Class Mobility and the Original Position

I had this thought at 3 AM last night, so forgive me if it is utter gibberish.

One of John Rawls key contributions to American political theory was the idea of the "original position". Basically, it imagines citizens under a "veil of ignorance" -- who have no idea about their actual social position, identity, or even capabilities -- deliberating about how they want their society to be constructed. Rawls argues that persons in such a society would be risk-averse (they'd be worried they would be amongst the least well-off members of society), and hence they would evaluate their options based on the minimax rule: basically, trying to get the best possible outcomes for the least well-off. Specifically, Rawls believes that citizens would demand a system wherein:

1. Each citizen is guaranteed a fully adequate scheme of basic liberties, which is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all others;

2. Social and economic inequalities must satisfy two conditions:

a) they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged (minimax rule);

b) they are attached to positions and offices open to all.

One can argue about what particular social arrangements would reflect these standards, but for Rawls they are pretty closely tied to the modern liberalism (with somewhat of a democratic socialist bent).

Of course, the original position is just a thought experiment: in the real world, people do know their capabilities and do know their social position, and their political demands are reflected accordingly. But (and this is what I thought of last night), we can at least somewhat approximate the conditions of the original position along axes where there is significant social mobility. For example, think of class. In a society where there is a lot of class mobility (both upwards and downwards), people kind of are under a veil of ignorance, because even if they know their current position, they can credibly claim ignorance as to where they will be in a year, or two, or five. If Rawls is correct, we'd expect persons who meet that description to push politically for policies that roughly approximate those he believes will flow from the original position.

The problem is that most societies and most identities aren't that mobile. I'm pretty secure in my identity as White. There isn't much of a possibility that next year I'll become Black, and so I have no incentive to be risk-averse as to what happens to Black people, since I know it will happen to me. Even identities which are more amenable to change, such as religion, wouldn't fit, because most religious adherents -- even those who eventually convert -- don't imagine themselves as being in a permanent state of flux moving between religious affiliations.

An exception might be class. In the United States, there is a solid opportunity for upward class mobility amongst the White middle class, but very little downward class mobility. But the Black middle class is a different story. It is notoriously vulnerable to economic shocks -- "one paycheck away from disaster" -- and thus can credibly claim to be "ignorant", in a Rawlsian sense, to their permanent economic status.

Hence, we construct a thesis: If Rawls is correct, we would expect that the politics of the Black middle class, at least along class issues, to be relatively close to what Rawls would expect to flow from the original position, compared to the "control" of the relatively less mobile White middle class. And if we think Rawls is right that the original position provides a good template for ordering society, then it would also follow that we should give substantial weight to the political preferences of the Black middle class when making decisions about economic distribution.

The second claim is of course a matter of opinion. But the first I suspect would be empirically defensible (though I'd be interested to see someone actually to the legwork here). I'm pretty sure that the Black middle class is significantly more liberal than its White peer group, particular amongst economics, and particularly in terms of assistance to the poor. This would imply that the risk-aversion Rawls predicts is shining through -- knowing that they could become poor with frightening ease, the Black middle class seeks to create social structures that minimize that disadvantage.

Now, there are problems with this model. First, Whites are less downwardly mobile, but are they more upwardly mobile than the Black middle class? And if so, what does that mean (I'm not sure they are more upwardly mobile, but even if they are "poor + middle class" represents a bigger proportion of the American economic experience than "middle class + rich"). Second, Blacks might be more prone to protect the poor for reasons other than risk-aversion -- they might (and in fact are) more likely to have friends and relatives amongst the ranks of the poor, which could affect preference formation. Third, there is an obvious difference between "ignorance of one's social position" and "knowledge that one's social position is prone to change", which could exert an impact -- most notably, the latter position might over-privilege policies which either protect against downward mobility or provide greater resources to families undergoing class transitions.

But even still, I think there might be a there here. Any thoughts?

Return of the Tab Dump

Travel means falling behind on my tabs. Here are some things that caught my eye:

Don't mess with Valerie Jarrett.

The Agricultural Secretary is Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack. Although slightly better than some alternatives (namely, former Rep. Charlie Stenholm), I know Ezra Klein won't be thrilled to get someone who will continue our focus on the corporate-ag side of things, rather than get us looking at sustainable and intelligent food policy.

