Boxing Blogging: 11/23/08

HBO put on a very nice card last night, featuring rising star James Kirkland, and a genuine #1 versus #2 battle in the junior welterweight division between Ricky Hatton and Paulie Malignaggi. Both were united by one quality: arguably controversial stoppages.

Ricky Hatton (45-1, 32 KOs) TKO11 Paulie Malignaggi (25-2, 5 KOs)

Round one was close. Rounds two through eleven were not. After rocking Paulie in round two, Hatton took over, repeatedly stunning Malignaggi and preventing him from ever establishing a rhythm. Malignaggi looked awful in this fight. He was clinching a lot, which is not his game, his movement wasn't there, he was leaning in, his jab was mediocre. Malignaggi has been showing problems against pressure fighters -- unsurprising, since he has absolutely no pop whatsoever. He struggled in fights against Herman Ngoudjo and his rematch against Lovemore N'dou, both of whom got inside and mauled him. When fighters don't have to fear your power, what's to stop them from walking through you and bullying their way inside? Of course, Malignaggi didn't help by deciding to grab on the inside instead of slipping away.

But let's not take away from Hatton here. This was the best he's looked in a long time. Screw Mayweather and Lazcano -- this was a better performance than he put out against Collazo, Urango, and Castillo (the last merely because Castillo was clearly a shot fighter). After a lackluster performance against "the Hispanic causing panic" Lazcano (what a great nickname), folks wondered if Hatton's age and terrible training habits had finally caught up with him. It appears not. A fight with P4P #1 Manny Pacquiao may be on the horizon.

Oh, and the stoppage! Malignaggi's trainer Buddy McGirt warned him that he'd end the fight if Malignaggi didn't show him more. Malignaggi did not oblige, McGirt threw in the towel, and Malignaggi was furious, shoving McGirt away when the latter attempted to embrace him. You can see it both ways: Malignaggi, who takes huge pride in his toughness, was upset that he has a stoppage loss on his record when he wasn't really hurt. But he wasn't showing anything, he was getting beaten up all night, and, as Tim Starks put it, "fight for real or don't fight at all."

James Kirkland (24-0, 21 KOs) TKO8 Brian Vera (16-2, 10 KOs)

The "mandingo warrior" (how's that for a nickname?) tore through the tough and game Vera, who spent most of the fight smiling through tremendous punishment until referee John Kerry (not really, but the resemblance was uncanny) stepped in to stop it in the 8th. Vera was protesting he wasn't hurt, but this stoppage I think was clearly the right call: he had accumulated a lot of punishment and was not the type to show it willingly. Vera hadn't won a single round and had gone down three times. His heart had been proven -- no need for him to absorb any more shots.

I think the commentators were a bit rough on Kirkland: there's only so much you can do to knock a fighter out when they have the will of a Brian Vera, and Kirkland did what he had to -- apply pressure and pressure and pressure until finally something broke. Kirkland appeared to take his feet off the gas in the middle of the fight, leading some to question his conditioning. Given the savage training methods employed by Ann Wolfe, I'm guessing that wasn't the problem. Rather, I suspect he watched tapes of Vera's upset win over Andy Lee and decided it would not be wise to punch himself out against the incredible damage absorbing sponge that is Vera, giving the latter fighter a chance to catch Kirkland with something big. I think folks are reaching: Kirkland was firmly in control, showed great instincts, landed an insane percentage of his punches, and eventually scored the knockout. Plus, his last knockdown was a nice little Roy Jones throwback. He's an incredibly bright prospect.

I had a minor debate with some other boxing scribes prior to the fight, as to whether it's proper to characterize Vera as having a great chin. Certainly, nobody can question his heart. But what do you call someone who, as the commentators put it, "only" had gone down twice (this was in the middle of the fight) despite taking flush shot after flush shot from Kirkland? It seems a bit weird to extol the chin of a guy who got knocked down three times in route to a TKO loss. But there's something to be said for the amount of punishment it took to get him to that point. Certainly, it reinforces just the type of monster puncher Jaidon Codrington was, who put Vera away in two rounds and didn't leave any question about it (though to be fair, Codrington is two weight classes heavier than Kirkland, who was easily the smaller man in this fight).

The Name Game

Even before he's sworn in, Barack Obama is already having things named after him. Such as an elementary school in New York. And, possibly, the tallest peak in Antigua.

Eugene Volokh thinks this is all pre-mature, and urges that we wait to see whether Obama actually makes for a great president or not. Wouldn't it be embarrassing to have a "Richard M. Nixon" elementary school?

Eh. I think that, unless you're an absolute abject failure and disgrace upon the nation, merely becoming President is sufficient to have some smaller-scale landmarks named after you. It's not a tough bar to leap: Warren Harding has a high school. Since I don't think we should assume that, like Nixon, Obama will be run out of office for rampant abuses of power, I'm not too cut up about him getting an elementary school named after him.

And the mountain in Antigua? Amazingly, that story touches more than anything else. Why would Antigua name its highest mountain after an American President? The answer lies in the hold America has, even over foreign countries -- particularly smaller and poorer ones. America still represents a beacon to them. The election of Barack Obama, after eight years of George W. Bush, is a sign that we as a people have not abandoned our pre-eminent position in the world, that we still are committed to securing opportunities and inclusion for all.

It may just be symbolism. But it's symbolism that matters. And as Americans, we should take heed that the eyes of the world watch our every move. We have a lot to live up to.

Hi Lani!

Lani Guinier, Foreword: Demosprudence Through Dissent, 122 Harv. L. Rev. 4, 9 n.19 (2008).

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

(Here's the post).

UPDATE: In all the excitement, I should probably mention what the article is about. Essentially, it explores the capacity of "oral dissents" (that is, Supreme Court Justices reading their dissents from the bench) to foster democratic deliberation, particularly by encouraging the inclusion of excluded parties.

[O]ral dissents are particularly but not exclusively well-suited to fulfill the three demosprudential elements: where a conflict about democracy is a core issue, accessibility rather than technical proficiency is a stylistic preference, and engaging in a larger public conversation is an implicit goal. (54)

It's an interesting piece -- and one of the first I've read to really treat blogs as an integral piece of American legal and democratic conversation (at least, that didn't take that potential as its specific subject).

SOS Clinton

The NYT is calling it: Hillary Clinton will be Obama's nominee for Secretary of State.

It's an ... interesting choice. Obama beat Clinton in the primaries primarily because Clinton was wrong on Iraq. I.e., wrong on an issue of foreign policy. So it makes it a bit odd for him to turn around and make her the chief face of our foreign policy.

That being said, I'm not opposed to the pick per se. I think Hillary Clinton is a very smart woman who bring a lot to the State Department. She is a wonk without parallel, and that's something I appreciate. And she is a well-known and respected figure around the world, which is important.

So, I'm okay with this. I wish the New York Times didn't phrase the decision as Obama taking the high road and Clinton cravenly weighing where she'll have the most power, but what are you going to do?

Beware Taking Advice From Morons

Insofar as opposition is starting to crop up to the Eric Holder AG nomination, it's being centered around Holder's role in the controversial Marc Rich pardon in the waning days of the Clinton administration. The fact that Holder is liberal, by itself, is not disqualifying -- Barack Obama, rumor has it, is liberal (if not "THE MOST MARXIST/FASCIST SENATOR EVER!"). The National Review brings up the pardon in its editorial opposition to Holder, citing a Congressional report labeling his participation "unconscionable". What they don't tell you, but McCain supporter Orin Kerr does, is that the report was released by Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN), a rabid Clinton hater famous for not just insisting that Vince Foster was murdered, but actually "re-enacting" the event by shooting a pumpkin in his backyard.

I, too, came across Rep. Burton when I attended Congressional hearings regarding formaldehyde contamination in FEMA trailers. To pass the time, I gave grades to the various committee members. Burton came in dead last, with a D+, since his entire contribution was assuring the rest of the committee that he knew the CEO's of the corporations in questions and was confident they would never hurt a fly. If only Mr. Holder knew that all this nastiness could have been staved off with a cocktail party, we might all be better off.

You can take a look at Rep. Burton's wikipedia page, if you'd like. He's got all manner of crazy in his closet.

You Judge The Ballots

NPR has samples of some of the contested ballots in the Coleman/Franken Minnesota Senate election, and lets you vote on how you think they should be counted. Finally, a chance to prove you're smarter than a Floridian! Take a whack at it -- and remember, Minnesota operates under a loose "intent of the voter" standard.

My decisions:
1) Franken
2) Accept it (McCain)
3) Franken (this was, in my view, the closest call)
4) Franken
5) Franken ("Lizard People" wasn't bubbled in)
6) Franken
7) Coleman
8) Franken
9) Barkley
10) Barkley
11) Coleman

Drinker's Delight

I don't drink beer, or really alcohol in general, but pieces like this (about so-called "extreme beer" breweries like Dogfish) always fascinated me. I think I'm mentally linking it to alchemy, which is intrinsically pretty cool. I have the same reaction to mixed drinks -- I don't usually like them myself, but the appeal of mixing various liquids together and creating something always had a hold on me, which is why I'm so pleased with the positive reaction I get to the old 4th Burton hot apple cider/peach schnapps combination.

