Your daily dose of civil rights and related news
The cellmate of a immigrant who died in US custody described the incredible pain he was in -- and how detention center staffers laughed and said he was faking.
A study finds that minority students are far more likely to be paddled in school.
A noose was found at a Chicago police station, triggering an investigation.
A Las Vegas Review Journal columnist apparently got smoked by his readers when he made the simple factual observation that the ACLU is often at the fore-front defending religious liberty.
The son of illegal immigrants is now a gold medalist in wrestling for the United States Olympic squad. So, who wants to call him an "anchor baby" now?
A transgender women (and former special forces officer) is suing after the Library of Congress withdraw a job offer after finding out she was transitioning from man to woman. I was at the hearing on transgender discrimination where she testified, and she got screwed over badly.
A new museum exhibit helps illustrate how the concept of race has evolved in America over the years.
A former border patrol agent has plead guilty to violating the civil rights of several undocumented immigrants (specifically, pistol-whipping them).
A Yonkers cop has been indicted on civil rights charges stemming from an excessive force complaint.
The State (South Carolina's flagship paper): Outreach to minority contractors and subcontractors is not a technicality.
A majority of New Jersey voters now say they are in favor of same-sex marriages.
USA Today: racial diversity is leading to political diversity in our nation's board rooms.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Where's the Kennedy Hate?
I've never had any major problems with Justice Anthony Kennedy myself, though it seems that others do. Consequently, Brooks Holland finds it odd that Kennedy didn't make either John McCain or Barack Obama's list of current justices they would not have appointed.
I do not find it that odd, personally (Justice Alito's omission from Obama's list is more glaring). Obama stated his opposition to Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas, while McCain rattled off Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter. In other words (again, with Alito as the exception), the respective right and left flanks of the Supreme Court. Politically, they couldn't go express discontent any further towards the center, because it would make them look radical: "Obama/McCain is so extreme on the judiciary, he wants judges even more liberal/conservative than Tony Kennedy, who actually voted to uphold Roe v. Wade/most abortion restrictions."
The only way either could have put ol' Tony on their list would be by himself, as an example of a judge who is too ad hoc or not principled or predictable enough. That would have been a gutsy move, and I'm not sure how it would have played out, but listing a straight left-to-right or right-to-left line of Justices ending in Kennedy would have been an unmitigated disaster for whoever tried to attempt it.
I do not find it that odd, personally (Justice Alito's omission from Obama's list is more glaring). Obama stated his opposition to Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas, while McCain rattled off Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter. In other words (again, with Alito as the exception), the respective right and left flanks of the Supreme Court. Politically, they couldn't go express discontent any further towards the center, because it would make them look radical: "Obama/McCain is so extreme on the judiciary, he wants judges even more liberal/conservative than Tony Kennedy, who actually voted to uphold Roe v. Wade/most abortion restrictions."
The only way either could have put ol' Tony on their list would be by himself, as an example of a judge who is too ad hoc or not principled or predictable enough. That would have been a gutsy move, and I'm not sure how it would have played out, but listing a straight left-to-right or right-to-left line of Justices ending in Kennedy would have been an unmitigated disaster for whoever tried to attempt it.
Bloggers in Motion
Big moves in the blogosphere were announced today. Kevin Drum announced that he will be leaving his perch at the Washington Monthly to take up a new position blogging at Mother Jones. He will be replaced by Steve Benen, who will leave behind his former domain of The Carpetbagger Report, and Hilzoy of Obsidian Wings, who will be cross-posting at both sites.
So get ready to update your bookmarks!
So get ready to update your bookmarks!
Under Their Skin
I'm somewhat of a zealot when it comes to attacking the use of the term "Judeo-Christian", which I think inaccurately lumps together two very different religious traditions. Sometimes my critique is thus on the general usage, and other times it's about particularly inane applications.
John McCain, apparently, likes to use "Judeo-Christian" a lot. And if the Boston Globe's coverage is at all reliable, his usage would seem to fall definitively in the latter category -- warning a New Hampshire crowd that Iranians "sure don't share our Judeo-Christian values."
Yes, let's undercut eight years of trying to persuade Muslims that this isn't a Holy War. As the Globe reports, McCain continually uses "Judeo-Christian" as a synonym for "freedom" or the American way, a conflation which is (a) wrong, (b) excluding of millions of Americans, and (c) obviously won't play well in the Muslim world. If Muslims believe that our quest to "stand up for freedom" is literally a desire to impose our own religious tenets on them, well, let's just say it makes our job a wee bit tougher.
Meanwhile, returning to my general critical stance, the Globe hedges a little bit in the middle of its piece when it says that "The term Judeo-Christian has a benign history," continuing to claim that "It was popularized by liberal groups in the 1920s and 1930s to forestall anti-Semitism."
Now, I'm not sure that's accurate (I seem to recall that the term was actually originated by mocking anti-Semites, but I could be wrong and/or it could have been appropriated later by liberal groups), but that's besides the point. The point is that "Judeo-Christian" is not benign. It represents, if anything, the bad sort of liberalism which conditions equality on uniformity -- in this case, replacing a unique Jewish heritage with insinuations that Judaism is just a sub-species of Christianity. I'm willing to grant that the non-Jewish speakers who promoted "Judeo-Christian" may have had their hearts in the right place, and I'm willing to grant that Jewish speakers who did the same may have seen that strategy is the best available in the face of anti-Semitic oppression. But it remains true that it is a term adopted under duress, and ultimately is not an accurate expression of the history, experience, or interests of the Jewish community. In that way, it is the furthest thing from benign.
John McCain, apparently, likes to use "Judeo-Christian" a lot. And if the Boston Globe's coverage is at all reliable, his usage would seem to fall definitively in the latter category -- warning a New Hampshire crowd that Iranians "sure don't share our Judeo-Christian values."
Yes, let's undercut eight years of trying to persuade Muslims that this isn't a Holy War. As the Globe reports, McCain continually uses "Judeo-Christian" as a synonym for "freedom" or the American way, a conflation which is (a) wrong, (b) excluding of millions of Americans, and (c) obviously won't play well in the Muslim world. If Muslims believe that our quest to "stand up for freedom" is literally a desire to impose our own religious tenets on them, well, let's just say it makes our job a wee bit tougher.
Meanwhile, returning to my general critical stance, the Globe hedges a little bit in the middle of its piece when it says that "The term Judeo-Christian has a benign history," continuing to claim that "It was popularized by liberal groups in the 1920s and 1930s to forestall anti-Semitism."
Now, I'm not sure that's accurate (I seem to recall that the term was actually originated by mocking anti-Semites, but I could be wrong and/or it could have been appropriated later by liberal groups), but that's besides the point. The point is that "Judeo-Christian" is not benign. It represents, if anything, the bad sort of liberalism which conditions equality on uniformity -- in this case, replacing a unique Jewish heritage with insinuations that Judaism is just a sub-species of Christianity. I'm willing to grant that the non-Jewish speakers who promoted "Judeo-Christian" may have had their hearts in the right place, and I'm willing to grant that Jewish speakers who did the same may have seen that strategy is the best available in the face of anti-Semitic oppression. But it remains true that it is a term adopted under duress, and ultimately is not an accurate expression of the history, experience, or interests of the Jewish community. In that way, it is the furthest thing from benign.
Civil Rights Roundup: 08/19/08
Your daily dose of civil rights and related news
The highest court in California has ruled that doctors cannot refuse to treat gay and lesbian patients due to religious objections.
The federal government is starting to push to make sure apartments are handicapped accessible.
A vandalism spree in Staten Island is not being characterized as a hate crime, despite concerns by nervous Latino residents that they were targeted by ethnic hatred.
The number of juveniles being held in adult jails is falling, but there is still some work to be done.
San Francisco's immigrant advisory committee is trying to promote programs aimed at rehabilitating and reintegrating young immigrant felons.
Two witnesses have come forward to contradict a police officer's claim that he was under threat when he shot an unarmed man in Prince George's County. The witnesses say the officer beat the man with a baton prior to shooting him in the torso.
Virginia's efforts to buy more products from small, women, and minority-owned businesses is 1/3 working: the numbers are up for small businesses, but mostly those owned by White men.
An African American church in Fairfax has been defaced with a racial slur.
After spotting anti-Semitic graffiti on a synagogue, a local man stopped his car to paint over the offending material. He refused to be photographed or give his name.
Voting machine problems likely won't be fixed by the November election.
Pro-affirmative action forces are suing to try and keep Ward Connerly's anti-AA proposal off the Arizona ballot.
A New Jersey appeals court has ruled that a gay employee can proceed with a hostile environment harassment suit against his boss after she allegedly called him a "stupid fag." The case is Kwiatkowski v. Merrill Lynch.
The highest court in California has ruled that doctors cannot refuse to treat gay and lesbian patients due to religious objections.
The federal government is starting to push to make sure apartments are handicapped accessible.
A vandalism spree in Staten Island is not being characterized as a hate crime, despite concerns by nervous Latino residents that they were targeted by ethnic hatred.
The number of juveniles being held in adult jails is falling, but there is still some work to be done.
San Francisco's immigrant advisory committee is trying to promote programs aimed at rehabilitating and reintegrating young immigrant felons.
Two witnesses have come forward to contradict a police officer's claim that he was under threat when he shot an unarmed man in Prince George's County. The witnesses say the officer beat the man with a baton prior to shooting him in the torso.
Virginia's efforts to buy more products from small, women, and minority-owned businesses is 1/3 working: the numbers are up for small businesses, but mostly those owned by White men.
An African American church in Fairfax has been defaced with a racial slur.
After spotting anti-Semitic graffiti on a synagogue, a local man stopped his car to paint over the offending material. He refused to be photographed or give his name.
Voting machine problems likely won't be fixed by the November election.
Pro-affirmative action forces are suing to try and keep Ward Connerly's anti-AA proposal off the Arizona ballot.
A New Jersey appeals court has ruled that a gay employee can proceed with a hostile environment harassment suit against his boss after she allegedly called him a "stupid fag." The case is Kwiatkowski v. Merrill Lynch.
Monday, August 18, 2008
The Quota Dodge
So one of the predominant misconceptions out there today about affirmative action is that it's a quota system. This is false, as I have gently reminded CNN, but it still seems to hold a lot of sway over the electorate when debating plans to abolish equal opportunity programs like affirmative action.
But now, civil rights groups fighting to defend affirmative action are test-running a new plan that seeks to neutralize the misconceptions on quotas. Basically, in response to a Ward Connerly backed initiative to ban affirmative action outright, they are attempting to place on the ballot a counter-measure of their own which would prohibit quota or point-based systems (what were outlawed in Bakke and Gratz, respectively), but would otherwise maintain the ability of the state to use affirmative action as upheld by the Supreme Court in cases like Grutter.
Connerly's people are ticked off, saying that it "was created just to confuse and deceive voters." On the one hand, they sort of have a point -- voters may not understand the difference between the two initiatives, and could vote for both on the misunderstanding that both would bar affirmative action (which would set off one hell of a court battle). On the other hand, the whole thing wouldn't be a problem if anti-affirmative action forces weren't aggressively pedelling the lie that racial quotas are still part of modern affirmative action, so my sympathy for their claims of deception is limited. Moreover the counter-initiative does apparently tell voters that it will uphold legal affirmative action programs, which makes it much clearer.
Most importantly, the counter-initiative helps give Colorado voters a genuine choice as to just what they want to exclude from their state. Do they just dislike quota systems, or do they also want to eliminate counseling programs for freshman college women, mentoring for at-risk minority youth, outreach programs to Latino youngsters, and other race and gender-conscious plans which enjoy much broader support? With the knowledge that all sides oppose racial quotas, the debate can proceed in a far more honest and fair manner than what we've heard thus far. And that's worth celebrating.
See also a certain brilliant and sexy blogger.
But now, civil rights groups fighting to defend affirmative action are test-running a new plan that seeks to neutralize the misconceptions on quotas. Basically, in response to a Ward Connerly backed initiative to ban affirmative action outright, they are attempting to place on the ballot a counter-measure of their own which would prohibit quota or point-based systems (what were outlawed in Bakke and Gratz, respectively), but would otherwise maintain the ability of the state to use affirmative action as upheld by the Supreme Court in cases like Grutter.
