Israeli Peace Activist Lightly Injured in Bombing

Zeev Sternhell, a professor associated with Peace Now, was lightly wounded in a bombing apparently carried out by ultra-right wing Jewish terrorists. Peace Now is a left-leaning organization which opposes Israeli settlement of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and advocates for peace between Israel and Palestine. Professor Sternhell, who taught political science at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and also was well regarded as a historian, recently received the Israel Prize for his academic accomplishments -- to the protests of right-wing elements who believed that he sanctioned attacks on settlers. Flyers left at the scene reportedly offered a 1.1 million shekel ($294,000) bounty for anyone who killed a member of Peace Now.

The attack was swiftly condemned by Tzipi Livni, head of the ruling Kadima Party, as well as politicians from across the political spectrum.

Kadima Chairman Tzipi Livni on Thursday spoke with Prof. Ze'ev Sternhell's family and criticized the attack against him, saying that it was "intolerable." "This is a lawful state, and Israeli society has firm values," Livni said, adding that both the government and the whole society must condemn this behavior.
[...]
Defense Minister Ehud Barak responded to the attack at a Labor faction meeting Thursday morning, saying that "this is a case where an intellectual came under attack because of his views. We are returning to a dark period."

"We won't allow anyone, of any dark corner of Israeli society, harass people, not in general and especially not when it comes to people with a voice as rare and clear as Ze'ev Sternhell's," Barak said.

The Knesset's Internal Affairs and Environment Committee was scheduled to hold an urgent meeting following the attempted attack on Prof. Sternhell.

The committee's chairman, MK Ophir Pines-Paz called the attack against Sternhell "a cowardly terror activity carried out by miscreants. I call on the police and Shin Bet to make every effort to quickly find those behind the incident and to ensure they are imprisoned for many years."
[...]
Education Minister Yuli Tamir, considered a friend of Sternhell, called for the tightening of security measures around the professor's home.

"The police must take the incident seriously and use their professional knowledge to guarantee Ze'ev Sternhell's safety. I think this attack is extremely grave and worrying. It should receive our full attention and mustn't be taken lightly," Tamir told Army Radio on Thursday.

MK Haim Oron, leader of left-wing Meretz party, expressed his hope that Sternhell would recover quickly and said that "this thuggish dangerous incident is the result of a continuous blind eye turned to the severe violence toward soldiers, police and anyone who doesn't hold the same views as the bullying, radical right wing."

MK Zehava Gal-On (Meretz) also commented on the attack against the professor, saying that "the attempt to hurt Professor Sternhell is the result of the authorities' lenient attitude and helplessness in face of the radical right, which enjoys a Knesset lobby."

Peace Now Secretary-General Yariv Oppenheimer said the "radical right" posed an existential threat to Israeli democracy.

"The law-enforcing authorities must stop their lenient policy toward lawbreakers from within the settlers and their supporters before another political assassination occurs in Israel," Oppenheimer said.

He added that "those who don't enforce the law amongst the violent settlers will eventually have to deal with a Jewish terror organization operating in the heart of the State of Israel."

In response to the calls for violence against prominent leftists, police were guarding Oppenheimer's house.

MK Menahem Ben-Sasson, chair of the Knesset's Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, said that "the combination of nationalism and religious fundamentalism promotes bloodshed and is destructive for the State, and not only for outstanding persons such as Professor Sternhell."

"This assassination attempt mustn't be dismissed under the pretense that it was just meant to scare someone. The attack threatens Israeli society entirely ," Ben-Sasson added.

Though not quoted in the above article, conservative leader Bibi Netanyahu of the Likud Party also had harsh words, saying "this is a sickening attack by abominable people who are not part of the public debate in Israel. They need to be distanced from society and placed behind lock and key." An exception to the trend was the far-right National Jewish Front, which denied responsibility but refused to condemn the attack, either, once again citing their belief that Sternhell supporting attacks on Israeli settlers.

Obviously, these radical right-wing elements are a threat to Israeli society and deserve the full force of the law to come down upon them. I also agree with Mr. Oppenheimer that this act did not occur in isolation, but flows out of increasingly violent right-wing settler activity that the state of Israel needs to put in check. It is beyond evident now that those who traffic in violent, expansionist settlement policies are part of a broader movement that is flat out dangerous for Israel's continued survival as a free and democratic nation, and those of us who are truly pro-Israel need to recognize and throw our weight against them.

It is deeply troubling to me that Israel is seeing this type of reactionary, targeted violence that aims to undermine its status as a liberal democratic state from the inside. I am heartened that the Israeli government appears to be taking the matter seriously, and I hope it will serve as a spark point for a public backlash against the right-wing elements which, in tandem with Palestinian and Islamic terrorist organizations, pose the greatest immediate threat to Israel's security as a democratic state and its position in the world.

The Upcoming Palin Rule of Politics

It's becoming increasingly evident that Sarah Palin was a disastrous choice for John McCain's VP. She's utterly unqualified, not intellectually curious, mired in a scandal, ultra-right wing, and petty. After some early hesitation, I very rapidly came to the conclusion that Palin was going to pose problems for McCain, starting with her VP speech, which I still believe ultimately hurt her.

So, Palin sucks as a VP choice. But I'm afraid, following XKCD, that the actual moral that will be taken is "women suck as VP choices."

No. Picking a qualified woman who has good policies and a command of the issues, and you'll do fine. All Palin proves is that, like with men, you're not going to do well as a top-level political candidate if you're not up to the job.

Take With Lots of Alcohol

Law school orientation starts today. Posting schedule may continue to be limited, up through classes beginning on Monday.

Also, I read my first law school assignment yesterday. It was about a kid who got kicked in class. Violence keeps the kiddies interested, I guess.

Jews Are Political Simpletons

That's the message of Roger Simon, who thinks that American Jews treat the Democratic Party like a "religion" and whose reasons for "fealty" are "at best sentimental and nostalgic, and at worst self-destructive."

As it turns out, these sorts of articles are just as obnoxiously patronizing when written to Jews as when they're written to Blacks. I always assumed that I supported the Democratic Party because they are a closer match to the majority of my political commitments -- some of which are religiously linked (such as peace in Israel, or defending the rights of religious minorities in America), some of which are not (like protecting gay rights and supporting racial equality). Though it must be said that even the positions that aren't directly related to my religious status still are strongly informed by my interpretation about Judaism's mandates regarding social justice.

Anyway, it turns out I vote the way I do because I'm blinded by nostalgia about the 60s. So, according to Simon, I should abandon my entire lifetime's worth of political views because some Democrats didn't join a symbolic protest against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This, apparently, is the mature thing to do. Color me unconvinced.

I'm very open to supporting Republicans. All they have to do is (in deed, not words) support gay rights, support racial equality and affirmative action, support aggressive anti-poverty measures instead of blaming the poor for their own problems, oppose school resegregation, oppose retrograde views about women's rights and pay equity, oppose the toxic neo-conservative foreign policy mix of petulance, self-righteousness, and bombast, crack down on polluters, protect the middle class from predatory lending practices, and oppose efforts to inject overt Christian theology into the public arena. In other words, not be Republicans. Until then, I feel like I'm being quite reasonable supporting the Democratic Party.

Jews are smart people. We know what we're voting for.

Via Randy Barnett.

Seeing Into Your Future

I bought my law books today. The cashier must have seen the look of panic on my face, because she said "they'll pay themselves back." Umm, yeah. They better. Also, lugging them back to my room was a pretty sucky experience.

But on the bright side, watching the terrified eyes of underclassman trying to process having to buy that many huge books was pretty priceless.

Feeney's Apology Ad

Florida Rep. Tom Feeney (R), locked in a tough battle for re-election, has an interesting ad up on his ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. What makes it so intriguing? It's an apology:


Ad text:

"Five years ago, when I was first elected to Congress I was invited on trip to Scotland. I found out later that it was paid for by a corrupt lobbyist. It was a rookie mistake and I did everything I could to make it right. I reported it to the ethics committee and I paid the money back. I embarrassed myself, I embarrassed you and for that, I'm very sorry. I'm Tom Feeney and I approve this message because public service means about being honest, even when you make a mistake."

Swing State Project calls it "nuts" and does not think voters are in a particularly given mood right now. And for my part, I can find plenty of reasons on the merits to vote out Rep. Feeney. But I appreciate this ad. In contrast to the prevailing political norm, which is to spin and spin and spin your way out of difficulty, this feels more genuine to me. It is what I always say I'd want a politician to do in such a situation.

Maybe I'm being too nice. The ad is obviously self-serving. And it is several years after the fact. But for some reason, I find it quite refreshing. So I give Rep. Feeney a pat on the back -- even though I still hope he goes down in November.

See also The Orlando Sentinel.