Cocktail Reception

Former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, whom I earlier characterized as being the good sort of "affirmative action" pick for the RNC, is blasting GOP efforts at "outreach" towards female and minority voters.

"The problem is that within the operations of the RNC, they don't give a damn. It's all about outreach ... and outreach means let's throw a cocktail party, find some black folks and Hispanics and women, wrap our arms around them - 'See, look at us,' " he said.

"And then we go back to same old, same old. There's nothing that is driven down to the state party level, where state chairmen across the country, to the extent they don't appreciate it, are helped to appreciate the importance of African-Americans and women and others coming and being a part of this party, and to the extent that they do appreciate it, are given support and backup to generate their own programs to create this relationship."

"Outreach is a cocktail party. Coalitions ... a relationship. I'm going to look you in the eye. I'm going to be at your table. I'm going to sit and talk to you," said Mr. Steele, who has for the last two years been the chairman of GOPAC, a Republican political action committee.

Bingo. As I observed upon the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin as McCain's VP nominee, Republicans really seem to think that the only thing women or minorities care about is the face -- they blindly will follow their race or gender cohorts, and nothing else needs to be said. Steele, at least, is fighting back against this notion: he gets that if the GOP is going to make any true inroads with female and minority voters, they need to have a seat at the table, where their problems will be discussed fairly and real solutions will be offered.

There's a valid question as to how RNC selection committee will respond to this sort of rhetoric of course. It's not clear that they really want Blacks and women to have more voice at the table, if their voices will threaten policy or philosophical positions dear to the Party core (they might think that, but assume they can reign Steele in and make it so his changes are cosmetic, at best). And aside from the racial angles, Steele is definitely a relatively moderate candidate to be running, which is a major barrier in a Party that looks poised to make another rightward lurch. Of course, a Steele victory would signal a check on that instinct, which would certainly be positive.

But back to Steele's efforts to bring Blacks and other non-traditional GOP voters into the fold. Again, I'm not saying he'll be successful in his endeavor, even if he reaches out in good faith with full party backing. While a significant part of Black loyalty to the Democratic Party is based off the notion that the GOP is facially inhospitable to them, it's not ridiculous to think that Blacks actually have considered and agree with the Democratic Party when casting their ballots. But I think it's better, all things considered, for Blacks to be voting Democratic because they agree with Democrats, not because they consider the Republican Party to be a racist outpost.

The Racism Bank Shot

Though discounting the mythology that cases like Brown v. Board single-handedly exposed the evil of Jim Crow and promoted civil rights reform, revisionist (I mean that totally value-neutral) civil rights historians like Michael J. Klarman do concede that these largely symbolic measures did cause real progress by provoking a White overreaction. The intense White backlash to cases like Brown, broadcast to the North by television and other media sources, helped shock moderates out of their complacency and create the political will to enact meaningful reforms, such as the Civil Rights Act.

Other historians have observed the effort made by the Soviet Union to weaken American support amongst "non-aligned" and third world nations by exposing the horrors of American racism. Domestic civil rights battles in America were never far removed from the Cold War context, with progressives arguing fervently that America had a significant national security interest in dismantling Jim Crow, and conservatives shooting back that it was unpatriotic to tailor our domestic policy based on Kremlin critiques. This was a battle progressives would slowly but surely win. The United States government intervened for the first time in favor of desegregation activists when it wrote an amicus supporting the NAACP in Brown v. Board, specifically citing "the hostile reaction among normally friendly peoples" to anti-Black discrimination. The continuance of segregation and inequality in America was leading potential allies around the world to view the US as "hypocritical in claiming to be the champion of democracy while permitting practices of racial discrimination here in this country."

By contrast, evidence of meaningful civil rights progress was wielded by American diplomatic agents as proof of the superiority and fundamental righteousness of American ideals. From officially-sponsored world tours featuring Black Jazz musicians, to President Truman's famous maxim that "Democracy's answer to the challenge of totalitarianism is its promise of equal rights and equal opportunities for all mankind," it was well known to everyone that the question of racism had potent implications for American foreign policy interests.

All of this is prelude to al-Qaeda #2 Ayman al-Zawahiri's mockery of President-elect Barack Obama, whom they call a "house slave" and compare derogatorily to Malcolm X. Spencer Ackerman responds:

Who would have known that electing a black president also turns out to have an information-operations component as a bonus? We should want to publicize, far and wide, that Zawahiri is a racist. Drive this discrediting message into the heart of the Muslim world. I wonder what the tens of millions of African and African-American Muslims think about Zawahiri's charming statement.

Yes, and yes. Obama, fair or not, is already somewhat of a hero in many places where the American brand had been faltering. One benefit of making even symbolic racial progress, as Klarman indicated, is that it makes racist reactionaries that much more visible. America learned that racial regressivism was a serious liability in its fight with the Soviet Union. Hopefully, it can take this opportunity to utilize racial progressivism to dismantle reactionary, totalitarian movements like al-Qaeda.

Life is Good

Snoop Dogg on Martha Stewart. I would have assumed they would explode on contact, like matter and anti-matter. Instead, it's just hilarious.

Delaying the Inevitable is a Good Thing

Publius lays out an interesting argument for the auto bailout. Even if the bailout is destined to fail, even if the companies don't deserve it, even if we won't see a penny of the loan ever again, even if all it does is forestall the inevitable collapse of General Motors -- it still might be worth it. Why? Because the companies won't fail now. And now, in the middle of a major economic crisis, is not a time to let a major sector of our economy sink like Atlantis.

If the Big Three go under right now, given all the other economic strains, I genuinely worry that Michigan is going to turn into some sort of hell hole -- like sub-Saharan Africa or Iceland. Of course, the counter argument is that there is never a "good" time for huge employers to fail dramatically, so you might as well suck it up and get it over with. But, granting that statement as true, I can still say that some times are probably worse than others, and now certainly qualifies as a worse time.

Return of the Tekken

Let's say you're casually playing boggle online with a bunch of random strangers. One random stranger's name is "Michelle Chang." Being an enormous dork, you immediately seize upon the name as from a character in the "Tekken" fighting series -- a very cool character at that. Is there any way to bring this into the conversation without it being massively awkward?

No, of course not. So you stew quietly.

DC to Legalize Gay Marriage?

D.C. Councilman David Catania has proclaimed he is confident D.C. will pass a bill legalizing same sex marriage next year. Dale Carpenter wonders if his confidence is misplaced, given the overwhelming opposition to same-sex marriage expressed by Blacks in California. My response was to note that, just as White voters in Maryland have different views on gay marriage than those in Alabama, D.C. Blacks may take different views on the subject than their California peers.

Obama to Nominate First Black AG

Congratulations to Eric Holder who, if confirmed, would become America's first Black Attorney General. Here's a quick bio for Mr. Holder:

* Columbia University, B.A., 1973; J.D., 1976 * Department of Justice, Public Integrity Section, 1976 - 1988 * Judge, Superior Court of the District of Columbia, 1988 - 1993 (nominated by Reagan) * U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, 1993 - 1997 (appointed by Clinton) * Deputy Attorney General of the United States, 1997 - 2001 (nominated by Clinton) * Acting Attorney General of the United States, 2001 (until confirmation of John Ashcroft as Attorney General) * Partner, Covington & Burling, 2001 - present

So naturally, he's going to be accused of being an "affirmative action" pick. But seriously, congratulations are in order for Mr. Holder. While we're on the subject of Obama legal appointments, congratulations to Greg Craig, who will be named White House Counsel. Craig, who represented Bill Clinton in his impeachment hearings, is currently a partner at Williams & Connolly, where I worked in the summer and winter of 2005. While Mr. Craig obviously would not remember me, in a victory for class solidarity, I actually don't remember him either. Take that, Mr. Big Shot!

Torts Quote of the Day

From Lombard Laws, King Luitprand, Law 136.VII. (A.D. 733):

...no blame should be placed on the man who owns the well [for a tort in which both the perpetrator and victim were third parties] because if we placed the blame on him, no one hereafter would permit other men to raise water from their wells, and since all men cannot have a well, those who are poor would die and those who are traveling through would also suffer need.

I love the matter of fact way the inevitable death of poor people is trotted out as an impact.

The Fruits of Their Labor

In general, academic performance has a negative correlation with juvenile delinquency. Which makes sense -- we assume that academic excellence both shows a commitment by kids to work towards socially sanctioned goals, and that the pay-offs of excelling in school make criminal activity less attractive.

However, new research by University of Washington Professor Robert Cruchfield indicates that for kids in highly disadvantaged neighborhoods, this relationship is reversed: GPA actually has a positive correlation with delinquency.

This was an unexpected and obviously distressing finding, and folks are still trying to figure out potential causes. Several hypothesis were forwarded:

1) Kids with good grades in bad neighborhoods feel the need to "represent", countering the bad reputation they might get for being a nerd.

2) Kids with good grades feel like they have no potential for being rewarded for their accomplishments, and seek out the status that criminal activity brings.

3) Kids with good grades are more valuable to criminal organizations such as gangs, who value their intelligence and skill sets more than another dime-a-dozen brawler.

