Matt Yglesias reports that the new hip insult amongst conservatives for John McCain is "Juan McCain." Because apparently McCain isn't sufficiently committed to hating on Latinos or something.
Can we please stop the fiction that there isn't a significant anti-Hispanic sentiment motivating the broad anti-immigration coalition?*
* I'll accept that there are some folks who are anti-immigrant who really have no objection to Hispanics, in the same way that I'll accept that Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act was motivated by federalism. True, but it's hardly descriptive of the controlling element of the debate.
Friday, February 01, 2008
Variety is Nice
I just got admitted to my first Ph.D program (in political science). No details for you (email me if you want them), but it is a school which has also admitted me to its law program.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Philosophical Quote of the Day: Internal and External Goods
It's from Drucilla Cornell, but she's discussing the work of Alasdair MacIntyre in After Virtue. I'm copying it because I find interesting the discussion of "internal" and "external goods" as delineations between a particular action and the social context outside of it:
Drucilla Cornell, Toward a Modern/Postmodern Reconstruction of Ethics, 133 U. PA. L. REV. 291, 316-17 (1985).
I'm not sure I agree with MacIntyre entirely on this (MacIntyre's next step is to say this reunites fact and value by defining virtue through the internal goods of a practice, but Cornell points out several serious problems with this formulation), but it's certainly interesting.
He [MacIntyre] explains the concept of "goods internal to" a practice by the example of teaching a child to play chess. Initially, he suggests, the child might learn to play only if given, say, money or a piece of candy, which would represent for MacIntyre goods external to the practice of playing this game. In time, however, the child may learn to play for the goods internal to the game -- for example, the achievement of a particular "analytical skill, strategic imagination and competitive intensity." It is only when the child plays the game with these internal goods in mind that she can be truly said to be engaging in a practice. Unlike the money or candy, these internal goods are not particular to the individual; they are for the good of the entire community of practitioners. By having them as a goal the individual practitioner can indeed benefit the others: the child in MacIntyre's example may discover a new chess move that will enhance the game's practice.
As MacIntyre's definition of a practice indicates, there are rules and standards of excellence for a practice that constitute the practice itself. When an initiate enters a particular practice, she must learn the rules and accept the authority of the definitive standards lest she be said not to be engaged in the practice at all. Here MacIntyre stresses the social aspect of the practice: the child cannot obey certain rules and pay attention to a few standards and still be said to play the "complex form of socially established cooperative activity" called chess. Like [*317] the practice's goods, however, its standards and rules are not immutable; they have changed in the history of the practice and are subject to the practitioners' criticism. MacIntyre suggests -- and this seems to be the final point in his definition -- that by pursuing the practice's present goods according to its authoritative standards of excellence and rules, the practitioner might arrive at new conceptions of these goods, standards, and rules.
Drucilla Cornell, Toward a Modern/Postmodern Reconstruction of Ethics, 133 U. PA. L. REV. 291, 316-17 (1985).
I'm not sure I agree with MacIntyre entirely on this (MacIntyre's next step is to say this reunites fact and value by defining virtue through the internal goods of a practice, but Cornell points out several serious problems with this formulation), but it's certainly interesting.
The Clintons as Mosiac Figures
Matt Yglesias links to a Harold Meyerson editorial arguing that, while Bill Clinton was an extraordinarily important figure for the resurrection of the Democratic Party, in order to take that next step we need to leave him and his family behind. He uses the Biblical metaphor of the Exodus -- Jews had to wander in the desert for forty years so those with the slave mentality would die out, and a new generation -- born in freedom -- could take command. Ultimately, Moses himself, the leader responsible for Jewish liberation, dies just short of reaching the Promised Land.
Yglesias comments:
Even as an Obama supporter, this makes me very sad. Moses, of course, is a tragic figure. And, given the debt we owe Bill Clinton, it seems churlish to toss him aside as we finally reap the benefits he did so much to sow. It's hard to remember now (especially for folks of my generation, who grew up in the Clinton era), but prior to his election the Democratic Party was seen as dead in the water. Even as late as 1992, cartoonists were making jokes about how it'd be easier to run as a Communist and win than as a Democrat. Clinton got us out of the wilderness and resurrected the party brand.
No matter who wins the Democratic nomination, he is owed a great debt of gratitude for that. And no matter who wins the Democratic nomination, both he and his wife deserve a place of honor in the Democratic pantheon -- historically and in the future.
Yglesias comments:
It's hard to imagine more thankless tasks than organizing for George McGovern in Texas or bearing the torch of progressive politics in late-1970s and early-1980s Arkansas. And of course Bill Clinton really did take the lessons learned from winning in that inhospitable territory and put the Democratic Party back in the White House. From that vantage point, he governed well and proved to a country that had come to doubt it that Democrats could be trusted to run the federal government. But is 2008 the hour of Mark Penn? I don't see it.
Even as an Obama supporter, this makes me very sad. Moses, of course, is a tragic figure. And, given the debt we owe Bill Clinton, it seems churlish to toss him aside as we finally reap the benefits he did so much to sow. It's hard to remember now (especially for folks of my generation, who grew up in the Clinton era), but prior to his election the Democratic Party was seen as dead in the water. Even as late as 1992, cartoonists were making jokes about how it'd be easier to run as a Communist and win than as a Democrat. Clinton got us out of the wilderness and resurrected the party brand.
No matter who wins the Democratic nomination, he is owed a great debt of gratitude for that. And no matter who wins the Democratic nomination, both he and his wife deserve a place of honor in the Democratic pantheon -- historically and in the future.
It's Got To Be The Test
Neat historical tidbit from the G-Bitch, citing "The Gendered Society" by Michael S. Kimmel:
And the footnote to that:
Via Feminist Law Profs, who write that "Just Because You Are A Paranoid Feminist Doesn’t Mean The Sexists Aren’t Out To Get You." Heh.
That being said, my LSAT scores, of course, are unimpeachably accurate indicators of my legal intelligence.
UPDATE: G-Bitch wants you to know that the true props should go to Ceejay, who was the original source for the quote.
Test scores were no better as indicators. At the turn of the century, women were found to be scoring higher on comprehensive examinations at New York University. Since scientists “knew” that women were not as smart as men, some other explanation had to be sought. “After all, men are more intelligent than women, examination papers or no examination papers,” commented the dean of the college, R. Turner. “Women have better memories and study harder, that’s all. In tasks requiring patience and industry, women win out. But when a man is both patient and industrious, he beats a woman any day.” (It is interesting to see that women’s drive, ambition, and industriousness are used against them, rather than labeling the problem as men’s impulsiveness, impatience, and laziness). In the 1920s, when IQ tests were first invented, women scored higher on those tests as well. So the experimenters changed the questions. (31)
And the footnote to that:
Turner is cited in “South Side Observer, 29 April 1896; C.A. Dwyer, “The Role of Tests and Their Construction in Producing Apparently Sex-Related Differences,” in “Sex-Related Differences in Cognitive Functioning,” M. Wittig and A. Peterson, eds. (New York: Academic Press, 1979), p. 342.
Via Feminist Law Profs, who write that "Just Because You Are A Paranoid Feminist Doesn’t Mean The Sexists Aren’t Out To Get You." Heh.
That being said, my LSAT scores, of course, are unimpeachably accurate indicators of my legal intelligence.
UPDATE: G-Bitch wants you to know that the true props should go to Ceejay, who was the original source for the quote.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
"Almost Certainly"
From the end of an overall weak Forward editorial on Barack Obama:
Barack Obama is "almost certainly" not a Muslim? No, he's not a Muslim, period. This isn't controversial.
Was he ever a Muslim? Again, no, he wasn't, unless we define it by birthright, in which case it switches from being utterly false to meaningless. Almost certainly, at no point did Barack Obama consciously identify as being Muslim (and if showing up in temple a few times is enough to make you part of a religion, anyone who ever grew up in Bethesda is Jewish through Bar Mitzvah ceremonies alone).
Is Barack Obama a Muslim? Almost certainly not. Was he ever a Muslim? Almost certainly yes.
Barack Obama is "almost certainly" not a Muslim? No, he's not a Muslim, period. This isn't controversial.
Was he ever a Muslim? Again, no, he wasn't, unless we define it by birthright, in which case it switches from being utterly false to meaningless. Almost certainly, at no point did Barack Obama consciously identify as being Muslim (and if showing up in temple a few times is enough to make you part of a religion, anyone who ever grew up in Bethesda is Jewish through Bar Mitzvah ceremonies alone).
Guess Who's Back?
With John Edwards' withdrawal today, progressives today ran a serious risk of having to vote for a non-White male. Fortunately, Ralph Nader appears ready to step in and save us from that eventuality. Nader specifically cited the absence of two other White men formerly in the race -- Edwards and pixie-stick Dennis Kucinich -- as motivating his exploration of yet another bid.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Quote of the Evening: Rights Talk
From the ever-brilliant Martha Minow:
Martha Minow, Interpreting Rights: An Essay for Robert Cover, Yale Law Journal 96 (1987): 1860-1915, 1867.
UPDATE: I should clarify that this is not the rights conception "from the left" -- it is part of the conception by Minow, and presumably some fellow travelers (which, in turn, includes me to some extent) -- most of whom, I admit, are "from the left" to greater or lesser degrees. We are, alas, not all that powerful people -- certainly, we are not the shadowy cabal that controls "the left" and dictates its opinions.
"Rights" can give rise to "rights consciousness" so that individuals and groups may imagine and act in light of rights that have not been formally recognized or enforced. Rights, in this sense, are neither limited to nor-coextensive with precisely those rules formally announced and enforced by public authorities. Instead, rights represent articulations -- public or private, formal or informal -- of claims that people use to persuade others (and themselves) about how they should be treated and about what they should be granted. I mean, then, to include within the ambit of rights discourse all efforts to claim new rights, to resist and alter official state action that fails to acknowledge such rights, and to construct communities apart from the state to nurture new conceptions of rights. Rights here encompass even those claims that lose, or have lost in the past, if they continue to represent claims that muster people's hopes and articulate their continuing efforts to persuade.
Martha Minow, Interpreting Rights: An Essay for Robert Cover, Yale Law Journal 96 (1987): 1860-1915, 1867.
UPDATE: I should clarify that this is not the rights conception "from the left" -- it is part of the conception by Minow, and presumably some fellow travelers (which, in turn, includes me to some extent) -- most of whom, I admit, are "from the left" to greater or lesser degrees. We are, alas, not all that powerful people -- certainly, we are not the shadowy cabal that controls "the left" and dictates its opinions.
Is Samantha Power a Closet Walt & Mearsheimer Disciple?
It doesn't make sense to me, but at the end of this post Paul Mirengoff asserts that Obama adviser and foreign policy guru Samantha Power "subscribe[s] to the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis that that the U.S.-Israel relationship is the product of Jewish power politics, rather than strategic interest."
He's not the only one saying this. Here's The American Thinker making a similar claim, as well as Anti-Liberal Zone.
Noah Pollak appears to be the source, linking to this May 2007 interview with Professor Power. I've bolded the part they think is important, but I include the entire question for context:
This is not the W&M hypothesis. At worst, it's a very diluted form of their thesis, in that it argues that sometimes the US listens to pro-Israel special interests, and that sometimes leads to bad results. This, she says, is emblematic of a broader, systemic flaw in how the US conducts foreign policy -- we let special interests construct what the "national interest" is and it leads us away from where we ought to go (Contra Pollak, it is not arguing in any way that Israel was responsible for America's war in Iraq).
W&M, of course, argue that US foreign policy in the area is controlled by the "Israel Lobby", and more importantly, that this is a unique exception to the way foreign policy decision-making operates. Far from being emblematic of anything, the Israel Lobby, from W&M's Realist stance, represents a dangerous exception to the Laws of the International System, which dictate that nation's have fixed and concrete security interests and always pursue them. This exceptional quality is the key reason why W&M's thesis is so offensive -- it's essentially an argument about Jewish hyperpower. But that makes it qualitatively different from persons (like Power) who believe that many factors beyond bare security interests influence how foreign policy operates, and observes that special interests advocating for Israel are one of them.
It is, of course, possible that Power has written something more directly on point that affirms W&M's hypothesis. But I highly doubt it, seeing as they come from drastically different schools of thought on international relations. W&M's thesis operates from a premise that Power doesn't share -- namely, that domestic, moral, or transnational forces never exert meaningful influence on foreign policy. Power appears to believe the opposite -- that these factors are extremely important influences on foreign policy decision-making (for good and for ill).
UPDATE: I sent Paul an email and asked for clarification. He responded with another Power quote, that her version of a sound mid-east policy would require "'alienating a domestic constituency.' That's close enough to the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis for me."
Not only is that not even close to the W&M thesis, it borders on being a truism. Americans (including Jewish Americans) have differences on what we want our mid-east policy to be. For example, I suspect Paul and I differ significantly. One of us is going to be alienated by whatever proposal ends up being adopted. If it's now controversial to point that out, we've got a serious problem on our hands.
Of course, to reiterate again, Walt & Mearsheimer's thesis is not about who opposes their ideal vision of mid-east policy. It's about their perception that the Israel Lobby possesses extreme control over US foreign policy that leads us to do things their predictive model says shouldn't happen. When we collapse every policy that deviates from the Commentary Magazine line as "subscribing to the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis", we're exploding their argument way beyond its actual scope.
He's not the only one saying this. Here's The American Thinker making a similar claim, as well as Anti-Liberal Zone.
Noah Pollak appears to be the source, linking to this May 2007 interview with Professor Power. I've bolded the part they think is important, but I include the entire question for context:
Q. Though some analysts see U.S. foreign policy woes as a recent phenomenon, you argue that recent foreign policy missteps by current U.S. leaders have exposed and exacerbated long-standing structural and conceptual problems in U.S. foreign policy. Please explain.
