Judgement Day

I may be the only political observer out there who feels more comfortable talking about Black political thought and theology than "mainstream" White conservative evangelical Christianity. So while I feel pretty good giving context to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, I don't have the requisite background to know if there's any reason not to take Sarah Palin's pastor at face-value. Because while Rev. Wright certainly had some guests who weren't as Jew-philic as I would have liked, I don't think any of his mates thought that Jewish deaths represented the just judgment of God. (And with Rev. Hagee still lurking in the background of my memory, isn't this the second time we've had to deal with this issue?). She's already been dealing with the allegation that she was a Pat Buchanan supporter (David Bernstein has mostly convinced me that she was not, but at the same time I think Harry's Place is not being entirely off-base when it wonders if Palin would have sported a David Duke button had he dropped by town. After all, most Jews think, at best, the difference between the two is one of degree, not kind.). The info about her pastor will only inflame the situation (to be fair, he seems across-the-board crazy, rather than focusing solely on Jews).

Now, here's the problem: Palin's new emergence on the political scene means that she's a totally unknown quantity to Jews. With Barack Obama, he did in fact have a long pedigree dealing with Jews and Whites -- we had data points on him personally which demonstrated he wasn't going to launch on an anti-White and anti-Semitic crusade once in office. And he has also done an excellent outreach job to us as a community, something I am very grateful of. Meanwhile, Palin is being tied to possibly the most reviled organization in the Jewish community that isn't actively launching suicide attacks on us -- Jews for Jesus. It's possible she does not subscribe to their creed, and maybe we should give her the benefit of the doubt. But unlike Barack Obama, she just hasn't spent much time courting Jews on a national stage. I don't think we're unreasonable to ask for some heart-to-hearts -- particularly given that she comes from a community (evangelical Christianity) that has not always been the most respectful or friendly to Jews in the past (being apocalyptically pro-Israel doesn't get you as far as one might think).

My presumption on Palin is that her views on Jews are standard evangelical fare -- outward positivity (enemy of my enemy -- Islam -- is my friend) and some personal respect, mixed with a desire for our social extermination (via conversion) and very little grasp or concern with the issues that actually are important to Jews (or why, or how, they're important to us). Fortunately, this means my bar is not being set high -- it would not take much for her to dispel those sentiments. At which point, I would happily oppose her on pure political grounds. I'm not going to pretend that by assuaging the concerns of the Jewish community she's going to get my vote. She won't. But I greatly prefer opposing someone because I disagree with their policy stances than because I think they're actively or covertly hostile to me as a person.

Look at Me Still Talking When There's BrowsingTo Do!

Am I the only one who thinks that Google's new web-browser logo has some uncomfortable overtones?

Google "Chrome":



GLaDOS:



343 Guilty Spark:



Not good for a company that's trying to dispel the idea that they're looking to take over the world.

Should They Stay or Should They Go?

A few days ago, The New York Times had an article about businesses which cater to designing products which are "Shabbat-friendly" -- that is, which won't cause observant Jews to violate their Sabbath upon use. Generally, this involves a lot of automation and a fair amount of creativity (Rabbinic maxims about "indirect effect" help a lot). Not being quite that observant myself, the exercise strikes me as a little silly, but at the same time I'm happy that people are catering to this need.

But that's not why I want to post. Rather, I was struck by the article's off-hand notation that one of the groups engaging in the work, the non-profit Zomet Institute, had its research facility located in a West Bank settlement, Alon Shvut. So I'm curious -- when Israel eventually cedes control of the West Bank (as it inevitably will, and should), what happens to the facility?* Should the Israeli organization relocate, or should it stay and maintain operations?

On the one hand, withdrawal means withdrawal. There is little indication that Palestinian groups are interested in residual Israeli institutions remaining in their territory, nor that Israeli organizations are all that keen at operating under Palestinian jurisdiction. Security, obviously, is a major problem. And, not to put too fine a point on it, but a significant stroke of Palestinian advocacy on the final status of the West Bank has taken a definitive "judenrein" tint to it.

On the other hand, a high-tech research facility would undoubtedly be a boon to a fledgling Palestinian state, giving high paying jobs, a good tax base, and trade opportunities with Israel and the wider world. Also, if I can be optimistic for a moment, it offers a chance for Jews and Arabs to work side by side in the new state to sell to the broad, global Jewish community. That's an opportunity to heal a lot of wounds. For Palestine to survive in the global environment, it's going to need companies like this located inside its borders. This group is a non-profit, but it offers the chance to be the locus of a technology hub in the future Palestinian state. I thus hope that it is able to stay. Even in a two-state solution, the destinies of Israel and Palestine will remain woven together. It is the groups that cross-borders which offer the way forward for both peoples.

* Though I think that Israel eventually will leave the West Bank, and most definitely should, the exact borders of any final settlement are, of course, unknown. It is likely that clusters of Israeli settlements near the border will eventually be incorporated into Israel proper, possibly as part of a land swap, and perhaps Alon Shvut will be included. But I'm operating off the assumption that it won't be.

Civil Rights Roundup: 09/03/08

Your daily dose of civil rights and related news

Backlash over the Postville raid may be prompting the government to change its immigration enforcement tactics somewhat.

Orange County Register: The diversity given by immigration is a source of strength, not weakness, to our nation.

Same-sex marriage: good for the economy. How long until "pro-family" groups start up their victim complex by railing against "Big Marriage"?

Also on the marriage front, a New York court has thrown out a suit challenging Gov. David Patterson's (D) decision to recognize out of state gay marriages.

Police are charging several men with civil rights violations after shouting homophobic slurs and assaulting four men outside of a night club.

The Boston Globe reviews Mark A. Noll's new book, God and Race in American Politics: A Short History. Noll is an evangelical Christian who documents the way in which religion and race have always been intertwined on both sides of America's race question -- from slavery to civil rights. Also interesting: I didn't know that Harriet Beecher Stove became a White supremacist after the Civil War.

Obama is up with radio ads attacking John McCain on abortion. That's rare from a Democratic candidate, but the fact that Roe is genuinely imperiled this election makes it wise move, in my view (and others as well).

A New York area supermarket chain was found to have cheated some of its managers out of overtime pay. Basically, the company tried to claim they were salaried employees to avoid giving overtime, but then would treat them as hourly to dock them pay if they missed part of the day.

