The McGwire Paradox, Redux

Last year, I wrote a post on the burgeoning baseball steroids scandal entitled The McGwire Paradox. Noting the intense amount of loathing Barry Bonds has received as he pursued a cherished national record (namely, career home runs), I asked why Mark McGwire, who also chased and eventually broke a popular home run record (Roger Maris' single season mark) while under steroid suspicions didn't receive the same opprobrium. Now it's not like McGwire was treated with kid gloves during his run. But surely we can agree that he didn't face the same level of hostility that Bonds has: booing at every ball park, a universally hostile media, and now a criminal probe.

Working off that, Paul Butler of George Washington Law School wonders if the 89 players -- mostly White and Latino -- named in the Mitchell Report will face similar charges to the ones being pressed against Bonds. If not, Butler argues, prosecutors should drop the case against Barry.

There is a sense, both in the criminal justice system and in the social Zeitgeist, that drug use by African-Americans is somehow worse than drug use by others....To state the obvious, all drug offenders ought to be treated the same. Since we don’t have the resources to “level up” enforcement for white people to enforcement for African-Americans, we should “level down” enforcement for blacks. It seems unlikely that the 88 other baseball players accused of doping will be investigated and prosecuted like Bonds. Dropping the charges against Bonds would send the important message that when it comes to criminal justice, what is good enough for white people is good enough for African-Americans.

Butler has written much excellent scholarship on this and related topics. If you have the time (and the access), I highly recommend his article Starr is to Clinton as Regular Prosecutors are to Blacks, 40 Boston College Law Review 705-716 (1999).

Drug Users of America, Unite!

At his new American Prospect location, Ezra Klein argues that Bill Shaheen's clumsy effort at making Obama's past drug use an issue may have actually aided Obama by inoculating him against the charge when Republicans (or their proxy groups) throw it at him in the 2008 elections.

I certainly hope that's right. But can I just say I find this whole thing ridiculous. Obama used drugs as a kid. Fantastic. Lot's of kids do. I don't find that thrilling information, but you know what I consider the ideal outcome of a youthful drug habit? Kicking it, going to Ivy League schools, and eventually becoming a front-runner for President. There is this persistent murmuring that Obama is a bad example for kids because, after he admitted to taking drugs, he didn't have the decency to become a hobo or thug for the rest of his life.

This mentality simply won't last. Kids today know people who take drugs. If we got rid of all the people who had tried marijuana, I wouldn't have a college anymore. And you know what? Having had friends, class-mates, roommates, family members, and romantic partners who have experimented with cannabis, I can say without a doubt that the world would be a worse place if they were in prison. Anybody who has attended college in the last several decades has had the same experience. Eventually, it's going to have an effect on policy.

Oprah's Racial Politics

Nobody should be surprised that some of Oprah's fans are not happy seeing her stump for Obama. When you have as much of an audience as Oprah has, undoubtedly you're going to have people who aren't Obama fans, and it's no shock that they would rather not see their icon pitching for a politician they find distasteful.

What does amaze me, however, is that they are accusing her of being racially divisive:

But, what's especially interesting about reading Oprah's Web site is why some of those fans seem to be upset: the way she stumped for Obama, they say, seemed to pit white against black.

"I've been inspired to believe that a new vision is possible for America,"
Oprah said while on the stump with Obama in South Carolina. "Dr. King dreamed the dream, we get to vote that dream into reality."

Back on Oprah's Web site, one commenter wrote, "Winfrey has artfully begun her stump speeches alongside Obama with a negative racial tone."

And another commenter wrote, "Don't pit blacks against whites."

How Ms. Winfrey's comments could conceivably be called "a negative racial tone" or "pit[ting] blacks against whites" is literally beyond me, except so far as any mention of racial justice makes whites defensive and angry.

Oprah says she is "offended" by implications that she is supporting Obama due to his race. As she should be. It is offensive to assume that Black voters are so immature that they see nothing but skin color when casting their ballots. Obama is getting her vote because she thinks he is the best candidate for America -- the same reason most other voters choose their candidates.

Day In, Day Out

Michelle Cottle has an important observation on Fred Thompson:

With only three weeks to go until the caucuses, is it really possible that Thompson is going to at last get serious about the race and exert some sort of effort? I've always gotten the sense that ol' Fred likes to think of himself as a clutch player, the type of fella who doesn't need to work up a sweat in the early going then comes to life in the last few minutes of the game to carry the day. You saw this in his 1994 Senate run, where, in the closing months, Thompson perked up, hunkered down, and scored a major victory after getting his butt whooped for most of the race.

I suppose Thompson could still be plotting something similar in this election. But do we really want a president who thinks of himself as a swoop-in-at-the-last-second kind of guy? The presidency isn't really a "clutch" kind of job. Yes, you need someone who responds well under pressure, a strong leader who doesn't freak out in a crisis or buckle during intense negotiations. But you also need someone who can perform over the long haul, who can handle the daily grind and grinding anxiety of the job.

This is important, and the media needs to incorporate Cottle's words into the broader narrative of the hypothetical "Thompson surge." It matters because the media needs to take note of this if/when Thompson begins his last-minute push. I would not be surprised if Thompson at least makes a strong move back to the top in the waning days of the campaign. After all, the Republican electorate does not seem happy with it's choices, and Thompson's original rationale as a candidate was precisely to be the savior for conservative voters who had nowhere else to go.

But Thompson shouldn't be given bygones on his previously lackluster effort when covering this surge. It'd be one thing if had been chugging along diligently up to this point, and was regaining votes as Republicans decided to give him a fresh look. That's essentially what happened with Huckabee, and his move to the top of the pack was properly framed. It'd be easy to use that template all over again with Thompson. Easy, but wrong. Huckabee overcame lack of name recognition, but that won't be a problem if he's the leader of the free world. Unlike Huckabee, Thompson's prior mediocre polling is intricately connected with the type of President he'd make. Thompson will have to work hard every single day, day in and day out, if he's President. His lack of commitment to going through the grind is the sort of thing voters have a right to be reminded of, even if he's willing to buckle down in the clutch.

Could You Be More Specific?

Hit and Run live-blogs the last Democratic Iowa debate. Unfortunately, they tag the debate as "The One Nobody is Watching", which is spectacularly undescriptive. But the coverage itself is interesting.

We Can Only Hope

The Boston Globe reports on Africa's surprising turn-around over the past few years. Democracy is up, economies are thriving, and peace is spreading. Matt Yglesias notes that the end of the Cold War, which inherently stymied reform by letting corrupt nations play the two global superpowers off for string-free support, has given these states breathing room to grow and prosper. Yglesias is right that it's important to not get into that same game with China in the coming years, but we must be equally vigilant to not let China cast itself as a "shield" for illiberal regimes who want to continue oppressing their citizenry with impunity (as they have been doing for Sudan).

Of course, it's not all good news -- there are still hellish scenarios playing out in Zimbabwe and Sudan, and Yglesias linked to the Globe article itself as a counterpoint to Congo's descent back into chaos. But any progress is good progress -- and nothing would be better for the persistent trouble-spots in the region than if their neighbors were able to get on solid footing and could pull them up with them.

House Votes To Outlaw CIA Use of Waterboarding

In a 222-199 vote, the House passed a bill which would prohibit the CIA from using interrogation techniques not sanctioned in the Army Field Manual, such as waterboarding. Good news.

There were five Republicans amongst the ayes. They were Representatives Roscoe Bartlett (MD), Wayne Gilchrest (MD), Tim Johnson (IL), Walter Jones (NC), and Chris Smith (NJ). Special credit to Bartlett and Gilchrest, whose ballots meant that the entire Maryland Congressional delegation voted unanimously against sanctioning torture.

There were also ten Democrats who voted nay. They were Representatives Danny Davis (IL), Dennis Kucinich (OH), Barbara Lee (CA), John Lewis (GA), Jim Marshall (GA), David Scott (GA), Jose Serrano (NY), Pete Stark (CA), Maxine Waters (CA), and Lynn Woolsey (CA). With the exception of Marshall and possibly Scott, I'm guessing that these folks were objecting from the left, not casting ballots in favor of torture.

Contempt Citations for Rove and Bolten

The Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to hold Karl Rove and Josh Bolten in contempt for refusing to produce documents related to the U.S. attorneys scandal. It now goes to the full Senate for another vote there. If it passes again, then we could have a major constitutional showdown brewing, as the Bush administration has signaled its willingness to fight to the death to prevent these subpoenas from being enforced.

The WaPo

I'm a fan and defender of the Washington Post, though some parts more than others. I think it's news section is really good (when it's not talking about Hillary Clinton's cleavage). Tom Toles, the editorial cartoonist, is a god amongst men. I even think the unsigned editorials are decent. Their columnist rotation, well, that's a bit iffier:

It has been extraordinarily soft on George W. Bush throughout the various debacles over which he has presided. In fact, the most recent addition to the Post's Op-Ed writers is Michael Gerson, the former Bush speech writer, a man who combines a sunny shallowness with insular retrograde politics. The hiring is inexplicable -- the only possible way Gerson could attract an audience in this area would be if he were slated to be torn apart by wild dogs -- then he could sell out FedEx field.