Big Win For Transgender Rights

In a landmark ruling, a federal judge has ruled that discrimination on the basis of gender identity violates Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination. The case is Schroer v. Billington, and was filed by Diane Schroer, the former special forces operative whom I saw testify before Congress about this very case.

Here is Professor Nan Hunter's summary:

First, the judge found that there was “compelling evidence that the Library’s hiring decision was infected by sex stereotypes.” On that basis, Schroer was entitled to relief under the line of cases beginning with Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), which created the sex stereotyping doctine. In that case, the Court found that Title VII was violated when a woman was denied a job after being told to wear make-up and take a course at charm school. Evidence in the Schroer trial established that the negative reaction to Schroer grew out of her not fitting gender stereotypes by virtue of her decision to change genders.

More important was the second theory: that discrimination based on gender transition is literally discrimination based on sex. Schorer’s lawyers argued, and the judge agreed, that gender identity is a component of sex and therefore discrimination based on gender identity is sex discrimination. This might sound like a simple proposition, but previous federal courts have “carved [transgender] persons out of the statute by concluding that ‘transsexuality’ is unprotected by Title VII.”

The Schroer court held that just as discrimination against converts from one to faith to another is still discrimination based on religion, so too discrimination against transgender persons is still sex discrimination. Although doubtless Congress did not have transgender persons in mind when Title VII was enacted in 1964, the court found that the plain text of the statute covers this situation.

A great day for the rights of all Americans. Let's hope it holds up on appeal -- many other jurisdictions have sought to "carve out" gender identity from Title VII protections.

A Good Bad Ad

The quest to try and get the media to note that the McCain campaign has been nakedly and repeatedly lying over and over again is gaining some traction. But the primary barrier to it really receiving mainstream penetration is the perception that "everybody does it", and that whatever McCain is saying, it does not fall beyond the typical exaggerations and distortions that we frankly come to expect out of modern politicians.

But there is a difference between what the McCain campaign has been doing and the "typical" campaign. The following McCain ad is an example of a normal, partisan, mildly but not unreasonably unfair piece:



This an effective ad, and there is nothing too outrageous about it. Sure, it's a cheap shot, and sure that $42,000 figure is pretty dicey. But if this was all that the McCain campaign had been running, nobody would be having a conversation about how McMaverick decided to shove his integrity out a jet window from 30,000 feet. There is a qualitative difference between this ad, and the one's accusing Obama of supporting sex education for kindergarterners. Or Sarah Palin bleating about how she opposed the bridge to nowhere. Those are far more brazen and pernicious. This is a typical political ad. It's important to remember the difference.

MS Sup. Ct. Quote of the Year

The Mississippi Supreme Court has ruled 8-1 that Gov. Haley Barbour's (R) effort to drop the Mississippi Senate special election to the bottom of the ballot violates state election law, which clearly says that national elections (such as races for the US Senate) need to be at the top of the ballot. But the Court also held that it has no authority to actually order Barbour to comply, which is what the "1" was dissenting from (though it appears Barbour will comply voluntarily).

This is not the first time this election has landed in the lap of the MS Supreme Court. The last time, it was Barbour's successful effort to avoid scheduling the special election within 90 days of former Senator Trent Lott's (R) resignation. The law said that "The election must be held within 90 days, unless the vacancy occurs during a year when there shall be a general state or congressional election." As Lott resigned in 2007, and there were no such elections until 2008, it would seem that the 90 day rule would apply. Alas, the court disagreed, and that leads us to Justice Diaz's wonderful dissenting line:

Given the governor's recent success at convincing seven members of this Court that a year is sometimes not a year, see Barbour v. State ex. rel Hood, 974 So. 2d 232 (Miss. 2008), one cannot fault him for daring to return to our chamber and insisting that the top is sometimes not the top.

For. The. Win.

Bringing Back the Mezuzah

A bipartisan group of US Congressmen have introduced a bill which would generally prohibit landlords or homeowners associations from banning the display of religious symbols outside one's domicile.

The bipartisan Freedom of Religious Expression in the Home Act was introduced Wednesday evening by U.S. Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) and Lamar Smith (R-Texas.).

It was sparked by a June federal appeals court ruling that upheld the right of a condominium association to ban the affixing of mezuzahs on doors. The ruling addressed a Chicago-area case, but there have been similar cases elsewhere, including Florida.

The bill would outlaw rules that ban the display of religious symbols on the outside of homes unless the rule is "reasonable and necessary to prevent significant damage to property, physical harm to persons, a public nuisance or similar undue hardship."

I remarked on the case that sparked this law here, and I am glad to see Congress stepping in to try and remedy that decision. No Mezuzot means no observant Jews, and since there is nothing dangerous or harmful about putting a small insignia on one's doorstep, I do not find it unreasonable to be given a little protection here by the government.

Gondar Must Be Freed!

I received this email today, forwarded from the governing body of American Conservative Judaism:

USCJ Executive Committee Passes Resolution on Falash Mura

At the September 7, 2008 meeting of The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism’s Executive Committee, the resolution below was passed in support of having the government of Israel allow the remaining Falah Mura in Ethiopia to immigrate to Israel:

Ethiopian Jews (Falash Mura)

WHEREAS: In 2003 the Government of Israel made a commitment to bring the remaining Ethiopian Jews (Falash Mura) from Ethiopia to Israel; and

WHEREAS: The Government of Israel has now indicated it has will no longer process the remaining 8700 in Gondar; and

WHEREAS: Those Falash Mura remaining in Ethiopia who are of maternal lineage have been declared to be Jews by successive Chief Rabbis of Israel, and

WHEREAS: They are considered to be Jews by leaders of the three main streams of American Jewry (Conservative, Reform and Orthodox) and will hereafter be referred to as Jews in this document, and

WHEREAS: They are demonstrating their ardent desire to live observant Jewish lives by attending local synagogue services; availing themselves of the limited facilities, ritual objects and opportunities available in their isolated, rural area (including an unheated mikvah, shared tefillin, observance of kashrut, Shabbat and holidays); and attending classes, as available, to increase their knowledge and ability to observe Jewish religious customs, and

WHEREAS: These Jews are openly and proudly Zionist despite the real possibility of local anti-Zionist violence, which (although not approved of by the national government) has taken place in the region in the past, and

WHEREAS: This action by the Israeli Government has resulted in the UJC halting the funding of food distribution with children, pregnant women ,nursing mothers and others starving, the 8700 living in hovels with no opportunity for providing for themselves in addition to being prevented from reuniting with their families in Israel.

The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism (USCJ) hereby calls upon the Government of Israel to adhere to its commitment and process these 8700 remaining Ethiopian Jews(Falash Mura) for aliyah immediately in order that the UJC resume funding so that food is provided and schools remain open until the Ethiopians Jews who are approved are brought to Israel.

The USCJ further calls upon the Federations and Jews throughout North America to work with the Israeli government to ensure that these 8700 Ethiopian Jews have adequate food, schools, medical supplies and treatment until they are brought to Israel.

The USCJ further calls upon its brother and sister North American organizations and communities to mobilize resources so that adequate funding for the humanitarian needs of the 8700 is made available.

Dr. Raymond B. Goldstein, International President

Rabbi Jerome M. Epstein, Executive Vice President, CEO

Dr. Saul Shapiro, VP- Israel

Richard Skolnik, VP- Community Relations

Dr. Marilyn Lishnoff Wind, VP- Youth and Education

Dr. Wind, incidentally, is past president of my home congregation.

While it is cool that these Jews hail from a place called Gondar, it is most certainly not okay that Israel is keeping them out. Israel has, since its founding, taken upon itself as a primary obligation the promise to take in Jews anywhere, anytime, for any reason. It is abdicating that promise in the case of these Ethiopian Jews, and that is unconscionable.

See to it Personally

I think I'm going to take my laptop into the Dell folks at the University of Chicago today. Not that I've changed my opinion of them -- they were still great when I called them last night. But there is a limit to what they can do over the phone, particularly when the problem my computer has makes it nearly impossible to run a normal diagnostic scan.

Trick or Treat

I'm sorry, but this was deserved:



From the always lovely Fail Blog.

Trick or Treat

I'm sorry, but this was deserved:



From the always lovely Fail Blog.

Gilchrest Endorses Obama

Republican Congressman Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), who recently lost a primary election after coming out against the Iraq war, and more recently seen endorsing the Democrat running to replace him, has now jumped ship entirely and is supporting Barack Obama for President.

Justifying his endorsement of Obama, Gilchrest said that "we can't use four more years of the same kind of policy that's somewhat haphazard, which leads to recklessness."

Obama and his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), "have the breadth of experience. I think they're prudent. They're knowledgable."

Matt Yglesias wonders why this isn't getting the attention that the objectively far less meaningful Lady Rothschild endorsement of McCain is. For my part, the primary reason I'd suspect -- beyond media mendacity, which is always contender -- is that Gilchrest is from Maryland, and Maryland's vote was not exactly in doubt this or any other year.