Third Circuit: Spanish-speaking workers bound by arbitration ruling written in English. The trial court had held the agreement unenforceable because the workers had no way of knowing that it had an arbitration clause at all.

New Jersey schools still asking enrolling students about immigration status, despite it being a violation of state and federal(?) law.

Conservatives and Black people? Together under one roof? What a weird place New York is! Rich Lowry brings the funny.

Norm!

I saw the second half of Sen. Norm Coleman's (R-MN) speech before the RNC. It was bad. I mean, bad. Nobody was into it, the crowd was tepid, at best, and the "theme" was utterly bizarre. "John McCain has a face that says yes"? The hell?

I always thought Coleman was known as a relatively effective pit bull politician. Is that incorrect? Or is the problem that the "serious" theme the RNC has had to put on due to Gustav means that their attack dogs aren't able to really get into their groove?

The AG with a Thousand Lives

Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales mis-handled classified data (shades of Sandy Berger?), according to a just-released DoJ report. In classic Gonzales fashion, he reported that

he did not remember whether he took home notes regarding the government's most sensitive national security programs and did not know they contained classified information despite notations on the papers that they were "eyes only -- top secret," according to a report released this morning.

The Justice Department's inspector general concluded that Gonzales had improperly handled materials about the government's most sensitive national security programs, carrying the notes home in an unlocked briefcase for an "indeterminate" period of time. Gonzales failed to keep them in a safe at his Northern Virginia home because he "could not remember the combination," according to the report.

And, also in classic Gonzales fashion, the upshot of this ordeal will be....nada:

Improper handling of classified material can result in criminal charges, but prosecutors in the department's National Security Division declined to bring a case after reviewing the allegations and consulting with senior career officials at Justice, according to the report and lawyers involved in the case.

Is this guy made of teflon or what?

The Round Mound Holds Court

TNR has a very entertaining interview up with Charles Barkley. Barkley continues to flirt with running for Governor of Alabama. I have no idea how it'll play (I don't even know if he'd run as a Democrat or an Independent), but there is no denying he'd shake up the terrain there.

Carleton Prof Arrested at RNC

Carleton College Phyiscs and Astronomy professor Joel Weisberg was arrested after committing civil disobedience at the Republican National Convention. He doesn't dispute his own arrest (he was consciously engaging in civil disobedience by crossing a police line), but he reports that there has been a very aggressive police presence illegitimately targeting peaceful protesters and journalists.

Who is Against Bristol Palin?

CNN reports that evangelicals are rallying around Bristol Palin. And I'm glad to hear it. I'm glad that nobody is portraying her as a slut or whore. I'm glad that the evangelical community is reacting to the news with compassion given that they believe her to have engaged in what they see as immoral behavior, and I hope that they would demonstrate that compassion to all other women who have engaged in similar behavior -- both on a micro-level (in personal relations) and a macro-level (in terms of public policy).

And I, along with everybody else who identifies as pro-choice, respect her choice to keep her child. That is, of course, implicit in the definition of "choice". Assuming (as seems reasonable) that this was not a planned pregnancy, I wish that she had access to contraception and birth control so that she did not become pregnant before she was ready (I feel like it is a fair assumption that she received a pretty strong pro-abstinence message from her family). And if she did use contraception and it failed, then I hope that she had a full array of options presented to her, and that she made a free and independent decision about her future. And yes, I hope that she made it in consultation with her parents, not because I don't respect her autonomy, but because I hope that all teenagers feel safe and comfortable in discussing such weighty matters with their parents. It is a blessing that Bristol did appear to feel secure in talking to her parents about this. Many teens do not have that in their lives.

So when evangelical leader Richard Land says this:

"This is the pro-life choice. The fact that people will criticize her for this shows the astounding extent to which the secular critics of the pro-life movement just don't get it," Land said in a statement.

I am left perplexed. Who is "criticizing" Bristol Palin? At absolute worst, it is a data point for the proposition that abstinence-only is an insufficient reproductive health message for teens. But even that argument hasn't really cropped up. At Feministing, they note that insofar as Bristol had a "choice" on whether to keep her child (a point the McCain/Palin campaign emphasized to the press), that's a choice McCain and Palin want to take away. But again, that's not a criticism of Bristol -- that's a request that the right she had over her own body be extended to cover all women.

And certainly, nobody is saying that Bristol is a bad person. Those of us on the left don't even think that she did anything wrong, in a moral sense. We may suspect that she had insufficient access to reproductive health products or information, or that she may have felt uncomfortable using them. But that's hardly her fault.

It is all very simple. We on the left (like, I assume, our friends on the right) want every pregnancy to be a planned pregnancy. Assuming this pregnancy was not planned, then that is unfortunate, and we would like to see young women like Bristol have all the resources they need to prevent it from happening. But once the unplanned pregnancy occurs, we also want Bristol to be in a position where she can choose, in consultation with those close to her, what outcome she feels is right. Insofar as Bristol engaged in that process, and elected to keep her baby, that is a success story. And don't let anybody tell you the left feels otherwise.

What's in your Meat?

We have no idea, and thanks to the Bush administration we legally can't find out:

A federal appeals court has ruled that the government can prohibit meat packers from testing their animals for mad cow disease. Because the Agriculture Department tests only a small percentage of cows for the deadly disease, a Kansas meatpacker, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, wanted to test all of its cows, but the government says it cannot. Larger meat companies worry that if Creekstone is allowed to perform the test and advertise its meat as safe, they could be forced to do the expensive test, too. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said restricting the test was allowable.

Via Ezra Klein; see also Dean Baker wondering where all the free-marketers went.

Civil Rights Roundup: 09/01/08

Your daily dose of civil rights and related news

I wasn't planning on doing this today, but tomorrow I'm taking my girlfriend to the airport and likely won't have time to post. So tomorrow will be my holiday, and today you get a roundup.

In a whole new level of cattiness, Republican lawmakers in California tried to block courthouse improvements in retaliation over the judiciary's gay marriage rulings.

The anti-affirmative action forces in Arizona have admitted defeat.

The recent economic downturn is hitting Hispanics particularly hard, as they are being forced from full-time to part-time jobs.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright traveled to Houston as a guest preaching, delivering sermons focusing on sexual abuse.

Gregory Rodriguez in the LA Times: Identity still matters.

Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA) wants to end birthright citizenship.

The California Supreme Court has upheld the death sentence of a man convicted of a racially-motivated murder.