Connerly's people are ticked off, saying that it "was created just to confuse and deceive voters." On the one hand, they sort of have a point -- voters may not understand the difference between the two initiatives, and could vote for both on the misunderstanding that both would bar affirmative action (which would set off one hell of a court battle). On the other hand, the whole thing wouldn't be a problem if anti-affirmative action forces weren't aggressively pedelling the lie that racial quotas are still part of modern affirmative action, so my sympathy for their claims of deception is limited. Moreover the counter-initiative does apparently tell voters that it will uphold legal affirmative action programs, which makes it much clearer.
Most importantly, the counter-initiative helps give Colorado voters a genuine choice as to just what they want to exclude from their state. Do they just dislike quota systems, or do they also want to eliminate counseling programs for freshman college women, mentoring for at-risk minority youth, outreach programs to Latino youngsters, and other race and gender-conscious plans which enjoy much broader support? With the knowledge that all sides oppose racial quotas, the debate can proceed in a far more honest and fair manner than what we've heard thus far. And that's worth celebrating.
See also a certain brilliant and sexy blogger.
Manhood and M3
Ta-Nehisi Coates has a great post up (boy is that ever redundant) on the long simmering discontent many young Blacks have felt for the Jesse Jackson model of civil rights advocacy. He notes that many Whites have been surprised to see this view coming out of the Black community. And I think he gets at the reason why (albeit obliquely). The center-to-right critique of Jesse Jackson is that it is "whiny"; that it is too demanding of Whites and not focused enough on what Blacks can do for themselves. And wouldn't you know it, but the main Black alternative to that style of politics makes that very same pitch: it also indicts Black leaders whose focus on appealing to Whites is emasculating and, as Coates puts it, "another form of shuffling."
The problem is the folks making that claim are people like Louis Farrakhan. Which explains the popularity of the Million Man March -- but it also explains why White people couldn't really process it as a true alternative to Jackson. Simply put, White people couldn't handle the fact that they wanted African-Americans to become Black Muslims. So they just told themselves that the Million Man March was another instance of Black whiny pleading, missing the point entirely, and carried on as if nothing had happened.
The problem is the folks making that claim are people like Louis Farrakhan. Which explains the popularity of the Million Man March -- but it also explains why White people couldn't really process it as a true alternative to Jackson. Simply put, White people couldn't handle the fact that they wanted African-Americans to become Black Muslims. So they just told themselves that the Million Man March was another instance of Black whiny pleading, missing the point entirely, and carried on as if nothing had happened.
Hang 'em High
I read this piece by a former Guantanamo inmate who we beat, tortured, and abused. And then I want all the higher-ups in the Bush administration who authorized that treatment to be executed for their thuggish brutality and desire to make America into a lawless, authoritarian hellhole. And all the folks who sought to rationalize or defend his treatment should have to face an even worse fate.
They should have to live with themselves.
They should have to live with themselves.
Civil Rights Roundup: 08/18/08
Your daily dose of civil rights and related news
I'm not sure I agree with this reading of Frederick Douglass' career, but the comparison to Obama is interesting nonetheless.
Virginia's new project to use DNA evidence to help exonerate falsely convicted prisoners continues.
The business community is throwing everything it has against the Ledbetter Fair Pay act.
The Kosher plant that was targeted in the Postville raid is having trouble getting itself back up and running.
How can we make it easier for our men and women in uniform to vote while overseas?
ACORN is looking to register Houston's poorest residents as voters.
An CAR native who came to the US legally for military training may be deported back to Africa, where he will likely face execution for being a deserter.
As we get ready to go back to school (or at least some of us do), the AP has a set of interesting educational stats to look at.
An author is suing PETA for their campaign which attempts to analogize animal suffering to slavery. PETA is a tremendously obnoxious organization, but I can't believe this suit has any merit.
The other LCCR (Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under Law) is setting up a South Carolina hot line to which voters can report in election day problems, such as glitchy machines or intimidation.
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who voted against Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court on the grounds that he was insufficiently committed to safeguarding equal opportunity, now thinks that vote was a mistake.
A growing number of students Florida and nationwide are receiving food stamps.
I'm not sure I agree with this reading of Frederick Douglass' career, but the comparison to Obama is interesting nonetheless.
Virginia's new project to use DNA evidence to help exonerate falsely convicted prisoners continues.
The business community is throwing everything it has against the Ledbetter Fair Pay act.
The Kosher plant that was targeted in the Postville raid is having trouble getting itself back up and running.
How can we make it easier for our men and women in uniform to vote while overseas?
ACORN is looking to register Houston's poorest residents as voters.
An CAR native who came to the US legally for military training may be deported back to Africa, where he will likely face execution for being a deserter.
As we get ready to go back to school (or at least some of us do), the AP has a set of interesting educational stats to look at.
An author is suing PETA for their campaign which attempts to analogize animal suffering to slavery. PETA is a tremendously obnoxious organization, but I can't believe this suit has any merit.
The other LCCR (Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under Law) is setting up a South Carolina hot line to which voters can report in election day problems, such as glitchy machines or intimidation.
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who voted against Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court on the grounds that he was insufficiently committed to safeguarding equal opportunity, now thinks that vote was a mistake.
A growing number of students Florida and nationwide are receiving food stamps.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Race and Class in Conjunction
I wrote earlier this week about my misgivings towards the proposal to replace race-based affirmative action with its class-based kin. That post specifically tried to refute the idea that such a move would defuse White resentment over the program. I noted that historically, the motivating force behind such anger was not that it was color conscious or seemed to give Blacks an "unfair" leg up. Rather, it was the simple fact that Blacks benefited that got Whites so riled. That anger remains perfectly consistent even in totally race-neutral programs that are perceived as assisting Black folks (such as welfare).
But in the comments to the TMV version of the post, folks said that the real issue here wasn't about White resentment, but "fairness". The usual suspect -- the wealthy or middle-class Black man getting AA -- was trotted here in support. As one commenter put it:
The underlying assumption here is that race is not an independent source of disadvantage. Blacks might face disadvantage, but that's only because they're more likely to be poor. The argument here is that a wealthy Black man is surely not "disadvantaged" compared to a poor White.
That may be true, though I think it oversimplifies things greatly. Assuming that we could create an "oppression ledger" and add up all one's privileges and disadvantages to figure out who is better off, it may well be that wealthy Blacks are in a better overall situation than poor Whites. In fact, to the extent I think the question makes sense, I'd say it's likely. But all that it shows is that wealth can mask race-based disadvantage -- it doesn't mean it's not present. And there are racial disadvantages that cannot be "bought off", such as the risk of being racially profiled (which may well go up when you transition from shopping in Wal-Mart to Saks). Or perhaps not -- maybe wealthy or better educated Blacks don't feel like the experience significant racial discrimination.* In general, I think different axes of oppression are incommensurable -- it doesn't make sense to me to try and weigh how many dollars of extra income are "worth" being dismissed as "the angry Black man" anytime you get upset about something.
But in any event, it's a flawed comparison. The question -- at least for those of us who support both race and class based affirmative action (as I do) -- is not whether rich Blacks are better off than poor Whites. You got to hold other variables constant. So the real question is, are poor Blacks equal to poor Whites? That's the proposition that advocates of class-based AA superseding its racial cousin have to demonstrate -- and it's a tough claim indeed, because most of the research does not back it up.
A solely class-based affirmative action program would presumably treat equally poor Blacks and Whites the same. But if those two groups are not the same -- if poor Blacks face additional hurdles on account of their race in addition to what they face because they're poor -- then a solely class-based system would treat them unfairly. A system which looks at oppression holistically, by contrast, can accurately measure the relatively deprivations faced by people of all blends of race, class, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, religion, and other identity axes, and would thus seem to be superior to a counterpart that focuses only on race or only on class.
* The polling data we have, however, suggests that wealthy or better educated Blacks do in fact have roughly similar opinions as to the prevelance of racial discrimination compared to their poorer or less educated peers. See Russell K. Robinson, Perceptual Segregation, 108 Colum. L. Rev. 1093, 1112-13 (2008).
But in the comments to the TMV version of the post, folks said that the real issue here wasn't about White resentment, but "fairness". The usual suspect -- the wealthy or middle-class Black man getting AA -- was trotted here in support. As one commenter put it:
A CLASS based affirmative action plan would help anyone who starts out unfortunately low on the totem poll, even if they happen to be white, and exclude people with more than enough means of their own, even if they happen to be black.
The underlying assumption here is that race is not an independent source of disadvantage. Blacks might face disadvantage, but that's only because they're more likely to be poor. The argument here is that a wealthy Black man is surely not "disadvantaged" compared to a poor White.
That may be true, though I think it oversimplifies things greatly. Assuming that we could create an "oppression ledger" and add up all one's privileges and disadvantages to figure out who is better off, it may well be that wealthy Blacks are in a better overall situation than poor Whites. In fact, to the extent I think the question makes sense, I'd say it's likely. But all that it shows is that wealth can mask race-based disadvantage -- it doesn't mean it's not present. And there are racial disadvantages that cannot be "bought off", such as the risk of being racially profiled (which may well go up when you transition from shopping in Wal-Mart to Saks). Or perhaps not -- maybe wealthy or better educated Blacks don't feel like the experience significant racial discrimination.* In general, I think different axes of oppression are incommensurable -- it doesn't make sense to me to try and weigh how many dollars of extra income are "worth" being dismissed as "the angry Black man" anytime you get upset about something.
But in any event, it's a flawed comparison. The question -- at least for those of us who support both race and class based affirmative action (as I do) -- is not whether rich Blacks are better off than poor Whites. You got to hold other variables constant. So the real question is, are poor Blacks equal to poor Whites? That's the proposition that advocates of class-based AA superseding its racial cousin have to demonstrate -- and it's a tough claim indeed, because most of the research does not back it up.
A solely class-based affirmative action program would presumably treat equally poor Blacks and Whites the same. But if those two groups are not the same -- if poor Blacks face additional hurdles on account of their race in addition to what they face because they're poor -- then a solely class-based system would treat them unfairly. A system which looks at oppression holistically, by contrast, can accurately measure the relatively deprivations faced by people of all blends of race, class, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, religion, and other identity axes, and would thus seem to be superior to a counterpart that focuses only on race or only on class.
* The polling data we have, however, suggests that wealthy or better educated Blacks do in fact have roughly similar opinions as to the prevelance of racial discrimination compared to their poorer or less educated peers. See Russell K. Robinson, Perceptual Segregation, 108 Colum. L. Rev. 1093, 1112-13 (2008).
Off Base
I love how the second half of this Lisa Schiffrin post manages to make an unwarranted assertion about West African immigrants (are they predominantly illegal?), totally misunderstand capitalism, and manages to be shocked that African immigrants would greatly prefer Barack Obama to John McCain. It's a lot of dumb packed into a single paragraph.
Via Balloon Juice.
Via Balloon Juice.
Hypatia Issue Dedicated to Iris Marion Young
"In Honor of Iris Marion Young: Theorist and Practitioner of Justice."
It's available here. Unfortunately, it does not appear to be available to the public (you need to be hooked up to an academic network with a subscription to MUSE).
It's available here. Unfortunately, it does not appear to be available to the public (you need to be hooked up to an academic network with a subscription to MUSE).
Purple Lightsabers
This is a great cautionary tale (it also reminds me of the famous vibrating quidditch broom story).
Yes, Oh God Yes!
I find good posts on the subject of European Jews and Israel as "colonial" to be way to exciting for my own good. Seriously though, Matt's post is precisely what I would say on the subject. The aggressive effort to identify Jews as merely a particularly mistreated European ethnic group (a) totally ignore the existence of non-European Jews, who make up a majority of Israel's Jewish population, and (b) ignore how European Jews thought of themselves, which by and large was not as a sub-group within the larger European community. The post Matt is critiquing also obliterates any sense of Jewish agency, as it documents our history solely with regards to what Europeans wished to do with us, once they could no longer find a "use" for Jews. Our own thoughts and desires are total non-factors.
Civil Rights Roundup: 08/15/08
Your daily dose of civil rights and related news
The family of a gay California teenager who was slain by a classmate is suing the school, saying that it endangered their son by allowing him to wear feminine clothing and makeup.
