The murder rate
May increase if your caught up in the world
While it's dyin', I guarentee your fryin' cause I am
On the verge of knockin' muthafuckas out for no reason
Once I get down there'll be no breathin' it seems when
Muthafuckas wanna calm down, put his palm down
Seems I gots to lay the law down
Now its on pow what you to do? I'm askin' you
Step to face I'll break your ass in two, bastard you
Rather swim in some fuckin' hot tar
Before you fuck wit Willie D cause what I got for
Your ass will make ya shit your meal
Cause it's die muthafuckas, die muthafuckas still.
--"Still," Geto Boys.
And today, US Senator Tom Coburn joined the fun, asking why agents couldn't just shoot people fleeing them at the border, even if they're unarmed, even if they pose no threat. Ummm....because that'd be murder? But don't let that stop you. People say rap music encourages violence? Let's start with the US Senate!
Awwww Fuck! Chuck's on a killing spree again
With guillotines for men
I walk around town with a frown on my face
Fuck the whole world, fixin' to catch a murder case
The murder rate
May increase if your caught up in the world
While it's dyin', I guarentee your fryin' cause I am
On the verge of knockin' muthafuckas out for no reason
Once I get down there'll be no breathin' it seems when
Muthafuckas wanna calm down, put his palm down
Seems I gots to lay the law down
Now its on pow what you to do? I'm askin' you
Step to face I'll break your ass in two, bastard you
Rather swim in some fuckin' hot tar
Before you fuck wit Willie D cause what I got for
Your ass will make ya shit your meal
Cause it's die muthafuckas, die muthafuckas still.
--"Still," Geto Boys.
It Takes a Child to Raise a Village
These Bangladeshi children are serious ballers:
You go, girls.
(Thanks to my pal J-Rod for the tip)
Classmates of a 13-year-old Bangladeshi school girl due to enter a forced marriage have united to stop the ceremony going ahead, police say.
Around 50 pupils in the town of Satkhira took to the streets to demand that Habiba Sultana's wedding be called off, they say.
Pupils even submitted a petition to police urging them to take action.
[...]
Police say that she was too frightened to protest.
When she told her friends about the impending wedding, they rallied round and urged her not to go ahead.
Parents of her friends contacted Habiba's father and tried to stop him from going ahead with the wedding.
Initially he ignored their protests, but changed his mind after the police were alerted and small protests were held outside the school.
Correspondents say that the stand of the schoolgirls has created a stir in the town.
You go, girls.
(Thanks to my pal J-Rod for the tip)
Monday, July 16, 2007
Criminal Production System
This was the post I meant to write before I got distracted by post-structuralist crime busters.
The end of Mr. Sanchez's post reads as follows:
Ezra Klein follows up to say:
Agreed, agreed, agreed. I have no trouble sending murderers away to jail. For life, or for a long, long time. But there is something deeply, fundamentally wrong with how we treat non-violent offenders, especially non-violent drug offenders. We come down harder on crack users than we do on rapists half the time. And we essentially are guaranteeing that these people graduate into lifelong criminal activity, because they have no other option.
We have to come up with another route. At this stage in the game, if I were sitting on drug trial jury (for anybody who wasn't some sort of kingpin), I would be sorely tempted to nullify regardless of guilt or innocence. It's gotten out of hand. I'm open to the idea that drug use needs to be punished. But right now, the punishment doesn't fit the crime, the punishment isn't stopping the crime, and the punishment is likely causing more, worse crimes.
The end of Mr. Sanchez's post reads as follows:
It's frequently noted that a perverse consequence of our prison system is that we end up placing petty criminals in an intensive training program for serious crime. But more than that, we reinforce their identity as criminals.
Ezra Klein follows up to say:
Look: Incarceration can serve a valuable purpose in segregating dangerous individuals from the wider society. That incarceration should be handled humanely and wisely, of course, but it has a purpose. For the millions and millions of non-violent offenders, though, it serves a very different purpose. It abandons them to a realm where violence, and threats, and intimidation, serve as your only security. And so those characteristics are honed, and amplified. It renders them unfit for many jobs, and less marriageable. Abuse and rape at the hands of other prisoners and prison guards can leave the inmate psychologically damaged and deeply rageful.
This is what our system of justice does: It takes the unlawful and makes them more violent. It takes criminals and makes them worse, reducing their future options, encouraging them to become more physically brutal, cultivating their marginalization from society.
Agreed, agreed, agreed. I have no trouble sending murderers away to jail. For life, or for a long, long time. But there is something deeply, fundamentally wrong with how we treat non-violent offenders, especially non-violent drug offenders. We come down harder on crack users than we do on rapists half the time. And we essentially are guaranteeing that these people graduate into lifelong criminal activity, because they have no other option.
We have to come up with another route. At this stage in the game, if I were sitting on drug trial jury (for anybody who wasn't some sort of kingpin), I would be sorely tempted to nullify regardless of guilt or innocence. It's gotten out of hand. I'm open to the idea that drug use needs to be punished. But right now, the punishment doesn't fit the crime, the punishment isn't stopping the crime, and the punishment is likely causing more, worse crimes.
The Script of Crime
I found this story from Julian Sanchez based on Ezra Klein's riff on the last passage and what it means for our criminal justice system. But it's actually a fascinating tale in its own right. Basically, a man was robbing a dinner party, but right after he demanded the money, a guest instead offered him a glass of wine. The robber accepted and sipped the wine. He then tucked away his gun, asked for a group hug, and then left without taking anything. Sanchez relates the story to a South African cop who was chasing a female anti-apartheid protester, billy-club in hand. The woman lost her shoe, so instinctively the cop stopped to pick it up and hand it to her. Once he did that, he couldn't just turn around and beat her, so instead he walked away. Sanchez writes:
"Script-breaking" is a rather prominent part of feminist theory, for example, in Sharon Marcus' work on rape prevention. She argues that rape is "a series of steps and signals whose typical initial moments we can learn to recognize and whose final outcome we can learn to stave off." It's not as easy as it sounds--just as the burglar is operating within a script of criminality, the target will naturally want to lapse into the script of "victim", the series of moves that society recognizes as the proper way for victims to behave. However, the risk of script-breaking is that its unpredictable--since people don't do it that often (hence it being a break), we don't know what the result of our behavioral alchemy will be. As Sanchez indicates, the best hope might be trying to divert the narrative from one recognized situation (robbery) to another recognized situation (dinner party)--even if the recognition stems only from media, TV, or social mores rather than lived-experience. But this only mitigates, not eliminates, the danger. For example, if rape is primarily a function of the desire for power and domination, a case where the victim refuses to behave in a recognizably "victim-like" manner could disorient and befuddle her attacker, but it also could enrage and infuriate him, leading him to yet more sadistic violence. This problem would seem to be extant regardless of whether the alternate script is familiar or not (although familiarity does seem to be a precondition for successful diversion).
Diversion works because it presumes we all have access to a certain universal index of narrative experience that has roughly similar (or at least mutually intelligible) meanings across the board. Where this is not the case, script-breaking runs into problems. The script itself may not adequately describe the situation being faced (a "rape script" premised around a drunk guy at the bar may not be of help when the woman is facing rape from her husband or father), or the perpetrator of violence may not be familiar with the alternative script being proposed (if someone had no conception of what a dinner party meant, the guest's reaction might have felt like mockery or worse). However, conceptually speaking, looking at crime in terms of scripts, and seeking to derail it by noting chinks in the armor of the narrative, is a surprisingly effective way to combat and prevent crime. Who says post-structuralism never gave us any useful practices?
We all act on a variety of social scripts, from which we find it enormously psychologically difficult to deviate once they're activated. Often, this is a problem, causing people to follow orders when they shouldn't, or to stand by in a crisis when they ought to be rendering aid. Sometimes it has more benign effects. The loss of the shoe suddenly shunted the policeman from his cop-script to his chivalry-script. Something similar probably happened with the burglar.
The crucial move here is that he wasn't directly challenged within the terms of the burglar script: The guests didn't refuse outright to hand over their money, but only offered him some wine first, so there was no need to move on to Act II: further threats. But since he hadn't asked for wine, the offer was not in line with the compliant-hostage script either: It was a social courtesy. Once he'd accepted, he was reading from the party-guest script. And holding up one's host at a dinner party is simply not the done thing.