A Rutgers University report finds that American workers are in worse shape than they have been in some time.

A young woman was kicked off her football team by the state of Georgia, solely on account of gender.

Immigration ordinances have gotten so strict in Denver that Latinos are afraid to drive downtown.

What Plays in New Hampshire

Here is an ad running for Jeb Bradley, who is running to get his seat back in the 1st Congressional District of New Hampshire. He lost the seat in 2006 to Carol Shea-Porter, but this ad is for his primary campaign against John Stephen.



Notice anything? How about the closing line: "That's not change, that's more of the same." In an ad for a Republican. In a Republican primary.

Sounds like Bradley has insight on where the New Hampshire wind is blowing....

What Republicans Really Think About Women

Often times, when Democrats run a candidate for office who is not a White male, Republicans unleash with a familiar refrain. "He's an affirmative action candidate", to Barack Obama. "She only got there because of her husband", to Hillary Clinton. And when these candidates do well, it's not evidence of any merit on their part, or that voters critically evaluated them and decided they were best for the job. It's because of "identity politics": Blacks mindlessly voting for Blacks, women mindlessly voting for women.

I always kind of assumed that this was an argument made in bad faith. But the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin to be McCain's VP candidate made me realize that conservatives really do seem to believe it. They really do seem to think that the only thing one has to do to appeal to women is to put a female candidate on the ticket. The idea that women might be critically evaluating the positions of their choices and voting for the person who best matches up to their interests seemed utterly foreign to them. We saw the same thing with Michael Steele and Alan Keyes -- Republicans ran them both for Senate, and were really perplexed when Black voters didn't show the slightest inclination to bite. The idea that Black people are, just like everybody else, analyzing their preferences and selecting the best candidate for their interests regardless of color seemed to escape them, then and now.

And so we get Gov. Palin, whose putative appeal to women seems to lie solely in the fact that she's a woman. Policy-wise, her rabidly pro-life outlook is a poor match for most women. The fact that she laughed when a female political opponent was called a bitch, appointed a sexual harasser to succeed the civil servant she fired in trooper gate, and that her supporters booed her latest reach out attempt to Hillary Clinton isn't going to help. I've yet to hear a single policy position she's taken that is supposed to give her a comparative advantage with the female vote compared to Obama/Biden. In terms of appealing to women, there is absolutely nothing there beyond biology, which leads one to the inevitable conclusion that Republicans think that's a sufficient credential.

My mother, who was a Clinton supporter, called her selection an insult to her intelligence, and other former Clinton fans seem to agree. Indeed, Palin polls significantly worse with women compared to men -- with a statistical dead heat between those who say it makes them more and less likely to vote for McCain (actually, 1% more say they'd be less likely to vote for him, but that's in the margin of error). As Ta-Nehisi Coates says, part of that has to be chalked up to the "insult" factor, more than anything else. Women aren't going to respond well to a selection that screams "we think you're morons who will vote for anyone with breasts."

At the end of the day, the choice comes off as patronizing more than anything else. Republicans bungled this choice badly, and they did because they believed their own identity politics rhetoric. Running women isn't enough to get women to vote for you. For women, like men; for Blacks, like Whites; it's fundamentally the policies, the record, the experiences, the background, the intellect -- all the things we expect voters to look at -- that count.

Quote of the Evening

From my father, at dinner tonight. He said this unprompted about Sarah Palin:

What an absurd pick. I mean, two weeks ago, she was the mayor of a Wal-Mart.

Both he and my mother (both Clinton supporters in the primary) seemed to take her selection as an insult to their intelligence as voters (quoting my dad again: "It's like he [McCain] thinks he's dealing with a group of moronic Kindergarteners").

Risks Ahead for Palin

It's been barely a day, and already the Palin pick is starting to look like a big mistake. Cast aside the issues I already raised, as well as the big one I didn't (how the pick stomps on McCain's "experience" narrative). Palin also fits into another important Democratic attack line this cycle: that McCain and the GOP are in the pocket of big oil.

Now, Palin tried to argue that she is actually a crusader against the oil industry. But from the looks of it, she is if anything oil's handpicked candidate. To the extent that she breaks with the industry, it's because they aren't aggressive enough, which is not what most people have in mind when they think of the "energy crisis". This strikes me as a risk free attack on her -- it has no gendered associations, it fits in with Obama's pre-existing strategy, and it keeps McCain on the defensive on an area he's weak in. Palin, in other words, doesn't just negate one of McCain's primary strengths, she also exacerbates one of his biggest weaknesses.

Top that with the fact that a report on her role in an Alaskan corruption scandal is scheduled to come out on the eve of the election, her past close association with indicted Senator Ted Stevens, and the surprisingly tepid response of Alaskans themselves to her addition to the ticket, and we've got issues.

There's one more angle I want to write on Palin, and that's how it'll affect the votes of women. But I'm saving that for another post.

Things Older Than John McCain: VP Edition

Not only is McCain (obviously) older than his VP, he's older than her state.

By 23 years.

Country First?

That's the slogan McCain's got front and center on the lectern he's speaking in front of. After Barack Obama specifically blasted McCain's attack on his patriotism, this is an interesting double down. There is no doubt now that McCain is deliberately trying to play the patriotism card against Obama -- a low blow, and one that I think will end up backfiring against him.

Palin's the Ticket

So CNN reports. It's an intriguing choice, and I think a dangerous one, for both the Democratic and the GOP tickets.

What do I mean by that? Simple: Palin is a risky choice for McCain. It could turn out really well, or it could turn out really badly. The breakdown on Palin shows someone who has the potential to really create movement for McCain, but whose main benefits are speculative, unproven, or based on shaky assumptions.

So what are the key points to consider? First, Palin's a woman, and McCain has of late been very focused on trying to grab disaffected Clinton supporters over to his side. Contrary to media reports, Obama actually is running better than the typical Democrat with the double-X set, but McCain clearly believes that this support is soft and that he can bite into it. Democrats will undoubtedly focus on Palin's unabashedly pro-life record as a reason for women not to take the bait. And I fully expect Obama to deploy Hillary Clinton as a virtual shadow for Palin on the campaign trail to neutralize whatever advantage she may bring.

