Left Behind Roundup

As usual, I'm too far behind to ever catch up with all the posts I wished to blog on. It's for exciting reasons, however: I'm giving a presentation summarizing my summer research before the Carleton community -- defined in this case as my immediate circle of friends, plus a few random people who heard of the event through word of mouth. I'm really looking forward to it, but it is a bit of a stress producer, and that cuts into my blogging. So, rather than let them disappear under the sands of time forever (because I am the sole barrier to that awful fate), you get a round-up.

***

Ezra Klein urges the mainstream media to stop avoiding the "L" word when politicians utter blatantly, er, "questionable" (to quote the WaPo) remarks.

Unfortunately, Ezra loses points for titling this post "There's A New Musharraf In Town."

Speaking of Pakistan, this Hilzoy post is absolutely must-read. Short story -- Islamist parties aren't that popular in Pakistan, and don't have a real shot at winning free elections.

Also at Obsidian Wings: Don't be a Playa Liberal Hatuh

More and more information is coming out about America's extraordinary rendition program. It's beyond clear now: yes, America does torture.

One of the saddest things I've ever read was a TNR article essentially arguing that every human rights abuse we condemn in Abu Gharib, we practice openly in Texas jails. Apparently, abusive treatment has now extended to detained immigrants. And of course, it's the whistleblower who is being punished.

Sex is the answer to the immigration problem. For a more serious take on the story in question, see Amp.

Mark Olson is lucky I follow links and know he doesn't support torture, because otherwise I'd have a field day with this post (particularly #3). I will briefly note that there is such thing as a secular, non-consequentialist argument. I will also note that, while past, say, 1950, there was not a single mainstream liberal who could be accurately described as "cozying [himself] up to the notion of torture and the defense of the regime of the gulag," whereas today the Republican Party as an institution is, at the very least, tolerant of America itself torturing people, and a great many mainstream conservative figures are far more explicitly in favor of it.

***

Link to the 2007 Weblog Award Polls: Vote Debate Link

Give Him More Rope

So I didn't get my one wish for election night. And, in fact, CNN is reporting that now-reelected Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour could be on the Republican Vice Presidential short-list.

At first, my reaction was disgust. I find it viscerally offensive that Barbour could be elected to anything but "model prisoner", much less Governor or Vice President. But, upon reflection, this might be a good thing. Barbour has a massive amount of skeletons in his closet. He just screams slime (TNR had a great article on him that, unfortunately, I can no longer find -- but here is some info from The Washington Note). Putting him on a ticket would shout to the heavens: "K Street Corruption is Back!", and if Democrats can't exploit that come 2008, they don't deserve to win.

I mean, can you imagine a Giuliani/Barbour ticket? I'm squealing just thinking about it. And it isn't unreasonable either -- Giuliani needs to shore himself up in the south, and Barbour is about a south as you can get without resurrecting Strom Thurmond. But together, that's the sort of ticket that could give Nixon/Agnew a run for its money.

***

Link to the 2007 Weblog Award Polls: Vote Debate Link

No Money? No Problem!

Barack Obama is offering his support to the striking writer's guild. The members are pleased, but also confused:

WGA officials were overjoyed with the headline-making gift — even if unsure as to why Obama did what he did. “We don’t even have a PAC, so why he did it is still a question. But we’re delighted,” says Jody Frisch, who shuttles between Los Angeles and Washington as the Guild’s director of policy and government affairs.

That makes me sad, actually. Are we really at that stage where we can't even conceptualize a major politician aiding a cause he believes in absent a big ol' check in his wallet? I guess that's the truth of money in politics, but it's not a good commentary.

On the other hand, it does speak well of Obama, that his rhetoric of moving past the politics of dollar bills is more than just talk. So good for him.

***

Link to the 2007 Weblog Award Polls: Vote Debate Link

Boxing Blogging: Contender Finale

Oh man. Oh man. This is everything the ESPN executives could have dreamed of and more. The Contender gold medal match pitting Jaidon Codrington against Cameroon native Sakio Bika really stamped itself as a fight of the year candidate. These two guys went to war. It was truly something to see. And combined with a solid if unspectacular undercard, it made for two hours of brilliant programming to close out the finest season yet of The Contender.

David Banks (15-3-1, 2 KOs) MD6 Donny McCreary (23-7-2, 13 KOs)

I really don't know what to think about Banks. He has no power, is completely ineffective on the inside, and just doesn't seem to have the type of fighting mentality to really compete at anything approaching the upper echelons. On the other hand, he is without a doubt a skilled counter-puncher, and his losses aren't nobodies: his first defeat was to highly skilled contender Eromosele Albert, then after that a close decision to Peter Manfredo (in Manfredo's hometown), and finally a disputed split decision to start The Contender against Paul Smith.

But regardless of where he's going career-wise, if he's heading anywhere aside from retirement he had to beat McCreary, who really is just a journeyman at this point. Coming into the bout Banks had lost two straight, neither of which he was particularly happy about, and I would not be surprised if he would have hanged it up entirely out of frustration if he hadn't pulled this one out. To be honest, I was surprised by the one judge who had it a draw. I had it 59-55 Banks. Teddy had it 59-56, with one round even. I guess I can see that, as both fighters had moments in the round in question, and so I suppose it's reasonable that a judge might have given it to McCreary. But I really would have to labor to find a third round Banks didn't win.

Anyway, Banks deserved this decision, and looked much as he always does to me: skilled, slick, but not particularly interesting (or interested).

Sam Soliman (35-10, 13 KOs) UD6 Wayne Johnson (17-3, 9 KOs)

Johnson, who was bouncing back from a brutal first round destruction by Jaidon Codrington in the semifinals, was an opponent tailor-made for Soliman. His inexperience showed, as he was totally baffled and befuddled by the chaotic, unorthodox Australian. Soliman looked good in this fight. Folks questioned whether the near-34 year old was done after his loss to Sakio Bika. Between Bika's performance in the finals, and Soliman's display here, I think that's premature to say the least. Johnson definitely needs a bit more seasoning -- but Soliman is a tough (and unique) match-up for anybody.

Sakio Bika (25-3-2, 15 KOs) TKO8 Jaidon Codrington (18-2, 14 KOs)

Wow. Just, wow. This was just a brilliant fight. Both men throwing absolute bombs, all night long, showing tremendous heart. There was not a dull moment in the entire bout, and frankly, I'm impressed it lasted as long as it did. Bika won tonight purely off experience: he knew what he had to do to gain the victory. Codrington, who is still only 23, couldn't figure out a way to gain the upper hand and began to falter and finally crack against the African's sustained assault.

But goodness, what a fight it was while it lasted. Bika dropped Codrington early in the first round (and, it's worth noting, continued to pound him while he was down -- I thought a point should have been taken for that) -- bringing to mind Codrington's only loss up to this fight: an 18-second demolition at the hands of Allan Green. But Codrington got back up and, as Bika tried to finish him off, Codrington landed a vicious left hook inside Bika's looping shots to score a knockdown of his own. And Bika, who has never been stopped and is just an all-around tough customer, was badly hurt. By the end of round one, I had moments where I thought either fighter might garner a stoppage. It was that wild.

As the fight progressed, there were no more knockdowns, but many more crunching shots from both men. But in every round, it seemed Bika was coming of just a little better. He was backing Codrington up, and the latter was definitely showing more effects from the punches he had accumulated. But Codrington never stopped throwing himself, and always looked as if he could land another shot like the one in the first round that would have been an instant knockout of many fine boxers.

Alas, it was not to be. Bika simply broke Codrington down. He never stopped coming, and Codrington finally wilted under the sustained pressure of a man who would not go away. Incidentally, folks questioned Codrington's chin after the Green fight. I think the way Jaidon responded to the sustained assault he took from Bika shows he can take a punch. However, I do think there is a serious question about his defense. Bika, who throws wide, looping shots, was essentially landing at will, and when you're facing someone as strong as Bika, you can't do that and expect to survive 10 rounds, much less pull out a decision. I think Codrington is comfortable with his power and normally is quite glad to just trade bombs with his opponents. But faced with someone who could match him blow-for-blow, he didn't have a Plan B (in this, he reminds me of Edison Miranda against Kelly Pavlik). This is a problem. But it's the type of problem that can be fixed with more experience, and I still think that "The Don" has a bright future ahead of him.