Power: It is tempting to see Iraq as the source of all our woes now, whereas I see Iraq as the symptom, in some measure, of a number of longstanding trends and defects in American foreign policy.
One example is the US historic predisposition to go it alone. Because we have long undervalued what international institutions have to offer, we believed that we could go into Iraq, and as soon as we declared the mission accomplished, we expected to be able to turn the problem over to others, regardless of how they had been treated in the run up to the invasion. This thinking is very flawed, but not all that new. In a uni-polar world, the Clinton Administration was able to get away with an instrumental relationship with international institutions, but that is harder with the rise of new powers who are willing to challenge the United States in international bodies. It is also harder now that the Iraq war itself has exposed so many US weaknesses.
In addition, we long saw international authorization as a luxury, something good for global public opinion, but not very relevant to US national security. But what we have seen, by revealing our indifference to international legitimacy both in the Iraq war and in the practices carried out in our counter-terrorism efforts – the disavowal of the Geneva conventions, prisoner abuse, extraordinary rendition, etc. – is that being seen to thumb our nose at international law actually has profound security ramifications, as more and more people seek to take up arms against U.S. citizens and interests.
Another longstanding foreign policy flaw is the degree to which special interests dictate the way in which the “national interest” as a whole is defined and pursued. Look at the degree to which Halliburton and several of the private security and contracting firms invested in the 2004 political campaigns and received very lucrative contracts in the aftermath of the U.S. takeover of Iraq. Also, America’s important historic relationship with Israel has often led foreign policy decision-makers to defer reflexively to Israeli security assessments, and to replicate Israeli tactics, which, as the war in Lebanon last summer demonstrated, can turn out to be counter-productive.
So greater regard for international institutions along with less automatic deference to special interests – especially when it comes to matters of life and death and war and peace – seem to be two take-aways from the war in Iraq.
This is not the W&M hypothesis. At worst, it's a very diluted form of their thesis, in that it argues that sometimes the US listens to pro-Israel special interests, and that sometimes leads to bad results. This, she says, is emblematic of a broader, systemic flaw in how the US conducts foreign policy -- we let special interests construct what the "national interest" is and it leads us away from where we ought to go (Contra Pollak, it is not arguing in any way that Israel was responsible for America's war in Iraq).
W&M, of course, argue that US foreign policy in the area is controlled by the "Israel Lobby", and more importantly, that this is a unique exception to the way foreign policy decision-making operates. Far from being emblematic of anything, the Israel Lobby, from W&M's Realist stance, represents a dangerous exception to the Laws of the International System, which dictate that nation's have fixed and concrete security interests and always pursue them. This exceptional quality is the key reason why W&M's thesis is so offensive -- it's essentially an argument about Jewish hyperpower. But that makes it qualitatively different from persons (like Power) who believe that many factors beyond bare security interests influence how foreign policy operates, and observes that special interests advocating for Israel are one of them.
It is, of course, possible that Power has written something more directly on point that affirms W&M's hypothesis. But I highly doubt it, seeing as they come from drastically different schools of thought on international relations. W&M's thesis operates from a premise that Power doesn't share -- namely, that domestic, moral, or transnational forces never exert meaningful influence on foreign policy. Power appears to believe the opposite -- that these factors are extremely important influences on foreign policy decision-making (for good and for ill).
UPDATE: I sent Paul an email and asked for clarification. He responded with another Power quote, that her version of a sound mid-east policy would require "'alienating a domestic constituency.' That's close enough to the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis for me."
Not only is that not even close to the W&M thesis, it borders on being a truism. Americans (including Jewish Americans) have differences on what we want our mid-east policy to be. For example, I suspect Paul and I differ significantly. One of us is going to be alienated by whatever proposal ends up being adopted. If it's now controversial to point that out, we've got a serious problem on our hands.
Of course, to reiterate again, Walt & Mearsheimer's thesis is not about who opposes their ideal vision of mid-east policy. It's about their perception that the Israel Lobby possesses extreme control over US foreign policy that leads us to do things their predictive model says shouldn't happen. When we collapse every policy that deviates from the Commentary Magazine line as "subscribing to the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis", we're exploding their argument way beyond its actual scope.
Sebelius' Big Moment
Everyone who saw her seems to agree:
1) The speech was pretty weak,
2) It's really hard to deliver an effective SOTU rebuttal,
3) We should give her a chance in other, less stacked contexts.
I particularly agree with Kevin Drum: She was trying to sound like Barack Obama, and failing miserably at it.
1) The speech was pretty weak,
2) It's really hard to deliver an effective SOTU rebuttal,
3) We should give her a chance in other, less stacked contexts.
I particularly agree with Kevin Drum: She was trying to sound like Barack Obama, and failing miserably at it.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Maryland Push
A blogger at Pam's House Blend has the scoop on the recently introduced bill in my home state to legalize same sex marriage. Counting the number of sponsors, The Baltimore Sun calls its prospects for passage "uncertain." One problem is that, despite Maryland's liberal tint, the leadership is lukewarm to the bill at best. "Gov. Martin O'Malley and House Speaker Michael E. Busch have said that they prefer civil unions. Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller opposes both same-sex marriage and civil unions." Moreover, especially up in Baltimore, the Catholic church is very influential among liberal legislators, which complicates efforts significantly.
But that doesn't mean the bill is doomed. For one, any state that has the type of legislative skew Maryland has towards Democrats is reasonably favorable terrain. For two, Maryland voters are far more open to gay marriage than those of most states. 44% favor changing the law to allow gay marriage, while 51% oppose a change. Importantly, 59% of White Marylanders are in favor of the change. This matters because Black Democrats in the legislature are probably at least somewhat to the left of their constituents on this issue. That doesn't mean they're guaranteed allies, but it does mean they're probably persuadable. Finally, even though he opposes both gay marriage and civil unions, Senator Miller at least has apparently promised not to whip his caucus on this issue, making it far easier for pro-equality forces than if the leadership was proactively working against them.
Ultimately, this is a tough fight, but a fight we can win. Maryland stands on the cusp of becoming the first state to legalize gay marriage without any judicial prompting whatsoever. It would be a proud day for my state, and I hope that we see it soon.
But that doesn't mean the bill is doomed. For one, any state that has the type of legislative skew Maryland has towards Democrats is reasonably favorable terrain. For two, Maryland voters are far more open to gay marriage than those of most states. 44% favor changing the law to allow gay marriage, while 51% oppose a change. Importantly, 59% of White Marylanders are in favor of the change. This matters because Black Democrats in the legislature are probably at least somewhat to the left of their constituents on this issue. That doesn't mean they're guaranteed allies, but it does mean they're probably persuadable. Finally, even though he opposes both gay marriage and civil unions, Senator Miller at least has apparently promised not to whip his caucus on this issue, making it far easier for pro-equality forces than if the leadership was proactively working against them.
Ultimately, this is a tough fight, but a fight we can win. Maryland stands on the cusp of becoming the first state to legalize gay marriage without any judicial prompting whatsoever. It would be a proud day for my state, and I hope that we see it soon.
The Pieces Fall into Place
After delivering the State of the Union response, Kansas Governor and Democratic rising star Kathleen Sebelius will endorse Barack Obama for President.
It's part of an overall good swing of endorsements for Obama, including Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA), the highest ranking Latino House member. The latter is particularly significant because Obama has shown some weakness among the Latino vote.
But Sebelius is not just a particularly talented Democratic governor, or even another notch in a flurry of recent Obama endorsements. She's a red-state governor, and more importantly, a red-state governor with a knack for flipping Republicans to the Democratic Party. She fits exceptionally well with Obama's post-partisan campaign style, and would make a stellar Vice Presidential pick. With this endorsement, that chatter will only get louder.
It's part of an overall good swing of endorsements for Obama, including Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA), the highest ranking Latino House member. The latter is particularly significant because Obama has shown some weakness among the Latino vote.
But Sebelius is not just a particularly talented Democratic governor, or even another notch in a flurry of recent Obama endorsements. She's a red-state governor, and more importantly, a red-state governor with a knack for flipping Republicans to the Democratic Party. She fits exceptionally well with Obama's post-partisan campaign style, and would make a stellar Vice Presidential pick. With this endorsement, that chatter will only get louder.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Two Random Thoughts About Obama
I have two thoughts to share after Barack Obama's historic win in South Carolina.
1) One of my Republican friends here at Carleton (I write that as if there are more than a half-dozen active Republicans on this campus) has admitted he is "terrified" of Obama, who he describes as the "Democratic Reagan." Someone who can articulate the Democratic agenda clearly and eloquently and bring people over from all sides. Dave Kopel said his victory speech "sounded like a President," and even the National Review's K-Lo was so mesmerized by it that she momentarily forgot that there were actual issues in this election and that she disagreed with Obama on every one of them.
2) Though I absolutely, positively adore Obama, and think he's a wonderful speaker, there is a nit I really need to pick during his oratory. He has this facial expression that he falls back on all the time. I call it his "stare of destiny." After a bit of soaring oratory, during the roaring applause, he looks a bit upwards and off to the side, staring intently with vision out into the distance. It's the Barack Obama equivalent of Magnum. He does it compulsively, and it's actually beginning to scare me. If he could find some new expressions to mix in with that one, I'd be very happy.
1) One of my Republican friends here at Carleton (I write that as if there are more than a half-dozen active Republicans on this campus) has admitted he is "terrified" of Obama, who he describes as the "Democratic Reagan." Someone who can articulate the Democratic agenda clearly and eloquently and bring people over from all sides. Dave Kopel said his victory speech "sounded like a President," and even the National Review's K-Lo was so mesmerized by it that she momentarily forgot that there were actual issues in this election and that she disagreed with Obama on every one of them.
2) Though I absolutely, positively adore Obama, and think he's a wonderful speaker, there is a nit I really need to pick during his oratory. He has this facial expression that he falls back on all the time. I call it his "stare of destiny." After a bit of soaring oratory, during the roaring applause, he looks a bit upwards and off to the side, staring intently with vision out into the distance. It's the Barack Obama equivalent of Magnum. He does it compulsively, and it's actually beginning to scare me. If he could find some new expressions to mix in with that one, I'd be very happy.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Quote of the Evening
No immediate link to anything currently in the news, though it does remind me of my Dartmouth L.J. paper. I just wanted to save it for later:
George M. Fredrickson, Racism: An Introduction (Princeton: Princeton UP, 2002), 71-72.
Similar sentiments were expressed in France during this time period. And, of course, this theory of enlightenment universalism is the guiding force behind much of modern Western philosophy in America and Europe -- including the "color-blind" theory of race relations and the doctrine of strict separation between Church and State.
Notice how obliterating Jewish distinctiveness was cast as being in accordance with securing human rights -- Jews literally had to be destroyed in order to be saved. The evident Christian overtones accentuate the fact that this "liberal" revolution was hardly the break from the past that it used to be -- it merely found new language to express its fear of Jewish difference and its desire for Jews to disappear. Given that the "universal" personhood Jews were expected to assimilate into was based on a Christian norm, even the desire for conversion is barely affected. All that changed was the removal of the few protections Jews had when their oppression was strictly theological: at least some Christians theologians had some need for some living Jews -- the model expressed here explicitly wanted all Jews to disappear and pointedly chose a very violent metaphor to bring across its point.
It's no wonder that many post-Holocaust theorists consider the Shoah to be the bastard child of the Enlightenment.
The question of how Jews would fit in when cultural and linguistic identity became the basis of citizenship, and the Volksgeist was embodied in a Volksstaat, could be answered in only one of two ways. Either the Jews had to surrender their Jewishness and become good Germans or there would be no place for them. At the end of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth, a liberal assimilationist perspective was ascendant in German thought, but beneath it lurked a deep intolerance of the Jew who remained distinctive. In 1793, the philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte, who professed to be advocating that Jews be given "human rights," put the choice before them in starkly brutal terms: "As for giving them [the Jews] civil rights, I see no remedy [*72] but that their heads should be cut off in one night and replaced with others not containing a single Jewish idea."
George M. Fredrickson, Racism: An Introduction (Princeton: Princeton UP, 2002), 71-72.
Similar sentiments were expressed in France during this time period. And, of course, this theory of enlightenment universalism is the guiding force behind much of modern Western philosophy in America and Europe -- including the "color-blind" theory of race relations and the doctrine of strict separation between Church and State.
Notice how obliterating Jewish distinctiveness was cast as being in accordance with securing human rights -- Jews literally had to be destroyed in order to be saved. The evident Christian overtones accentuate the fact that this "liberal" revolution was hardly the break from the past that it used to be -- it merely found new language to express its fear of Jewish difference and its desire for Jews to disappear. Given that the "universal" personhood Jews were expected to assimilate into was based on a Christian norm, even the desire for conversion is barely affected. All that changed was the removal of the few protections Jews had when their oppression was strictly theological: at least some Christians theologians had some need for some living Jews -- the model expressed here explicitly wanted all Jews to disappear and pointedly chose a very violent metaphor to bring across its point.
It's no wonder that many post-Holocaust theorists consider the Shoah to be the bastard child of the Enlightenment.
Weekend Roundup
Dana Goldstein: Andrew Sullivan does not determine what constitutes feminist.
Though I'm sure some of my fellow progressives might consider me part of the problem here, I too have wondered why right-wing views on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict are automatically labeled "pro-Israel".
Reading conservative blogs, I can never tell if, as someone who strives to hold "responsible" foreign policy views, I'm supposed to support democracy abroad or not. Here Powerline attacks Barack Obama for being too close to Kenya's opposition during the recent election dispute in the East African nation. There's a lot of talk about how the current government is an "ally on the war on terror." There is very little about whether it, you know, actually won the election under dispute.