"Script-breaking" is a rather prominent part of feminist theory, for example, in Sharon Marcus' work on rape prevention. She argues that rape is "a series of steps and signals whose typical initial moments we can learn to recognize and whose final outcome we can learn to stave off." It's not as easy as it sounds--just as the burglar is operating within a script of criminality, the target will naturally want to lapse into the script of "victim", the series of moves that society recognizes as the proper way for victims to behave. However, the risk of script-breaking is that its unpredictable--since people don't do it that often (hence it being a break), we don't know what the result of our behavioral alchemy will be. As Sanchez indicates, the best hope might be trying to divert the narrative from one recognized situation (robbery) to another recognized situation (dinner party)--even if the recognition stems only from media, TV, or social mores rather than lived-experience. But this only mitigates, not eliminates, the danger. For example, if rape is primarily a function of the desire for power and domination, a case where the victim refuses to behave in a recognizably "victim-like" manner could disorient and befuddle her attacker, but it also could enrage and infuriate him, leading him to yet more sadistic violence. This problem would seem to be extant regardless of whether the alternate script is familiar or not (although familiarity does seem to be a precondition for successful diversion).
Diversion works because it presumes we all have access to a certain universal index of narrative experience that has roughly similar (or at least mutually intelligible) meanings across the board. Where this is not the case, script-breaking runs into problems. The script itself may not adequately describe the situation being faced (a "rape script" premised around a drunk guy at the bar may not be of help when the woman is facing rape from her husband or father), or the perpetrator of violence may not be familiar with the alternative script being proposed (if someone had no conception of what a dinner party meant, the guest's reaction might have felt like mockery or worse). However, conceptually speaking, looking at crime in terms of scripts, and seeking to derail it by noting chinks in the armor of the narrative, is a surprisingly effective way to combat and prevent crime. Who says post-structuralism never gave us any useful practices?
The Case of the Jewish Refugees
David Harris has a post up on the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were forced to flee their homes in the Arab World over the course of the 20th century. What was once an ancient and vibrant community has been completely decimated, currently existing at around 1% of its population at the time Israel was founded. Fortunately, many were able to escape and resettle in the new Jewish state. But it is still telling how little attention their experience has gotten vis-a-vis their Palestinian brethren (although, for whatever reason, I've noticed a recent uptick in discussion about the history of Jewish refugees).
I blogged about this history here, and I still think it represents most of what I have to say on the subject. The international community has internalized a certain level of violence and suppression against Jews that it deems tolerable. It will not condemn anything that is not a gross deviation from that norm. It simply doesn't shock anybody to see Jews exiled and forced to flee for their lives. And while their resettlement in Israel is what prevented this problem from turning into a crisis, there is very little recognition of the way in which this proves the necessary and indispensable function that Israel serves in the modern world.
I blogged about this history here, and I still think it represents most of what I have to say on the subject. The international community has internalized a certain level of violence and suppression against Jews that it deems tolerable. It will not condemn anything that is not a gross deviation from that norm. It simply doesn't shock anybody to see Jews exiled and forced to flee for their lives. And while their resettlement in Israel is what prevented this problem from turning into a crisis, there is very little recognition of the way in which this proves the necessary and indispensable function that Israel serves in the modern world.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Boxing Blogging: HBO's Welterweight Tripleheader
HBO put on a huge welterweight card on tonight. Kermit Cintron (27-1, 25 KOs) faced Walter Matthysse (26-1, 25 KOs) for the IBF Welterweight title. Arturo Gatti (40-8, 31 KOs) looked to continue his career against "Contender" alum Alphonso Gomez (16-3-2, 7 KOs). And then the show moved out west to feature WBO titlist Antonio Margarito (34-4, 24 KOs) defending his crown against 6'1" Paul Williams (32-0, 24 KOs).
Cintron/Matthysse was first, and it did not last long. Matthysse got put down for the first time in his career at the end of the first round (a round which, prior to that, did not seem to be moving strongly in either fighter's favor). In the second, Cintron came out fast, putting down Matthysse again with a hard shot. The Argentinian got to his feet, but was clearly wobbly. Cintron then finished him off with a devastating upper-cut/hook combination, only the first of which was necessary (the second landed flush as Matthysse was going down). Were it not for some of the truly sensational KOs we've seen this year (Wilson over Nwodo, and Donaire upsetting Darchinyan), I think it'd be in the running for knockout of the year. As it is, welcome back to the division's elite, Cintron.
Going into Gatti/Gomez, I was predicting a unanimous decision for Gatti. Fighting at home in New Jersey, against a "Contender" guy (read: somebody who has more exposure than talent) who isn't reputed to have great punching power, this was the type of fight Gatti should win handily if he had anything left. Gatti does not have anything left, and Gomez was making him pay for stepping into the ring for seven long rounds before putting him down for the count and his career. All the while, the fans were on their seat hoping for one of Gatti's legendary comebacks. But his heart didn't seem to be in it for a drawn-out, blood and guts affair. Gomez was landing right hands all night, and when Gatti went down, the New Jersey boxing commissioner himself ran into the ring to make sure the bout was stopped. Gatti announced his retirement at the end of the fight, and while it may have been overdue, he's given boxing a hell of a ride over the course of his career.
Finally, the main event: Margarito/Williams. Both men felt like the division's elite had been ducking them. Margarito was putting a lucrative bout against Miguel Cotto on the line to send a message that he--who had been avoided for so long--would take on any and every legitimate challenger.
This fight was, to put it simply, fantastic. Both Margarito and Williams are volume punchers who like to use their height and reach to control fights and overwhelm their opponents with pressure. Margarito is 5'11" with a 30 inch reach (pretty high for a welterweight), but Williams is 6'1" (and looks even taller) with a 30.5 inch reach, which is freakish. As a result, it was Williams who was able to throw most of the punches, and Margarito was forced to settle for looking to land the harder shots. Williams controlled the early rounds, but Margarito began to come on strong later as he began to time Williams and the younger fighter began to fade, just a bit. What was crucial on the cards was how some of the closer early rounds were scored--I scored two of them (I believe rounds 3 and 6) even because Margarito got in some good body work that was beginning to effect Williams. But most observers (and I believe the judges) gave them to Williams, granting him a sweep of the first six rounds, whereas I had it 3 rounds for Williams, one for Margarito (the fourth), and two even at the halfway point. Margarito won a majority of the later rounds, but ended up coming just short, with Williams taking his crown by a 116-112, 115-113, 115-113 unanimous decision. I had it 115-115--had Margarito won the 12th round, I would have given him a decision (and, more importantly, those two 115-113 cards would have evened-up, giving him a majority draw).
Nonetheless, Williams fought a magnificent fight, and showed that he is the real thing at 147 pounds. With a title, Williams obviously deserves the chance to take on another one of the division's elites. And Margarito should definitely still be considered a match-up for a top fighter in the Welterweight division. For that matter, I wouldn't say no to a re-match for these two. They spent the entire night throwing and landing some big shots, and neither gave an inch. Truly, an excellent display of boxing, and one of the best non-PPV cards HBO has put on in a long while.
Cintron/Matthysse was first, and it did not last long. Matthysse got put down for the first time in his career at the end of the first round (a round which, prior to that, did not seem to be moving strongly in either fighter's favor). In the second, Cintron came out fast, putting down Matthysse again with a hard shot. The Argentinian got to his feet, but was clearly wobbly. Cintron then finished him off with a devastating upper-cut/hook combination, only the first of which was necessary (the second landed flush as Matthysse was going down). Were it not for some of the truly sensational KOs we've seen this year (Wilson over Nwodo, and Donaire upsetting Darchinyan), I think it'd be in the running for knockout of the year. As it is, welcome back to the division's elite, Cintron.
Going into Gatti/Gomez, I was predicting a unanimous decision for Gatti. Fighting at home in New Jersey, against a "Contender" guy (read: somebody who has more exposure than talent) who isn't reputed to have great punching power, this was the type of fight Gatti should win handily if he had anything left. Gatti does not have anything left, and Gomez was making him pay for stepping into the ring for seven long rounds before putting him down for the count and his career. All the while, the fans were on their seat hoping for one of Gatti's legendary comebacks. But his heart didn't seem to be in it for a drawn-out, blood and guts affair. Gomez was landing right hands all night, and when Gatti went down, the New Jersey boxing commissioner himself ran into the ring to make sure the bout was stopped. Gatti announced his retirement at the end of the fight, and while it may have been overdue, he's given boxing a hell of a ride over the course of his career.
Finally, the main event: Margarito/Williams. Both men felt like the division's elite had been ducking them. Margarito was putting a lucrative bout against Miguel Cotto on the line to send a message that he--who had been avoided for so long--would take on any and every legitimate challenger.