As for Bika, I think he really proved something tonight. Say what you will about him: he's raw, he's crude, he throws wide, he lacks technique. I say, he can fight. He's relentless, he's got a granite chin, he's strong, and he doesn't stop throwing. Bika's three losses are all against elite fighters -- Sam Soliman (which he avenged in this tournament), Lucien Bute, and king of the Super Middleweight division (and pound-for-pound elite) Joe Calzaghe. He deserves every cent of the $750,000 payday he just earned, and I'm excited to see him in more fights down the line. He'd be a great person to match up against one of those middleweights who are looking to transition to 168 pounds.

***

Link to the 2007 Weblog Award Polls: Vote Debate Link

Be Bold

Keeping on the theme of faux boldness, I give you (via The FRC) Councilwoman Jacquie Sullivan of Bakersfield, California, who just voted to install displays including "In God We Trust," as well as historic documents like the Declaration of Independence and Constitution across the school district.

It's not political, it's not religious. It's patriotism. We are a faith-based people for the most part," she said. "Sometimes you have to go with the majority."

You tell 'em!

I'm reminded, as I so often am, of Futurama -- specifically, this passage from Earth President McNeil:

Ladies and gentlemen, our course is clear. The time has come to knuckle under. To get down on all fours and really lick boot. Give our alien masters whatever they want!

Nothing like speaking truth to power.

***

Link to the 2007 Weblog Award Polls: Vote Debate Link

That's a Sacrifice I'm Willing To Make

I don't razz on Andrew Sullivan as much as some of my fellow liberals, but this post is ridiculous. Lamenting the lack of inclusion for transgendered persons in the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), Sullivan nonetheless shows his willingness to compromise for the sake of moving the bill forward. This would be more impressive if Sullivan himself was transgendered. As it stands, he's boldly willing to sacrifice the rights of others to get more for himself.

There is a case to be made that we should push through ENDA, even in its imperfect form, because its the best we can get now. But doing that isn't a "compromise" in any meaningful sense by Sullivan -- he's getting his end of the bargain. It's the people who are being left behind that ultimately can claim moral superiority if they are willing to hold off on their own claims for the sake of their peers.

***

Link to the 2007 Weblog Award Polls: Vote Debate Link

If Wishes Were Horses

It's election day today! It's an off year, so there's not too much going on. But even in 2007, I have a wish list. Some of them, like Governor Ernie Fletcher (R-KY) being unceremoniously dumped out of office, will almost certainly come true. Others, like Democrats taking back the state legislature in Virginia, are more of a reach.

But the one thing I really, really want this election day, just isn't going to happen. But nonetheless, I make my plea:

God, if you're out there, please let the unspeakably despicable Governor Haley Barbour (R-MS) lose his re-election race.

Oh, and end world hunger. If you have time.

Thanks,

David

***

Link to the 2007 Weblog Award Polls: Vote Debate Link

Whitehouse Proposes Anti-Caging Bill

A big shout-out to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) for introducing an "anti-caging" law in the Senate.

The Caging Prohibition Act would prohibit challenges to a person’s eligibility to register to vote, or cast a vote, based solely on returned mail or a caging list. The bill would also mandate that anyone who challenges the right of another citizen to vote must set forth the specific grounds for their alleged ineligibility, under penalty of perjury.

While I have no idea how it got the name, "caging" has been one of the key voter suppression tactics used by the GOP over the past several election cycles. Even some Republicans have taken a stand against this practice, and while I salute them for it, its well since time the arm of the law was enlisted to back them up when they take on their own party.

***

Link to the 2007 Weblog Award Polls: Vote Debate Link

Judge Kavanaugh on the Academy

Hurray, we're useful!

***

Link to the 2007 Weblog Award Polls: Vote Debate Link

The Mayor of Hazelton

Lou Barletta, mayor of Hazelton, Pennsylvania, was launched onto the political map by ramming through some of the most draconian anti-immigrant policies during his tenure. Here, via the Washington Post, are some of the highlights (this article, by the way, is from last August):

Last month, in a raucous meeting, the mayor and City Council passed the Illegal Immigration Relief Act. (Barletta wore a bulletproof vest because, he says, Hazleton is menaced by a surge in crime committed by illegal immigrants.) The act imposes a $1,000-per-day fine on any landlord who rents to an illegal immigrant, and it revokes for five years the business license of any employer who hires one.

The act also declares English to be the city's official language. Employees are forbidden to translate documents into another language without official authorization.

But as the law began to get publicized, Barletta began to have some regrets. It appeared that, in actuality, immigrants of all stripes were important members of the Hazelton community. Even before the law came into effect, Barletta ruefully reported, "some Mexican restaurants say business is off 75 percent" as the town's Latino population packed up.

Haha, I kid! Not about the downturn from Mexican restaurants. That actually happened. I'm kidding that Barletta was rueful about it. Nope -- that was the example he cited to prove the law was working!

The law doesn't take effect for another month. But the Republican mayor already sees progress. "I see illegal immigrants picking up and leaving -- some Mexican restaurants say business is off 75 percent," Barletta says. "The message is out there."

Anyway, Reason Magazine's Hit & Run blog reports that Barletta is mulling a run for Congress in Pennsylvania's 11th District against Democratic incumbent Paul Kanjorski. It would be a reprise of their 2002 contest, which Kanjorski won by 14 points.

It's testament to the degree of anti-immigrant psychosis that has infected so much of American politics that a man who brags about driving businesses out of his own town is expected to be more competitive this time around than he was in 2002 -- a good year for Republicans overall.

***

Link to the 2007 Weblog Award Polls: Vote Debate Link

You Throw Your Cards Down First

Ann and Jessica of Feministing issue an ultimatum to male politicians: Stop playing the gender card already!

It's tongue-in-cheek, but quite good. See my further thoughts on the topic here.

***

Link to the 2007 Weblog Award Polls: Vote Debate Link

Iowa Immigrants

Mitt Romney in Marshalltown, Iowa: "you probably don't have a lot of immigrants legally." Iowa in general, and Marshalltown in particular, has a surging Latino population -- 12.5% in the 2000 census and growing for the meatpacking town.

I'd like to think this would come back to bite Mr. Romney, but I'm leaning towards the belief that there is very few anti-immigrant sentiments that will ever cause a candidate to be called to the mat by the media (let alone his fellow Republicans, who are beyond hope it seems).

H/T: GFR

***

Link to the 2007 Weblog Award Polls: Vote Debate Link

Live from New York!

Barack Obama, have my babies!



UPDATE: K-Lo thinks this signals the end of Obama's "15 minutes as a serious contender for the presidency." K-Lo, of course, thought Rick Santorum was going all the way in Pennsylvania, so we'll take her future political prognostications with a grain of salt.
***

Link to the 2007 Weblog Award Polls: Vote Debate Link

The Man Card

Garance Franke-Ruta is starting a visual archive of political advertisements that "play the gender card" to appeal to male voters, starting with this McCain mail piece. The project arose after a brief media flurry over whether Hillary Clinton was "playing the gender card" in trying to appeal to female voters. The coverage took on a vague sneering tone, as if this was some sort of distasteful identity politics that she should be tsk'd at for. Pushing back, some astute bloggers have noted that politicians play this game appealing to male voters all the time. Cf. 2004, sayeth Matt Yglesias:

As long as we're all worried about Hillary Clinton and the 'gender card' we do realize that about 75 percent of the 2004 race between John "I've killed people" Kerry and George "no you're a windsurfing frenchman" Bush was a series of efforts to play the gender card, right?

It's actually stunning how much of thr erstwhile foreign policy debate is primarily an argument about the size of the debaters' dicks.

A bit overwrought, but, actually, not really.

Perhaps what makes this all the more crazy is that, as Ezra Klein noted, the comments Clinton made that provoked this "feeding frenzy" were really quite mild -- just a remark to a gathering of Wellesley alumni that the all-women school really helped prepare her for the "all-boys club" of politics. But, switching back to GFR, she raises the point that Clinton's statement can be seen as part of the "secondary conversation" women have with each other in private -- the one they are actively discouraged from articulating in public circles, lest they damage their professional careers.

So really, there are two lanes of response to this controversy. The first is that Clinton isn't playing the gender card at all, and her critics are just looking to draw blood at any opportunity. The second is that she is playing the gender card, but no more explicitly or distastefully than male candidates do for their fellow men in every race.

While normally I'd segue here into how appeals to men are "invisible" because they are the dominant caste in the American political sphere, in a sense, that doesn't really apply here, the reason being that there is at least a partial awareness among the political class that there are, in fact, specific appeals to men qua men during elections (the way we don't recognize it for, say, Whites). From union men to "NASCAR dads", there are plenty of male blocs that get appealed to. Nonetheless, the Clinton controversy has illustrated the limits to this insight -- even though we all know that male politicians play the "man card" all the time, we still are acting shocked when a female politician tries to swing it for women. That's bogus, but as Atrios says, "this conversation just serves to reinforce the obvious state of things in this country: white males are the most aggressive practitioners of so-called "identity politics" and always have been."

