Perm, Do Both

New Balloon Juice co-blogger Michael offers up his immigration plan. Put simply, it replaces the "family unification" objective with a merit-based system. So basically, instead of admitting immigrants primarily on the basis of whether they have relatives here, we admit them primarily on whether they are highly skilled and educated.

I have no problem with expanding the number of merit-based visas we give out. I'm proud that America continues to be the destination of choice for the world's best and brightest, and we'd be are fools not to tap into that resource. But I'm confused why this is in any way mutually exclusive with continuing to let in family unification immigrants -- an objective that Michael admits serves important humanitarian goals.

I will give Michael credit for taking his proposal seriously. He acknowledges that any meaningful effort at stemming familial immigration would have to involve repealing Section I of the 14th Amendment, which grants birthright citizenship to anyone born in the United States. Michael

would change it to say that at least one parent must be a citizen of the United States. The only intent of foreign-born parents who give birth here (with few exceptions) is to ensure their child has U.S. citizenship. It’s their ticket in.

But this, I feel, misstates the motivation. The "anchor baby" motif has always struck me as a wildly uncharitable frame for why people choose to bear children in here. American citizenship isn't a ticket in, it's a ticket out: out of poverty, out of illiberal regimes, out of dead-end lives. Latino immigrants, just like the waves of immigrants who came before them, are seeking a better life for their children. And they know that US citizenship is part of that dream. Michael talks about giving a "hand up, not a hand out", but the folks with Ph.Ds aren't the one's who need a helping hand at all.

What Michael claims to be worried about is the creation of a perpetual underclass. Uneducated immigrants arrive on our shores, take menial jobs, get Green Cards, and bring their similarly uneducated family members with them to take similar jobs. But that's not necessarily a recipe for endless poverty. A perpetual underclass is only created if we withhold opportunities for people to rise above their standing, or prevent them from participating fully and equally in public life. Historically, most immigrants came to America with little education or money. But their children -- born here and thus with the citizenship that nobody can take from them -- learn (and constitute -- it's a two-way street) American cultural norms, take part in our school system, get educated, get jobs, and ultimately succeed. There is no reason we can't follow that route again, as long as we resist them temptation to be selfish with our riches. It is a perverse definition of "hand up" that restricts itself to those who already are at the top rungs. If we're serious about giving people a chance, then we have to take a chance of our own by believing in the pluck, mettle, grit, and determination of the poorest and least among us.

And at the end of the day, I don't think giving people a shot at the American Dream will result in the creation of an impoverished underclass. A guest-worker program creates a permanent underclass. Refusing to pass the DREAM act creates a permanent underclass. Excluding the immigrant community from the political conversation (as subjects, not just objects) creates a permanent underclass.

Giving people opportunity never does.

Deep South Rumblings

Good news and bad news for Democrats in the heart of Dixie.

The bad news: Freshman Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) has comfortable leads over most of his potential Democratic challengers. The match-ups don't include a rematch between Chambliss and former Senator Max Cleland, whom Chambliss knocked off in 2002. Cleland hasn't expressed much interest in the race, however.

The good news: The rumors that Mississippi Republican Thad Cochran will retire continue to get stronger. The Democrats actually have a really strong candidate waiting in the wings in former Attorney General Mike Moore, who is wildly popular in the state. If Cochran bails and Moore runs, there is a serious chance the seat will flip.

The Bright Line

While I suppose I can admit that there might be a fuzzy line when a permissible interrogation tactic becomes torture, here's a good rule of thumb: If the Mississippi Supreme Court in the 1920s was willing to reverse the conviction of a Black man charged with killing a White guy because his confession was elicited under the procedure in question, we're probably talking about torture.

The case in question is White v. State, 91 So. 903 (Miss. 1922), and the technique, needless to say, was water boarding (then known as "the water cure"). Four years later, in Fisher v. State, 110 So. 361, 362 (Miss. 1926), the court went all the way and flatly described water boarding as "a specie of torture well known to the bench and bar of the country."

Water boarding: too barbaric for the guardians of Jim Crow, but a-okay for the 21st century federal government.