Here's a phrase I hate to see in print: "U.S.-style torture". It's from the Asia Times, and its describing American complicity in Thai torture techniques.
TPM has a good post on Hillary Clinton's mid-game push to allow delegates from Michigan and Florida into the Democratic National Convention (after they were excluded for hosting their primary too early), but Matt Yglesias wins for titling his post "Calvinball."
With the drop out of Fred Thompson from the GOP race, Orin Kerr announces he's now backing John McCain. Fellow VCer Dale Carpenter follows suit.
PG has far more patience dealing with folks who try to minimize the wrongfulness of Japanese internment than I do.
Michael J. Klarman, author of From Jim Crow to Civil Rights: The Supreme Court and the Struggle for Racial Equality, is moving from UVA to Harvard Law School. As someone who is considering UVA law school, who else working on race relations is currently there? I know Alex Johnson just returned from Minnesota -- anyone else?
Today, the FRC cheers California for giving cancer patients the choice between losing their job or agonizing pain. Because not giving an inch in the war on marijuana is worth sacrificing our humanity for. On the other hand, they give updates on gay marriage maneuvers in four states, and only in Maryland are the anti-marriage equality forces firmly on the defensive. Go Maryland! I cannot express how proud I will be if my state is the first to ratify gay marriage solely through democratic procedures.
Finally, be sure to congratulate Rachel, who is pregnant with twins!
Though I'm sure some of my fellow progressives might consider me part of the problem here, I too have wondered why right-wing views on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict are automatically labeled "pro-Israel".
Reading conservative blogs, I can never tell if, as someone who strives to hold "responsible" foreign policy views, I'm supposed to support democracy abroad or not. Here Powerline attacks Barack Obama for being too close to Kenya's opposition during the recent election dispute in the East African nation. There's a lot of talk about how the current government is an "ally on the war on terror." There is very little about whether it, you know, actually won the election under dispute.
Here's a phrase I hate to see in print: "U.S.-style torture". It's from the Asia Times, and its describing American complicity in Thai torture techniques.
TPM has a good post on Hillary Clinton's mid-game push to allow delegates from Michigan and Florida into the Democratic National Convention (after they were excluded for hosting their primary too early), but Matt Yglesias wins for titling his post "Calvinball."
With the drop out of Fred Thompson from the GOP race, Orin Kerr announces he's now backing John McCain. Fellow VCer Dale Carpenter follows suit.
PG has far more patience dealing with folks who try to minimize the wrongfulness of Japanese internment than I do.
Michael J. Klarman, author of From Jim Crow to Civil Rights: The Supreme Court and the Struggle for Racial Equality, is moving from UVA to Harvard Law School. As someone who is considering UVA law school, who else working on race relations is currently there? I know Alex Johnson just returned from Minnesota -- anyone else?
Today, the FRC cheers California for giving cancer patients the choice between losing their job or agonizing pain. Because not giving an inch in the war on marijuana is worth sacrificing our humanity for. On the other hand, they give updates on gay marriage maneuvers in four states, and only in Maryland are the anti-marriage equality forces firmly on the defensive. Go Maryland! I cannot express how proud I will be if my state is the first to ratify gay marriage solely through democratic procedures.
Finally, be sure to congratulate Rachel, who is pregnant with twins!
Brownback Come Back
In the form of a McCain administration:
Via Bean. More right flank protection from the media darling -- but will anybody call him out on naked pandering?
Look, I'm not as hostile to Brownback as many folks are. I once described him as "Genuinely Crazy" -- yes, he's crazy, but he's also quite genuine, and sometimes it leads to good things, like human rights work in North Korea, or supporting a resolution apologizing for slavery. But if there is one area he should be kept far, far way from, it's the judiciary.
On the issue of appointments to the Supreme Court, McCain mentioned that Sam Brownback would play an advisory role in helping decide who he should nominate for the Supreme Court. As models of who he would select, John McCain pointed to Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia. Pro-life advocates see the choice of Supreme Court Justices as key to overturning the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, which legalized abortion.
Via Bean. More right flank protection from the media darling -- but will anybody call him out on naked pandering?
Look, I'm not as hostile to Brownback as many folks are. I once described him as "Genuinely Crazy" -- yes, he's crazy, but he's also quite genuine, and sometimes it leads to good things, like human rights work in North Korea, or supporting a resolution apologizing for slavery. But if there is one area he should be kept far, far way from, it's the judiciary.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
And Another One Down....
Rep. Jim Walsh (R-NY) is out, challenger Dan Maffei is likely in, and as Matt Yglesias notes, the NY-25 is not only a district we can win, it's a district we can hold with a progressive Democratic.
Another moderate Republican retirement. The GOP is on the verge of being reduced to a rump party with a hyper-conservative base that can only win in a quarter of the country. And though this is really just part of the overall realignment that's putting Democrats in control of the Northeast, we're the party that's expanding elsewhere -- making inroads in the south (Virginia, Kentucky) and mountain west (Colorado, Montana).
Another moderate Republican retirement. The GOP is on the verge of being reduced to a rump party with a hyper-conservative base that can only win in a quarter of the country. And though this is really just part of the overall realignment that's putting Democrats in control of the Northeast, we're the party that's expanding elsewhere -- making inroads in the south (Virginia, Kentucky) and mountain west (Colorado, Montana).
The Obama Future
Ross Douthat takes a look in the crystal ball and lays out the scenarios if Obama loses the Democratic Primary. Short story: he's still got a very bright future -- so long as he doesn't accept a VP slot in the Clinton administration (I'm not sure I agree with that, actually, but it's good to know that this isn't a one-and-done scenario for such a bright star).
Stone Cold Misogyny
Early this month, I remarked on how the blind, seething hatred held by the right against Hillary Clinton was one of the main forces pushing me into her camp. I don't want people to think that they can engage in this cesspool of toxicity and still win elections. And the best thing that could be done to accomplish that goal would be to stuff a Hillary Clinton presidency straight down their misogynist, Neanderthal throats.
When I first saw this, I just assumed it was another juvenile, hateful antic from some random mid-twenties Hillary-basher trying to prove his masculinity and failing dramatically:
Charming, isn't it?
But it turns out that this not the work of some random dude. Rather, it's a project of Roger Stone, a top Republican operative and one of the doyens of modern smear campaigning. In addition to being a Watergate conspirator, Stone has plenty of links to the modern party: he worked on Reagan's presidential campaigns, Dole's presidential campaign, even Arlen Specter's aborted presidential campaign, and was enlisted by James Baker to start street riots to shutdown the Florida recount in 2000.
Stone isn't connected to any campaign (or if he is, they've got some 'splainin to do real fast). But he is a critical component of the Republican Party apparatus. The hatred of Hillary Clinton is not just the work of some Limbaugh-listening hicks in trailers. It is institutionalized by the modern GOP. They buy into it as a party.
But this year, finally, folks are starting to push back. Folks are saying they're tired of this sort of treatment, and they're rising up it against it. So keep it up, Stone. you'll demean her right into the White House.
When I first saw this, I just assumed it was another juvenile, hateful antic from some random mid-twenties Hillary-basher trying to prove his masculinity and failing dramatically:
Charming, isn't it?
But it turns out that this not the work of some random dude. Rather, it's a project of Roger Stone, a top Republican operative and one of the doyens of modern smear campaigning. In addition to being a Watergate conspirator, Stone has plenty of links to the modern party: he worked on Reagan's presidential campaigns, Dole's presidential campaign, even Arlen Specter's aborted presidential campaign, and was enlisted by James Baker to start street riots to shutdown the Florida recount in 2000.
Stone isn't connected to any campaign (or if he is, they've got some 'splainin to do real fast). But he is a critical component of the Republican Party apparatus. The hatred of Hillary Clinton is not just the work of some Limbaugh-listening hicks in trailers. It is institutionalized by the modern GOP. They buy into it as a party.
But this year, finally, folks are starting to push back. Folks are saying they're tired of this sort of treatment, and they're rising up it against it. So keep it up, Stone. you'll demean her right into the White House.
Tax Cut Druggies
Commenting on the upcoming stimulus package, the keen economic minds at Powerline inquire:
I know just how they feel. When I urgently need painkillers because my body's in trouble, my doctor prescribes morphine. But then I wonder, why wouldn't it be a good idea to be strung-out on opiates all the time?
Seriously, they've got to be joking with this logic. The point of a stimulus package is to provide a temporary boost to the economy. It's not designed to increase economic growth permanently, and if it's built into the system, the economy would adjust around it (with unpredictable results) and the next time it slumped, which it will, we'd need to lower taxes again (at which point Powerline would wonder why not make it permanent again, until our tax rate was a flat 1% and the government was so weak we could be overrun by a squad of Haitian bellhops). Drug addicts know that you can rather quickly adapt to any level of stimulant -- for it to have any effect, you need to keep increasing the dosage.
On the other hand, even if Powerline's correct, a permanent working stimulus would not be a good thing either. Again, the point of a stimulus package is to provide a temporary boost in economic activity to get folks through tough times. You don't want that supercharger running when thing are good, else the economy get, well, over-stimulated (and we all know what happens then). Controlled growth is the key -- ask the Hoover administration what happens when things go too fast.
Along with election-year cash, the plan will include some tax breaks for businesses that are intended to stimulate investment. These are probably a good idea. I wonder, though: if more money in the hands of taxpayers and lighter tax burdens on businesses are now urgently needed to rally a slumping economy, why wouldn't it be a good idea to have lower tax burdens all the time?
I know just how they feel. When I urgently need painkillers because my body's in trouble, my doctor prescribes morphine. But then I wonder, why wouldn't it be a good idea to be strung-out on opiates all the time?
Seriously, they've got to be joking with this logic. The point of a stimulus package is to provide a temporary boost to the economy. It's not designed to increase economic growth permanently, and if it's built into the system, the economy would adjust around it (with unpredictable results) and the next time it slumped, which it will, we'd need to lower taxes again (at which point Powerline would wonder why not make it permanent again, until our tax rate was a flat 1% and the government was so weak we could be overrun by a squad of Haitian bellhops). Drug addicts know that you can rather quickly adapt to any level of stimulant -- for it to have any effect, you need to keep increasing the dosage.
On the other hand, even if Powerline's correct, a permanent working stimulus would not be a good thing either. Again, the point of a stimulus package is to provide a temporary boost in economic activity to get folks through tough times. You don't want that supercharger running when thing are good, else the economy get, well, over-stimulated (and we all know what happens then). Controlled growth is the key -- ask the Hoover administration what happens when things go too fast.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Al Gore Comes Out in Favor of Gay Marriage
TNR's Dayo Olopade says he agrees with the position, but asks "Why would such an eminent Democratic voice--and potential tiebreaker--spend his time plowing a wedge issue into the race?"
Possibly because it's the right position to take? One of the perks about being a non-politician is that you don't have to refract all your opinions based on how they play in Michigan.
PS: Also, Al Gore has a really goofy voice.
Possibly because it's the right position to take? One of the perks about being a non-politician is that you don't have to refract all your opinions based on how they play in Michigan.
PS: Also, Al Gore has a really goofy voice.
Two Models of Diversity
The comments in this post have inspired me to flesh out my thoughts on diversity more fully. In that post and elsewhere, I've been called out by Mark Olson for only supporting particular kinds of "diversity", and choosing those kinds due particular political commitments I hold. This post concedes both points. However, it argues why that is not only not a bad thing, but likely unavoidable, and in doing so expands on the concept of "salient diversity" I alluded to in the comments.
I. Pure Diversity
Even as an abstract matter, diversity is beneficial, if only from the generic observation of a liberal education that it is good to be exposed to a wide variety of things. It is good that I have at least some background in music, biology, and economics (among other disciplines), even though I don't plan on directly utilizing any of them in my career, because they broaden my mental horizons, enable me to more fully communicate with people for whom these areas are important, and expose me to new manners of manipulating and expressing myself in the world that I may (unexpectedly, perhaps) find useful or fruitful. The same thing can be said about meeting different types of people, who also can broaden my horizons, improve my ability to relate with other people unlike myself, and give me new and useful perspectives on important issues.
I associate these benefits with "pure" diversity because they accrue regardless of how, exactly, the two parties are different from each other or from their normal experiences. That is to say, interacting with someone who seems genuinely and materially different from myself helps my ability to relate and communicate with all of those who seem significantly unlike myself, regardless of whether that someone's difference is that of race, nationality, occupation, class, or anything else. The only operating factor is the fact of difference, not the specificity of what that difference is.
This matters because it establishes that at least some of the benefits of diversity still occur even though it is obviously impossible for anyone to encounter every sort of person or all types of difference. Even though I can't take every class here and there are whole departments which I have never set foot in, I've benefited from Carleton's liberal education in the aforementioned ways, because I've taken some different courses and some areas of study beyond that which I'd normally be inclined. So long as diversity is pursued in some form, the people will reap the benefits, even though necessarily only some types of diversity will be represented in anyone's experience. However, this does not mean that particular kinds of diversity don't bring their own, unique benefits. They do, and this is something I will explore in the next section.
II. Two Models of Diversity
The act of pursuing diversity necessarily requires the pursuing actor to make decisions over what type of diversity they want. Since it is impossible to represent every sort of difference, these decisions always contain a normative component -- some differences will be privileged, others, subordinated. There are, I think, two broad models one could use as guidelines for diversity pursuit: The "distance" model, and the "relational" model.
A. The Distance Model
The distance model of diversity takes as its starting point the idea that our differences are measurable, and hence some people are fundamentally more different (more diverse) than others. Since we're viewing diversity as a positive good, then, the goal should be to incorporate into the system or institution the most different people possible, and the model looks for those whose experiences or life position are most "distant" from our own.
