Great Leader

The "Group of 77", comprised of 130 (it has expanded from it's original membership) "non-aligned", mostly developing countries in the United Nations, has selected it's chair for the upcoming year. The winner? Sudan.

Since it was the African countries' turn to pick the chair of the organization, and since the selection of Sudan was supported by China, the outcome--however outrageous--is hardly surprising. Strong support from the member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference helped ensured Khartoum's diplomatic victory. The selection of the National Islamic Front regime as chair is no mere symbolic exercise, though the symbolism of the choice is intensely dispiriting. For it comes at a time when the head of the regime faces a likely arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court---for crimes against humanity and for genocide in Darfur.

And I thought my cynicism couldn't go deeper.

$100 to the First To Kill Joe the Plumber

I'm kidding, of course -- it's not Joe's fault. But I like how he managed to incorporate whatever characteristic McCain or Obama wanted.

I had the debate on, but wasn't watching closely -- in fact, I was playing solitaire while listening with an ear to it. The bottom line is that Obama is like a Winky Wright -- you simply can't hurt him. He's too good defensively. A fellow chessmaster might be able to out-box him, but McCain is no debate whiz. McCain needed a knockout, and he wasn't going to get it. And in striving for it, he sounded far more conservative and doctrinaire than he has at any point in the last few weeks. His derision at protecting the "health of the mother" in abortion -- though undoubtedly thrilling to the conservative base -- is going to kill him with independent women.

Of Blood and Country

Harry's Place reports that the new Macmillan Encyclopedia on Race & Racism has an entry on Zionism, unsurprisingly calling it racist. I say unsurprisingly, because my unfortunate experience is that whenever Zionism gets singled out for focus amongst various nationalist ideologies (which it was here -- indeed, "nationalism" itself didn't even warrant an entry), it's not going to be in a manner that is precisely equitable or fair-minded to the Jews.

The author of the section on Zionism is a Noel Ignatiev, who, though having done interesting work on the normative status of Whiteness, does not have any particular expertise on Zionism or Jews that I know of (he was born to Jewish parents, but I'm pretty sure he does not practice or identify at all). He has on occasion written on the topic, such as in this lovely essay where he alleges that Zionism served as a Nazi collaboration project and claims that "Osama Bin-Laden was telling no more than the truth when he said that the Muslim world is facing an alliance of Zionists and Crusaders." So, you know, a neutral figure to construct an encyclopedia entry.

Anyway. Insofar as Dr. Ignatiev has an academic specialty, it is on race, and particularly Whiteness, which he wishes to "abolish". This is a polemical claim, and though I find myself disagreeing with it, it is easily misunderstood. But I fear that in this case, Dr. Ignatiev's lens of Whiteness as the paradigm by which he views race leads him to significant misunderstanding of how "race", Judaism, and Israel intersect.

Ignatiev's justification for labeling Zionism as a fundamentally racial endeavor is the following:

Because it defines 'Jew' not by religious observance, language, place of birth, or culture, but by descent, Zionism is an ideology of race.

Now, there a couple things to be said about this. First, strictly speaking, this is inaccurate, as one can convert to Judaism and persons duly converted as considered to be full members of the Jewish community. There are, of course, disputes about who is eligible to oversee a conversion and thus which conversions are legitimate, but the principle is well established that, both religiously and as far as the state of Israel is concerned, one can be Jewish without having Jewish descent.

Second, the subtext to Ignatiev's claim here is that the "descent" definition is exclusionary, hence why it is problematic. This comes out of his dominant framework for understanding race, Whiteness, by which using "White" as a defining characteristic (as opposed to other potential identification axes) was done specifically to point at a given class of Other people and say "not for you". But the descent framework for Jews has the opposite effect -- it is considerably more inclusive than alternative frameworks, such as place of birth or degree of observance. Ignatiev could argue that Whiteness served the same effect by uniting disparate European nationals with little else in common under a single banner for the purpose of exploitation. But that "little else in common" is the kicker here, which moves me to my next point....

Third, the definition is remarkably ahistorical. As noted by some critics of Ignatiev's entry, his encyclopedia article makes no mention of the Holocaust. This, of course, is problematic, because it, and the broader currents of anti-Semitism from which it stemmed, were instrumental in making the definition of Jew what it was. Jew was defined broadly because it was intended to capture all those who would be targeted for death by anti-Semitic violence. It is asinine to assert that the broad definition was created for purposes of domination and control. It rather clearly was done so as to protect the maximum number of people possible. The broadly defined "class" of Jew does share something in common, and that something is anti-Semitism. It is little consolation to religious Jews if violence is being directed at their less observant brothers if that violence is occurring due to their Jewishness -- it is still equally threatening. And Israel has practiced what it preaches in this respect: when Jewish-identified persons whose Jewish descent is subject of question and debate by Israeli authorities (such as the Ethiopian Jewish community) seek to emigrate, they are welcomed in regardless of whether it is ultimately determined that they are Jewish-by-descent (indeed, the Ethiopian Jewish community was encouraged to convert, indicating that the relevant authorities did not think they were "actually" Jewish through descent).

Fourth and finally, I think that Jews as a community show an interesting malleability to such concepts as "race", "religion", "nation", and "culture". I've often heard it demanded that Jews "pick one", for example, that Judaism is "properly" a religion and thus should not be able to claim rights rightfully restricted to nations. For those of us who think those concepts should be destabilized, or at least shaken up a bit, the way which Judaism blends these categories should be exciting and laudable, as we seem to reject the notion that Jews as a "race" or "nation" or "religion" has to be calcified and eternal across all time. But Ignatiev is insistent upon keeping Jews in one box: if we're acting like races typically do, then that is the root of any national policies we promote, regardless of whether we ourselves see religious, cultural, communal, or historical influences as being as much or more important to the behavior.

Ignatiev, in short, doesn't see Jews as Jews. He sees them through eyeglasses tinted by other experiences, and expresses no interest in hearing our own tale as we express it. In doing so, he inevitably misses the reality of our situation, and will find it impossible figure out a solution that promises the flourishing of Jews qua Jews as one of its characteristics.

View From Her Window

Apparently Sarah Palin's windows fogged up, as she was unaware that Russian officials traveled to Alaska to meet with state employees and oil companies about expanding energy projects.

Okay, cheap shot, but I couldn't resist.

We Really Are Just All The Same

On the persistence of certain right-wingers -- quite respectable members of the conservative establishment, mind you -- pushing the Ayers-ghost-wrote-Obama's-book hypothesis, Ta-Nehisi Coates nails it:

I'm going to say this one last time--actually I'm going to say it until they put me under: I don't ever want to hear anyone complaining about black people and their conspiracy theories.

Every community has its crazies. Ours appear to reside at The American Thinker (among other places).

Dissent Blocked in DeLay Case?

Can anything be done in Texas without the imposition of massive political drama? The latest twist in the Tom DeLay legal saga is an appeals court judge alleging that the chief judge of her court refused to file her dissenting opinion as to whether one of her colleagues should recuse himself. She's asking the state supreme court to intervene. The chief judge, a Republican, is running for re-election and refused comment. The dissenting judge, naturally, is a Democrat (this is Texas).

According to her filing, Patterson said she twice requested responses from the defendants regarding the recusal motion and Law refused to obtain a response and instructed the clerk not to seek one.

Patterson then informed her colleagues that she would file a dissent to the ruling on Waldrop's staying in the case. She wrote that Law instructed the court clerk not to file her dissent.

Indeed, the story is ripe with accusations that the judges are acting politically in trying to hamstring the DeLay case and investigation. Given that a significant part of the Texas governmental structure was an apparatus of the DeLay machine, this does not surprise me in the slightest.

Civil Rights Roundup: 10/14/08

Your daily dose of civil rights and related news

Among other problems, the language interpretation at Guantanamo Bay trials is awful.

Wyoming remains one of the few states without a hate crimes law.

The Tulsa World: Many Native Americans don't celebrate Columbus Day.

Civil rights leaders are worrying that a new agreement between Las Vegas officials and ICE will increase racial profiling and decrease the reporting of violent crime.