See also: Digby, Shakesville, Matt Stoller

***

Link to the 2007 Weblog Award Polls: Vote Debate Link

Applying Myself

Apologies for the sparse blogging. I'm really crunching my graduate and law school applications. I'm applying to 9 law schools and 11 Ph.D programs, and even though there is a fair amount of overlap, there's a fair amount of new material for each. Add on regular schoolwork, and a presentation of my summer research work, and my energy is pretty sapped.

"Value Voters"

This a clip from the FRC's "Value Voters Summit." I wish, I wish, I wish these people were not mainstream political figures. But they are, and they're the Republican Party's baby.



Via Dave Neiwert, who adds:

You'll note, of course, the obvious eliminationism coursing through all this talk -- yet another clear indication of the political religious right's increasing fanaticism and xenophobia.

It's a scary thing.

***

Link to the 2007 Weblog Award Polls: Vote Debate Link

But At Least They Aren't Swearing

Via the lovely J-Rod, something I thought I never thought I'd read in a movie rating explanation. For the forthcoming Darfur Now:

Rated PG for thematic material involving crimes against humanity.

Well fuck. Oh, oops! Hope no children under 13 saw that. But by all means, enjoy some genocide with your popcorn.

***

Link to the 2007 Weblog Award Polls: Vote Debate Link

Lamborn is Nuts

This has no real national significance, but I still am amazed that the Colorado GOP is refusing to endorse one of its own incumbents, Doug Lamborn. Lamborn is, needless to say, crazy, but that usually isn't a barrier. But he also made some major enemies in his own party in the bitterly contested 2006 primary in which he won his seat.

***

Link to the 2007 Weblog Award Polls: Vote Debate Link

2007 Weblog Awards!

Remember last year, when I spammed all my friends with demands that they vote for me for some stupid Weblog Award?

Well, here we go again! I'm up in the "best of the top 5,001 - 6,750" category. You can cast your vote here. Polls are open until November 8th, and you can (and are encouraged to) vote once a day.

Thanks in advance for your support!



***

A quick note about campaigning. Unlike last year, I won't be going the full-fledged, spam-all-my-friends-until-they-hate-me route to go after the win here. I will be putting the above icon below all my posts this week, and I certainly welcome any votes that come my way. But I'm not doing anything more than that. One year of aggravation is about all my interpersonal relationships can stand.

Best of Links, Worst of Links

Checking my sitemeter stats, I discovered that I have recently been linked to by the The New York Times (specifically their "Lede" blog). Neat-o (even though they apparently confused me with Sherrilyn Ifill)! The NYT is now the second newspaper to have pointed traffic here -- the first being the Chicago Sun-Times.

On the other hand, the same perusal of sitemeter also revealed that I had been linked to by the White Supremacist site "Stormfront" (no link, google them if you want). So, that was less pleasing.

But I'm pretty sure the hits I'm getting from the NYT are significantly outweighing those of Stormfront, so I'm claiming a net benefit.

I'm Not a Racist, I Support Obama!

Mike Meginnis asks if some of the support Obama receives from high-brow Whites, particularly Republicans, is (at least in part) anti-racist signaling.

It’s not too hard to explain why people hate Clinton — equal parts sexism and her genuine lack of personal appeal, I would say — but I think Republican love for Obama is a little weirder. My partial explanation is that Obama is black. Republicans aren’t complete morons — they know they have a reputation for racist attitudes and policies. Many of them are really defensive about it. They constantly remind their relatives and friends how they don’t see any difference between black and white, they believe we’re all equal, they support civil rights, etc. But it’s hard to adopt any low-cost behaviors that signify such anti-racist perspectives without causing awkwardness. We all feel sort of weird around that white guy who spends every waking minute talking about civil wars in Africa, blood diamonds, his appreciation for the music of Bob Marley, and so forth. He means well enough but we don’t know how to read him — to what extent is his conspicuous demonstration of virtue an endearing flirtation with genuinely progressive politics, and to what extent is it all just a cover?

Obama support offers people a chance to symbolically demonstrate their enlightenment at no cost. I’ve heard and read a number of times now about racist white people developing a strange attachment to Obama. They don’t normally like Democrats but this kid seems alright. It doesn’t hurt that he uses language designed to help him buddy up with those who are, more or less, afraid of black people — he is, in some ways, professionally a nonthreatening black man. I don’t mean that as a criticism. To an extent this highlights the expert way in which he has navigated this country’s complicated and often awful relationship with race, but ultimately it doesn’t mean much for his chances come election day. People are brilliant in this country at finding ways to vote conservative when everything they know tells them not to. My mother knew Bush was a disaster and she voted for him anyway not because Kerry would do anything to make abortion more common but because he approved of it. They’ll find something or other like that come election day if Obama gets the nod. There’s no reason they can’t say one thing and do another. They might even go on doing it after the fact. Obama has been adopted by many racists and anxious, defensive republicans as a symbol, but that’s as far as it goes.

I think there is something to this. In a nominally color-blind society, people need to have someone they can point to as proof that they are not making judgments based on color. It's tough to swing that when the only politicians you ever vote for are White. Finding that one guy you can support makes for a great bulwark against future charges of racism. And, as Meginnis says, you can always find a last-minute reason to vote for his opponent anyway -- just so long as you continue to assert how much you like Obama. But is there any substantive anti-racism message or practice in one's support of Obama?

A few months ago, my friends asked me why I was supporting Obama, and among the several answers I gave, one was that I thought it was long since time we had a Black (or just non-White) President. They laughed and accused me of casting an "affirmative action vote."

At first, I recoiled from the term, but the more I've thought about it, the more I think it's okay. Voting, after all, is just a way of divvying up a particular social good, and in fact, as a young, relatively powerless college student, it's one of the most direct avenues I have for pointing how I think society should distribute a particular socially salient position. Taking seriously my own position on affirmative action, which is that it accurately takes "contribution to diversity" into account as a function of merit, there is no reason why Obama breaking up the Whites-only club at the White House ought not factor into my decision. It's one more thing about Obama that makes him better from the rest of the field.

That doesn't mean it couldn't possibly be outweighed. If I found Obama's policies to be wrong-headed, or I thought he wasn't qualified to take the helm as commander-and-chief, or I thought that his opponents' views were substantially more in line with my own, then those factors could easily take precedence over the diversity plus factor. But that doesn't mean it isn't a relevant consideration.

Welcome to the Party!

John Cole, everyone's favorite moderate Republican, wears the label no longer. He has switched party registrations, and is now officially a West Virginia Democrat.

Welcome aboard!

Holding Out For a Hero

This is an unbelievably important post by Maryland Law Professor Sherrilyn Ifill on the idea of victims of racism as "heroes." Basically, the argument is that people challenging racism have historically been forced to be superhuman figures -- men and women with squeaky clean slates who didn't have a single blemish on their records. Because if they did, that would become the subject of the conversation, rather than the racism being challenged.

Tactically speaking, there's a lot to be said for this approach. But of course, it ends up abandoning the vast majority of people who aren't perfect, who do bad things on occasion, and sometimes deserve (reasonable) punishment. The question in the Jena Six isn't whether the Black kids deserve punishment for attacking their White classmate. Nobody disputes that they do. The question is whether they should be sent away to prison for multi-decade sentences. That, they most certainly don't. As Ifill puts it:

I don’t regard Mychal Bell or the other teens that comprise the Jena 6 as “heroes.” For me, they needn’t be mythic figures. The fact that they are ordinary black, southern high school students who acted inappropriately (seriously beating down a white student who they claim boasted about engaging in racist activity) makes them more powerful symbols. They didn’t respond to what they saw as provocation like “heroes.” Instead, they responded like thousands of 16 and 17-year old black boys would. That’s why the prosecutor’s response – overcharging the case — merits our scrutiny and condemnation. Because black teenagers, like white teenagers, should not be held to “heroic” standards. They should be punished for wrongdoing – in this case seriously assaulting a schoolmate — but the punishment should be proportionate to the crime, to the context, and to the age of the perpetrator and the victim.
[...]
The point is that heroes aren’t always or even most often, the victims of injustice. Mostly it’s just ordinary folks, making ordinary, (often) bad decisions. In 2007 we ought to be able to hold two thoughts in our head at the same time: that Wilson and the Jena 6 made mistakes for which they deserved some punishment, and that the prosecutors in Georgia and Louisiana used the law in a way that treated the lives of these black teenagers as entirely expendable.