Solid move by Tim Kaine: He issued a pardon to a local woman who had lived in the US since she was 7, who was facing deportation for a minor crime she committed 12 years ago. The move is giving her at least a one year reprieve from her deportation order, allowing her more time for appeals.
The Post cautions Americans that an enforcement-only approach to illegal immigration will not work forever.
Also from the Post editorial page, a reminder to not forget about New Orleans.
An elementary school principal in Texas is under investigation after allegedly asking that her grandchild be placed in a classroom with "nice white neighborhood boys."
A former state legislator known for his "tough on crime" positions has stirred ire in his local community because he is sheltering former sex offenders who, thanks to ever tightening laws, cannot find places to live.
Rhode Island has lost over half the membership of its Commission on Hispanic Affairs after 11 resigned in protest over increased crackdowns on illegal immigration.
The Florida branch of the United States Civil Rights Commission has come out in favor of automatic restoration of the civil rights of released felons.
Ward Connerly is dodging Nebraska's campaign finance laws requiring donor disclosure by creating a shell organization to funnel the money through.
Black student test scores in San Francisco are lagging way behind their White peers.
Could a Major League Soccer squad do anything more foolish than harass its Latino fans? That's like a hockey team trying to drive out Canadians.
Jurors have convicted to prison guards on civil rights charges after they allegedly allowed inmates to rape a teenager in prison overnight for traffic violations.
The family of a gay California teenager who was slain by a classmate is suing the school, saying that it endangered their son by allowing him to wear feminine clothing and makeup.
Solid move by Tim Kaine: He issued a pardon to a local woman who had lived in the US since she was 7, who was facing deportation for a minor crime she committed 12 years ago. The move is giving her at least a one year reprieve from her deportation order, allowing her more time for appeals.
The Post cautions Americans that an enforcement-only approach to illegal immigration will not work forever.
Also from the Post editorial page, a reminder to not forget about New Orleans.
An elementary school principal in Texas is under investigation after allegedly asking that her grandchild be placed in a classroom with "nice white neighborhood boys."
A former state legislator known for his "tough on crime" positions has stirred ire in his local community because he is sheltering former sex offenders who, thanks to ever tightening laws, cannot find places to live.
Rhode Island has lost over half the membership of its Commission on Hispanic Affairs after 11 resigned in protest over increased crackdowns on illegal immigration.
The Florida branch of the United States Civil Rights Commission has come out in favor of automatic restoration of the civil rights of released felons.
Ward Connerly is dodging Nebraska's campaign finance laws requiring donor disclosure by creating a shell organization to funnel the money through.
Black student test scores in San Francisco are lagging way behind their White peers.
Could a Major League Soccer squad do anything more foolish than harass its Latino fans? That's like a hockey team trying to drive out Canadians.
Jurors have convicted to prison guards on civil rights charges after they allegedly allowed inmates to rape a teenager in prison overnight for traffic violations.
300,000
Yesterday morning, my blog recorded its 300,000th career hit. Thank you all for visiting, and I look forward to many more days of fruitful blogging and fascinating comments.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Must Love Dogs
I do not love dogs. In fact, I harbor a serious dislike of them. I don't know why -- I assume I had some bad experience when I was four that I'm hard at work suppressing -- but I've always been strongly anti-dog.
Now, many of you out there are pro-dog. Some of you even own one. Which is fine. I can usually tolerate a dog for awhile, though I prefer if you keep it outside or in a different room when I'm around. Just don't tell me this:
"Oh, but he's so friendly!"
Or any variation thereof.
Dogs, to my knowledge, express friendliness by jumping, pawing, and licking at you. To those of us already suspicious of your pet, it is not a perk when you tell us that she enjoys pressing her fang-filled mouth, or any other part of its predatory, wolf-descended body, close to my person. That is precisely what we are trying to avoid.
Thank you for your consideration.
Now, many of you out there are pro-dog. Some of you even own one. Which is fine. I can usually tolerate a dog for awhile, though I prefer if you keep it outside or in a different room when I'm around. Just don't tell me this:
"Oh, but he's so friendly!"
Or any variation thereof.
Dogs, to my knowledge, express friendliness by jumping, pawing, and licking at you. To those of us already suspicious of your pet, it is not a perk when you tell us that she enjoys pressing her fang-filled mouth, or any other part of its predatory, wolf-descended body, close to my person. That is precisely what we are trying to avoid.
Thank you for your consideration.
Another Bite at the Accountability Apple
The Center for Constitutional Rights has announced that the 2nd Circuit will rehear the case of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who we sent off to be tortured for awhile in Syria. The court announced the rehearing sua sponte, that is, on its own initiative without any input from either party. This is exceedingly rare, and a good sign for Arar, who lost before a three-judge panel in his quest to hold somebody accountable for our flagrant violation of American and international law by way of torturing random innocents.
So best of luck to him. Also, fun fact! When I first read this story, I confused it with an entirely different case where we picked up some random guy and tortured him, who also tried unsuccessfully to get some accountability out of the government.
And that, my friends, is a statement I wish I never could say with regards to the United States of America.
So best of luck to him. Also, fun fact! When I first read this story, I confused it with an entirely different case where we picked up some random guy and tortured him, who also tried unsuccessfully to get some accountability out of the government.
And that, my friends, is a statement I wish I never could say with regards to the United States of America.
Civil Rights Roundup: 08/14/08
Your daily dose of civil rights and related news
The census estimates that the US will become majority-minority by 2042. My projection is that many currently non-White ethnic groups will become or will be absorbed into Whiteness to keep the numbers up.
ICE has detained 42 suspected illegal immigrants working at Dulles Airport, stressing that their is no indication of terrorist activity.
An Egyptian Muslim women writes in the Washington Post: If Saudi Arabia doesn't allow women on its Olympics teams by 2012, tell them to not bother showing up in London.
A dispute over whether a school can prohibit its students from wearing the confederate flag has moved to an (all-White) jury.
A former convict turned inmate's rights advocate is proving remarkably adept at slowing down one of President Bush's District Court nominees (the chief lawyer with Corrections Corporation of America).
A Federal Judge said he was "shocked and disturbed" upon reading reports about mistreatment in the case of an immigrant detainee who recently died in ICE custody.
Unions are asking the FEC to investigate whether Wal-Mart violated the law when it allegedly attempted to persuade its workers to vote Republican.
Up to 600,000 Ohio voters are at serious risk of being purged from the voting rolls.
Can electronic voting be trusted?
Several Thai workers who were held as slave laborers in California have now become US citizens.
When Fox wants to talk free speech, it knows exactly who to turn to: anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers!
Marcia McCormick of the Workplace Prof blog has some good thoughts up about Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson's (R-TX) alternative to the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
The brewing conflict in the North Forest Independent School District took another turn.
A Mexican man was shot by a US officer on the US/Mexico border during a confrontation.
Nevada judges mete out harsher sentences to Black defendants than Whites. The study, however, does not take into account prior criminal activity.
The census estimates that the US will become majority-minority by 2042. My projection is that many currently non-White ethnic groups will become or will be absorbed into Whiteness to keep the numbers up.
ICE has detained 42 suspected illegal immigrants working at Dulles Airport, stressing that their is no indication of terrorist activity.
An Egyptian Muslim women writes in the Washington Post: If Saudi Arabia doesn't allow women on its Olympics teams by 2012, tell them to not bother showing up in London.
A dispute over whether a school can prohibit its students from wearing the confederate flag has moved to an (all-White) jury.
A former convict turned inmate's rights advocate is proving remarkably adept at slowing down one of President Bush's District Court nominees (the chief lawyer with Corrections Corporation of America).
A Federal Judge said he was "shocked and disturbed" upon reading reports about mistreatment in the case of an immigrant detainee who recently died in ICE custody.
Unions are asking the FEC to investigate whether Wal-Mart violated the law when it allegedly attempted to persuade its workers to vote Republican.
Up to 600,000 Ohio voters are at serious risk of being purged from the voting rolls.
Can electronic voting be trusted?
Several Thai workers who were held as slave laborers in California have now become US citizens.
When Fox wants to talk free speech, it knows exactly who to turn to: anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers!
Marcia McCormick of the Workplace Prof blog has some good thoughts up about Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson's (R-TX) alternative to the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
The brewing conflict in the North Forest Independent School District took another turn.
A Mexican man was shot by a US officer on the US/Mexico border during a confrontation.
Nevada judges mete out harsher sentences to Black defendants than Whites. The study, however, does not take into account prior criminal activity.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Open 'er Up
The Supreme Court, as most observers now know, made a big screw-up in Kennedy v. Louisiana (banning the death penalty for child rape). It (along with all other parties in the case, it must be said) missed a change in military law which authorized the death penalty for child rape -- which is significant because much of the majority opinion was based around a supposed evolving consensus away from imposing capital punishment for that crime. And as a result, Louisiana attorneys are asking the Supreme Court to reopen the case, since this error may of substantively affected the outcome of the case.
Meanwhile, Anthony Kennedy, as most Court observers recall, based a significant part of his opinion Carhart II (upholding a federal partial birth abortion ban) on the proposition that "some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained. Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow." This was, at the time, a statement wholly without evidence, and today we learn that it is in all relevant respects false. Women who have abortions are in fact no more likely to face mental health problems than women who deliver. And since giving birth actually is more physically risky for women than is abortion, it is exceedingly difficult to honestly justify the partial-birth abortion ban on the grounds of protecting women's health.
So, is anybody saying that Carhart should be reopened?
Of course, there are differences between the cases. Kennedy involved an elementary and clear-cut error of fact, while Carhart's error was with respect to a complicated empirical question. On the other hand, the mistake in Kennedy was only one point in an array of cases making the majority's claim. In Carhart, by contrast, there was never any evidence for Justice Kennedy's argument in the first place, a point the new study puts a big exclamation point on. Of course, that might also indicate that Justice Kennedy would have made his argument no matter what empirical data was presented before him, making this most recent study quite irrelevant.
Oh well. I thought it was interesting, anyway.
Incidentally, my view as to whether the death penalty for child rapists is justified mirrors Matthew Yglesias' pretty exactly.
Meanwhile, Anthony Kennedy, as most Court observers recall, based a significant part of his opinion Carhart II (upholding a federal partial birth abortion ban) on the proposition that "some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained. Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow." This was, at the time, a statement wholly without evidence, and today we learn that it is in all relevant respects false. Women who have abortions are in fact no more likely to face mental health problems than women who deliver. And since giving birth actually is more physically risky for women than is abortion, it is exceedingly difficult to honestly justify the partial-birth abortion ban on the grounds of protecting women's health.
So, is anybody saying that Carhart should be reopened?
Of course, there are differences between the cases. Kennedy involved an elementary and clear-cut error of fact, while Carhart's error was with respect to a complicated empirical question. On the other hand, the mistake in Kennedy was only one point in an array of cases making the majority's claim. In Carhart, by contrast, there was never any evidence for Justice Kennedy's argument in the first place, a point the new study puts a big exclamation point on. Of course, that might also indicate that Justice Kennedy would have made his argument no matter what empirical data was presented before him, making this most recent study quite irrelevant.
Oh well. I thought it was interesting, anyway.
Incidentally, my view as to whether the death penalty for child rapists is justified mirrors Matthew Yglesias' pretty exactly.
Class Doesn't Stay That Way
In an editorial for the Washington Post, Peter Beinart thinks that Barack Obama could put the issue of race away for good if he came out for replacing race-based affirmative action with class-based programs.
I have no problem with class-based affirmative action, though I think it should supplement, not replace, its racial peer, as both are independent sources of disadvantage and both are independent sources of diversity. But even the premise is wrong here. The reason affirmative action inspires disdain isn't because it leaves "deserving" Whites out. The reason is simply that it is a program whose primary beneficiaries are seen to be Black people.
It is well established that even class-based programs which are tagged as predominantly helping Blacks have significant struggles maintaining their popularity. Welfare is a great example of this -- it is, of course, the paradigmatic class-based assistance program, and yet it is just as controversial and (more importantly) just as racialized as affirmative action is (Welfare Queens, anyone?). Affirmative action is particularly vulnerable to this, because many of the arguments deployed against it now work just as well against the class-based variety (that we should "just judge everyone based on merit" applies as much to the poor as it does to Blacks).