Working from the ground up: Increased success by local Black politicians is getting White voters used to Black leadership. See, e.g., my home of Montgomery County, which recently elected African-American Ike Leggett as our County Executive. Montgomery County is 65% White and only 15% Black.

The Supreme Court has cleared the way for Troy Wilson to be executed. Wilson, convicted of capital murder, became a cause for many death penalty opponents (or supporters who care about justice) because the vast majority of the witnesses against him have since recanted their testimony.

Gay couples in California worry it's now or never. What a sad position to be put in.

Are Georgia election officials illegally purging voters?

The war over Amendment 46 continues to rage in Colorado.

I Guess You Could Say They're Improving

Florida Democratic Rep. Tim Mahoney paid his former mistress $121,000 after she threatened to sue. The women, who was on Mahoney's staff and began the affair with him during his 2006 Congressional election campaign, tried to break off the relationship after she learned that Mahoney was also involved in yet other extra-marital affairs.

Mahoney, of course, was elected to the seat formerly held by Rep. Mark Foley (R), who resigned due to his own sex scandal involving male teenage Congressional Pages. So I guess you could say that the district is improving -- at least this scandal involved adults.

UPDATE: Mahoney has asked the House Ethics Committee to investigate his conduct. That's interesting.

The Godfathers

Sometimes, history is quite timely:

The bombing of a prominent Atlanta synagogue in 1958 claimed no lives, but the community outrage that it prompted helped galvanize the city's nervous Jewish community to embrace the civil rights movement.

Members of The Temple gathered Sunday for the blast's 50th anniversary, recalling its terrifying aftermath and the way it changed their congregation's mission to promote racial equality.

But it isn't the bombing that interests me. It was the response given by Atlanta Mayor William Hartsfield, during a synagogue visit after the attack:

Atlanta Mayor William Hartsfield visited the Temple and quickly went on television to condemn the bombers and the politicians who he said should share the blame.

"Whether they like it or not, every political rabble-rouser is the godfather of these cross burners and dynamiters who sneak about in the dark and give a bad name to the South," he said. "It is high time the decent people of the South rise and take charge."

Words to keep in mind, no?

Civil Rights Roundup: 10/13/08

Your daily dose of civil rights and related news

The Virginia GOP chair compared Obama to Osama, and then refused to back down after critique from the McCain campaign ("While Barack Obama is associated with domestic terrorist William Ayers, the McCain campaign disagrees with the comparison that Jeff Frederick made."). It's a civil rights issue because I'm coming around on my earlier views as to whether the Obama-as-terrorist charges are racially tinged or not.

See also this NYT story.

On the other hand, McCain's resistence to bringing up Rev. Jeremiah Wright is heartening, if frustrating to many of his supporters (including, unsurprisingly, Gov. Palin).

Frederick County, Maryland, is weighing the consequences of its recent immigration crackdown. According to the article, since an agreement was reached with ICE, "9 percent of all people arrested and taken to the county detention center have proven to be illegal immigrants," a number the local sheriff considers a success.

The Austin American-Statesman takes a look at how Latinos are responding to immigration and other issues.

A Fresno Catholic priest came out as gay and gave a sermon urging his parishioners to reject Proposition 8. He was immediately stripped of his post by the local bishop.

In the face of surging US prison populations, policymakers are looking at alternatives to incarceration for non-violent offenders.

The Michigan Department of Civil Rights is trying to assuage a wave of voter fears that they will be targeted by suppression and disenfranchise efforts. One of the "myths" they're trying to dispel is that you can't vote if your home was foreclosed. Well, glad to hear it, but if so it won't be for a lack of trying.

Finally, the dean of the University of Nebraska law school is defending affirmative action, and questioned the results of a Center for Equal Opportunity (gag) study which purported to show the school "discriminated" against White applicants. The law school has six African-Americans in its entering class of 146 this year. CEO chief Roger Clegg (remember him?), who has been leading the charge against race-conscious admissions across the country, flatly said he'd rather the school turn "lily white" than preserve affirmative action.

Biggie Smalls

So Vitali Klitschko stopped Samuel Peter tonight. Big deal. All it does is make clear what boxing fans have tried to deny for the past several years -- the Klitschko brothers are the only truly elite heavyweight boxers in the business right now.

No, what's really cool that happened tonight was the result from the headliner fight in Masan City, South Korea. Big Yoo (12-0, 8 KOs) knocked out Little Roseman (19-7-2, 8 KOs) in three rounds to capture the interim WBO Asia Pacific super flyweight title.

Congratulations, Big, and better luck next time, Little.

Another Win for the Protocol Assassins

Austrian far-right leader Joerg Haider, controversial for alleged Nazi sympathies and anti-Semitic beliefs (both of which he always denied) died in a car crash today.

Accusations of a Jewish conspiracy to commence in 3...2...1...

Magic on the Radio

A pair of conservative radio show hosts remarked off-hand that they believed Magic Johnson had "faked AIDS", triggering an apology from the station and a promise to post public service announcements about HIV/AIDS. Johnson himself expressed disappointment at the remarks, but said he did not want the men to lose their jobs, instead saying that they should use this opportunity to educate their audience. Johnson also noted that he has HIV, not AIDS.

I post this not to highlight unbelievably ass-holishness of these men (though believe me, it's quite apparent), but because Magic Johnson was my personal hero when I was a little kid. When it came out he had HIV, I was crushed and terrified. I never would have believed then that he would even be alive today, much less that he would be in such good health and be doing such great things for the American community. I've found other heroes, but he remains an inspiration to me and to us all.

Rage Overcoming

It's amazing to me that the element of conservative rage -- and the McCain campaign's efforts to stoke it -- has begin to creep into mainstream media coverage. Obviously, bloggers have been mentioning it, and the issue of McCain's temper has simmered amongst the liberal set, but it is always rare for mainstream media sources to really get in touch with conservative rage. The left is angry, the right is stupid; that's the usual negative meme the media trots out.

I think the McCain campaign, and particularly Sarah Palin, have stepped a little closer towards direct appeals to the conservative id than is normal for national level Republican politicians. That, mixed with the fact that Barack Obama's race makes everyone at least a little more sensitive to the prospect of fostering extremist violence, means that even the "see no [right-wing] anger" media is taking note.

UPDATE: Ezra Klein is right that we should give John McCain credit for stepping in at one of his rallies to start stamping some of this crazy out. But Klein is also right that our credit ought to be tempered if McCain keeps fanning the flames by running ads basically calling Obama an un-American terrorist sympathizer. You can't give with one hand and take away with the other.

Connecticut Joins the Vanguard of Civilization

The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled that gay couples have the right to marry, the third state after Massachusetts and California to do so. Connecticut did break one barrier though:

The 4-3 ruling is the first time that a state that had willingly offered an alternative to marriage was told by a court that civil unions aren't enough to protect the rights of gay couples. Connecticut was the first state to voluntarily pass laws to affirm civil unions.

Maryland could learn a lot from this tale.

Who Can Speak The Word?

In a post this weekend, I inquired as to how I ought to raise the issue of anti-Semitism in discussions about Israel, or religious liberty, or Jews in general. Since on the one hand so many people seem to believe that the issue is raised as a distraction or canard, and on the other hand it's clearly a very important topic that needs to be investigated thoroughly, attempting to set some ground rules seemed like a good idea.

But upon further reflection, I feel like I was missing something important. The assumption behind my "how would you like me to raise it" is that there is a split between the substantive merits of the claim "that is anti-Semitic" (or "there is an issue of anti-Semitism that needs to be discussed"), and procedure by which it is raised. I still think that's true, but now I also think there seems to be a third angle: who is allowed to raise the issue of anti-Semitism? My intuition is that much of the reaction I've experienced in trying to raise the issue of anti-Semitism doesn't come because I've used the wrong words or timing. Rather, it's due to an entrenched belief that Jews don't have the right to raise the issue at all -- we are marked and tainted by our Jewishness, and are not objective arbiters.