Stop the presses! Christian organizations hate governmental support for religion when the religion isn't Christianity (see also). The irony is that the putative "church/state violation" the Thomas More Center is whining about wouldn't qualify under even the most stringent separationist doctrine. A doctrine which, it can't be emphasized enough, the TMC normally loathes when they're not being shameless hacks. Also worth noting: the argument the TMC is pressing is one that, if successful (it won't be) would be lethal to the equalization of minority faiths in American culture.

Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN), who may or may not have been elected to another term, has lawyered up in response to recent corruption allegations.

Pastor Rick Warren didn't think torture was worth discussing in his meetings with President Bush.

Jackson was a Canary

CNN is reporting that Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL), who had come off looking bad in the wake of the Illinois senate scandal, actually had been an informant for the FBI on Gov. Blagojevich for several years (though not on this particular case). That is interesting, and gives new credence to Jackson's furious denials that he acted at all untoward during this ordeal. It would be rather bizarre, after all, for Jackson to participate in corrupt dealings with a man he knew the FBI was taking interest in. Then again, it was kind of bizarre that Blagojevich tried to sell a Senate seat even as he know he was in the middle of (separate) corruption investigation.

Still, I'd like to see Rep. Jackson vindicated, both because I prefer fewer corrupt politicians to more, and because Republicans have gained way too much pleasure labeling Rep. Jackson as a slimeball.

Back to Reality

I got back to DC today. The astute among you will deduce this means I finished my law school exams, and with them, my first term of law school. Huzzahs are in order! Now, if only I could find a job. Anyone who has any great summer jobs for a hotshot law student, please feel free to let me know about them.

Who's Ready for Some Football?

I'm not well-versed enough in college football to know if this is fair analysis by the LGM crowd. But I do know that the lack of Black coaches in D-I football is a long-standing problem, and one the NCAA has bent over backwards to avoid correcting. LGM's story is about the coaching moves by Auburn University, which just fired Tommy Tuberville after a disappointing 5-7 2008 season. Tuberville, prior to that, had gone 42-9 over the past four seasons. Still, college football is tough business -- a bad season at a football crazy school like Auburn can give you the yank. Okay, they ask, but why does Auburn choose to hire Gene Chizik (last two seasons: 5-19 at Iowa State) over Turner Gill (13-12 in his last two years at Buffalo -- but this a school that went 2-10 his first year and whom he just lead to a first-ever MAC championship and first bowl appearance in school history)? College football in general, and deep south schools like Auburn in particular, are infected with good ol' boy networks, and Gill is Black. (In fairness to southern schools, Gill also was passed over for a head coaching job by Syracuse, who elected to hire someone who had never been a head coach before at all).

Richard Lapchick, writing for ESPN, argues for college football to institute its equivalent of the "Rooney Rule", requiring colleges with open coaching positions to at least interview one candidate of color. Lapchick names his version of the rule the "Robinson Rule", after former Grambling State coach Eddie Robinson, at one point the winningnest coach in college football history who nevertheless was never even offered an interview with a Division I-A program (Grambling State is D-I-AA). It wouldn't have helped Gill, as he was interviewed and ignored in favor of candidates which, on face at least, seem to have far weaker credentials. But with the number of Black head coaches in D-I football actually falling dramatically over the past decade or so, something needs to be done.

Harold Wasserman wonders about the Title VII and 14th Amendment considerations in all this. To my untutored eye, this is United Steelworkers of America v. Weber all over again, right up to Justice Blackmun and Judge Wisdom's analogy to walking a "high tightrope without a net beneath them." The NCAA's hiring practices are so sharply slanted against Black coaches as to invite a Title VII challenge (which apparently is being considered), but some of the more stringent interpretations of equal protection and anti-discrimination would prevent the organization from taking the fairest and most practicable options available to start remedying the disparity.

A Literal Eye for an Eye

A woman who was blinded by acid thrown by a male stalker has successfully convinced an Iranian court to blind the man in retaliation.

An Iranian woman, blinded by a jilted stalker who threw acid in her face, has persuaded a court to sentence him to be blinded with acid himself under Islamic law demanding an eye for an eye.

Ameneh Bahrami refused to accept "blood money." She insisted instead that her attacker suffer a fate similar to her own "so people like him would realize they do not have the right to throw acid in girls' faces," she told the Tehran Provincial Court.
[...]
The three-judge panel ruled unanimously on November 26 that Majid should be blinded with acid and forced to pay compensation for the injuries to Bahrami's face, hands and body caused by the acid.

That was what she had demanded earlier in the trial. But she did not ask for his face to be disfigured, as hers was.