Second, Palin, like McCain, has a not entirely deserved good reputation on ethics issues. The travails of Alaska Republicans on the corruption front are well known, with one Senator indicted and one Congressman in the fight of his life both due to scandal. Since Palin rode into office specifically as a challenge to that branch of the state party, it's unlikely to me that she'll be tarred with guilt by association, and she may even try to jujitsu the troubles of Stevens and Young into benefits. On the other hand, Palin's been mired in a serious scandal of her own in recent weeks, allegedly pressuring termination of a state trooper who is mired in a custody dispute with her sister. McCain clearly is hoping that she'll be treated deferentially on this score by the media. Much of her effectiveness on the trail will hinge on how much that issue taints her credentials as an outsider and reformer. Is she the real deal, or does she get false credibility by leaping the not-so-high-bar of "better than Frank Murkowski"?

Third, Palin is not known as an attack dog, and is far less experienced than her Democratic counterpart, Joe Biden. In terms of the VP debate match-up, the DNC must be salivating at the moment. I have to think Biden would rip her to shreds when they come face to face (unless, of course, he makes one of his ever-threatening gaffes). Now, the question is whether anyone actually cares about the VP debate. I think it matters, but then I'm a political junkie. To the extent that it does have an affect, Democrats have a clear advantage.

Which brings us to fourth: what does Palin bring to the campaign trail? I don't see her as a particularly exciting campaigner. I think she may suffer from Sebelius syndrome: great resume on paper, but does it translate to the stump? We'll see on that score, but Palin is largely untested here. You can talk about Obama's inexperience, but it was only a few years ago that Palin was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska: population 5,470. And unlike Obama, she's done nothing to demonstrate she has the type of big-ticket drawing power necessary to play ball at the highest levels. Maybe she does, but as I said, it's a risk.

So the best case scenario for McCain is that Palin a) picks off female voters, b) portrays the image of a reformist, youthful, crusading outsider, and c) surprises with strong campaign skills and holds her own against Biden. The worst case is that a) female voters prefer Obama's policies to Palin's gender, b) her reformist credentials don't hold water, and c) Biden and other Democratic surrogates eat her alive on the campaign trail. Either scenario, to be honest, seems plausible to me.

Ultimately, I think Palin is a better choice for McCain than many of the other finalists, including Romney, Pawlenty, and Lieberman. She doesn't actively anger the base (unlike Lieberman), she isn't loathed by everyone (unlike Romney), and she at least offers the potential for some game changing movement (unlike Pawlenty). And she probably pushes Alaska out of play, which is actually an issue this cycle.

Civil Rights Roundup: 08/29/08

Your daily dose of civil rights and related news

The backers of the Arizona initiative seeking to ban affirmative action got a reprieve today, as a judge is willing to give them more time to prove they received the requisite number of valid signatures to get on the ballot.

A suit against American contractor KBR alleges that 12 Nepalese workers were held in slavery in Iraq. They were later kidnapped by insurgents, and all but one was executed.

The Mexican Supreme Court has upheld Mexico City's relatively liberal abortion laws, making it a rare pro-choice foothold in largely anti-abortion Latin America.

Gainesville, Florida voters will have a chance to decide whether to keep civil rights protections for GLBT residents.

California is now adopting guidelines for what to do if gay prisoners want to marry.

To acquire Plan B, you might need a plan b, c, and d.

A UCLA professor on that university's admissions committee is resigning in protest. Professor Tim Groseclose wanted to find out if the school was admitting minority students with lower qualifications, presumably in violation of California's Proposition 209. But UCLA refused to release the data Groseclose said he needed. The professor actually claims to support affirmative action, but is angered by the lack of transparency.

The Black elite is taking special pride in Obama's rise, seeing it as reflective of their own hard work and experience.

It seems like the news is focusing on other issues today....

Okay I'll Give Him Credit

I don't like much that goes down on The Corner, but this was great line, in response to Obama's "this election is not about me, it's about you."

Is Obama breaking up with us?

That being said, wonderful speech.

Let's Make a Deal

The Washington Times, of all places, has an editorial taking its conservative peers to task for being far more forgiving of legacy admissions than they are of affirmative action. The meritocratic arguments against AA are obviously stronger, if anything, when applied to legacies. Yet you don't see right-wing groups rushing to put initiatives banning the procedure on state ballots across the country.

A lot of times I've talking to conservative opponents of AA who rush to assure me "I oppose legacy preferences too," as if that's some sort of ward against unfairness. I say, if you're truly concerned about establishing this pure meritocracy, an excellent gesture of good faith would be to work on barring legacy admissions first. Regardless of your opinion of how affirmative action relates to the broader goal of equal opportunity, its clear that if changes have to be made, the burden should not initially fall on the already disadvantaged. Carleton, for example, gives preferential admission to wealthy students in the 15% of our admissions process that is not need-blind. Clearly, that's got to go before we even start thinking about tinkering with race-based affirmative action.

I'll be honest -- I'm not categorically opposed to some legacy admissions. I think that they help maintain institutional memory and can strengthen the broader college community. Carleton, I feel, is benefited by the large number of second and third generation Carls who really help emphasis to current and prospective students the loyalty this place inspired. But that is not, in the conservative mind, a sufficiently "meritocratic" argument, any more than the benefits of racial diversity is.

The point is that liberals are, I think quite reasonably, concerned that this push for "meritocracy" will be applied only against Blacks, Latinos, and other marginalized minorities. It will not be applied against the wealthy or the well-connected. Even if conservatives feel some vague unease about such admissions standards, they will never organize or pressure to stop it. A good way -- normatively and politically -- to diffuse that anxiety would be to lead the charge against those who can most take the hit.

So let's make a deal. Attack legacy and wealth preferences first. Then we can talk about what to do about race-based affirmative action.

Via Ta-Nehisi Coates.

Civil Rights Roundup: 08/28/08

Your daily dose of civil rights and related news

A quick note: Now that I'm not doing this for my job, the CRR probably will undergo some changes. First, it'll probably be later. Because if I'm not forced by a paying employer to start working at 9:00 AM, it's highly unlikely I'll do it on my own. Second, it may well be shorter. I don't know. This is a transition. But I do enjoy providing the roundup each morning, so I am going to try to keep the feature going.

So without further delay...

The Boston Globe notes that the changing of the guard in civil rights leadership at the DNC.

In sadder news related to generational shift, Del Martin, one of the earliest leaders in the fight for lesbian and gay equality, died yesterday. She is survived by her wife, Phyllis Lyon, whom she married in California's very first legal gay marriage.