This fight was, to put it simply, fantastic. Both Margarito and Williams are volume punchers who like to use their height and reach to control fights and overwhelm their opponents with pressure. Margarito is 5'11" with a 30 inch reach (pretty high for a welterweight), but Williams is 6'1" (and looks even taller) with a 30.5 inch reach, which is freakish. As a result, it was Williams who was able to throw most of the punches, and Margarito was forced to settle for looking to land the harder shots. Williams controlled the early rounds, but Margarito began to come on strong later as he began to time Williams and the younger fighter began to fade, just a bit. What was crucial on the cards was how some of the closer early rounds were scored--I scored two of them (I believe rounds 3 and 6) even because Margarito got in some good body work that was beginning to effect Williams. But most observers (and I believe the judges) gave them to Williams, granting him a sweep of the first six rounds, whereas I had it 3 rounds for Williams, one for Margarito (the fourth), and two even at the halfway point. Margarito won a majority of the later rounds, but ended up coming just short, with Williams taking his crown by a 116-112, 115-113, 115-113 unanimous decision. I had it 115-115--had Margarito won the 12th round, I would have given him a decision (and, more importantly, those two 115-113 cards would have evened-up, giving him a majority draw).
Nonetheless, Williams fought a magnificent fight, and showed that he is the real thing at 147 pounds. With a title, Williams obviously deserves the chance to take on another one of the division's elites. And Margarito should definitely still be considered a match-up for a top fighter in the Welterweight division. For that matter, I wouldn't say no to a re-match for these two. They spent the entire night throwing and landing some big shots, and neither gave an inch. Truly, an excellent display of boxing, and one of the best non-PPV cards HBO has put on in a long while.
Gilmore Leaves the Race
Republican candidate and former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore has announced he is dropping out of the contest for the 2008 Presidential election. Lagging far behind in fundraising and popular support, Gilmore lashed out at the nomination schedule that he blamed for the demise of his candidacy:
That might be true (though I wonder how it explains Senator Obama). But running a successful presidential campaign also requires a candidate who has more to his name than spending one term as a governor where there is a near-universal consensus he crashed his state into oblivion. Gilmore's Virginia legacy was to send the state into near bankruptcy and catalyze its move from solid red to purple (which is why the two subsequent governors after he left have both been Democrats). Don't get me wrong--us Donkeys appreciate the help. But it's not a complete mystery why Republican voters might have been less than enthused about Gilmore's candidacy.
UPDATE: Here's the Post's coverage:
A Southern Republican governor with "absolute certainty in his own ideas and beliefs," who refuses to compromise and infuriates his political adversaries?
Gosh, what possibly could have gone wrong?
“I have come to believe that it takes more than a positive vision for our nation’s future to successfully compete for the Presidency,” he said. “I believe that it takes years of preparation to put in place both the political and financial infrastructure to contest what now amounts to a one-day national primary in February.”
That might be true (though I wonder how it explains Senator Obama). But running a successful presidential campaign also requires a candidate who has more to his name than spending one term as a governor where there is a near-universal consensus he crashed his state into oblivion. Gilmore's Virginia legacy was to send the state into near bankruptcy and catalyze its move from solid red to purple (which is why the two subsequent governors after he left have both been Democrats). Don't get me wrong--us Donkeys appreciate the help. But it's not a complete mystery why Republican voters might have been less than enthused about Gilmore's candidacy.
UPDATE: Here's the Post's coverage:
Gilmore's real strength, however, has always been his absolute certainty in his own ideas and beliefs. As governor, the confidence gave him strength while also earning him the enmity of political adversaries who grew frustrated by his unwillingness to compromise.
A Southern Republican governor with "absolute certainty in his own ideas and beliefs," who refuses to compromise and infuriates his political adversaries?
Gosh, what possibly could have gone wrong?
Friday, July 13, 2007
The Stanford Prison Experiment Hits TV
With a gendered twist (via Feministing):
And since the whole thing is being run by Fox, you know that it'll be classy.
The show is called "When Women Rule The World." In actuality, it sounds more like a modified repetition of the Stanford Prison Experiment, only without scientific planning. Reality shows that try to examine human behavior from a psychological standpoint rarely do a good job at it. The danger is to extrapolate from whatever happens on this show to make any real-world conclusions. I'd also note that any implicit claim that this even remotely resembles the feminist vision of the world is a gross mischaracterization of feminist theory and advocacy. I'm not talking about the results here, I'm talking about the set-up--feminists do not desire female "domination", indeed, the more radical you get, the more likely you are to see deconstructions of the entire concept of dominion.
Gag.
The participants will be brought to a remote, primitive location where the women will have the opportunity to “rule” as they build a newly formed society – one where there is no glass ceiling and no dressing to impress. For the men, their worlds of power and prestige are turned inside-out and upside-down. And for these women, turnabout is fair play!
In order to win, the men must accede to the women’s every demand, 24/7. Here, women command and men obey. Over the series’ duration, the men will be eliminated by the women until one last man is standing.
How will the men react? How will the women treat the men? Can women effectively rule society? Will the men learn what life is like for some women in today’s world? Will this new society be a Utopia or a hell on earth? And in the end, who will be man enough to succeed in the new social order?
And since the whole thing is being run by Fox, you know that it'll be classy.
The show is called "When Women Rule The World." In actuality, it sounds more like a modified repetition of the Stanford Prison Experiment, only without scientific planning. Reality shows that try to examine human behavior from a psychological standpoint rarely do a good job at it. The danger is to extrapolate from whatever happens on this show to make any real-world conclusions. I'd also note that any implicit claim that this even remotely resembles the feminist vision of the world is a gross mischaracterization of feminist theory and advocacy. I'm not talking about the results here, I'm talking about the set-up--feminists do not desire female "domination", indeed, the more radical you get, the more likely you are to see deconstructions of the entire concept of dominion.
Gag.
Left Behind
Phoebe Maltz wonders about those who say they want to critique the left "from the left." If they disagree with the left about so much, why do they call themselves leftists? Why not become a rightist? Or adopt some other political identity?
Well, the obvious answer is that you're attacking the left from a position even further to the left, but from the context I don't think Phoebe is talking about that. However, I would say that she is overestimating the amount of dispute "critics from the left" have with their supposed compatriots--they probably are on the same page for most issues, and are just at odds over one (probably high profile) thing. It seems silly to strike out on one's own just because of a handful of differences.
However, at the core, I think the answer to Phoebe's question lies in the realm of a shared set of commitments or presuppositions. More than policy end-results, this is how I think most people (or at least most intellectuals) determine who they consider to be in their camp or not. People don't come up with their political beliefs in a void--they do so by drawing on rich veins of argument, writing, and schools of thought. The people engaging in the debates Phoebe wonders about are, I suspect, having an intramural affair--it is entirely possible that a right-winger might not identify with the reasoning a leftist uses to get from point A to point B, even if she too agrees with B. And on the flip side, even where they agree on end points, a person who identifies with a certain intellectual paradigm may not want to associate himself with another, even if they end up agreeing on certain end-point policies. This is especially true where the person suspects his would-be allies have made their decision based on reasoning or beliefs he finds repugnant.
For example, take a leftist who supports aggressive action to promote women's rights in the Arab World. He says that he supports this stance due to liberal notions of equality for all persons and the belief that the subjugation of women, regardless of culture, is wrong (incidentally, the belief that Western liberals and feminists wouldn't sign onto that is one of the more peculiar myths to have been perpetuated against the modern left. But whatever). Looking at right-wingers who also are loudly decrying abuses of women's rights in that region, he might still not want to join their camp, for a variety of reasons. He might think they are being disingenuous, and don't actually care about women (wait for the first Islamic feminist to start demanding abortion rights and see what happens). Even if their commitment is genuine, it might be based on stereotyping or other beliefs he might not want to be associated with ("won't somebody please save these heathen savages?"). It's not all about the end game--the journey matters just as much. Because of that, people are quite reasonable to try and convince their old traveling mates to sign on to a new destination, rather than search about for new parties who say they're going where you're going but getting there in a morally intolerable way.
Well, the obvious answer is that you're attacking the left from a position even further to the left, but from the context I don't think Phoebe is talking about that. However, I would say that she is overestimating the amount of dispute "critics from the left" have with their supposed compatriots--they probably are on the same page for most issues, and are just at odds over one (probably high profile) thing. It seems silly to strike out on one's own just because of a handful of differences.