To paraphrase a remark someone once made about women's rights, the goal now isn't to get a Black Albert Einstein admitted to a local state college. The goal is for a Black schmuck to be treated just the same as a White schmuck.

Israel and Post-Colonial Studies

I agree with Phoebe, this book looks fantastic. Unfortunately, unlike Phoebe Carleton's library is not so extensive, so I have to plead with the Inter-Library Loan service to get me the whole issue of Israel Affairs upon which the book is based.

But still, excitement city.

Extra-Diverse Democrats?

Commenting on early Democratic VP speculation, The Garance articulates the conventional wisdom that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton will put "additional" diversity on their ticket. This, I think, is true, but not necessarily for the reason Garance says. She argues that the ideal Democratic VP candidate is someone from a swing-state who can deliver those extra electoral votes. Wesley Clark, for example, fits the profile because he's "white, Southern, military, and from the potentially swingable (for a Clinton) state of Arkansas" (although Garance thinks worries about Clark's campaign skills may sink him).

Back in 2004, I recalled reading an article about VP selection that argued that so-called "balancing the ticket" is over-rated. It doesn't matter as much to make sure that the south is represented on the Democratic ballot. Rather, what matters is the "narrative" that the newly created ticket presents. What story will the media write about the selection? Selecting a VP is an opportunity to create a positive media theme around your campaign, or diffuse a negative meme. And of course, an unwary candidate can unwittingly construct a very negative image of their campaign. For example, if Hillary Clinton doesn't select someone who can claim some serious military credentials, it will undoubtedly feed into the stock narrative that she's intolerable to (or worse, has written off) the armed forces. (Incidentally, this example shows another truth about media narratives -- they don't have to be true. The idea that Hillary is anti-military is utterly ridiculous, but so long as it's a "perception" it can be written about, and thus reinforced, indefinitely).

Of course, regional balancing cannot entirely be divorced from narrative construction, if for no other reason than that it's been so drummed into us that tickets are supposed to have geographic balance that refusing to do that is a story in of itself. But that doesn't explain why Clinton or Obama couldn't select a female VP from the "appropriate" region. For example, Governors Kathleen Sebelius (KS) and Janet Napolitano (AZ) would seem to fit inside the geographic story just fine (and Napolitano could arguably put Arizona in play). And, to be sure, I've heard both of their names bandied about -- just not for Clinton (or really, Obama).

The reason is that there is a very predictable media narrative that will form if two members of politically underrepresented groups appear on the Democratic ticket. One person is ground-breaking and history-making. Two people, by contrast, is an "affirmative action" choice and proof the Democrats are in thrall to "interest groups." If Obama picks a woman, it will undoubtedly be cast as "appeasing" women's groups who were ready to see Clinton break the ultimate glass ceiling. If Clinton picks a Black running mate, same thing, except replace NOW with the NAACP. This is what Derrick Bell calls the unspoken limit on affirmative action. Even if at first the diversity is applauded, at some point folks will start getting uncomfortable with too many women or people of color. A presidential ticket that doesn't include a White male is virtually inconceivable, and it's equally inconceivable that the media won't make heavy note of that fact in the unlikely instance it comes into being.

Real Women Have Curves (Or Not. But They Can)

Queen Latifah:

"Beauty is not just a white girl. It's so many different flavors and shades," the 37-year-old rapper-actress tells People magazine in its latest issue. "It's good for regular girls because the meter (for beauty) has been a slim white girl."

I happen to be currently dating a beautiful White girl. But it's still good to keep in mind.

Today in Obvious

WaPo: U.S. Promises on Darfur Don't Match Actions

No kidding!

Remember Rick Warren?

This is a fantastic and much needed post by Think on These Things (a pro-Obama blogger) regarding Barack Obama and the Donnie McClurkin scandal. McClurkin was the anti-gay pastor who was invited to participate in a gospel singer campaign swing through South Carolina. Unsurprisingly, it aroused a furious reaction among many liberals who find McClurkin's views on homosexuality appalling (as, it bears mention, do I).

Rick Warren, by contrast, was the pro-life, anti-gay pastor who invited Obama to speak in front of his congregation on the topic of AIDS. For this, Warren was blasted by his evangelical fellows, who could not stand the thought of standing side-by-side with a "pro-death" (their words) leader like Obama. And liberals, for their part, derided this reaction as proof of conservative intolerance (I wrote a brief blog post on this at the time).

Juxtaposing these two events together, TOTT writes:

There is no way to unify this country if people on both sides refuse to be in the same space as those with whom they disagree. It is fine to disagree and be vocal about your disagreement, but you absolutely can’t make progress without even talking to each other. Both sides need to stop being intolerant and threatened by those who are different from them. We need more Rick Warrens on the conservative side and Barack Obamas on the progressive side.

Via Sully

Returning in Love

Yeah, I've been razzing on Maryland lately. And yes, they deserve it: using the existence of sadomasochism as an excuse to let a domestic abuser go free is seriously uncool.

But it's difficult for me to stay angry at Maryland for long. I love Maryland. And it's polling like this that shows why. On same-sex marriage:

On the same-sex marriage issue, 51 percent said they oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, and 44 percent said they support changing the law to allow that.

But Marylanders are far more open to the idea of allowing gay and lesbian couples to form civil unions, giving them some of the same legal rights as married couples. Fifty-seven percent support civil unions; 39 percent oppose them.

A national poll last year found that 45 percent supported civil unions and 48 percent opposed them.
[...]
Fifty-nine percent of white Marylanders favor civil unions. Blacks are split, with 46 percent supporting and 48 percent opposing them. Meanwhile, 59 percent of African Americans oppose same-sex marriage, and white are split, with 50 percent supporting and 45 percent opposing.

I'd be very surprised if there are more than a half-dozen states where even White voters (who, on this issue at least, are probably more liberal than Blacks) can pull a majority in favor of gay marriage. But that's Maryland! And I have to say, those are the sort of numbers in which a bold state legislature could legitimately act and win passage for legalization. Given Maryland's huge Democratic skew in terms of state-wide representation, I think it's time to make the push.

Boxing Blogging: Super Middleweight Division

For a long time, the super middleweight division had been somewhat of an ugly step-sister in the world of boxing. With the glut of talent from welterweight to middleweight, 168 pounds was where interest started to fade into the likewise unimpressive heavyweight ranks.

But recently, the supers have gotten a serious shot in the arm, and the future looks bright. Topping the list of upcoming boxing excitement is the unification bout between fellow undefeated titleists Joe Calzaghe (43-0, 32 KOs) and Mikkel Kessler (39-0, 29 KOs). Calzaghe and Kessler are indisputably numbers one and two in the division, making this fight all the more meaningful as a legitimate case of the best fighting the best. Even the loaded welterweight division can't do that, given that after pound-for-pound #1 Floyd Mayweather, it'd be impossible to decide who the legitimate #2 guy is (Shane Mosley? Miguel Cotto? Paul Williams?).

But even after the Calzaghe/Kessler mega-fight, there are some interesting events on the horizon -- most notably from middleweights decided to jump up to the division. Contender Allan Green (25-1, 18 KOs) is moving up to the division, and the "1" on his record, slugger Edison Miranda (28-2, 24 KOs) may well join him. Former division champion Jermain Taylor (27-1-1, 18 KOs) is widely expected to move up after he fights his rematch against Kelly Pavlik (32-0, 29 KOs), who I also wouldn't be surprised to see move up in weight after a few defenses.

Meanwhile, this season of "The Contender" is taking place at super middleweight. I know a lot of folks like to rap on ESPN's reality series. But the fact is, the level of competition on the show has gotten better every year, and the fighters remaining in the tournament (Jaidon Codrington, Sakio Bika, and Sam Soliman) all are live names in the division. Bika and Soliman have both presented themselves quite well against the top names at their weight classes. As for Codrington, after being on the wrong end of the 2005 knockout of the year (at the hands of Allan Green), he's rattled off nine straight victories and has torn through the Contender ranks, winning his two bouts in less than three rounds. Because of the speed and brutality of his knockout loss to Green, some folks question Codrington's chin. But in my opinion, anyone can get clipped, and while I do sometimes raz on Green, he's an excellent fighter with a killer instinct -- the sort of guy that'd threaten anybody in their 10th pro fight. Codrington has shown resilience coming back from that beating, and I personally think a re-match down the road (which is not out of the question, given that they are both on title contention paths) would be very intriguing (not to mention marketable).