The cynical person, after all, who thinks that anti-Semitism is a serious problem would likely believe that the refusal to consider anti-Semitism is evidence that the objectors do not care much about anti-Semitism at all. But that doesn't seem quite right to me. If they didn't care, they wouldn't have a reaction upon being called (or feeling like they're being called, or being within a mile of being called) anti-Semitic. On the fringes, you do get people who are either proudly anti-Semitic, or say things like "given the scope of Jewish power, it's reasonable and necessary to be a little anti-Semitic." But most people are not like that. Most people seem to vest a considerable amount of weight in their self and social perception as not anti-Semites.

From this framework, people create rules of discourse which help regulate which claims of anti-Semitism are considered to be worthy of response. An effective way to manage one's own image (to oneself and to society) on the anti-Semitism issue is to derail, prior to the merits, as many threatening accusations of anti-Semitism as possible. One way of doing that is via the procedural objection -- the anti-Semitism charge is being raised in bad faith, or at an inappropriate time in the conversation. Another is by challenging the party raising the claim. Since Jews are presumably the most attuned to anti-Semitism and most likely to feel its effects, a facial rule discounting Jewish claims of anti-Semitism yields great benefits to the Gentile population which does not want it to be seen or see itself as anti-Semitic.

This framework, I think, helps elucidate a continuum of responses that one sees from people who are charged with anti-Semitism, or racism, for that matter. On one end of the continuum are those who take the charge to be one which must be grappled with seriously. That doesn't mean they ultimately agree, or immediately acquiesce, it just means they recognize the right of the speaker to bring the charge and the correspondent duty to engage it. Some liberal minded White people, upon being called racist (or any other permutation -- asked to discuss racism, told there are racist implications to an issue area) by a person of color, react this way. I suspect a somewhat higher proportion would react this way if racism is brought up by a White person, but still a minority.

In the middle is the defensive reaction. Defensiveness is a mixture of guilt and dismissal. The guilt stems from the belief that the speaker has a right to bring the charge. The dismissal, though, is a denial of the duty to engage -- presumably based on a claim of epistemic superiority: I know I'm not anti-Semitic, so I have no need to grapple with your argument saying it's an issue in our interaction. While it recognizes, at some level, that it is meaningful that the charge has been brought (hence the guilt), it does not extend beyond that. Rather, the objection is procedural, claiming fault with the form or method or sufficiency of the instigating event, derailing the discussion before reaching the merits: "You have not (and probably cannot) show what I think is necessary to be shown before I will engage the topic of racism. So I won't, and don't have to." Most liberal Whites, and some conservative ones, respond this way to racism charges. Some Gentiles (of all political stripes) also respond this way to anti-Semitism charges.

Finally, at the other end of the spectrum is the disdainful reaction. Disdain mixes contempt with dismissal. The contempt comes from the idea that the speaker is for some reason, e.g., social position, barred from making the claim in the first place. The allegation of "the race card" is an expression of contempt by people who do not recognize in the first instance that Blacks have a right to talk about racism. The dismissal works the same way as above -- knowing oneself, there is no need to engage in what anyone else (certainly, any minority) has to say on the subject. Most conservatives respond to race charges in this way. It is also my experience that many Gentiles react this way when Jews bring up anti-Semitism. They don't look guilty, they look disdainful: "Oh, there they go again."

Some folks have tried to get me to admit that anti-Semitism is worse on the left than on the right. That has not been my experience. Rather, my experience is that both leftward and rightward responses to my talk on anti-Semitism has come with disdain. Conservatives are no more likely than liberals to react thoughtfully (or hell, even guiltily) when a Jewish interlocutor notes anti-Semitic implications in their argument. Sometimes, if you hit at just the right moment, you can get them to skip a beat, but that's usually about it. And I genuinely do not think that there is that same resistance to the claim from Christian speakers. A Jew who goes to a Evangelical congregation and says "they way you treat us and talk about us is wrong and hateful" isn't going to be taken seriously. A fellow member of evangelical community will. A mainstream Christian, I believe, is more likely to listen to an atheist or Hindu critic on the subject than he is a Jew.

So, for the most part, neither camp recognizes the right of Jews to speak on the issue. Neither sees the Jewish view as one with which they need to engage, and neither even feels particularly bad when faced with the knowledge that the Jewish community finds them hostile to their interests and liberation. Both make noises about how they're really all about helping and supporting everybody, and thus are bona fide friends of the Jews. But neither wants to hear nor cares about the Jewish perspective on what being our friend means -- indeed, they think our views on the subject are fatally defective and thus can be dismissed on face. As far as I'm concerned, then, the methodology of silencing is essentially identical on both sides. The first step towards remedy is a stated recognition that Jews have the right to raise the issue of anti-Semitism, at our discretion, and command the right to engagement on it. As I noted, that doesn't require capitulation. It does require a serious effort to figure out where we're coming from and understanding our argument.

Let Him Lose?

Pennsylvania Democratic Representative Paul Kanjorski is in trouble in his re-election bid. DCC polling has him below 50%, while his opponent, Hazelton mayor Lou Barletta has his own numbers placing him with an eight point lead over the two-decade incumbent.

The 11th District is normally considered safe terrain for Democrats. But Kanjorski seems to exemplify the type of politician who thinks his seat is his by birthright. He has been a very sluggish campaigner this cycle. He was previously under federal investigation. He's old. And he's not all that liberal.

I'm not saying I want him to lose, if for no other reason than Barletta's main source of notoriety is as one of the most vicious opponents of immigration even during the peak of the xenophobic wave that crested in 2007. But I have to say, the prospect of losing this seat -- probably for only one term when it is not at all critical for a Democratic majority -- does not cut me up that much. If it lets us clean a little deadwood out of our closet, so much the better.

Vote or Die! (Vote, Please)

I voted today. I suppose I could regret it, if Barack Obama morphs into his true, Maoist form in the next few weeks. So I preemptively apologize for my vote, in that case. But somehow, I'm skeptical that will happen. And I'm also skeptical that my vote will be a decisive player in the paradigmatic swing state that is Maryland.

Return to the X-Files

Paul Campos states the obvious, at greater length than objectively should be needed: There are no grounds to question whether Sarah Palin is Trig Palin's mother. Continuing to ask such questions is unhinged. The McCain/Palin campaign is under no obligation to "respond" or "put to rest" these "allegations", any more than Barack Obama needed to give a press conference proving his place of birth, or a GPS-verified account of the relative proximity he had to William Ayers at all times over the past two decades. Folks who are keeping on this line of question, like Andrew Sullivan, need to knock it off. It's simply abysmal behavior.

Obviously

Of course today the law school offered a free, delicious-smelling lunch for all law students today. Located right outside my class.

Of course.

Civil Rights Roundup: 10/09/08

Your daily dose of civil rights and related news

It's election time, and you know what that means: illegally keeping eligible voters off the rolls!

Polling places may not have the resources to handle the expected crush of voters this election.

The Supreme Court is examining whether employees who cooperate in discrimination and harassment cases, but are not the complaining parties themselves, are protecting via anti-retaliation provisions.

A federal appeals court has blocked the release of 17 innocent men being detained at Guantanamo, pending a hearing by that court.

Not only was the torture regime developed at Guantanamo exported to American prisons, but some officials worried that the tactics used domestically were actually "harsher" than those at our Cuban base.

High fuel prices mean its harder to run school buses. Not running buses means kids only go to their neighborhood schools. Neighborhood schools lead to school resegregation. Resegregation means students suffer.

An Iowa resident crossed into Nebraska to take advantage of the state's extremely broad "safe haven" law, abandoning her 14 year old daughter to state authorities.

A federal judge is urging immigration authorities to hold off deporting a man until his civil case against the Boston Police concludes. The man served 19 years in prison for rapes that he did not commit.

Another immigration raid, another town torn asunder.

The Cook County (Chicago) sheriff has ordered his deputies to cease evicting people, arguing that many of the evicted are renters who have done nothing wrong -- victims of landlords whose properties are being repossessed.

The Ohio Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by a death row inmate arguing he's too fat to be executed. The argument is that his girth will make it too hard to find a vein insuring the execution is done quickly and painlessly.

It's looking as if minority college enrollment is stalling out. In an amazing coincidence, affirmative action efforts have also been stalling out or proactively rolled back in recent years.