However, at the core, I think the answer to Phoebe's question lies in the realm of a shared set of commitments or presuppositions. More than policy end-results, this is how I think most people (or at least most intellectuals) determine who they consider to be in their camp or not. People don't come up with their political beliefs in a void--they do so by drawing on rich veins of argument, writing, and schools of thought. The people engaging in the debates Phoebe wonders about are, I suspect, having an intramural affair--it is entirely possible that a right-winger might not identify with the reasoning a leftist uses to get from point A to point B, even if she too agrees with B. And on the flip side, even where they agree on end points, a person who identifies with a certain intellectual paradigm may not want to associate himself with another, even if they end up agreeing on certain end-point policies. This is especially true where the person suspects his would-be allies have made their decision based on reasoning or beliefs he finds repugnant.
For example, take a leftist who supports aggressive action to promote women's rights in the Arab World. He says that he supports this stance due to liberal notions of equality for all persons and the belief that the subjugation of women, regardless of culture, is wrong (incidentally, the belief that Western liberals and feminists wouldn't sign onto that is one of the more peculiar myths to have been perpetuated against the modern left. But whatever). Looking at right-wingers who also are loudly decrying abuses of women's rights in that region, he might still not want to join their camp, for a variety of reasons. He might think they are being disingenuous, and don't actually care about women (wait for the first Islamic feminist to start demanding abortion rights and see what happens). Even if their commitment is genuine, it might be based on stereotyping or other beliefs he might not want to be associated with ("won't somebody please save these heathen savages?"). It's not all about the end game--the journey matters just as much. Because of that, people are quite reasonable to try and convince their old traveling mates to sign on to a new destination, rather than search about for new parties who say they're going where you're going but getting there in a morally intolerable way.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
True Colors
I'm always stunned when the Family Research Council disappoints me. Not because I think they are a particularly admirable or principled organization. Much the opposite--my standards for them have dropped so far I simply refuse to believe they could be undercut. And yet, time and again I am proven wrong.
Today's atrocity is their reaction to Hindu chaplain Rajan Zed delivering a prayer before Congress. It is the first time a Hindu invocation has been given in Congress, and thus is somewhat of a milestone. And the FRC, which has fought tooth and nail to preserve prayer in the public square, fight against "hostility" towards religion, and generally pressed that official religious exercise does not result in favoritism or discrimination against people or creeds, has issued a response from its chief, Tony Perkins:
Now, I am not surprised that the FRC is not thrilled at Zed's barrier-breaking. I have no doubt they deeply dislike Hinduism, view its practitioners as hell-bound infidels, and do not want to see it gain any credibility or presence on America's shore. However, I am stunned that they would say it out loud. This was an easy mark for the FRC. There is no risk that Hinduism will take over America (they don't even have the hyperbolic "Muslim hordes will turn us into a Sharia state!" fear to go on here). This is obviously not going to become the norm. The vast majority of American legislative prayer will still take place within the Christian religious tradition. This was a gimme. Talk about how this proves America is non-discriminatory. Show that it gives lie to liberal cries of Christian domination or theocracy. Brag about how ecumenical we are. It won't change reality, and it would score some points.
But no. The FRC simply can't stand Hinduism, and couldn't take the incredible gift it was being offered here. So they spouted off, and made themselves look like idiots in the process. Let us take note of some of the ways how.
1) "Zed enjoys freedom in this country that Christians do not enjoy in his home country." Zed is from Reno, Nevada. He was born in India, but that hardly matters. If he was originally from India, he now calls Reno (and thus, America) his home. This is his country, just as much as it is mine (well, obviously, since I'm Jewish and thus every bit as damned) or any of the FRC's Christian buddies.
2) The capitalization of "God" when it refers to the Christian deity, but the lower-case for Hindu ("gods"). This is just disrespectful.
3) "The monotheistic God of the Jewish and Christian faith." This one is so obscene, it can be divided into four independent specimens of idiocy. First, I've heard that many Hindus consider their religion to be monotheistic--one God in many forms, yes, but that can't be too distressing to anyone who believes in the Trinity. Second, if it is the God of the Jewish and Christian faith, then it has to be the God of the Muslim faith too--we're all stemming from the same Abrahamic tradition. Third, there is no more of a "tradition" from the Framer's era of viewing this God as a "Jewish" God than of a Hindu God. Rewriting history to pretend like most American Christians at the founding viewed Judaism as completely full and equal partners is intellectual dishonesty. Fourth, this faux-inclusiveness for Judaism is belied by the prayer Perkins cites as the exemplification of an "appropriate" prayer, referring to America "as the only nation on earth that came into being 'for the Glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith.'" Well gosh, that puts me in a bind, now doesn't it? Given that generally, me and mine are the first targets (and I use them term deliberately) of Christian "advancement" efforts, that's a bit disconcerting. Don't play me, Tony. You're not really on my side here. The smile I'm getting is one of a predator. Jews are a marginalized non-Christian religious minority in America. And when you start supporting discrimination of any non-Christian minority, you threaten all of them. That's why, Abrahamic ties notwithstanding, I am far more tied to Zed than I'll be to you (It's also worth noting that Jews tend to be treated rather well in Hindu-dominated counties, especially compared to our history in Christian locales. There, "the advancement of the Christian faith" has been the moniker by which my people have faced continual persecution, oppression, bigotry, hate, and genocidal rage. What makes you think I'd trust you more than them?).
Other reactions:
Nathan Bradfield of Church and State pretty much has an orgasm over Perkins' fine words of wisdom. I doubt this will make a difference, but I'll pitch it anyway. I love it that y'all say you want to include Jews. But standards such as the ones you advocate are inherently anti-Semitic, threaten my equal religious standing, and are the reason Jews will never leave the Democratic Party no matter how often you pledge your allegiance to Israel. They are the words of an enemy, not a friend. As an observant Jew, there is very little I find more repellent than this false partnership. At least with Hamas you know where you stand. Here we have folks trying to enlist the good name of Judaism to hurt other religious minorities and bring about our own demise. Play the Christian partisan if you want, but don't pretend to be my friend while you prepare the dagger for my back.
If Mr. Bradfield wants a Jewish perspective from actual Jews (and mine isn't sufficient), here's another. I guarantee you--every major Jewish organization in America is coming down on Zed's side here.
A smattering of liberal blogs have commented on the disruption of Zed's prayer by Christian fundamentalists. Talk about hostility to religion in the public square. When is the last time radical liberals interrupted a Christian preacher--much less because he was the wrong religion, and not because our public squares should be neutral turf?
This has been a post written in anger, so let me end on a positive note. Zed's prayer is a great moment for America and our progress into a diverse, pluralistic, tolerant nation. I am sorry that it had to be marred by a few religious extremists. But I am confident that vast majority of people, from all faiths and from none, share in the ideals and principles that allow Zed his moment, and are as proud that our nation has taken this step as I am. God bless you.
***
I thought the plural (and adjective) form of "Hindu" was "Hindi." I thought "Hindus" sounded silly. It turns out I was wrong, and now I look silly. The correction has been made. Sorry, PG :-(.
Today's atrocity is their reaction to Hindu chaplain Rajan Zed delivering a prayer before Congress. It is the first time a Hindu invocation has been given in Congress, and thus is somewhat of a milestone. And the FRC, which has fought tooth and nail to preserve prayer in the public square, fight against "hostility" towards religion, and generally pressed that official religious exercise does not result in favoritism or discrimination against people or creeds, has issued a response from its chief, Tony Perkins:
There is no question that under the first amendment Zed enjoys freedom in this country that Christians do not enjoy in his home country. But does that mean it is appropriate for him to open the nation's highest elected body in prayer? I think not. This prayer is more than ceremony, although many may treat it as such. It is a plea to God....
No one can legitimately challenge the fact that the God America refers to in the pledge, our national motto, and other places is the monotheistic God of the Jewish and Christian faith. There is no historic connection between America and the polytheistic creed of the Hindu faith. I seriously doubt that Americans want to change the motto, "In God we Trust, which Congress adopted in 1955, to, "In gods we Trust." That is essentially what the United States Senate did today.
Now, I am not surprised that the FRC is not thrilled at Zed's barrier-breaking. I have no doubt they deeply dislike Hinduism, view its practitioners as hell-bound infidels, and do not want to see it gain any credibility or presence on America's shore. However, I am stunned that they would say it out loud. This was an easy mark for the FRC. There is no risk that Hinduism will take over America (they don't even have the hyperbolic "Muslim hordes will turn us into a Sharia state!" fear to go on here). This is obviously not going to become the norm. The vast majority of American legislative prayer will still take place within the Christian religious tradition. This was a gimme. Talk about how this proves America is non-discriminatory. Show that it gives lie to liberal cries of Christian domination or theocracy. Brag about how ecumenical we are. It won't change reality, and it would score some points.