Advocates for class-based AA say that it would still help many Blacks, because Blacks are disproportionately concentrated amongst the extreme poor. But if that's the case, then I doubt you'll see any serious dissipation in the antipathy many Whites feel for affirmative action. The causal force is White jealousy of Black attainment. At the end of the day, the procedures don't matter all that much.
See also, Ta-Nehisi Coates: "There's always a good reason to be a racist."
***
Frederick Douglass, "The Future of the Colored Race", in Negro Social and Political Thought: 1850-1920, Howard Brotz, ed. (New York: Basic Books 1966), pp. 308-310 (originally published May 1886), 309.
I have no problem with class-based affirmative action, though I think it should supplement, not replace, its racial peer, as both are independent sources of disadvantage and both are independent sources of diversity. But even the premise is wrong here. The reason affirmative action inspires disdain isn't because it leaves "deserving" Whites out. The reason is simply that it is a program whose primary beneficiaries are seen to be Black people.
It is well established that even class-based programs which are tagged as predominantly helping Blacks have significant struggles maintaining their popularity. Welfare is a great example of this -- it is, of course, the paradigmatic class-based assistance program, and yet it is just as controversial and (more importantly) just as racialized as affirmative action is (Welfare Queens, anyone?). Affirmative action is particularly vulnerable to this, because many of the arguments deployed against it now work just as well against the class-based variety (that we should "just judge everyone based on merit" applies as much to the poor as it does to Blacks).
Advocates for class-based AA say that it would still help many Blacks, because Blacks are disproportionately concentrated amongst the extreme poor. But if that's the case, then I doubt you'll see any serious dissipation in the antipathy many Whites feel for affirmative action. The causal force is White jealousy of Black attainment. At the end of the day, the procedures don't matter all that much.
See also, Ta-Nehisi Coates: "There's always a good reason to be a racist."
***
"Sometimes I have feared that, in some wild paroxysm of rage, the white race, forgetful of the claims of humanity and the precepts of the Christian religion, will proceed to slaughter the Negro in wholesale, as some of that race have attempted to slaughter Chinamen, and as it has been done in detail in some districts of the Southern States. The grounds of this fear, however, have in some measure decreased since the Negro has largely disappeared from the arena of Southern politics, and has betaken himself to industrial pursuits and the acquisition of wealth and education, though even here, if over-prosperous, he is likely to excite a dangerous antagonism; for the white people do not easily tolerate the presence among them of a race more prosperous than themselves. The Negro as a poor ignorant creature does not contradict the race pride of the white race. He is more a source of amusement to that race than an object of resentment. Malignant resistance is augmented as he approaches the plane occupied by the white race, and yet I think that the resistance will gradually yield to the pressure of wealth, education, and high character.
My strongest conviction as to the future of the Negro therefore is, that he will not be expatriated nor annihilated, nor will he forever remain a separate and distinct race from the people around him, but that he will be absorbed assimilated, and will only appear finally, as the Phoenicians now appear on the shores of the Shannon, in the features of a blended race.
Frederick Douglass, "The Future of the Colored Race", in Negro Social and Political Thought: 1850-1920, Howard Brotz, ed. (New York: Basic Books 1966), pp. 308-310 (originally published May 1886), 309.
Civil Rights Roundup: 08/13/08
Your daily dose of civil rights and related news
Gay and lesbian Latina/os are finding it more difficult to claim asylum due to improving tolerance in their home nations.
A Virginia court has given the state's first "writ of innocence" after new evidence cleared a man incarcerated on a gun charge. Virginia has until recently been perhaps the most aggressive state at seeking to suppress the admission of exculpatory evidence after conviction.
The NAACP is frustrated with the pace over an investigation about an inmate's death in a PG County jail.
Peter Beinart thinks that Obama can and should neutralize the race issue by calling for a replacement of race-based affirmative action with class-based systems.
The WaPo wants to enhance privacy protections for laptops crossing the border.
The Houston Chronicle reports on immigrants who prepare for immigration raids like the rest of us might prepare for a natural disaster. Ironically enough, ICE supports these preparations.
The Orthodox Jewish community has rightfully come under fire for its tepid response to the massive abuses of worker's rights reported at the Postville Kosher meatpacking plant.
One of the Jena Six defendants will not be returning there for school, instead attending a Connecticut boarding school.
Yet another study dispells the link between abortion and mental illness. I wonder how many copies Justice Kennedy has received in the mail?
The US government is working to reduce the time it takes for citizenship applications to be processed.
Riots are brewing in Malyasia over a proposal to curb advantages for the majority (but poorer) Malay ethnic group.
Real Clear Politics interviews a large swath of America's experts on race and asks them how they think the Obama campaign will affect their field of study. It's a really great article.
I've got a better deal for Ramesh Ponnuru: Americans stop being racist, and the Republican Party might legitimately be able to appeal to more than just White folks.
Prop. 209 may have banned efforts by California universities to reach out to minority students. But it can't stop student volunteers from taking matters into their own hands.
Gay tourism is on the rise in Israel, which does not thrill some of its more conservative, religious elements.
Denver voters have passed a law which would target suspected illegal immigrant drivers.
The Seattle Times asks: Are White Voters Telling the Truth when they say they'll vote for a Black candidate?
Gay and lesbian Latina/os are finding it more difficult to claim asylum due to improving tolerance in their home nations.
A Virginia court has given the state's first "writ of innocence" after new evidence cleared a man incarcerated on a gun charge. Virginia has until recently been perhaps the most aggressive state at seeking to suppress the admission of exculpatory evidence after conviction.
The NAACP is frustrated with the pace over an investigation about an inmate's death in a PG County jail.
Peter Beinart thinks that Obama can and should neutralize the race issue by calling for a replacement of race-based affirmative action with class-based systems.
The WaPo wants to enhance privacy protections for laptops crossing the border.
The Houston Chronicle reports on immigrants who prepare for immigration raids like the rest of us might prepare for a natural disaster. Ironically enough, ICE supports these preparations.
The Orthodox Jewish community has rightfully come under fire for its tepid response to the massive abuses of worker's rights reported at the Postville Kosher meatpacking plant.
One of the Jena Six defendants will not be returning there for school, instead attending a Connecticut boarding school.
Yet another study dispells the link between abortion and mental illness. I wonder how many copies Justice Kennedy has received in the mail?
The US government is working to reduce the time it takes for citizenship applications to be processed.
Riots are brewing in Malyasia over a proposal to curb advantages for the majority (but poorer) Malay ethnic group.
Real Clear Politics interviews a large swath of America's experts on race and asks them how they think the Obama campaign will affect their field of study. It's a really great article.
I've got a better deal for Ramesh Ponnuru: Americans stop being racist, and the Republican Party might legitimately be able to appeal to more than just White folks.
Prop. 209 may have banned efforts by California universities to reach out to minority students. But it can't stop student volunteers from taking matters into their own hands.
Gay tourism is on the rise in Israel, which does not thrill some of its more conservative, religious elements.
Denver voters have passed a law which would target suspected illegal immigrant drivers.
The Seattle Times asks: Are White Voters Telling the Truth when they say they'll vote for a Black candidate?
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Slogan Time
Matt Yglesias thinks that Attorney General Michael Mukasey has inadvertently given us the true motto of the Bush administration: "not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime."
(Yes, PG, I know that there are civil violations which are violations of the law but not crimes. But the laws these folks are accused of violating are in criminal code, and Mukasey knows it).
(Yes, PG, I know that there are civil violations which are violations of the law but not crimes. But the laws these folks are accused of violating are in criminal code, and Mukasey knows it).
Why Indeed?
Michael Dorf asks "If the Government Plans to Hold Salim Hamdan Indefinitely, What Was the Point of Putting Him on Trial?"
It's a good question. Unfortunately, Dorf isn't cynical enough to give us what I suspect is the real answer.
It's quite simple. If Hamdan was found guilty, and given a long sentence, then the Bush administration could a) do what it had always wanted to do, but now with a greater veneer of legitimacy and b) retroactively claim that the results justified their original due process-free determinations under which Hamdan was held in the first place.
But Hamdan was not given a long sentence, and was acquitted of the most serious charges. So where does that leave the Bush administration? In the same position it was before we started: defending extra-legal indefinite detention. It's not really any loss, except now they have the advantage of being able to call Hamdan a convicted war criminal and the disadvantage of having a determinate metric (a timeline!) that can be waved in their face.
It's a good question. Unfortunately, Dorf isn't cynical enough to give us what I suspect is the real answer.
It's quite simple. If Hamdan was found guilty, and given a long sentence, then the Bush administration could a) do what it had always wanted to do, but now with a greater veneer of legitimacy and b) retroactively claim that the results justified their original due process-free determinations under which Hamdan was held in the first place.
But Hamdan was not given a long sentence, and was acquitted of the most serious charges. So where does that leave the Bush administration? In the same position it was before we started: defending extra-legal indefinite detention. It's not really any loss, except now they have the advantage of being able to call Hamdan a convicted war criminal and the disadvantage of having a determinate metric (a timeline!) that can be waved in their face.
Sound Skeptical to You?
John McCain has now personally apologized to a Black reporter who was kicked out of one his events earlier this month. But judging by this piece by a Palm Beach Post reporter (who also was removed when she tried to stand up for her colleague), I'm not convinced these reporters are placated:
Emphasis added. But that "somehow" does seem quite revealing, no?
When asked if race had anything to do with Price's removal, the Arizona senator said, "I have no idea, sir. It had nothing to do with my staff or anyone who is employed with me. ... I think it was a very bad thing that happened."
McCain cited his experience as a prisoner of war to somehow explain why he is a proponent of civil rights.
"I know what it is like to be deprived of your rights. I know what it's like to be in confinement. I know what it's like to be beaten. I know what it's like. So I think I have a special appreciation that maybe a lot of people don't have for what it's like to be deprived of your rights. ... We all improve over the years and we learn and we grow," McCain told Price according to his report.
Emphasis added. But that "somehow" does seem quite revealing, no?
Civil Rights Roundup: 08/12/08
Your daily dose of civil rights and related news
An auto parts store in Houston is being sued by the EEOC for tolerating harassment of Black employees and passing over them for promotions.
PETA wants to put ads up on the Mexican side of the border fence, warning potential Mexican immigrants about the effects of fatty, meat-filled diets.
The ACLU is not thrilled with Hartford for imposing a juvenile curfew.
A Florida cop who was caught on tape beating a suspect has resigned.
Conservative groups in California will likely try to oust the current Chief Justice of the state supreme court over his role in the state's landmark gay rights ruling.
Hartford passes an ordinance prohibiting police from asking about immigration status; as well as arresting people solely for immigration violations.
A huge wave of immigrants who applied for citizenship last year should be naturalized in time to vote in this election.
I think I've come across this case before, but the Florida court which quashed a principal's outrageously anti-gay policies made the right move.
Innocent Black women shot by police; victim blamed. Not only is that title not hyperbole, but it goes downhill from there. Sickening.
On that same case, local Black leaders are furious that the officer was acquitted and are pressing for federal charges to be brought.
Word is that some of the workers building the border fence might not be documented.
A Greenville teenager beaten by a since-fired police officer has filed a civil rights lawsuit.
Florida continues to make strides towards restoring the civil rights of ex-offenders.
Three Hispanic families are suing over a Kansas school district's policy of requiring students to only speak in English while on school grounds (what if they're taking a foreign language?).
It's hard out there for a wheel chair bound individual.
Minneapolis immigrant teens, citing the importance of education, are lobbying to increase educational opportunities (particularly routes to college) for their peers.
Notaries are giving bad legal advice to immigrants (which they're not licensed to do anyway), resulting in screw-ups.
Town divided over brutal murder of immigrant, the Chicago Tribune reports. Presumably, the division is between its human beings and its psychopaths.
An auto parts store in Houston is being sued by the EEOC for tolerating harassment of Black employees and passing over them for promotions.
PETA wants to put ads up on the Mexican side of the border fence, warning potential Mexican immigrants about the effects of fatty, meat-filled diets.
The ACLU is not thrilled with Hartford for imposing a juvenile curfew.
A Florida cop who was caught on tape beating a suspect has resigned.