Another Virginia paper comes out in favor of re-enfranchising ex-felons.

The Department of Justice has checked -- for now -- efforts by a Georgia county's election officials to investigate the citizenship of voters whom the county had suspicions about.

Kol Nidre

Kol Nidre is tonight. Easy fast to all of the folks fasting.

Civil Rights Roundup: 10/08/08

Your daily dose of civil rights and related news

A Federal judge has ordered the release of several Chinese Muslim detainees from Guantanamo who have been cleared of links to terrorism for several years. The judge demanded that the men be admitted to the United States immediately, and ordered that immigration services not interfere with them in any way. The US filed an emergency appeal to stay the order, with White House spokeswoman Dana Perino saying that allowing admittedly innocent men wrongfully detained for years in a lawless prison might make us vulnerable to terrorism (I wish I was kidding).

Low income residents of DC are being deprived of legal services, and many don't know where to turn for help.

The anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 has made a comeback and is now shown to be leading in the polls.

As a result, gay couples are flocking to the altar ahead of the November vote on their rights.

President Bush signed into law a bill which would establish a task force to try and crack cold civil rights era cases.

The Supreme Court has a few cases being argued this term that have big implications for the future of the Exclusionary Rule (illegally obtained evidence cannot be admitted into court).

The AP has gotten its hands on documents showing that American officials knew that their detention policies had driven some detainees "nearly insane".

Gay and lesbian candidates for political office are looking at a banner year.

A Rabbi has notified police after receiving thousands of threatening emails from a campaign sponsored by PETA, protesting a ritual by which he sacrifices a chicken in order to atone for his sins.

The NAACP is criticizing hiring practices in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

Tuesday are Rough

I have all four of my substantive classes on Tuesday, consecutively from 9:45 - 3:50 (with a break for lunch). It is rather tiring, and is my excuse for lack of blogging today.Normally, I have only three classes on Wednesday's, but thanks to Yom Kippur my legal writing class got moved from Thursday, so I have another four-in-a-row day coming up. As usual, it's the Jews fault. Maybe that's something I can repent for.

So far I've yet to say anything in class that doesn't make me look like a blithering imbecile. Today was bad luck though -- I rose my hand for question X, and got called on just as the Professor decided to move to question Y. X was close enough to Y that I could kind of spin my answer off, but she just gave me a very queer look and moved on. If it was Property, I'd probably have been decapitated. Oh well. Better luck next time.

I did watch the debate, but it was boring and I had reading to do, so I can't say I payed very close attention. I did notice John McCain's "my friends" tic is back with a vengeance. And he still thinks that turning the campaign into a vicious slime-fest is the best way for him to go. I think it ends up hurting him a lot more. The images of him skulking in the background while Obama was talking, compared to Obama calmly sitting in his chair, listening attentively, were not good. It just emphasizes who is the nasty one in the race. McCain looks like he loathes Obama, and the Illinois Senator is just too popular for that to fly.

Also, this week I uncovered the solutions to one of my life's greatest mysteries: Why do I get the musician Sting confused with Kiss? The answer is that the wrestler Sting wears Kiss-style makeup in the ring. Bingo.

Crystallization

This site may just encapsulate my current relationship perfectly.

One New Fact

In my civil rights roundup today, I referenced an AP analysis which argued that Sarah Palin's charge that Obama "pals" with terrorists had a "racial subtext", as well John Cole's claim that he really did not see it. I noted that while I essentially agree with Cole, I thought that the case raised some interesting hypotheticals worth exploring in a later post.

One of the favored modes of exploration in law school is the "one new fact" game. The way it works is that, after crafting a rule for a given case or scenario, the professor presses you as to what you'd think given one new fact. "What if X is true", or "what if we stipulate Y? Does that change anything?" These hypotheticals are not rhetorical -- they are genuinely meant to explore and are written with the presupposition that they represent difficult questions (and that is how I mean the questions written below -- they are not backhanded ways of saying "clearly, this would be racist!"). It's a good way to test the boundaries of certain moral and legal intuitions we have. I've always been a fan of a quote by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic in their book Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge: "Normative discourse ... is highly fact-sensitive ... adding even one new fact can change intuition radically." [Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, eds. Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2000, pg. xvii].

So let's take the case at hand. Governor Palin is attacking Obama as associating with terrorists (the reference being to former Weatherman William Ayers). On the face of it, this is race-neutral, though still risible: I don't think there is anything in Obama's race that is necessary to the attack. If John Kerry was running and had the same association with Ayers as Obama, the attack would still make as much of what little rational sense it possesses.

But now let's stipulate some facts (these, to reiterate, are hypothetical -- I don't make any claim as to them being objectively true, though I do think they are plausible enough so that we can analyze them). People are more vulnerable to certain types of attacks based on our pre-existing perceptions about their qualities as persons. We're more likely to believe a charge the meshes or coheres to our broader view of a person. So if I think John is aggressive, and someone tells me he assaulted a kitten, I'm more likely to believe them then if my perception of John is as a big ol' softie.

So, suppose Obama's race makes him more likely to be seen as an outsider, which makes voters more receptive to the "associates with terrorists" claim, as outsiders are more likely to be friends with terrorists then "real" Americans. Is there a racial component then? What if we cut the intervening link: Americans think "terrorist = brown person", Obama is a brown person, and that is the mental link. Is that racist? Would it be racist of the McCain campaign to exploit that?

The calculus of running a political attack is that one assumes the political benefit of fostering negative opinions about your opponent outweighs the backlash you get for "going negative". If the backlash is likely to be greater than the gain, the attack won't be run. Suppose that the "bonus" negativity the McCain attack would produce due to Obama's race has an impact on the McCain campaign's decision of how often and where to run an ad focusing on Obama's putative terrorist ties -- for example, they decide to direct their spending in areas where the "racial bonus" is largest. Is that racist?

What if the racial bonus is such that it provides the marginal gain needed to make the ad worth the cost in terms of potential backlash? That is, the ad would not have been "worth it" against a White candidate because the backlash would outweigh the gain, but the extra negativity due to race makes the advertisement a net gain for the campaign? In that way, race would be the critical factor in deciding whether to run the ad. Is that racist? What if the McCain campaign stipulates that it simply wants to run the most effective ads possible, and avers that it does not study and does not care whether its ads are effective because they trigger associations due to race or associations due to the 60s culture war? If they make that stipulation, but know that this ad is (solely? more?) effective due to race, does that satisfy an "intent" requirement that many hold necessary to charge something as racist?

The point here isn't to say that any of these scenarios are true. Only that they represent potential facts which complicate simple, on-face efforts to analyze a given political claim as "racist" or "not racist" (or "racially-tinged" or what have you). It would seem, given the right fact pattern (e.g., McCain runs a facially race-neutral ad knowing that it gains a racial bonus, targeting the ad on the basis of that bonus, and that bonus giving the marginal gain necessary for the ad to be run in the first place), even Palin's charge could be tagged as "racist" under even relatively stringent definitions of what racist means.

Civil Rights Roundup: 10/06/08

Your daily dose of civil rights and related news

Obviously, this column by the treasurer of the Buchanan County (Va.) GOP (and county representative on McCain's Virginia leadership team) is not racist. After all, the author denied that it was, and we all know that's good enough when it's a White guy!

It's worth noting again -- this election will be a pivotal one in terms of setting the Supreme Court's agenda for the foreseeable future.

It's not a parody -- the poor really are hit hardest by the current economic downturn.

The Pittsburgh diocese of the Episcopalian church has voted to secede in protest of the broader organizations tolerant attitude towards homosexuality.

Activists in Virginia are working to get ex-felons' voting rights restored.

The Washington Post urges a settlement in a long-standing legal fight between D.C. and advocates for the city's mentally and physically disabled population, who are working to overhaul the district's abysmal record of care towards that demographic.

Ten years after the brutal torture and murder of Matthew Shepard, CBS looks back.

Opponents of Nebraska's proposed affirmative action ban are in court trying to keep it off the ballot, alleging that many signatures were obtained fraudulently.