We Don't Know What Happened in Jena Until We Ask The White Folk

In the latest rendition of "White southerners are the most credible sources about racial going-ons in the south", we get this article by Jena local Craig Franklin alleging several "myths" about how the story has been coverage. It's really rather pathetic, but unsurprisingly it sounds "entirely believable" to Jonah Goldberg. Essentially, the warrants for the "myths" are that this resident has Black friends. Indeed, "Jena is a wonderful place to live for both whites and blacks," and soon they will go back to their idyllic state of integrated happiness and light, "Just as it has been all along"(!!!) Honestly, who could believe this claptrap? This is a town that voted overwhelmingly for Klansman David Duke as recently as the 1990s.

The mendacity of this is unbelievable. Myth #4 is that of the "DA's Threat to Black Students." How do we know its a myth? Because the DA denies it, of course! Who you gonna believe, a respectable member of the community, or Black people? Myths #5 & 6 similarly appear to rely on (probably White) eyewitness testimony as definitive proof that Black folk are lying. The first sentence of Myth #9 ("Mychal Bell's All-White Jury") is a concession that it isn't a myth after-all, his jury was, in fact, all White. In Myth #2, we're supposed to believe that a White high schooler in Louisiana doesn't know the racial history behind a noose. I can scarcely think of a claim that strains credibility more. And so on and so forth. It stuns me that this is being accorded any credibility whatsoever.

Taking a class on civil rights history this term, one thing that is being impressed upon me quite clearly, from reading a wide variety of sources (primary and secondary) is that when it comes to racial politics and policy in the south, Whites have no credibility. Not because Black people never lie, but because Whites have been historically near-pathological in their willingness to deny racism in the south. They did it because they knew any assertion they made in opposition to a Black person would automatically be accepted as true, no matter how outlandish. This was a key brick in the wall of White supremacy, and it conditioned White folk to feel comfortable rewriting reality, secure in the knowledge that they'd never be called on it. It was a general corruption of the entire idea of truth, and it is embedded in America's racial discourse in the form of Derrick Bell's "rules of racial standing":

SECOND RULE
Not only are blacks' complaints discounted, but black victims of racism are less effective witnesses than are whites, who are members of the oppressor class. This phenomenon reflects a widespread assumption that blacks, unlike whites, cannot be objective on racial issues and will favor their own no matter what. This deep seated belief fuels a continuing effort - despite all manner of Supreme Court decisions intended to curb the practice - to keep black people off juries in cases involving race. Black judges hearing racial cases are eyed suspiciously and sometimes asked to recuse themselves in favor of a white judge - without those making the request even being aware of the paradox in their motions.

I'm not saying every Black charge is right and every White denial is wrong. I'm saying that, given a clash of story, Blacks should be accorded presumptive validity barring clear evidence to the contrary. There is precisely no grounds, when hearing a Black account and White account of a given racial event in America, to default in favor of the White view. There is a lot of grounds for doing the opposite. Extreme position? Perhaps. But historically, it's been borne out time and again. And I can see no other explanation for why someone like Mr. Goldberg would find such an absurd apologia to be even remotely compelling.

Could Cleland Avenge Himself?

A new poll indicates that Senator Saxby Chambliss might be vulnerable in a rematch with former Georgia Senator Max Cleland. Chambliss is up 36%-24% over Cleland, with 40% undecided. Those are terrible numbers for an incumbent.

Cleland hasn't expressed interest in the race, which makes sense given how he was treated in the first go around. Still, I hope he jumps in and obliterates Chambliss, who is without a doubt one of the most repulsive members of the US Senate (starting with how he got there, with the paradigmatic slime ad connecting war hero and triple amputee Cleland with Osama bin Laden). He deserves to go down hard, and I can see no better justice than Cleland being the one send him back to whatever cesspool he emerged from.

Genarlow Wilson is Freed!

It was a close call (4-3), but the Georgia Supreme Court has ruled that Genarlow Wilson's 10-year prison sentence for receiving oral sex from a 15-year old, when he was 17, was "cruel and unusual punishment." As a result, Wilson shall be freed immediately.

Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears wrote in the majority opinion that the changes in the law ''represent a seismic shift in the legislature's view of the gravity of oral sex between two willing teenage participants.''

Sears wrote that the severe punishment makes ''no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment'' and that Wilson's crime did not rise to the ''level of adults who prey on children.''

I can't say it any better than TalkLeft: "If you believe in justice, the best news you are likely to hear today is this." The Wilson case was a travesty from day one, merely amplified by the state's dogged pursuit of keeping Wilson behind bars for as long as possible -- even as public outrage grew. It is fortunate that justice appears to have finally won out.

Also worthy of note, Chief Justice Sears is rumored to be on the short-list for a potential Democratic Supreme Court nomination.

The opinion (and dissent) of the court is available here.

Up the Creek

Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens' lawyer, Brendan Sullivan of Williams and Connolly:

“By the time somebody comes to me, they are pretty far up the creek,” Sullivan has said. “The good thing is they will pay almost anything.”

Having worked at WC, this strikes me as largely accurate. WC is for people who are a) really wealthy and b) in really serious trouble. They are very good at what they do, and charge accordingly.

Even corrupt Senators like Ted Stevens deserve good legal advice. I just hope that in this case, the best advice Mr. Sullivan can give is for him to take a plea deal.

It's That Most Wonderful Time of the Year

It's Islamo-fascism Awareness Week, that magical time of year when Republicans briefly pretend to care about gay rights. And to celebrate, Kieran Healy has a poem:

Oh the Feminists hate Republicans
And Republicans hate the Feminists
To mock all Feminazis
Is an old G.O.P. rule

But during Islamo-Fascism Week
Islamo-Fascism Week
You’ll see Ann Coulter On Our Backs at USC
She’s helping Muslims seek
Their Feminine Mystique
Simone De Beauvoir’s really very cool

Oh FrontPage hates the atheists
The liberals and the Darwinists
The godless and the secular
In the groves of Academe

But during Islamo-Fascism Week
Islamo-Fascism Week
The Origin of Species is beyond critique
Mr Horowitz, he has a plan
To carpet-bomb Tehran
With hardback copies of The Selfish Gene

Oh Conservatives hate the sodomites
And the lesbians and degenerates
Repressing deviant urges
Is a vital party test

But during Islamo-Fascism Week
Islamo-Fascism Week
See Rick Santorum weep for every closeted Sheikh
Defend the freedom of the West
And the freaks who represent it best
It’s only for a week so have no fear
Be grateful that it doesn’t last all year!

Happy IFA Week, everybody!

Triple Play

I know anti-FRC blogging is like a bad drug habit, but I just can't kick. They are just so unbelievably hackish it manages to make my blood boil. Today's daily update by leader Tony Perkins is a perfect example.

The first item is an attack on Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, which they illustrate via someone holding a match to the constitution. Even if the Akaka Bill is a bad idea, I fail to see (and the FRC doesn't even purport to explain) what it has to do with the FRC's broader agenda -- except insofar as that agenda is "harass liberals," which, to be fair, is the only unifying thread I've ever seen in the FRC's work.

This is aptly demonstrated in the second item, which is a rant about Charlie Rangel's tax reform bill. What is breath-taking here is the perfidy with language. Rangel's bill would "increase taxes" on many "married couples" (what a meaningless phrase -- Bill and Melinda Gates are a "married couple"), but it would "increase welfare payments through the earned income credit," something you may know as the "Earned Income Tax Credit", but while the FRC can't stand policies that actually help working families, they wouldn't be caught dead opposing a tax cut, so hence we have our little omission. Perkins concludes:

The overall proposal resembles more a Marxist proposal of redistributing income than something worthy of the leaders of the free world. I'd agree with Congressman Rangel that the tax system needs a major overhaul, but more in the direction of simplicity and equality, not of a socialistic labyrinth.

Come on, Tony. Red-baiting is so 1950s.

Finally, the last item tries to diffuse the Democratic Congress' accomplishments writ large (on the occasion of the House's 1,000th roll call vote). Here, at least, some of their problems bear a relationship to the FRC's stated policy aims, such as "presents to the abortion/pro-death community by supporting Planned Parenthood and passing a bill to increase embryonic stem cell experimentation, and gifts to the homosexual lobby by voting on so-called 'hate crimes' legislation," they open the list with neither killing babies nor killing homosexuals, but rather by opposing the minimum wage hike (and here you thought that the anti-Marxism rant was a one-shot deal!). It is, as Perkins puts it, but a "gift to the labor unions." How horrid! The working class gets all the breaks.