Incidentally, there was nothing particularly progressive about the Mississippi Supreme Court of this era -- it was not an opponent of the system of Jim Crow oppression, or even the idea of coerced confessions generally. Nine years after Fisher, the Court held in Brown v. State, 173 Miss. 542 (1935) that a confession obtained after the (Black) suspects had been physically whipped during interrogation was admissible. This case eventually reached the US Supreme Court in the form of Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936), which reversed and held that physical torture was a violation of the 14th amendment's due process clause. Another fun fact: the prosecutor in Brown was none other than John C. Stennis, who pressed the case forward fully aware that the defendants had been tortured by the police. Stennis would later become the U.S. Senator for the state of Mississippi, and the National Forensics League named its entire model Congress event after him.

Burke on the Delaware "Diversity" Controversy

Tim Burke really deserves more links from me than he gets. He consistently writes smart, in-depth pieces on interesting topics. And yet, I continue to ignore him. Not fair of me.

So, to start the long process of repentance, here is a pointer to Burke's thoughts on the University of Delaware's mandatory diversity seminars. I'm not sure if I agree with it 100%, but by and large I'm on board: Delaware's program was a joke. College students have the right to hold a diverse array of opinions, and should not be coerced down the One True Path. Seminars like this distort into unrecognizability serious academic debates on the relevant topics (as someone who wishes to be a scholar on Whiteness, I cringe at their simplistic definition of racism), as well as corrupt those theories in the public eye as nothing more than the sort of PC-leftist theory that, well, would show up in a dumb mandatory program. For sabotaging my future career path, Delaware loses even more points.

Burke, of course, explores these points in much greater detail and with his typical erudition. So go and read him.

Moving Down The Chain

Over at BlackProf, Angela Onwuachi-Willig asks whether the opponents of affirmative action really -- as they so often claim -- just want to fix educational problems earlier, rather than "lowering standards" at the university level.

For my part, I thought that argument collapsed entirely in the wake of the Parents United case, which, for those of us with bad memories, was about elementary education. And elementary education has nothing to do with "merit" (in the sense that, outside magnet schools, your school assignment isn't based on whether you're seen as a "good" or "bad" student). But yet, the same forces which organized to demolish affirmative action reared their head there as well, signifying that for some people, there is no program designed at targeting the forces that discriminate against Black students that is worthy of support.

Anyway, Professor Onwuachi-Willig points out opposition by a conservative anti-AA organization (The Project for Fair Representation -- an Orwellian name if there ever was one) to a mentor program for middle- and high-school students at some of the worst performing schools in Austin, Texas. The program enrollment is overwhelmingly Black and Latino, because, well, those are the groups that are overwhelmingly present in low-performing school (is it a violation of the color-blind principle to notice that?). The PFR objected based on the "suspicion" that the program was off-limits to White students. Now that they know this isn't true, I hope they'll drop the complaint. But honestly, is there no bigger barrier to "fair representation" in educational achievement than this sort of program? Are there not larger issues we might want to keep our eye on? When this is where these ostensibly "pro-equality" groups focus their attention, is it any wonder that they are perceived as anti-education and, ultimately, anti-Black?

Quote of the Evening Number Two

Don't mean to stack up on y'all, but this is too good to pass up. From Dr. Boyce Watkins, a Black professor:

For example, in academia, we have the so-called “elite” journals: mostly controlled by white males or those who think like them. When I have submitted work relevant to the black community to these journals, that work is then rejected. At which point, I am criticized for not having my work published in the so-called “premiere journals”. That’s like me forcing Garth Brooks to perform in the Apollo Theatre in Harlem , and saying “From the crowd’s reaction, it’s clear that you’re a shitty singer”.

The article in general is great, and particularly interesting to me for its clear ties into my outside research into subjectification (see my post, "The Diversity Rationale and the Problem of Subjectification" for an overview of the concept, or contact me if you want a copy of the article I'm currently drafting).