But no. The FRC simply can't stand Hinduism, and couldn't take the incredible gift it was being offered here. So they spouted off, and made themselves look like idiots in the process. Let us take note of some of the ways how.
1) "Zed enjoys freedom in this country that Christians do not enjoy in his home country." Zed is from Reno, Nevada. He was born in India, but that hardly matters. If he was originally from India, he now calls Reno (and thus, America) his home. This is his country, just as much as it is mine (well, obviously, since I'm Jewish and thus every bit as damned) or any of the FRC's Christian buddies.
2) The capitalization of "God" when it refers to the Christian deity, but the lower-case for Hindu ("gods"). This is just disrespectful.
3) "The monotheistic God of the Jewish and Christian faith." This one is so obscene, it can be divided into four independent specimens of idiocy. First, I've heard that many Hindus consider their religion to be monotheistic--one God in many forms, yes, but that can't be too distressing to anyone who believes in the Trinity. Second, if it is the God of the Jewish and Christian faith, then it has to be the God of the Muslim faith too--we're all stemming from the same Abrahamic tradition. Third, there is no more of a "tradition" from the Framer's era of viewing this God as a "Jewish" God than of a Hindu God. Rewriting history to pretend like most American Christians at the founding viewed Judaism as completely full and equal partners is intellectual dishonesty. Fourth, this faux-inclusiveness for Judaism is belied by the prayer Perkins cites as the exemplification of an "appropriate" prayer, referring to America "as the only nation on earth that came into being 'for the Glory of God and the advancement of the Christian faith.'" Well gosh, that puts me in a bind, now doesn't it? Given that generally, me and mine are the first targets (and I use them term deliberately) of Christian "advancement" efforts, that's a bit disconcerting. Don't play me, Tony. You're not really on my side here. The smile I'm getting is one of a predator. Jews are a marginalized non-Christian religious minority in America. And when you start supporting discrimination of any non-Christian minority, you threaten all of them. That's why, Abrahamic ties notwithstanding, I am far more tied to Zed than I'll be to you (It's also worth noting that Jews tend to be treated rather well in Hindu-dominated counties, especially compared to our history in Christian locales. There, "the advancement of the Christian faith" has been the moniker by which my people have faced continual persecution, oppression, bigotry, hate, and genocidal rage. What makes you think I'd trust you more than them?).
Other reactions:
Nathan Bradfield of Church and State pretty much has an orgasm over Perkins' fine words of wisdom. I doubt this will make a difference, but I'll pitch it anyway. I love it that y'all say you want to include Jews. But standards such as the ones you advocate are inherently anti-Semitic, threaten my equal religious standing, and are the reason Jews will never leave the Democratic Party no matter how often you pledge your allegiance to Israel. They are the words of an enemy, not a friend. As an observant Jew, there is very little I find more repellent than this false partnership. At least with Hamas you know where you stand. Here we have folks trying to enlist the good name of Judaism to hurt other religious minorities and bring about our own demise. Play the Christian partisan if you want, but don't pretend to be my friend while you prepare the dagger for my back.
If Mr. Bradfield wants a Jewish perspective from actual Jews (and mine isn't sufficient), here's another. I guarantee you--every major Jewish organization in America is coming down on Zed's side here.
A smattering of liberal blogs have commented on the disruption of Zed's prayer by Christian fundamentalists. Talk about hostility to religion in the public square. When is the last time radical liberals interrupted a Christian preacher--much less because he was the wrong religion, and not because our public squares should be neutral turf?
This has been a post written in anger, so let me end on a positive note. Zed's prayer is a great moment for America and our progress into a diverse, pluralistic, tolerant nation. I am sorry that it had to be marred by a few religious extremists. But I am confident that vast majority of people, from all faiths and from none, share in the ideals and principles that allow Zed his moment, and are as proud that our nation has taken this step as I am. God bless you.
***
I thought the plural (and adjective) form of "Hindu" was "Hindi." I thought "Hindus" sounded silly. It turns out I was wrong, and now I look silly. The correction has been made. Sorry, PG :-(.
The Next Democratic Supreme Court Justice
Veteran Supreme Court observer Tom Goldstein has his picks for who a Democratic President might pick for his or her first open SCOTUS seat. They are:
Hon. Johnnie Rawlinson, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears, Georgia Supreme Court
Hon. Sonia Sotomayor, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Hon. Kim McLane Wardlaw, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
All four are, of course, extremely qualified. In terms of demographics, Judge Rawlinson and Justice Sears are African-American, while Judges Sotomayor and Wardlaw are both Hispanic. All four judges are women.
Without knowing anything about their decisions, relative politics, or any number of other pertinent information (in other words, going solely off bios), Judge Sotomayor seems to have the clearest path to confirmation. She's been serving in the judiciary as long or longer than any of the other three candidates, being appointed in 1992 (Justice Sears was also appointed to the Georgia Supreme Court in 1992). She has the advantage of being originally appointed to her district court seat by President Bush, before being elevated to the 2nd Circuit by President Clinton in 1997. Her credentials are the most overtly elite (Princeton/Yale), compared to North Carolina A&T/Pacific (Rawlinson), Cornell/Emory (Sears), and UCLA/UCLA (Wardlaw). Finally, she gets an advantage over Rawlinson and Wardlaw in that she doesn't hail from the 9th circuit, which, regardless of these judges' particular decisions, will inevitably tar them with the dread label, "activist." (For what its worth, Goldstein, who is far more informed than I, gives Wardlaw the inside track).
But regardless, it is quite pleasant to see a number of well-qualified minority women who could make it to the bench of America's highest Court under a Democratic administration. The "small pool" argument takes another dagger. I think that America's political institutions have at least some obligation (not a paramount obligation, but some obligation) to "look like the nation." Others lecture that pure academic, experiential, or intellectual qualification should be all that matters. Happily, we are now in a situation where both of our desires can be reconciled, as there are several excellent candidates for the Supreme Court who could make everybody happy.
Goldstein also created an expanded list of 30 potential nominees (PDF), which is worth taking a look at. Of the 30, 24 of them are either women or racial minorities. Seven (including Goldstein's first four) are both women and minorities. The three names in that category who did make Goldstein's final roster of first seat candidates were Vicki Miles-LaGrange (Federal Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma 1994-present, University of Ghana/Vassar/Howard), Patricia Timmons-Goodson (North Carolina Supreme Court 2006-present, UNC/UNC), and Martha Vasquez (Federal Judge for the District of New Mexico 1993-present, Notre Dame/Notre Dame).
Other names of note on the list include Harvard Law Dean Elena Kagan, Yale Law Dean Harold Honju Koh, former Stanford Law Dean Kathleen Sullivan, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, US Senators Ken Salazar and Barack Obama (though the latter, Goldstein concedes, might be otherwise occupied from 2008-2012), and former Solicitor General Seth Waxman. Gender-wise, the list is composed of 18 men and 12 women; race wise it includes 11 Whites, 6 Hispanics, 12 African-Americans, and 1 Asian-American.
I can't wait until 2008
Hon. Johnnie Rawlinson, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears, Georgia Supreme Court
Hon. Sonia Sotomayor, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Hon. Kim McLane Wardlaw, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
All four are, of course, extremely qualified. In terms of demographics, Judge Rawlinson and Justice Sears are African-American, while Judges Sotomayor and Wardlaw are both Hispanic. All four judges are women.
Without knowing anything about their decisions, relative politics, or any number of other pertinent information (in other words, going solely off bios), Judge Sotomayor seems to have the clearest path to confirmation. She's been serving in the judiciary as long or longer than any of the other three candidates, being appointed in 1992 (Justice Sears was also appointed to the Georgia Supreme Court in 1992). She has the advantage of being originally appointed to her district court seat by President Bush, before being elevated to the 2nd Circuit by President Clinton in 1997. Her credentials are the most overtly elite (Princeton/Yale), compared to North Carolina A&T/Pacific (Rawlinson), Cornell/Emory (Sears), and UCLA/UCLA (Wardlaw). Finally, she gets an advantage over Rawlinson and Wardlaw in that she doesn't hail from the 9th circuit, which, regardless of these judges' particular decisions, will inevitably tar them with the dread label, "activist." (For what its worth, Goldstein, who is far more informed than I, gives Wardlaw the inside track).