The distance model first requires is to construct a measuring point -- a norm from which we measure difference and distance. So, a college might start with who it imagines to be its paradigmatic student, Jane: White (Caucasian), American, female, upper-middle class, Christian, able-bodied, moderately-liberal heterosexual. It would then actively pursue students who were as distant from this image as possible. A White American upper-middle class heterosexual male moderate conservative would be a little different. A poor lesbian Latina Marxist would be far more different. A poor disabled gay nationalist Rwandan who has traditional "pagan" beliefs, of course, trumps all.
There is obviously some appeal to this. In terms of the benefits of pure diversity, it is likely that Jane would benefit more from the Rwandan prospective student than either the Latina Marxist or the male moderate conservative. Moreover, the distance model seems to carry with it the benefit of objectivity. We're looking for diversity. The Rwandan is clearly the most diverse. Hence, he should be admitted.
But as it turns out, the model is deeply flawed. For starters, there is a big problem is with creating the "paradigmatic student" at all. The establishment of certain students as "normal" (with the concurrent implication that others are, to varying degrees, "deviant") is inherently problematic, with unavoidable messages of privilege and subordination. If Jane is the norm, does that mean the college should structure its educational mission around her? The distance model's answer is clearly yes: we're looking for the "most distant" person as it relates to Jane, a yardstick which might not hold true for other students. If the college admitted the Latina Marxist, neither Jane nor the Rwandan would be "most different" for her -- that position would seem more likely to be occupied by, perhaps, a wealthy libertarian straight Asian male. By establishing one type of student as the norm, the college ends up objectifying all the others, who are perceived solely as tools for the educational benefit of a few.
Furthermore, upon closer examination, the supposed objectivity of the model is questionable as well. Obviously, the college has to choose certain attributes to be calculated as part of what makes one "diverse." But not every attribute can be chosen -- favorite color, height, body type, and non-academic interests, for example, were not directly included on my original list. The choice to include certain characteristics but exclude others is both subjective and political. And even if one could settle upon an agreed upon list of salient characteristics, that would represent only marginal progress, for two reasons:
(1) It doesn't account for what Stentor aptly calls non-Pareto cases. In the above example, each person listed was indisputably more "different" than the one before -- I held the other variables constant. But outside perhaps the absolute poles, most of the time people mix-and-match along categories: we're White and liberal, but Jewish, French and disabled, versus Black and poor, but American, able-bodied, and straight. These differences aren't in themselves fungible, and so they provide no basis for comparison in all but the most extreme cases.
(2) It doesn't account for the fact that people weigh these differences differently. This came into play already in the original decision of which categories to include (excluding, say, favorite color is implicitly saying one doesn't find that it has any meaningful weight at all). But even if we have a set of characteristics we agree are all somewhat important, we might not agree that they are all worth the same amount or which ones are worth more than the others. Jane might relate to her own nationality, sexual orientation, and class more than her religion, political ideology, or able-bodied status. Hence, she'd view a poor gay Frenchman (who is also an able-bodied, moderately liberal Christian) as significantly more different than a disabled atheist conservative (who is also an American, heterosexual, and middle-class). If she weighs any of them highly enough, it might even cause her to see someone with just one salient difference (nationality, say) as more distant than someone with many differences she is less concerned about (religion and political ideology and able-bodied status). And of course, someone who has the exact same characteristics as Jane could have a precisely inverted weighing scheme. So unless we are to expand the "paradigmatic student" so that it also includes a "paradigmatic weighing mechanism" (which would be impossible to do objectively), its objectivity becomes mythological.
B. The Relational Model
The relational model, by contrast, does not take as its position that there are objective distances in the differences between people. Nor, for that matter, does it assume that certain differences are objectively more salient than others. The relational model takes as its starting point that different differences can matter in various circumstances, and pursues specific types of difference insofar as those differences can contribute to the ascertainment of particular political or social goals.
A good example for this model is a basketball team, which wants on its roster a diverse number of positions represented (i.e., it wants to have some guards, some forwards, and some centers). It is not creating a "paradigmatic player" (Shaquille O'Neal, say) and then trying to find qualified players who are as different from him as possible. Rather, the quest for diversity here stems from the observation that, as good as Shaq is, a starting lineup of five Shaq clones likely would not create a good basketball team. We need players who can shoot the three, who can create off the dribble, who can shoot free throws(!), who can make fast breaks, and who can defend the perimeter. What we're looking for is a group of players who as a team (student body, corporation, legislature, etc.) are best able to fulfill the goals we want them to fulfill. I call it the relational model because it looks at diversity not in terms of objective distance between people, but rather based on the idea of a network of individuals, none of whom are considered the center, whose relationships to each other are defined by the particular roles they can play specific systems.
In a relational model, selecting "players" (admitees, hires) is what the late Harvard Law Professor Lon Fuller called a "polycentric problem." Polycentrism occurs when the selection of one person changes the "ranking" of all the other potential candidates. The Los Angeles Lakers have Shaquille O'Neal. Their next priority in player choice is likely not to be a center, even a really good one, because they already have the center role filled (back-ups excluded) and what they need now is a guard. If their first two players were Kobe Bryant and Dwayne Wade, by contrast, then their next choice might well be a center.
But it's even more complicated. Some people can fill a given "role" in certain networks but not others. For example, Kobe Bryant can normally fill the role of guard rather well. But, as the Lakers can tell you, if your center is Shaquille O'Neal, then Kobe Bryant maybe isn't your best choice at guard. The players, in other words, can't just fill their role abstractly. They have to be good in relation to one another. This lends the relational model considerable dynamism compared to the more static distance model.
So the relational model asks "what set of people would most effectively allow us to do the things we want to do", noting that in any complex system people will likely have to fill different roles, that different people are best suited for different roles, and that different people are best suited for different rules depending on who else is filling the other roles. The basketball team is a simplified example, however, because by and large "things we want to do" is simple and agreed-upon: we want to win our games. That isn't always the only consideration -- a team might want to have high attendance, and thus plays a home-town hero to build fan loyalty -- but it generally has primacy.
In other environments, however, "what we want to do" is contested and variable. An institution has to decide what its goals are before it can pursue the type of personnel set necessary to do it. Since these goals are contested, it is a normative decision to adopt one set over another. What goals you adopt is premised on what you think is important. So in that sense, it's perfectly fair to say that institutions constructing diversity programs are pursuing an agenda -- and a specific one at that. But it's clearly necessary to adopt such an agenda, and doing so channels decision-making procedure towards particularly types of diversity.
For example, I think inter-racial dialogue is important, and I think colleges are a key institution that constructs people's ability and inclination to engage in public dialogue once they enter society. Hence, I will specifically support the types of collegiate diversity that foster such dialogue and create people who can communicate with persons of different racial backgrounds in the public sphere (something which requires a critical mass of people filling the "role" of each major racial cleavage in American society). If you do not think inter-racial dialogue is important (or is less important than other, competing goals), then you will not support this type of diversification (or won't support it for that reason). And on the other hand, in institutions that I do not believe play primary roles in constructing society's discursive horizons (say, a graduate program in eastern European studies, or for that matter a basketball team), I won't support that same type of diversification (or at least, not for that reason).
The last example indicates that different differences matter in different places. As I noted in my discussion of the difference model, we can legitimately put different weight on various differences depending on whether we feel they are more or less salient. This is not an objective procedure in either the distance or relational model, but it is at least mitigated in the relational model because its localized -- we're only asking for relative weights in a particular situation, not as some sort of metaphysical truth that exists across all cases. Just as it is likely that all major differences will be valued by some people, some of the time, it is also likely that these differences will be seen as salient by at least some institutions, some of the time. This has the effect of expanding diversity conceptually beyond the strictures of the American affirmative action debate and places it instead as a consideration for all types of decision-making.
III. Conclusion
The first section establishes that diversity confers at least some benefits no matter how the diversity is constructed. The mere fact of being exposed to different people, different disciplines, different ideas, and different experiences is inherently salutary. The second section, noting that we have to pursue diversity in some fashion, identifies and analyzes two competing frameworks of diversification. If it isn't obvious already, I find the relational model greatly superior to the distance model as a framework for how we ought to construct social relationships. The latter not only avoids the creation of a particular norm and the exclusionary implications that would follow from it, but it also displays more flexibility to adopt itself to differing situations. A corporation might not care how many tall guys it employs, a basketball team definitely does. A chemistry department might not care how many Ukrainian immigrants it has among its affiliates, an eastern European studies department could find that very relevant. What matters about diversity is not any objective measurement of difference, but the manner in which difference is operationalized to enable different functions and achieve social goals.
I. Pure Diversity
Even as an abstract matter, diversity is beneficial, if only from the generic observation of a liberal education that it is good to be exposed to a wide variety of things. It is good that I have at least some background in music, biology, and economics (among other disciplines), even though I don't plan on directly utilizing any of them in my career, because they broaden my mental horizons, enable me to more fully communicate with people for whom these areas are important, and expose me to new manners of manipulating and expressing myself in the world that I may (unexpectedly, perhaps) find useful or fruitful. The same thing can be said about meeting different types of people, who also can broaden my horizons, improve my ability to relate with other people unlike myself, and give me new and useful perspectives on important issues.
I associate these benefits with "pure" diversity because they accrue regardless of how, exactly, the two parties are different from each other or from their normal experiences. That is to say, interacting with someone who seems genuinely and materially different from myself helps my ability to relate and communicate with all of those who seem significantly unlike myself, regardless of whether that someone's difference is that of race, nationality, occupation, class, or anything else. The only operating factor is the fact of difference, not the specificity of what that difference is.
This matters because it establishes that at least some of the benefits of diversity still occur even though it is obviously impossible for anyone to encounter every sort of person or all types of difference. Even though I can't take every class here and there are whole departments which I have never set foot in, I've benefited from Carleton's liberal education in the aforementioned ways, because I've taken some different courses and some areas of study beyond that which I'd normally be inclined. So long as diversity is pursued in some form, the people will reap the benefits, even though necessarily only some types of diversity will be represented in anyone's experience. However, this does not mean that particular kinds of diversity don't bring their own, unique benefits. They do, and this is something I will explore in the next section.
II. Two Models of Diversity
The act of pursuing diversity necessarily requires the pursuing actor to make decisions over what type of diversity they want. Since it is impossible to represent every sort of difference, these decisions always contain a normative component -- some differences will be privileged, others, subordinated. There are, I think, two broad models one could use as guidelines for diversity pursuit: The "distance" model, and the "relational" model.
A. The Distance Model
The distance model of diversity takes as its starting point the idea that our differences are measurable, and hence some people are fundamentally more different (more diverse) than others. Since we're viewing diversity as a positive good, then, the goal should be to incorporate into the system or institution the most different people possible, and the model looks for those whose experiences or life position are most "distant" from our own.
The distance model first requires is to construct a measuring point -- a norm from which we measure difference and distance. So, a college might start with who it imagines to be its paradigmatic student, Jane: White (Caucasian), American, female, upper-middle class, Christian, able-bodied, moderately-liberal heterosexual. It would then actively pursue students who were as distant from this image as possible. A White American upper-middle class heterosexual male moderate conservative would be a little different. A poor lesbian Latina Marxist would be far more different. A poor disabled gay nationalist Rwandan who has traditional "pagan" beliefs, of course, trumps all.
There is obviously some appeal to this. In terms of the benefits of pure diversity, it is likely that Jane would benefit more from the Rwandan prospective student than either the Latina Marxist or the male moderate conservative. Moreover, the distance model seems to carry with it the benefit of objectivity. We're looking for diversity. The Rwandan is clearly the most diverse. Hence, he should be admitted.
But as it turns out, the model is deeply flawed. For starters, there is a big problem is with creating the "paradigmatic student" at all. The establishment of certain students as "normal" (with the concurrent implication that others are, to varying degrees, "deviant") is inherently problematic, with unavoidable messages of privilege and subordination. If Jane is the norm, does that mean the college should structure its educational mission around her? The distance model's answer is clearly yes: we're looking for the "most distant" person as it relates to Jane, a yardstick which might not hold true for other students. If the college admitted the Latina Marxist, neither Jane nor the Rwandan would be "most different" for her -- that position would seem more likely to be occupied by, perhaps, a wealthy libertarian straight Asian male. By establishing one type of student as the norm, the college ends up objectifying all the others, who are perceived solely as tools for the educational benefit of a few.
Furthermore, upon closer examination, the supposed objectivity of the model is questionable as well. Obviously, the college has to choose certain attributes to be calculated as part of what makes one "diverse." But not every attribute can be chosen -- favorite color, height, body type, and non-academic interests, for example, were not directly included on my original list. The choice to include certain characteristics but exclude others is both subjective and political. And even if one could settle upon an agreed upon list of salient characteristics, that would represent only marginal progress, for two reasons:
(1) It doesn't account for what Stentor aptly calls non-Pareto cases. In the above example, each person listed was indisputably more "different" than the one before -- I held the other variables constant. But outside perhaps the absolute poles, most of the time people mix-and-match along categories: we're White and liberal, but Jewish, French and disabled, versus Black and poor, but American, able-bodied, and straight. These differences aren't in themselves fungible, and so they provide no basis for comparison in all but the most extreme cases.
(2) It doesn't account for the fact that people weigh these differences differently. This came into play already in the original decision of which categories to include (excluding, say, favorite color is implicitly saying one doesn't find that it has any meaningful weight at all). But even if we have a set of characteristics we agree are all somewhat important, we might not agree that they are all worth the same amount or which ones are worth more than the others. Jane might relate to her own nationality, sexual orientation, and class more than her religion, political ideology, or able-bodied status. Hence, she'd view a poor gay Frenchman (who is also an able-bodied, moderately liberal Christian) as significantly more different than a disabled atheist conservative (who is also an American, heterosexual, and middle-class). If she weighs any of them highly enough, it might even cause her to see someone with just one salient difference (nationality, say) as more distant than someone with many differences she is less concerned about (religion and political ideology and able-bodied status). And of course, someone who has the exact same characteristics as Jane could have a precisely inverted weighing scheme. So unless we are to expand the "paradigmatic student" so that it also includes a "paradigmatic weighing mechanism" (which would be impossible to do objectively), its objectivity becomes mythological.