Conservative groups in California will likely try to oust the current Chief Justice of the state supreme court over his role in the state's landmark gay rights ruling.
Hartford passes an ordinance prohibiting police from asking about immigration status; as well as arresting people solely for immigration violations.
A huge wave of immigrants who applied for citizenship last year should be naturalized in time to vote in this election.
I think I've come across this case before, but the Florida court which quashed a principal's outrageously anti-gay policies made the right move.
Innocent Black women shot by police; victim blamed. Not only is that title not hyperbole, but it goes downhill from there. Sickening.
On that same case, local Black leaders are furious that the officer was acquitted and are pressing for federal charges to be brought.
Word is that some of the workers building the border fence might not be documented.
A Greenville teenager beaten by a since-fired police officer has filed a civil rights lawsuit.
Florida continues to make strides towards restoring the civil rights of ex-offenders.
Three Hispanic families are suing over a Kansas school district's policy of requiring students to only speak in English while on school grounds (what if they're taking a foreign language?).
It's hard out there for a wheel chair bound individual.
Minneapolis immigrant teens, citing the importance of education, are lobbying to increase educational opportunities (particularly routes to college) for their peers.
Notaries are giving bad legal advice to immigrants (which they're not licensed to do anyway), resulting in screw-ups.
Town divided over brutal murder of immigrant, the Chicago Tribune reports. Presumably, the division is between its human beings and its psychopaths.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Things That Suck
Sending a paper you're really excited about to a teacher you really respect and admire, and hearing back that she thinks it's awful. Not that it "needs work"; not full of hard-nosed but ultimately helpful suggestions for improvement. Simply, telling you that it is an abysmal piece of work and she hopes you never tell anyone she had anything to do with you misguided attempt to "inflict" your writing on the subject.*
I'm not blaming anyone -- maybe the paper deserved it. But it's still definitely falls into the category of things that suck.
* A quick addendum. Obviously, part of this is that this person is no longer my teacher, and thus no longer has any obligation to help me "improve" an idea she thinks is just plain bad. That's a shift in role that undoubtedly take some getting used to (by me, not her) -- though it's not like I was totally unaware of it while I was reading her comments. So again, the point isn't to lash out; nothing "wrong" happened here. But that doesn't make it any easier to hear, no?
I'm not blaming anyone -- maybe the paper deserved it. But it's still definitely falls into the category of things that suck.
* A quick addendum. Obviously, part of this is that this person is no longer my teacher, and thus no longer has any obligation to help me "improve" an idea she thinks is just plain bad. That's a shift in role that undoubtedly take some getting used to (by me, not her) -- though it's not like I was totally unaware of it while I was reading her comments. So again, the point isn't to lash out; nothing "wrong" happened here. But that doesn't make it any easier to hear, no?
Fear the Verb Tense
California court rules that Prop. 8 can be described as "Changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry"; on the grounds that "There is nothing inherently argumentative or prejudicial about transitive verbs."
Via Amp.
Via Amp.
Civil Rights Roundup: 08/11/08
Your daily dose of civil rights and related news
A nice article about attempting to register ex-felons to vote.
Self-deportation has few takers. Really?
The Boston Globe: Being multi-lingual is a good thing, not a threat to American values.
The Santaria, a religion which has been at the center of more than a few free exercise cases over the past several decades, are being targeted by Florida officials again.
The changing demographics of a historically Black school district (Hispanics are rising in prominence) is creating tension in Texas.
The Houston Chronicle has a good article about how today's students' activism is less about protests and more about action.
The Chronicle also accurately lays out the consequences of the Bush administration's proposed conscience exemption to contraceptive distribution.
Religion clause expert Marci Hamiliton has a critique up of Judge Michael McConnell's recent Colorado free exercise case, about which I blogged upon here.
AlterNet (which I suspect may be too optimistic) claims that the movement to abolish SuperMax prisons and solitary confinement is gaining ground.
Wounded and homeless vets are at a significant risk of disenfranchisement.
A New York Times editorial by the Connecticut Secretary of State also urges the VA to do more to help veterans get registered to vote.
It's nice to know that tradition still exists in some parts of America. In this case, the tradition of hard-core Christian anti-Semitism.
"Say it loud, I'm Black and I'm proud!" turned 40 this past weekend.
The incomparable Patricia Williams has a stellar article in New York Magazine talking about how we "don't talk about" race.
Contemplations on being mixed race in America.
A nice article about attempting to register ex-felons to vote.
Self-deportation has few takers. Really?
The Boston Globe: Being multi-lingual is a good thing, not a threat to American values.
The Santaria, a religion which has been at the center of more than a few free exercise cases over the past several decades, are being targeted by Florida officials again.
The changing demographics of a historically Black school district (Hispanics are rising in prominence) is creating tension in Texas.
The Houston Chronicle has a good article about how today's students' activism is less about protests and more about action.
The Chronicle also accurately lays out the consequences of the Bush administration's proposed conscience exemption to contraceptive distribution.
Religion clause expert Marci Hamiliton has a critique up of Judge Michael McConnell's recent Colorado free exercise case, about which I blogged upon here.
AlterNet (which I suspect may be too optimistic) claims that the movement to abolish SuperMax prisons and solitary confinement is gaining ground.
Wounded and homeless vets are at a significant risk of disenfranchisement.
A New York Times editorial by the Connecticut Secretary of State also urges the VA to do more to help veterans get registered to vote.
It's nice to know that tradition still exists in some parts of America. In this case, the tradition of hard-core Christian anti-Semitism.
"Say it loud, I'm Black and I'm proud!" turned 40 this past weekend.
The incomparable Patricia Williams has a stellar article in New York Magazine talking about how we "don't talk about" race.
Contemplations on being mixed race in America.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Quote of the Day
From David Benkof, an Orthodox Jewish man who has ceased having same-sex relations due to religious reasons:
Benkof is very hostile towards what Jewish movements there are affiliated with the so-called "ex-gay" movement (a label Benkof firmly rejects). Indeed, he basically views them as either front groups for Christian evangelism or irreligious projects of clueless secular Jews.
I, of course, would rather see Judaism evolve so that people do not see a conflict between being Jewish and being gay. But Benkof's more "traditional" outlook is still worth reading.
Many outspoken Jewish supporters of the "ex-gay" movement are non-observant Jews. One Jewish woman who wanted to encourage me to become "ex-gay" sent me an e-mail - on Shabbat - to suggest some reparative therapy Web sites. I wrote her back to let her know that (and I confirmed this with an Orthodox rabbi) if she had to violate one commandment, it would have been better for her to engage in lesbian sex than for her to e-mail me on Shabbat. She became very hostile. No serious practicing Jew would let such people supervise their kosher meat, so why should we trust them with Jews struggling with same-sex attractions?
Benkof is very hostile towards what Jewish movements there are affiliated with the so-called "ex-gay" movement (a label Benkof firmly rejects). Indeed, he basically views them as either front groups for Christian evangelism or irreligious projects of clueless secular Jews.
I, of course, would rather see Judaism evolve so that people do not see a conflict between being Jewish and being gay. But Benkof's more "traditional" outlook is still worth reading.
Saturday, August 09, 2008
God Willing
One the things that's really got me hung up about the Hamdan trial is that he really did not seem to be one of the bad guys. He always maintained he was nothing but a menial worker, not a part of al-Qaeda's terrorist network, and has expressed (to my ears, anyway) genuine shock and sadness when he learned of the 9/11 attacks and al-Qaeda's other operations.
Ken Gude's Democracy Arsenal's post, commenting on this NYT article, really gets to the heart of that. Here's the passage from the Times that Gude quotes, an exchange between Hamdan and the military judge who presided over the trial that convicted him of war crimes:
And here's Gude's comments:
I can't help but think that the lenient sentence Hamdan received (only five months after time served) is related to the remorse he clearly feels, as well as the minor role he played in al-Qaeda's infrastructure (and, I'd hope, the fact that the trial against him was a mockery of the judicial system). But even still, that very fact makes his treatment that much more nightmarish. His case is the one that we all feared when these extra-legal detentions and procedurally deficient trials were established: someone who clearly does not deserve the label "war criminal" attached to him, but who may never see freedom because the mechanics by which he's imprisoned are so tied to America's defective political process.
I'm not making much sense; it's late, and I'm opining from the hip. But for whatever reason -- and I can't explain it -- Hamdan's case has always been one that tugged at my heartstrings. He deserved better. We deserved better. The military officers (who by all accounts were quite professional) deserved better than to be drawn into this farce.
Ken Gude's Democracy Arsenal's post, commenting on this NYT article, really gets to the heart of that. Here's the passage from the Times that Gude quotes, an exchange between Hamdan and the military judge who presided over the trial that convicted him of war crimes:
"It was a sorry or sad thing to see innocent people killed," he said as he leaned on the defense table and gestured gently at the military tribunal here. "I personally present my apologies to them if anything what I did have caused them pain."
As he left the sparsely attended courtroom in the hilltop courtroom here, Mr. Hamdan, who at times has shown a mischievous sense of humor, raised his arms and said a good-natured "bye, bye" to the small group.
During pretrial proceedings, Mr. Hamdan, a father of two daughters in Yemen, and the judge, a career Navy lawyer, had regularly exchanged smiles and, on occasion, chats. Before he left the bench, Judge Allred, said a few parting words to the man he had gotten to know in a most unusual way.
"Mr. Hamdan," Judge Allred said, "I hope the day comes that you are able to return to your wife and daughters and your country."
"God willing," Mr. Hamdan said in the rudimentary English he picked up while in American custody.
"Insh-allah," said Judge Allred, repeating the same phrase in Arabic.
And here's Gude's comments:
Remember, this is an exchange between a man who had just been found guilty of war crimes and the judge who had presided over the trial that reached that conclusion. Hamdan appears to be genuinely remorseful about the very small role he played in al Qaeda. Allred shows real compassion for a man obviously caught up in something well beyond anything he ever intended. They then exchange the blessings of God in each other's language.
This moment could have had real power. This moment is what America is. This is the America I know. If it had occurred 5 years ago in a US court it would have sent an incredibly powerful message to the world that we are strong and we are just, and yes, Osama bin Laden murdered 3,000 Americans but he utterly failed to destroy our great country and all that it stands for.
But instead, we are arguing about whether the Pentagon will detain Hamdan indefinitely after his sentence has been completed. What a waste.
I can't help but think that the lenient sentence Hamdan received (only five months after time served) is related to the remorse he clearly feels, as well as the minor role he played in al-Qaeda's infrastructure (and, I'd hope, the fact that the trial against him was a mockery of the judicial system). But even still, that very fact makes his treatment that much more nightmarish. His case is the one that we all feared when these extra-legal detentions and procedurally deficient trials were established: someone who clearly does not deserve the label "war criminal" attached to him, but who may never see freedom because the mechanics by which he's imprisoned are so tied to America's defective political process.
I'm not making much sense; it's late, and I'm opining from the hip. But for whatever reason -- and I can't explain it -- Hamdan's case has always been one that tugged at my heartstrings. He deserved better. We deserved better. The military officers (who by all accounts were quite professional) deserved better than to be drawn into this farce.
Friday, August 08, 2008
Apply Now!
Before it got lost in the archive muck, I wanted to link to this post by the Field Negro documenting what he would do if he actually owned that "race card" everybody assumes Black people have.
Let the Haters Hate
To the Memphis Electorate:
My two posts on the subject obviously made clear that I was concerned about the outcome of the race between Steve Cohen and Nikki Tinker. Tinker had run a demagogic and anti-Semitic campaign that was beneath everyone's dignity. But, paranoid as I am, I was worried that it would make inroads.
I, and everyone else who even considered you would fall for that crap, owe you all an apology.
I said in one of my posts that a resounding victory for Cohen would represent a tremendous vote of confidence in the Black/Jewish relationship. With Cohen's crushing 60 point win, I'd say you all more than delivered.
An early internal poll for Steve Cohen had him up 63-11 over Tinker. Normally, you'd expect a primary race to tighten (and normally you'd expect internal polls to be overly optimistic). The final tally was Cohen 79, Tinker 19. Cohen actually expanded his lead as the campaign went on -- a clear single that Memphis voters rejected and repudiated Tinker's scandalous campaign strategy.