But regardless, it is quite pleasant to see a number of well-qualified minority women who could make it to the bench of America's highest Court under a Democratic administration. The "small pool" argument takes another dagger. I think that America's political institutions have at least some obligation (not a paramount obligation, but some obligation) to "look like the nation." Others lecture that pure academic, experiential, or intellectual qualification should be all that matters. Happily, we are now in a situation where both of our desires can be reconciled, as there are several excellent candidates for the Supreme Court who could make everybody happy.
Goldstein also created an expanded list of 30 potential nominees (PDF), which is worth taking a look at. Of the 30, 24 of them are either women or racial minorities. Seven (including Goldstein's first four) are both women and minorities. The three names in that category who did make Goldstein's final roster of first seat candidates were Vicki Miles-LaGrange (Federal Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma 1994-present, University of Ghana/Vassar/Howard), Patricia Timmons-Goodson (North Carolina Supreme Court 2006-present, UNC/UNC), and Martha Vasquez (Federal Judge for the District of New Mexico 1993-present, Notre Dame/Notre Dame).
Other names of note on the list include Harvard Law Dean Elena Kagan, Yale Law Dean Harold Honju Koh, former Stanford Law Dean Kathleen Sullivan, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, US Senators Ken Salazar and Barack Obama (though the latter, Goldstein concedes, might be otherwise occupied from 2008-2012), and former Solicitor General Seth Waxman. Gender-wise, the list is composed of 18 men and 12 women; race wise it includes 11 Whites, 6 Hispanics, 12 African-Americans, and 1 Asian-American.
I can't wait until 2008
Boxing Blogging: July 11th, 2007
Haven't done this in awhile, but last night's WNF card had some interest, so let's hear it. Starting off with the undercard, which featured two "prospects", in the sense that they were undefeated, but neither of whom had faced any real challenges. Although both won, Daniel Lomeli (5-0, 0 KOs) looked far better in his match against Ronald Hurley (1-2-2, 0 KOs), than Anthony Salcido (13-0-1, 8 KOs) did against punching bag Sammy Ventura (25-18, 20 KOs). Lomeli had a built in advantage in that his fighter was willing to mix it up with him, giving us four exhilarating rounds that had no lack of action. But what impressed me most about Lomeli (aside from his first round knockdown) was his discipline in working the body. Good body punchers are tough to find, and its especially tempting to go head-hunting for the big shots in a short fight. For Lomeli to commit himself to that route, at this stage in his career, is a very good sign. Salcido got the knockout that was expected against Ventura (who has been knocked out in over 80% of his losses). But in general, he did not display the killer instinct required to really make it at an elite level. He did not seem to interested in mixing it up with Ventura, somebody who a genuine prospect would dispatch with no effort. Incidentally, I think that the stoppage was early--Ventura should have been assessed a technical knockdown given the way he fell against the ropes, but he deserved at least a count.
The main event, though, had genuine implications beyond developing a prospect. It featured top junior middleweight Joel Julio against "Contender" alum Cornelius "K9" Bundrage. Before the fight, I told my brother that it was either going to be a really good bout, or a mismatch, depending on whether K9 is for real. A lot of smack has been talked about how "Contender" fighters get too much exposure and are thus overrated and overmatched at the top levels. K9 was supposed to be one of the weaker fighters on the show, but gritted out some surprising upsets to take a bronze medal. Although Teddy Atlas said that he had never faced anybody at Julio's level, that isn't entirely accurate. His two losses have come to former titlist Steve Forbes, who probably is a step beneath Julio, and Sechew Powell, who definitely is in Julio's ballpark (Powell's only loss is to elite junior middleweight Kassim Ouma, and he has victories over an impressive roster of fighters). The problem for Bundrage is that his loss against Powell was a first round blowout where he went down twice in about a minute of action (the first was a double-knockdown, but Bundrage was clearly more hurt by it). From that, it was unclear whether he had the chin to stand up to the power punching Julio.
He couldn't. Julio doesn't look like a puncher to me, but records don't lie, and he's knocked out his opponents in all but three of his fights. Julio does have a killer instinct, and looked close to stopping the fight after knocking Bundrage down early in round three. To his credit, Bundrage managed to stay alive and even took the fourth round. But that was his only bright spot of the night, and Julio floored Bundadge again in round 8 and followed up with a flurry that forced the referee to stop the fight. Bundrage's problem (aside from the fact that he was just outclassed) is that he looks to the ref too much for help. At least three times throughout the fight, I saw him get tagged while looking away from Julio to complain. For a guy whose done his share of ethically ambiguous tactics, this is particularly annoying. Also, Bundrage's one advantage over Julio might have been that he's physically stronger, but he didn't make any effort to get inside. In an outside punching war, Julio had two hands and Bundrage had one, and he was going to go down.
Julio's record is now 32-1, 30 KOs, and he is about ready for a title shot. Bundrage falls to 26-3, 15 KOs.
The main event, though, had genuine implications beyond developing a prospect. It featured top junior middleweight Joel Julio against "Contender" alum Cornelius "K9" Bundrage. Before the fight, I told my brother that it was either going to be a really good bout, or a mismatch, depending on whether K9 is for real. A lot of smack has been talked about how "Contender" fighters get too much exposure and are thus overrated and overmatched at the top levels. K9 was supposed to be one of the weaker fighters on the show, but gritted out some surprising upsets to take a bronze medal. Although Teddy Atlas said that he had never faced anybody at Julio's level, that isn't entirely accurate. His two losses have come to former titlist Steve Forbes, who probably is a step beneath Julio, and Sechew Powell, who definitely is in Julio's ballpark (Powell's only loss is to elite junior middleweight Kassim Ouma, and he has victories over an impressive roster of fighters). The problem for Bundrage is that his loss against Powell was a first round blowout where he went down twice in about a minute of action (the first was a double-knockdown, but Bundrage was clearly more hurt by it). From that, it was unclear whether he had the chin to stand up to the power punching Julio.
He couldn't. Julio doesn't look like a puncher to me, but records don't lie, and he's knocked out his opponents in all but three of his fights. Julio does have a killer instinct, and looked close to stopping the fight after knocking Bundrage down early in round three. To his credit, Bundrage managed to stay alive and even took the fourth round. But that was his only bright spot of the night, and Julio floored Bundadge again in round 8 and followed up with a flurry that forced the referee to stop the fight. Bundrage's problem (aside from the fact that he was just outclassed) is that he looks to the ref too much for help. At least three times throughout the fight, I saw him get tagged while looking away from Julio to complain. For a guy whose done his share of ethically ambiguous tactics, this is particularly annoying. Also, Bundrage's one advantage over Julio might have been that he's physically stronger, but he didn't make any effort to get inside. In an outside punching war, Julio had two hands and Bundrage had one, and he was going to go down.
Julio's record is now 32-1, 30 KOs, and he is about ready for a title shot. Bundrage falls to 26-3, 15 KOs.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Order of the Phoenix Movie Review
Okay, let's start out with the most surprising detail before we get to the main text of the review: Voldemort looks quite cutting in the black suit, shirt, tie combination. I'm dead serious. He has a damn good tailor, whoever he is.
The movie itself was satisfactory, if not outstanding. The Order of the Phoenix was one of the two weakest books (along with Chamber of Secrets), and if anything it seemed like an even worse candidate for film adaptation. But, perhaps recognizing their constraints, it actually came to life about as well as could be expected. As usual with the HP flicks, people without a background in the series (i.e., at least having watched the other movies) will be completely lost, but these movies were always made under the assumption that its viewers were fans already. Within that framework, the movie rolls along, doesn't go for too much, and most importantly, doesn't focus on the parts of the book that would spell disaster for its cast (in other words, it didn't make Daniel Radcliffe act).
One of the movie's better lines is when Hermione Granger tells Ron that he has "the emotional range of a teaspoon," but honestly, that line would have better been spoken to Mr. Potter. Daniel Radcliffe has always been limited by the fact that he can't express more than one emotion, and this script must have taken that into account. In the early movies, the magic emotion was "surprise." In this movie, surprise is out, and glowering is in. Boy, can Radcliffe glower. And to be fair, glaring and steaming and smoldering is how Harry spends most of Book Five, which is one of the reasons it aggravated me so much. Mercifully, the movie's producers decided not to focus on that theme of the book, and so for most of the movie Harry is rather expressionless. Which is where he is at his best. Aside from that, little of the acting was worth note. The other main characters manage to hold themselves reasonably well. Dolores Umbridge was, in my view, overplayed, but my brother said she hit the target dead on. Luna Lovegood flirted with being really well done, but was a bit too affected even for such an outlandish character.