B. The Relational Model
The relational model, by contrast, does not take as its position that there are objective distances in the differences between people. Nor, for that matter, does it assume that certain differences are objectively more salient than others. The relational model takes as its starting point that different differences can matter in various circumstances, and pursues specific types of difference insofar as those differences can contribute to the ascertainment of particular political or social goals.
A good example for this model is a basketball team, which wants on its roster a diverse number of positions represented (i.e., it wants to have some guards, some forwards, and some centers). It is not creating a "paradigmatic player" (Shaquille O'Neal, say) and then trying to find qualified players who are as different from him as possible. Rather, the quest for diversity here stems from the observation that, as good as Shaq is, a starting lineup of five Shaq clones likely would not create a good basketball team. We need players who can shoot the three, who can create off the dribble, who can shoot free throws(!), who can make fast breaks, and who can defend the perimeter. What we're looking for is a group of players who as a team (student body, corporation, legislature, etc.) are best able to fulfill the goals we want them to fulfill. I call it the relational model because it looks at diversity not in terms of objective distance between people, but rather based on the idea of a network of individuals, none of whom are considered the center, whose relationships to each other are defined by the particular roles they can play specific systems.
In a relational model, selecting "players" (admitees, hires) is what the late Harvard Law Professor Lon Fuller called a "polycentric problem." Polycentrism occurs when the selection of one person changes the "ranking" of all the other potential candidates. The Los Angeles Lakers have Shaquille O'Neal. Their next priority in player choice is likely not to be a center, even a really good one, because they already have the center role filled (back-ups excluded) and what they need now is a guard. If their first two players were Kobe Bryant and Dwayne Wade, by contrast, then their next choice might well be a center.
But it's even more complicated. Some people can fill a given "role" in certain networks but not others. For example, Kobe Bryant can normally fill the role of guard rather well. But, as the Lakers can tell you, if your center is Shaquille O'Neal, then Kobe Bryant maybe isn't your best choice at guard. The players, in other words, can't just fill their role abstractly. They have to be good in relation to one another. This lends the relational model considerable dynamism compared to the more static distance model.
So the relational model asks "what set of people would most effectively allow us to do the things we want to do", noting that in any complex system people will likely have to fill different roles, that different people are best suited for different roles, and that different people are best suited for different rules depending on who else is filling the other roles. The basketball team is a simplified example, however, because by and large "things we want to do" is simple and agreed-upon: we want to win our games. That isn't always the only consideration -- a team might want to have high attendance, and thus plays a home-town hero to build fan loyalty -- but it generally has primacy.
In other environments, however, "what we want to do" is contested and variable. An institution has to decide what its goals are before it can pursue the type of personnel set necessary to do it. Since these goals are contested, it is a normative decision to adopt one set over another. What goals you adopt is premised on what you think is important. So in that sense, it's perfectly fair to say that institutions constructing diversity programs are pursuing an agenda -- and a specific one at that. But it's clearly necessary to adopt such an agenda, and doing so channels decision-making procedure towards particularly types of diversity.
For example, I think inter-racial dialogue is important, and I think colleges are a key institution that constructs people's ability and inclination to engage in public dialogue once they enter society. Hence, I will specifically support the types of collegiate diversity that foster such dialogue and create people who can communicate with persons of different racial backgrounds in the public sphere (something which requires a critical mass of people filling the "role" of each major racial cleavage in American society). If you do not think inter-racial dialogue is important (or is less important than other, competing goals), then you will not support this type of diversification (or won't support it for that reason). And on the other hand, in institutions that I do not believe play primary roles in constructing society's discursive horizons (say, a graduate program in eastern European studies, or for that matter a basketball team), I won't support that same type of diversification (or at least, not for that reason).
The last example indicates that different differences matter in different places. As I noted in my discussion of the difference model, we can legitimately put different weight on various differences depending on whether we feel they are more or less salient. This is not an objective procedure in either the distance or relational model, but it is at least mitigated in the relational model because its localized -- we're only asking for relative weights in a particular situation, not as some sort of metaphysical truth that exists across all cases. Just as it is likely that all major differences will be valued by some people, some of the time, it is also likely that these differences will be seen as salient by at least some institutions, some of the time. This has the effect of expanding diversity conceptually beyond the strictures of the American affirmative action debate and places it instead as a consideration for all types of decision-making.
III. Conclusion
The first section establishes that diversity confers at least some benefits no matter how the diversity is constructed. The mere fact of being exposed to different people, different disciplines, different ideas, and different experiences is inherently salutary. The second section, noting that we have to pursue diversity in some fashion, identifies and analyzes two competing frameworks of diversification. If it isn't obvious already, I find the relational model greatly superior to the distance model as a framework for how we ought to construct social relationships. The latter not only avoids the creation of a particular norm and the exclusionary implications that would follow from it, but it also displays more flexibility to adopt itself to differing situations. A corporation might not care how many tall guys it employs, a basketball team definitely does. A chemistry department might not care how many Ukrainian immigrants it has among its affiliates, an eastern European studies department could find that very relevant. What matters about diversity is not any objective measurement of difference, but the manner in which difference is operationalized to enable different functions and achieve social goals.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Padilla Gets 17 Years
Jose Padilla was sentenced to 17 years and 4 months in prison today after being convicted of terrorism related charges. A "terrorist enhancement" which increased the sentencing guidelines to between 30 years and life, but Judge Marcia Cooke then used her discretion to downwardly depart from the guidelines, citing explicitly his treatment while in US military detention for three years.
Padilla was expected to receive life in prison, and the government plans to appeal his sentence. Though the crimes Padilla was convicted of were serious, serious as well was his brutal treatment while in American custody. Judge Cooke was absolutely right to take that under consideration, and those apathetic to human rights standards should be made to deal with the consequences of that sort of abuse.
"I do find that the conditions [for Padilla as an enemy combatant] were so harsh that they warrant consideration," Cooke told a crowded courtroom of attorneys, family members and media.
Padilla was expected to receive life in prison, and the government plans to appeal his sentence. Though the crimes Padilla was convicted of were serious, serious as well was his brutal treatment while in American custody. Judge Cooke was absolutely right to take that under consideration, and those apathetic to human rights standards should be made to deal with the consequences of that sort of abuse.
Drive In
Saudi Arabia is set to drop its ban on women driving in the Kingdom, in response to increasingly strident protests by women's rights activists. The effort is seen as an attempt to forestall growing unrest among the female population -- and as far as that hope goes, I hope the government fails dramatically. Still, this a big step forward, and I hope that the local Arab activists who took the lead in getting this reform enacted keep up the pressure.
Via Feministing
Via Feministing
Toodles Fred
Fred Thompson pulls out of the Republican Presidential race.
My one serious Republican friend at Carleton will be devastated.
My one serious Republican friend at Carleton will be devastated.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Open Letter from American Feminists
Katha Pollitt has an "Open Letter from American Feminists", documenting the strong and consistent interest American feminists have had regarding issues of women's rights world wide (including the Islamic world) and demanding that media sources stop the ridiculous falsehood that American feminists stay silent on the subject.
She's collecting signatures at kpollitt@thenation.com . Just give her your name and how you wished to be identified (e.g., "David Schraub, Student, Carleton College"), and she'll add you to the list.
Feminism ought to and does care about women's rights the world over. The louder we proclaim that basic truth, the better.
She's collecting signatures at kpollitt@thenation.com . Just give her your name and how you wished to be identified (e.g., "David Schraub, Student, Carleton College"), and she'll add you to the list.
Feminism ought to and does care about women's rights the world over. The louder we proclaim that basic truth, the better.
Obama's Best Speech of the Season?
On the eve of Martin Luther King day, Barack Obama spoke on King's old pulpit at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia. His speech was bold, progressive, and necessary:
As Steve Benen put it, if anybody still thought after the Donnie McClurkin incident that Obama was going to throw gay Americans under the bus, they can lay those fears to bed.
Pam Spaulding describes Obama's words as "so necessary", but adds:
The "third rail" analysis is, I think, solid (although it's easy to under-state the degree of political courage it takes for a Black man to deliver this speech on MLK day. Whites aren't the only people at risk from the rail). It's a difficult issue. Specks and logs and all that. But open, honest dialogue is the only way forward. And Obama deserves massive amount of credit for opening the doors and demanding that everybody take stock of their own participation in injustice.
***
A brief perusal of blogger reaction seems to buttress my instinct that this speech hit a sweet spot:
The Vig: "If you don’t think the man who spoke those words is worthy of being the next president, I can’t help you."
Daniel Hernandez: "Barack Obama crystallized his message so powerfully yesterday, a political rhetoric of true reconciliation, the type I don't believe we have seen in generations."
Buffalo Pundit: "After 12 years of Reagan and/or Bush, after 8 years of Clinton, and after another 7 years of another Bush, this speech speaks to me, and rings true."
And finally, one of the ways you know my quoted section is good is that in this unbelievably hackish dissection of it ("Obama says he wants unity, but he's upset by greed-motivated lending policies causing people to lose their homes. Guess he doesn't want to unify mortgage brokers!") by "The editors of the American Federalist Journal", the above excerpt doesn't even make an appearance. When even the snipers can't snipe, you know you've nailed it.
“For most of this country’s history, we in the African-American community have been at the receiving end of man’s inhumanity to man. And all of us understand intimately the insidious role that race still sometimes plays - on the job, in the schools, in our health care system, and in our criminal justice system.
“And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King’s vision of a beloved community.
“We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity.
As Steve Benen put it, if anybody still thought after the Donnie McClurkin incident that Obama was going to throw gay Americans under the bus, they can lay those fears to bed.
Pam Spaulding describes Obama's words as "so necessary", but adds:
This topic has always been a perceived as a third rail topic for the other leading Dem candidates, Clinton or Edwards -- they are, like many whites, particularly if they see themselves as allies, dread being seen as pointing out the evils and hypocrisy of such bigotry in the black faith community, even as wrong and tragic as it is on its face.
[...]
That we cannot discuss the matter of homophobia or anti-Semitism in the black community bluntly is everyone's problem. This burden and legacy of fomenting bigotry out of fear and ignorance is borne by all of us. If no one takes responsibility, we all fail. And we're failing -- look at how easily gender bias and racial overtones have surfaced over and over in the campaign so far. It's almost reflexive to "go there," the toxicity and effectiveness of stirring those sentiments has been part of the political process by both parties for so long that they are addicted to it.
The "third rail" analysis is, I think, solid (although it's easy to under-state the degree of political courage it takes for a Black man to deliver this speech on MLK day. Whites aren't the only people at risk from the rail). It's a difficult issue. Specks and logs and all that. But open, honest dialogue is the only way forward. And Obama deserves massive amount of credit for opening the doors and demanding that everybody take stock of their own participation in injustice.
***
A brief perusal of blogger reaction seems to buttress my instinct that this speech hit a sweet spot:
The Vig: "If you don’t think the man who spoke those words is worthy of being the next president, I can’t help you."
Daniel Hernandez: "Barack Obama crystallized his message so powerfully yesterday, a political rhetoric of true reconciliation, the type I don't believe we have seen in generations."
Buffalo Pundit: "After 12 years of Reagan and/or Bush, after 8 years of Clinton, and after another 7 years of another Bush, this speech speaks to me, and rings true."
And finally, one of the ways you know my quoted section is good is that in this unbelievably hackish dissection of it ("Obama says he wants unity, but he's upset by greed-motivated lending policies causing people to lose their homes. Guess he doesn't want to unify mortgage brokers!") by "The editors of the American Federalist Journal", the above excerpt doesn't even make an appearance. When even the snipers can't snipe, you know you've nailed it.
So Many White Boys
CNN reports that Black women face a particularly tough choice in this primary, having decide between race (Obama) and gender (Clinton).
Hell, I've got them beat. Do you know how many White boys are running this election? I scarcely know where to begin! How on earth am I supposed to make a decision when my identity group is so fragmented? (But wait: I'm supporting Obama!)
Or maybe, I'm able to make a decision because I'm a rational human being who is able to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates and express a preference. And reading the article, it looks like the Black women discussed are doing the exact same thing.
The decision between Obama and Clinton is a difficult one, no doubt, for people of all races and genders. That's because they're both excellent candidates who would make wonderful presidents. It annoys me that Black women are being treated this cycle as if their deliberations -- unlike mine -- aren't occurring off that very basic premise.
UPDATE: Now CNN has an article up detailing the "angry reaction" its previous article elicited from its readers. Good. Not good enough if they keep running articles like this, but good.
Hell, I've got them beat. Do you know how many White boys are running this election? I scarcely know where to begin! How on earth am I supposed to make a decision when my identity group is so fragmented? (But wait: I'm supporting Obama!)
Or maybe, I'm able to make a decision because I'm a rational human being who is able to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates and express a preference. And reading the article, it looks like the Black women discussed are doing the exact same thing.
The decision between Obama and Clinton is a difficult one, no doubt, for people of all races and genders. That's because they're both excellent candidates who would make wonderful presidents. It annoys me that Black women are being treated this cycle as if their deliberations -- unlike mine -- aren't occurring off that very basic premise.
UPDATE: Now CNN has an article up detailing the "angry reaction" its previous article elicited from its readers. Good. Not good enough if they keep running articles like this, but good.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Frankenstein Veto
I'm no fan of the line-item veto, but even I am shocked by the cynicism displayed in this edition of it. You've got to read it to believe it.