The Skeptical Brotha writes:
He's right, and I should have known better. There have been several Southern Black representatives that have, for various reasons, earned the ire of the Jewish community: Cynthia McKinney and Earl Hilliard being the highest profile. In both cases, the Black community responded by electing representatives that are truly representative of people of all backgrounds. Their political friendship -- across all issues -- has been unassailable. Yet, I let fear and stereotyping blind me to that history. I will try not to make this mistake again.
My two posts on the subject obviously made clear that I was concerned about the outcome of the race between Steve Cohen and Nikki Tinker. Tinker had run a demagogic and anti-Semitic campaign that was beneath everyone's dignity. But, paranoid as I am, I was worried that it would make inroads.
I, and everyone else who even considered you would fall for that crap, owe you all an apology.
I said in one of my posts that a resounding victory for Cohen would represent a tremendous vote of confidence in the Black/Jewish relationship. With Cohen's crushing 60 point win, I'd say you all more than delivered.
An early internal poll for Steve Cohen had him up 63-11 over Tinker. Normally, you'd expect a primary race to tighten (and normally you'd expect internal polls to be overly optimistic). The final tally was Cohen 79, Tinker 19. Cohen actually expanded his lead as the campaign went on -- a clear single that Memphis voters rejected and repudiated Tinker's scandalous campaign strategy.
The Skeptical Brotha writes:
Black voters, especially those of us in the South, have always been able to judge our politicians by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. We’re never given credit for having that ability when racially polarizing tactics are injected into a political race by one of us, but we’ve always had it and always will. Now Mr. Cohen can go back to the halls of power confident in the knowledge that he has unequivocally earned the trust of a majority of his black constituents. In order to keep it, he must continue to provide the same common sense, progressive leadership that has been known as his trademark.
He's right, and I should have known better. There have been several Southern Black representatives that have, for various reasons, earned the ire of the Jewish community: Cynthia McKinney and Earl Hilliard being the highest profile. In both cases, the Black community responded by electing representatives that are truly representative of people of all backgrounds. Their political friendship -- across all issues -- has been unassailable. Yet, I let fear and stereotyping blind me to that history. I will try not to make this mistake again.
Civil Rights Roundup: 08/08/08
Your daily dose of civil rights and related news
Texas has executed another illegal immigrant in a case with similar fact patterns to Medellin.
...And the Washington Post asks why Texas hates America.
A federal judge ruled that the government owes Indian tribes $455 million for mismanaged oil and gas revenues -- far less than the $47 billion they were seeking.
Even White folks can "play the race card" if they dare corroborate an accusation of racism.
A step in the right direction: Two Texas Republican judges sought the endorsement of local GLBT groups.
A 14-year old boy who is being charged with a hate crime in the slaying of a gay classmate has plead not guilty.
The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is looking like it'll be one of the biggest battles between corporations and unions we've seen in years.
An Army recruiter threatened a high school student with jail if he picked going to college over joining the military. The kid had signed a non-binding contract to enlist, but then changed his mind.
Dueling "civil rights" initiatives related to affirmative action are on the ballot in Colorado. My organization, the LCCR, is sponsoring Initiative 82, which would prohibit quota or points systems, but would allow affirmative action to remain to remedy discrimination. It's counterpart, Amendment 46, would dismantle affirmative action outright.
A civil rights attorney is suing after a NYPD cop handcuffed a ten-year old girl for not taking her seat fast enough on the school bus.
A Law.com columnist says companies must bolster their anti-retaliation policies. He focuses more on the changing legal landscape which makes companies more vulnerable to retaliation, whereas I'd prefer to focus on the fact that retaliation is just plain wrong, but whatever is persuasive to your audience, I guess.
The LA Times comes out hard against the California ballot initiative which would strip gay couples of their right to marry.
Robert Koehler: Obama's "dollar bill" remark "violated the cardinal rule of the Era of Forgetting [about racism]: He talked about it."
Texas has executed another illegal immigrant in a case with similar fact patterns to Medellin.
...And the Washington Post asks why Texas hates America.
A federal judge ruled that the government owes Indian tribes $455 million for mismanaged oil and gas revenues -- far less than the $47 billion they were seeking.
Even White folks can "play the race card" if they dare corroborate an accusation of racism.
A step in the right direction: Two Texas Republican judges sought the endorsement of local GLBT groups.
A 14-year old boy who is being charged with a hate crime in the slaying of a gay classmate has plead not guilty.
The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is looking like it'll be one of the biggest battles between corporations and unions we've seen in years.
An Army recruiter threatened a high school student with jail if he picked going to college over joining the military. The kid had signed a non-binding contract to enlist, but then changed his mind.
Dueling "civil rights" initiatives related to affirmative action are on the ballot in Colorado. My organization, the LCCR, is sponsoring Initiative 82, which would prohibit quota or points systems, but would allow affirmative action to remain to remedy discrimination. It's counterpart, Amendment 46, would dismantle affirmative action outright.
A civil rights attorney is suing after a NYPD cop handcuffed a ten-year old girl for not taking her seat fast enough on the school bus.
A Law.com columnist says companies must bolster their anti-retaliation policies. He focuses more on the changing legal landscape which makes companies more vulnerable to retaliation, whereas I'd prefer to focus on the fact that retaliation is just plain wrong, but whatever is persuasive to your audience, I guess.
The LA Times comes out hard against the California ballot initiative which would strip gay couples of their right to marry.
Robert Koehler: Obama's "dollar bill" remark "violated the cardinal rule of the Era of Forgetting [about racism]: He talked about it."
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Cohen/Tinker Tonight
I blogged yesterday on the Steve Cohen/Nikki Tinker race in the Tennessee 9th, and one of my undertones was the way it could impact the Black/Jewish relationship. That's unfortunate, because one data point should not a relationship make. But the flip side is that (also, perhaps, unfairly) a Cohen win would be a tremendous vote of confidence for that relationship. Objectively speaking, there is no reason to think that Black voters are actually all that inclined to respond to race-baiting or anti-Semitic dog whistles loudspeakers. But we get nervous, nonetheless. A smashing Cohen victory will help assuage those concerns.
Again, I'm not saying it makes sense. I just think that's the way it is.
Resultshere here; Swing State Project will keep you posted.
Again, I'm not saying it makes sense. I just think that's the way it is.
Results
Change in Israel
Feministe guest-blogger Sam has a great post up on efforts by ultra-orthodox Israelis to impose severe gender restrictive norms in public spaces (especially bus routes). He She entitles the post "I can't believe it's not the Taliban!"
In my relatively short life, I've identified with a huge variety of Israeli political parties (in rough chronological order): Meretz, Likud, Labor, Shinui, and Kadima (the current ruling, centrist party). Shinui, which translates to "change", was at the time roughly between the center-left Labor and the center-right Likud, which appealed to me for at least two reasons: my already demonstrated indecision with regards to Israeli politics, and my then ascendant courtship with centrism. Moreover, Shinui's focus was not on security issues but on another matter of Israeli affairs which is very important to me: religious discrimination (particularly, but not exclusively, against less-observant Jews. Such as myself.). Specifically, it campaigned vigorously against the institutionalization of Orthodox Judaism as the sole acceptable form of Judaism in Israel, and generally for a more secular, universalist state.
Though at one point it was the third largest party in Israel, Shinui is now basically defunct (Kadima occupied its centrist niche), but it's mission continues to be important. I do think that Israel ought to remain a Jewish state, but that Judaism must be tempered by a respect for the human rights and equality of all citizens: including women, including gays and lesbians, and including people of all religious backgrounds. The effort by the ultra-Orthodox to turn Israel into a theocratic state is incredibly dangerous from the standpoint of the global Jewish community, for it both undermines Israel's moral legitimacy and threatens Israel's role as a haven for all Jews, not just the preferred castes of them.
American Jews have, from the beginning, been important in envisioning and enacting the path by which Israel will travel. It is critically important that we maintain that mission and take every step we can to check the growing power of Israel's own religious right.
Oh, and for the record: Attempting to segregate and subordinate women is the exact opposite of Rosa Parks' legacy. Just to clarify.
In my relatively short life, I've identified with a huge variety of Israeli political parties (in rough chronological order): Meretz, Likud, Labor, Shinui, and Kadima (the current ruling, centrist party). Shinui, which translates to "change", was at the time roughly between the center-left Labor and the center-right Likud, which appealed to me for at least two reasons: my already demonstrated indecision with regards to Israeli politics, and my then ascendant courtship with centrism. Moreover, Shinui's focus was not on security issues but on another matter of Israeli affairs which is very important to me: religious discrimination (particularly, but not exclusively, against less-observant Jews. Such as myself.). Specifically, it campaigned vigorously against the institutionalization of Orthodox Judaism as the sole acceptable form of Judaism in Israel, and generally for a more secular, universalist state.
Though at one point it was the third largest party in Israel, Shinui is now basically defunct (Kadima occupied its centrist niche), but it's mission continues to be important. I do think that Israel ought to remain a Jewish state, but that Judaism must be tempered by a respect for the human rights and equality of all citizens: including women, including gays and lesbians, and including people of all religious backgrounds. The effort by the ultra-Orthodox to turn Israel into a theocratic state is incredibly dangerous from the standpoint of the global Jewish community, for it both undermines Israel's moral legitimacy and threatens Israel's role as a haven for all Jews, not just the preferred castes of them.
American Jews have, from the beginning, been important in envisioning and enacting the path by which Israel will travel. It is critically important that we maintain that mission and take every step we can to check the growing power of Israel's own religious right.
Oh, and for the record: Attempting to segregate and subordinate women is the exact opposite of Rosa Parks' legacy. Just to clarify.
Civil Rights Roundup: 08/07/08
Your daily dose of civil rights and related news
In several DC area counties, the surge in Hispanic immigration is making minority children the under-five majority.
The Washington Post calls it a "drug bust gone awry", but from my readings its unfortunately hardly out of the ordinary.
Liberal bishops in the Episcopalian Church will continue to ordain gay clergy, and their conservative counterparts will continue to threaten to secede.
A fund has been set up to pay the bonds of immigrants caught up in ICE raids.
The 7th Circuit has rejected taxpayer's standing to sue in an Establishment Clause case focusing on the VA's incorporation of religion in its treatment programs for veterans.
After an all-White jury acquitted a White police office who killed a Black woman (while she was holding her baby in her arms), the Justice Department says it is considering filing federal civil rights charges against him.
The admissions policies of a Hawaii school which favors native Hawaiians is back in court.
Hans von Spakavosky has been subpoenaed in connection to the ongoing investigation over the Bush administration's politicization of the Justice Department.
A Seattle area school district discriminated against disabled children, the Department of Education found.
In another edition of bad headline, good article, a New Jersey law prohibiting distribution of materials near election centers has been upheld against a challenge by the ACLU. The ACLU wanted to give hand outs outlining who can vote and what to do if your vote is denied as voters entered their polling places.
The ACLU has released a report which it says indicates racial profiling is going on amongst Louisiana police officers.
The Wall Street Journal reports on nursing homes evicted "frail and ill" residents.
Finally, the DOJ issued this release on Tuesday: "Former Jackson, Mississippi Police Officer Sentenced to Life Imprisonment for Sexually Assaulting a Detainee."
In several DC area counties, the surge in Hispanic immigration is making minority children the under-five majority.
The Washington Post calls it a "drug bust gone awry", but from my readings its unfortunately hardly out of the ordinary.
Liberal bishops in the Episcopalian Church will continue to ordain gay clergy, and their conservative counterparts will continue to threaten to secede.
A fund has been set up to pay the bonds of immigrants caught up in ICE raids.
The 7th Circuit has rejected taxpayer's standing to sue in an Establishment Clause case focusing on the VA's incorporation of religion in its treatment programs for veterans.
After an all-White jury acquitted a White police office who killed a Black woman (while she was holding her baby in her arms), the Justice Department says it is considering filing federal civil rights charges against him.
The admissions policies of a Hawaii school which favors native Hawaiians is back in court.
Hans von Spakavosky has been subpoenaed in connection to the ongoing investigation over the Bush administration's politicization of the Justice Department.
A Seattle area school district discriminated against disabled children, the Department of Education found.