Governor Charlie Crist (R-FL) is responding to complaints that his voter reenfranchisement program isn't reaching the people its designed to help. I want to reiterate how impressed I've been with Gov. Crist on this issue.

A panel hosted by my former colleagues at the LCCR discussed conservative efforts to use controversial civil rights issues as a "wedge" to divide voters.

Hattiesburg American: "Obama speech has special meaning for Southern delegates."

The latest company to face an immigration raid had enrolled in the government's "E-Verify" program. Now companies are complaining that if the system is so flawed that they'll still be subjected to ICE attacks, what's the point of registering in the first place?

The gender equity problem in Japan has reached a crisis point, as Japanese women are refusing to marry until Japanese men start upholding their share of the family life. To the government's credit, it is responding mostly not by lecturing women about their need to be mommies, but by trying to reform the work culture that keeps men away from their families.

A federal appeals court invalidated a Wyoming law that would have made it easier for domestic abusers to acquire guns.

A lawsuit protesting a Arkansas district policy prohibiting boys with long hair from competing in school athletics programs was dismissed after the district agreed to amend the policy.

Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman (R) has announced his neutrality in the upcoming battle to ban affirmative action in the state. David Kramer, former state GOP chairman and leader of one of the groups opposing the ban, is holding out hope he can persuade him to intervene in favor of equal opportunity.

The disabled community is not happy with the level of attention it's getting from Presidential contenders.

Biden and Clinton

I saw President Clinton and Senator Biden's speeches tonight (but not Senator Kerry's). Admittedly I saw them at a wine night, so I might have been somewhat distracted. And that might explain why I'm not as high on either speech as many others are. Certainly, I think Hillary Clinton blew both out of the water.

President Clinton's speech, I thought, was particularly flat. It felt disjointed, I didn't feel like his heart was truly in it, and it never really developed thematically. Particularly given Clinton's higher baseline, I felt disappointed. The irony is that before he started speaking I was really excited, and all my friends were more reserved. I still like Bill Clinton, whereas they were less forgiving of his efforts against Obama in the primaries. Afterward, I had the most negative assessment of the speech, and I was definitively in the minority.

Biden's speech I thought was significantly better. His son's introduction was heart-wrenching, although I wonder if between that and Michelle Obama's speech there has been a bit too much sentimentality. Biden started a bit slow, and stepped on a lot of his lines (though once it yielded a gem, when he accidentally(?) called John McCain "George"). The old debater in me didn't like that. But he picked up the pace and really started to light up McCain as he went on. He developed the meme that I think is, ultimately, the strongest case Obama can make against McCain: he was wrong. He might have experience, but his experience is at being wrong. I still think he could have been even more aggressive (apparently Kerry set the standard for the evening), but it was still quite good.

But again, I seem to be in the minority. Andrew Sullivan has blog reactions, and they seem mostly positive (excepting Linda Chavez, and honestly I don't care what she thinks). So maybe I'm just being a grump. Wouldn't be the first time.

The Exception That Proves the Rule

Look, I know from my commenters that nothing is ever racist (except affirmative action, which is Jim Crow resurrected and magnified to the 10th power). But this article, predicting that Barack Obama will be our "first hip-hop president" and wondering if he'll start calling cabinet members his "bitches", is racist.

Yes? Yes?

Civil Rights Roundup: 08/27/08

Your daily dose of civil rights and related news

The LPGA (woman's international golf organization) is requiring all of its players to be able to speak English if they want to compete. The Tour has been dominated in recent years by foreign-born players, and there are questions about whether this requirement violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

A Filipino man convicted of sending threatening communications to a variety of Black and biracial public figures was sentenced to over three months in prison.

Nebraska women still feel that discrimination is in front of them.

The Orlando Sentinel doesn't think Florida has done enough to notify ex-felons that their civil rights have been restored.

There once was a police department from Nantucket/that was sued for illegally detaining and using excessive force against some Black teens.

As Washington State gets more diverse, it has to deal with more bias crimes.

Good Magazine has an interesting profile of Ward Connerly.

HBO's new "Black List" documentary takes a look at the changing contours of Black culture.

Five rules for Black owned advertising companies.

Local Texas law enforcement officers are pledging to try and reduce the number of mentally ill and drug addicted inmates.

A disabled Florida woman is suing a local non-profit for discrimination, alleging that her supervisors forced her to do jobs beyond her physical capabilities.

The Justice Department filed a retaliation lawsuit against the city of Ft. Pierce, Florida, on behalf of a Black officer who was protesting racial discrimination.

Great Britain is adding study of the Atlantic slave trade to its mandatory secondary school curriculum.

Bizarre Reaction of the Night

My gut reaction was that Clinton nailed that speech, but to sate my curiousity I hopped on over to The Corner to see what they were saying. And I found this comment by Ramesh "Party of Death" Ponnuru:

Hillary Clinton on McCain: "In 2008, he still thinks it's okay when women don't earn equal pay for equal work." Right: Opposing the Lily Ledbetter Act means approving of unequal pay for women. What a disgusting comment.

Ummm...does it mean something else? I guess we could split hairs and say it doesn't mean McCain supports pay discrimination, just that he supports getting away with it.

I guess Clinton owes McCain a big apology then.

Fun Convention Coverage Fact!

Pat Buchanan appears to have no eyes. Or at least none that I can see. His face just seems to collapse in that region.

She's Still Got It

Barbara Mikulski's speech before the EMILY's List crowd confirms something we all already knew: she's a total and complete BAMF.

Rock on, Senator Mikulski.

Beyond Bad Taste

With the caveat that this seems to be a very thinly sourced story (relying on random Daily Kos commenters? For serious?), I still feel comfortable saying that anyone who attacks Elizabeth Edwards for not "handling" her husband's affair correctly from a political standpoint (that is, not going public with it) is a seriously twisted individual.

Civil Rights Roundup: 08/26/08

Your daily dose of civil rights and related news

Ms. Magazine gives its quick take on the appointment of Hans von Spakovsky to a staff position on the US civil rights commission.

Inside Higher Ed has the scoop on the higher education elements of the Democratic Platform, including (among other things) a restatement of their support for affirmative action.

.... And here's McCain's plan, courtesy of the Chronicle on Higher Education, which notes McCain's apparent reversal on that issue from the days in which he called attempted bans "divisive."

A restaurant was forced to pay damages to a woman they fired because she was pregnant.

While the US Senate dawdles, California may take fixing Ledbetter into its own hands.