The University of Illinois appears to have gone slightly overboard in trying to curb political expression by its employees.

The Supreme Court refuse to review a Colorado case in which the jury foreman read bible passages to recalcitrant jury members in order to (successfully) convince them to apply the death penalty.

The AFL-CIO is on the case, protecting citizens from illegitimate voter suppression efforts.

A symbolic constitutional amendment in Florida which would strip anti-Asian provisions from the document is likely to fail, primarily because voters are expected to mistake it for increasing rights of contemporary illegal immigrants. Voter ignorance is lamentable, but expected. What is unexpected and unexcusable is that 31 State House Republicans voted against the measure, probably under the same misapprehension.

A White South Carolina state trooper who rammed a Black suspect with his police cruiser, then bragged that he did it deliberately on video, was acquitted by a federal jury of civil rights violations.

A new federal courthouse in Missouri is named after Rush Limbaugh. Thankfully, it's not that Rush Limbaugh (though I had a mild heart attack before deciphering that in the article).

Companies love to sing the praises of arbitration clauses when they're applying them against unwilling consumers, but are far less keen on using them in disputes with their fellow corporations.

The Supreme Court has for the third time rejected a suit by anti-abortion activists protesting a judgment against them due to their "wanted" posters targeting abortion doctors.

Both supporters and opponents of California's Prop. 8 (revoking the right of gay couples to marry) are treading lightly in their efforts to persuade swing voters.

An AP writer says Sarah Palin's charge that Obama "pals around" with terrorists has a racial subtext. John Cole doesn't see it. I'm inclined to agree with Cole, but I think it raises some interesting questions I'll probably raise in a post later today.

A transgender woman won a suit filed against her by former political opponents who said she "misled" voters by running for office as a female.

The New York Times demands the obvious -- having your home foreclosed upon should not deprive you of the right to vote. I wrote about this twisted tactic adopted by some local GOP bodies earlier here.

The Washington Supreme Court holds that employers can't retaliate against employees victimized by domestic abuse who take time off to protect themselves and their children. The Court was bitterly divided; you can access the four opinions handed down here.

Sarah Palin is Beneath Contempt

With no serious qualifications or intellectual chops to speak of, all Governor Palin has to rely on is her instincts. And her instincts, as we've seen time and again, are to be nasty, vicious, and far below the standards we ought to expect out of our public officials.

John McCain may be the best apologizer in politics, but Sarah Palin better "learn from the foot of the master" on that score if she is to escape the election without being seen as anything but the talentless, risible cretin that she is.

How Would You Like Me To Raise It?

Apropos of my discussion last night, as well as this interesting piece on the "Livingstone formulation" (extracted from this statement: "for far too long the accusation of antisemitism has been used against anyone who is critical of the policies of the Israeli government"), I once again return to the subject of discussing anti-Semitism in the context of discussing Israel. And specifically, how to address the Livingstone formulation, seeing as it came up last night, from the standpoint of someone who thinks that anti-Semitism is an important axis of discussion to be had in any conversation regarding Israel and Palestine.

My stock response to people who pull a Livingstone is to remark that, while assuredly it has to be possible to criticize Israeli policies without being anti-Semitic, I am skeptical that it is possible to discuss Israel in any sort of normative depth without (at least in the background, or as a set of shared assumptions) having discussed anti-Semitism. The analogue is to the conservative complaint about affirmative action: "I can't criticize it without being called racist!" Well, if so that's assuredly unfair. But certainly, it is fair to state that it would be rather absurd to discuss affirmative action while leaving the issue racism completely out of it, for doing so would make the resulting conversation simple non-sense. My experience, though, is that in both its race and religious forms, the Livingstone formulation extends beyond its terms as a mechanism to prevent the discussion, not just the accusation, of racism or anti-Semitism as a pertinent part of the conversation. And that's illegitimate -- just as it has to possible to criticize Israel without being said to be anti-Semitic, so does it have to possible to note potential anti-Semitism in particular critiques of Israel without being met with a Livingstone.

But part of me wants to be more charitable. Perhaps my standard response isn't as good as I think it is at illustrating my point, and perhaps my interlocutors are more willing to entertain the notion that anti-Semitism is a relevant element to our conversation that my intuition is telling me. At which point I raise the following question, which my readers are free to answer: Suppose I genuinely think that a given statement or topic raises the issue of anti-Semitism. How should I introduce it in the conversation, without being accused (or coming off as) "playing the anti-Semitism card"?

It's Different in Chi-Town: Anti-Semitism Edition!

Last night, I had my first (but inevitable) "criticizing Israel always gets me called anti-Semitic" discussion in someone else's room. When I was at Carleton, I always vaguely wondered if we were different from other places, not because we didn't care about the issue, but because it was a lot more keyed down. I didn't encounter much serious anti-Semitic action there -- particularly in the classic sense where I'd label the speaker a "bad person" (as readers know, I'm interested in pushing the boundaries of what we mean by anti-Semitism to encompass structural accounts of privilege, as we do on other identity axes). And at the same token, the Jewish community at Carleton rarely, if ever, talked about anti-Semitism. The experience made me skeptical that the contours of the debate were as bad as both sides made it out to be -- but I also figured that some of it was an outgrowth of Carleton's rather chill personality.

Anyway, one of the folks I was talking with, a Barnard alum, raised the case of Nadia Abu El Haj as an example of pro-Israel forces on campus (primarily, she noted, American rather than Israeli Jews, who she claimed tend to represent a broader spectrum of ideas on the issue) as an example of how some Jewish organizations are trying to squelch opposing views. That's not entirely unfair, although she implied Professor Abu El Haj did not receive tenure, when in fact it was awarded in 2007, and I noted that at least some of the opposition was motivated by scholarly concerns. Moreover, as my new friend admitted, the Columbia University's faculty lineup in the field of middle eastern studies is not lacking for anti-Israel representation -- it's more a battleground than an area where pro-Israel groups have carried the day.

But it was the other person in the room that really got to me. After also forwarding the standard "my anti-Israelism is not anti-Semitism" charge, he basically asserted that Israel gets away with whatever it wants because the Jews have the world bought off. When I raised the specter of the UN, he literally said "Look at where it was built! Rockefeller!", referring to the fact that the land for the United Nations building in New York was donated by the Rockefeller family. He proceeded to note the Vice Presidential debate and how candidates had to pledge they supported Israel, "or else nobody will give them any money." Then he went off on a rant about Jews had achieved "hegemony in the original sense of the word" in the field of middle eastern studies (at which point I rolled my eyes -- this guy is a Chemistry Ph.D student, and I'm supposed to believe he can quote Gramsci chapter and verse at me?) because they're disproportionately represented in the field. Of course, Jews are disproportionately represented in academia (a point which he said didn't matter -- it's "fine" for Jews to teach in physics, but middle eastern studies are apparently a different matter), and it would make more sense, not less, for us to have concentration in an area which is kind of historically and contemporaneously important to us.

It was like Walt & Mearshimer on steroids. And I said if your thesis is that there is too much waving of anti-Semitism on the subject of Israel, don't make your primary mode of attack "the Jews own the world and use their massive financial power to crush anyone who gets in their way." That's not one of my "expansions" of anti-Semitism, that fits very neatly under the classic model. And yet, he still was quite quick to assert "I'm no anti-Semitic!" If he can do it, anyone can do it.

Abortion Migrations

Volokh conspirator Todd Zywicki has an interesting post up asking about people's development on the issue of abortion. Specifically, how and why they might have changed their mind on the issue. He says that he knows plenty of people who used to be pro-choice, but became pro-life -- but few who made the opposite journey. And for those who have, he's curious as to what prompted the change in mindset.

My abortion journey, like the hobbit's, was a case of there and back again. I started off pro-choice in my youth, primarily as an off-shoot of growing up in a generally liberal household that made my default views on most issues liberal. Then I switched over to being pro-life, albeit uncomfortably. I say uncomfortably because all the reasons for being pro-choice made no less sense to me: it still seemed critical for the equality of women, and it still seemed like not allowing it was a tremendous state imposition on female bodies. But even those tremendous costs, large as they were, could not logically seem to override my thought that you're still killing a person, which I took to be a moral bright-line.