In another edition of bad headline, good article, a New Jersey law prohibiting distribution of materials near election centers has been upheld against a challenge by the ACLU. The ACLU wanted to give hand outs outlining who can vote and what to do if your vote is denied as voters entered their polling places.
The ACLU has released a report which it says indicates racial profiling is going on amongst Louisiana police officers.
The Wall Street Journal reports on nursing homes evicted "frail and ill" residents.
Finally, the DOJ issued this release on Tuesday: "Former Jackson, Mississippi Police Officer Sentenced to Life Imprisonment for Sexually Assaulting a Detainee."
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
The Tennessee Ninth
Nikki Tinker is challenging incumbent Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) in the Democratic primary in the Tennessee 9th. And she sounds like she's deliberately trying to set back Black/Jewish relations for decades. The Tennessee 9th is approximately 60% African-American, but it is currently represented by White Jew Rep. Steve Cohen, who took over the seat from Harold Ford when the latter ran for Senate in 2006. Cohen has gained some measure of fame for seeking to become the first White member of the Congressional Black Caucus, and more recently, for securing passage of an official House apology for slavery and Jim Crow.
The primary challenge, on its own, is not the problem -- that's Tinker's prerogative. But the campaign she's running is absolutely vicious and slimy. Early on in the campaign a flier was distributed by an out-of-district pastor saying that "Steve Cohen and the Jews HATE Jesus." Tinker was slow to condemn the statements, sparking condemnation from local press, but she did deny (and I believe her) that the materials had no connection to her campaign.
But now she's decided that she'll take matters into her own hands. Her last two ads (the primary is tomorrow) have both sought to create and exploit identity tensions. In this one, she ties Cohen (winner of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference Award of Excellence for Public Service) to the KKK. Memphis' largest paper characterized it as "despicable" and said it was "appealing to our worst instincts." The paper said it was part of general trend by "Tinker supporters ... framing Thursday's election as a black-white contest or a division between African-Americans and Jews."
And to drive that point home, Tinker released another ad lambesting Cohen for voting against school prayer even "While he's in our churches" (emphasis definitely in the original). Swing State Project said it was a "Nice anti-Semitic dog-whistle... although it seems the Tinker campaign accidentally grabbed the bullhorn instead of the dog-whistle on the way out the door." And TPM said it "just might be the nastiest, most race-baiting (and Jew-baiting) ad of the entire cycle."
I have not seen any polling in the district; but the vibe I'm getting is that Cohen is a narrow favorite to keep his seat. If he loses though, it will "start a conversation", to say the least, and one I wish that we did not need to have.
The primary challenge, on its own, is not the problem -- that's Tinker's prerogative. But the campaign she's running is absolutely vicious and slimy. Early on in the campaign a flier was distributed by an out-of-district pastor saying that "Steve Cohen and the Jews HATE Jesus." Tinker was slow to condemn the statements, sparking condemnation from local press, but she did deny (and I believe her) that the materials had no connection to her campaign.
But now she's decided that she'll take matters into her own hands. Her last two ads (the primary is tomorrow) have both sought to create and exploit identity tensions. In this one, she ties Cohen (winner of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference Award of Excellence for Public Service) to the KKK. Memphis' largest paper characterized it as "despicable" and said it was "appealing to our worst instincts." The paper said it was part of general trend by "Tinker supporters ... framing Thursday's election as a black-white contest or a division between African-Americans and Jews."
And to drive that point home, Tinker released another ad lambesting Cohen for voting against school prayer even "While he's in our churches" (emphasis definitely in the original). Swing State Project said it was a "Nice anti-Semitic dog-whistle... although it seems the Tinker campaign accidentally grabbed the bullhorn instead of the dog-whistle on the way out the door." And TPM said it "just might be the nastiest, most race-baiting (and Jew-baiting) ad of the entire cycle."
I have not seen any polling in the district; but the vibe I'm getting is that Cohen is a narrow favorite to keep his seat. If he loses though, it will "start a conversation", to say the least, and one I wish that we did not need to have.
Civil Rights Roundup: 08/06/08
Your daily dose of civil rights and related news
Almost forget today, kids ... I took the day off from work to catch up on some law school related paperwork, and my mind assumed it was a weekend.
It's tough being a woman of color in the military.
Chicago is starting to detain Hispanics during traffic stops on suspicion of being illegal immigrants, apparently in violation of local law.
Cry me a river of tears: Prince Williams County's aggressive campaign to undertake immigration enforcement on its own is costing more money than expected.
Two members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus have written an op-ed protesting the Bush administration's policies in the wake of the Postville raid.
The McCain campaign has apologized after a Black reporter was apparently singled out and tossed from one of his events.
Mr. Medellin has been executed. Hopefully, the damage to the Vienna Convention will not be too great.
The Atlanta police force is facing a sex discrimination lawsuit from a former high ranking officer.
Wal-Mart is furiously denying that it told its employees to vote against Democrats (which would have probably been illegal).
A local resident has stepped up to pay the tuition of a high school valedictorian who was facing deportation due to his father's immigration problems.
The original judge on the Jena 6 case has already been removed, and now defense attorneys are trying to follow suit with the prosecutor.
A poultry plant with a large contingent of Muslim workers has replaced Labor day with a Muslim holiday as one of the worker's eight official days off. Despite the fact that all the principals (management and the union) seem to be happy with it, the union president (who is Jewish) is getting a lot of negative feedback from outsiders who think that its anti-American. Or something.
The EEOC has found evidence that a Louisville Sheriff violated the civil rights of female employees through sexual harassment.
Bad headline, good story about the battle to register Black voters as Obama makes a play for North Carolina.
Chicago-area parents are alleging that the practice of holding classes in trailers is abetting racial segregation.
The NYT asks: Is Obama the End of Black Politics?
Almost forget today, kids ... I took the day off from work to catch up on some law school related paperwork, and my mind assumed it was a weekend.
It's tough being a woman of color in the military.
Chicago is starting to detain Hispanics during traffic stops on suspicion of being illegal immigrants, apparently in violation of local law.
Cry me a river of tears: Prince Williams County's aggressive campaign to undertake immigration enforcement on its own is costing more money than expected.
Two members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus have written an op-ed protesting the Bush administration's policies in the wake of the Postville raid.
The McCain campaign has apologized after a Black reporter was apparently singled out and tossed from one of his events.
Mr. Medellin has been executed. Hopefully, the damage to the Vienna Convention will not be too great.
The Atlanta police force is facing a sex discrimination lawsuit from a former high ranking officer.
Wal-Mart is furiously denying that it told its employees to vote against Democrats (which would have probably been illegal).
A local resident has stepped up to pay the tuition of a high school valedictorian who was facing deportation due to his father's immigration problems.
The original judge on the Jena 6 case has already been removed, and now defense attorneys are trying to follow suit with the prosecutor.
A poultry plant with a large contingent of Muslim workers has replaced Labor day with a Muslim holiday as one of the worker's eight official days off. Despite the fact that all the principals (management and the union) seem to be happy with it, the union president (who is Jewish) is getting a lot of negative feedback from outsiders who think that its anti-American. Or something.
The EEOC has found evidence that a Louisville Sheriff violated the civil rights of female employees through sexual harassment.
Bad headline, good story about the battle to register Black voters as Obama makes a play for North Carolina.
Chicago-area parents are alleging that the practice of holding classes in trailers is abetting racial segregation.
The NYT asks: Is Obama the End of Black Politics?
Also in Feeling Good
Anti-abortion maniac Phil Kline lost again in Kansas. In a Kansas Republican primary, no less. Feddie's last minute appeal is not enough, given the Kansas GOP's fractured state between its moderates and its, well, its crazy people.
Chalk another point up for the moderate wing!
Chalk another point up for the moderate wing!
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
I'm a Grammatical!
After a long, hard day, there are few pleasures greater than watching a good systematic analysis of how a really annoying person is an idiot.
Civil Rights Roundup: 08/05/08
Your daily dose of civil rights and related news
The WaPo opines against the appalling state of DC's child services department.
The Feds are pursuing a case against a unrecognized Indian tribe which falsely told immigrants that by purchasing tribal membership, they would become American citizens.
The 5th Circuit is preparing to hear whether Texas' moment of silence law is an unconstitutional cover for school prayer.
Texas continues to struggle with getting good teachers to teach at poorer and urban school districts.
Immigrant children get less exercise than other American kids.
AIDS among migrant workers are being neglected during their detention by American authorities.
A death row inmate in Ohio claims that his weight will prevent the lethal injection protocol from working on him, subjecting him to an "excruciating" death.
AlterNet has a good story on the continued tensions between radical feminists and transgender women.
The title is a bit bizarre, but this article on unionizing immigrants is very interesting.
The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles has denied a request by Jose Ernesto Medellin for a 240-day reprieve or commutation of his sentence, despite his lawyer's pleas that the case seriously threatens American interests abroad by undermining the Vienna Convention.
Even if California voters approve Proposition 8, which would overturn the state's gay marriage ruling, it would not apply retroactively.
The NYCLU wants to know the race of suspects shot at by the NYPD.
Casinos rule in Las Vegas, and it seems they can use their privileged position to get out of liability for gross safety violations.
The WaPo opines against the appalling state of DC's child services department.
The Feds are pursuing a case against a unrecognized Indian tribe which falsely told immigrants that by purchasing tribal membership, they would become American citizens.
The 5th Circuit is preparing to hear whether Texas' moment of silence law is an unconstitutional cover for school prayer.
Texas continues to struggle with getting good teachers to teach at poorer and urban school districts.
Immigrant children get less exercise than other American kids.
AIDS among migrant workers are being neglected during their detention by American authorities.
A death row inmate in Ohio claims that his weight will prevent the lethal injection protocol from working on him, subjecting him to an "excruciating" death.
AlterNet has a good story on the continued tensions between radical feminists and transgender women.
The title is a bit bizarre, but this article on unionizing immigrants is very interesting.
The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles has denied a request by Jose Ernesto Medellin for a 240-day reprieve or commutation of his sentence, despite his lawyer's pleas that the case seriously threatens American interests abroad by undermining the Vienna Convention.
Even if California voters approve Proposition 8, which would overturn the state's gay marriage ruling, it would not apply retroactively.
The NYCLU wants to know the race of suspects shot at by the NYPD.
Casinos rule in Las Vegas, and it seems they can use their privileged position to get out of liability for gross safety violations.
Monday, August 04, 2008
The Most Segregated Hour
CNN has a very good piece up on the continuing segregation in America's churches. It is surprisingly good about noting that the pressure comes from both sides -- while Whites do tend to flee congregations where there is any substantial Black population (particularly if they start wielding power), Blacks also like their churches to be a "refuge" from the slings and arrows of racism they face daily in America.
It's worth a read.
It's worth a read.
Why So Serious?
Regarding the left's reaction to the John McCain Spears/Hilton ad, Bob Somerby says we screwed it up:
To which Kevin Drum responds:
But (and maybe I'm misreading Somerby and/or Drum here) I don't think those two instincts are necessarily in opposition. One can use humor in quite vicious ways, and I think Somerby is right that McCain's ad opened himself up to that sort of attack. Certainly, one can dismiss certain types of attacks as frivolous and thus "laugh them off", and that might be an instinct that Democrats were hurt by in 2004. But I think a hard response that focuses on the utter triviality of McCain's argument here might (might!) have worked, and certainly isn't philosophically inconsistent with a policy of "hit back hard, hit back often."
Instead of laughing at the ad and saying it showed that McCain is a fly-weight, we did what we most love to do — we started a fight about race, casting ourselves as the high-minded party and squealing, shrieking, complaining and yelping about McCain's misconduct.
To which Kevin Drum responds:
Bob's post gets at a critical point: one of the lessons that liberals learned from the 2004 election is that laughing it off is never the right reaction. No matter the subject, the right response is to hit back often and hard, and the oftener and harder the better. That, I think, was behind the reaction to the Britney/Paris ad.
But (and maybe I'm misreading Somerby and/or Drum here) I don't think those two instincts are necessarily in opposition. One can use humor in quite vicious ways, and I think Somerby is right that McCain's ad opened himself up to that sort of attack. Certainly, one can dismiss certain types of attacks as frivolous and thus "laugh them off", and that might be an instinct that Democrats were hurt by in 2004. But I think a hard response that focuses on the utter triviality of McCain's argument here might (might!) have worked, and certainly isn't philosophically inconsistent with a policy of "hit back hard, hit back often."