Oddly, Colorado Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to support a measure banning affirmative action, leading observers to wonder if both sides are misunderstanding what the initiative would do.

Two DNC protesters were arrested for not giving their names to the police upon request. The case (and any civil rights complaint) will hinge on whether the cops had "reasonable suspicion" that the pair was committing or was about to commit a crime.

A column in the Detroit Free Press urges Michigan to expand coverage in its bias crimes law.

Two NYPD cops are being charged with civil rights violation after assaulting a motorist in an apparent road rage incident while off duty.

Shocking news: Immigration judges subjected to political vetting by the Bush administration are disproportionately likely to reject asylum claims.

Jesse Jackson in the Chicago Sun-Times: "Obama can inspire but we must lead."

Jacob Weisberg says that only racism can explain an Obama loss. A Wall St. Journal column ridicules that notion. I'm not going to buy into Weisberg's thesis wholesale, but I think legitimate questions will be raised if either Obama runs way behind the generic Democratic wave in a year with such good fundamentals for his party, or if we see a major showing of the Wilder effect.

Experts say that the Canadian police must diversify if they want to remain effective in their ever-more multicultural society.

Connecticut courts have recognized that transgender discrimination is in violation of law prohibiting sex stereotyping.

Still There

Earlier this year, a bunch of Carleton debaters and I were shooting the breeze about Barack Obama. One said that "you know Obama will be strong on foreign aid, because his grandmother still lives in a poor village in Kenya." And I, in a rare flash of wit, immediately replied, "and you know he'll be a strong fiscal conservative because she's still there."

Alas, I had no idea that the Republican Party would make a campaign ad operating off that same premise. But amazingly, the Texas GOP just went there -- using his half-brother George Hussein Onyango Obama (of course they used the full name) standing in front of a shack to argue that Obama won't care about our hard economic times. "If Obama cares so much about your family, why doesn't he doesn't take care of his own family first?"

Gag.

Civil Rights Roundup: 08/25/08

Your daily dose of civil rights and related news

An observant Jewish engineer was vindicated after being hounded by spying accusations, after a probe found he was targeted on basis of religion.

The Washington Post had a nice article up over the weekend on the experiences of other Black "firsts" (first astronaut, first Miss USA, first NBA player, etc.).

Also from the WaPo this weekend, an analysis of how voters perceive the theme of race popping up this cycle (focusing on Akron, Ohio).

The folks who know best whether it actually makes their communities safer -- the police -- are awfully reluctant to start enforcing immigration law on their own accord.

While thrilled at his path breaking candidacy, many Black supporters of Obama are beginning to worry it might take the wind out of the sails of further equal opportunity programs.

Even as New Orleans recovers, some streets still need to be patrolled by the National Guard.

We're still not very good at providing disability-accessible housing.

The New York Times editorializes about the now-scrapped self-deportation program.

Museums that focus on immigration history are trying to connect past to present.

New regulations seek to improve the quality of practicing immigration lawyers.

Affirmative action bans will be on the ballot in Nebraska and Colorado this election.

This year's DNC will be the youngest and most diverse ever.

This is a fascinating case out of Illinois dealing with whether a clause by a Jewish man disinheriting any descendant who married outside the faith is enforceable.

A Texas boy whose long hair (stemming from his Native American heritage) sparked controversy in a rural Texas town will be attending Kindergarten after all.

Feeling neglected in the public school system, more Blacks are electing to home school.

Gay marriage opponents are starting their campaign push to eliminate the institution from California.

The Houston Chronicle: "Chinese engineer shouldn't have died in agony in U.S. custody."

Pro-gun activists in Georgia are trying to repeal a law prohibiting folks from carrying guns in Church. They say the law has a racist past, but local Black leaders are accusing them of appropriating history to pursue a policy agenda deeply opposed by the Black community.

What Drew Obama to Biden?

My wonderful co-bloggers at TMV already have several posts giving their takes on how the Biden choice will affect the presidential race (Tony Campbell thinks its an awful choice; Jazz Shaw thinks the GOP will love it; Dorain de Wind and Robert Stein love it; and Shaun Mullen shouts out for his home-state boy).

As for me, on the political side I'm decidedly meh. I've been persuaded that it was unreasonable of me to expect Biden to vote against the credit card industry on the bankruptcy bill, him being from Delaware and all, so that's my big sticking point out of the way. There are some folks I would have preferred (Sebelius, Clark before Obama unwisely threw him overboard, Levin) but also some folks significantly more worrisome (Bayh, Kaine, Webb). So, meh. Biden is, in a lot of ways, a gamble. He can be unbelievably witty and an excellent debater, but those same qualities make him gaffe prone.The question is whether he'll be on his game this primary season. Cross your fingers.

But anyways. I'm more interested in what drew Obama to Biden in the first place, less as a question of politics and more what he would bring to a prospective Obama administration. Personally, I think this post by Moira Whelon offers a clue:

But what has impressed me most, for years, [about Biden] is his staff. He knows how to pick ‘em, and that’s no small thing. Brilliant people come and go in DC, but rarely do they also have the ability to pick quality staff the way Biden does. His folks always are among the brightest from a policy standpoint, but also possess a sophisticated political acumen. It’s a rare but valuable combination. I’ve had the privilege of working for, and with, many of these folks, and count them among my friends. I’ve always gotten the sense that their boss respected them for their abilities and listened to their ideas rather then them simply having to implement his. They were encouraged to push hard and dig deep on issues. They were challenged by Biden, but in a good way. The Boss reads, talks to experts, and asks questions. He challenges his staff and calls them to the carpet. Why? Because the most important thing is to get the answer right and to be honest about the challenges we face.

As a result of having a staff that is so good, Biden is almost never behind the curve of policy developments. He’s proactive, not reactive.That’s a huge strategic advantage, and as a result, becoming a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is a badge of validation among foreign policy folks. Further than that, you’ll hear from many foreign policy experts how closely they work with Biden. They’re not making it up. Biden counts on a broad range of people to get the job done right. Many, many people feel they have influence on his approach and as a result when the final product is announced, they feel invested, but the view is all Biden, and usually better. Biden collects the best. Simple as that.