That being said, the number of prominent moderate Republicans -- particularly those no longer beholden to the Party leadership -- who have bolted to Obama's camp is striking. Chafee, Leach, and now Gilchrest are only some of the more prominent members. Add that to the ones simply withholding support from McCain (Powell, Hagel, Paul), and there is a legitimate story there to be written.

Reengaging Macaca

The Virginia GOP is trying to reach out to minorities. Good for them. The speaker they've elected to help spearhead the efforts, however, may not have been the wisest choice:

The Virginia Republicans have a big rally coming up this Saturday that's designed to reach out to minority voters in Fairfax County.

Guess who is one of the featured speakers?

George Allen. Yes, that George Allen.

We checked in with the state GOP to ask if Allen is really an effective front-man for the party's efforts to win over minorities, given the "macaca" scandal.

The answer? Yes! "George Allen has an excellent record on issues of diversity, reaching out to people," Gerry Scimeca, communications director for the state party, told us. "His whole career, his whole life have been a testament to a guy who's treated people equally across racial lines, across every kind of line."

Wow. Wow. The spokesman went on to say that the macaca comment was no big deal because "Anyone had to go on Wikipedia to be offended by it. And you know how people can mess with Wikipedia."

Well, I tip my hat to the GOP, but I can only give them a C+ for effort. Best of luck, though.

Some Quick Boxing Notes

It's been awhile since I blogged about boxing. But I wanted to drop a quick note mentioning that Oscar Diaz has emerged from his coma and his breathing on his own. This is great news. Diaz had been in a coma for two months after a fight with welterweight contender Delvin Rodriguez. He collapsed in his corner after the 10th round in one of the scariest scenes I have ever seen on television. The doctors were always optimistic, but as Rodriguez said when contacted, you don't want to get your hopes up until it actually happens. Best of luck to Diaz on his further recovery.

....Quickly while I'm on the subject of boxing, Dan Rafael's prediction about a Cotto/Margarito rematch seems to be a bit off to me: "Although Cotto was a favorite when he faced Margarito, after seeing the way the fight unfolded, it's hard to see Cotto doing much to change the outcome of a rematch."

Umm...false. There is a very big thing that Cotto could do in order to change the outcome of the rematch, and that is to go to the body. Whether it would, in fact, give him the victory is anybody's guess. But trying to dent the titanium-chinned Margarito via head-hunting was never a good move. Cotto came up through the ranks as a trench-warfare body puncher, and if he's to beat Margarito I think he's got to get back to his roots in the rematch.

The Bloom is off the Palin Boom

Barack Obama is starting to recover his lead in national polling. Jim Lindgren speculates as to why:

1) The Republican convention bounce naturally expired.

(2) The press's direct attack on Sarah Palin is working. After getting to read about Palin's record and see her for themselves, voters are starting to realize she's unqualified for the office and crazy to boot.

(3) The Wall Street collapse and the bailouts are turning voters toward Obama/Biden.

As you can see, I've taken the liberty of correcting one of the items.

Sarah Palin now has the lowest net composite favorability ratings of any of the four national candidates. She's at +7, compared to McCain's +9, Biden's +17, and Obama's +18. Palin is the rare politician who has so much wrong with her that she's actually managed to distract the press from focusing on the juicy but stupid stuff (can a woman with five kids be VP? What about her pregnant daughter?). Sure there's been some coverage on that, but (particularly given the media's propensity to focus obsessively on such things) they've been remarkably disciplined in sticking to problems of substantive merit.

And on these, most of her problems are strictly her own doing (well, her and the McCain campaign). Sure, there's probably nothing she could do forestall coverage about the fact that her own state is investigating her for abuses of power. And when the media discovered that sketchy hiring and firing decisions were a bit of a theme, that was going to come out too. But certainly she could have done better damage control. Sabotaging the state probe after promising to cooperate just looks bad. Having as your official excuse for why you fired the public safety commissioner that he was too aggressive in trying to bring down the rape rate? That's verging on parody territory. And many of the other issues are entirely self made. Palin wouldn't be getting kicked on this earmarks thing if she hadn't compulsively lied about her putative opposition to the bridge to nowhere. She could have diffused concerns about her foreign policy experience by showing knowledge and substance when interviewed by the national press. Instead she fumbled about and the McCain campaign was left trying to argue that having Russia in binocular distance was a sufficient foreign policy credential. Likewise on domestic policy -- if she demonstrated that she knew what she was talking about, she could easily have silenced a lot of critics. Instead, her analysis of the current Wall Street crisis left even conservative observers like Daniel Drezner begging for a translator. John McCain says she's America's resident expert on energy, but then she gives a figure for Alaska's proportionate energy production that's wildly off the mark (No, it's not 20%. No, it's still not 20% even if you restrict the metric to oil and gas). These are self-inflicted wounds.

Is the media in some way driving the public's recognition of these facts? Sure, obviously. But that's their job.

Internet Truisms

If I go to a cheap chain hotel (Holiday Inn or the like), internet is invariably free. If I go to a nice, upscale hotel, internet is invariably not free. Why is this so? It seems rather annoying to me. If there is a hotel that hits that magic sweet spot of "free internet" and "provides room service", I'll be hooked for life.

The Hyde Off My Back

After a few early hiccups, I'm starting to settle into my new room in my new city. I'll have some writings on what I think about Chicago just as soon as I can stop jumping to conclusions. In the meantime, my wish list includes (a) meeting new people, (b) knowing my way around, and (c) having all my materials, but particularly my pillows, arrive in the mail.

Kettle Endorses McCain

Got to love this:

Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter and member of the Democratic National Committee’s Platform Committee, will endorse John McCain for president on Wednesday, her spokesman tells CNN.
[...]
In an interview with CNN this summer, Forester did not hide her distaste for eventual Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

"This is a hard decision for me personally because frankly I don't like him," she said of Obama in an interview with CNN’s Joe Johns. "I feel like he is an elitist. I feel like he has not given me reason to trust him."

Forester is the CEO of EL Rothschild, a holding company with businesses around the world. She is married to international banker Sir Evelyn de Rothschild. Forester is a member of the DNC's Democrats Abroad chapter and splits her time living in London and New York.

But Obama's the elitist. Mmmhmm. Well then. I'll look on the bright side -- having idiots like Lynn Forester de Rothschild cut their ties to the Democratic Party is not exactly the worst electoral outcome I can imagine.

Home and Away

I'm leaving Carleton this evening to return home to Maryland, but essentially turning back around immediately to go to Chicago.

So, to tide you over, here are a few links:

Italian prosecutors are trying to send a comedian to prison for insulting the Pope. State-sponsored censorship of religious parodies is so much better than the spontaneous, riot-inducing variety.

Tim Wise on what this election (and particularly Sarah Palin) is telling us about White privilege.

Sarah Palin had no Blacks on her staff in Alaska and said she had no obligation to hire any. In her defense, I'm she'd say she would hire a qualified Black staffer. Unfortunately, none possessed the relevant qualification of being her childhood pal.

Also, Governor Palin's approvals are starting to falter.

The Missing Piece

David Bernstein complains about an excerpt from a "one-sided" NYT article about the McCain campaign's move towards distortions. Here's the offending passage:

On Friday on "The View," generally friendly territory for politicians, one co-host, Joy Behar, criticized [McCain's] new advertisements. "We know that those two ads are untrue," Ms. Behar said. "They are lies. And yet you, at the end of it, say, 'I approve these messages.' Do you really approve them?"

The problem? The Times doesn't tell you that (gasp!) Behar's a liberal.

What Bernstein must have forgotten to write in his shock is anything that points to Behar being wrong in her accusation. Which makes sense, because she's absolutely right, and there is no real way to go about disputing it. The two ads in question are the one's in which he accuses Obama of supporting sex education for Kindergarterners, and of calling Sarah Palin a "pig" (as in, lipstick on a....). If you watch the relevant clip, it becomes painfully obvious that McCain has no real defense here. After being told by Behar that his ads are "lies", McCain awkwardly stumbles out "no they are not lies", before immediately trying to tell the hosts that Obama runs negative ads too. Then a different host reminds him that he himself used the "lipstick on a pig" phrase to describe Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan. McCain responded that he was talking about a policy, not Clinton herself, but the hosts reminded him that Obama was talking about change (and McCain's, not Palin's, change to boot!).

The point being that, Behar, liberal or not, levied an accurate charge. McCain's ads are lies. Phrasing it as a typical "liberals-say/conservatives-say" dispute obscures the truth of the matter, which is that John McCain released two ads that are flagrantly untrue, and when called on the matter, he continued to lie without reservation. And the article continues to give several "independent" speakers (and some not-so-independent ones, like Orrin Hatch) who verify that McCain is fabricating in his ads.