My discovery of pragmatism aided in me switching back to the pro-choice side. I decided that, regardless of when and whether a fetus qualified as a biological member of the species, that doesn't answer the question of when it becomes infused with moral personhood. That is a question that has no bright-line answer, and thus ought to be answered pragmatically. At the point, the massive costs the "life(/moral personhood) begins at conception" standard imposes on women becomes a good reason to reject it as a standard. Alternative measures seem far more effective at balancing whatever moral interest we have in protecting fetal life with insuring the equal participation of women in society (not to mention allowing women ownership over their own bodies). Judith Jarvis Thompson's "violinist" story also was helpful in my transition by raising the point that moral personhood might, in fact, not be relevant at all (though I'm not 100% sure I buy it).

The major point is, however, that once I lost my faith in the existence of crystalline, pre-social categories of moral truth, the pro-life position became untenable, because it constructed a moral framework that was hideously oppressive to women on the basis of a groundless presupposition that we could just as easily avoid. Given the choice, I choose to draw the rules so as to promote equality.

But I'm interested in your stories, if any of y'all have undergone similar shifts on the issue (in any direction). Leave them for me in the comments.

Palin: Screw Substance -- I Want To Be Judged On My Character

Gosh darnit, Sarah Palin is miffed at the questions Katie Couric asked her in that catastrophic interview:

"I did feel there were a lot of things she was missing in terms of an opportunity to ask what a VP candidate stands for, what the values are that are represented in our ticket," Palin said. "I guess I have to apologize for being a bit annoyed, but that's also an indication about being outside that Washington elite, outside that media elite also, and just wanting to talk to Americans without the filter and let them know what we stand for."

Translation: I don't want to talk about issues of substance (as we saw on the regulation question at the debate). I should have been given an hour to just chirp about how I'm from a small town and that makes me better than people from Chicago.

This. Is. Bogus. And it's an insult to the political process that it is even conceived of being a legitimate argument. You want my evaluation of your character, Gov. Palin? You're a whiner who thinks it's an abuse of the process that we got a chance to witness your own intellectual failings.

Incidentally, CNN followed up that quote from Palin with the following paragraph:

In two separate and lengthy interviews with Couric over the last week, Palin seemed to struggle with a number of answers, including a defense of McCain's record on regulation issues. She also appeared to stumble when relating her views on the financial bailout, her foreign policy credentials, her preferred news sources of news, and a Supreme Court case she disagrees with.

Possibly more effective if CNN hadn't written "news sources of news", but it gets the point across. Governor Palin is Governor Robert Ritchie. That's all there is to it.

Choosing Your Phrases Carefully

Oh, and one more thing on the debate....

Was I the only (Jewish?) person who winced when Sarah Palin repeatedly used the phrase "never again" to refer to how we should respond to the financial crisis? Obviously that phrase has very particular connotations to me that aren't appropriately applied to even the worst economic situation, but I can't decide if I was being objectively unreasonable or if other Jews might have reacted the same way.

The VP Debate

These are off-the-cuff reactions, without having seen any commentary on the debate.

In my only post on the subject prior to the VP debate, I talked a little bit about the "expectations game" and the extent to which it's reasonable or unreasonable to use it as a frame for evaluating the debate. The basic theme I tried to lay out was that while beating expectations -- particularly when the bar was set as low as it was for Gov. Palin -- wasn't enough for a win per se, it's not entirely untrue that Palin doing better than expected was irrelevant if she didn't objectively beat Joe Biden. Insofar as some voters who would be agnostic about a seemingly typical, average, mediocre politician might still be turned off if they thought Palin was in a uniquely dim-witted class, she could still score points simply by being pretty good if that would move her overall impression into "average" territory.

So, did Palin "beat expectations"? Depends what you mean. If the expectation was that she would be a babbling nitwit, then yes, she did exceed that bar. Most of the time, anyway. But she didn't get much above that, and there were times were she lapsed back into Katie Couric territory -- most notably, her answer on the global warming question, which embarrassingly came right after she named energy as her core area of expertise. She got caught totally blind by the question about endorsing Dick Cheney's "ghost branch" argument regarding the VP, and actually endorsed it, which is incredible to me -- though I don't think she actually understood what it was she was being asked. The net effect was that, even if she performed marginally better than she did with Gibson and Couric, it was still not enough even to mark her as mediocre.

So let's be clear: under any objective evaluation, Joe Biden thrashed Sarah Palin tonight. It was a demonstration of what happens when you put politicians who are simply in separate leagues together in a room. And I got the distinct impression that Biden genuinely either does not like or does not respect Gov. Palin. It's hard to blame him -- I feel the same way -- and if I were a distinguished public servant like Biden I would have taken Palin's answers as a personal insult to the entire public profession. I think that explains the one time Biden really seemed to snap tonight, when Palin started talking about how she knew what it was like to raise a family in difficult circumstances, and that made her unique. Biden virtually never talks about his first wife and the horrible catastrophe that struck him, and it's obvious it's still painful to him. From a purely Machiavellian standpoint, maybe you could say Palin rattled him. But I think it made him more human, and more Palin -- who went right back on the attack -- look even more craven.

But Biden was, for the most part, on his game tonight. He was substantive, he was clear, he was aggressive without coming off as mean-spirited. And Governor Palin was the absolute reverse. Her talk about how Biden kept looking to the past when he was talking about the failures of Bush/McCain policies was absolutely inane. She would flat-out refuse to talk about any issue that might be difficult for her -- from when she smarmily said she wouldn't answer the way the "moderator" and Biden wanted her to in response to a perfectly reasonable request to discuss Biden's charges regarding McCain's stance on regulation (she talked about tax cuts instead), to her blanket refusal to admit she's ever changed her mind about anything. The latter quality was something she claimed as a virtue -- an exemplification of "straight talk" -- much as the fact that Sen. Kerry had learned from mistakes was taken as evidence of weak character in 2004.

Indeed, quite often Gov. Palin sounded like a 2004 flashback. She was at her strongest -- which in this case is "maintained reasonable coherency" -- when she was either a) reciting campaign cliches about being a maverick or hailing from small town America (note to Palin: I've met plenty of small town Americans in my life, and without exception none of them felt compelled to keep pointing it out to me. If being from a small town really impacts who you are and how you live your life, you should be able to demonstrate it by showing us, not telling us) or b) lobbing superficial rhetorical bombs about how Democrats want to "surrender" in Iraq, are "dangerous", and of course, the conservative mantra about tax raising. It's not impressive to me, and I don't think it stirs good memories in the minds of American voters anymore.

This is the election for the vice presidency. We don't grade on a curve here. Biden I give an A- -- I wish he would have mentioned even more his work on the Violence Against Women Act, which opens so many angles of attack it is not funny. And Palin? D+. "Exceeds expectations" isn't good enough. She had to prove Couric and Gibson were flukes, and she did not come close to doing that.

The Bazooka Returns

Former welterweight titlist and Ghanan boxing star Ike "Bazooka" Quartey is coming back after a nearly two year lay-off. Quartey (37-4-1, 31 KOs), who defended the WBA crown seven times before losing a contested split decision to Oscar de la Hoya, had lost two straight going into his break: a lop-sided decision to Winky Wright after moving up in weight, preceded by an outright robbery against Vernon Forrest. He plans to fight between welterweight and junior middleweight, both divisions he is competitive in. Aside from his "should have been" against Vernon Forrest, he also holds a victory over current titlist Verno Phillips in 2005.

Most of Quartey's best wins were in the mid-1990s, and he is 39. But he has had many extended gaps of inactivity, and arguably is a "young" 39 as far as boxers go. Quartey has never been stopped and can punch. It will certainly be interesting to watch him come back on the scene, particular at 154 pounds, where there are a host of young prospects looking to break out into the big time.

Picking up the Sword

The blogosphere is abuzz about this speech by AFL-CIO chief Rich Trumka, talking to the United Steelworkers about racism in the labor movement and how they need to fight against it to get the right candidate, Barack Obama, into office.