Truer than you'd think. We're actually that liberal, and actually politically savvy enough to know who Gerson is.

Ossining Public Schools

Dana Goldstein in the American Prospect has a great article on the efforts of Ossining Public Schools to reduce the performance gap between its White and minority students, in part through programs specifically targeted at Blacks, particularly Black men. Ossining is a rare school district that has a long outstanding commitment to racial integration -- one that recent Supreme Court decisions has threatened.

It's really a fantastic and fascinating piece. Go read.

Our Problem Too

This Echidne post on feminists debating "trivialities" is great the whole way through. She lambastes "concern trolls" who claim to support feminist ends but complain that nominal feminists spend all their time debating trivial concerns like language. If only they were talking about rape in Saudi Arabia, then I'd be right on board. Echidne responds:

Note first that the real and grave injustices that women still face: oppression, rape and even being killed for their gender in some countries, are somehow all problems that only the feminists should try to solve. The rest of the society can just sit back and criticize the feminist attempts, almost like those ice-skating judges at the Olympics. Though of course they would applaud should the feminists actually solve all those frighteningly large problems, without much external funding and while being criticized of nitpicking and various forms of lunacy. But are these problems not the responsibility of the rest of the humankind to solve? It appears not. Only the feminists are expected to fix the world for billions of women.

So true. If you don't think feminists are focusing on the right issues, I guess that's your prerogative. But then you better start focusing on those "right issues". Criticizing them for not pressing for women's rights in Iran is a hollow gesture if your next move is to write your Congressman demanding he repeal the Estate Tax.

But also, as Echidne points out, these "trivialities" are often a big deal to those affected. It's easy to call "trivial" what you yourself aren't being subjected to, but that doesn't mean it's not a special form of arrogance to demean the experience of the other:

That there might be something deeper in the trivial topics some feminists (read: Echidne) chooses is lost on the critics. This something deeper is twofold: First, language matters. It matters that the most common insults in the unmoderated parts of the blog threads are about the object of the insult taking the female position in sex (blow me! bend over!). It matters that a politician who is viewed as bought is called someone's bitch. It matters that "whores" are a common term of denigration, too. It even matters when a politician gives a speech with references to great statesmen, not to stateswomen, and it matters because of what the images might be that our brains create from that speech, and how those images then become expectations having to do with how a politician should look (masculine).

Second, trivialities are sometimes trivial for only those who are not affected by them. Suppose that you are bitten by mosquitoes while your friend is not. You go out for a camping holiday together. You get bitten in the morning, your friend does not. You get bitten at noon, your friend does not. You get bitten in the afternoon, your friend does not. You get bitten all evening at the campfire while your friend enjoys some marshmallows. You then scratch like mad and swear and rant, and your friend suggests that you pay far too much attention to such trivialities as mosquito bites. Then you kill your friend.

People who haven't experienced what you have (or, usually worse, have experienced it one time in isolation and think that because it wasn't a big deal then, they "know" you can deal with it now) don't have the right to tell you what matters and what doesn't in your life. I'm sorry, but you don't get to expropriate experience that way. Certainly, sometimes we have to take our best guesses, and we remain free to forward our opinions and conjectures about what matters and what doesn't. But, as Iris Marion Young put it, ultimately "the only correction to...misrepresentation of the standpoint of others is their ability to tell me that I am wrong about them." You got to listen, people!

Via FLP

No Further Questions

Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) is part of that class of Republican Senators that is willing to talk a good game on torture, but when push comes to shove, isn't willing to do anything that will actually prevent it from happening. Still, tell me he doesn't look genuinely upset when Guantanamo Bay legal adviser Gen. Thomas Hartmann refuses to answer whether Iran waterboarding a downed U.S. airman would constitute a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Senator Graham is right that there are no further questions to be asked on this issue. It's time for some concrete action backing up Graham's strong words.

Via Liberty Street

Unbidden Verses

I've been listening to Fall Out Boy's song "Thnks Fr Th Mmrs", and I kind of like it. But once it hits this verse:

And I want these words to make things right
But it's the wrongs that make the words come to life.

My mind immediately flashes to this line from Wizard People, Dear Reader: "H.P. knows he's got to make it right, even though it feels so good to make it wrong."

And then I can't stop laughing. It's a curse.

Freedom Showers

Stephen Suh at the new Cogitamus Blog asks for defenders of torture policy to tell us why we were wrong back in the 1940s when we stood strong against torture. We prosecuted Japanese military officers after WWII for waterboarding our guys. Even the Mississippi Supreme Court, at the height of Jim Crow, declared it beyond the pale. Why were they mistaken?

My TMV co-blogger Pete Abel thinks the era of the culture war is over as foreign policy and national security take their place as the primary political issues of the new era. I'm afraid I can't share his optimism. Even if abortion and homophobia fade to the background as my generation takes over, they'll merely be replaced by different areas of concern. One of the more terrifying developments of the past few years has been the significant segment of the American electorate -- including a goodly portion of the presidential candidates for a major political party -- unabashedly declaring themselves pro-torture. Like the debates on abortion and gay marriage, this is a moral issue that speaks to the very soul of the nation. Culture still matters when it is still a matter of debate as to whether the American culture will sanction simulated drowning, endless detention without trial, and the other gross human rights abuses that have characterized the "war on terror". Foreign policy hasn't changed the game, merely the frame.

In any event, with a nod to this comment, I move we rename "waterboarding" to the far more apt "freedom shower." It certainly fits the self-image of its barbaric proponents.

l33tspeak FTW!1!!!1!!1

Merriam-Webster's word of the year is "w00t". Seriously. I have to say, though I am a fan of "w00t" as a word, "ftw" is my favorite piece of 133tspeak. But I guess that's just an acronym ("for the win").

Also, "pfft" is in the dictionary. But can I play it in scrabble?

Via Feministe

The Place for Jews in a "Christian Nation"

Of all the places you'd expect to see Jews be safe from anti-Semitic violence, I'd put New York City at the top of the list. Yet, the New York Post is reporting a possible hate crime on the Q train:

A Hanukkah greeting among passengers on a Q train set off an altercation that resulted in ten people being charged with hate crimes yesterday, police said.

The incident in which four people were assaulted took place on a Q train at the DeKalb Avenue station in Brooklyn on Friday at 11:15 p.m.

It began after the four victims exchanged Hanukkah greetings and one of the assailants made anti-Semetic remarks about Jews killing Jesus, saying, "This is a Christian country," sources said.

The group of 19 and 20-year-olds then allegedly attacked the four passengers, who suffered minor bruises and swelling. They were charged with assault and unlawful assembly.

The father of someone in the attacking group claims that the victims shouted obscenities about Jesus. But according to the Gothamist, at least two of the attackers have had brushes with the law before, both after assaulting Black men elsewhere in New York.

Via Phoebe, who herself was near the scene of the crime.

UPDATE: The New York Daily News reports that the man who intervened to stop the attack was a young Bangladeshi Muslim student. That's really nice to hear. Kudos to him. As one of the victims put it, "That a random Muslim kid helped some Jewish kids, that's what's positive about New York."

Also, the story gives more background on how the fight started. The attackers apparently yelled "Merry Christmas" at the group of Jews, who responded with a resounding "Happy Chanukah". Then they jumped them. Elsewhere, I've heard it reported that the attackers thought that Chanukah commemorated "the day the Jews killed Christ", so that could be the "obscenity" the father cited above (but, I hasten to add, that's just speculation on my part).

CNN also picked up the story.

My Fellow Students of Higher Learning

All things considered, I've decided I'm opposed to graduation. I rather like it at Carleton. I know the people there, the community is nice, my stuff is there, I have good roommates....there is a lot going for it. College life appeals to me.

On the other hand, remaining in college means that I'm a compatriot of these people. So it's a wash, really.

Pence For Your Thoughts?

Unsurprisingly, Rep. Steve King's (R-IA) ridiculous resolution promoting the importance of Christmas passed overwhelmingly. But in a pleasant surprise, some folks did stand up -- 9 Congresspersons (all Democrats) voted against, and 10 Congressional Representatives voted "present."

One of whom was Republican Mike Pence of Indiana. This is intriguing.

Pence, for those of you who don't know him, is a conservative's conservative. He was the right-wing's preferred candidate for House Minority Leader after the Republican's crushing defeat in 2006 (he was annihilated by John Boehner in that race), and he describes himself as "a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order." In other words, he hardly seems the sort to register his dissent from Christianist orthodoxy here. And yet, I'm looking at a vote tally that says he did just that.

Anyone know what's up?