Via my friend Eva Lam at Dem Apples (sorry about the Packers, Eva!).
Via my friend Eva Lam at Dem Apples (sorry about the Packers, Eva!).
Ethics Case
In what PrawfsBlawgger Paul Horwitz calls "Tomorrow's Legal Ethics Exam, Today," the New York Times reports on a lawyer who revealed a secret about a Virginia death penalty case that resulted in a death sentence being overturned due to prosecutorial misconduct. The lawyer was previously prohibited from revealing the information, as it would have been potentially harmful to his own client, who was a co-defendant in the case.
It's really a fascinating story. And it shows some of the absurdity of a legal system which uses the threat of death to get testimony out of defendants, then acts as if that testimony is in any way reliable.
It's really a fascinating story. And it shows some of the absurdity of a legal system which uses the threat of death to get testimony out of defendants, then acts as if that testimony is in any way reliable.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
It's Vegas, Baby!
From The Washington Post's coverage of the Nevada caucuses:
Barack Obama: You feeling lucky, punk?
Also, with only 39 precincts left to report (out of nearly 1,800), it looks as if Ron Paul will take second place in Nevada, narrowly edging out John McCain. Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee likewise looks like he'll barely beat Fred Thompson for fourth.
Racism ftw!
Early entrance polling showed Clinton leading among women, older voters and those who prized experience while Obama held an advantage among black voters and those who valued a need for chance, according to the Associated Press.
Barack Obama: You feeling lucky, punk?
Also, with only 39 precincts left to report (out of nearly 1,800), it looks as if Ron Paul will take second place in Nevada, narrowly edging out John McCain. Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee likewise looks like he'll barely beat Fred Thompson for fourth.
Racism ftw!
Go Ron Paul!
Let's recap: Major Ron Paul related news since Michigan? He is, if not himself a racist, tied to a huge network of White Supremacists. Results in the first caucus since Michigan? Ron Paul locked in a dogfight for second place with John McCain.
Anything that causes more chaos in the GOP primary is alright with me.
Go scary racist White dude! Take second in Nevada!
Anything that causes more chaos in the GOP primary is alright with me.
Go scary racist White dude! Take second in Nevada!
Friday, January 18, 2008
Boxing Blogging: FNF 1/18/08
It was a night of knockouts in Key West, Florida. All four televised bouts ended under the distance, and we also saw the retirement of former IBF Cruiserweight Champion and Friday Night Fights staple Kelvin "Koncrete" Davis.
Also quickly, before we recap the action, Brian Kenny announced in studio that Season Three Contender Champ Sakio Bika will be returning to face former Super Middleweight title challenger Librado Andrade. This is a great fight. Both guys have granite chins, both guys are in The Ring's top ten rankings at 168 lbs. (Andrade at 5th and Bika at 8th), and both guys can fight. Andrade's only loss is to Mikkel Kessler, and Bika's only losses are to consensus Super Middleweight champ Joe Calzaghe, now-titlist Lucien Bute, and an early and since avenged loss to the dangerous Sam Soliman. Though I like Bika, I have to favor Andrade in this fight, but in a battle between two experienced warriors who have never been knocked out, anything is possible.
Randall Bailey (36-6, 33 KOs) TKO5 Anthony Mora (15-2, 10 KOs)
Bailey, in his first fight back after losing a controversial split-decision against Herman Ngoudjo, squared off against six-foot tall Anthony Mora, back after a 22-month layoff following his first loss, a knockout by the fists of Rustam Nugaev. Bailey is an explosive power-puncher, and while he got the expected knockout with a vicious right hand, he spent a bit too much time searching for it and not enough time sticking to the fundamentals. If he boxes against Paulie Malignaggi, who he's been calling out, the way he fought tonight -- wild, looping, and sans the jab -- he'll get picked apart. But then again, as Bailey demonstrated tonight, he's got that great equalizer -- dynamite fists.
As for Mora, from pre-fight chatter there were questions about whether he really wanted to be in the ring tonight, and two straight knockout losses certainly aren't encouraging for a fighter contemplating retirement. If he does keep going, he desperately needs some cream-puff fights to build his confidence back up, because it was not in display tonight.
Ed Paredes (18-2, 11 KOs) TKO5 Cesar Vega (10-13, 2 KOs)
No surprise in the ending here, as Paredes is just on a different level from Vega and throughly out-classed him all evening. Vega was game, active, and throwing punches all evening, but didn't have the skills to really threaten Paredes at any point. Indeed, while in the first round Paredes looked a bit surprised by Vega's aggression, he quickly settled down and took control with patient, effective punching.
Credit to Paredes for doing what he needed to do, but this fight doesn't tell us anything. Paredes has still never really stepped up his competition (including his two losses), and I'm not persuaded as to his ability to hang with the top dogs based on tonights performance.
Eric Fields (11-0, 9 KOs) TKO1 Kelvin Davis (24-8-2, 17 KOs)
Fields, on the other hand, really put on a show in his brief appearance tonight. Yes, Davis had lost three straight coming into tonight, albeit all against good opposition. And yes, Davis had suffered a broken neck and back in a freak training accident, and was probably not at full strength. But you know what? It still takes some serious power to blitz him the way Fields did. And when Fields hurt Davis the way he did, he showed great instincts in finishing the former titleholder off. He sat down on his punches, but more importantly threw them tight and controlled. He wasn't overanxious, flailing for the knockout. It feels odd to talk about patience in the context of a first round knockout, but that's what I saw, and he got the knockout. Fields still needs some more fights before I'd put him in any title talks, but he's got the power, the skills, and the instincts to really run in this division.
Davis, for his part, announced his retirement after this fight. I think it's the right move. He's now lost four straight fights, he said himself he's more worried about getting hurt in the ring than he is worried about beating his opponents, and his body clearly isn't what it was prior to the accident. He's given us some great fights, and I wish him a happy and enjoyable retirement.
Danie Von Staden (6-3, 4 KOs) TKO1 Damian Tinker (3-2, 1 KO)
What are the odds that I'd have seen a 6-3 fighter before on live television? But this is, in fact, the second time I'd watched Von Staden, the first being a decision loss to Alex Brenes, also in Key West, also on a Randall Bailey undercard. Things turned out better for the home-town favorite Von Staden this time, as he landed a solid uppercut to knockout Tinker and delight the fans. It was actually a solid round of action, with both guys hurting each other before Von Staden closed the show.
Neither one of these dudes is going anywhere, but that's okay. Most boxers aren't title challengers. They ply their trade on undercards, do the best they can, and try and entertain the fans. That's perfectly fine, and tonight, it made for a successful end to a solid FNF card.
Also quickly, before we recap the action, Brian Kenny announced in studio that Season Three Contender Champ Sakio Bika will be returning to face former Super Middleweight title challenger Librado Andrade. This is a great fight. Both guys have granite chins, both guys are in The Ring's top ten rankings at 168 lbs. (Andrade at 5th and Bika at 8th), and both guys can fight. Andrade's only loss is to Mikkel Kessler, and Bika's only losses are to consensus Super Middleweight champ Joe Calzaghe, now-titlist Lucien Bute, and an early and since avenged loss to the dangerous Sam Soliman. Though I like Bika, I have to favor Andrade in this fight, but in a battle between two experienced warriors who have never been knocked out, anything is possible.
Randall Bailey (36-6, 33 KOs) TKO5 Anthony Mora (15-2, 10 KOs)
Bailey, in his first fight back after losing a controversial split-decision against Herman Ngoudjo, squared off against six-foot tall Anthony Mora, back after a 22-month layoff following his first loss, a knockout by the fists of Rustam Nugaev. Bailey is an explosive power-puncher, and while he got the expected knockout with a vicious right hand, he spent a bit too much time searching for it and not enough time sticking to the fundamentals. If he boxes against Paulie Malignaggi, who he's been calling out, the way he fought tonight -- wild, looping, and sans the jab -- he'll get picked apart. But then again, as Bailey demonstrated tonight, he's got that great equalizer -- dynamite fists.
As for Mora, from pre-fight chatter there were questions about whether he really wanted to be in the ring tonight, and two straight knockout losses certainly aren't encouraging for a fighter contemplating retirement. If he does keep going, he desperately needs some cream-puff fights to build his confidence back up, because it was not in display tonight.
Ed Paredes (18-2, 11 KOs) TKO5 Cesar Vega (10-13, 2 KOs)
No surprise in the ending here, as Paredes is just on a different level from Vega and throughly out-classed him all evening. Vega was game, active, and throwing punches all evening, but didn't have the skills to really threaten Paredes at any point. Indeed, while in the first round Paredes looked a bit surprised by Vega's aggression, he quickly settled down and took control with patient, effective punching.
Credit to Paredes for doing what he needed to do, but this fight doesn't tell us anything. Paredes has still never really stepped up his competition (including his two losses), and I'm not persuaded as to his ability to hang with the top dogs based on tonights performance.
Eric Fields (11-0, 9 KOs) TKO1 Kelvin Davis (24-8-2, 17 KOs)
Fields, on the other hand, really put on a show in his brief appearance tonight. Yes, Davis had lost three straight coming into tonight, albeit all against good opposition. And yes, Davis had suffered a broken neck and back in a freak training accident, and was probably not at full strength. But you know what? It still takes some serious power to blitz him the way Fields did. And when Fields hurt Davis the way he did, he showed great instincts in finishing the former titleholder off. He sat down on his punches, but more importantly threw them tight and controlled. He wasn't overanxious, flailing for the knockout. It feels odd to talk about patience in the context of a first round knockout, but that's what I saw, and he got the knockout. Fields still needs some more fights before I'd put him in any title talks, but he's got the power, the skills, and the instincts to really run in this division.
Davis, for his part, announced his retirement after this fight. I think it's the right move. He's now lost four straight fights, he said himself he's more worried about getting hurt in the ring than he is worried about beating his opponents, and his body clearly isn't what it was prior to the accident. He's given us some great fights, and I wish him a happy and enjoyable retirement.
Danie Von Staden (6-3, 4 KOs) TKO1 Damian Tinker (3-2, 1 KO)
What are the odds that I'd have seen a 6-3 fighter before on live television? But this is, in fact, the second time I'd watched Von Staden, the first being a decision loss to Alex Brenes, also in Key West, also on a Randall Bailey undercard. Things turned out better for the home-town favorite Von Staden this time, as he landed a solid uppercut to knockout Tinker and delight the fans. It was actually a solid round of action, with both guys hurting each other before Von Staden closed the show.
Neither one of these dudes is going anywhere, but that's okay. Most boxers aren't title challengers. They ply their trade on undercards, do the best they can, and try and entertain the fans. That's perfectly fine, and tonight, it made for a successful end to a solid FNF card.
Friday Round-up: Shabbat Shalom!
I'm taking a friend to Carleton's Shabbat services tonight (she's Jewish, but very non-religious and has always been too intimidated to learn more). So instead of posts, roundup!
Steve Benen: Although the Romney campaign may not like it, it's a good thing when reporters call out candidates on lying.
That being said, and though I'm no fan of "Multiple Choice Mitt", Ezra Klein fairly notes that the media seems to harbor a loathing of him that borders on irrational. Certainly, if they applied the same standards to, say, John McCain, their whole world would implode.
Eric Muller, perhaps the nation's foremost expert on Japanese Internment, is worried that Korematsu is being rehabilitated.
Keith Olbermann made a mistake on air. So he apologized. In today's media environment, that's actually news in of itself.
Speaking of media apologies, Chris Matthews gave at least a quasi-apology to some of his sexist treatment of Hillary Clinton. Feministing's Ann is skeptical but seems willing to put him on probation.
This is nearly two years old, but I only found it now: The new media image of masculinity encourages men to be boys.
The WaPo's Fix Blog has it's latest edition of The Line up. Of the top 10 Senate seats most likely to change parties, nine are GOP held. Ditto in the House.
If you're interested in what legal scholarship has caught my eye, the fourth volume of David's J.L. & Cool Stuff is online at First Movers.
Ethan Leib offers his thoughts on an event focusing on Randall Kennedy's new book, Sellout, "about people (presumably minorities or other non-white-hetero-males) that become enemies of their own people." Kennedy came to Carleton last year to talk about this project, but tragically, it was not quite the positive experience Leib appeared to enjoy.
And finally, Crotchety old lady one, ass-hole zero:
Steve Benen: Although the Romney campaign may not like it, it's a good thing when reporters call out candidates on lying.
That being said, and though I'm no fan of "Multiple Choice Mitt", Ezra Klein fairly notes that the media seems to harbor a loathing of him that borders on irrational. Certainly, if they applied the same standards to, say, John McCain, their whole world would implode.
Eric Muller, perhaps the nation's foremost expert on Japanese Internment, is worried that Korematsu is being rehabilitated.
Keith Olbermann made a mistake on air. So he apologized. In today's media environment, that's actually news in of itself.
Speaking of media apologies, Chris Matthews gave at least a quasi-apology to some of his sexist treatment of Hillary Clinton. Feministing's Ann is skeptical but seems willing to put him on probation.
This is nearly two years old, but I only found it now: The new media image of masculinity encourages men to be boys.
The WaPo's Fix Blog has it's latest edition of The Line up. Of the top 10 Senate seats most likely to change parties, nine are GOP held. Ditto in the House.
If you're interested in what legal scholarship has caught my eye, the fourth volume of David's J.L. & Cool Stuff is online at First Movers.
Ethan Leib offers his thoughts on an event focusing on Randall Kennedy's new book, Sellout, "about people (presumably minorities or other non-white-hetero-males) that become enemies of their own people." Kennedy came to Carleton last year to talk about this project, but tragically, it was not quite the positive experience Leib appeared to enjoy.