4) Having good grades acts as a "get out of jail free" card, causing authority figures to look the other way and making delinquent activity less costly.

All of these are worth considering, but I think #2 rings truest for me. One knock on the first explanation is, as one respondent noted, that it would seem simpler for smart kids to avoid the dilemma all together by underperforming in class. The fourth explanation I think would work better in high-income neighborhoods (where I definitely observe a "get out of jail free" effect). It's at best non-unqiue, at worst less effective, in poorer locales.

The third explanation seems slightly incongruous, but I think may be onto something insofar as we remember that modern gangs are rather sophisticated organizations which make rational "business" decisions. Still, the second example strikes me as the strongest. Kids who are high performers expect that they will see tangible rewards for their effort. Insofar as they don't see those rewards coming, either because they don't believe their work will pay off (i.e., even if they do well in school, they won't be able to afford college or can't imagine a good college will accept them), or because they don't believe they'll be around to see the benefits (i.e., they are fatalistic about street violence, or just assume they'll be taken in by the police on trumped up charges), the temptation to take immediately presented benefits rises dramatically.

Smart kids respond to rational incentives. The extent that criminal activity is the rational choice in many poorer neighborhoods worries me. A good anti-crime policy (indeed, a profoundly conservative one insofar as it deals with incentive structures) should be working holistically to make sure that other options are more fruitful than crime for disadvantaged youth.

It Must Be Nice Being Huge

Debates over how many adherents one can justifiably excommunicate from the ranks is a privilege of the powerful religions. Smaller players, such as my own faith, have learned that such intra-sectarian squabbling gets downright dangerous when your numbers are already rather tiny (and the other guys are going for your head).

Certainly, lots of ultra-orthodox Jews think I really suck at being Jewish, and some more extreme sects would go further and label me a heretic. Fortunately for me, they're in the minority. But by and large, Judaism has learned that we must hang together to avoid hanging separately. The majority of Jewish denominations in America, for example, do not hold that the Bible is the literal word of God. But yet, somehow we don't engage in cannibalistic theological warfare to expel the unbelievers. It must get tiring after awhile, and it's energy I'd really rather expend elsewhere.

Via Southern Appeal. Hey, President Obama -- if you're no longer Christian, we're happy to take you in! We can bond over how annoying it is for really self-righteous people taking it upon themselves to pray for our immortal souls.

That's New

I just got a push poll from, I believe, Ford Motor, asking whether I support the bailout (after regaling me with statistics about lost jobs and general hellfire and doom).

I told them I'm undecided. Which is true.

AFA Goes KKK

I can't handle this:

Let Your “Light” Shine For Christ This Christmas Season!

Looking for an effective way to express your Christian faith this Christmas season to honor our Lord Jesus? Now you can…. with the “Original Christmas Cross” yard decoration.

That's the product description from the American Family Association. And this (I swear I'm not kidding) is the photo they attached:



Via Balloon Juice.

The Meritorious Choice

Conservatives are abuzz about selecting former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele as the new chief of the RNC. One Republican leader put his appeal thus:

“He understands where the party needs to go, he has got a strong set of principles, he is well able to articulate a message in all the media forms, and can take that message to the growing areas of the country — youth and minorities — and he does very well with women. He is the future of the party.”

Michael Steele, in other words, would be an affirmative action pick.

I don't mean that as a knock on Steele. Much the opposite. I think that Steele demonstrates the way that affirmative action makes sense as a component of meritocracy. Republicans know that they can't keep winning if they get dominated competing for American youth and American Blacks. Ta-Nehisi Coates loves to harp on the point that African-Americans aren't actually that liberal, they just view the GOP as a racist party. Nominating Steele to the chairmanship of the party helps counter that sentiment, thus accomplishing something of tangible worth that they can't get with yet another old White dude. If Democrats, deciding they needed to work harder to appeal to Appalachian Whites, nominated someone like Heath Shuler or another Democrat with demonstrated appeal to hard-scrabble, mountain Whites, nobody would question his qualifications (they might question the strategy), even though Shuler is roughly as obscure as a one-term Lieutenant Governor of Maryland who got mauled when he made a bid for Senate.

Of course, whetheer Steele will succeed in appealing to young or Black voters is a dicey proposition. But the thought process is affirmative action personified, and not in a bad way.

I Like the Sound of That

The Prediction

Sen. Joe Lieberman's (I-CT) approvals: In the tank.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): Strip Lieberman of his committee chair.

End result: Lieberman keeps his committee chair. Senate Democrats don't have the cuts to pull the trigger -- even for the ideal option, which is giving him the chairmanship of another committee, where he is more amenable to Democratic policies.

I don't blame them though. I could never be in politics. I'm too nice and forgiving. I always want to give people another chance. Even to people who don't deserve it.

Ignoring Facebook

In response to the Obama transition team's version of demanding every scintilla of factual information about potential administration appointees, Matt Yglesias observes that eventually norms are going to have to change about the relevancy of a dumb college facebook photo. I've thought the same thing myself. Even today, interviewers can't be shocked! that their prospects might have drank in college. Indeed, they themselves probably drank in college. But there being no permanent electronic record of it, they can delude themselves into thinking they were more responsible about it. As the facebook generation begins to consist of the hirers, however, eventually a more realistic view is going to surface.

Or so I hope.

Scalia Cares About Diversity

We read Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614 (1991) in civil procedure today. In Edmonson, it was held that race-based peremptory challenges in civil cases violate the equal protection clause. Much of the argument between the majority and the dissent grappled with whether peremptory challenges -- basically, eliminating a potential juror from the pool for no reason whatsoever (parties in civil cases generally get a limited number of peremptories) -- is a "state action" for constitutional purposes. The majority concluded that it was, as the selection of a jury is a state body whose composition is merely being delegated to the parties, while the dissenters argued that it was not, that jury selection was a function of purely private actors who were only using the court as a forum to resolve their dispute.

But Justice Scalia's separate dissent was interesting to me, because he spent much of it waxing poetic about the need and right of litigants to pursue racially diverse juries -- or at least select their jurors race-consciously. After noting his agreement with Justice O'Connor's argument that the majority is wrong "in principle" to assert that peremptory challenges in civil litigation are state actions, he continued to write that:

[today's opinion] is also unfortunate in its consequences.

The concrete benefits of the Court's newly discovered constitutional rule are problematic. It will not necessarily be a net help, rather than hindrance, to minority litigants in obtaining racially diverse juries. In criminal cases, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), already prevents the prosecution from using race-based strikes. The effect of today's decision (which logically must apply to criminal prosecutions) will be to prevent the defendant from doing so - so that the minority defendant can no longer seek to prevent an all-white jury, or to seat as many jurors of his own race as possible. To be sure, it is ordinarily more difficult to prove race-based strikes of white jurors, but defense counsel can generally be relied upon to do what we say the Constitution requires. So in criminal cases, today's decision represents a net loss to the minority litigant. In civil cases, that is probably not true - but it does not represent an unqualified gain either. Both sides have peremptory challenges, and they are sometimes used to assure, rather than to prevent, a racially diverse jury.
[...]
Although today's decision neither follows the law nor produces desirable concrete results, it certainly has great symbolic value. To overhaul the doctrine of state action in this fashion - what a magnificent demonstration of this institution's uncompromising hostility to race-based judgments, even by private actors! The price of the demonstration is, alas, high, and much of it will be paid by the minority litigants who use our courts. I dissent. [500 U.S. at 644-45]

I find it interesting that Scalia appears to recognize here that stripping minority actors of their ability to use race conscious procedures is, in fact a problem. More than a problem -- morally objectionable; a bar to basic fairness! The move towards color-blindness, he's arguing, is qualitatively harmful to minority litigants, and that's a concern he wishes the court to be mindful of.

An interesting argument, and one that gave me pause when reading this case. Kind of incongruous with the bulk of Scalia's jurisprudence, though, no?

Boxing Notes

It's been awhile, but there's a few thoughts I'd like to get off my chest.

First, Joe Calzaghe (46-0, 32 KOs), just coming off a decisive win over former pound-for-pound best Roy Jones Jr. (52-5, 38 KOs). Joe Cool has been talking retirement for awhile, and if he does, he's had a great career -- probably the best Super Middleweight of all time in the relatively new division.

But let's be clear on why Calzaghe isn't getting all the respect he thinks he deserves. For a long time, Calzaghe was perceived to be a typical sheltered European champion. There's a reason for that: he was. After winning the title from Chris Eubank in 1997, Calzaghe took a string of defenses against fighters ranging from solid to unremarkable. That's why when he took the fight against Jeff Lacy, then considered to be the next big thing in boxing, many were expecting Calzaghe to be smoked. To his credit, he proved everyone wrong -- dominating Lacy and essentially destroying the younger man's career.

Since then he has fought and won two more marquee battles: a wide victory against consensus #2 man Mikkel Kessler, and a split decision victory against Bernard Hopkins -- a win that, even if somewhat disputed, is significantly more impressive after Hopkins' subsequent demolition of Kelly Pavlik.