Shorter than its predecessors, the movie still has pacing problems, tending to drag when the producers get CGI-happy. The reverse problem, of course, is that the movie feels perpetually rushed--the product of cramming a book the size of Order into a watchable movie. Major plot events occur in a single scene, without expounding, lending the whole show a "blink and it's gone" feeling. Prioritization would have helped here--there were a lot of areas that got short-changed, and a few that could have donated some precious minutes. The time spent showing Harry training his DAers, especially, could have been shaved and redirected to prevent the movie from being spread so thin. The final battle in the Ministry of Magic got the right amount of time and rang reasonably true (Bellatrix Lestrange was played beautifully, by the way), so kudos there. However, as it went on, it began to over-reach itself. Too many flashing lights, too much wanton destruction, even the summoning of a monster. It felt like it was cribbed from a Dragon Ball Z cartoon, or a Final Fantasy "limit break" animation. If, after defeating Voldemort, the soundtrack had broken out into FF's "victory" theme (da-da-da-daaa-da-daa-da-daa-daaa!), I wouldn't have been the least surprised. This shouldn't happen.
All in all, it was a fine movie, worth seeing, but nothing ground-breaking or earth-shattering. Given how weak the movie series started, I'd be quite pleased if it managed to find its niche as solid but unremarkable, as it seems significantly more possible for the movies to get worse, then to get better.
6.5/10
The movie itself was satisfactory, if not outstanding. The Order of the Phoenix was one of the two weakest books (along with Chamber of Secrets), and if anything it seemed like an even worse candidate for film adaptation. But, perhaps recognizing their constraints, it actually came to life about as well as could be expected. As usual with the HP flicks, people without a background in the series (i.e., at least having watched the other movies) will be completely lost, but these movies were always made under the assumption that its viewers were fans already. Within that framework, the movie rolls along, doesn't go for too much, and most importantly, doesn't focus on the parts of the book that would spell disaster for its cast (in other words, it didn't make Daniel Radcliffe act).
One of the movie's better lines is when Hermione Granger tells Ron that he has "the emotional range of a teaspoon," but honestly, that line would have better been spoken to Mr. Potter. Daniel Radcliffe has always been limited by the fact that he can't express more than one emotion, and this script must have taken that into account. In the early movies, the magic emotion was "surprise." In this movie, surprise is out, and glowering is in. Boy, can Radcliffe glower. And to be fair, glaring and steaming and smoldering is how Harry spends most of Book Five, which is one of the reasons it aggravated me so much. Mercifully, the movie's producers decided not to focus on that theme of the book, and so for most of the movie Harry is rather expressionless. Which is where he is at his best. Aside from that, little of the acting was worth note. The other main characters manage to hold themselves reasonably well. Dolores Umbridge was, in my view, overplayed, but my brother said she hit the target dead on. Luna Lovegood flirted with being really well done, but was a bit too affected even for such an outlandish character.
Shorter than its predecessors, the movie still has pacing problems, tending to drag when the producers get CGI-happy. The reverse problem, of course, is that the movie feels perpetually rushed--the product of cramming a book the size of Order into a watchable movie. Major plot events occur in a single scene, without expounding, lending the whole show a "blink and it's gone" feeling. Prioritization would have helped here--there were a lot of areas that got short-changed, and a few that could have donated some precious minutes. The time spent showing Harry training his DAers, especially, could have been shaved and redirected to prevent the movie from being spread so thin. The final battle in the Ministry of Magic got the right amount of time and rang reasonably true (Bellatrix Lestrange was played beautifully, by the way), so kudos there. However, as it went on, it began to over-reach itself. Too many flashing lights, too much wanton destruction, even the summoning of a monster. It felt like it was cribbed from a Dragon Ball Z cartoon, or a Final Fantasy "limit break" animation. If, after defeating Voldemort, the soundtrack had broken out into FF's "victory" theme (da-da-da-daaa-da-daa-da-daa-daaa!), I wouldn't have been the least surprised. This shouldn't happen.
All in all, it was a fine movie, worth seeing, but nothing ground-breaking or earth-shattering. Given how weak the movie series started, I'd be quite pleased if it managed to find its niche as solid but unremarkable, as it seems significantly more possible for the movies to get worse, then to get better.
6.5/10
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Private Affairs
U.S. Senator David Vitter (R-LA), a key ally to GOP Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, has admitted his link to a D.C. "madam", who ran an "escort service" frequented by many of the city's high and mighty. Vitter apologized for his "serious sin" and remarked:
Certainly, I feel terrible that a man's marriage and personal life is about to be dragged into the public sphere as so much political football. These concerns are private, and should stay between Vitter and his family.
What's that you say? Vitter voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment? Twice? Oh dear. I guess he thinks that marriage is something that deserves to be a public issue and political football. Well then. Game on.
In the same vein, Ann Althouse notes that:
LGM and Matt Yglesias make similar comments.
"Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there -- with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way."
Certainly, I feel terrible that a man's marriage and personal life is about to be dragged into the public sphere as so much political football. These concerns are private, and should stay between Vitter and his family.
What's that you say? Vitter voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment? Twice? Oh dear. I guess he thinks that marriage is something that deserves to be a public issue and political football. Well then. Game on.
In the same vein, Ann Althouse notes that:
I hate seeing people publicly humiliated for the sexual things they do in private. But the government is criminally prosecuting a woman, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, for what it says was a prostitution ring. These are federal charges, and the senator, David Vitter, has some responsibility for the laws that make this prosecution possible.
[...]
Palfrey can't say God has forgiven her and walk free. In fact, Vitter's statement hurts Palfrey because it strongly implies that Palfrey was doing what she's accused of. Vitter's confession -- intended to move us to mercy -- links him to criminal activity, but only she is facing criminal punishment.
Shouldn't the expiation of Vitter's sins wait until he has introduced a bill that would create a federal right to engage in the business of prostitution? It's not a matter to be resolved within the realm of church and family as long as Palfrey is being prosecuted.
LGM and Matt Yglesias make similar comments.
I'm #9!
According to SSRN download statistics for the past two months (May 11th to July 10th), my article is ranked #9 in downloads among all articles in the Law & Society: Public Law section. It reached that lofty position with 58 downloads.
The article, in case you've forgotten, is entitled When Separation Doesn't Work: The Religion Clauses as Anti-Subordination Principles, and it is forthcoming soon in the Dartmouth Law Journal. Thanks to everybody who has read and commented on it.
The article, in case you've forgotten, is entitled When Separation Doesn't Work: The Religion Clauses as Anti-Subordination Principles, and it is forthcoming soon in the Dartmouth Law Journal. Thanks to everybody who has read and commented on it.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Sheehan To Challenge Pelosi?
Cindy Sheehan has announced that, if Nancy Pelosi doesn't introduce articles of impeachment against George W. Bush, she'll take her on in the 2008 Democratic primary. John Cole has the best reaction:
My opinion on Cindy Sheehan was that she suffered a devastating loss, one that few of us could ever comprehend. I hold her no malice--I have no idea how I would respond in her shoes. But she isn't a credible political commentator, and she is not helping the party or the country.
Y’all created this monster, giving her the ABSOLUTE MORAL AUTHORITY to say whatever she wanted, regardless how ridiculous it was, so have fun with her. Now she is IN UR BASE AND KILLING UR D00Dz! Good luck.
My opinion on Cindy Sheehan was that she suffered a devastating loss, one that few of us could ever comprehend. I hold her no malice--I have no idea how I would respond in her shoes. But she isn't a credible political commentator, and she is not helping the party or the country.
Diamond in the Rough
This is what Conservapedia (the conservative, er, alternative, to Wikipedia) has to say about Sephiroth, the main bad guy in Final Fantasy VII:
"A highly dangerous psychopath with superhuman strength. He is also a leader of a dangerous cult known as Jenova's Witnesses. He is the main antagonist of the game and brutally murders Aeris in the Canadian Rockies."
On the one hand, the "Jenova's Witnesses" thing is brilliant. On the other hand, the above excerpt is from their entry on Trigonometry.
"The truth will set you free," indeed.
"A highly dangerous psychopath with superhuman strength. He is also a leader of a dangerous cult known as Jenova's Witnesses. He is the main antagonist of the game and brutally murders Aeris in the Canadian Rockies."
On the one hand, the "Jenova's Witnesses" thing is brilliant. On the other hand, the above excerpt is from their entry on Trigonometry.
"The truth will set you free," indeed.
Colorphobia
A post at The Ambrosini Critique has reminded me of a post I've been meaning to write for some time now, but have never gotten around to.