Quote of the Evening

Daniel R. Ortiz, "Nice Legal Studies":

Many traditional liberals believe that keeping the public sphere free of religion is the only way to avoid taking sides in particular debates. Excluding religion does, of course, achieve neutrality among religions because no one of them is allow to participate in -- let alone dominate -- the public sphere. To the religious, however, exclusion certainly does not maintain neutrality between religion and secularism. By denying religion a public say, exclusion hands the field to secularism. Only secularists get to argue the full case for their claims. This type of civility may suppress conflict, then, but not neutrally. It does not respect all views equally or avoid taking a position on them. The secularists win. It is neutral only in the sense that it looks neutral to the majority because it corresponds with the majority's own view about how power ought to be allocated. This is civility's great strength. It allows the majority to think it isn't taking a position, especially since civility demands silence from those who disagree. It is civility's gentleness that allows the majority to overlook its brutal partiality. (11)

Paul Horwitz provides some excellent commentary on the article as a whole. See also my own commentary on civility, here and here (in comments.

Sexless Education

Another area where my teachers led me astray: having sex early makes teens less likely to engage in delinquency.

Oh, if only I had been encouraged to develop healthy sexual relationships in high school, maybe I wouldn't have ended up on the dead-end, crime-ridden path I travel down today!

Observations on Applications

As I finally start to get ahead of the endless torrent of applications I'm filling out, a few observations I wanted to get down on virtual paper. Most are recommendations and/or complaints to the shadowy cabal that designs these cursed things.

- The more you can let me send in online, the better. Making me send a thirty-five page writing sample by mail, rather than upload it, is ridiculous. However, I do actually give Chicago a minor exemption here, because they require it to come in with my transcript -- meaning it's the transcript office that has to deal with it, not me.

- Exception to the preceding rule: transcripts should not be submitted online -- at least until colleges start providing a mechanism for transmitting them. Until then, it's just awkward.

- Admissions office mailing addresses need to be reasonable. Name of office, street #, city, state, zip code is fine. Name of office, name of person, hall, room #, street #, city, state, zip code is not. Stanford, I'm looking at you.

- The more information you can give me about my chances of admission, the happier I'll be. Yale Law School, for example, breaks down its last three years of admissions into a grid matching LSAT scores to GPAs. I am gratified to know that my 177 LSAT raises my admissions chance from about 5% to 10%. Depressed, but gratified. The University of Virginia also scores points in this category. Places that just say "higher than this score", by contrast, are useless -- I don't know if being higher than that means my chances are good, or that they won't just use my application for paper football. This is particularly so when (as so often is the case for me), my LSAT/GRE scores are on opposite side of the cut-off from my GPA.

- The degree of centralization the LSDAS has managed to put together is truly impressive -- and welcome. I can do nearly everything online (except, oddly enough, submit recommendation forms, which seems to be a gimme). Grad schools are sort of following suit, and there appear to be a variety of different online services that manage applications. So Brown and Princeton are with one group, while Yale and Columbia are in another. However, if you're going to use an online service, make sure it's stable. Nothing is more aggravating than being in the middle of an application and having "Embark" crash on you. Like it does about once per session, on average.

- Also, be intelligent when designing your applications. NYU wouldn't let me preview my application until I checked the box acknowledging I had previewed my application. I do not appreciate being forced to lie, NYU.

- December 1st deadlines are really inconvenient for a college whose term ends on November 20th. December 15th is fine, though.

- Finally, at this stage in the game, I'm feeling roughly equally positive towards the schools that let me know their decision promptly as am towards the ones that actually admit me. This might change if I start the Winter Term on a five school rejection streak.

Care Bears Versus The Green Latern

Julian Sanchez:

The Care Bear Stare was a sort of deus ex machina the magical furballs could employ when faced with some insuperable obstacle: They'd line up together and emit a glowing manifestation of their boundless caring, which seemed capable of solving just about any problem.

In politics, Matt Yglesias has identified the neocon's version of the Care Bear Stare, which he's dubbed the Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics. It holds that, like a Green Lantern's power ring, the American military can produce just about any effect imaginable if only the Will of the American People is strong enough. When any foreign intervention fails, this is proof that our will was insufficient, presumably due to the malign influence of fifth columnists in the media.

The left, of course, has its own version, which can be seen in claims that we know perfectly well how to solve problem X, if only we cared enough or had the political will to address it. A common variant holds that some vital function can't be left to the market, since only government can guarantee the right result, presumably by putting the word "guarantee" somewhere in the relevant legislation.