The Essence of the Huckabee Campaign

Via Balloon Juice

The Founders and Christianity

In response to Mitt Romney's recent speech, Geoff Stone, of the University of Chicago Law School, runs through the various religious beliefs of our founding fathers. His conclusion? Enlightenment Deism, not Christianity, was their primary influence, insofar as religion mattered at all. Indeed, echoing my warning of confusing "old" and "original", Stone claims that "Those who promote this fiction [of a "Christian nation"] confuse the Puritans, who intended to create a theocratic state, with the Founders, who lived 150 years later."

Via Brian Leiter

Pseudo-Originalist Arguments

In a previous post, I unpacked the originalism trinity, exploring how the broad term "originalism" really encompasses at least three subtly different interpretative theories. To follow-up that one, I thought I'd write a post on "pseudo-originalist" arguments -- ones that often drape themselves under the label of "originalism", but really are something else entirely. Specifically, I've noticed that often, nominal originalists simply cite the fact that a proposition or position is old in lieu of proving that it constituted the original intent, meaning, or understanding of the clause in question. For example, Scalia and Thomas, the Supreme Court's prominent originalists, defend the "color-blind" principle, which is quite old (the term dates back to Justice Harlan's Plessy dissent in 1896, and Justice Thomas has tried to date it back even further to the writings of Fredrick Douglass) and has a long pedigree in American racial thought. But there is very little evidence to show that this is the original meaning of the 14th Amendment -- a fact that becomes evident when one remembers that Plessy was decided nearly 30 years after the ratification of the Amendment. Another good example would be the debate over whether the federal government only has powers "expressly" delegated to it. John Marshall answered that question in the negative in McCulloch v. Maryland, holding that the omission of the word "expressly" from the 10th Amendment (in contrast to the Articles of Confederation, where it was included), showed that the original intent of the constitution was to give the central government broad powers. But as Kurt Lash argues in a upcoming paper, that conclusion appears to be incorrect -- the framers did, in fact, think that the powers of the federal government were supposed to be limited to that which was expressly enumerated.

This mistake tangles up two very different justifications for legal decision-making. To be sure, there are perfectly good reasons to take the longevity of a given legal principle into account when deciding how to rule on present cases. But these reasons aren't the same as the one's that motivate originalists. Originalism is normally justified on two grounds: that it is more democratic, because it enacts the policies people actually and consciously chose to vote for, and that it represents the "true" meaning of the clause, before it was muddled about by interpretation. Appeals to the longevity of a rule (through stare decisis or other means), by contrast, are defended on two rather different premise: that people have come to rely on the prior rule (predictability), and that the fact that the rule has "stood the test of time" signifies that it is working.

Two sources might be the cause of the mix-up. The first is that both originalism and, to coin a term, temporalism are both appealing to historical texts in opposition to a contemporary re-interpretation. The second is that both the reasoning used by originalism and that used by temporalism are appealing to modern-day conservatives -- they (say they) like democratic deference and absolute Truth (originalism), but the also are strong proponents of social stability and relying on received wisdom (temporalism). It is unsurprising that the two might be blended together, as they both make arguments that judges of similar political alignments will find persuasive.

But that notwithstanding, originalism and temporalism are actually very different. The latter is more pragmatic and Burkean -- it draws its power not from the "legitimacy" of the interpretation, but the fact that society has already adopted it as the "rule" and has creating working institutions relying on that. Originalism, by contrast, is ideological -- it claims supremacy because it shows the "true" meaning of the law in question and because it's interpretation is democratically ratified. It doesn't particularly care about how the change in law will work in practice.

Why does this matter? The blurring together of originalism and temporalism, in effect, gives conservative jurists two bites at the apple when seeking to justify their preferred policy ends as legally mandatory. Some policies are legally defensible under an originalist regime, but not a temporalist one, others vice versa (and some both, and some neither). People who think of themselves as constrained by an interpretative philosophy, of course, are not free to simply hop from theory to theory until they find the one that fits their preference for the case. But that self-check only kicks in when the judge is cognizant that this is what she is doing. When originalism and temporalism are not seen as separate, that constraint falls away.

Do You Believe This Book?

At the Republican YouTube debate, one of the questioners inquired as to whether the candidates believed that every word of the Bible was literally true. The Jerusalem Post thought it would be interesting to pitch the question to a bunch of Jewish Rabbis (using the Hebrew Bible, of course). Their answers are fascinating, and shed important light on how Judaism as a religion is operationally different from its Christian cousin.

Jews are all about interpretation. The "literal truth" of the Bible, such a point of controversy in Christianity, has never been a big fissure point in Judaism. As early as the Saadia Gaon (6th Century C.E.), and possibly earlier, Jewish scholars have held that the Bible should be understood metaphorically when it conflicts with science. The tradition of oral law and Talmudic interpretation necessarily has created a religion comfortable with differing views, and a rather unique tolerance for interpretative diversity (e.g., the "These and These" principle).

I'm not entirely sure how that would be gotten across to a polity that is largely unfamiliar with the development of Jewish law and largely doesn't realize how different we are from our Christian peers. I suspect that an Evangelical audience, in addition to rejecting the substance of our answer, would also reject that it is a legitimate "Jewish" (or "Judeo-Christian") answer. But that's their ignorance, not ours.

We're Better Than This

Though he believes that waterboarding probably "saved lives", a CIA agent who participated in the procedure believes the technique constitutes torture, and, most importantly, "Americans are better than that."

That's the crucial mark, isn't it? I mean, it's not just Americans who are "better than that" -- waterboarding was beyond the pale for Jim Crow Mississippi for use on Black criminal defendants.

There are lots of things we could do to terrorists and their associates which could conceivably save American lives. We could shock their testicles with a taser, or we could anally rape them with a spiked bat. Shelby Steele advocated prosecuting the Iraq War without worrying about whether given tactics would be seen as "racist" or "imperialist", a policy that, as Spencer Ackerman put it, would define victory in Iraq as "anywhere south of Kurdistan ought to be a smoldering wasteland."

I am skeptical that waterboarding works on a large scale, though there may be specific cases where it gets us useful information (though even in this most recent case, accounts vary about whether we got useful intel). But at some level, this debate is a distraction, because we're Americans, and we're better than this. It's the perils of being the good guys -- sometimes, you got to be good.

Verbing Weirds Language

As a devoted Calvin & Hobbes fan, this might be the greatest thing I've ever seen. First the relevant C & H strip:

Calvin: I like to verb words.

Hobbes: What?

Calvin: I take nouns and adjectives and use them as verbs. Remember when "access" was a thing? Now, it's something you do. It got verbed. Verbing weirds language.

Hobbes: Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding.

And then the quote it inspired:

"First they came for the verbs, and I said nothing because verbing weirds language. Then they arrival for the nouns, and I speech nothing because I no verbs." -- Peter Ellis.

Brilliance.

Buyer's Remorse

Lindsay Beyerstein is none too pleased with Nancy Pelosi's explanation as to why she was silent on the CIA's use of torture when she was briefed in 2002. She also is skeptical about Pelosi's claim that she "concurred" with ranking House Intelligence Committee member Jane Harman's (D-CA) protest over the tactics delivered in 2003. And finally, she notes that Pelosi actually removed Harman from her post after attaining the majority, replacing her with Sylvestre Reyes (D-TX), who has recently gained some unwelcome attention of his own for calling Jose Rodriguez, architect of the CIA's destruction of its videotaped "harsh interrogation" sessions, a real-life "Jack Bauer".

Fair enough, and I can't say I disagree with her. But I distinctly remember a significant liberal contingent that was actively pushing for Harman's removal, and her replacement with Reyes, when the Dems obtained the majority in the House (e.g., Matt Yglesias). Certainly, Pelosi's long feud with Harman played a role, but the fact is many liberals really dislike Harman anyway, primarily because she is seen as too close to Israel. I don't know if Beyerstein was one of them, but I know that it was left-ward pressure that kept her out of the chair. At least some folks are expressing remorse now, anyway.

Being Black Makes It Worse

Michael O'Hear remarks on the findings of a book examining how convicted criminals re-enter American society. One of the more "provocative" findings is that -- all else being equal, including resumes, type of crime, demeanor, and background -- Black former criminals are more likely to be rejected from jobs than White applicants.

I hate to be a cynic here, but is there anyone who finds this even remotely surprising? For every single metric of social disadvantage I've ever seen -- from wealth to gender to sexual orientation to criminal history -- the effects are amplified when you're Black. Some would say that's signifies something about America.

Now, I'm of the distinct opinion that we need to do a better job reintegrated offenders into our society. What do we expect released convicts to do once they're free, if legal society is barred from them? Meditate? But once again, while this is a problem for people of every race, it's a problem that affects Blacks more, as they are more likely to be arrested and convicted of crimes, and, as this research demonstrates, face stiffer post-incarceration consequences as well.

Admissions Office Evil

One of my hobbies during application season (first undergraduate, now graduate) was to fantasize about all the evil things I would do if I were a director of admissions. Normally, when I'm faced with a stressful or unfair situation, my mind turns on how to alleviate the burden for the people who will come after me (this is why I like judging debate). But for some reason, the application game brings out my sense of malice.