"Of course, only blind him and take his eyes, because I cannot behave the way he did and ask for acid to be thrown in his face," she said. "Because that would be [a] savage, barbaric act. Only take away his sight so that his eyes will become like mine. I am not saying this from a selfish motive. This is what society demands."

Look, obviously I don't support eye gouging as legitimate judicial punishment. Indeed, there are many aspects of Iran's judicial system that I dislike -- find quite savage, to tell the truth. But the least we can do is ask that their brutal demands are applied even-handedly, and here it appears they are. One of the key liberal prescriptions for ridding a society of oppressive practices is insuring they're applied across the board. If the majority has to contend with what they impose upon the minority, they're likely to have a sudden flash of sympathy and tolerance. In too many countries across the world, throwing acid at women who refuse to submit to male patriarchal demands -- whether it's refusing to marry or simply going to school -- is considered legitimate practice. It is a practice that deserves to be met by the full weight of the judicial system -- whatever that system is.

UPDATE: Jill of Feministe writes as well. I want to clarify that I don't disagree with her -- the punishment being imposed here is barbaric. But my point is that this is hardly distinct from Iran's judicial system as a whole. What makes this case important is that Iran is treating this crime as "seriously" as it does other violations of human personhood. Obviously, the manner in which Iran responds to "serious" crimes is in violation of any modern standard of human decency. I just don't think that it's any more problematic when Iran starts doing these sorts of things to penalize anti-woman activity as when they do similar things to penalize women themselves.

Didn't You Hear Me? I Said UNBUNDLING!

I've always wondered if, in advertising, people simply modulate their tone to make perfectly normal or meaningless things sound wonderful or scary. If you surround "contains monochromaglutimate!" with enough colors and starbursts, I'm going to assume it's a good thing, even though I have no idea exactly what it is I'm getting. And the reverse is true -- a sinister tone can make even utterly benign actions seem like the worst form of evil and malice on the planet.

Though I can't hear his tone of voice, I'm pretty sure that is what's going on in this Ross Douthat post, where he takes issue with the claim that only 3% of Planned Parenthood's expenditures go towards abortions. Now, before we go any further let's remember what we're arguing about. The reason this 3% number is coming up is defense against those who want to strip Planned Parenthood of public funding. Opponents of that proposal are noting that doing that will have the primary effect of reducing Planned Parenthood's ability to give STD exams, distribute contraceptives, and provide other rather generic but important woman's health initiatives.

In his rejoinder, Douthat links to a Weekly Standard piece by Charlotte Allen which wrote the following:

The 3 percent pie slice in the 2005-06 financial report, representing 264,943 abortion customers served, can only be described as deliberately misleading.

One way Planned Parenthood massages the numbers to make its abortion business look trivial is to unbundle its services for purposes of counting. Those 10.1 million different medical procedures in the last fiscal year, for instance, were administered to only 3 million clients. An abortion is invariably preceded by a pregnancy test--a separate service in Planned Parenthood's reckoning--and is almost always followed at the organization's clinics by a "going home" packet of contraceptives, which counts as another separate service. Throw in a pelvic exam and a lab test for STDs--you get the picture. In terms of absolute numbers of clients, one in three visited Planned Parenthood for a pregnancy test, and of those, a little under one in three had a Planned Parenthood abortion.

Let's push aside that my eyeball math translates Allen's figures to "11% of Planned Parenthood clients have an abortion" -- still leaving a massive 89% of customers that don't have one. What Douthat and Allen's argument boils down to is that we shouldn't count many of PP's health services (or should "bundle" it under the metric of "abortion") because many of the sluts women who receive the services also receive abortions. But unless you think that these women are somehow undeserving of gynecological or reproductive health care because they had an unwanted pregnancy and are seeking an abortion, there is no reason to find this remotely problematic. Indeed, if it wasn't for Douthat's clear yet inexplicable agitation, it wouldn't have even occurred to me that this type of accounting would be anything but above board.

One might note that women currently carrying an unplanned pregnancy might be one of the groups most in need of STD exams, contraceptives, and other reproductive health accessories, and laud the fact that PP is providing services to this segment of the population. But Douthat and Allen are essentially arguing the reverse -- they're saying that any reproductive health service provided to a woman seeking an abortion should be grouped under "abortion services" and thus (in the putatively pro-life worldview) not count as a harm if it is cut.