It's a powerful speech. It's significantly more powerful because it comes from a union man, a White man, who grew up in small town Pennsylvania, and who does not have the look of an effete urban intellectual. And he's looking his peers in the eye, his fellow union members, and telling them: you know, and I know, that we have this problem in our community. And if we don't confront it, it is going to eat our movement alive, because unions are all about solidarity, and they don't work when we allow racism to divide worker from worker.

If one does not believe in the mission of unions, or generally votes on other things, that's fine. But if one is a union member, and believes in the cause and believes that what they're pursuing is just, not voting for Obama because he's Black, when he's the only one fighting for all the issues that are important to the union, is precisely the type of self-destruction that will make the union vote irrelevant in national politics.

So obviously, there's self-interest at work here. But it's the type of self-interest borne out of the observation that we're all in this together, and we're stronger when we are united than we are divided. Recognition of that basic premise has eluded too many people for too long. That Mr. Trumka is willing to take up the sword and fight this battle is a great day for the state of race relations in America.

Other reactions:

Ta-Nehisi Coates: "This is John Brown 2008."

Cogitamus

Andrew Sullivan

Kathy G of the G-Spot has great analysis.

Steve Benen

Edge of the American West fills out some of the historical context with regards to the labor movement.

And finally, Bitch, Ph.D: "This speech might make you tear up; it did me."

Losing the Expectations Game

Obama campaign representative David Plouffe tried to tell the press today that "Gov. Palin is one of the best debaters in American politics." The press broke out laughing. That's called losing the expectations game. After all, Gov. Palin might actually be an excellent debater. I heard she did quite well in Alaska in 2006, and her lack of skill in front of Katie Couric may or may not translate in a different setting. Or maybe she'll be terrible, and everyone's assumptions are right. Nonetheless, from the expectations angle, its clear that Palin has nowhere to go but up.

Plouffe, of course, apparently pushed his luck by moving past "extremely good" debater, to "great" debater, and finally breaking the camel's back with "one of the best" debaters in the United States. But even still, this is getting back to the Daily Show sketch territory of trying to ramp up your opponent's debate skills to ridiculous levels in order to claim victory afterwords. Why don't we play the novel game of evaluating the VP candidates on the merits of their performance?*

* Honestly, though, it isn't entirely unfair to say that Palin might gain ground simply by exceeding expectations. If the expectation is that she's a blithering idiot, that assumption might be driving voters away who could be saying "I'm fine with a standard average politician -- the VP doesn't do that much -- but Palin seems to be in class by herself of dimness." If Palin manages to at least show she can talk about policy coherently, then yes, she's gaining ground in the class of voters. That begs the question of why voters are willing to settle for mediocrity, and whether a single debate performance really should be allowed to subsume all of Palin's other missteps these past few weeks. But I'm calling it like I see it.

Back In Your System

I found out today that I am officially registered to vote again in the state of Maryland -- a process that was slightly more difficult than I anticipated. It definitely occurred to me that I'm a more motivated voter than the norm, and I was finding it difficult, so it's easy for me to imagine less civic-minded individuals being deterred (admittedly, my case was complicated by my absentee status and the fact that I was previously registered in Maryland but had canceled upon moving to Minnesota).

Anyway, the absentee ballot should be coming to me in a few weeks, and then I get to cast a vote in this historic election. How exciting!

That last part is serious, incidentally. I'm genuinely excited in spite of myself to cast a vote for Barack Obama. That's not to say I wasn't pleased to vote for Kerry. But it wasn't exciting. This feels exciting to me.

Civil Rights Roundup: 10/02/08

Your daily dose of civil rights and related news

A Nebraska law intended to stop the abandonment of new born babies is now seeing parents drop off older kids -- including teenagers -- saying they can no longer care for them.

The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh will decide whether to leave the national church in protest of its ordination of a gay bishop.

GLBT voters in New Haven, Connecticut, got a chance to fire questions at the leader of the state Republican Party. Though he opposes most of the items on the agenda, he did raise a good point: In a state where Democrats hold substantial majorities in both legislative houses, "we're not stopping anything".

Alabama allows non-violent offenders to vote while in prison (who would of thought Alabama would be ahead of my curve here?). But they are refusing to allow a voter registration drive to get these men and women on the rolls.

Also, it's apparently really difficult for the average voter to figure out how a criminal conviction affects their right to vote.

The student association of the University of Nebraska has voted to oppose the effort to ban affirmative action in that state.

DC still can't figure out what went wrong with its electronic voting in the primaries, which is less than reassuring with the general election a month away.

San Francisco students are protesting the school board's decision to get rid of JROTC. The board is cutting ties to military organizations in protest of the discriminatory "don't ask don't tell" policy. (Fun fact for superdestroyer: the article reports that the fight to save JROTC is being led by "college-bound Asian-American students who make up the majority of cadets here".)

The US is rolling out a new citizenship test that focuses more on relevant knowledge and critical thinking skills. As always, the question of how many natural-born citizens could pass raises its head.

Arkansas is defending its policy of forbiddening unmarried couples from being foster parents. Observers note that the ban was passed shortly after state judges struck down the state's law barring gay individuals from serving as foster parents. Child care advocacy groups argue that these restrictions are depriving numerous children of well qualified and desperately needed foster families.

A jury found that a hearing-impaired man was discriminated against on basis of disability when his federal job wouldn't allow him to use a hearing aid during his hearing test. The man can hear perfectly fine with the device, and is permitted to use it while working.

Ghostly Trespass

One of the more interesting qualities about the building in which the University of Chicago law school is housed is that it appears to be infested by ghosts. Or at least the sound system does. Most of the time, of course, it works fine. But occasionally it starts broadcasting completely random sounds that have no bearing on what is going on in the room or being spoken into the mic. At orientation, one panelists microphone would intermittently cut out on her and start instead broadcasting choppy fragments of what sounded like a two-way radio conversation somewhere completely different. At a talk by Mary Ann Case today, we got snippets of an opera. It's very bizarre.

Now, I'm sure there is a perfectly rationale explanation for all this that does not include ghosts. But such an explanation would probably involve science, and hence does not interest me. What does interest me is, are the ghosts committing trespass?

We learned this week that intangible trespasses (for such things as noise, radiation, or electromagnetic waves) are actionable, but only if the trespass causes physical damage. Regular trespasses, by contrast, see liability as soon as the boundary is crossed -- simply stepping onto my land without permission, even if you don't damage anything, is a trespass.

Assuming that these ghosts do not have permission to be mucking around UC's sound system, it seems we have a few questions to answer.

(1) Are ghosts considered to be physical or intangible? Does it matter if they are visible are not?

(2) If ghosts are considered to be intangible, are the effects they cause on the sound system "damage"?

(3) What difference, if any, does it make as to whether the ghosts have any agency in their decision? If they are "bound" to the law school sound system in some way, can they claim a necessity defense? What if the law school was built knowing there was a substantial risk of a ghost infestation? What if the ghosts are former UC law students and faculty members who died after the building was built? If the students were murdered by their over-ambitious classmates?

Civil Rights Roundup: 10/01/08

Your daily dose of civil rights and related news

The former police chief of Gary, Indiana has been found guilty of civil rights violations after kicking a suspect during a raid.

A Michigan commission has thrown out disciplinary charges against a member of the state's board of canvassers who had opposed certifying a initiative that successfully banned affirmative action.

The Supreme Court will not rehear its decision striking down the use of the death penalty in child rape cases.

Large numbers of the House Black and Hispanic caucuses revolted against the failed bailout bill, alleging that it was insufficiently geared to suffering middle and working class voters.

The Justice Department is filing suit against the DC Metro after it allegedly refused to hire an applicant on basis of religion. The complaint alleges that the woman was rejected because her religious requirements demanded she wear skirts, while the uniform requirement for bus drivers is pants.

The federal government is taking over a case where police shot allegedly unarmed Katrina victims on a bridge leading out of New Orleans.

A jury found Eric County liable in a prison rape case.

Illegal immigrant arrests on the Mexican border are way down, but nobody knows if its the result of better deterrence or worsened enforcement.

A private immigration facility hired guards without giving them required background checks, then lied about it.