And finally, Crotchety old lady one, ass-hole zero:
No Secret Service Agent is an Island
I don't have much to comment on the story, summarized by Steve Benen, regarding a man's lawsuit for against the Secret Service for illegally arresting him after he confronted Dick Cheney, then covering it up. But I thought one part was amusing:
Emphasis added.
Now, I want to stress that there is no reason to think that this is punitive (indeed, the essence of the story is that both sets of Secret Service agents are claiming the others are lying, so it's difficult to know who are the "good guys"). Indeed, I can very much imagine Guam being considered quite a cushy job.
But there something tickling -- if only in a purely literary sense -- about reading a report about a scandal involving this administration where a key player appears to have been summarily banished to a remote island.
The agent who made the arrest, Virgil D. Reichle Jr., said in a deposition that he was left hanging with an untenable arrest because two agents assigned to the vice president had at first agreed with a Denver agent that there had been assault on Mr. Cheney by Mr. Howards, then changed their stories to say that no assault had occurred.
[...]
Mr. McLaughlin said Mr. Reichle, who has since been transferred to Guam, asked him in a call several hours after the encounter to say that there had been an assault to bolster justification for the arrest.
Emphasis added.
Now, I want to stress that there is no reason to think that this is punitive (indeed, the essence of the story is that both sets of Secret Service agents are claiming the others are lying, so it's difficult to know who are the "good guys"). Indeed, I can very much imagine Guam being considered quite a cushy job.
But there something tickling -- if only in a purely literary sense -- about reading a report about a scandal involving this administration where a key player appears to have been summarily banished to a remote island.
Popping Dissertations
How a sociologist became a gang leader for a day. I wish I had time to pick it up, because it sounds absolutely fascinating.
Popping Dissertations
How a sociologist became a gang leader for a day. I wish I had time to pick it up, because it sounds absolutely fascinating.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Quote of the Evening
"[A]nti-Semitism is like alcoholism. You can go for 25 years without a drink, but if things go bad and you find yourself with a vodka in your hand, you can’t get rid of it."
--Iain Pears
The quote is from the International Herald Tribune on August 11th, 2003, but I found it in this Dissent article by Mitchell Cohen: "Anti-Semitism and the Left that Doesn't Learn."
Even if anti-Semitism is in remission in some places in the world, that doesn't mean we've kicked the habit. As we've seen, the age-old prejudice has its own regenerative abilities that allow it to come roaring back after prolonged (supposed) absence.
--Iain Pears
The quote is from the International Herald Tribune on August 11th, 2003, but I found it in this Dissent article by Mitchell Cohen: "Anti-Semitism and the Left that Doesn't Learn."
Even if anti-Semitism is in remission in some places in the world, that doesn't mean we've kicked the habit. As we've seen, the age-old prejudice has its own regenerative abilities that allow it to come roaring back after prolonged (supposed) absence.
Black and Latina? Slow Down!
I've made this mistake myself, so I don't absolve myself, but this is a timely and well-needed reminder by Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez not to automatically separate Black and Latino. When we ponder uncritically about whether Latinos will vote for a Black President, we forget that many Latinos are Black. Most members of the "African diaspora", as the author puts it, live south of the United States. The largest immigrant group in New York City is the Dominicans, the vast majority of whom are Black. Many things we associate with Latino culture, from Salsa dancing to "La Bamba", have their roots in Afro-Caribbean culture, and prior to that, Africa.
There probably is some tension between non-Black Latinos and non-Latino Blacks. And that's worth exploring. But Latinos and Blacks are not mutually exclusive categories. And insofar as I've forgotten that, I apologize.
H/T: Jill
There probably is some tension between non-Black Latinos and non-Latino Blacks. And that's worth exploring. But Latinos and Blacks are not mutually exclusive categories. And insofar as I've forgotten that, I apologize.
H/T: Jill
The Hell?
Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN), representing a suburban district near the Twin Cities, shows that she isn't the brightest bulb in the ceiling:
Yay! I'm so proud to live here right now.
I am so proud to be from the state of Minnesota. We’re the workingest [sic] state in the country, and the reason why we are, we have more people that are working longer hours, we have people that are working two jobs.
Yay! I'm so proud to live here right now.
Ba-dum-Ching!
Hillary Clinton plays flight attendant on "Hill Force One". It's actually pretty funny:
The story ran on the Wall Street Journal's website, so of course the first three comments implied that a flight attendant was the only job she was qualified for, that she was mocking flight attendants, and that she was advocating political censorship with her "blackberry" remark. Some people have no sense of humor....
Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, and welcome aboard the maiden flight of Hill Force One. My name is Hillary and I am so pleased to have most of you on board,” Clinton said over the loud speaker of a chartered 737. “FAA regulations prohibit the use of any cell phones, BlackBerries, or wireless devices that may be used to transmit a negative story about me.”
[...]
“In a few minutes, I am going to switch off the ‘fasten your seat belt sign.’ However, I’ve learned lately that things can get awfully bumpy when you least expect it — so you might want to keep those seatbelts fastened,” she said, surprising the members of national print and broadcast media on board who at first thought a flight attendant was imitating the typically serious presidential candidate.
“And in the event of an unexpected drop in poll numbers, this plane will be diverted to New Hampshire,” Clinton said, referring to her recent primary victory. “If you look out from the right, you will see an America saddled with tax cuts for the wealthiest and a war without end. If you look out from the left, you will see an America with a strong middle class at home and a strong reputation in the world.”
[...]
Before she passed the mike over to the professionals to give safety announcements, she signed off saying, “Once again, thank you for joining us on Hill Force One. We know you have choices when you fly, and so we are grateful that you chose the plane with the most experienced candidate.”
The story ran on the Wall Street Journal's website, so of course the first three comments implied that a flight attendant was the only job she was qualified for, that she was mocking flight attendants, and that she was advocating political censorship with her "blackberry" remark. Some people have no sense of humor....
Not Even if Clinton Were Running!
Stephen Bainbridge gives Mike Huckabee the ultimate insult: casting him onto his "personal list of candidates for whom I would not vote even if the only alternative is Hillary Clinton (in which case I’ll just sit home and complain)." He joins Mitt Romney in this Republican equivalent of hell.
This is particularly interesting because Prof. Bainbridge is at least somewhat of a social conservative. Then again, he's specifically a Catholic social conservative, and we know they're not Huckabee's strong suit.
This is particularly interesting because Prof. Bainbridge is at least somewhat of a social conservative. Then again, he's specifically a Catholic social conservative, and we know they're not Huckabee's strong suit.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
E-Revolution
Popular outrage over auxilary police beating to death a citizen journalist who was taking pictures of them beating yet other Chinese citizens appears to have motivated the Chinese government to action. The story has raced around Chinese blogs and news sites, and led to at least one official being fired and dozens more under investigation.
This is not the first article I've read along these lines regarding events in China, and it appears that they do at least exert some impact on real-life policy. It seems that the Chinese citizenry is beginning to flex some real muscle in terms of liberalizing their country. It's slow and unstable, and thus far it hasn't put true democracy on the table, but it's real.
This is not the first article I've read along these lines regarding events in China, and it appears that they do at least exert some impact on real-life policy. It seems that the Chinese citizenry is beginning to flex some real muscle in terms of liberalizing their country. It's slow and unstable, and thus far it hasn't put true democracy on the table, but it's real.
Head Scratchers
Interesting digression in class today. We were in small groups taking about whether we, if we were residents of America in the late 18th century, should have voted to ratify the constitution. I pointed out that at least some members of the group didn't have the right to vote at all.
"Yeah," said one, "because I'm a woman, I couldn't vote at all."
A guy responded, "and half of me couldn't vote." The professor raised an eyebrow and asked "are you half woman?"
"No, I'm half Black."
[Pause]
"Though, I guess I'm half woman also."
I never thought of it that way, but he's right, isn't he?
***
In other news of the bizarre, the unnamed law school which admitted me on January 1st, sent me a nice email today, January 16th, informing me that they've received my application and I should expect a decision by April. I'm on the edge of my seat.
Also, neighboring law school of already-admitted U asked to see my fall term grades. This isn't an unreasonable request, except that they already have my fall term grades. I didn't submit my application until my fall term grades were available. If they have any grades at all, said grades include my fall term grades. I sent them a polite-but-puzzled email to that effect, and am waiting for a response.
"Yeah," said one, "because I'm a woman, I couldn't vote at all."
A guy responded, "and half of me couldn't vote." The professor raised an eyebrow and asked "are you half woman?"
"No, I'm half Black."
[Pause]
"Though, I guess I'm half woman also."
I never thought of it that way, but he's right, isn't he?
***
In other news of the bizarre, the unnamed law school which admitted me on January 1st, sent me a nice email today, January 16th, informing me that they've received my application and I should expect a decision by April. I'm on the edge of my seat.
Also, neighboring law school of already-admitted U asked to see my fall term grades. This isn't an unreasonable request, except that they already have my fall term grades. I didn't submit my application until my fall term grades were available. If they have any grades at all, said grades include my fall term grades. I sent them a polite-but-puzzled email to that effect, and am waiting for a response.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Flipper
Noting her unique talent for convincing high-profile Republicans to switch to the side of the light, Ezra Klein pitches Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius as a good VP candidate for Barack Obama. The change motif, the ability to latch on to disaffected moderate Republicans uncomfortable with their party's extreme lurch to the right (e.g., Kathryn Lopez's remark that John McCain's opposition to waterboarding means he's "not one of us"), her status as a female governor from a state not generally seen as Democratic territory, all would synergize very well with an Obama campaign.
All good points, and perhaps controlling. But I do still worry about the narrative it will inevitably create if Barack Obama picks a female running mate. It doesn't matter that Sebelius is supremely qualified, fits well with Obama's message, and tactically comes from a region of the country that balances Obama's ticket (the plains states won't be competitive even with Sebelius on the ballot, but it's important to have a VP candidate that doesn't hail from a deep blue Democratic metropolis). Inevitably, it will be seen as pandering to the female vote which was scorned by Obama defeating Clinton; an "affirmative action" pick.
But then, the more coverage like that we see, the more satisfying it will be when we beat it.
All good points, and perhaps controlling. But I do still worry about the narrative it will inevitably create if Barack Obama picks a female running mate. It doesn't matter that Sebelius is supremely qualified, fits well with Obama's message, and tactically comes from a region of the country that balances Obama's ticket (the plains states won't be competitive even with Sebelius on the ballot, but it's important to have a VP candidate that doesn't hail from a deep blue Democratic metropolis). Inevitably, it will be seen as pandering to the female vote which was scorned by Obama defeating Clinton; an "affirmative action" pick.
But then, the more coverage like that we see, the more satisfying it will be when we beat it.
Obama and Farrakhan
Black political leader Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) once made an interesting remark on Louis Farrakhan. Asked to repudiate some idiotic thing that the Nation of Islam leader said, Rangel responded that the statement in question was "garbage", but at the same time, argued that Black Americans should not "have to carry around their last statement refuting Farrakhan." In other words, the facial assumption should not be that Black leaders must positively disassociate themselves from the clergyman. At the very least, some indication of connection or sympathy to the man should be demonstrated first. Henry Farrell argues that "it’s an implicit double standard, under which black politicians have a higher hurdle to jump before they deserve public trust than white ones," and questions why, say, Hillary Clinton isn't subjected to whispers about her anti-Semitism from the media because she met with Billy Graham.
The topic comes up in reference to a Richard Cohen editorially saying that Obama needs to forcefully condemn his pastor and spiritual adviser, Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., for giving an award in his magazine to Rev. Farrakhan. As David Bernstein points out, the praise was not in passing or even limited to the arguably positive elements of Farrakhan's agenda; rather, it was quite comprehensive and universal. And Dr. Wright, for his part, is no minor player in Obama's life -- indeed, Obama himself has continually stressed his pastor's role in his personal faith journey and his religious and political commitments.
So while there might be a little Kevin Bacon going on here, I don't think Obama necessarily deserves a pass. For one, while some folks are trying to stretch the chain of connection Obama (as Steve Benen put it, "Obama has a personal 'obligation to speak out' ... because his church’s pastor’s daughter’s magazine said something complementary about Farrakhan."), the link really isn't all that attenuated: Wright himself directly complimented Farrakhan in the following words:
And again, Wright is not just Obama's pastor, he's a key member of Obama's circle.
Obama's campaign has already clarified that he disagrees with Wright on this issue. That's good to know, although not particularly surprising -- nobody seriously thought Obama shared Wright's views on Farrakhan. But is that sufficient? I don't know. On the one hand, I'd like a more forceful repudiation, and I don't find the Kevin Bacon defense persuasive here. Here's Obama's statement on the matter:
The reason I don't quite find this enough is twofold; first, because "not a decision with which I agree" is very tame language, and second, because Trumpet Magazine and Rev. Wright's praise for Farrakhan seemed to explicitly go directly beyond his work on ex-offenders.
On the other hand, it's hard for me to put a finger on what I want beyond the secure knowledge that Obama doesn't believe Farrakhan is a good dude and won't act on the belief that he is, and I already have that. And it's not like media critics are falling over themselves to condemn GOP candidates (outside cranks like Ron Paul), or even other Democratic candidates, for their connections to anti-Semitic religious extremists. Farrell's point about the double-standard remains well taken, and I'm not sure what the practical implications of that should be. And as my TMV co-blogger T-Steel aptly reminds us, anyone who thinks that radical Black nationalism or the Nation of Islam will have any meaningful influence in a hypothetical Obama administration is delusional. So isn't this just a tempest in a teacup?
UPDATE: Ed is more defensive of Obama than I am? Man the barricades, I smell apocalypse.