If there is one thing we know about Obama, it's that he respects expertise. One of the earliest elements about Obama that put him on folks radar screen (besides his oratorical gifts) was the top-notch crew of advisers and staffers he was putting together. Joe Biden's eye for policy talent, and his willingness surround himself with them, is something that I believe Obama respects and admires. Indeed, I think it is in large part how he envisions his administration in response to the catastrophe of the last eight years. Unlike Obama and Biden, President Bush has distinguished himself by being overtly hostile to the opinion of experts. Obama, I feel, subscribes to the belief that the way to get the best results is to surround yourself with the best people, listen to their counsel, and then make a decision knowing as much information as possible. Biden fits into that framework to a T.

A lot has been made over Biden's long Washington pedigree as a disabling point against him serving with Obama. I'm not buying it. Obama isn't rallying against experience for its own sake, nor does he represent the revenge of the younger generation against the follies of age. Obama's fundamental argument is that it's not about the pedigree, it's about the results. It's about getting it right. Biden -- nobody will deny this -- comes equipped with the knowledge to help get it right.

I understand the instinct to analyze Biden from a solely political lens. You have to win an election before you can make policy, after all. But while politics is all well and good, when it distracts us from whether or not somebody in office will make the nation better, I think it's a sign we're taking our eyes off the ball. I think the Biden pick was an example of Obama making a politically riskier pick (in terms of what effect Biden would have on the campaign trail) in exchange for superior policy decisionmaker. Is that not something that's worth considering when we cast our ballots?

How To Legally Immigrate to the United States

In one easy to navigate flow chart!

Fun fact: unskilled immigrants have virtually no chance of being approved, even though America needs unskilled labor! But they should "wait their turn" anyway. Fair is fair.

Sending a Message

HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt, justifying conscience exemptions for doctors (and nurses and volunteers and trainees) who don't want to

Civil Rights Roundup: 8/22/08

Your daily dose of civil rights and related news

Ward Connerly's petition to ban affirmative action in Arizona has been thrown out, after election officials found that he fell far short in obtaining the number of valid signatures required to put the measure to a vote.

A federal judge stayed the execution of a Texas inmate, ruling that the state grossly erred in refusing to determine whether he was mentally competent to be put to death.

Washington Post: "Civil Rights Panel Faulted on Hiring Choice." The "choice" was to hire voter suppression artist Hans Von Spakovsky (as I wrote yesterday: "The technical term for this is 'sick %&@$ing joke").

ICE is scrapping its self-deportation program. Finally.

The ACLU is suing to overturn Alabama regulations which only allow ex-felons to be re-enfranchised if they can pay off all accumulated court costs, fines, restitution, and other costs associated with their sentence.

A group of Maine men have agreed to stay away from local Native Americans they are accused of harassing.

EMILY's List has released some interesting polling data on the opinions of women voters.

The Mayor of Phoenix blasted Congress for not mending "incoherent" immigration policies, which don't keep illegal immigrants out, don't give them true opportunity, and certainly don't stem the rising tide of hate and prejudice directed against Latinos of all backgrounds.

The Florida Parole Commission will remain all-White after a failed effort to add a Black voice to the board.

The HHS Department is issuing regulations which could dramatically restrict women's contraceptive access under the guise of "conscience protections" for doctors.

And finally, for an abbreviated Friday round-up, it's the 50th anniversary of Ben's Chili Bowl! And actually, given Ben's role as a gathering point for Black leaders during the civil rights movement, it's actually related to this roundup. Not to mention its delicious (some friends and I went there for dinner this week).

Another Look

Spencer Ackerman takes a fresh look at the New Republic/Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy. When I read Franklin Foer's fact-check of the story, I remarked that it did not appear to me that the story needed to be retracted at all -- and certainly, nobody had done anything to justify the vitriol that had been heaped upon both writer and magazine by radical right-wing bloggers. Ackerman's piece only verifies that instinct, and it is well worth the read.

Rush Limbaugh: Still Classy

Who is stunned to hear this?

"It's -- you know, it's just -- it's just we can't hit the girl. I don't care how far feminism's saying, you can't hit the girl, and you can't -- you can't criticize the little black man-child. You just can't do it, 'cause it's just not right, It's not fair. He's such a victim."

The "little black man-child." Mmm-hmm.

Via Feministing. And remember, Limbaugh is the top guy CNN cites for why John McCain can't pick a pro-choice running mate. He's got influence, people -- not just with his listeners, but with the GOP establishment.

Legacy of Slavery

I think folks might have the wrong idea about what the "legacy of slavery" (or Jim Crow or discrimination) is. As far as I can tell, at least in the popular White imagination it seems to be some genetic contribution to the Black psyche which haunts them and holds them back from pursuing the opportunities America has made available today. There is a smidgen to that definition -- in that it is psychologically salient to know that your ancestors were treated by this regime as subhuman animals who could kidnapped, sold, beaten, and even killed at will. This doesn't even actually rely on being a descendant of slaves: it works very similarly when you consider that "had I been there, I'd have been enslaved too" (Jews can relate to this same phenomenon -- we know what would have happened to us in the Holocaust or in a Russian pogrom, even if none of our immediate ancestors were survivors of Nazi or Czarist or Soviet tyranny). But I think that there is a lot more to the legacy of slavery that doesn't fit into that at all.

First, racist policies have by and large prevented Blacks from accumulating wealth across generations. Not only is this inherently disadvantaging compared to their peers, but it may develop habits of saving, spending, and consumption which may be beneficial survival skills in a Jim Crows style society, but may not be optimal now.

But the even bigger element which I think is missed is how slavery and Jim Crow helped create a network of social understandings regarding the place, value, and characteristics of Black people which are still operative today. This gets dropped from the conversation because it has to do with how contemporary Whites relate to Blacks and Black history -- which of course we (say we) don't do, because we (say we) are color-blind. But insofar as the image of the Black in the White imagination is an image in part defined by subjugation and inferiority, that legacy is still very much an important part of the Black experience (and again, it really isn't dependent on whether one is the descendant of slaves).

All of which is good reason to study the subject more -- a position which is admittedly easy for me to take given how moronic the arguments trotted out by the opposition are.

Not Funny....

Once again, CNN goes off and carries John McCain's water:

The remark comes days after McCain faced criticism from Obama over a weekend remark at Pastor Rick Warren's faith forum, where the Arizona senator joked that someone would need to earn $5 million a year in the United States to be defined as rich.

Umm...no. McCain did not "joke" that $5 million is the threshold for rich in America. He said it. It might have been a gaffe, he might have walked it back or changed his mind later, but it wasn't a joke. That implies a degree of intentionality that McCain clearly did not possess when he said it. It was a slip-up, but it wasn't a joke.