If there is a difference between the FRC and the propaganda arm of the RNC, I'm just not seeing it.

Watson Retires

James Watson, DNA pioneer, has announced his retirement from his current position as chancellor of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in the wake of recent inflammatory comments about race.

In a statement, he noted that, at 79, he is “overdue” to surrender leadership positions at the lab, which he joined as director in 1968 and served as president until 2003. But he said the circumstances of his resignation “are not those which I could ever have anticipated or desired.”

Dr. Watson, who shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for describing the double-helix structure of DNA, and later headed the American government’s part in the international Human Genome Project, was quoted in The Times of London last week as suggesting that, overall, people of African descent are not as intelligent as people of European descent. In the ensuing uproar, he issued a statement apologizing “unreservedly” for the comments, adding “there is no scientific basis for such a belief.”

Make of it what you will. I'm curious to see how this apology, in tandem with his retirement, will be received vis-a-vis other apologies from persons who have made racist remarks in the recent past (e.g., Trent Lott, Michael Richards, Don Imus). Did Watson seem more sincere? Does he get extra "points" for resigning pretty much immediately after the event? He did seem to make a more sincere apology than the standard, inadequate, "I'm sorry if anyone was offended."

I think there are some interesting dynamics around racial apologies, and they need to be explored in greater detail.

What The Hell is Wrong With My State?

I'm a Marylander. And normally, I'm quite proud of that fact. But recently, my state has been letting me down big time. I'm not even talking about the state Supreme Court's refusal to strike down our anti-gay marriage law (the infamous "we won't be 'beguiled' by plain meaning!" case), which, though disappointing, hardly distinguishes us from the rest of the country. But recently, our courts have ruled that consent cannot be withdrawn by a woman after the initial penetration. And now, via Bean, apparently a Maryland judge just threw out a case where a cop observed a man hitting his girlfriend outside a gas station. The women disappeared, and the judge decided that since "Sadomasochists sometimes like to get beat up," he couldn't assume the punches weren't consensual.

Judge Harris went onto explain that it had to be clear that the defendant's actions were not consented to by the victim, and asked, "How do you determine that without the victim?" (Byron L. Warnken, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, posed this question to a Sun reporter: "What would we do in a murder case?")

My understanding of the law here, incidentally, is that once the elements of a crime have been established "beyond a reasonable doubt" (which they were here), then the burden is on the defendant to show why there was a good "excuse" for the actions (i.e., this was consensual S&M...outside a gas station).

But yeah. As The Nation puts it, apparently "Some Domestic Violence Victims Like Being Hit."

Is Dodd Due?

I like Chris Dodd, but politically he's seemed to be stuck in Mike Huckabee mode: everybody seems to be a fan, but nobody thinks he can win, so he can't get any traction. At the last debate I watched, I thought he gave a solid performance, but he also won the award for most "who's that guy?" from my friends (aside from Mike Gravel, of course).

But lately, the Dodd campaign has been showing some life. RCP wonders if Dodd is becoming the candidate of the netroots -- this cycle's Howard Dean. In the latest Daily Kos straw poll, Dodd surged from single digits to a 21% share of the vote -- second place behind John Edwards (31%) and comfortably ahead of Obama (16%) and Clinton (9%). This followed the announcement of Kos himself that he cast his first vote in the poll for Dodd back in September. Others are giving Dodd a second look as well: For example, Scott Lemieux says he's "getting pretty close to endorsing Dodd."

Perhaps more importantly, Dodd is beginning to drive the movement of other Democratic contenders. He was the first to announce that he was going to filibuster the telecom amnesty bill, a position that Clinton and Obama now are (sort of) adopting. He was way out in front of the other presidential candidates in terms of trying to repeal the abysmal Military Commissions Act. And in general, he's been one of the few candidates who hasn't designed his whole campaign around defusing the "Democrats want America to die in a terrorist strike." Which isn't to say he doesn't take foreign policy seriously: he just knows that it's a false choice between keeping America safe, and keeping America America.

I give Dodd a lot of credit. His campaign is rejuvenating itself, not because of reckless pandering, and not because he's got a big name. It's coming into its own because he's willing to take the right stands, at the right time, for the right reasons. That's a quality I like in a President. And Chris Dodd deserves another look from all those Democrats (including myself) who have thus far restricted ourselves to the "top-tier" crew.

His Hero

Looks like W likes more about Putin than just his soul:

Q: Mr. President, following up on Vladimir Putin for a moment, he said, recently, that next year, when he has to step down according to the constitution, as the president, he may become prime minister; in effect keeping power and dashing any hopes for a genuine democratic transition there.

BUSH: I've been planning that myself.

Time to break out my favorite bumpersticker!


Via

Wake Up

Tim F. on the latest conservative stunt, "Islamofascist Awareness Week":

Let’s get past the question of why anyone would think that Americans forgot about angry muslims attacking us six years ago. That seems vanishingly unlikely when at any given time a Republican is running for office somewhere. Rather, what strikes me the about David Horowitz’s latest publicity stunt is the remarkable degree to which David and his drooling followers seem utterly unaware of the actual threat. Reading through a typical rightwing blog or speech by 9/11-humping candidates like Giuliani you get the impression that they have no idea that al Qaeda is a Sunni movement that detests Shiites and secular Arab leaders as much as they detest us, that Zarqawi spent most of AQI’s energy attacking the Shiite community, that Iran and the Sunni Arab world view one another with thinly veiled hostility. The idea that Israel and Iran shared a 20th century strategic arrangement that ranged from diplomatic refuge during the Holocaust to Israel intervening on Iran’s behalf during the hostage crisis has not and will never penetrate Horowitz’s pointy little head.

This is not a trivial point. Our true enemies, in the sense of the people who attacked us unprovoked, represent a small minority of hardened extremists. Their long-term strategy and even their very survival depends on mainstreaming their radical ideas into a broader arab movement. To the degree that we nurture the modernist and moderate factions of muslim society and emphasize the differences between them and the cave-dwelling nuts, al Qaeda loses. But to the degree that we lump all of Islam into a mistrusted category that gets strip searched, disappeared, tortured and denounced without discrimination bin Laden’s fringe movement wins big time. When moderate muslims cannot travel in the west without narrow-eyed suspicion or even open abuse from a Malkin-inspired hysteric, anti-western preachings sound more and more credible.

Ding!

That second line is a great zinger, but the substantive point is solid as well. There is a threat to America from Islamic extremists. But a) they are not a monolith and b) they are not more dangerous than, inter alia, Hitler or the Soviet Union. Get a grip. And stop helping terrorists.

The Dangers of Thralldom

Covering the upcoming Virginia State House and Senate races, the Washington Post notes the importance of the northern Virginia suburban districts to whether or not the Republicans can maintain control of the legislature. The Republican incumbents are battling against the increased blue tint of their districts, as well as an overall purpling of the state at large. One problem these candidates have faced is that even more moderate voters know that, even if these particular Republicans are talking (even walking) the centrist talk, the Republican Party as a whole is still hanging out on the right wing of things, and that's a major turn-off.

The perils of being a moderate Republican are nothing new. But in certain states, like Virginia, there is another element in play that poses a particular danger to the Republican Party. Because the state has such a strong conservative tradition, the right-most flank of the Republican Party has entrenched itself as the power-brokers. They see themselves as the rightful arbiters of the direction and position of the Party. Even as the state is purpling, it's not a position they'll give up easily, and as a result it locks the GOP into a conservative posture that is no longer electorally tenable.

The sacrificial quality of the activist-conservative branch of the Virginia GOP already demonstrated itself in local primaries, driving out incumbents who weren't seen as sufficiently devoted to the cause and putting formerly safe districts into play.

"It's scary for us," said state Sen. Martin E. Williams (R-Newport News), who lost a primary battle this year to a conservative Republican and whose seat, as a result, is at risk of turning over to Democrats. "Certainly the perception in the public's eye is that we've narrowed our base so much that we can't claim a majority. We've got to appeal to a broader group of people than just people who will sign a no-tax pledge or be pro-life."

Elsewhere in Virginia, Republican leaders have been scrambling to handle two rogue lawmakers in their caucus who are accusing the state Democrats of ties to terrorism because of their relationship with some local Muslim community organizations. It's a low political slam, and one most observers think will backfire, but also the type of attack that resonates with the die-hards. The folks who come out to vote in Republican primaries eat that stuff up, but the independent voters who are becoming more and more important in Virginia read that sort of thing and just recoil. Another example is the machinations of the state Republican Central Committee to give conservative candidate Jim Gilmore the edge in the race to succeed retiring Senator John Warner (R), over the more moderate, but far more electable Rep. Tom Davis. This isn't the best example, because the Democratic candidate, Mark Warner would likely have thrashed both, but Davis at least could have made a solid race out of it. With Gilmore as the nominee, the seat is pretty much in the bag for the Democrats.