Flight Risk
Feminist Law Profs points out an Arkansas case just handed down by the 8th Circuit: Nelson v. Correctional Medical Services, 2008 WL 2777423 (8th Cir. 2008). Reversing the district court, the court held that shackling a pregnant woman while she's in labor does not constitute an 8th amendment violation. The practice has been criticized by several academic commentators as well as Amnesty International.
The court relied heavily on Haslar v. Megerman, 104 F.3d 178 (8th Cir. 1997), a previous case dealing with shackling an inmate during medical treatment (albeit not with a pregnant woman). In that case, the 8th circuit upheld the shackling of a "virtually comatose" inmate who later suffered permanent leg damage as a result of the shackles being kept too tight as his leg swelled up. The court justified this result by arguing that
This case does seem inline with that precedent, but only because both cases use an abstract justification (the flight risk of an inmate -- admittedly reasonable most of the time) in situations where it is woefully inadequate (neither pregnant women in labor nor people in comas represent serious escape risks). Somehow, justifying one bad decision by reference to its similarity to another bad decision is not a major consolation to me.
And, seriously, if there ever was a case that met the nebulous "shock the conscience" standard for a due process violation, this would seem to be it (although I admittedly don't know how the due process clause applies to prison inmates).
The court relied heavily on Haslar v. Megerman, 104 F.3d 178 (8th Cir. 1997), a previous case dealing with shackling an inmate during medical treatment (albeit not with a pregnant woman). In that case, the 8th circuit upheld the shackling of a "virtually comatose" inmate who later suffered permanent leg damage as a result of the shackles being kept too tight as his leg swelled up. The court justified this result by arguing that
[the shackling policy] serves the legitimate penological goal of preventing inmates . . . from escaping [] less secure confines, and is not excessive given that goal. A single armed guard often cannot prevent a determined, unrestrained, and sometimes aggressive inmate from escaping without resort to force. It is eminently reasonable to prevent escape attempts at the outset by restraining hospitalized inmates to their beds . . . .
This case does seem inline with that precedent, but only because both cases use an abstract justification (the flight risk of an inmate -- admittedly reasonable most of the time) in situations where it is woefully inadequate (neither pregnant women in labor nor people in comas represent serious escape risks). Somehow, justifying one bad decision by reference to its similarity to another bad decision is not a major consolation to me.
And, seriously, if there ever was a case that met the nebulous "shock the conscience" standard for a due process violation, this would seem to be it (although I admittedly don't know how the due process clause applies to prison inmates).
One Out
The Tallahassee Democrat claims that one of its senior reporters, Stephen Price, was singled out and asked to lead by John McCain's security detail.
Maybe there is a wholly innocent explanation, but judging by Gabordi's statement the Democrat is skepticl, to say the least.
Via Jack & Jill
Price was among at least three other reporters, and the only black reporter, surrounding McCain's campaign bus — Gov. Charlie Crist and his fiancee, Carole Rome, were already aboard — when a member of the Arizona senator's security detail asked the reporter to identify himself. Price had shown his media credentials to enter the area.
Price showed his employee identification as well as his credentials for the Friday event.
"I explained I was with the state press, but the Secret Service man said that didn't matter and that I would have to go," Price said.
When another reporter asked why Price was being removed, she too was led out of the area. Other state reporters remained.
Jonathan Block does advance work for McCain's campaign. He was in Panama City on Friday but was not present when reporter Stephen Price was asked to move from a restricted area.
"Access to the senator is tightly controlled," Block said. "I would first express regret that your reporter was moved, and I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that race had nothing to do with it."
Tallahassee Democrat Executive Editor Bob Gabordi said the incident was unwarranted.
"We're deeply concerned and disturbed that our reporter — of all of those in that area — was asked to move," Gabordi said. "My understanding is that Stephen was the only reporter approached and asked to leave the area, and the only reporter in that area who is black. Another reporter who stood up for Stephen was then asked to leave."
Maybe there is a wholly innocent explanation, but judging by Gabordi's statement the Democrat is skepticl, to say the least.
Via Jack & Jill
Subsuming the Black
My blog overlord, Joe Gandelman, links over to a Rasmussen poll which says that more "voters" found Barack Obama's "dollar bill" comment to be racist than they did John McCain's Britney Spears/Paris Hilton ad. The article is a bit unclear if they asked if voters thought the ad and comment were "racist" or "played the race card", which I think is generally meaningful, but not for the discussion I wish to have. For I think the real story about the Rasmussen poll is being buried here.
As I just said, the article frames the story as most voters (writ large) thinking that Obama's remarks were more racist than McCain's ad. That isn't exactly immaterial, but it hides the fact that this opinion tracks racial lines very closely. In the middle of the article, it is revealed that while just 18% of White voters thought that the McCain ad was racist, 58% of Blacks did. And while 53% of Whites thought Obama's remarks were racist, only 44% of Blacks did.
So in reality, there are at least two stories here. Certainly, from a purely political point of view it matters what the electorate as a totality thinks. But from the view of furthering our understanding of racism and society's perception thereof, the real story is that Blacks and Whites have substantially different ideas of what constitutes something as "racist".
Unfortunately, that second story -- the continuing divide in how Whites and Blacks perceive racism -- gets buried because "the majority" (which, of course, is dominated by Whites) thinks Obama was racist and McCain wasn't. The Black voice gets subsumed by the White majority, and ceases to be a relevant competing view -- it's just the minority (wrong) view. But I think it is very relevant that Blacks consider McCain's ad to be more racist than Obama's comments, and that Whites think the reverse. Is it racial loyalty? Is it a greater perception by Blacks about what racism actually entails? Is it partisanship? Who knows. But it is relevant, and the way the story is being covered hides that fact.
Also, a quick digression: It is interesting to me that White voters considered Obama's words to be racist, given that they don't pass the general threshold of racism in American public discourse, which is that nothing can be racist unless it explicitly and overtly expresses malice and hatred towards a racial group. Obama's comments were way to subtle for that, but presumably were covered under the "Black speaker" exception where anything that a Black person says that ties to race or otherness automatically is presumed to be a playing of the race card. And that gets transformed into "racism" because there is nothing more racist than a Black person ever insinuating that there is anything racist in what White people do.
UPDATE: One Drop at Too Sense has a great post on this topic as well.
As I just said, the article frames the story as most voters (writ large) thinking that Obama's remarks were more racist than McCain's ad. That isn't exactly immaterial, but it hides the fact that this opinion tracks racial lines very closely. In the middle of the article, it is revealed that while just 18% of White voters thought that the McCain ad was racist, 58% of Blacks did. And while 53% of Whites thought Obama's remarks were racist, only 44% of Blacks did.
So in reality, there are at least two stories here. Certainly, from a purely political point of view it matters what the electorate as a totality thinks. But from the view of furthering our understanding of racism and society's perception thereof, the real story is that Blacks and Whites have substantially different ideas of what constitutes something as "racist".
Unfortunately, that second story -- the continuing divide in how Whites and Blacks perceive racism -- gets buried because "the majority" (which, of course, is dominated by Whites) thinks Obama was racist and McCain wasn't. The Black voice gets subsumed by the White majority, and ceases to be a relevant competing view -- it's just the minority (wrong) view. But I think it is very relevant that Blacks consider McCain's ad to be more racist than Obama's comments, and that Whites think the reverse. Is it racial loyalty? Is it a greater perception by Blacks about what racism actually entails? Is it partisanship? Who knows. But it is relevant, and the way the story is being covered hides that fact.
Also, a quick digression: It is interesting to me that White voters considered Obama's words to be racist, given that they don't pass the general threshold of racism in American public discourse, which is that nothing can be racist unless it explicitly and overtly expresses malice and hatred towards a racial group. Obama's comments were way to subtle for that, but presumably were covered under the "Black speaker" exception where anything that a Black person says that ties to race or otherness automatically is presumed to be a playing of the race card. And that gets transformed into "racism" because there is nothing more racist than a Black person ever insinuating that there is anything racist in what White people do.
UPDATE: One Drop at Too Sense has a great post on this topic as well.
Gangsta Gangsta
John McCain is at the top of the list. Ta-Nehisi Coates makes a good point:
Of course, when Black people do it, it's a cultural pathology.
Consider this incredible quote from McCain henchman Rick Davis:"Only celebrities like Barack Obama go to the gym three times a day, demand ‘MET-RX chocolate roasted-peanut protein bars and bottles of a hard-to-find organic brew—Black Forest Berry Honest Tea’ and worry about the price of arugula."
I read those words, and thought only of generic gangsta rappers ranting about "Keeping it real." All cultures have their essentialist brutes, and if anything radiates from Davis's statement, it's rank thuggism.
Of course, when Black people do it, it's a cultural pathology.
Civil Rights Roundup: 08/04/08
Your daily dose of civil rights and related news
The part of this story about video-taping errant traffic cops is not civil rights related. But the part about private citizen videos serving as a check against abusive cops is.
Nothing says sensible immigration policy more than deporting a 31 year old legal immigrant for a theft charge she got probation for ... as a teenager.
The Washington Post accuses the Virginia GOP of trying to scare voters away from the polls.
Texas is set to go forward with the Medellin execution, despite pleas from President Bush and the World Court to hold off.
New Mexico becomes the first state to adopt a Navajo textbook. I say: if you come to America, better learn to speak the language Anglos!
Now hospitals are getting in on the deportation game.
Is reduced illegal immigration a function of enforcement or the economy?
The railroading of suspected illegal immigrants continues to get attention.
Civil rights groups are nervous about new federal profiling that will hit Arab and Muslim Americans hard.
The DoD admits it targeted a man with accusations of spying for Israel strictly because he was an observant Jew.
The Confederate flag battles are moving to private property.
New Jersey adds religion-based jokes to the list of things that can constitute work-place harassment (here is the ruling).
Will the Obama campaign fracture or renew the Black/Jewish alliance?
The part of this story about video-taping errant traffic cops is not civil rights related. But the part about private citizen videos serving as a check against abusive cops is.
Nothing says sensible immigration policy more than deporting a 31 year old legal immigrant for a theft charge she got probation for ... as a teenager.
The Washington Post accuses the Virginia GOP of trying to scare voters away from the polls.
Texas is set to go forward with the Medellin execution, despite pleas from President Bush and the World Court to hold off.
New Mexico becomes the first state to adopt a Navajo textbook. I say: if you come to America, better learn to speak the language Anglos!
Now hospitals are getting in on the deportation game.
Is reduced illegal immigration a function of enforcement or the economy?
The railroading of suspected illegal immigrants continues to get attention.
Civil rights groups are nervous about new federal profiling that will hit Arab and Muslim Americans hard.
The DoD admits it targeted a man with accusations of spying for Israel strictly because he was an observant Jew.
The Confederate flag battles are moving to private property.
New Jersey adds religion-based jokes to the list of things that can constitute work-place harassment (here is the ruling).
Will the Obama campaign fracture or renew the Black/Jewish alliance?
Sunday, August 03, 2008
Spotted on Facebook
A group to impeach Nancy Pelosi. I was curious as to their grounds, so I clicked on it. Let's see... "overwhelming lack of competence, dereliction of duty, and failure to act on behalf of the American public....", yikes, that sounds bad. What did she do wrong?
That's it? Not allowing a vote (on an absolutely bone-headed piece legislation, no less)? That's your impeachable offense?
We, my friends, are not dealing with a rational community.
(Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, Michael van der Galien joined, continuing his slide into the right-wing cesspool).
With the Speakers stated position not to allow a vote on the floor of the United States House of Representatives which would address energy reform and offshore drilling while we are in the midst of rising fuel costs and a 70% dependence on foreign oil, Nancy Pelosi has demonstrated a complete unwillingness to act as the people's agent. Instead, she has stubbornly opted to stand on ideology and partisan politics instead of heeding the will of the American people.
That's it? Not allowing a vote (on an absolutely bone-headed piece legislation, no less)? That's your impeachable offense?
We, my friends, are not dealing with a rational community.
(Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, Michael van der Galien joined, continuing his slide into the right-wing cesspool).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