A fight is breaking out in a tony New York community over whether local Orthodox Jews can construct an eruv, or religious boundary, which would allow them to complete minor tasks on Shabbat. Basically, the boundary allows the Jews to religiously claim they are not going outside, skirting some Sabbath prohibitions.

Three civil rights groups are alleging that disabled students in Hillsborough, Florida schools are being neglected.

The fight to overturn Florida's unique (and atrocious) law prohibiting gay couples from adopting continues to progress through state court. Previous coverage on the local state court ruling here, and on a federal ruling several years ago here.

Civil Rights Roundup Returns! (09/30/08)

Okay, here's the scoop everybody. The civil rights roundup is back. But it will be on a significantly modified schedule. For starters, this is likely the only Tuesday you'll see it, as I have class with only a lunch break straight through from 9:45 - 4 that day. Most days, though, a probably abridged roundup will show up by mid-afternoon.

And with that, away we go!

The trial of a South Carolina state trooper accused of ramming a fleeing suspect with his car has begun.

A group of pastors gave political sermons in an effort to provoke a showdown over whether the IRS can withhold tax-exempt status to religious bodies which engage in political activity.

A prosecutor has been appointed by Attorney General Michael Mukasey to continue the investigation into the US Attorneys firings.

Early voting has been approved in Ohio.

The NAACP claims racial profiling is on the rise in the Seattle area.

Civil rights leaders are targeting Greenbelt, Maryland's at-large election system as diluting the power of Black voters.

A Montana woman whose same-sex partner adopted a child has gained parental rights, a first in Montana.

The Governor of Colorado has come out against the efforts to ban affirmative action in that state.

A Lowell man has plead guilty to hate crimes after beating someone due to his perceived sexual orientation.

A sex discrimination case against major glass manufacturer will move forward after the presiding judge rejected a motion to throw out the case.

Smaller school districts are beginning to encounter the language barrier.

Efforts to register veterans are foundering on a mess of red tape. But maybe they're "phony veterans" anyway?

This Boston Herald story commits the typical universalist fallacy of assuming Whites' views of Blacks, and Blacks' views of Whites are equally groundless.

American Airlines has endorsed the Employee Non-Discrimination Act. And here comes another boycott!

Guess What?

Sarah Palin recently argued that we shouldn't "second guess" Israel on matters relating to its security. I don't agree with this in general, for while I think Israel deserves some deference in making decisions related to its security, that cannot be a categorical imperative. Part of being an ally means sometimes taking your friends aside and telling them when they need to chill. And part of being an independent nation means that sometimes your interests and/or moral commitments won't overlap perfectly with another independent nation, in which case it is perfectly legitimate to try and move things towards your preferred alignment. None of this, I think, substantively conflicts with being an ally towards Israel, so much as it serves as a check against some of the more extreme manifestations of "alliance" where we totally abdicate independent judgment.

But in any event. Outgoing Israeli PM Ehud Olmert has come out and said that for Israel to achieve peace, it will need to withdraw from nearly all of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and that any territory that was kept would need to be counterbalanced by swaps. Kevin Drum thinks it might be fun to press Gov. Palin as to whether this is the sort of decision we ought not "second guess". I've noticed that many right-wing "allies" of Israel turn against it in a heartbeat whenever it seems willing to make the concessions necessary for peace. Remember how Pat Robertson called Ariel Sharon's stroke a divine punishment? That's what I'm talking about.

But also, this passage from Olmert's interview caught my eye:

“With them, it is all about tanks and land and controlling territories and controlled territories and this hilltop and that hilltop,” he said. “All these things are worthless.”

He added, “Who thinks seriously that if we sit on another hilltop, on another hundred meters, that this is what will make the difference for the State of Israel’s basic security?”

I don't think we can be glib about how particular strategic territory might be important for Israel's security. But I do think its reasonable to say that the marginal importance of any given hill or ridge is vastly outweighed by the need to achieve a more or less permanent settlement. A paradigm shift amongst the Israeli political establishment that takes that insight to heart would be a tremendous step forward for the peace process.

Failure To Make Bail

The bailout bill has failed in the House. Interesting. Didn't see that coming, and don't exactly have thoughts on it as of yet. But Matt Yglesias wonders if Republicans aren't capable of bringing in the votes anyway, then why not just scrap the entire thing and write the bill from the left?

In other news -- first day of law school continues apace. So far, no blood spilled. But I still have Torts coming up. And I avoided a near crisis by finding out in the nick of time I have readings for Property tomorrow (taught by a professor nicknamed "the hammer").

Google Says No to Prop. 8

The Google corporation has announced its opposition to California's proposition 8, which would eliminate the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry. As Google itself notes, this is an unlikely position for the company to take, as companies who have employees and customers with diverse backgrounds, beliefs, and political orientations rarely take positions on charged issues that don't directly relate to their business model. Indeed, many companies will sacrifice even the noblest of principles if their profit margins are at stake. But in this case, at least, Google has stood up and done the right thing, and we should salute them for it.

In the meantime, I'm waiting for the inevitable call by the American Family Association for a boycott of Google, which presumably will result in one of two things:

1) Shares of Altavista soaring.

or

2) The development of new search engine, "Conservagoogle", which will counteract the well-known liberal bias in Google's search algorithms. Search now, and each of your first ten hits guaranteed to reference Jesus at least three times!

Debate Tics

Obviously this will be quick, because I need to go to bed.

I watched the debate on tape delay (I was at a comedy show tonight), but I managed to avoid hearing any commentary on it until after I watched (the one exception was an Obama supporter I was walking with who told me his brother thought Obama got smoked). Short verdict: I think Obama won by a moderate margin, but there were no "game changers" or flush shots landed by either party. I guess you could say no news is good news for Obama right now, but that's the only news I'd draw. The insta-reactions CNN had going on also seemed to favor Obama by a narrow but consistent margin.

But the one thing I do want to note is that each participants verbal tics were quite revealing. I was planning to take a mock drink each time John McCain said "my friends", but he only did it once. What he did say, over and over again, was variations on theme that Obama "did not understand" or was "naive". And this has been of late the defining attribute of McCain's campaign -- attacking Obama relentlessly. Obama's tic, by contrast, was repeating the word "points". He was quite the line-by-line debater this evening -- always answering with "let me just say a few points" or "I have three points" or "I need to get this point in". And this has been something that I've seen a lot of in Obama's campaign: a strong technocratic streak that is based around the idea that there are many sides and angles and questions that are important on each issue, and he is willing -- indeed, most comfortable -- methodically walking through them and guiding us through his thought process.

Campaign Ads for Kids

What political campaign ads would look like if the electorate was kids.

Fun fact: these are only slightly less mature than the status quo! But much funnier.

Fun fact number 2: "Obama '08: Get Yours" would make a fantastic slogan. It also reminds me of a remark by I believe Ezra Klein when news organizations wrote about a CDC reporting "some good news that the rate of teenage sex has gone down." He responded something to the effect of, "not to anybody who's a teenager, it isn't." (It might have been vice versa -- the joke is the same).

I Wouldn't Have Lasted a Day at UVA

I got into UVA law, but I elected to attend Chicago instead. And it appears I made the right decision. Aside from the fact that I'm skeptical that I can party with the Wahoos, and that I still own t-shirts and haven't burned them all in favor of pink polos, they take their orientation way too seriously:

Chen Chih-chung was kicked out of UVA Law before he could start his 1L year for missing the school's orientation meeting.

At least that is UVA's official response.

Why is that merely the "official" response? Because Chih-chung is the son of the Taiwan's indicted former president. And why'd he miss the orientation meeting? Because he was flying back to cooperate with the official investigation of his father. I missed an orientation panel yesterday to go buy Microsoft Office. Do I have to look over my shoulder for the UC administration?

Chih-chung believes, understandably, that the orientation excuse is a fig leaf and that UVA is responding to massive media pressure coming out of Taiwan. Either way, it sounds like a pretty flimsy decision by Virginia.

As for me, orientation ended today, and classes start Monday. The civil rights roundup, incidentally, probably will be coming back next week, albeit shorter and at more random timings.