Those are all stellar wins. But by themselves, they are not enough for the living legend status Joe seems to covet. He really doesn't seem to understand that he hasn't been spending his whole career, or even most of his career, fighting the best opposition available. He really seems to think that his victory over a way-past-his-prime Roy Jones is a big deal. Is it true, as he says, that there always is and always will be some young gun coming up whom he "has to" fight (as an excuse to duck Chad Dawson)? Yes, but it's not like Calzaghe has spent the last decade fighting burgeoning superstars (let alone already established ones).

Contrast Calzaghe to current P4P #1 Manny Pacquiao, and the distinction becomes clear. After ascending to the elite levels of the sport, Pacquiao has been, over and over again, fighting the absolute best fighters he could find. Two fights against Marco Antonio Barrera. Three fights against Erik Morales. Two fights against Juan Manuel Marquez. Even his "easy" fights are still against pretty high level guys -- like Oscar Larios and Jorge Solis. And he continues to challenge himself, by stepping up in weight to thrash David Diaz, and then balloon way up in a fight against future hall of famer Oscar de la Hoya.

You become a legend by fighting, over and over, the best guys you can find. Calzaghe thinks he can slide into that status after a handful of (very, very) good wins. He doesn't get it.

.... Contender 3 champion Sakio Bika (26-3-2, 16 KOs) fights Contender 1 runner-up Peter Manfredo (31-5, 16 KOs) tomorrow night on Versus. I worry about Bika's ability to win a decision against the "Pride of Providence" in Providence. It's a good fight though, against two guys who (haters of The Contender notwithstanding) are properly labeled "fringe contenders" rather than "journeymen". Also on the card, Season 2 champion Grady Brewer (23-11, 13 KOs) taking on fellow Season 2 participant Cornelius "K9" Bundridge (28-3, 16 KOs). I expect Brewer, who really was a journeyman prior to his upset triumph, to struggle after a long layoff against K9, who has some career momentum even if we saw the likely ceiling on his talent after his thrashing at the hands of Joel Julio.

.... Finally, can I give out an ode to Teddy Atlas? He is under appreciated in boxing, I think, calling fights on ESPN. But he really knows his stuff, has a passion for the game and for the fighters, and best of all, always illustrates his points using delightfully bizarre sports analogies ripped from the athletic event of the day ("Speaking of the World Series, I think Smith needs to be the foul pole in this contest. Stay upright and on the outside -- tempt his opponent into going for the long ball..."). Plus, he rocks the Staten Island accident which makes him sound like he's been punched a couple too many times. He's really an asset to the sport, and that's no joke.

My Baby

I really relate to this story.

The Real Winner of Prop. 8: Mitt Romney

Nobody really was a direct "winner" stemming from the victory of Proposition 8. Gays and lesbians obviously lost. Anyone who knows and cares about gays and lesbians lost too. Everyone else is a wash, as their marriages are in roughly the same shape that they were a week ago.

But apparently, someone may have gotten a big boost from Prop. 8's passage, almost by accident: Mitt Romney. Recall that Romney's bid this time around was derailed in part by social conservatives who simply did not trust that he was "one of them" -- in part, it must be said, because Romney was actually rather socially moderate until approximately five days before he began his presidential campaign, but certainly in part because there is a lingering mistrust about Mormonism from within the conservative Christian community. But now Marc Ambinder notes that the LDS has purchased significant social conservative credibility due to its role in getting Proposition 8 passed -- credibility that will only be strengthened as the forces of godlessness, paganism, and equality continue to train their fire on the church.

Best of all for Romney, this occurs nearly entirely under the table. The only tangible impact is a lessening of suspicion conservative Christians have towards him on account of his Mormonism. He never took a front-line position on Proposition 8, and thus will see no more liberal backlash due to his anti-equality position than any other similarly situated Republican.

Romney's keeping his toes in the political water, and probably will run again in 2012. With the unabashed support of the Christian right, his candidacy will be far more formidable.

Six of One...

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) wonders if Barack Obama is going to "establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship."

I personally wonder how he's going to decide between Marxism and fascism. Heads, all property is redistributed for the glory of the proletariat, tails, every national endeavor is redirected for the glory of the volk.

Second Thing We Do, Objectify All The Men

The Apostate has a post about the tragic lack of nude men (at least, full frontal) in mainstream cinematic sex scenes, and why that is. The basic answer is that male bodies aren't objectified. Men aren't adjudged to be valuable based solely on their looks. Indeed, it is seen as weird and deviant to objectify male bodies. The Apostate urges that women start to break down the fiction that male bodies aren't the proper targets for objectification.

But wait, you say, if objectification is bad, then why is justifiable to do it to men? The answer is not that turnabout is fair play. Rather, it gets into the nuts and bolts of what it means to objectify someone, and how being seen as an object interacts with our sense of personhood and human dignity.

I've written before that, in contrast to what is maintained or implied by certain feminist theorists, being seen as an object -- the site of another's wants and desires, or a source of instrumentality to another's ends -- is an extremely important element of our personhood. Of course, it's not all we want -- we want also to be recognized as beings with inherent worth and human dignity, and we also want some level of control over how we are seen as valuable even as objects. But it is untrue to say that acknowledgment of subjective value is sufficient for our happiness. In order to be fulfilled, we need to be seen and perceive ourselves as being seen as both objects and subjects, at the same time.

In modern society, men (particularly White men) have many avenues through which both our objective and subjective value can be expressed and verified. The panoply of legal and moral rights, designed with men in mind, affirm that we are "God's children" and are beings worthy of inherent moral concern. The social structures we create also tell us, again and again, that we are useful creatures whose objective worth is articulated through prestige, awards, reimbursement, and acclamation.

The joke that is often laid about sexual harassment is asking a man "how would you like it if a woman told you you were attractive and she wanted to bone you?" It's an inapt comparison, though. Because seeing male bodies as "objects" (that is, entities which are wanted for the express purpose of fomenting pleasure in another) neither exhausts our dimensions of objective worth, nor operates to the exclusion of the recognition of our subjective value, it does not threaten to colonize male bodies in such a way that we are only seen as sex objects. A man whom women treat and talk about as hot still has fundamental ownership of himself, and is not limited to only that metric of worth. Taking it from another angle, it's not that women don't want to be seen as sexually attractive by men. What they protest is that being the totality of the avenues they have for attaining valuation.

I draw from all this that, in ideal circumstances, it is best for all parties when they are seen as objectively and subjectively valuable -- including on the axis of sexuality. Circumstances are not ideal when either element of valuation squeezes out the other -- as it is for women who are seen only as valuable along the object-axis (the definition of objectification). Men, though, by and large do exist in the land of ideals -- both of our objective and subjective value is pretty well established. So go ahead, women (hell, go ahead men) -- lust after me. I like knowing that I'm wanted, and I'm happy that you gain pleasure from wanting me. There's no threat here.

UPDATE: One more thing that came to me: it seems that people like to be objectively valued, but only if they have some degree of control over it. I might take pleasure in being valued for my contributions to Big Company, in part because I voluntarily chose to work for Big and can, if I choose, leave. Often times artists who are beloved by their audience members burn out because they get tired of only being seen as a tool for the desire's of the masses (think Dave Chappelle) and can never "turn it off". This goes back to the need for balance between objective and subjective valuation, and brings into play another dimension that must taken into account when noting the objective value of men.

Stanley Cup Winning Baby

Photo #11 is documentary proof of the cutest baby ever. I dare you to say I'm wrong.

Telling Numbers

The case for an independent Jewish state is rarely expressed as succinctly as in these American polling numbers, taken shortly after Kristallnacht:

Do you approve or disapprove of the Nazi's treatment ... Of Jews in Germany?

5.6% Approve
88.2% Disapprove
6.2% No Opinion

Should we allow a larger number of Jewish exiles from Germany to come to the United States to live?

21.2 Yes
71.8% No
7.0% No Opinion

The lack of rabid hatred is nice, but insufficient. Jews need a place where we get to make the decision as to allowing in Jewish refugees fleeing persecution.

Summary Fail

This Washington Post article is currently summarized on the front page of the Post's website as such:

Obama reviewing hundreds of Bush policies he may promptly undo, such as reproductive rights.

Feminists were right to be suspicious. Forgive me, PUMAs!

To The Streets

Pro-equality activists are marching in California. Good. Liberals have no trouble getting riled up for wars and free trade, but we haven't had a good spontaneous civil rights march in awhile.

Todd Zywicki is outraged that some protesters are targeting the Mormon Church. Oh, spare me. He notes that Blacks overwhelmingly supported Prop. 8, but nobody is vilifying them. While Zywicki could do to read more Dan Savage, he's missing the point. Yes, Blacks voted strongly against gay equality. But there is no "Black central command" that led the charge in favor of the proposition. Indeed, there really is no Black central command at all, and insofar as there are organizations which can claim to speak on behalf of the Black community (like the NAACP), I'm skeptical that they even supported Prop. 8, much less led efforts to get it passed.

As Pam Spaulding noted, it's clear that the Black community has some work to do with regards to homophobia. But this wasn't their baby. It wasn't Black institutions that were trying to get Prop. 8 on the ballot. It wasn't Black institutions stumping up and down the state to get it passed. If protesters wanted to yell in front of individual Black churches whose ministers pressed for the passage of Prop. 8, that would be fine in my view -- those churches need to be held accountable too. But there is a qualitative difference here that goes beyond the obnoxious whine of "political correctness".