Previous entries in how to be an evil admissions director include posting "abandon all hope, ye who enter here" above my office door, stuffing rejection letters with packing foam, and making interviewees make their best case for why they shouldn't be admitted. Today, courtesy of a school-that-shall-not-be-named, I have another example: send me a nice thin letter a few weeks after I submit my application, then, after my heart has stopped, reveal that it is merely an acknowledgment of my application.

Heart restarted, but I'm keeping a wary eye on you now.

Huckabee's AIDS Gaffe

Mike Huckabee -- with a bit of dodging -- refused to recant his 1992 comments that we should "isolate" AIDS patients. Notably, by 1992 it was well established that AIDS was not transmitted through casual contact. But AIDS still carried with it an unbelievable amount of stigma, and Huckabee was playing into that. I have to admit that I am surprised he didn't repudiate those words though. It seemed like a no-brainer.

This seems to me to be the grand Huckabee paradox. He does have a lot of personal charm and charisma. To counteract that, he has a lot of positions that are -- bluntly -- crazy. This can be a winning combination (it won in 2000 and 2004), but unlike its current poster boy, Huckabee seems to lack the instincts of a true politician. He doesn't know when and how to spin, when to hold the line and when to break. In this, he's a bit refreshing, actually. But it's a flaw as a candidate, and if it prevents someone with his retrograde views on all manner of issues from taking office, so much the better.

Where All The Xs Are

Jill of Feministe picks a nit on Ayaan Hirsi Ali's recent NYT editorial asking where all the "moderate Muslims" are. Ali used the recent example of the Qatif case (where a woman was sentenced to be lashed after being raped) and asks why there hasn't been an outcry from these so-called moderates.

While professing great respect for Ms. Ali (and noting she has excellent reason to not be a big fan of Islam), Jill notes that this is really an unfair charge. How, Jill asks, does Ali think this case came to our attention? The answer is through the efforts of the woman's Muslim Arab attorney, the coverage of the Arab press, and the general outrage the case sparked in Saudi Arabia and around the world. I see this sort of argument all the time, particularly conservatives asking why feminists "aren't talking about women's rights violations" in the enemy of the day, and it's almost always bogus there too -- most women's rights bloggers and activists are quite concerned with the issue globally (in fact, generally they're the first on the scene), they just don't think the solution always comes at the end of a bombing run. While extremists always get more attention than moderates, Muslim moderates have presented themselves quite well, all things considered.

As Jill says (and I concur), Ali is in many respects an incredible woman, and her voice deserves to be heard. But this column levied an unfair charge, and she deserves to be called out on it.

Is There a Right To Comment Anonymously?

For the record, this post isn't written in response to anything that's happened on this site. Barring anything unforeseen, I don't expect to in any way hamper anonymous commenting on this site. And while I know theoretically it's possible to track down someone's identity via their IP address, I neither know nor care to know how to go about that.

But I do wonder whether or not people have any reasonable expectation of maintaining their anonymity when they comment on someone else's blog. I fully acknowledge and respect the right of people to start their own blog anonymously. There are many people who, for a variety of reasons, either couldn't or wouldn't write if their identities were publicly known. I read many of these bloggers myself, and I know the blogosphere is better for it. But that's at their own place. What about at other blogs? Is the blog-host who threatens to expose an abusive, trollish, or otherwise hostile anonymous commenter completely out of line?

On the one hand, it is obvious that not guaranteeing anonymity would deter certain people from commenting -- most notably the aforementioned people who blog anonymously. While I actually know of some anonymous bloggers who leave comments under their real name (but who don't link their name to their anonymous blog), many would be uncomfortable even with that. And furthermore, this strategy still blocks participation by their anonymous personas. A comment by "PG" is more meaningful than one by "Pam Gomez" (name deliberately chosen so that it has no chance of being anything close to PG's actual name, which I don't know), because even though they're the same person, I can link PG to her broader array of work, while I have no idea who Pam Gomez is.

On the other hand, anonymity has its fair share of problems. For one, if my blog is my house, I kind of have a right to know who is visiting -- particularly if they are slinging muck my way. People undoubtedly behave worse when they don't feel accountable to their real-world reputation. And, stepping across another line, if someone is being stalked or harassed online, anonymity can be very dangerous. Some blogs which depend on their commenters for credible, inside information (like Brian Leiter's) often don't allow anonymous comments at all because they aren't as trustworthy.

I think the norms of the blogosphere have developed so that, unless specifically told otherwise, an anonymous commenter can expect that her anonymity will be preserved unless specifically told otherwise. I do, however, think it is within a blogger's rights to warn an offensive commenter that, if she returns, her anonymity is forfeit. My house, my rules, so long as I give fair notice.

Prospect In, Prospect Out

There is some movement amongst the blogosphere hordes coming up. Tomorrow, the stable of American Prospect blogs will add a new member as Ezra Klein departs from his old gigs and finds a new home on their website. Klein's excellent set of weekend bloggers is not following him there, but is regrouping with some new members to form Cogitamus, which should be excellent (and has already been added to the blogroll). So congrats to Klein on his promotion, and I look forward to following him and his former co-bloggers to their new homes.

Meanwhile, Garance Franke-Ruta is departing the American Prospect for a new position at the Washington Post as their national web politics editor/producer. She is shuttering her old site, and I don't know if she'll be providing any public commentary in the new role. So while I'm certainly glad that my favorite newspaper is availing itself of her considerable talents, I'll certainly miss her own distinctive voice. But nonetheless, another round of congratulations to her.

Know Thyself

Over at Concurring Opinions, Frank Pasquele blogs on a presentation by a Silicon Valley entrepreneur on privacy in cyberspace. He made a bunch of interesting points, but I thought his most interesting demand was this:

You should know more about yourself than anyone else knows about you.

Consumers should have the right to find out what data is being collected about them. As a consumer, you should be able to go to DoubleClick, AdBrite, Advertising.com, Google, Yahoo, Aggregate Knowledge, etc. and a list of all the websites that track you. You should be able to go to Choicepoint, Experian, Acxiom, Rapleaf, etc. and see all the data they collect on you. . . . And you should be able to access this data for free at anytime.

I had never thought of this. But now that it's been said, it strikes me as completely intuitive. Nobody should have more information on me than I do. Why shouldn't this be a rule?

Let's Do The Time Warp Again

It's Pretend to be a Time Traveler day! Only you can't actually tell people you're a time traveler -- that'd make you crazy. Instead, try these helpful suggestions:

- If you go the "prisoner who's escaped the future" try shaving your head and putting a barcode on the back of your neck. Then stagger around and stare at the sky, as if you've never seen it before.

- Walk up to random people and say "WHAT YEAR IS THIS?" and when they tell you, get quiet and then say "Then there's still time!" and run off.

- Stand in front of a statue (any statue, really), fall to your knees, and yell "NOOOOOOOOO"

- Stare at newspaper headlines and look astonished.

- Take some trinket with you (it can be anything really), hand it to some stranger, along with a phone number and say "In thirty years dial this number. You'll know what to do after that." Then slip away.

Funny, if slightly mean-spirited. Via my ex-roommate's girlfriend's father (Luuuuke....).

Martha Nussbaum Interview

She talks to The Guardian, and solidifies her well-established reputation as a total baller (that's a good thing).

Freedom to Not Believe

Trying to derail a certain segment of the population who doesn't want to vote for a candidate of his religion, Mitt Romney decides to slander those who hold no religion instead.

"What he is trying to say is 'I am a person of faith. Forget the fact what my faith is, that I am a Mormon. You might be Christian. You might be Jewish. I'm a person of faith. I believe in God,' " Martin said.

Romney said religion is essential to freedom, without pointing to any specific faith.

"Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone," the GOP contender said.

I hate this. I hate that Romney feels comfortable telling a significant portion of the population -- including many of my friends -- is incapable of grasping or maintaining freedom. I hate that he'll probably get wonderful coverage of his speech anyway. I hate that Romney was compelled to give this speech because certain people don't think his religious creed is suitable to lead America, and I hate that he decided to pander to that group rather than repudiate them. I hate that, insofar as it plays into things at all, excluding atheists from the American creed will probably give him a bump in the polls. I hate how it forces my religiosity into a state of conflict with my irreligious peers.

It's sickening to me.

I have friends who are Jewish, and I have friends who are Christian. I have friends who are Hindu and Muslim and Buddhist and Animist and atheist, and friends who are still deciding. All of them understand the blessing of liberty. All of them know the meaning of respect, and dignity, and morality, and freedom. They are righteous individuals to a person, regardless of creed. And I speak as someone who does believe that we all carry a spark of the divine in them -- you do not insult my peers, my colleagues, my friends, and do it under the banner of religious freedom. That slanders the name of religion and poisons my faith.