The Best and the Worst

The article from Ha'aretz manages to highlight both the best and the worst elements of Israeli society.

Shooting the foot of a bound prisoner at close range with a rubber bullet? Thuggish brutality.

Charging the soldier with the wrist-slap of "conduct unbecoming"? Outrageous.

Human rights groups able to sue in Israeli courts and get an injunction with an order to show cause? Rule of law.

Every country has its brutes. Israel is no different. And every country has people who want to protect those brutes. Israel, again, is no different. But not every country has a truly independent judiciary that can check those abuses. And in this respect, Israel is quite different.

Caution: Product May Disappoint

The box on my just-purchased Subway "fresh baked" apple pie warns: "Caution: Filling may be hot".

I suppose it might be, but in this case, no, it's not. In fact, it's rather ice cold and a little bit nauseating. Tragic, given that apple pie should by all rights be an automatic route to deliciousness.

Civil Rights Roundup: 08/21/08

Your daily dose of civil rights and related news

Americans of all stripes mourn the death of Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH). After graduating from Case Western University (thanks to a scholarship she attributed to affirmative action efforts), Jones went on to become the first Black woman to represent Ohio in Congress.

Supporters and opponents of an initiative to ban affirmative action in Nebraska are squabbling over the ballot language.

Meanwhile, the University of Nebraska is reporting great strides in hiring a diverse faculty.

Texas is set to execute a man who didn't kill anybody -- only the 8th time since the death penalty was reinstated that a man will be put to death as an accomplice to murder.

The Justice Department is looking into whether Princeton discriminates against Asian-American applicants through its affirmative action program.

The Hampton Roads, Virginia, city council is examining switching from a at-large to a ward-based system as a way to increase social, economic, and racial diversity on the board.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (R) will not renew an anti-discrimination order put out by his predecessor, Gov. Kathleen Blanco (D). It's expiration leaves gay and lsbian state workers and contractors unprotected from discrimination.

Illinois civil rights activists are suing, alleging that the state's funding mechanism grossly short-changes minority school districts and gives their children an unequal education.

George E. Curry writes in the Chicago Defender about the continuing need for HBCU's. These institutions generate a disproportionate tally of Black college graduates and -- perhaps more importantly -- are willing to take chances on low to mid-range students and get them on the path to success.

Ann Friedman tries to calm the panic about how this generation of women are not sufficiently feminist.

Shenandoah Valley schools are hosting events to highlight the benefits of diversity after the racially charged murder of a Latino resident.

Corporations celebrate supplier diversity in Battle Creek, Michigan.

A federal appeals court ruled that a Tennessee school district did not violate the constitution when it banned students from wearing the Confederate flag, citing the possibility of enflaming racial tensions.

The Oklahoman: "For Oklahoma college students, diversity is a daily lesson".

The Other Jackboot Drops

I'm enjoying watching The Olympics, but the way that the television coverage has been such a pro-China love-fest is really sickening to me. There has been virtually no talk about the way in which China has utterly squashed dissent and protests during the games after promising to open up (and the networks have cooperated with China's heavy-handed efforts to put only its best face forward, most notably with the computer-enhanced opening ceremonies). Fortunately, the print media has been considerably better, and today the New York Times has the story of two elderly Chinese women who have been sentenced to "re-education" after their unsuccessful efforts to get a protest permit.

This is after China (a) designated protest locations at isolated, out-of-the-way locations, and (b) refused to approve any of the 77 applications it got for protests. So now we can add (c) arresting people for attempting to file the application and sentencing them to potential hard labor. The Times also documents various other charming anti-protest strategies, such as "disappearing" folks trying to apply, or simply refusing to distribute the permit forms at all.

When I watch sporting competitions, nothing raises my blood pressure than unfair play. From the underage gymnasts to the replacement of China's singer with someone "cuter" to the media-assist on the opening ceremonies to the broken promises of liberalization, there has been a cloud of dishonesty to these entire games. So next time you see the picture of the gorgeous Bird's Nest or the spectacular Beijing skyline, remember that there is an undercurrent to the whole proceedings, and it's called authoritarianism.

The Anti-Ledbetter

Marcia McCormick of Workplace Prof Blogs comments on a case recently handed down by the 9th circuit that she says has "echoes of Ledbetter." The case, Zolotarev v. City of San Francisco, involves a suit against San Francisco for allegedly giving preferential treatment in hiring Asian and Filipino-American workers. The ruling was not one on the merits of the claim, but rather whether the suit was time-barred. The city argued that the time limit should begin once the workers became aware of the injury (in other words, once they had been informed they would not be fired). The plaintiffs, by contrast, said that the clock shouldn't start until they became aware (or reasonably should have been aware) of the legal violation -- that is, when they became aware that the city might be giving preference to Asians or Filipinos -- which came significantly after they heard about the actual hiring decision. The Court agreed with the city, and tossed the suit.

The opinion itself, however, only alludes to Ledbetter once in passing. And based on my reading of Ledbetter, I actually think that this case runs in the precise opposite direction -- with the sole linking factor that it puts a barrier in front of plaintiffs in employment discrimination suits (more specifically, in both it sets a stricter time limit for filing suits).

Recall that Ledbetter, which was also a case about statute of limitations, also basically was a fight between two competing starting points for the statute of limitations clock. Ledbetter thought that since each reduced pay check was a separate harm, the statute of limitations should restart anew each payday. Goodyear (Ledbetter's employer), by contrast, argued that the point of departure is the original discriminatory instinct which resulted in Ledbetter being paid less. The Court agreed with Goodyear.

So, if I'm reading the case right, Ledbetter stands for the proposition that its not the injury (less pay) but the "thought" (the discriminatory instinct, the legal violation) that counts. However, Zolotarev is saying exactly the opposite -- starting the clock at the injury (not getting hired) no matter when the workers could have reasonably known about the act of discrimination. These are opposing standards -- it just happens to be that in Ledbetter adopting the legal violation guideline gives us a stricter formula, while in Zolotarev adopting injury guideline does.

As far as I'm concerned, since both a material injury and a discriminatory reason are necessary for a plaintiff to prevail in these sort of suits, the clock shouldn't start until the plaintiff has reasonable knowledge of both. But what do I know?

Civil Rights Roundup: 08/20/08

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.

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.

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!

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.