The Mormon Church, as an institution, threw itself headlong into this battle, deciding to intervene with prodigious amounts of money and manpower to promote one of the cruelest examples of state-sponsored evil still extant in America. Are they being vilified for it? Yes. Should they be? Yes. You lie down with the devil, you're going to get called names in the morning.

Of course, now that their campaign on behalf of inequality has succeeded, the Mormon Church (and Catholic Church, for that matter) are all about making nice-y. From the Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles:

The coalition of religious communities and citizens who supported Proposition 8 wanted to preserve "the bedrock institution of marriage" between a man and a woman, said Cardinal Roger Mahoney, the Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles.

"Proposition 8 is not against any group in our society," Mahoney said in a written statement.

And from the LDS:

"The Church acknowledges that such an emotionally charged issue concerning the most personal and cherished aspects of life -- family and marriage -- stirs fervent and deep feelings," church spokeswoman Kim Farah wrote in an e-mail. "No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information."

Ms. Farah, too late. When you promote legislation that seeks deprive a class of human beings of their natural rights, that counts as vilification and harassment. And Archbishop Mahoney, bullshit. This is what's infuriating. Retrograde churches have every right to campaign in favor of bigotry. But they can't get all indignant when people point out, hey, taking away rights from a small, vulnerable segment of the population is bigoted! It is "against [a] group in our society." It's against gays. There is no disputing that.

Are there protests against Mormons and Blacks that go beyond the pale? Umm...yeah. Playing the polygamist card against Mormons would count too (incidentally, Zywicki's point that the Mormon Church's experience being harassed over polygamy should make them more defensive about the "traditional definition of marriage", when polygamy was part of the "traditional definition of marriage", is utterly inane). But the act of protesting, itself, is totally legitimate here. If one believes, as I do, that there is no moral distinction between state-sponsored homophobia, and state-sponsored racism, then the traffickers in the former deserve the same opprobrium that historically was directed to the latter.

These are a Few of My Randomest Things

Kevin tagged me in a random things meme. I always get picked for this meme in particular, which is unfortunate, because I'm really pretty dull. But I don't want to break the chain, so....

Here are the rules.

1. Link to the person who tagged you.
2. Post the rules on your blog.
3. Write six random things about yourself. (See below)
4. Tag six people at the end of your post and link to them. (See further below…)
5. Let each person know they’ve been tagged and leave a comment on their blog.
6. Let the tagger know when your entry is up.

1) I'm perpetually early: Kevin says he's always late. Well, I'm nearly always early. I think it's a function of my status as a total goodie-goodie in school. I was literally terrified of getting in trouble, and being late to class could get you (gasp) detention. I never was late. I never got a single detention. Today, I compulsively overestimate the amount of time it takes to travel from place A to place B. At Carleton, I had classes directly across the sidewalk from my dorm. Yet, I'd constantly have thoughts like this: "I have an 11:00 class, and it's already 10:50. But I have to go down four flights of stairs to get there. Well, better get moving."

2) I'm a lefty, and I'm proud of it. Perhaps a little too proud, though, as the following story will demonstrate. I tend to sit at right-handed desks. A friend asked me about it once, and I explained that I had just gotten used to them over the years. But, I continued, it's kinda weird, because "normally I'm somewhat of a left supremacist." Except I didn't say "left", I said "White". Oops. Awkward.

3) I hate dogs. I know, I know. I'm a terrible person. I'm not even sure why. When I was kid, I was afraid of dogs, so I'm guessing there was some bad incident at age four that I'm hard at work suppressing. But yeah, Where the Red Fern Grows? Happy ending. Cats are cool though.

4) If I had to pick a favorite animal, it'd be mice. That is random, but mice seem to have played a disproportionate role in my childhood. My second grade play was narrated by mice ("Of Mice and Mozart", though I, star that I was, got to be a "composer"). A bunch of my favorite books as a kid -- Ben and Me, The Mouse and the Motorcycle, Abel's Island, and later Maus -- all mice-centric. And "Tom and Jerry"? Great cartoon. Plus, I think they're cute.

5) I'm worried that all my non-academic interests seem rather violent. Not just video games. My favorite sports are boxing and ice hockey. I even played ice hockey for three years in high school. The music I listen to tends to fall into the "angry White dudes yelling" genre. My cousin once went through my iPod and declared that "for a pretty chill guy, you listen to some angry music." I though Breaking Benjamin's song "Forever" would make a nice first dance song at a wedding -- even after reading the lyrics (in my defense, the song is genuinely pretty). I don't exactly know where it comes from. In terms of my actual behavior, I'm quite passive and docile. I'm worried that I'm bottling up a torrent of rage. Or perhaps the music is a release.

6) I'm a White guy in a country that just elected a Black President. How weird is that?

Okay, now tags: PG (that blog is staying up whether she likes it or not), Matt, Phoebe, Esq. (she's due for an interim update anyway), The Gaucho Politico, and the one formerly known as Girl Detective.

Do We Still Need Civil Rights After Obama?

Working for the LCCR this summer as it sought to beat back Ward Connelly's efforts to eliminate affirmative action in Colorado, one of the primary arguments we had to respond to was the claim that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (and later, Sarah Palin) have proven that affirmative action is not necessary. Abigail Thernstrom, a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, trained her fire more broadly, asking caustically if civil rights advocates are "still going to whine endlessly about racism in America" if Obama was elected. Since Obama's election, this chorus has grown even louder. RedState, for example, congratulated Barack Obama on his victory by saying "thirty years came quickly", referring to the time frame within which Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stated that she expected affirmative action would no longer be necessary. And liberal commentators have made similar statements, albeit in more worried tones: that Obama's election would wrongly signal White citizens that the problem of racism is essentially over.

Look. Barack Obama's election was an immensely important event, and its symbolic value to the cause of racial justice cannot be overstated. That being said, in terms of its direct impact to the cause of racial equity, it is in fact mostly symbolic. All Barack Obama has objectively proven is that an incredibly talented Black man can rise to an elite position in extremely favorable conditions (as The Onion memorably put it: "Nation Finally Shitty Enough To Make Social Progress"). One very capable person doing very well is good news, but it doesn't make any systematic impact or really tell us anything about the strength of institutional factors. Affirmative action is targeted at the Black community writ large -- most of whom are not Barack Obama's. But you shouldn't have to be a Barack Obama for civil rights to care about you.

The focus on Obama's victory helps to maintain one of the more pernicious elements of the "politics of respectability" model of civil rights reform. During the civil rights struggle, Black leaders were very careful to present only their most cherubic, idealized face. Their most innocent children, their most clearly qualified applicants, their most gifted (and fair-minded) leaders. It would be far more difficult for the wardens of White supremacy to argue that these people should be excluded from the fruits of the American dream. By contrast, civil rights organizations were far more hesitant to stand up for, say, the Black poor (whose mannerisms might be cited as justification for racist measures), or Black criminals who -- regardless of what acts they might have committed -- still objectively ought to enjoy the same protections granted to White defendants. In this way, the measuring stick by which racial equality was measured was when a Black standout was given full opportunity to show the extent of her genius.

Most Black people, like most Whites, Asians, and Latinos, are not perfect. They are regular, flawed folks. And when "success" in civil rights is limited to elite persons getting their just deserts, we do serious violence to what racial equality should actually mean. Much of the focus on affirmative action is an upshot of the politics of respectability -- it asks what awards should be given to very talented Black men and women. I think that's important, but the totality of racial equality isn't encompassed by the question of whether a given Black student should be going to Harvard versus Tufts. Barack Obama's election may tell us important information about the prospects of the "talented tenth" (or hundredth, or thousandth). But true commitment to racial egalitarianism means looking beyond that, to the situation of the normal ninetieth. That includes the vast majority of college students, who are not elite either, but it is also extends to the many people who aren't going to college at all. Affirmative action still has a role to play in the post-Obama era, but the focus on it as the primary battleground over civil rights obscures more than it illuminates.

There is an old saw in feminist circles stating that "the issue now is not to get a female Einstein hired as an assistant professor at a third-rate university. The issue now is to have a female schlub receive the same opportunities as a male schlub." The same thing applies in the context of race. We have made it so that there are avenues for the very best and brightest people of color can spread their wings and succeed. And that's not nothing. But neither is it the end of civil rights. For everyday Black folk, Barack Obama's election does not signal any meaningful change in the type of opportunities they are likely to see or the type of treatment they are likely to receive. Waving their lives away, because of what a very tiny and very separate stratum of Black people now know that they can achieve, is not legitimate practice for those of us truly committed to dismantling racial hierarchy.

Listen to Perkins!

Chief of the Family Research Council Tony Perkins is out blaming the moderates for GOP losses in 2008. What's needed, he says, is a party more committed to pure Republican principles -- fiscally and socially.