Boxing Blogging: Mayweather/Hatton Preview

The first boxing card I've ever bought on PPV (Chanukah present from my parents) will be this Saturday -- headlined by the highly anticipated bout between pound-for-pound number one Floyd Mayweather, Jr. and Ricky "Hitman" Hatton.

I may be the only person who is actively rooting for Mayweather to win. I don't like his arrogant, bad-boy act anymore than the next guy (though it is without a doubt an act). But, as a wise man said, it's not ego if you can back it up, and Mayweather really is that good. He wins his bouts because he is simply better than anybody else in the sport. It's why he can beat an elite fighter like Oscar De La Hoya 24 pounds and four weight divisions heavier than when he turned pro. It's not because he's a naturally big guy. It's because he has amazing skills. Put simply, I respect anyone who is that good. It's the same reason I like Roger Federer.

Ricky Hatton is an excellent fighter, but he does not strike me as being at that level. Part of it is bad luck: the opportunities he's had to impress have all turned out to have asterisks attached (through no fault of Hatton's). His last fight against Jose Luis Castillo, which was supposed to erase all doubts about whether Hatton was for real, turned out to demonstrate merely that Castillo was totally shot as a fighter. Yes, Hatton's body shot KO was sweet. But I saw that fight, and it's not like Castillo was competitive prior to that. Even Hatton's biggest victory, against Kostya Tszyu, came with the same problem: Tszyu retired after that bout, and folks wondered if Hatton could have beaten him in his prime. Meanwhile, Hatton has shown far more vulnerability than Mayweather has. While I think the weight issue is overblown (Hatton has been a lifelong junior welterweight, while Mayweather turned pro as a junior lightweight), it is true that Hatton struggled mightily in his only fight at 147 lbs., against Luis Collazo (a fight he arguably lost). Mayweather, by contrast, hasn't even been threatened in a fight since 2002 against a prime Jose Luis Castillo. I have to admit, I'm kind of enjoying Mayweather's current run, where he sits at the top of boxing and just fights elite boxers -- titles be damned. Indeed, I kind of hope after this fight that Mayweather moves back down in weight -- if he could make it back 135 lbs., there are all sorts of fantastic match-ups available (and Floyd actually has power in that weight class). Mayweather versus Juan Diaz? Mayweather versus Manny Pacquiao!?! I'd love it. And even if stays in the welterweight division, him facing Miguel Cotto would be every bit as amazing.

And the final reason I'm rooting for Mayweather is that Hatton's style bugs me. In recent bouts, he's gone back to "hook and hold", which is unbelievably dull. It could be effective against Floyd -- the wrestling will wear him down, and the grabbing will prevent him from moving -- but it would be a cheap way to a victory. I hope the referee doesn't let him do it. If Floyd wins, he'll do it by being pretty, while if Hatton wins, he'll make it look ugly. The aesthete in me prefers the former, greatly.

Of course, I'd be remiss if I forgot the undercard to this match-up. Honestly, it's not the best one I've seen. Assuming his injury is totally healed, I think Jeff Lacy should tear through Peter Manfredo, who just isn't at the level Lacy is. Sure, Lacy got schooled by Joe Calzaghe (as did, lest we forget, Manfredo), but as the Welshman's fight against Miguel Kessler showed, that's because Calzaghe is a bona fide top five pound-for-pound fighter. There is no shame in losing to him like that. Manfredo is over-hyped due to The Contender. Lacy at least has the potential to be the real thing.

I don't know anything about Eduardo Escobedo. I do know his opponent, Daniel Ponce de Leon, and what I've seen is scary. Ponce de Leon is a blistering puncher, with unbelievable one-punch power. It's arguable that Rey Bautista should have gotten a bit more seasoning before going in with Ponce de Leon, but he was undefeated and not nobody. He got taken apart viciously inside of one round. Maybe Escobedo has the skills to stand up and take Ponce de Leon's shots. But I'd be surprised.

Finally, there is a rematch between Edner Cherry and Wes Ferguson. I saw fight number one, and while it was an entertaining scrap (won by Cherry), I didn't see anything in it that demanded a rematch, nor much reason to expect Ferguson could turn it around this time. Neither one has much power, but Cherry has more than Ferguson does, and Cherry likes to fight rough. The upshot is that he can get inside at will, and Ferguson doesn't possess the lead to keep him off. When Ferguson switched from trying to box to trading, he ended up worse as well. Still, Ferguson is a Mayweather protege, which makes him somewhat of a house fighter, and he clearly wants revenge, so we could see a fight.

One more thing. While I think Mayweather will win the fight, boxing is a fickle sport, and for some reason I think that the powers-that-be are tired of Mayweather ruling his perch. If it goes to a decision (as seems likely) and it's in any way close, I wouldn't be surprised if Hatton takes it "controversially". That would be a huge black eye for the sport.

Alright With Me

I'm a bit behind the ball on this one, but I wanted to point to Fred Thompson's response to grumblings from the religious right that he is insufficiently religious:

Thompson dismissed those comments, saying "I'm OK with the Lord, and the Lord is OK with me as far as I can tell."

I note this because I think it's a good answer, particularly given the political forces must be pushing Thompson in a much more aggressive direction. After all, Thompson was originally recruited into the race as the Christian conservative candidate -- a niche he hasn't done a good job filling. Yet, Thompson resisted the temptation to engage in the classic warrior-for-Christ type language that seems so common in the GOP, in favor of a much more relaxed, low-key answer. I appreciate that.

Of course, it's probably politically foolish. But I've noticed that about the Republican field -- any time they do something I like, it invariably is the sort of thing that will hurt them in the primary.

Chanukah Happenings

As any good Jew could tell you, today is the first night of Chanukah. Driving to pick up my Nana, the local rock station was playing a "Jewish rock marathon", which amused me. But it turns out we represent pretty well. Slash of Guns and Roses? Saul Hudson (only half Jewish, but still). Joey Ramone? Jeff Hyman. And of course, the lead singer for Disturbed is David Draimen, who was raised Orthodox Jewish.

I'm generally a difficult guy to shop for, as there is rarely anything I really want. This year though, I actually had some desires, and I kind of implicitly cashed on being such an easy mark the prior years to convince the parents to spring for an X-Box 360. Excellent.

Tomorrow, I'm going to visit the brother at UVA (and catch the 'Hoos playing Syracuse). So that should be treat as well.

Happy holidays, everyone!

Alabama Black Community Splits on Obama, Clinton

From the Huntsville Times, two prominent elements of Alabama's Black political community have split on whether to endorse Illinois Senator Barack Obama, or New York Senator Hillary Clinton. The Alabama Democratic Conference had already endorsed Clinton back in October, but the Alabama New South Coalition responded Saturday by giving Obama the nod.

By itself, this is fine. The Black community consists of mature voters, and they, along with everyone else, are free to decide that any candidate is the most qualified, would best protect their interests, and would overall be the best President. Obama does not have a lock on these votes, nor should he. He has to earn them.

Rather, I am distressed by the stated reasons some members of Alabama's Black community have for withholding their support from Obama:

Before the endorsement vote, Perry County Commissioner Albert Turner praised Obama's qualifications, but urged the group to support Clinton.

"The question you have to put forth to yourself is that whether or not in this racist country a black man named Obama — when we are shooting at Osama — can win the presidency of the United States?" Turner said.

I can't say I blame Mr. Turner. Certainly, Black Americans in Alabama have every right to be skeptical of their White compatriots.

But nonetheless, that hurts me. It hurts me that Black Americans think my peers and I would not even consider Senator Obama on his merits. Again, I can't blame Commissioner Turner: he's the one who has to deal with the fallout when White people vote on racist grounds, and I can't blame him for adopting whatever strategy he thinks is most likely to help his people and bring them forward. But I read passages like that, and all I want to do is prove him wrong. I really think that Obama is the type of candidate that can change things with regard to race in America, if only given the chance.

Just give us the chance....

If You Want It, You Can't Have It

Dwight D. Eisenhower related a story that happened to him when he was a kid. He was sitting with his best friend by the creek, and his friend asked him what he wanted to be when he grew up. Ike replied that he wanted to be a baseball player -- a genuine professional like Honus Wagner. His friend responded that he wanted to be President of the United States. "Neither of us," Eisenhower reflected ruefully, "got our wish."

Hillary Clinton is literally using an essay Obama wrote in kindergarten, saying that he wanted to be president, against him in the primaries. I understand where she's coming from -- Obama has been jabbing at her for being too overt in her desire for the presidency. But this strike back smacks of absurdism.I know Hillary's great asset as a campaigner is that she lets no attack go unanswered. But she needs to at least train her fire more accurately -- the other anecdotes she has about Obama's early Presidential ambitions (say, the one's that date after college) are fair game. His elementary school education? Less so.

Meanwhile, I'm beginning to think my greatest qualification to become United States President is that I never wanted to be it as a kid. Not that I want it now. But if my country needs me, I guess I could be convinced to serve.