Virginia is not the only state where this dynamic is playing out. Out in Kansas, the Republican Party has been mired in a high profile civil war that has sent moderates fleeing to the Democrats en masse. Here, too, the problem was that the state Party was controlled by forces too conservative for its own constituents, much less the state at large. The state board of education had been buffeted by an intra-party spat over whether evolution should be taught in public schools, a battle won by pro-science forces in August of 2006. Meanwhile, a series of high profile defections, capped by former state party chairman Mark Parkinson, set the stage for a banner year for Democrats. Parkinson joined the ticket of incumbent Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who cruised to re-election and positioned herself as a possible 2008 Vice Presidential contender. Fellow turncoat Paul Morrison knocked off Republican Attorney General Phill Kline, who had gained notoriety by subpoenaing medical records of abortion clinic patients, ostensibly to check for evidence of child abuse. And, in one of the top upsets of the year, Democratic nominee Nancy Boyda bested 5-term Rep. Jim Ryun.

In Arizona, Republicans had to essentially abandon the erst-while competitive 8th District last cycle because local voters bucked the national party's preferred candidate to nominate Randy Graf, who was far too conservative to have a chance in the district. Gabrielle Giffords won the race in a landslide. In Colorado in 2002, Republican Bob Beauprez won control of the 7th District by less than 400 votes. Yet, when Beauprez left the seat open to run for governor in 2006, the GOP nominated uber-conservative Rick O'Donnell, who had previously advocated abolishing social security. Democrats won the seat back by nearly 25,000 votes.

In both these states, these strategic lapses came amid general Democratic progress. In Arizona, Democrats also knocked off incumbent J.D. Hayworth in the 5th District there, and are currently eying Rick Renzi's 1st District seat as particularly vulnerable. In Colorado, Democrats have become the dominant political force, capturing the Governor's mansion, both houses of the state legislature, and a Senate seat.

In all of these states, the Republican Party is tightly under the control of its most conservative branch, a wing that simply can no longer compete in general elections, but can still prevent any internal reform to reposition the Party in a more palatable light to their changing electorate. This is a very dangerous position for the Republicans to be in. It gives Democrats free reign to take over huge swaths of the American middle with virtually no substantive opposition. And as these voters continue to trend Democratic, the remaining Republican office-holders will list evermore right-ward, pushing more people away and giving Democrats an even greater advantage.

Huckabee's Holocaust

Christian right darling Mike Huckabee:

"Sometimes we talk about why we're importing so many people in our workforce," the former Arkansas governor said. "It might be for the last 35 years, we have aborted more than a million people who would have been in our workforce had we not had the holocaust of liberalized abortion under a flawed Supreme Court ruling in 1973."

Though the claim that Jews are prime targets for Republican conversion is, to my ears, overstated, even if there were a grain of truth to it Huckabee is precisely the sort of candidate who would insure the Jewish vote stays safely Democratic. Strong social conservatism turns off most Jews anyway, but gratuitous Holocaust comparisons (incidentally, "Holocaust" is a proper noun, referring to a specific event, and should thus be capitalized. It is not a generic term to be applied to all genocides -- there are not "holocausts", just the Holocaust) are the fastest way I can think of to earn the ire of American Jews, and fast.

This isn't even the first time Huckabee has made such a "gaffe." Commenting on his noted weight loss, Huckabee remarked last year:

"I have just come from six weeks at a concentration camp held by the Democrat party of Arkansas in an undisclosed location, making a hostage tape. That's why I look that way."

Democrats are Nazis, and Dachau was just a proto-fat camp! Oh Huckabee, you charmer, you.

Seriously, though all props to Huckabee for really make a good push in the GOP field, don't think the Jewish community is going to let this sort of thing lie. If Republicans are serious about attracting our vote, they can't nominate candidates like this. And if they're not serious, well, then don't be surprised when we use whatever leverage we have in the political system to voice our discontent.

Who's Responsible?

I very much like Marc Lamont Hill's post on the question of "responsibility" regarding issues facing the Black (particularly urban) community. Working off Philadelphia's new "10,000 men" program, which trains (mostly Black) young men to enter dangerous neighborhoods and act as "peacemakers", deterring illegal activity, Hill grapples with the strategic benefits and drawbacks of programs preaching such personal responsibility. Of course programs like 10,000 men are beneficial, if for no other reason than that they offer an alternative to the "police state" model of crime prevention in run-down areas -- an approach which has decimated these communities and made entire generations view the police as enemies, rather than protectors. But the rhetoric of such programs -- that with sufficient virtue and work ethic, the Black community can eliminate its problems without any broader social change, is dangerous. Hill argues:

If we’ve learned nothing from the historic Million Man March –where African American men became the first group of people to launch a protest march against themselves– we found out that the government and mainstream Americans will never stop large numbers of Negroes from confessing their collective sins in full public view. The problem is that, instead of inspiring policymakers to support our efforts, such actions reinforce the absurd notion that violence and poverty can be eliminated by embracing a gospel of individual responsibility. In this case, by agreeing to “take back our neighborhoods” we concede the point that we lost them solely due to our own personal failings.

The last time I checked, joblessness and crack had something to do with it too.

Rather than demanding higher wages, better schools, and stricter gun laws, the current plan absolves the government of its responsibility to protect our most vulnerable citizens. For example, even if we are to accept the quixotic idea that ten thousand unarmed civilians can make peace within inner-city war zones, couldn’t we expect even greater results from ten thousand trained officers? Unfortunately, the current initiative makes no such demands from the State.

The obvious solution, and the one Hill advocates, is to do both -- personally work to reduce violence and crime in our own neighborhoods, while also demanding that society at large do its part to remedy the structural forces holding back urban communities: lack of jobs, rundown and inadequate educational facilities, and economic isolation, to name a few. Certainly, personal responsibility is one plank in the bridge that will lead America to a just racial solution -- but a bridge with one plank is not very useful, no matter how solid it may be. A total solution is what's needed, and anybody who tries to look at the problem from a single angle -- be it totally structural, or totally personal, is going to come up short.

Rumsfeldian Politics

You go to the polls with the ideas your party has, not the ones you wish it had. Ezra Klein makes this point eruditely with the myth of the "real" conservative positions:

The basket of policies pushed by recent conservative politicians have done very poorly. And they're sort of the basket voters need to be evaluating when trying to judge conservatism and the candidates who pledge fealty to it. Any Marxist will tell you that "real" Marxism was never tried. That said, just about every time something called Marxism was tried, it traveled down much the same course, and failed in much the same way. Which is what you should be passing judgment on. Similarly, conservatism isn't ending up in this mess by accident. The constellation of interest groups and donors who fund the movement, when mixed with the preferences of the electorate (no, you can't take away my Medicare or cut my Social Security), tend to produce a fairly predictable and similar set of policies -- tax cuts without spending restraint, corporate welfare, weak energy policy, no health care program to speak of, etc, etc. In essence, that set of policies is what conservatism becomes in office. And so it's the set that should be evaluated.

Machine Guns

We already knew robots think we taste like bacon. Now, they've finally started the revolution. Humanity is doomed.

Think I'm exaggerating? This has been a long time coming. Even in the 1960s, police were aware of the armed machine menace. Consider this excerpt from the history book I'm currently reading for class about the 1960s civil rights movement:

"Police recorded only four march-related arrests, all of white people: one Nazi, two violent hecklers, and a health insurance computer who drove to work with a loaded shotgun."

Sure, the footnote claims that "computer" refered to a human who makes computations. But who wants to bet that explanation was typed on a computer in the first place? They cover their tracks, these machines do....

John Cole Wins at Photoshop

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) didn't actually say this, but I bet he was thinking it:

John Cole, ladies and gentleman.

Brownback is Out

The conservative Kansas Senator is dropping his Presidential bid Friday, CNN reports.

This puts a whole new spin on his announcement of a resolution apologizing for slavery and Jim Crow. Possibly, it was a last ditch effort to give his campaign some momentum. But if that's the case, then I'd have expected him to wait at least a few more days to see if it caught. As it is, it looks he'll be pursuing the resolution even outside the context of a Presidential campaign, which in some ways is more impressive. Appealing to the Black vote might matter in a national election, but I hardly think its a big concern in a Kansas gubernatorial race (Brownback is targeting the governor's mansion in 2010).