I'm sorry that Professor Bernstein doesn't think that the New York Times obfuscated the issue sufficiently -- but to my mind, clarity is a feature in journalism, not a bug.

Old Stomping Grounds

I'm off to visit Carleton this weekend (Friday -- Tuesday). Then I'm going to Chicago on Wednesday, moving in, driving to Milwaukee on Sunday for a wedding, and finally coming back to Chicago for good a week from Monday.

Blogging, understandably, will be sporadic in this period.

Catch y'all later!

Palin's Foreign Policy Interview

ABC has put up excerpts of Charlie Gibson's interview with McCain VP nominee Sarah Palin. It's essentially all about foreign policy, so no questions about earmarks or the bridge to nowhere or troopergate, which is unfortunate. Gibson also mischaracterized one of Palin's remarks about Iraq, saying that she stated that "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." In actuality, it seemed clear to me from context that Palin was praying that "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God," which is perfectly reasonable. So it was unfortunate that Gov. Palin was forced to spend time discussing a question whose premise was essentially untrue.

As for the rest of the interview, it's difficult to know how Palin will come off from only reading the transcript. Most of her answers seemed a bit evasive or filibuster-y to me, but it's possible to do that quite effectively when it comes across the TV. The question is, will she come off as "strong on defense" (good) or "a crazy conservative hardliner" (bad). To the extent that she gave us policy, it's clearly the latter -- but I have no idea what the perception will be.

But the was one major, major gaffe I saw that could set the tone for the entire coverage. It was when Gibson asked her about allowing Georgia to join NATO:

GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?

PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.

GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.

PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.

Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but...

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.

But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to -- especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.

We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

Committing to war with Russia? Yeah, that's bad. And that's the problem with putting Georgia in NATO. It's a commitment that there is simply no way we'll be willing to keep. Russia knows we won't keep it, and if they call our bluff, the entire premise of NATO collapses. It is under no circumstances responsible policy-making -- but it is the upshot of the recent conservative foreign policy doctrine that thinks more bluster is the solution to every problem.

Who Loves Palin?

Republicans, obviously. But does anyone else? Rasmussen polling indicates the answer is "not really". Amongst all voters, she's at 58%, which is pretty good. But if the numbers for independents are to be believed, virtually all her positives are coming from the right:

Independents:
20% very favorable
15% somewhat favorable
26% somewhat unfavorable
35% very unfavorable
3% not sure

35/61? Ouch!

Other polls may have different mileage though -- for whatever reason, I have an instinctive distrust of Rasmussen. If you have any other polls whose cross-tabs show something different, let me know in the comments.

The Homeless Vote

Some folks at TMV asked about whether homeless people have the right to vote, given that they don't have a home (and thus, perhaps, a permanent address). The National Coalition for the Homeless has a state-by-state chart detailing the rules. The verdict seems to be "theoretically, they can vote, but some states there are higher practical barriers than others."

Incidentally, the NCH site is a great resource on the entire issue of homeless voting -- not to mention other important aspects of aiding the homeless.

Not So Fly (Even For a Rabbi)

A large organization representing Haredi (i.e., ultra-orthodox) Jews in Israel has come up with guidelines for "kosher" music.

Musicians who use rock, rap, reggae and trance influences will not receive rabbinic approval for their CDs, nor will they be allowed to play in wedding halls under haredi kosher food supervision, according to a new, detailed list of guidelines drafted with rabbinical backing that differentiates between "kosher" and "treif" music.

The guidelines, which are still being formulated, also ban "2-4 beats and other rock and disco beats;" the "improper" use of electric bass, guitars and saxophones; and singing words from holy sources in a disrespectful, frivolous manner.

"Michael Jackson-style music has no place in our community," says Mordechai Bloi, a senior member of the Guardians of Sanctity and Education, an organization based in Bnei Brak that enforces what it sees as normative haredi behavior.

"We might be able to adopt Bach or Beethoven, music with class, but not goyishe African music and beats. We haredim want to protect ourselves from what we see as negative foreign influences. We are trying to maintain our own authentic music styles. We admit that times are changing, but we are trying to stay loyal to our roots."

I love the distinction between classical music (does none of that have 2-4 beats?) and "goyishe African music", and how it screams ethnic chauvinism. On the other hand, this creates an opportunity for a great cross-over project: "Footloose on the Roof."

But seriously -- this is such an embarrassment to the worldwide Jewish community. These people are our fundamentalists.

Via Tapped

Dell Tech Support

I admit that the only reason I got a Dell for law school is because Chicago told me to (and my old computer broke). But, after having experienced a minor problem with the computer these past few days, I just want to say Dell tech support is amazing. A huge contrast with HP. They were great over the phone, walked me through all the stuff they wanted to try, were very friendly (and understandable), and when they thought they figured out what might be the problem, they sent a technician over to my house with all the parts next day. Actually, it was scheduled for "Friday or Monday", but then they told me they could come by Thursday. And when I asked if they could come to a different place (Friday I'd be in Minnesota, so I was going to leave it at my dad's office -- today I'm still in Maryland), they didn't bat an eyelash. And when the technician showed up, he basically took apart and put back together my entire computer, before my eyes, in the space of 25 minutes. Which was pretty cool, actually.

A+ all around. Great work.

Voter Suppression Tactic of the Day

I bet Hans loves this one:

The chairman of the Republican Party in Macomb County Michigan, a key swing county in a key swing state, is planning to use a list of foreclosed homes to block people from voting in the upcoming election as part of the state GOP’s effort to challenge some voters on Election Day.

“We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren’t voting from those addresses,” party chairman James Carabelli told Michigan Messenger in a telephone interview earlier this week. He said the local party wanted to make sure that proper electoral procedures were followed.

Yes, you read that right. Michigan Republican leaders' response to home foreclosure is to make sure the victims also can't vote (apparently, Ohio Republicans -- always looking for new ways to block the voting booth -- have also considered this tactic).

One expert questioned the legality of the tactic.

“You can’t challenge people without a factual basis for doing so,” said J. Gerald Hebert, a former voting rights litigator for the U.S. Justice Department who now runs the Campaign Legal Center, a Washington D.C.-based public-interest law firm. “I don’t think a foreclosure notice is sufficient basis for a challenge, because people often remain in their homes after foreclosure begins and sometimes are able to negotiate and refinance.”

As for the practice of challenging the right to vote of foreclosed property owners, Hebert called it, “mean-spirited.”

You're damn right it's mean-spirited. But what can you do? Elections are played to win, and Republicans think that the best way they can win is to stop the people who've been screwed over by their rule from voting (they tried to pull this on veterans too). But it's dishonorable, it's an affront to democracy, and it should be stopped in its tracks.

Quote of the Day

On the noble adverb:

Yet somewhere in the past decade or so, the adverb has fallen out of style. Become passé. They’re too flowery, too squishy. Real authors don’t say someone delivered a line archly, they leave it to their reader to puzzle it out from the way they wrote it, like God and Ernest Hemingway intended.

Read it. Quickly.

Bye-Bye

I had to delete PG's very kind words about my blog from the "about" section. Unfortunately, now that I'm going to law school I can't really advertise that I have "some of the most impressive casual writing I've ever seen from an undergraduate." It had a good run though, and I'm genuinely grateful.

If you'd like to take PG's place in the "about" section, feel free to write a less-temporally-restricted sound bite about how brilliant I am. Try it! It's fun, and it's guaranteed to stroke me ego.

Local Judge Strikes Down Florida's Gay Adoption Ban

It's a circuit judge in Key West, so it doesn't have state-wide applicability, but a judge has just ruled that Florida's gay adoption ban violates the state constitution. The law had previously survived, incorrectly in my view, a federal constitutional challenge.

Judge David J. Audlin Jr. wrote in his ruling, which has not yet been formally published, that the Florida law forbidding gay people from adopting children is contrary to the state Constitution because it singles out a group for punishment.

"Contrary to every child welfare principle," Audlin wrote, "the gay adoption ban operates as a conclusive or irrebuttable presumption that ... it is never in the best interest of any adoptee to be adopted by a homosexual."

Since even the most rabid academic opponents of gay adoption concede that blanket bans are inadvisable, it is tough to criticize this ruling. Congratulations to (parts of) Florida, for this great step forward in the journey towards human equality.

Via Cogitamus.

Incidentally, We're Alive

The Large Hadron Collider was turned on today, and despite the concerns of some "skeptics", the world did not end. Which I'm pleased to hear, obviously. I don't have enough scientific expertise (which is to say, I have none at all) to doubt the assurances of all the scientists who assured us the experiment was perfectly safe. I did, however, observe that the manner in which the scientists responded to these concerns reminded me of every sci-fi plotline in which scientific hubris/overreach causes the downfall of human civilization.