:-(

Via

Democracy Wins Vote By a Thread

Well I'll be. Venezuelan voters have rejected a proposal promoted by President Hugo Chavez that would have drastically increased his presidential powers, as well as moving the state towards full-blown socialism. This, in case anybody had a doubt, would have been a bad thing.

I'm surprised, primarily because I didn't think Chavez was interested in a fair vote. But I stand corrected -- his package of amendments lost 51-49%, and he has pledged to abide by the results.

Fog of Faux-Warriors

I just finished reading Franklin Foer's "Fog of War" piece, his final explanation of the entire Scott Beauchamp saga. After painstakingly documenting how the magazine checked and rechecked the story, Foer concluded that "we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them. Without that essential confidence, we cannot stand by these stories."

I don't think I ever blogged on this controversy before. I don't recall doing so, and a search through my archives for "Beauchamp" yielded nothing. I don't have a dog in this hunt. Hence, I feel like I was able to read Foer's article with a relatively open mind. It demonstrates the type of complete, thorough investigation conservative bloggers have been screaming for for months on end. Judging from their reaction, it is clear that a cohesive look into Beauchamp's articles is the last thing they wanted. (here's, e.g., Powerline, Malkin, Astute Blogger)

Let's be clear. TNR took a lot of heat on this story -- far more than was ever justified even if Beauchamp turned out to be a total liar. It would have been very easy for them to just throw him to the wolves entirely and watch the heat dissipate. Instead, they decided to actually try and figure out what happened -- no mean feat when the subject is first person accounts of events that occurred in a war-zone (a war which, it might bear repeating, is still on-going).

The results of their investigation make a few things clear. First, with the exception of keeping Elspeth Reeves as the primary fact-checker after she married Beauchamp (they were friends when he started writing for TNR, and married later), TNR did nothing wrong. They fact-checked the stories as best they could, they did the effort to corroborate them from outside sources. There are limits to what a magazine could reasonably have been expected to do, and The New Republic in no way cut corners on its journalistic responsibility.

Second, Beauchamp's stories are still quite plausible. Even the one clear error -- the jokes about the woman with burns on her face at the forward base in Iraq -- looks to have been a genuine error, not a deliberate lie. The story was traced and corroborated to have occurred, only in Kuwait prior to the war, not Iraq. This is not a meaningless error, as the story was used to illustrate the way that war corrupts the minds of soldiers, and if it occurred prior to entering combat, this makes no sense. But the fact that the story likely did happen makes it more likely this was an innocent error with times mixed up than a deliberate effort at fabrication. Beyond that, none of Beauchamp's accounts have been shown to be wrong. They have in no way been "debunked" or proven false. As Foer said, Beauchamp's accounts were corroborated independently by nearly an entire company of fellow soldiers. By contrast, the supposed recantations were done under considerable duress -- there is simply no way to take seriously the kind of coerced statements the army managed to drag out of Beauchamp's platoon mates. I dare say that after reading Foer's reports, he did not have to retract the stories at all. This isn't to say we know what Beauchamp said is true -- in such a situation, we have no way of knowing, and the people who acted as if we were going to find out clear-as-day were deluding themselves. Foer's standard, "essential confidence" that every event Beauchamp described "occurred in exactly the manner that he described them," is laudably high -- indeed, likely impossible for a first-person war story to meet. Certainly, conceding that Beauchamp's tale did not reach it is hardly the same thing as calling him a liar. Hence, anybody who claims that TNR has "admitted" that Beauchamp is a liar or a fabricator is the only known liar or fabricator in the discussion.

Virtually none of the conservative bloggers I read on this story expressed the remotest interest in Foer's actual investigation. Far from it -- they mocked it incessantly. They accused him of simply trying to save his own skin (from who?), or of double-speak. Undoubtedly, this is because the investigation shows that TNR had more than enough evidence to run these pieces, and when faced with critique, they underwent a rigorous retrace of every pertinent detail to find the truth. Their conservative interlocutors, by contrast, showed no rigor and no interest in truth -- content to take selectively leaked military reports as dogma and amateur blogger investigations as articles of faith. It was embarrassing to read then, and it is even more embarrassing now, in the face of a true effort like Foer's.

From the start, I suspected that the conservative outrage over Beauchamp's articles stemmed from two primary sources, neither of which was particularly conducive to finding out the truth. The first was a desire to pin a liberal skull to their wall, and the second was a child-like belief that American soldiers could do no wrong -- the same mentality that led them to dismiss Abu Gharib, the same mentality that leads them to deny even today the overwhelming evidence of American complicity (if not outright participation) in torture. Their writings throughout these past few months have done nothing to dissuade me of that notion and a lot to strengthen it. It is immature, it is juvenile, and it is far more of a black mark on their integrity than anything The New Republic will come away with.

Women Are Not Like Cows. Sex Is Not Like Milk

Bridget Crawford on the well-worn (and worn-out) expression. Offensive for many reasons, the one Prof. Crawford focuses on is how it treats women like a commodity. My girlfriend would rightfully slap me if I called her a cow, and do not conceive our relationship, or any relationship I might have, progressing to the point where I would "buy" her (and if I ever did start thinking along those lines, I'd hope she'd break up with me immediately).

But beyond that, "why buy the cow when the milk is free" acts as if sex is the only thing a woman has to offer a man. While I certainly think sexuality is an important part of a relationship, at least for me there are many other wonderful things that come from being in a relationship. Companionship. Emotional support. Fidelity. I could go on. It's unbelievably objectifying to act as if that one attribute is the only thing of value a woman has that a man might want. And, I might add, it displays a pretty degrading view of men, to think we're that shallow. It's amazing how my gender loves to revel in how backward we can be (anyone who's seen a beer commercial knows what I'm talking about).

Women are not cows. Nor are they talking sex toys. They're real people.

No Place

I'm always torn about negotiating with Hamas. On the one hand, it wouldn't be a negotiation if they weren't on the other side. You got to deal with the people in front of you. If the Palestinians were represented by a group that was friendly and positive towards the Israelis and the Jews, then we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

On the other hand, it's difficult to negotiate with someone who doesn't think your state's existence is legitimate in the first place:

To mark sixty years since the United Nations plan for the partition of Palestine, Palestinian militant Islamic movement Hamas called Thursday for the UN to rescind the decision which led to the establishment of the State Israel, Army Radio reported.

"It is not shameful to correct a mistake. Palestine is Arab-Islamic land from the river to the sea, including Jerusalem, and Jews have no place there," the radio quoted a Hamas statement as saying.

Interesting phrasing. Jews have no place there. I'll keep that in mind.

In the same article, right-wing Israeli cabinet member Avignor Lieberman renewed his call for a land-swap to create a two-state solution. Lieberman still advocates a "transfer" of Israeli-Arab citizens (whether all, or just the one's near the border whose towns could easily be included in a land-swap, is unclear), which is pretty loathsome in its own right. But at least he concedes that there has to be a Palestinian state in the area -- that they do have a "place" between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.

The Future of DADT

Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin blogs on the future of Don't Ask Don't Tell. If 2008 ends with a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President, as seems very probable, then he thinks it's gone. Barring that, things get a bit more fluid. But one interesting side-story is the potential for a court challenge.

Don't Ask Don't Tell has been upheld thus far in every lower court which has heard it. But these decisions all came in the early-mid 90s, when views on gays hadn't progressed as far as they have today. This wouldn't matter, except that there apparently a case pending now before the 1st Circuit (based out of Boston), a reasonably liberal appellate court which could shake the boat. By itself, this wouldn't do much, but the circuit split would greatly enhance the likelihood of Supreme Court review. In that case, all eyes would be on Justice Kennedy (huge surprise, I know), who has written two straight opinions strongly in favor gay rights (Romer v. Evans and the path-breaking Lawrence v. Texas). Nonetheless, the court is generally far more deferential in cases involving the military, so it really is a toss-up.

Though the conciliatory side of me wants this decision to be decided by democratic branches, a big part of my heart wants the courts to be the ones to strike down DADT. It really is a gross insult to gay and lesbian Americans, and wildly inconsistent with equality under the law. I want a paper record of America's Justices explaining that very fact, so in future generations people will have something to point to akin to Brown. Lawrence did that to some extent -- but, social controversy aside, court decisions seem to have different moral weight on our descendants than mere legislation.

Armed Man Hijacks Local Clinton HQ

There was a hostage situation in New Hampshire as an armed man, possibly with a bomb, took over a Hillary Clinton campaign HQ in Rochester, New Hampshire today. Fortunately, it appears the man has finally released the hostages, and now is just engaged in a personal standoff with the police. No word on the man's motivation -- the Washington Post merely says that he has an "unspecified grievance" against the New York Senator.

Let's hope the whole thing can be resolved peacefully.

Musical Bleg

One of the most annoying things in the world to me is knowing a song by tune but not title, and not being able to find it. Normally, I'll just punch the lyrics in a search engine, but that doesn't work for instrumentals.