This, to put it mildly, is tough to swallow in the face of the evidence. The fact is that there are several seats in deep red territory that are now Democratic directly resulting from Republican intolerance of moderate politicians. The Maryland first, gerrymandered specifically to elect a Republican, will be sending a Democrat to Congress after a right-wing challenger knocked off a moderate incumbent who would have assuredly cruised to re-election. The Michigan 7th saw the same thing -- a right-winger who defeated a moderate incumbent in 2006 got defeated in 2008. Bill Sali, the furthest right-wing candidate in a multi-member primary in 2006, lost his Idaho(!) seat this year to a Democrat. The blood red 2nd Ohio district is competitive every year because Jean Schmidt is their representative. And so on.

Put more broadly, there is very little proof that "pure" conservative principles enjoy broad popularity in the United States (gay-bashing, alas, is a major exception). Most Americans voted for Barack Obama even though they (wrongly) believed he was raise their taxes. There isn't much proof that Americans really oppose spending on social welfare programs. Even on social issues, this was a pretty good year for liberals (outside of gay rights), winning battles on abortion, marijuana, and assisted suicide.

The fact is that, at the moment, conservative governance is not all that popular. They can talk all they want about how conservatives "abandoned conservative principles", but if they respond to this election by lurching even further to the right, they're going to spend a long time out in the cold.

78% of Jews are Very Confused

A Greek daily celebrates the Obama victory by labeling it "the end of the Jewish domination". Now, as one of the 78% of Jews who voted for President Obama, I can fairly definitively state that I was unaware that I was casting my ballot to end my "domination". But that's more a function of the mythological nature of that dominion than any misapprehension about what an Obama presidency will do.

The Jewish community will have the ear of President Obama, to be sure, but that's because American Jews are integral players in American progressive politics (it remains utterly bizarre to me the sentiment -- mostly from outside the US -- that Jews are predominantly conservative influences on American politics). And for his part, Barack Obama has shown a rare sensitivity to the concerns of Jews as Jews themselves express them (rather than how our interests are portrayed when they are sublimated within the "Judeo-Christian" worldview). That's fortunate, because what Jews want (as opposed to what outsiders -- both "friends" and enemies -- say we want) is freedom from persecution, just solutions to the conflicts which plague us and the Palestinians, and the right to participate as equals in the community of nations. If Barack Obama brings those dreams into fruition, it will be a great day not just for Jews, and not just for Palestinians, but for all persons who care about the equal dignity of all humankind.

The New City Slicker

I grew up in suburban Maryland, about fifteen minutes outside of D.C.. As a result, I always considered myself quite the cosmopolitan. Washington was a quick metro ride away, nearly everyone's parents worked, if not in D.C., then in a job that existed because of D.C., and the self-image of my town was very urbane and sophisticated. When I applied to college, I said that I was looking for a university that had a similar feel: medium-sized, north-eastern, near a city. Showing my lack of self-awareness, it turned out that my dream school (where I applied early decision) was actually a small liberal arts college in a small mid-western township. And so the last four years were an experience in small town, Minnesota living. Even this summer, living on my own for the first time, my apartment was out in suburban Maryland -- not in one of the up and coming D.C. neighborhoods like most of my friends.

So though I always considered myself comfortable in the city, my time in Hyde Park has really been my first time living in an urban setting. Urban is relative, of course, but we're in the city of Chicago, our streets are numbered and in grids (and reach up to big numbers like "60" -- even Northfield has a 1st Street), and there is genuine crime and poverty. This is all new to me.

Last Friday, I witnessed my first serious street crime -- a mugging or possible abduction. It occurred about a half block ahead of me on 55th street, as I was walking home from a party with my girlfriend and a friend of mine. It was spooky. After a nice long conversation with the Chicago police (who were very helpful and responsive), I remember thinking, "I don't like city living."

Today, walking back from the law school, a woman fell in beside me. It was raining, and, she announced, "I hate the rain." I thought she was a university employee, and I joked back that soon she wouldn't have to worry -- it'd be snowing. She laughed, and then told me how she had just come back from a pantry that turned out to be Saturday only. I first I didn't understand, but then I realized -- she wasn't some university administrator -- she was hungry. She said her four kids were coming back from school, and she had no food to give them. She had tried ten different restaurants and all had shoo-ed her away -- most with very little sympathy.

By this time, I had reached my destination, and she had tears in her eyes. I didn't know what to say or do, so I just told her "better days will come." She nodded, and kept walking. Reflexively, I called "have a nice day" (I always say that -- too much time in Minnesota), and immediately felt ridiculous. And once again, I thought to myself, "I don't like city living."

But why? Okay, the reaction after the crime is reasonable -- everybody prefers living someplace where they can walk around safely at night to where they have to watch every footstep. But when it came to this poor, hungry woman, there was no threat to my safety. What it did threaten was the division I've trained myself to prefer -- between my writing, and what I write about.

I've never been the activist sort. I write in support of my moral commitments, because writing is what I'm comfortable with and what I'm good at. Even this summer, working for a civil rights coalition, was a rather big step for me in the direction of tangible, direct action (at one point while working for the LCCR I was passed off as an expert on student activism -- I could barely refrain from laughing). I have a deep skepticism that significant progressive change will occur through political or even legal processes. I prefer to work alone, and activism is inherently communal (let's face it -- like any self-respecting Carleton kid, I can be a bit socially awkward). Activism is all about persuasion, mostly of lay people, and my time as a debater left me with negative opinions of both the concept of "persuasion", and the efficacy of talking with lay people about complicated philosophical, political, or ethical problems.*

To a large extent, I don't like city living because it forces one to fit into the activist mold. Each day, you see events and make choices which directly implicate the moral commitments you're fighting for. And frankly, I don't think that fast. I prefer to ponder, and wrestle, and talk things out, and deliberate. But I'm not convinced I'm not a hypocrite -- that what I really don't want is to be forced to put my money where my pen is.

The good news, I guess, is that I'm stuck in Chicago for the next three years -- for better or for worse. There is a significant "for worse" component here -- I can feel the stress rise inside me well beyond the degree to which the first year of law school is bothering me, and most of it can be chalked up to the change in scenery. But maybe there will be a change for better as well. I've always been a strong proponent of interacting with a broad array of people. Muggers probably aren't interested in conversations, but the woman I met on the street today was.

I'm pretty confident that I do not want to live in a city when I move out into the workforce. But that doesn't mean I can't learn some important things these next three years.

Peace and equality
Let's be together, let's live in harmony
Lookin' to the sky, keep your head on the rise
Think things on rockin' so well

--"think ya better D," sAmi

* This is not a knock against lay people -- not everyone needs to have deep and sophisticated opinions about Rawls, or even care about him, and just because you don't have a knack for synthesizing arguments about the veil of ignorance doesn't mean you're not good at other things, from computer science to economics to bricklaying. But just as it can get grating to my engineering friends to try and explain to me basic principles of math and physics, it's frustrating for me to try and boil down really complicated philosophical arguments for people who are not interested in the subjects. There are differences between the cases: On the one hand, engineering will go on just fine no matter how ignorant I stay whereas lay people have real influence on the development of moral norms, making it imperative
that I do attempt to explain and persuade non-philosophy folks beyond what I might be interested in doing for reasons of charity or goodwill (more frustration). The flip-side, of course, is that because moral norms represent things we want all people to abide by, I do have an obligation to make whatever principles I lay out accessible and understandable to the common person. Engineering can stay obscure to me because nobody is asking me to build a bridge. All people, however, are asked every day to live their lives in a fair and ethical manner.

None of this is meant to be an argument for why a more secluded "academic" life is objectively superior to a hands-dirty, activist path -- merely an explanation of my personal preference and how it came about.

The New City Slicker

I grew up in suburban Maryland, about fifteen minutes outside of D.C.. As a result, I always considered myself quite the cosmopolitan. Washington was a quick metro ride away (in fact,

Those Left Behind

In his victory speech last night, Senator Barack Obama stated that this election gave us an

answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled - Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America.

At least with regards to gay Americans, he was wrong.

* California narrowly voted to overturn its state supreme court ruling granting gay couples the right to marry.

* Arizona passed its own amendment barring gay marriage, after narrowly failing in the endeavor two years ago.

* Florida managed to leap its 60% hurdle to also write discrimination into its constitution.

* Arkansas prohibited gay couples from adopting children.

There was a sense yesterday and today that America had taken a great step forward -- that it had spoken with a voice of inclusion and respect for all persons, regardless of who they are or how they were born.

I can't imagine what it feels like to be someone who was written out of that message of inclusion. The historic nature of this election makes the resounding repudiation America gave to the equal human dignity of gays and lesbians that much more shameful. The nation this year was primed to be thinking about discrimination. In a very real sense, the decision to cast a ballot for Barack Obama was a decision to cast off the weight of our prior inequities. In such a context, the choice to strip gay and lesbian Americans of their natural human rights was more than just a failure of imagination. It was an affirmative decision by the electorate to announce that gays and lesbians are less than full Americans. In past years, we could blame inertia, apathy, and ignorance. This year, it was willful.

It is a decision that we will look back upon in shame, and it is a decision that is a disgrace to America, no matter what other barriers we broke today.