Thankfully, the universe is neither ironic nor interested in literary cliches, so we're good. For now.

We Didn't Hear You The First Time

Another Georgia Republican -- this time the House candidate running against perpetually-endangered Democratic Jim Marshall -- called a Black man he didn't like "uppity".

What is with these people?

Calling a Spade

They don't quite put it in the headline, but the Washington Post basically ran a front-page article today calling Sarah Palin a liar:

From the moment Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin declared that she had opposed the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," critics, the news media and nonpartisan fact checkers have called it a fabrication or, at best, a half-truth. But yesterday in Lebanon, Ohio, and again in Lancaster, Pa., she crossed that bridge again.

"I told Congress: 'Thanks but no thanks for that Bridge to Nowhere up in Alaska,' " Palin told the crowds at the "McCain Street USA" rallies. "If we wanted a bridge, we'll build it ourselves."

Palin's position on the bridge that would have linked Ketchikan to Gravina Island is one example of a candidate staying on message even when that message has been publicly discredited. Palin has continued to say she opposed a project she once campaigned for -- then killed later, only after support for it had collapsed in Congress.

That, to be clear, is the opening three paragraphs. On the front page of the Washington Post.

It's amazing to me that the media actually appears to be doing its job here. Meanwhile, the response of a Republican strategist was priceless:

"The more the New York Times and The Washington Post go after Sarah Palin, the better off she is, because there's a bigger truth out there and the bigger truths are she's new, she's popular in Alaska and she is an insurgent," Feehery said. "As long as those are out there, these little facts don't really matter."

Little facts are for little people.

Roundup Hiatus

Hey all. As I prepare to start law school, I'm doing a bit of traveling, and a lot of packing. As a result, I'm going to put the civil rights roundup on hiatus for the next couple of weeks. I hopefully will be able to get in periodic blogging as I cross-cross the country (well, the mid-west anyway), but there is no realistic way I'll be able to keep up a regular enough schedule for something like the roundup.

I'm not killing the feature -- just giving it a little break until I settle in at Chicago. Assuming law school doesn't kill me, expect the roundup to resume by October 1st at the latest.

Off to a Fine Start

A Black member of a dance troupe on (of all things) an international goodwill tour was forced to dance by Israeli security upon arriving at the airport in order to prove his identity. The man, Abdur-Rahim Jackson, was singled out by Israel's notoriously tough airline security personnel due to his Muslim-sounding name. As it turns out, he's engaged to a Jewish woman with relatives in Israel.

Fortunately, it appears that this did not derail the entire trip:

Jackson said he did not plan to press the matter further, saying the numerous apologies he has received from American dignitaries and his Israeli hosts is "enough for me." The Israel Ports Authority said it had no comment because it did not receive a formal complaint.
[...]
Jackson said that since the Israeli airport incident, the reception in Israel has been "amazing."

"We're only here to bring positive light to our lives and the people here," he said, calling the group's multicultural appeal "an amazing bind you can't touch, you can only experience."

Via Prom6.

Michelle Obama Related to a Rabbi

Neat story in The Forward: one of Michelle Obama's cousins is a Black Jewish rabbi.

Funnye (pronounced fuh-NAY) is chief rabbi at the Beth Shalom B’nai Zaken Ethiopian Hebrew Congregation in southwest Chicago. He is well-known in Jewish circles for acting as a bridge between mainstream Jewry and the much smaller, and largely separate, world of black Jewish congregations, sometimes known as black Hebrews or Israelites. He has often urged the larger Jewish community to be more accepting of Jews who are not white.
[...]
Although Funnye’s congregation describes itself as Ethiopian Hebrew, it is not connected to the Ethiopian Jews, commonly called Beta Israel, who have immigrated to Israel en masse in recent decades. It is also separate from the Black Hebrews in Dimona, Israel, and the Hebrew Israelite black supremacist group whose incendiary street harangues have become familiar spectacles in a number of American cities.

You can read about his congregation here. The New York Times also wrote up a profile on them. I'd certainly be interested in visiting them once I move to Chicago.

Consigned to the Bloody Deep

Mississippi Governor and noted corrupt maniac Haley Barbour (R) has decided to place the Mississippi Senate special election at the bottom of the ballot, where he hopes nobody will see it. He did so because "traditionally", that's where special elections go. Unfortunately, "legally", Mississippi election law mandates that federal contests appear at the top of the ballot. But Barbour has never much concerned himself with election law (and unfortunately, last time he got away with it).

There is no word as to whether the Democratic challenger, former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove, will challenge Barbour's decision.

100 MPH

CNN has an interesting profile on the new superintendent of DC schools, Michelle Rhee. Now, I'm not enough of an education expert to know what plans are good and what ones are bad. Indeed, to the extent that I have an opinion, its skepticism of the trend towards mass imposition of standardized tests, which Rhee seems to support. But whatever opinions I have on particular educational policies are far outstripped by my sentiment that the primary barrier to true reform of school district's like DC are structural. Rotting infrastructure, calcified bureaucracies, inept record-keeping -- these things can swallow even the best-laid plans and spit them out as if nothing happened. Rhee, if nothing else, seems to have gotten enough momentum to shake things up in DC. And while that phrase is normally a cliche, in the district I think it is quite apt. DC school reform has failed before because nobody could even get the reforms started. Rhee, to her credit, has decided to start with step one, and not let off the gas pedal. Hopefully it will work.

Don't Mock the Constitution

Obama hits back at Sarah Palin, who derisively attacked Obama in her convention speech for being "worried that someone won't read them their rights.":

"My position has always been clear: If you've got a terrorist, take him out," Obama said. "Anybody who was involved in 9/11, take 'em out."

But Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for more than a decade, said captured suspects deserve to file writs of habeus [sic] corpus.

Calling it "the foundation of Anglo-American law," he said the principle "says very simply: If the government grabs you, then you have the right to at least ask, 'Why was I grabbed?' And say, 'Maybe you've got the wrong person.'"

The safeguard is essential, Obama continued, "because we don't always have the right person."

"We don't always catch the right person," he said. "We may think it's Mohammed the terrorist, but it might be Mohammed the cab driver. You might think it's Barack the bomb-thrower, but it might be Barack the guy running for president."

Obama turned back to Palin's comment, although he said he was not sure whether Palin or Rudy Giuliani said it.

"The reason that you have this principle is not to be soft on terrorism. It's because that's who we are. That's what we're protecting," Obama said, his voice growing louder and the crowd rising to its feet to cheer. "Don't mock the Constitution. Don't make fun of it. Don't suggest that it's not American to abide by what the founding fathers set up. It's worked pretty well for over 200 years."

I remember Palin's line at the convention. It stuck with me, because it indicated something that had become increasingly clear about the modern GOP over the past few years. Lawless detention is now a litmus test for the party. You cannot be a member in good standing and support Habeas Corpus. You cannot be a member in good standing and support fair trials. You cannot be a member in good standing and support due process.

It is a mockery of the constitution. The American people deserve to know that.

Civil Rights Roundup: 09/09/08

Your daily dose of civil rights and related news

The US Supreme Court is asking for briefs on whether it should rehear the Kennedy v. Louisiana death penalty case. The Court's decision, which outlawed the use of capital punishment for child rape, had a factual inaccuracy in that it claimed that the US military did not allow such punishment.

In a reversal, the V.A. will allow voter registration drives at veteran's facilities.

A Dallas suburb wants renters to get a "license" from city officials, verifying they are in the country legally.

The Justice Department seems to want to focus more on the non-existent voter fraud problem this cycle, rather than the always-real risk of voter suppression. Huge surprise.

The Pottsville Republican-Herald has a rundown of the status of hate crime laws in America. Fun fact: of the five states that have no such laws at all, four are in the former confederacy (hurray to Wyoming for breaking up the all-dixie club).

A Christian fraternity at the University of New Mexico turned away a Mormon applicant. Awkward turtle?

An all-female, all-Muslim law firm is dispensing justice and breaking stereotypes.

The city of Oakland is being sued after a woman claims she was touched inappropriately during an illegal police stop. The officer in question has already resigned after being tried and convicted of similar charges.

Hazleton, PA, is back in court defending its harsh anti-illegal immigrant laws.

A school district which tried to prohibit students from wearing black armbands in protest of its dress code is appealing its case to the US Supreme Court.

Depositions ordered in the surreal death penalty case where the judge and prosecutor were romantically involved.

An interesting story about Arab rescuers during the Holocaust.

Starting this year, all polling places in the Albany area will be handicapped-accessible.