So I'm enlisting the collective help of the blogosphere in my quest. Does anyone know what the song playing through most of this YouTube video is? (The song I'm talking about starts at 0:48):



It's a pretty well-known song, I've heard it before in many other contexts, but I have no idea how to figure out the title.

Thanks in advance!

UPDATE: We're closer, but not there yet. A commenter identified the song as Lux Aeterna, by Clint Mansell. The problem is that version is strings-only rather slow and mellow -- I'm looking for the one with the cranking guitar strings. I thought that with the title I'd be able to find it no trouble -- but it's still eluding me!

UPDATE II: Found it! Contrary to popular belief, it is actually not Lux Aetnera, although that did get me on the right track. But that version, alas, doesn't have the guitars power chords. This one is a remix, done only for The Lord of the Rings: Two Towers trailer, called "Requiem for a Tower." But if you look for that, you'll only find a chopped up version by the Corner Stone Cues. Here's the real thing.

Thanks!

The Gay General

There's a minor controversy from the latest CNN/YouTube debate, stemming from a question posed by retired Brig. General Keith Kerr. Kerr, who came out as gay after leaving the US Armed Forces, pointedly asked the Republican candidates about the military's policy of excluding openly gay members, specifically why they thought "American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians." Unsurprisingly, though many were uncomfortable, none responded by repudiating Don't Ask Don't Tell.

But that's not the controversy. Immediately after the debate, it came out that Kerr had links to Hillary Clinton's campaign, where he is an adviser for her on LGBT issues. Kerr is also a member of the Log Cabin Republicans, but it appears that in recent years (undoubtedly due in no small part to this issue) he has been voting Democratic.

I agree that CNN should have done a better job checking Kerr's credentials. It is relevant that he is affiliated with a Democratic campaign, and folks watching the debate have a right to know it. I do not, however, believe that this means Kerr's question should have been excluded. I have no problem with Democrats and Republicans having to answer pointed questions from the other side of the aisle. That strikes me as a feature, not a bug. The goal of these debates isn't to make the candidates comfortable. It's to get them to engage with real Americans which (though I know the partisans have trouble believing it) include folks from both sides. I'd be very interested in hearing the Democrats respond to a pointed query from an anti-gay American, or someone who feels that religion is being chased out of the public square.

So, failures of disclosure notwithstanding, the question and questioner should have stayed. Even conservative blogger James Joyner concedes it was a poignant and appropriate question, source notwithstanding. What bothers me is that it would have been so easy to include Kerr's Democratic conversion into the question and make it better, not worse. Here was his original question:

My name's Keith Kerr, from Santa Rosa, California. I'm a retired brigadier general with 43 years of service. I'm a graduate of the Special Forces Officer Course, the Commanding General Staff Course and the Army War College. And I'm an openly gay man. I want to know why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.

What if it were asked this way?

My name's Keith Kerr, from Santa Rosa, California. I'm a retired brigadier general with 43 years of service. I'm a graduate of the Special Forces Officer Course, the Commanding General Staff Course and the Army War College. Though I have long been Republican, in recent elections I have been compelled to support Democrats for one simple reason. I'm an openly gay man, and I want to know why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.

Just as powerful, and up-front.

Before we leave this topic, I just want to cast a spot-light on Rep. Duncan Hunter's answer to this question:

Rep. Duncan Hunter of California said: "General, thanks for your service, but I believe in what Colin Powell said when he said that having openly homosexual people serving in the ranks would be bad for unit cohesion.

"The reason for that, even though people point to the Israelis and point to the Brits and point to other people as having homosexuals serve, is that most Americans, most kids who leave that breakfast table and go out and serve in the military and make that corporate decision with their family, most of them are conservatives,'' Hunter said.

"They have conservative values, and they have Judeo-Christian values. To force those people to work in a small tight unit with somebody who is openly homosexual goes against what they believe to be their principles, and it is their principles, is I think a disservice to them. I agree with Colin Powell that it would be bad for unit cohesion.''

I may be wildly off base here, but I think Israelis would know something about Judeo-Christian values -- at least, if the "Judeo" part has any meaning whatsoever. If ever there was proof that the term has absolutely no Jewish component at all, Hunter just provided it.

McCain On Muslim Cabinet Members

Reacting to the mini-scandal Mitt Romney caused when he said he would not allow a qualified Muslim to serve in his cabinet, John McCain hit back:

"I’m proud of the Muslims who are currently serving in the United States armed forces," McCain said, "and my sense is that if they can serve in that manner, they can serve in any position of responsibility in America." McCain's comments were provided to us by his advisers.

McCain added: "I just think, appoint the most qualified individuals to positions of responsibility."

McCain's comments today built on his criticism of Romney yesterday: "I think his comment is indicative of how he might govern and I think it's absolutely wrong."

One interesting side note: Saying you won't appoint Muslims to your cabinet certainly isn't something that will hurt you in a GOP primary, so unsurprisingly, none of the other GOP candidates has had any criticism for Romney over this. Only McCain has been willing to go down this path.

Good for McCain (and by extension, shame on other GOP candidates for not taking the same position). Also, aside from it being the right answer substantively, good job framing it as well. This was rhetorically very strong, and unwavering.

McCain oscillates between the "good" McCain, who is not a moderate but is independent and somewhat sensible, and the "bad" McCain, who will sell out his deepest positions for another two points in the polls. I wouldn't support the good McCain; we differ on too many key issues. But I do have some respect for him. This is the good McCain -- a side that has been virtually absent this campaign and whose reputation has taken a drubbing over the past few months. It's hard to feel bad for meta-McCain -- he brought it all down on himself. But I do feel bad for good McCain.

Oh, and quickly on Romney's original comments. I'm inclined to be charitable and think that what he said was a gaffe (though this account by a top Nevada Republican makes me skeptical). I am not, however, inclined to believe that he didn't say it. That I firmly believe is just him lying, and it's truly unfortunate. Finally, major negative points to Captain Ed for totally skirting past the content of Romney's original answer to skewer the questioner.

Chavez Gets Drilled By The New Mexican

New Mexico's second largest paper takes Marty Chavez to the mat. But what's most impressive is that the subject is Chavez's opponent, Tom Udall, refusing to pork barrel the Los Alamos National Lab unless it starts looking at alternative energy solutions.

Udall doesn't want folks out of work any more than Chávez does — or Sen. Domenici, who used his leadership on the Budget, then Energy, committees to keep the gravy train chugging onto Pajarito Mesa.

The recent announcement that LANL would cut 500 to 750 jobs, it seems, would place Udall front and center as the villain — until you consider how many Democrats might agree with him, and disagree with pork-barrel spending of an especially warlike kind. Los Alamos likely will remain trigger-maker to the nation for increasingly sophisticated and massively destructive weapons. Yet America has far more nuclear bombs than it would take to destroy enemies of today and tomorrow. What we don't have is the new energy system we and the rest of the world will need as fossil-fuel consumption soars and supplies of the stuff, inevitably, run short.

Can't our national-lab scientists see that — and do something about it? And if they can't, shouldn't Congress invest in operations that can?

Those are the nationally responsible questions Udall and some of his colleagues are asking; Kennedyesque queries in the form of challenges to mobilize our brightest scientific minds. It's time to transform the systems that make America run.

Udall knows it. And he wants New Mexicans gainfully employed in that pursuit.

Mayor Chávez and most Republicans have yet to recognize the grim challenge of "peak oil" and the global warming it promotes. Against such backward thinking, Tom Udall is a profile in courage.

You expect to hear that out of a blogger -- a blogger who does not live in New Mexico. Most Americans, unsurprisingly, are pork-for-me-but-not-for-thee, and I didn't expect New Mexico's papers to be any exception (and Los Alamos is far easier to defend than most pork projects!). So kudos to Udall for making the ballsy call, and kudos to the New Mexican for giving him credit in such unreserved language.

But Does It Work For Law School Apps?

Orly Lobel links to this funny rejection of a rejection letter:

Herbert A. Millington
Chair - Search Committee
412A Clarkson Hall
Whitson University
College Hill, MA 34109

Dear Professor Millington,

Thank you for your letter of March 16. After careful consideration, I regret to inform you that I am unable to accept your refusal to offer me an assistant professor position in your department.

This year I have been particularly fortunate in receiving an unusually large number of rejection letters. With such a varied and promising field of candidates it is impossible for me to accept all refusals.

Despite Whitson's outstanding qualifications and previous experience in rejecting applicants, I find that your rejection does not meet my needs at this time. Therefore, I will assume the position of assistant professor in your department this August. I look forward to seeing you then.

Best of luck in rejecting future applicants.

Sincerely,

Chris L. Jensen

I suspect this will be useful to have in my back pocket in the coming months.

Minow on Difference and Categories

From the start of Martha Minow's fantastic book, Making All The Difference: Inclusion, Exclusion, and American Law (Ithaca: Cornell UP 1991):

When we analyze, we simplify. We break complicated perceptions into discrete items or traits. We identify the items and call them chair, table, cat, and bed. We sort them into categories that already exist: furniture and animal. It sounds familiar. It also sounds harmless. I do not think it is.