Got the Joneses

Conservative Catholic law professor Stephen Bainbridge castigates Mitt Romney for accepting the endorsements of two major figures affiliated with Bob Jones University: Chancellor Dr. Bob Jones III, and Robert R. Taylor, dean of the university's college of arts and sciences. BJU has a notorious history of religious and racial bigotry, long refusing to admit Black students (and then for awhile restricting admission solely to married Blacks), then fighting to keep up a prohibition on interracial dating. Meanwhile, BJU leaders have called both Catholicism and Mormonism "cults." So, Bainbridge says, while "[t]urning down these endorsements would have been tough" given their pull in the South Carolina GOP, "All in all, I'd have a lot more respect for Romney if he had told the folks from Bob Jones where to shove their endorsements."

Of course, it speaks volumes that an extremist entity such as this could wield so much influence in a major primary. And Romney's affiliation with this group is not something that should be forgotten. As Andrew Sullivan writes:

I had a conniption about Bush's catering to BJU bigotry in 2000 and then swiftly forgot about it. I didn't see it as the harbinger that it was: of a GOP rooted in religious prejudice, racial fears, and sexual panic. I've learned my lesson.

Shouldn't someone press Romney on this? Contrast Romney's pandering to Fred Thompson's campaign, which dismissed the radical anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church (which tried to argue that Thompson "saw eye to eye" with them on the issue) "a radical fringe group, looking to draw attention to themselves." Westboro is probably a bit further out of the mainstream than is BJU -- but only by a step or two.

Sister Souljah on a Platter

On the One Hand, It'd Be Mean

But on the other hand, it'd be oh-so-just:

[T]he comments yesterday spawned a question many of us would like asked of all the Jack Bauer wannabees in the GOP field who would literally do ANYTHING to save us from terrorist attack:

“Would you have sex with a man to stop a terrorist attack?”

Sure, it is a silly hypothetical, but so is the idiotic ticking-time-bomb scenario people throw around so damned much as an excuse for torture. So what is it, Mitt, Sam, Rudy, Mike, and company? Which is worse? A hot gay dicking or a nuke detonated in NYC?

Ha. Ha. Ha.

Mark Olson calls me out on inappropriate humor. In my defense, this arguably isn't a rape joke, per se -- assuming the unnamed male partner is consenting, the question is "would you consent to having sex with a man to stop a terrorist attack"? But it skirts close enough to the line, and I'm not that interested in splitting hairs. I've blogged before on how rape (particularly male-on-male prison rape) as a joke is one of the key barriers to reforming what is one of the primary human rights violations currently going on in American prisons. Clearly, I'm not immune to the cultural penetration of this sort of humor.

On a related note, though, I think the question of rape as a tool of our "war on terrorism" is a reasonable ground for inquiry as to the "end game" for the Republican approval of torture (at least in certain circumstances). Republicans have been falling all over themselves to assure their base that they're "tough enough" to torture (suspected) terrorists if its necessary for America's defense. Well, if we're willing to waterboard them, what else can we do? Can we rape them? Why not? What makes rape different from other forms of torture? If we catch Osama bin Laden, and our interrogators think this is the way to crack him, what then? What about "material witnesses"? What if we have someone in our custody who might help us crack a terrorism case, but isn't directly implicated in the plot? Is his body forfeit as well? The extreme case would be trying to "smoke out" a terrorist leader by capturing his family and threatening to sodomize his four-year old child with a spiked bat. Horrifying, yes -- but there is nothing inherent in the position of this administration that would render it out of bounds.

The point isn't that I seriously think Mitt Romney would endorse such behavior. It's that we need to draw a line that we will not cross. "We're fighting evildoers!" just isn't good enough anymore. In the wake of Abu Gharib and our "secret prisons", I wish I could be confident that sexual abuse is off limits for American personnel. But that fact is, that's no longer settled. And the people who are rushing to claim the toughness mantle deserved to be asked about how far is too far. "Would you sanction the rape of a suspected terrorist in order to defend America from a terrorist attack?" is, unfortunately, a live question. And it deserves answer.

Clearing the Pile

A round-up of stuff that's been hanging on my browser, but don't look to get a post of their own anytime soon.

David Law and David McGowan positively dismantle the "pragmatic defense" of originalism in the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy (via PrawfsBlawg).

Brad Plumer asks us to take a closer look at "rogue prosecutors" in the context of reforming the criminal justice system. As someone who has been hitting on this issue for a long time, I hope folks take heed.

Barack Obama has put a hold on the nomination of Hans von Spakovsky to the FEC. Definitely the right move morally -- Robert Mugabe could teach von Spakovsky a few things about the commitment to free elections.

Ilya Somin asks why "genocide" is worse than regular old mass murder. It does seem morally intuitive to me that 10,000 people dying randomly isn't as bad as 10,000 being killed specifically because they're Jews. But I admit it's difficult to figure out why. I suppose one answer might be that genocide psychically wounds people distant from the actual killing fields -- people who either share the ethnicity of or an analogous social position to the victims -- who see themselves in the ghosts of all those murdered. The terrorism aspect of genocide, in this way, is operationally distinct from other mass killings. There is a greater feeling of "next time, it could be me."

Rep. Tom Davis, whose nascent Senate campaign took a hit after Virginia Republicans elected to hold a convention rather than a primary, is now hinting he may not run for the seat at all. Instead, he'd let former Governor Jim Gilmore get thrashed by also-former Governor Mark Warner, and then take on the far more vulnerable freshman Senator Jim Webb in 2012.

Crazy in the Best Way Possible

Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) is genuinely crazy. I mean that in the best possible way.

For better or for worse, the Republican Party has a great many crazy people. They support ludicrous policies. They have an insane persecution complex about the "liberal media" which is always out to get them. They attack 12-year olds because they dare rely on the SCHIP program. This is nothing new.

What is distinctive about many of these crazy folk, though, is how hackish they are. It's not like they're just beholden to some extreme ideology which pushes them to weird and outlandish positions all the time. For if that were the case, everyone once in awhile you'd see them deviated from the electoral interests of the GOP. Yet, for many of the most passionate nut-cases in the Republican Party -- be they Christian Conservatives or supply-side voodooists, this never happens. Their craziness is not genuine. It is a mere facade for Republican Party politics.

Brownback, by contrast, is if nothing else genuine. This doesn't mean that he doesn't do crazy things. Holding up a judicial nomination because the candidate attended the commitment ceremony of a lesbian friend definitely qualifies. But at other times, he does surprisingly nice things, because he is truly committed to a belief structure beyond "Republicans winning." One example is his human rights advocacy in North Korea. Another is his recently announced resolution apologizing for slavery and segregation.

It is beyond obvious that such a statement is long overdue. An apology, which exacts no cost on any "innocent" party, is the least we could do to atone for our centuries long enactment of state-sponsored terror, discrimination, violence, and hate. Most scholars who examine the aftermath of mass atrocity (which is the best descriptor of America's racial caste system) agree that some level of reckoning by the majority culture for its deeds is crucial to reconstituting the victims. This is why truth commissions are so important -- even more so, often, than legally punishing perpetrators (this ties in nicely with my general belief that justice for the victims is more important than punishing wrongdoers). But America never went through this period of self-reflection. Indeed, as Kimberle Crenshaw noted, we shifted seamlessly into "post-racist", often without even changing the officials in charge (can you say Jessie Helms?). People victimized by mass atrocities are hurt all over again when they find that nobody cares, or that those who committed the violent acts don't even recognize their wrongdoing. The wounds of oppression live on in this situation -- a continued legacy fostered by silence.

The mass resistance too many White politicians have to simple official acknowledgment the grave moral wrongs our nation has inflicted upon people of color is untenable. I agree with Brownback, incidentally, that these aspects of racism are a national problem -- let's not let the north get off scot-free. Brownback concedes that this is an uphill fight. Indeed, in a political sense such a resolution is crazy -- it's not going to win him any votes, it's not going to restart his stalled presidential campaign, and it likely won't even succeed. But it is someone like him -- a Nixon-goes-to-China figure -- who can get the ball rolling. Has the time for this resolution passed? Not while those victimized by America's racist heritage still demand it. Even if his resolution doesn't pass, even the effort is worth something. And I applaud Brownback for his leadership in this regard.

So, while I still think Brownback is crazy, in the words of today's youth, I also want to say: "Brownback, you craaazy!" And I salute him for that.