Feeling It

In the comments to this Southern Appeal post, we had yet another discussion about the meaning of Jeremiah Wright's "chickens coming home to roost" sermon, and whether it was morally condemnable. I argued that Wright was making a positive, not normative, claim: We supported terrorism in, among other places, Latin America; now we're experiencing it here at home. And it turns out, being victimized by terrorism really sucks. There is no explicit normative component to this argument, which makes it difficult to condemn. Had Wright taken the normative step of saying: "because we engaged in terrorism abroad, we deserved to experience it here at home", that would be unjust. But he didn't say that. Indeed, I argued, if anything the implied normative dimension of his statement was that -- having experienced terrorism for ourselves -- hopefully it would expand our empathy so that we do not ever again support such terrorist atrocities enacted upon other human beings.

Today, The Washington Post reports on a study that demonstrates that people become desensitized to injustices perpetuated by their group upon others when they are reminded of injustices they themselves experienced. Americans, for example, are far less concerned about innocent Iraqi suffering brought on by the Iraq war when primed by 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, than we are if primed by the Nazis invading Poland. Jews are less likely to express sympathy for Palestinian suffering when primed by the Holocaust than when primed by the Cambodian genocide.

The study's authors concluded that people who experience injustice and victimization are prone to "lash out" in an effort to make sure they do not experience it again. But this tendency does not necessarily restrict itself at the actual perpetrators of the crime -- creating new classes of victims and new circles of pain and retribution.

In this light, the role of ministers, rabbis, pastors, imams, and other spiritual leaders, in the role as moral guides, have a particular obligation to counter this instinct. The authors also say that the instinct for revenge can be, with effort, turned -- from "never let this happen to me again" to "never let me be the type person who causes this to happen again". That is the message that mass atrocity should create in is. The easiest thing to do, when one is victimized, is to promote more pain. The hard thing, but the right thing, is to try and build a world where that pain no longer is created.

Mole Onboard

From the Washington Post's story on how Sarah Palin is energizing the GOP base:

"Hearing her pro-life stance, her conservative values, her family orientation -- it has really resonated with the proletariat and caused people to say: 'Hey, I'm going to get involved here. This is someone I can relate with; this is someone that can win,' " said David Willis, an electrical engineer and GOP activist in Smithfield.

Right. As if a true GOP activist would describe himself with a communist-inspired word like "proletariat". I see right through you, David Willis.

"Everything was pretty lackluster," said Earl Hall, the volunteer representative for Surry, who is far more excited now that Palin's in the picture: "She's right good-looking -- that's all I need to know."

Now that's genuine Republican material!

Civil Rights Roundup: 09/08/08

Your daily dose of civil rights and related news

Hopefully, the Senate will fast track the passage of the ADA when it returns from recess.

Students registering to vote on college campuses is confusing registrars.

The DOJ is widening its investigation after an Asian student with perfect SAT scores was rejected from Princeton University. The student says that he was rejected based on race, the school notes that there is more to a candidacy than SAT scores.

Some cities are turning to civil injunctions to curb gang violence, prohibiting, for example, gang members from meeting as being a "nuisance". The ACLU warns that this has the potential to criminalize normal daily activities and thus violates suspected gang members' civil rights.

The former dean of U. Washington's law school warned Nebraskans about what will happen to their school's diversity if it approves a ban on affirmative action. He should know -- Washington approved a similar ban in 1998, and watched minority enrollment plunge immediately after.

The Tucson Citizen urges its readership to vote no on Arizona's anti-gay marriage amendment.

An anti-gay marriage amendment in Florida is not polling strong enough to pass at the moment.

Should the constitution be amended to add a right to vote? I don't see why not.

Immigration courts still groan under a huge backlog, and are making only small progress it getting over it.

The New Yorker has an essay on Lily Ledbetter's request for equal pay, and John McCain (and his fellow GOPers) response.

A Florida town is now arresting people for wearing too-baggy pants. Unsurprisingly, the local Black community feels targeted, and one lawyer says the law is "designed to be pretextual."

The Orlando Sentinel looks at the history of the relationship between Florida Blacks and Latinos.

A homeowner in Montana discovered a racial covenant buried in his contract, dated from 1945. Though unenforceable, the man decided to leave it in as a reminder of the communities racially exclusive past.

Miami officials have settled a case in which prison guards were accused a beating a mentally-ill man into a coma.

Quote of the Evening

From Derrick Bell, Silent Covenants: Brown v. Board and the Unfulfilled Hopes for Racial Reform (Oxford UP, 2004):

J. Harvie Wilkinson III, now a federal judge but writing as a University of Virginia professor two decades after Brown, offered practical details of why Brown II was a mistake. Brown II, he felt, left federal judges far too exposed; it "gave trial judges little to wrap in or hide behind. The enormous discretion of the trial judge in interpreting such language as 'all deliberate speed' and 'prompt and reasonable start' made his personal role painfully obvious." The judge who, in trying to enforce Brown, did more than the bare minimum, would be held unpleasantly accountable by the active, vocal, and powerful opposition that surrounded him. Wilkinson explained:

Segregationists were always able to point to more indulgent judges elsewhere. Brown II thus resembled nothing more than an order for the infantry to assault segregation without prospect of air or artillery support. That some of the infantry lacked enthusiasm for the cause only made matters worse.... Given the vague and sparse character of Brown II and the Court's low profile thereafter, stagnation was inevitable.

The Wilkinson block quote is from J. Harvie Wilkinson III, The Supreme Court * Southern School Desegregation, 1955 - 1970: A History and Analysis, 64 Va. L. Rev. 485, 507 (1978).

And my schizophrenic relationship with Judge Wilkinson continues.

Palin on Contraception

As the media continues to dig deep in order to find out what Sarah Palin thinks about, well, anything, the LA Times hits upon a surprising revelation: Sarah Palin supports contraceptive education.

In a widely quoted 2006 survey she answered during her gubernatorial campaign, Palin said she supported abstinence-until-marriage programs. But weeks later, she proclaimed herself "pro-contraception" and said condoms ought to be discussed in schools alongside abstinence.

"I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues," she said during a debate in Juneau.
[...]
Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella said the governor stands by her 2006 statement, supporting sex education that covers both abstinence and contraception.
[...]
Palin's statements date to her 2006 gubernatorial run. In July of that year, she completed a candidate questionnaire that asked, would she support funding for abstinence-until-marriage programs instead of "explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?"

Palin wrote, "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."

But in August of that year, Palin was asked during a KTOO radio debate if "explicit" programs include those that discuss condoms. Palin said no and called discussions of condoms "relatively benign."

"Explicit means explicit," she said. "No, I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't scare me, so it's something I would support also."

Amazingly, this puts her considerably to the left of both John McCain and the Republican Party platform. But it is good to hear, and since I haven't exactly been Palin's biggest fan*, I felt it was worth pointing out. (H/T: Jim Lindgren).

* If anything, I've been understating how much I dislike this woman. I've been weighing this whole weekend writing a post entitled "Why I Hate Sarah Palin" -- and while there are many politicians I dislike, some quite strongly, there are very few politicians I would say I "hate". But Governor Palin's willingness to lie shamelessly on camera over and over again (the bridge to nowhere "opposition") and, more importantly, the way she seems to positively revel in attacking her opponents, are precisely the sort of things which inevitably set me off. Palin's speeches crest at her lows -- when she's at her most biting, her most vicious, her most mean-spirited, and her most cruel. That is the type of politics that made me decide long ago I never wanted to go into politics. It might make her effective. But to me, it also makes her loathsome.

Minimums and Individuals

Ian Ayres and Sydney Foster have posted a Texas Law Review article they wrote entitled Don't Tell, Don't Ask: Narrow Tailoring after Grutter and Gratz. I haven't read the article yet, but the gist of it is that in the wake of Grutter and Gratz, there has been a subtle realignment of the constitutional standard for race-conscious decision making by governmental bodies. Previously, the standard was that the usage of race had to be done as narrowly as possible to achieve the legitimate governmental objective. But, Ayres & Foster point out, the affirmative action plan upheld in Grutter actually likely was more dependent on race than the plan rejected in Gratz.

In light of this, Ayres and Foster claim that the new relevant standard is whether the affirmative action plan gives "individualized consideration". Gratz's impersonal points system does not satisfy this requirement, but Grutter's more ambiguous "critical mass" proposal did. However, A&F say this effectively encourages policymakers to simply not tell how large of a racial preference they're giving, with the promise that by doing so they'll receive court deference. Hence, they recommend that the court's return to the minimum necessary preference standard, which allows for weighing the relevant constitutional costs and benefits of particular race-conscious policies.

I find this argument interesting primarily because my own conceptualization of race-conscious programs relies very heavily on the individualized nature of them. To my mind, race consciousness can be defended primarily because racial identity is as "individually" mine as the fact that I'm Jewish, or (sometimes) smart, or graduated from Carleton, or like ice hockey. Whatever my race brings (or doesn't bring) to the table, that is something that decision makers can evaluate individually, for me and every other candidate. Since I believe that (among other things), contribution to racial diversity is a meritorious contribution to an institution, I think that this sort of analysis is part of how one engages in meritocratic evaluation.