I believe we make a mistake when we assume that the categories we use for analysis just exist and simply sort our experiences, perceptions, and problems through them. When we identify one thing as like others, we are not merely classifying the world; we are investing particular classifications with consequences and positioning ourselves in relation to those meanings. When we identify one thing as unlike the others, we are dividing the world; we use our language to exclude, to distinguish—to discriminate. This last word may be the one that most recognizably raises the issues about which I worry. Sometimes, classifications express and implement prejudice, racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism, intolerance for difference. Of course, there are ‘real differences’ in the world; each person differs in countless ways from each other person. But when we simplify and sort, we focus on some traits rather than others, and we assign consequences to the presence and absence of traits we make significant. We ask, ‘What’s the new baby?”—and we expect as an answer, boy or girl. That answer, for most of history, has spelled consequences for the roles and opportunities available to that individual. And when we respond to person’s traits rather than their conduct, we may treat a given trait as a justification for excluding someone we think is ‘different.’ We feel no need for further justification: we attribute the consequences to the [*4] differences we see. We neglect the other traits that may be shared. And we neglect how each of us, too, may be 'different.'(3-4).

This doesn't mean we can avoid categorizing things. As Angela Harris notes at the start of her own article, Race and Essentialism in Feminist Legal Theory [42 Stan. L. Rev. 581 (1990)], the world would collapse into incoherence if we did. It merely means that categorizing things is problematic. It has moral implications that we need to be aware of, and potentially pernicious effects that we need to be prepared to counteract. That can only happen if we're cognizant of the problem.

Geography Challenge

This was a pleasantly addicting game. Obviously, knowing the countries helps a lot (except that time it identified a place as being in Norway, and it turned out it was some island they owned in the south Atlantic Ocean). But unless it's a small country, there's still plenty of room for skill (and luck). And it is an awesome feeling squeezing out a passing score because you actually do know exactly where Ushuaia is.

Fortunately, I was able to squeak out a victory on my fourth try, so it won't suck down any more time I hope.

The Real Reason To Say No To Giuliani

Steve Benen has the scoop on the latest Giuliani scandal to hit -- this one having to do with him using official resources to conduct (and cover up) his affair with Judith Regan Nathan (too many scandals, too little time....).

Eh. I mean, maybe I'm just jaded. But while I certainly find this very distasteful, it annoys me that we have to use this has the route to derail his campaign. Giuliani is a nut. He has authoritarian instincts, a foreign policy that seems to consisted of blowing up any country that winks at us the wrong way, and really just doesn't seem to have the skill set needed to be an effective President. I'd be far happier if that became the reason his campaign lost steam.

Too idealist, I guess.

Law School Brochure Blogging

[This post deleted by the author. It was the product of high stress, it wasn't being taken as humorous, and not being particularly wedded to it, I've decided to take it down]

No Muslims Allowed

I really hope this statement will be held against Romney all campaign season long, but I kind of doubt it. There are just too many conservatives that are quietly (or not so quietly) nodding their heads along with the idea that we should categorically refuse to appoint Muslims to high level positions. Remember what Glenn Beck said about Keith Ellison?

But seriously. Between the implicit sanction of quotas, and the denial that there is such thing as a qualified Muslim (even if we restrict it to conservatives -- Zalmay Khalilzad, anyone?), this is just absurd. If Israel can have a Muslim cabinet minister, I think we can manage to pull it off too.

East and West: Never The Two Shall Meet

This is a great post by Phoebe Maltz, problematizing the idea that Israel is "of the West."

"Racism as Subjectification": Draft Posted

You may have noticed a brief skip in my blogging these past few weeks. While there have been many reasons for this -- finals, applications, holidays -- the excuse I'm currently settling on is that I've been finishing up my latest article. And I am pleased to announce that I have just posted a completed draft of "Racism as Subjectification" online to the SSRN (you can download the PDF from there).

Unlike my last paper, this one is still a work in progress. In fact, I may add a whole new section on the Parents United case, depending on the feedback I get. But that makes me all the more eager to hear your thoughts on the paper. So get cracking! I can't think of a single better way to kick off the holiday season.

Here's an abstract:

Nobody likes to feel used. But everyone likes to feel useful. This paradox has long been overlooked by people examining the parameters of racism in the United States. The classic model of racism focuses on the manner in which Black Americans have been objectified - and for good reason: from chattel slavery to Jim Crow, African-Americans have faced a long and sordid history of being regarded as little more than objects - useful tools for White power-brokers, but not independent subjects with their own desires, perspective, and rights.

However, in the post-Civil Rights era, this dynamic has shifted. While racial objectification has by no means disappeared, today the prevailing sentiment in American society is one that, outwardly at least, respects the independence and inherent dignity of its Black members. However, even as they are granted the full rights of citizenship, the idea that Black people are objectively valuable, are necessary to the full and complete functioning of society, has faded away. While Whites admit that they have inherent dignity and human rights, they nevertheless deny that Blacks have any objective use - and if their presence is lacking in elite institutions (colleges, corporations, and legislatures), it is not seen as a cause for concern. This is the problem of subjectification - when people who are conceded to possess subject status are nevertheless treated as if they have no objective worth. In this paper, I articulate the concept of subjectification and show how it provides a new and fruitful perspective on the problems of race and racism in American society.

Credits and Debits

Latoya Peterson at Racialicious has a great post up on the term "Bougie" (as in "bourgeois"), often used as a derogatory term for middle-class Black folk who are seen as "inauthentic" or insufficiently connected to their Black roots. One of my classmates this term used the phrase "bougie Blacks" all the time (very much in quotations, however) -- but I didn't realize it was so widespread until now. Anyway, Peterson's post is really more of a series of stories than a cohesive unit, but they're all good. This excerpt in particular, however, struck me as particular poignant:

Once upon a time (read: four years ago) when I was waiting tables at a spot in Dupont I happened to serve an older African-American man who worked for the DC school system. I asked him for his order, told him the specials, and was perplexed by his ever widening smile.

“You speak so well,” he beamed, and I inwardly cringed. “What school did you go to?”

I explained that I went to school in Montgomery County, but he continued to smile.

“You,” he proudly pronounced, ” are a credit to the race!”

I smiled weakly, hoping that the other tables around him did not hear.

OMG Please tell me he didn’t just say that around white people!

My mind whipped around for a few frantic moments trying to purge some of the memories this man had involuntarily called forth.

Stop it. Stop it! I don’t want to be a credit to the race. I don’t want to be part of the Talented Tenth! I don’t want to be different! I don’t want to stand out! Because if I stand out, and I am the credit to the race, what does that make my cousins? What does that make my friends? Are they blight? Why do we have to be marked as better or worse? What do you want from me?

My mind swirled, but the rational part of me realized that I was on the clock. I smiled and moved on. He left me a 40% tip.

"Smiled and moved on." So it so often goes.

Dreading Southern Maryland

A private school in Waldorf, Maryland (Charles County -- southeast of D.C.) has suspended a three-year old boy for wearing dreadlocks. The family is suing, alleging racial discrimination. Hairstyles are a surprisingly robust area of anti-discrimination studies, but I'm not really interested in the legal aspects of the case right now. While I think that the law should presumptively cover expressive elements of one's racial identity (a presumption that can be overruled, obviously), my understanding is that the current precedent isn't there yet. Unfortunate, but so it goes.

Rather, what I want to focus on is the school's dress regulation which the boy was cited as violating. It prohibits boys from wearing "extreme faddish hairstyles, including the use of rubber bands or the 'twisting' of hair." This is rather puzzling -- not because it's an unreasonable rule, but because I do not know how dreadlocks can accurately be labeled either "extreme" or "faddish." Dreadlocks have a long and distinguished history as a hairstyle -- it being particularly amenable to the type of kinky hair Black men and women tend to possess. They are neither new, nor strange, nor exotic, nor fleeting. They might, however, seem that way to a White schoolmaster, unaccustomed to how Black people's hair actually behaves (let alone the history of Black hairstyling). Like most other hair regimes, I've seen dreadlocks look very stylish and professional, and I've seen them look ugly and sloppy. But there is nothing intrinsic to them that makes it a worthwhile goal to ban them.

And that's what annoys me about cases like this. Without fail, the school responds to the controversy merely by blithely asserting how it has a "right" to establish a dress code. Certainly, it does, but that says nothing about whether this particular code (or application thereof) is intelligent. This is a dumb requirement. It is silly to ban three-year old kids from wearing dreadlocks, anymore than banning them from wearing pony tails. It's ridiculous to assert that dreads are "extreme" or "faddish". It's mean-spirited to kick a three-year old out of class for having the wrong hair. Charles County's Black population has exploded in recent years, and not all the local residents are pleased about it. When a school digs in and tries to defend a foolish rule that overwhelmingly affects its Black students, I start to wonder whether there isn't some latent hostility as well.