This is a little unfair, as there are plenty of policies which we do, in fact, know would succeed, but are seen as politically unpalatable for a variety of reasons (sometimes good, sometimes not). By contrast, there is not a lot of proof that the failures of the American military to turn the world into the land of rainbow sunshine are the result of not clapping hard enough.

But even still, there is at least some element of Care Bear-ism among the left when they fail to acknowledge the negative externalities that surround their favored solutions. I would say, however, that it is just as common for genuinely good solutions to run onto the rocks for no better reason than some massive entrenched special interest sinking $15 million dollars in an effort to shut it down.

H/T: McMegan

Vindication

Take this, all my elementary school teachers!

Beauty seems to be less important than fluidity and speed. [Vanderbilt University professor Steve] Graham's work, and others', has shown that from kindergarten through fourth grade, kids think and write at the same time. (Only later is mental composition divorced from the physical process of handwriting.)...."Measures of speed among elementary-school students are good predictors of the quality and quantity of their writing in middle school," says Stephen Peverly, a professor of psychology and education at Columbia University's Teachers College. "I don't care about legibility."

My handwriting may be utterly illegible, but it is fast, and I do write a lot.

I had a Spanish teacher in high school who was really fed up with not being able to read my work. One time, she scrawled a comment on one of my assignments that I couldn't read, and then wrote "OKAYYYY!?!?" next to it in big block letters. Needless to say, I panicked, having no idea what set her off. When I asked her about it, she just said "now you know how it feels!"

Nonetheless, I'm claiming the ultimate victory here. Via Kevin Drum, who holds his pen the same way I do.

There Are, In Fact, Options Off The Table

Here are a few things we won't do to get Iran to abandon its nuclear program.

On Civil Disobedience?

Steve Benen mocks a conservative writer for comparing torture to civil disobedience. But I think he's being unfair. Civil disobedience, I think, is a good way to conceptualize that ever-theoretically-present "ticking time bomb" scenario, where, we're told, we have to torture somebody. We can argue that the event is unlikely (it is), and that even in that situation, torture may not be the most effective strategy for getting the information we need. But granting there might be the possibility of such a convergence of events so that torture is necessary to save New York, I think civil disobedience is the right way to frame it.

Why? Because civil disobedience concedes that the conduct is illegal, and, more importantly, accepts that the actor will be punished for his conduct. In addition to maintaining the position of torture as a categorical moral wrong, it also provides a check against torture running wild: if people know that they will be prosecuted for torture, they won't do it unless they're prepared to accept the possibility of 15-20 years in prison -- which only likely will happen in grave cases of national security. Of course, that possibility is not an inevitability -- juries can nullify, or pardons can be issued. But the point is, the person has to be willing to face the judgment of society after the act. This is the precise opposite of the way the Bush administration has cast its torture policies -- shielded from public accountability or the arm of the law.

While the conservative in question (Chuck Colson) seems to overstate the nobility of torture in the hypothetical case (a necessary evil remains evil), civil disobedience is, I think, a beneficial framework for the issue insofar as it cuts off -- indeed, inverts -- the argument that we need to provide a legal shield for torturers. If George W. Bush really thinks we need to torture X accused al-Qaeda terrorist, then he should be willing to face the consequences of that act.

Wrong Move, Huckabee

The Club for Growth, an arch-conservative interest group that prizes tax cuts over all else, are not fans of Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. The CfG has never been shy about intervening in Republican primaries (it bankrolled then-Rep. Pat Toomey's challenge to Senator Arlen Specter in 2004 -- Toomey now leads the group), and views its mission as insuring that nobody in the GOP breaks from the Party's supply-side-at-all-cost ideology. And, long before he broke through as a serious candidate, they've been dogging Huckabee, who they see as insufficiently committed to death-by-tax-cut.

Huckabee's response, however, may not serve him that well:

Not surprisingly, Huckabee has been far less sanguine about the Club's attack on his record. Campaign manager Chip Saltsman said that the Club's enmity toward Huckabee appears to be the result of a "personal vendetta," adding: "Most people are starting to figure that out. (Toomey, for what it's worth, insists that there is nothing personal about the attacks.)

As for the allegations made by the Club For Growth, Saltsman said that "we've made our record on tax pretty clear." Saltsman argued that because Democrats enjoyed strong majorities in the state legislature during Huckabee's time as governor, he struggled to rein in their approach to taxes and spending. "What the Club for Growth is banking on is people not wanting to do the research," said Saltsman.