I'm skeptical of a minimum usage standard because I believe they buy into a colorphobic image of American society that I think is ultimately damaging to efforts at racial healing and equality. They implicitly concede that race is something scary and dangerous, and we should try to use it as sparingly as possible, lest it taint us. I'm not convinced of this. I think that the plurality of racial identities in America are a source of beauty, strength, and character to our nation, and should be drawn upon to the extent that they are useful, relevant, and meaningful. That can never happen so long as the very concept of racial difference is seen as poisonous.

But, as I've said, I've yet to read the article. So perhaps I can be persuaded otherwise -- or perhaps my objections have no relevance to what was actually written.

And...We're Back To Normal

Fresh off of Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) calling Barack Obama "uppity", we get Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) questioning Obama's love of country:

Regardless of what polls show, Inhofe said, voters will have to ask themselves a question once they get behind the curtain in the voting booth on Election Day.

"Do you really want to have a guy as commander in chief of this country when you can question whether or not he really loves his country?" he asked.

"That's the big question."

Later, Inhofe "clarified":

After he was asked for an explanation on why voters should question Obama's love for his country, Inhofe issued a written statement on Friday to clarify his earlier comments.

"Let me be clear,'' he said.

"I am not questioning Sen. Obama's patriotism, but you have to question why at times he seems so obviously opposed to public displays of patriotism and national pride, like wearing an American flag lapel pin."

Ah. Well then.

Via Hilzoy.

Dispatches from Atlantis

It's raining here in suburban Maryland, and as usual, that means our basement is halfway underwater. I've been making a game effort with the water-vacuum, but I'm unconvinced its having all that great an effect. And since it's still raining, there is an extra dose of futility surrounding the whole ordeal.

Grr... Do they have to deal with this in Chicago?

Civil Rights Roundup: 09/05/08

Your daily dose of civil rights and related news

What are Gov. Sarah Palin's views on race and civil rights? Her Alaska record leaves a mostly blank slate.

California politicians are looking to challenge the LPGA's new English profeciency rule -- the only one of its kind in professional sports.

Federal officials could not agree on whether a Muslim Imam from New Jersey had terrorist ties or not, and now an immigration judge has ruled he can gain permanent residency. Supporters of Mohammad Qatanani say he is a moderate who helped build bridges between Jews, Muslims, and Christians, as well as Muslims and law enforcement officers after 9/11. Opponents say he was linked to Hamas, citing his detention by Israel (where Qatanani claimed he was physically and mentally abused).

Pro-equality advocates in Maryland are trying to keep an initiative off the Montgomery County, MD ballot that would overturn county regulations protecting transgender individuals.

Chicago students -- mostly from the South Side -- boycotted their first day of classes and instead showed up at wealthy suburban New Trier High School in protest of massive educational inequalities in the area.

Another Texas execution is on the ropes following allegations that the judge and prosecutor were having an affair.

An open letter to Sarah Palin by National Advocates for Pregnant Women argues that her anti-abortion stand also threatens the liberty of women who take their pregnancies to term.

The Agriprocessors kosher meat plant is being attacked again for slaughtering practices that seem to violate both American and Kosher laws.

The same plant is also fighting desperately to prevent its workers from unionizing, despite an NLRB ruling requiring them to recognize one.

RNC police are denying they're using excessive force on protesters,

All-boys charter schools are causing controversy in Philadelphia.

The Treasury Department has to get cracking on making paper money accessible to the blind.

It's In the Dictionary

I just had to share this exchange I just had with my mother, after John McCain's speech:

Me: I never knew John McCain was a POW.

Mom: Are you kidding me?

Me: *gives her a look* Of course!

Mom: You know I'm gullible!

Me: I know, but seriously! If you looked up gullible in the dictionary....

Mom: It'd have my picture next to it.

Me: Well, it wouldn't because gullible isn't in the dictionary.

Mom: Really?

Me: Arrrrghhh!!!

McCain Speech Liveblog

I went from "I'm not watching" to "I'm liveblogging" in the space of a minute. Let's see what ol' Straight Talk has for us.

***

11:04 PM: Very, very good speech. Much better, and much more effective than Palin I thought. This was the start of McCain's move to the center, and I thought he evoked the themes that attracted many independent Americans to him in the first place.

11:03 PM: He better end here, because this "stand up and fight" bit is a great concluding material.

11:02 PM: Maverick spelling of "mavrick" in the crowd, I see.

11:00 PM: As much as I think the story of McCain's background (not just in Vietnam, but as a "maverick reformer") is effective -- and I think it is -- there is an element of self-aggrandizement to the way he tells it that can come off as self-serving. Far more than Obama ever does, McCain focuses a lot on telling his audience that he is the shiz-nit.

10:58 PM: It's a harrowing story. But why can't John McCain say the word "torture"?

10:56 PM: I didn't know John McCain was a POW. How interesting.

10:51 PM: That bit about how John McCain hated war was quite good. He's not going to harness the dedicated anti-war set, obviously, but I can see that passage as being very appealing to independents.

10:47 PM: I'm being critical, but this is a solid speech. Quite policy oriented, which is nice given how little McCain has wanted to talk about policy. His speaking style is a little bit stilted, but it's not terrible and no worse than normal. He was never going to match-up to Obama on the speaking front, so as long as he doesn't actively hurt himself, I think his campaign will be happy.

10:45 PM: I love how the camara panned to the "environmentalist for McCain" poster just as he's talking about all the places he'd like to drill. And the chant of "drill, baby drill" goes up again.

10:44 PM: No, I really thought I heard it again. It's whenever he attacks teachers or teachers' unions.

10:43 PM: Did I just hear boos on his education plan? It was probably just me.

10:42 PM: Education is the new civil rights issue? Dangerous territory....

10:41 PM: Really good on free trade. New jobs "that won't go away" is a good line. He's really hitting this plan quite well -- and it's the type of concern that plays in a lot of swing states.

10:39 PM: Second highest business tax rate in the world? Did not know that, and it's an effective fact to drop in. Assuming it's true, rather than another "I opposed the bridge to nowhere" moment.

10:38 PM: And again with the booing. Is this really the image Republicans want to project?

10:36 PM: "Latina daughter of migrant workers" is one of God's children. Good line -- but notice how tepid the applause was? Some folks are thinking "anchor baby..."

10:35 PM: He's laying into Republicans now. Again, smart move. The base is there thanks to Palin -- now's the time to move to the middle.

10:33 PM: Interesting choice. The focus on special needs children is now a theme of the GOP convention between McCain and Palin's speeches, and I think it's a very effective one. It's not normal GOP fare, and it drives the social conservatives wild with delight, while also appealing to independents. Definitely both his and his running mate's strongest moment.

10:32 PM: McCain is saying he's done this and that, but with very few specifics. The only real specific examples he's given of what he has done and will do are that he supported the surge, and that he'll veto that first pork bill. With regards to the rest, it's just rhetoric ("I'll fight for you", "I took on corruption", etc.), and a question of whether independents believe him or not (or more importantly, think he'll still fight for it in his new, GOP-friendly incarnation).

10:30 PM: They will walk among the people, and pass laws, and you shall know them by their craft...thou shalt not suffer a pork-barreler to live!

10:27 PM: Again, does McCain really think he can beat Obama in a "change" themed election? Maybe he doesn't see another route to go. But this is a danger sign.

10:26 PM: McCain shouldn't have to be using his speech time to defend Palin. Did Obama have to defend Biden? That's a sign McCain still thinks she has weaknesses.

10:24 PM: Yes, this is turning into a problem. Every time McCain tries to acknowledge that there are issues that need to be dealt with in America, the crowd starts chanting "USA! USA!" It's very incongruous.

10:23 PM: Another protester made it through. Well timed, too -- it made it sound like the crowd was booing the idea that some people are having bad times.

10:21 PM: Nice brief outreach to Obama. But doesn't it ring hollow after Palin's speech? I guess that depends on the route McCain takes tonight.

10:20 PM: The Xcel Center is not small -- but the memory of Obama's outdoor speech makes it look like a hovel.

10:19 PM: Awww... I like Roberta McCain.

10:17 PM: He starts off by thanking President Bush. Wise move, assuming he is never mentioned again.

10:16 PM: And the crowd goes wild for the US Olympics team!

They Finally Said It

Democrats have been noting for months that "elitist" is the GOP's new word for "uppity". And now, Georgia Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R) finally stopped using the code:

Georgia Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland used the racially-tinged term "uppity" to describe Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama Thursday.

Westmoreland was discussing vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's speech with reporters outside the House chamber and was asked to compare her with Michelle Obama.