Look at this way. Suppose there was a proposal to cut PP's funding by the precise amount they spend on "abortion". So liberals would say: "that means cutting 3% of PP's budget -- the amount the spend on abortion". Douthat and Allen would argue that number is too small -- it doesn't include pregnancy tests for women seeking abortions, it doesn't count contraceptives given to these women, it doesn't count STD tests administered, etc., etc.. Add the costs of those procedures in, and then you get the dollar amount that we should be cutting. The clear upshot of that argument, though, is that it is not a problem -- indeed, it'd be a good thing -- if Planned Parenthood were not able to provide these services. Women who want abortions, Douthat is saying, don't deserve to be screened for STDs. That right, I imagine, is reserved for women who are not baby-killing whores.

Douthat is correct to argue that the raw number of abortions Planned Parenthood provides is enough for someone who finds abortion to be an unquestionable moral evil to justify withholding funding. That's true irrespective of what proportion of PP's resources are devoted to woman's health outside of abortion -- it's a deontological claim based off Planned Parenthood's clear participation in something many people consider to be immoral. But what is illegitimate -- what is, in fact, fundamentally "pro-herpes" -- is arguing that giving an STD exam isn't "really" part of woman's health because the woman also received an abortion. That's nothing more than dressed up slut-shaming, and it isn't improved just because Douthat and Allen hyperventilate and call accurate reporting "massaging the numbers".

One Bazillion Points to Colin Powell

Gen. Colin Powell may have a bunch of stains on his conscience regarding the run up to the Iraq War, but he gets a lot of redemption for one line in this interview with Fareed Zakeria:

When [Gov. Palin] talked about small town values are good -- well most of us don't live in small towns. I was raised in the South Bronx, and there's nothing wrong with my value system from the South Bronx.

This anti-urbanist streak of the GOP is not just anti-liberal ("San Francisco Values" -- though that's also code for anti-gay). It's also both implicitly anti-Black, casting itself against the dark faces of the inner city, and anti-Jewish, as Jews are predominantly centered in and around cities and are the quintissential embodiment of the "cosmopolitanism" that Rudy Giuliani (of all people!) railed against at the RNC. Yet we cower to the idea that being from Wasilla, Alaska, makes one better than someone from Bethesda, Maryland, or the South Bronx, New York. It's good to see Gen. Powell take a stand against that fundamentally divisive and anti-patriotic sentiment.

Give The Seat Back

Rep.-elect Anh "Joseph" Cao (R-LA) is the guy who took out scandal plagued Democrat William Jefferson to win in an ocean-blue Louisiana district. Cao, the first Vietnamese-American to serve in Congress, will be representing a district that is 64% African-American. So, understandably, he's looking to do some outreach. And Newt Gingrich is offering to help:

By midmorning Cao was interrupting an interview to take a call from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who offered good wishes and, Cao said, counseled him "to reach out to the African-American community." Cao said Gingrich offered to act as a go-between.

Now, part of me is sympathetic: It's hard to admit to yourself that a large swath of the American population finds you loathsome. But still, some self-awareness is in order here. Pat Buchanan seems reasonably aware that he is not a popular figure amongst Jews (he doesn't think it's just, but he does acknowledge it). Gingrich can reasonably be expected to know he is not the most popular figure amongst American Blacks.

H/T: Steve Benen. Also, while I don't know enough about Cao to register an opinion (though anybody who knocks of Jefferson scores points in my book, and what I have seen so far has been positive), I can already say I like his wife:

On Monday his wife, Hieu Phuong Hoang, who goes by Kate, celebrated Cao's victory by calling Walgreens, where she worked as a pharmacist, and quitting her job.

Awesome.

Quote of the Evening

Sherry Gorelick, Response To Finkel & Muraskin: Focus On The Lessons, New Politics No. 43:

If we build on Marx's perception, in his essay "On the Jewish Question," that the supposedly secular State in Christian society is deeply Christian, we can begin to understand what Melanie Kaye/Kantrowitz has dubbed "Christianism." In her essay, "Jews in the U.S.: The Rising Cost of Whiteness" (in Names We Call Home: Essays on Racial Identity, ed. Becky Thompson & Sangeeta Tyagi [New York & London: Routledge, 1996]), Kaye/Kantrowitz says "In the U.S., Christian, like white, is an unmarked category in need of marking. Christianness, a majority, dominant culture, is not only about religious practice and belief, any more than Jewishness is. As racism names the system that normalizes, honors and rewards whiteness, we need a word for what normalizes, honors and rewards Christianity," an invisible, taken-for-granted system of domination that affects Muslims and other non-Christians as well as Jews (and, one might add, atheists and other secular people regardless of origin).