Two problems. First, defending yourself in front of Republicans by saying that you couldn't resist the Democratic swarm in your southern state is not a good way to endear you to the base. I know that Arkansas is actually much more Democratic-friendly than its reputation and region would suggest (indeed, both its Senators, its current Governor, and three of its four Congressional Representatives are Democrats), but most people aren't going to read that deep. Which brings me to problem number two: "banking on people not wanting to do the research" is actually a reasonably sound political strategy. Depending on voters to become informed is a sure-fire way to get crunched. If Huckabee doesn't learn that, he's going to run into serious problems as he struggles towards electoral viability.

Oh My God, It's Real Life Globo Gym!

You think I'm kidding.

Pardons for Bush

Getting ready for bed last night, I was hit with a wonderful idea for the next Democratic President. At least, I think it's a wonderful idea. Tell me what you think.

On his first day in office, the new Democratic President should pardon George W. Bush.

I know, it galls me too. The number of crimes this administration is implicated in boggles the mind, and it is infuriating that they will likely go unpunished. But let's be serious here -- there is a precisely 0% chance that President Bush, or any top member of the Bush administration, will ever be prosecuted for anything. It would look partisan, it would look retaliatory, and it would end up being awful politics.

So why a pardon? Simple: you don't pardon people who haven't done anything wrong. The very act of pardoning Bush establishes him as someone who needed a pardon. Pardons damage the reputation of their recipients -- it's not like Nixon's pardon convinced Americans that he really just got a bad rap (even just-defeated Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher's spate of pardons, which he cast as protecting the targets from illegitimate prosecution, made both him and them look much worse than they were before). Meanwhile, President Obama the Democratic President looks magnanimous, moving the country forward rather than focusing on rehashing the malfeasance of the past. And of course, removing the specter of criminal prosecution from President Bush, under a variety of precedents, makes it easier to compel him to testify about the events in question, if that ever becomes necessary.

It is important to establish Bush's historical legacy as someone who ran one of the most corrupt, extra-legal administrations in the history of the nation. Prosecution would be the most direct route, but that's not going to happen. Counter-intuitive as it is, issuing a pardon would permanently enshrine Bush in that rarefied class of Presidents who needed a pardon -- and that would likely secure his legacy almost as well as (politically contested) indictment.

***

Link to the 2007 Weblog Award Polls: Vote Debate Link

You Can't Have It All

Though I think this Duck of Minerva post on "certifying idealism" comes down a little hard, this paragraph is very wise and deserves repeating:

[T]he conjoining of "certifying" and "idealism" troubles my Weberian sensibilities to no end. If we are doing anything at all for our students -- and this applies broadly to everyone in the academy, I think, but perhaps especially to those of us who teach about politics -- we ought to be pressing them to deal with the conflicts between their ideals and the means of implementing those ideals. We should also be pressing them to deal with the fact that not all idealistic value-commitments point in the same direction, that not all normatively desirable ends can be accomplished all at once, and that in the end not all ideals can be rationally reconciled -- in other words, our students need to be appraised of the failure of the Enlightenment project of bringing all values together under the common head of Reason, and of the consequent need for hard and perhaps un-rationalizable choices and commitments.

Not everything that falls under the metric of "good" can be accomplished at the same time. Trying to do that usually leads to more harm than good, either because it engenders quiescence in people who refuse to do anything unless it can be done perfectly (which means nothing will ever happen), or because it encourages people to jettison values that really are important wholesale because they see them as barriers to the "ultimate" project (be it fostering the revolution, increasing liberty, reducing the size of government, securing the nation, or what have you). It is, of course, true that the opposite is true as well: people can be too quick to compromise and never take a stand to demand more than the bare minimum, and political movements can spin their wheels if they get stuck in an endless cycle of aimless, small-scale demands without any sort of larger vision of what they want to accomplish. But this interplay merely reinforces the point: mediating between those poles is tough, it will inevitably resist formula, and the best strategy is not a naive belief that one can be a messianic figure for political change, but rather acquiring the social and political agility necessary to make the world a better place.

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.