To My Conservative Friends

2004 was a more difficult year for me than 2000. 2000 was the first political election I followed with any level of sophistication (I was 14), and it was an education to be sure. I first voted in 2004, however, and that year stung, because I saw a country which had seen what President Bush had wrought upon the nation, and still a majority of Americans re-elected him. If you want to search through my archives from that time period, you'll see that I was not a happy camper.

I asked then that my conservative friends not gloat at me, and it is only fair that I oblige them back. Many Republicans are, obviously, quite unhappy with this result. Believe me, I've been there. But I want to take this moment to reach out to you. John McCain got the votes of 46% of all Americans. Given that President Bush's approvals are in the mid-20s, there are plenty of folks out there who preferred McCain, who still recognize that something went fundamentally wrong over the last 8 years. Many of these problems are one's that will require bi-partisan efforts to correct. Restoring impartiality to the Justice Department. Rooting out corruption and politicization in bureaucratic agencies. Restoring balances on executive power. These are things which Republicans and Democrats can, and I hope, will work together to achieve vibrant and sustainable solutions.

On many other issues, conservatives and liberals remain quite a ways apart. And that's okay. This year, the electorate gave progressives a sweeping mandate for change. Obama's electoral college tallies are approaching rout levels, and on the Congressional and Senate side, Democrats still performed quite strongly (though slightly below the optimistic estimates that came forth over the last month or so). We will take this historic opportunity as a chance to prove that progressive ideas work. But conservatives can and should continue to pitch their best laid plans to the public and on the House and Senate floor. Barack Obama was a former faculty member here at Chicago Law School, and one of my professors today noted that Sen. Obama has an openness to ideas that is rare amongst the political set. If you pitch your plans and proposals in good faith, with an eye towards getting bills and past and moving our nation forward, then I pledge as a Democrat to listen.

The greatest break we could make from the last eight years, would be to heed Barack Obama's advice from four years ago. If we will it, we can cease to be a collection of red states and blue states. Working together, we are more. We are the United States.

My President

President Obama. President Barack Obama. President Barack Hussein Obama.

It's all good, baby.

Election Day Liveblog

It won't be a reprise of 2006, but I'll keep jotting down thoughts throughout the night. Latest posts will be at the top (for real this time -- sorry about before):

***

12:36 AM: It's bed time for me. I'll have more thoughts tomorrow (probably). Suffice to say, this was a great moment for America -- regardless of whether you supported Barack Obama or not, it is impossible not to feel joy about the barrier he brought crashing down.

12:10 AM: It's recount time in the VA-05, but the Democratic challenger will enter with a 1,000 vote advantage. Suck it, CNN.

11:55 PM: Lest I be entirely a gloomy gus right now (and let's be clear, I'm still on a tremendous high just from "President-elect Obama"), let's look at some of the good news that's come out recently:

1) I think Obama will take both Indiana and North Carolina.

2) Democrats are poised to pick up both the VA-02 and the VA-05 -- the latter of which CNN erroneously called for incumbent Rep. Virgil Goode several hours ago.

3) New Mexico is now solid blue -- House, Senate, Governor, and President.

4) Franken still has plenty of votes to pick up in Hennepin (Minneapolis) and St. Louis (Duluth) counties.

11:53 PM: I think a lot of Democrats were taking Mary Jo Kilroy's election for granted in the Ohio 15th -- a problem, given that she's down 1,000 votes with 96% reported.

11:21 PM: Oh, and echoing the below point, there are going to be some disappointing losses for incumbents. And not even old, tired guys like Kanjorski, but promising new folks like Boyda (D-KS) and Cazayoux (D-LA) (the former is down, the latter is out). Rep. Nick Lampson (D-TX) also went down in defeat.

11:19 PM: Not to be a downer, but I think we're going to leave quite a bit on the table down ticket. I'm not optimistic about Minnesota. I'm getting worried about Oregon. There have been a few House seats we've ended up on the wrong side on -- not just the long shots, but one's that we genuinely thought we could take.

I think my standards are too high.

11:15 PM: Obama is on tonight, but I think it is getting lost in the moment. There is a collective exhale, stemming from how important this day is, and not even Obama can rise above that.

10:56 PM: Just because I'm excited about Obama, don't think Minnesota will escape my wrath if it re-elects Coleman and Bachmann (and gives Paulsen the nod over Madia).

10:46 PM: I had forgotten entirely about ballot measures. The news doesn't look good, particularly for gay rights.. The California gay marriage ban has an early lead, but only 8% has reported. Arizona will likely ban gay marriage (a move which was defeated last cycle), and it will be joined by Florida, and Arkansas will likely ban gays from adopting children (which eventually has to be ruled unconstitutional.

Other issues are more of mixed bag. Washington looks to legalize physician assisted suicide, Michigan will allow medical marijuana, and Colorado will not define life as starting from conception. While Nebraska will ban affirmative action, it may be narrowly beaten back in Colorado. The parental notification law for abortion in California is polling dead even.

10:41 PM: Sen. Mary Landrieu has apparently held her Louisiana Senate seat. There will be no Senate-side pickups for the GOP (they have won a handful of house seats).

10:35 PM: Now that Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT) has gone down in defeat, Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH) may take on the title of the ultimate Republican survivor. He's pulled back into the lead by 8 points in his southwestern Ohio district.

10:32 PM: McCain's concession speech was very pretty. I couldn't figure out what the crowd was yelling, though.

10:12 PM: Also problematic is Louisiana, which had fallen a bit below the radar. Sen. Mary Landrieu is up only 2 points with 82% of the vote in. We already lost a House seat in the Cajun State.

10:10 PM: The biggest nail-biter is looking to be the Minnesota Senate race between Norm Coleman (R) and Al Franken (D). Franken's sitting on a 2,500 vote lead with 28% in.

10:00 PM: It's been called: Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.

9:53 PM: With 44% of the vote in, Frank Kravotil's 2,500 vote lead is the largest margin I've seen yet in the Maryland 1st. This would be another feel good pick up, as it's a direct result of the GOP's banishment of moderates.

9:49 PM: Almost as good as Obama winning, is watching the repellent Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) go down in flames. She's losing 58/42 with 59% in to Betsy Markey.

9:39 PM: Took them long enough. CNN moved the VA-05 back into toss-up land. Goode is down 700 votes with 3% outstanding. Of the six counties which have votes left to report, 4 are in Goode's camp (though nobody has much left on the table).

9:19 PM: Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-FL) looks like he's going down. Good. Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) might follow suit. No tears for him either, though a few might be warranted for having to say "Rep. Lou Barletta, crazy immigrant hater". The only truly saddening loss that's visible right now would be Rep. Nick Lampson (D-TX), who took Tom DeLay's old seat but was always the underdog to retain it.

9:01 PM: Thus far, the House races have represented a Democratic cleanup of 2006, with the Donkey picking up a bunch of the seats we just missed last time around. The latest victim: New England's final Republican, Chris Shays (R-CT).

8:57 PM: It's always exciting when Maryland has a competitive race. Currently, we're witnessing a deadlock in the MD-01, where right-winger Andy Harris is struggling to retain this conservative seat in the face of strong Democratic head winds, his own extremism, and a tough opponent who was endorsed by the incumbent Republican Representative whom Harris knocked off.

8:40 PM: Projection fail: CNN still "projects" Virgil Goode to win in the VA-05. Unfortunately, he's currently down 2 points with 89% in. Charlottesville came through big time for Perriello (it's all in now). It's not locked down, and much of the remaining votes are in Goode territory, but it's definitely "too close to call".

8:35 PM: Ohio news ahead. First, CNN just called it for Ohio. That's big. On the House side, random district #1 (the 3rd) is now 52/48 for the GOP, but random district #2 (the 12th) is at 49/48 for the Democrats with 20% in. Finally, Rep. Steve Chabot's (R) perpetually endangered 1st district is, well, endangered, with the Democratic challenger currently sitting with 57% of the vote. However, that's pretty much all from early voting.

8:19 PM: All my friends have been freaking out about Virginia. I told them to chill. McCain is up 20,000 votes, with 2/3 of the vote in. A huge chunk of that is from Northern Virginia, where Obama will rout. Things are looking good there.

7:51 PM: Kentucky's Senate race continues to be deadlocked, even though Lunsford is not racking up huge margins in Jefferson County (Louisville). In fact, nobody seems to know exactly where he's doing well enough to hang with McConnell. I still predict a loss. Just more heartbreaking than predicted.

7:43 PM: In the Virginia 2nd (Drake), it's essentially deadlocked with 15% in. My intuition is that this race will be Norfolk (D) and Virginia Beach (R) duking it out for supremacy. But I'm not sure about that.

7:41 PM: Virgil Goode's political life depends on how lazy UVA students are. He's up by 12,500 votes with 62% in, Charlottesville hasn't reported at all.

7:23 PM: The first strange blip of the night comes from the OH-03, which was not on anyone's map. The Democrat is up 52-48 with 0% reporting ... but 58,000 votes cast sounds like more than 0% to me. I'll keep an eye on it.

7:16 PM: House races we won't win: IN-03, KY-02. Races that still look good: VA-05, everything competitive in NC. Charlottesville is where to look in the VA-05 (that's where UVA is), and if Rep. Virgil Goode loses in a year suffused with anti-Muslim paranoia, it'll be that much sweeter.