The topic comes up in reference to a Richard Cohen editorially saying that Obama needs to forcefully condemn his pastor and spiritual adviser, Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., for giving an award in his magazine to Rev. Farrakhan. As David Bernstein points out, the praise was not in passing or even limited to the arguably positive elements of Farrakhan's agenda; rather, it was quite comprehensive and universal. And Dr. Wright, for his part, is no minor player in Obama's life -- indeed, Obama himself has continually stressed his pastor's role in his personal faith journey and his religious and political commitments.
So while there might be a little Kevin Bacon going on here, I don't think Obama necessarily deserves a pass. For one, while some folks are trying to stretch the chain of connection Obama (as Steve Benen put it, "Obama has a personal 'obligation to speak out' ... because his church’s pastor’s daughter’s magazine said something complementary about Farrakhan."), the link really isn't all that attenuated: Wright himself directly complimented Farrakhan in the following words:
“When Minister Farrakhan speaks, Black America listens,” says the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, likening the Minister’s influence to the E. F. Hutton commercials of old. “Everybody may not agree with him, but they listen…His depth on analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation is astounding and eye opening. He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest.
“Minister Farrakhan will be remembered as one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African American religious experience,” continues Wright. “His integrity and honesty have secured him a place in history as one of the nation’s most powerful critics. His love for Africa and African American people has made him an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere
about his faith and his purpose.”
And again, Wright is not just Obama's pastor, he's a key member of Obama's circle.
Obama's campaign has already clarified that he disagrees with Wright on this issue. That's good to know, although not particularly surprising -- nobody seriously thought Obama shared Wright's views on Farrakhan. But is that sufficient? I don't know. On the one hand, I'd like a more forceful repudiation, and I don't find the Kevin Bacon defense persuasive here. Here's Obama's statement on the matter:
I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree.
The reason I don't quite find this enough is twofold; first, because "not a decision with which I agree" is very tame language, and second, because Trumpet Magazine and Rev. Wright's praise for Farrakhan seemed to explicitly go directly beyond his work on ex-offenders.
On the other hand, it's hard for me to put a finger on what I want beyond the secure knowledge that Obama doesn't believe Farrakhan is a good dude and won't act on the belief that he is, and I already have that. And it's not like media critics are falling over themselves to condemn GOP candidates (outside cranks like Ron Paul), or even other Democratic candidates, for their connections to anti-Semitic religious extremists. Farrell's point about the double-standard remains well taken, and I'm not sure what the practical implications of that should be. And as my TMV co-blogger T-Steel aptly reminds us, anyone who thinks that radical Black nationalism or the Nation of Islam will have any meaningful influence in a hypothetical Obama administration is delusional. So isn't this just a tempest in a teacup?
UPDATE: Ed is more defensive of Obama than I am? Man the barricades, I smell apocalypse.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Appalachia Ho!
Whenever I talk about racism as a structural phenomenon that disadvantages Black people regardless of class, Appalachia is brought up. Presumably, the point is that White people can struggle too. I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove -- that A --> X doesn't mean that B -/-> X. There are poor White people in Appalachia. They face many disadvantages, most of which would be defended to the death as capitalism-in-motion if the point wasn't to discredit Black people. And some of those same Appalachians have lived their lives and can still conceptualize that, their own disadvantage notwithstanding, racism still operates in America in ways wholly distinct from their own problems.
Appalachia also is trotted out because (to risk the ire of Ambrose Bierce), it is the exception that proves the rule. I am reminded of an SNL skit summarized by Tim Wise:
I could list off all manner of places and locales where Black Americans struggle under the weight of disadvantage. Indeed, I could list any place in America where Black people live (which, it bears mentioning, includes Appalachia), but to be more specific, Anacostia, DC and South Bronx, NY (Urban), Prince George's County, MD (Suburban), and Wilkinson County, MS (Rural). If I mention disadvantage in PG County, it's met with the cry of "Appalachia!" Anacostia? Appalachia! Rural Mississippi? Appalachia! It's a one trick pony, and one that presumes that social scientists are morons to boot. Do these people really think that researchers simply forget the existence of Appalachia when documenting continued racial disparity and discrimination? Indeed, in some ways Appalachia proves the opposite point -- I've seen no indication that the 10% or so Black population in Appalachia is any better off than their White peers. Even in the paradigmatic case of White deprivation, odds are Blacks have them beat on their own turf. Compare that to, say, how Blacks and Whites match-up in New York City, or the DC metro area, or the Mississippi delta.
Wise continues to note that, even when comparing Appalachia to Black people who are nominally "better off", poor Whites still hold advantages:
This isn't to say that race always trumps class. No amount of money can buy off racism, but it can mitigate its effects to the point that they're not as severe a burden as extreme economic deprivation. But race always is in play, no matter how rich or poor you are, and White people are its beneficiaries, no matter how poor they are. Ronald Reagan's "Welfare Queen" was explicit racial imagery. It didn't attack poor people, it attacked poor Black people. Poor Whites (in Appalachia) simply never were attached with the same scorn and opprobrium that their Black classmates took on. The drug war doesn't target meth abuse among White Appalachians. It buries Black crack users in Mott Haven. Appalachians do get screwed in America. But they don't get screwed on account of race. Insofar as race plays into their treatment and social perception, they're advantaged. Which is why shouting "Appalachia!" doesn't cut it as a response to race-based disparity in America today.
Appalachia also is trotted out because (to risk the ire of Ambrose Bierce), it is the exception that proves the rule. I am reminded of an SNL skit summarized by Tim Wise:
The lack of symmetry between a word like honky and a slur such as “nigger” was made apparent in an old Saturday Night Live skit, with Chevy Chase and guest, Richard Pryor.
In the skit, Chase and Pryor face one another and trade off racial epithets during a segment of Weekend Update. Chase calls Pryor a “porch monkey.” Pryor responds with “honky.” Chase ups the ante with “jungle bunny.” Pryor, unable to counter with a more vicious slur against whites, responds with “honky, honky.” Chase then trumps all previous slurs with “nigger,” to which Pryor responds: “dead honky.”
The line elicits laughs all around, but also makes clear, at least implicitly that when it comes to racial antilocution, people of color are limited in the repertoire of slurs they can use against whites, and even the ones of which they can avail themselves sound more comic than hateful. The impact of hearing the antiblack slurs in the skit was of a magnitude unparalleled by hearing Pryor say “honky” over and over again.
I could list off all manner of places and locales where Black Americans struggle under the weight of disadvantage. Indeed, I could list any place in America where Black people live (which, it bears mentioning, includes Appalachia), but to be more specific, Anacostia, DC and South Bronx, NY (Urban), Prince George's County, MD (Suburban), and Wilkinson County, MS (Rural). If I mention disadvantage in PG County, it's met with the cry of "Appalachia!" Anacostia? Appalachia! Rural Mississippi? Appalachia! It's a one trick pony, and one that presumes that social scientists are morons to boot. Do these people really think that researchers simply forget the existence of Appalachia when documenting continued racial disparity and discrimination? Indeed, in some ways Appalachia proves the opposite point -- I've seen no indication that the 10% or so Black population in Appalachia is any better off than their White peers. Even in the paradigmatic case of White deprivation, odds are Blacks have them beat on their own turf. Compare that to, say, how Blacks and Whites match-up in New York City, or the DC metro area, or the Mississippi delta.
Wise continues to note that, even when comparing Appalachia to Black people who are nominally "better off", poor Whites still hold advantages:
Poor whites are rarely typified as pathological, dangerous, lazy or shiftless the way poor blacks are, for example. Nor are they demonized the way poor Latino/a immigrants tend to be.
When politicians want to scapegoat welfare recipients they don’t pick Bubba and Crystal from some Appalachian trailer park; they choose Shawonda Jefferson from the Robert Taylor Homes, with her seven children.
And according to reports from a number of states, ever since so-called welfare reform, white recipients have been treated far better by caseworkers, are less likely to be bumped off the rolls for presumed failure to comply with new regulations, and have been given far more assistance at finding new jobs than their black or brown counterparts.
Poor whites are more likely to have a job, tend to earn more than poor people of color, and are even more likely to own their own home. Indeed, whites with incomes under $13,000 annually are more likely to own their own home than blacks with incomes that are three times higher due to having inherited property.
None of this is to say that poor whites aren’t being screwed eight ways to Sunday by an economic system that relies on their immiseration: they are. But they nonetheless retain a certain “one-up” on equally poor or even somewhat better off people of color thanks to racism.
This isn't to say that race always trumps class. No amount of money can buy off racism, but it can mitigate its effects to the point that they're not as severe a burden as extreme economic deprivation. But race always is in play, no matter how rich or poor you are, and White people are its beneficiaries, no matter how poor they are. Ronald Reagan's "Welfare Queen" was explicit racial imagery. It didn't attack poor people, it attacked poor Black people. Poor Whites (in Appalachia) simply never were attached with the same scorn and opprobrium that their Black classmates took on. The drug war doesn't target meth abuse among White Appalachians. It buries Black crack users in Mott Haven. Appalachians do get screwed in America. But they don't get screwed on account of race. Insofar as race plays into their treatment and social perception, they're advantaged. Which is why shouting "Appalachia!" doesn't cut it as a response to race-based disparity in America today.
Off-the-Cuff Clinton
Hillary Clinton is viewed with wariness by many Democratic voters, because, to quote Robert Farley, "Hillary's reputation is farther left than her policies." But at the same time, I think her instincts are more progressive than her tightly controlled political persona indicates. Consider this off the cuff remark at a Nevada rally that's ignited a firestorm on the right:
That's not the type of statement you expect to hear from Clinton. It's not just that it's unabashedly progressive. It's also aggressive -- her words were guaranteed to prick the skin of any conservative within earshot. Clinton certainly is no stranger to raging conservative, but rarely does she directly provoke the controversy. I doubt she was planning on doing so here -- but she made an instinctive response, and it was more combative and more liberal than we've come to expect from her.
Is it a good political move? I have no idea. But I like the instincts it shows.
Answering a shout from a man in the crowd who said, "I'm married to an illegal woman," Clinton shot back, "No woman is illegal," grinning as the packed Mexican restaurant at which she was speaking exploded in cheers.
That comment, reported in Friday's Review-Journal, caught the attention of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs and the Drudge Report and led to nearly 1,000 angry comments on the newspaper's Web site.
To put the remark into context, Clinton did add, after a pause, "... and no man, either." She then explained her position on immigration.
That's not the type of statement you expect to hear from Clinton. It's not just that it's unabashedly progressive. It's also aggressive -- her words were guaranteed to prick the skin of any conservative within earshot. Clinton certainly is no stranger to raging conservative, but rarely does she directly provoke the controversy. I doubt she was planning on doing so here -- but she made an instinctive response, and it was more combative and more liberal than we've come to expect from her.
Is it a good political move? I have no idea. But I like the instincts it shows.
The "First" Black President
BlackProf contributor and UMD Law Professor Sherrilyn Ifill has a great post up on the nation's "first Black President", Bill Clinton, and his work derailing the campaign of the man who might become the actual First Black President, Barack Obama.
But what I actually liked most was her description of why Clinton was given the title (ironically, but still somewhat substantively) by Toni Morrison in the first place:
The last part is telling. Another Blackprof contributor, GW Law Professor Paul Butler, once wrote an article based along similar themes. Starr is to Clinton as Regular Prosecutors are to Blacks [40 B.C. L. Rev. 705 (1999)] tried to analogize the experience many Black people have with our legal system to President Clinton's situation. It's not that Black people don't commit crimes. It's that they feel like the system is out to get them in ways that stretch way beyond the principles of justice, accountability, culpability, or fairness. They sympathize with Bill Clinton because he seems to, in some small way, engender that same disregard for basic dignity and fairness that they too face as a matter of course.
But what I actually liked most was her description of why Clinton was given the title (ironically, but still somewhat substantively) by Toni Morrison in the first place:
When Toni Morrison called Bill Clinton “the first black president,” I knew what she meant. He had a kind of swagger, a kind of personal charisma and (in comparison to the other candidates on the ticket in 1992) a kind of “hip-ness” that smacked of negritude. Hanging out with Vernon Jordan, having power breakfasts with Ron Brown, clappin’ on beat with the choirs at black churches, Bill seemed like he could really hang. Even more telling, white conservatives hated him like they’d hate a black president. They disrespected him like they would a black president, virtually going through the man’s garbage looking for dirt. And they were obsessed by and jealous of Bill’s sexuality, just as white men have historically been obsessed by the sexuality and prowess of black men.
The last part is telling. Another Blackprof contributor, GW Law Professor Paul Butler, once wrote an article based along similar themes. Starr is to Clinton as Regular Prosecutors are to Blacks [40 B.C. L. Rev. 705 (1999)] tried to analogize the experience many Black people have with our legal system to President Clinton's situation. It's not that Black people don't commit crimes. It's that they feel like the system is out to get them in ways that stretch way beyond the principles of justice, accountability, culpability, or fairness. They sympathize with Bill Clinton because he seems to, in some small way, engender that same disregard for basic dignity and fairness that they too face as a matter of course.
Yoo Know It's True
With regards to the aforementioned suit by Jose Padilla and his mother against former White House attorney John Yoo, Balkinization's David Luban has a fantastic rundown of the legal issues in question.
Nickel version: it's complex, but the WSJ was wrong (and at least a little disingenuous) to simply dismiss the legal merits of Padilla's case out of hand.
Nickel version: it's complex, but the WSJ was wrong (and at least a little disingenuous) to simply dismiss the legal merits of Padilla's case out of hand.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Word of the Day
"Chrestomathy", from the Dallas Morning News' description of Ron Paul's "bigot-grams" as "a crackpot chrestomathy of extreme right-wing conspiracy raving." Chrestomathy, as James Kirchik looked up, is defined as "a collection of selected literary passages, often by one author and esp. from a foreign language."
Thank me when you take your GREs or SATs.
Thank me when you take your GREs or SATs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