"Just from what little I’ve seen of her and Mr. Obama, Sen. Obama, they're a member of an elitist-class individual that thinks that they're uppity," Westmoreland said.

Asked to clarify that he used the word “uppity,” Westmoreland said, “Uppity, yeah.”

"Elitist" is ambiguous. After all, Republicans have used it to describe every Democratic candidate since I've been following politics. "Uppity", however, is not. It is classic racist discourse, and you cannot tell me a 58-year old Georgian does not know that front-to-back. Even if it is Lynn "I voted for torture!" Westmoreland.

Westmoreland owes Obama a personal apology, to say the least, and if that's all that it takes to dissipate this he should consider himself lucky. This is despicable.

And That's Why I Don't Watch TV Coverage

I just turned on Hardball to hear Chris Matthews saying: "I thought Gov. Palin was very positive last night."

And then I turned off Hardball.

The Next Generation of Global Leaders

Echidne snarks about it:

Then Palin went on attack, telling us how very much better John McCain was than Barack Obama, because he was a POW and was tortured. Lots of people in Guantanamo Bay will be surprised to hear that they, too, are now presidential material.

She is being sarcastic. But I genuinely worry. Being tortured, abused, harassed, or illegitimately detained by a reviled state (foreign or domestic) is, in fact, a route to political and/or social power. Senator John McCain is just one example. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is another, as is Vaclav Havel. The Sadr family in Iraq gained significant popular following after the father was killed by Saddam Hussein. It happens for the very reasons John McCain talks about: being tortured is a demonstration of loyalty and perseverance in the heart of darkness. And, whether we admit it or not, that syllogism still applies when it is our men and women who are creating the moral void.

I genuinely fear that, one of these days, a released Guantanamo, Abu Gharib, or "black site" detainee will ride to political power as a survivor of American torture. Why couldn't it happen? Standing up to America is quite popular right now in the international community. The people who we've tortured are, I suspect, not all that concerned with damaging America's image. And given our non-existent legal safeguards, it's quite possible that our theoretical Guantanamo Archipelago survivor might even be innocent of all terrorist charges.

A President of a foreign nation whose claim to fame is surviving American torture. Very little could be more damaging to our standing in the world than that image.

Did Independents Buy Palin's Speech

If this Detroit Free Press focus group is at all accurate, not even close. Palin seriously turned off independents last night with her biting, sarcastic, and at times frankly vicious speech. Did the speech rally the base? Of course, and quite effectively at that. But it is hard for me to believe that rallying the base will be sufficient for the GOP this cycle.

Civil Rights Roundup: 09/04/08

Your daily dose of civil rights and related news

This is a little late, but the Atlanta Journal-Constitution had a fascinating story about an area police office who found out recently that she was intersex.

A judge has ruled that the ADA applies to airlines.

My home county is posting a decline test scores and an increase in the racial achievement gap. Mounting economic diversity is to blame, claims the school superintendent.

A Texas woman is fighting back against predatory lenders, saying they targeted her because she was Black.

Maryland's new DNA law is under criticism due to concerns it would allow police to keep a suspect's DNA on file even if she or he was not convicted.

The Human Rights Campaign's equality index shows an increase in firms' protections of LGBT Americans.

The chair of Vermont's commission on Native Americans has resigned in frustration with legislative inaction on recognizing local tribes.

Steven Steinlight of the far-right Center for Immigration Studies tries to convince Jews to oppose immigration (legal and illegal). Somehow, I'm skeptical it will work.

The Ft. Myers News-Press lauds a recent slavery conviction of several agricultural owners in Florida, but lays the blame for the problem squarely on our immigration policy. "Disrespect for human beings is in the DNA of the current system. Respect demands that we legalize the foreign labor we clearly need to harvest our crops."

The ACLU is suing to block Rhode Island's use of e-verify, which they say improperly labels foreign workers as ineligible to work.

The New York Times reports that the process of transitioning in the workplace has become easier for transgender individuals.

Federal job bias claims are down, but Paul Secunda thinks that it's mostly due to an unfriendly environment to whistle-blowing.

A Georgia man is scheduled to be executed in a few days, despite the fact that seven witnesses have now recanted the statements that got him convicted in the first place.

The few remaining Black Republicans are bemoaning the fact that their party seems to have all but given up on attracting Black voters.

The Colorado affirmative action counter-measure has failed to make the ballot. In contrast to the original, Ward Connerly-backed initiative, which would have barred affirmative action in all forms outright, this one would have only clarified that racial quotas are illegal.

Sarah Palin: Can You Feel The Energy?

I can, but that's because Gov. Palin's speech only delved into substance on the topic of energy. Which makes sense -- it is the one national-caliber issue on which she has any expertise. And she definitely sounded like she knew what she was talking about -- though I'm not entirely convinced that the Republican Party wanted "drill, baby drill" to be the defining chant of its convention.

But other than that, I thought the speech was a net negative for Governor Palin. Mostly, its because of what I said earlier: "nice" politicians who go nasty end up hurting themselves. The fact that she seemed to relish in the attacks didn't seem to help (my girlfriend disagrees me on this score -- she thought she looked "awkward" making the attacks. What Jill interpreted as a quavering face, I read as sneer. Your mileage varies.).

In general, though, her speech and Rudy Giuliani's showed something quite revealing about the RNC. They had applause lines, but they were far dwarfed by the "boo" lines. The crowd was most into it when they were being called on to chant "zero", or laugh mockingly at being a community organizer (it took them awhile to catch on that this was funny), or simply boo the fact that Barack Obama wants terrorists to win. And that echoes the general Republican mood, I feel. They hate liberals as much as they've always had -- there's nothing that's changed in the last eight years to make them feel that pro-choice policies or more balanced tax plans are the right things to pursue. They still have a massive victimhood complex with regards to the media (a play whose efficacy will be judged based on whether the news calls Palin out on her chutzpah-laden decision to -- again -- nakedly lie about opposing the "bridge to nowhere"). The difference is that this year they're just not that excited about their own brand. So they're happiest when they don't have to think about the Republican Party, today, but can recall Senator McCain's heroism in Vietnam, or can roast the always-worse Democratic Party.

The final verdict? Palin's speech would have made a solid, if unexceptional, performance by Josephine Average RNC Speaker. If Palin had given this speech, then worked quietly as Governor of Alaska for four years, it might even have set her up for a run later on. But in this environment, in this year, it did not rise to Vice Presidential levels. It was very defensive. It did not "change the game", or even move the ball. And, in something that has become a McCain campaign theme, it made a major long-term sacrifice in evaporating Gov. Palin's likability for the short-term image of a riled-up base. That, I think, is seriously going to backfire as the campaign progresses.

Palin To Blow Her One Advantage

Looks like Palin's speech is going to be standard Republican attack dog fare:

Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin directs a sharp jibe at Barack Obama in her speech to the Republican National Convention Wednesday night, according to excerpts released by the campaign.

Contrasting her resume with that of the Democratic presidential nominee, she says: "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."

Here, watch me play Obama campaign for a second:

Judging by her record, Governor Palin's view of "responsibility" appears to be identical to George W. Bush and John McCain's: leaving the next generation laboring under a crushing load of debt.

Wow. She walked into that.

Anyway, aside from the fact that her record is just wide open to critique, I don't think going into slam-mode is a good move for Palin. All she has at this point is the perception of being "nice" -- indeed, the GOP's latest strategy to deal with all the negative press around her is to cast it as beating up on the poor, defenseless Palin. If she goes out and gives a standard attack-ad speech, the base will love it, but it will shred her last remaining advantage with swing voters. Former Rep. Connie Morella (D-MD) found this out the hard way in 2002 -- a politician who survived on unfriendly terrain by cultivating a reputation as "nice Connie" was left without a leg to stand on when she started going negative in her race against now-Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D). Likewise, when Palin goes up against Joe Biden or any other Democratic surrogate launching attacks against her, voters will remember that she's perfectly capable of dishing it out -- so she better know how to take it.

Never Calls or Writes

For some reason, I find this hilarious:

I introduced myself, and she [Roberta McCain, Senator McCain's 96-year old mother] smiled graciously and seemed eager to speak as I asked her what the week was like for her. But then she spotted one of her handlers coming through, and looked at me sheepishly, and said, "They won't let me be interviewed." Her facial expressed became pained: "They won't let me talk." One of the handlers, a blonde woman with a Sarah Palin hairstyle and glasses (very popular here now), then pulled her away, along with a male secret service guy, and Roberta McCain looked into my eyes, helplessly, pleadingly, and repeated, "They won't let me talk!"

I do feel bad for her -- she sounds very sad. But the image of a cute old lady like her trying desperately to talk to somebody -- anybody -- only to be stymied by an armada of handlers and secret service agents is really just cracking me up.