7:06 PM: It's still early in Florida, but just judging off the House returns, the D machine is in good shape. Obama is currently overshooting projections in several vote-rich, Democrat-rich counties.

7:01 PM: Deep breath: Maryland's been called for Obama.

6:54 PM: The Democratic wave might be so strong this year that Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-FL), who took over Mark Foley's seat only to have a whole slew of marital infidelities (including some pretty sketchy behavior) revealed, might managed to squeak out a win. Though it's a good sign about the broader trends in this race, I still hope he loses -- we don't need the seat, and we're better off without folks like him in our caucus.

6:35 PM: I'm hearing good things about Obama in Indiana. He's significantly outperforming Kerry's margins so far. Early returns in the Indiana 3rd (Souder) do not look great, but that race was a long shot anyway.

Ad Watching

My vote went out in the mail weeks ago, and was exactly for who you thought it would be in a state where it couldn't have made even a remote difference even if I had gotten a bit nifty. But here in Chicago, I've started to see a few political ads. One for Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), who is up for re-election here and is sure to win it. One ad attacking Barack Obama for his affiliation with Jeremiah Wright -- obviously the GOP was going to go there eventually, and even if it is from an "independent" group I imagine the subtlety will be lost on the swath of swing voters who find those sorts of attacks distasteful. And there was one ad for Antoine Members, who is running against Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL), and though you wouldn't know it from the ad or his campaign site, is a Republican. I imagine even the most entrenched Senate incumbents put out a few ads re-introducing themselves to the crowds, and national ads put out in Chicago undoubtedly hit the Northwestern Indiana region, so I'm going to pin down Members' ad as the most futile expenditure I've seen so far (the 1st District generally gives Democrats around 80% of the vote).

The War Within

Ezra Klein thinks the prevailing model of how racism might take the election away from Obama is non-sensical:

It's one thing to build a mental model of a quietly racist electorate. Under this hypothesis, McCain, a war hero and credible candidate, would see unnatural levels of support as voters who were turned off by Barack Obama's skin color pretended they were attracted to McCain's biography and political platform. But that's not evident in the polling -- or, if it is, it hasn't been enough to give McCain a lead. So instead, the model seems to be that a substantial slice of the electorate are prankster racists who have spent the campaign deceiving pollsters so that, come election day, they can trigger a McCain upset, destroying the credibility of random statistical sampling and really putting one over on liberals who thought this country would turn out for a black guy named Hussein. I guess that's possible, but it doesn't seem very likely.

Not to be a cynic, but that's not even close. What folks are worrying about is the voter who has some racist tendencies but, being a good American, finds them shameful and wrong, and suppresses them. One way by which to affirm one's not racist status is to express support for Barack Obama -- and through that affirmation you can persuade yourself, too, that you're not a racist. The question, then, is whether these voters will be able to pull the trigger in the ballot box. This is a battle of psychology -- the racist id going to war with the rationalizing ego and super-ego -- and it will rage mostly beneath the surface and in code. The voter whose id wins out isn't going to say to himself "I'm sorry, but I just can't vote for a Black guy", he'll say "I'm sorry, but I just don't trust the guy."

That's not to say that everyone who is voting against Obama because they don't trust them is engaging in justification for latent racism. The point is merely to show that we could see a noticeable effect from racism reflected in the final polls, without thinking that folks have just been playing tricks on the pollsters. The tricks are being played in their own minds.

Homophobic AFSCME Ad Against McConnell

The AFSCME labor union put up an ad insinuating that Kentucky Senator (and Minority Leader) Mitch McConnell (R) was discharged from the military for being gay (telling him it's time to be "straight" with Kentucky. Subtle). It was followed up by a flier that was even more explicit on the subject (it is unclear if the flier was put out by AFSCME as well). Regardless, it is horrible that a putatively progressive organization would try influence an election by stoking homophobia.

I want to beat McConnell. I don't like him, and the thought of a 60 seat Senate majority makes me giddy. But not like this.

If you want to give AFSCME a holler, here's the link.

The Accidental Invasion

In the vein of Switzerland's accidental invasion of Liechtenstein last year, and the British attacking a Spanish fishing town a few years prior to that, now we see that the Mexicans have wandered across our very own southern border:

Seven members of the Mexican military were found inside the United States on Friday, telling border agents they had become disoriented while on patrol and accidentally crossed into the country, the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol said.

The incident began about 8 a.m. Friday, when the Border Patrol's Yuma, Arizona, sector was notified that a military-style Hummer was broken down, Customs and Border Patrol said in a written statement.

Agents said they found the vehicle about 200 yards from the Colorado River, and the seven individuals were dressed in military-style clothing. Customs and Border Patrol later determined that the troops' entry was unauthorized.

U.S. agents told the Mexican troops they were inside the United States and "peaceably" took them into custody, the statement said. "At no time were any hostilities exchanged between the agents and military officials."

The Hummer was equipped with a turret-mounted machine gun, the Border Patrol said.

According to Customs and Border Patrol, the soldiers were assigned to the 23rd Regiment Motorized Cavalry of the Mexican Army. The soldiers said they believed that they were still in Mexico because they remained on the south side of a newly constructed border fence.

Oops! How humiliating! Or, for recognized crazy man Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), just another tell-tale sign of the ongoing apocalypse:

"This is not an uncommon occurrence," Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colorado, told CNN. "Often times, it is the result of the Mexican military providing cover essentially for drug transportation across into our country, and/or creating a diversion so it will draw our people away from the place where the drugs are coming across."

Happy weekend to everyone!

Too Much Credit

I may have been too kind to Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) the other day, when I jokingly interpreted a CNN headline as him claiming to have been "vindicated" by a federal jury convicting him of seven counts of corruption. But no, he's going there, claiming that he has "not been convicted yet", a point he reiterated in a debate with Democratic candidate Mark Begich: "I have not been convicted of anything."

It's like Alaska politicians don't even comprehend the meaning of investigation. First Gov. Palin, and now this? It's utterly bizarre.

Alaskan Dave Noon translates for the rest of us lowlanders.

Bargaining Power

46% of Florida voters think "violent" is a good descriptor of Blacks, but large majorities also find them "dependable" and "hard working". As Ta-Nehisi Coates remarks, that sounds like a recipe for a raise, if anything.

I Call it a Win

The CNN headline says "Stevens sees vindication". What they mean, of course, is that Stevens is promising he'll be exonerated upon appeal. But what I preferred to interpret it to mean is him pulling a Sarah Palin, and claiming that the jury verdict which convicted him of eight counts of corruption actually showed he was perfectly ethical at all times.

Daughter of a Slave Votes for Obama

It's hard not to smile at this. It's amazing that we are still that close to the emancipation proclamation (not to mention Jim Crow barbarity).

I Know Who You Know

Gov. Sarah Palin: "It seems that there is yet another radical professor from the neighborhood who spent a lot of time with Barack Obama," referring to Columbia University professor (formerly at the U of C) Rashid Khalidi.

Look, any politician who spent time in public life is going to have some unsavory associations. For example, I hear John McCain is well acquainted with a pathological liar who is out on the campaign trail building yet another bridge to nowhere. Such is politics.

Anyway, as far as I can see, Prof. Khalidi seems rather tame (although not someone with whom I would necessarily agree with). What he does have is a few superficial signifiers that might make some Jews uneasy -- being part of Columbia University's Middle East Studies program (which is a war zone between pro-Israel and pro-Palestine forces), and the fact that his endowed chair is named after Edward Said. But he was not, as the McCain campaign is saying, a spokesperson for the PLO, and most of his active criticism of Israel has come at the level of policies which are certainly in-bounds to be criticized (even if I disagree with the particulars).

Civil Rights Roundup: 11/29/08

Your daily dose of civil rights and related news

The White House is asking its (now totally apolitical!) Justice Department to hamper 200,000 Ohio residents from voting.

Black voters are really nervous about the integrity of this election.

A Black Brazilian immigrant gets a lesson in racism upon arriving in America.

Lawyers have finally secured access to a top-secret Guantanamo Bay camp where we hold high-ranking terrorist suspects.

The total number of hate crimes dropped slightly this year, with falls in race and religion-based attacks making up for rises in targeting based on sexual orientation and ethnicity/national origin. As far as I can tell, this means we're no longer hating based on being Black or Muslim, now the problem is being Gay or Latino.

It's also not a great time to be a Jew.

A judge in Ohio has required the state to allow the homeless to register with addresses that are not buildings.

The LA Times calls for the re-enfranchisement of ex-felons.

Anita Hill (of all people!) says racial amnesia may be the cure for our racial ills.

Nearly 20% of New York City's Asian population lives in poverty.

Criminals are targeting illegal immigrants, whom they see as easy marks because they're afraid to go to the police.

The 11th Circuit upheld sectarian prayer hosted by local governmental agencies, so long as the process was open to people of all faith backgrounds. Amazingly, this is actually an improvement over the 4th Circuit, which held that the state could host prayers and then proactively exclude those from disfavored minority faiths.

An Orthodox Catholic group is protesting Fordham University (a Jesuit school) giving an ethics award to pro-choice Justice Stephen Breyer.