The apex of Chief Justice Roberts' opinion in the recent school desegregation cases, the line he hoped would be quoted and deified as a constitutional cornerstone, was this: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." It represents a vision by which the harms of racial hierarchy (represented by, though by no means limited to, discrimination) can only be overcome by strict color-blindness. Admitting color, even for remedial purposes, even without intending to stigmatize, even where it is sanctioned by both Black and White parents as in the best interests of their children, is and will be disastrous. Race and color must be avoided at all costs, lest we be consumed by the darkness of our racist past.
In my Race LASIK article, I noted the peculiarity of proudly naming a philosophical paradigm after a medical disorder. Few of us actually wish to be medically color-blind. I know I am quite happy that I can identify my laptop as black, my desk as white, my sheets as blue, and my New Jersey Devils jacket as red. And I certainly cherish that ability strongly enough such that I want to preserve it, even at the "expense" of also being able to see that this man is Black and this man is White. I assume most people are no different than I am in this respect. So right from the start, there is at least some dissonance in the "color-blindness" paradigm--it isn't really accurately describing the society we want to live in.
A better name for what most people call the "color-blind" mentality, I propose, is a "colorphobic" mentality. As a society, we are terrified of color (in terms of race), and we wish to banish it. Any admission of color into our city gates is poisonous, corrupting, corrosive. We can't handle it. And the mark of a mature society, one that has gotten beyond racism, is that it never uses race, never discriminates or differentiates on the basis of race, and does not, in fact, even notice race.
I want to quickly distinguish what I'm talking about here from a concept called "negrophobia", coined by Jody Armour in his article, "Race Ipsa Loquitur: Of Reasonable Racists, Intelligent Bayesians, and Involuntary Negrophobes" (later published as a book). Negrophobia refers to the condition of being afraid of Black people, generally as the result of some psychological trauma (for example, being mugged by a Black man). Armour examines whether such a condition could or should be used to excuse certain discriminatory behavior (see here for a scenario). This is not what I mean by "colorphobia." By colorphobia, I mean a fear of the entire concept of race, not necessarily (or specifically) of people of color.
To be sure, it is not entirely unreasonable for us to fear color. After all, the majority of America's history has used color to enact and legitimize some of the gravest and most horrifying injustices. Slavery. Jim Crow. Lynchings. Rape. Even genocide. White people who feel guilty about such atrocities, as most do, understandably do not want to return down that path. It is the site of our lowest moments as human beings. Instinctively, we are averse to anything that seems to even risk bringing as back there.
In our heads, race has become the villain, the perpetrator of these crimes against humanity. One could argue that this serves the function of shifting the blame from the shoulders of White people--now it's not the fault of people, it's the fault of a concept. That's a subject for another post. What I want to focus on is how this historical narrative has cast race as irredeemably corrosive to the functioning and maintenance of a civilized, liberal society. More so than any other distinction we might make, race is uniquely invidious in that it can never be used, regardless of motive, regardless of end. This construction of race as a larger-than-life, invincible, unconquerable foe, can be described by no other word but a phobia. Color-blindness is the political manifestation of hiding from a demon we fear we cannot tame, one that will consume us if admitted into our presence.
Race has primarily been used for terrible things, that's true. And it is a truth admitted by all the advocates of color-conscious policy. However, they argue that in our current situation race is an indispensable tool for righting these wrongs, and for creating and ordering a more just society. We can't do without it. The color-blindness mentality has us run from our past through exile and banishment. This is no longer a tenable option. We have run for too long. We must use race without subordination. And to do that, we must show courage, face our fears, and overcome the monsters in our past.
The mark of mature society, of one that has gotten beyond racism, is not that it shuns race. That is the mark of an immature society still beholden to its past and unable to move beyond its phobia. The mark of a mature, post-racist society, is that it uses race without subordination and without fear. This does not mean that we use race uncritically. Like most tools, race can be a dangerous thing, and should not be wielded casually or with reckless abandon. But it cannot be avoided altogether. We must use it courageously, with noble purpose, to forge a path towards justice. Anything else is cowardice.
And in that way, race without fear will give us a world where nobody need fear race.
The apex of Chief Justice Roberts' opinion in the recent school desegregation cases, the line he hoped would be quoted and deified as a constitutional cornerstone, was this: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." It represents a vision by which the harms of racial hierarchy (represented by, though by no means limited to, discrimination) can only be overcome by strict color-blindness. Admitting color, even for remedial purposes, even without intending to stigmatize, even where it is sanctioned by both Black and White parents as in the best interests of their children, is and will be disastrous. Race and color must be avoided at all costs, lest we be consumed by the darkness of our racist past.
In my Race LASIK article, I noted the peculiarity of proudly naming a philosophical paradigm after a medical disorder. Few of us actually wish to be medically color-blind. I know I am quite happy that I can identify my laptop as black, my desk as white, my sheets as blue, and my New Jersey Devils jacket as red. And I certainly cherish that ability strongly enough such that I want to preserve it, even at the "expense" of also being able to see that this man is Black and this man is White. I assume most people are no different than I am in this respect. So right from the start, there is at least some dissonance in the "color-blindness" paradigm--it isn't really accurately describing the society we want to live in.
A better name for what most people call the "color-blind" mentality, I propose, is a "colorphobic" mentality. As a society, we are terrified of color (in terms of race), and we wish to banish it. Any admission of color into our city gates is poisonous, corrupting, corrosive. We can't handle it. And the mark of a mature society, one that has gotten beyond racism, is that it never uses race, never discriminates or differentiates on the basis of race, and does not, in fact, even notice race.
I want to quickly distinguish what I'm talking about here from a concept called "negrophobia", coined by Jody Armour in his article, "Race Ipsa Loquitur: Of Reasonable Racists, Intelligent Bayesians, and Involuntary Negrophobes" (later published as a book). Negrophobia refers to the condition of being afraid of Black people, generally as the result of some psychological trauma (for example, being mugged by a Black man). Armour examines whether such a condition could or should be used to excuse certain discriminatory behavior (see here for a scenario). This is not what I mean by "colorphobia." By colorphobia, I mean a fear of the entire concept of race, not necessarily (or specifically) of people of color.
To be sure, it is not entirely unreasonable for us to fear color. After all, the majority of America's history has used color to enact and legitimize some of the gravest and most horrifying injustices. Slavery. Jim Crow. Lynchings. Rape. Even genocide. White people who feel guilty about such atrocities, as most do, understandably do not want to return down that path. It is the site of our lowest moments as human beings. Instinctively, we are averse to anything that seems to even risk bringing as back there.
In our heads, race has become the villain, the perpetrator of these crimes against humanity. One could argue that this serves the function of shifting the blame from the shoulders of White people--now it's not the fault of people, it's the fault of a concept. That's a subject for another post. What I want to focus on is how this historical narrative has cast race as irredeemably corrosive to the functioning and maintenance of a civilized, liberal society. More so than any other distinction we might make, race is uniquely invidious in that it can never be used, regardless of motive, regardless of end. This construction of race as a larger-than-life, invincible, unconquerable foe, can be described by no other word but a phobia. Color-blindness is the political manifestation of hiding from a demon we fear we cannot tame, one that will consume us if admitted into our presence.
Race has primarily been used for terrible things, that's true. And it is a truth admitted by all the advocates of color-conscious policy. However, they argue that in our current situation race is an indispensable tool for righting these wrongs, and for creating and ordering a more just society. We can't do without it. The color-blindness mentality has us run from our past through exile and banishment. This is no longer a tenable option. We have run for too long. We must use race without subordination. And to do that, we must show courage, face our fears, and overcome the monsters in our past.
The mark of mature society, of one that has gotten beyond racism, is not that it shuns race. That is the mark of an immature society still beholden to its past and unable to move beyond its phobia. The mark of a mature, post-racist society, is that it uses race without subordination and without fear. This does not mean that we use race uncritically. Like most tools, race can be a dangerous thing, and should not be wielded casually or with reckless abandon. But it cannot be avoided altogether. We must use it courageously, with noble purpose, to forge a path towards justice. Anything else is cowardice.
And in that way, race without fear will give us a world where nobody need fear race.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Who's Irrational Now?
In a recent post, I described my irrational exuberance regarding Israel and the state of Jews in the world more generally--a feeling poorly grounded in fact, but the result of a collection of hunches, sentiments, and gut instincts that told me we may be on the verge of turning a corner.
CNN has just announced that the Arab League will be making a historic first visit to the state of Israel.
CNN has just announced that the Arab League will be making a historic first visit to the state of Israel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