Via Ignoblus.

Also of note: Gorelick is anti-Zionist Jewish socialist writer. Honestly, I find that welcome: I'm not a fan of anti-Zionism, but if you're going to swing it, it has to take more seriously what Gorelick calls "Christianism" in the Western schema than do most anti-Zionist writers (Jewish or not).

Jill Will Not Be Getting Jewelry From Me This Year

But Sarah Haskins might:

Love.

(Love to Jill too. And don't worry -- she loves Sarah Haskins almost as much as I do).

UPDATE: Can't get it to embed, but you can see it here.

Loss of Faith

After the Blago corruption story broke, Michael of Southern Appeal asked "Do corruption stories ever give big-government aficionados any real worry?" A libertarian leaning friend of mine here at UC asked me roughly the same question. My response was twofold: first, corruption in Illinois state politics is hardly something shocking, so no, I'm not having a crisis of faith, and second, to the extent this is indictment of "big government", it's roughly on par to the effect your average "MegaCorp dumps a billion gallons of toxic waste into local waterways -- local children spotted with extra limbs" has on the die-hard free marketers.

In the vein of the latter, out comes another Wall Street scandal (via Balloon Juice):

Bernard L. Madoff, a legend among Wall Street traders, was arrested on Thursday morning by federal agents and charged with criminal securities fraud stemming from his company’s money management business.

The arrest and criminal complaint were confirmed just before 6 p.m. Thursday by Lev L. Dassin, the acting U.S. attorney in Manhattan, and Mark Mershon, the assistant director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

According to the complaint, Mr. Madoff advised colleagues at the firm on Wednesday that his investment advisory business was “all just one big lie” that was “basically, a giant Ponzi scheme” that, by his estimate, had lost $50 billion over many years.

Fun fact: I never thought I'd see a business executive describe his own malfeasance as "a giant Ponzi scheme" outside a Dilbert strip.

Exam One Done

I even wrote three more pages than I did on any practice exam, and I've yet to see a better predictor of success for law school exams than "length". Certainly, "how I felt after finishing" doesn't even come close.

Fingers crossed, but I won't get any results until February, probably.

Study Break

My first law school exam, in Civil Procedure, is tomorrow morning, and I've been studying hard all week. Of course, too much studying leads to stress and burnout, and we don't want that. So I spent most of today ignoring my books and playing a downloaded ROM of Final Fantasy VII instead.*

It's a brilliant move, I tell you!

* In a shocking upset, this might not actually be illegal, as I own both an original playstation and FF7 (although neither is with me currently).

Does Harry Reid Have To Choke a Bitch?

Ezra Klein relays a story from Harry Reid's past explaining his hardball approach to any last-minute shenanigans from Rod Blagojevich:

In July of 1978, a man named Jack Gordon, who was later married to LaToya Jackson, offered Reid twelve thousand dollars to approve two new, carnival-like gaming devices for casino use. Reid reported the attempted bribe to the F.B.I. and arranged a meeting with Gordon in his office. By agreement, F.B.I. agents burst in to arrest Gordon at the point where Reid asked, “Is this the money?” Although he was taking part in a sting, Reid was unable to control his temper; the videotape shows him getting up from his chair and saying, “You son of a bitch, you tried to bribe me!” and attempting to choke Gordon, before startled agents pulled him off. “I was so angry with him for thinking he could bribe me,” Reid said, explaining his theatrical outburst. Gordon was convicted in federal court in 1979 and sentenced to six months in prison.

Yikes. Watch out, Blago.

Waaaa-mbulance

Law professor complaining about too many footnotes in Delaware judicial opinions = least sympathetic claim ever? Discuss.

Yenta for Senator!

JTA has a profile on Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), who has emerged as a leading candidate for Barack Obama's senate seat in the wake of the Rod Blagojevich scandal (mostly because Blagojevich apparently wasn't considering her at all). Here's my favorite paragraph:

Schakowsky is among the most liberal lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives, and is one of the few in the body who can claim opposition to the Iraq War from its outset. Her record is solidly pro-Israel, and she conveys a Jewish mother vibe, actively seeking out dates for her unmarried staff.

A liberal Jewish mother who is anti-Iraq war and solidly pro-Israel? What more could a guy ask for? Of course, it doesn't help hurt that she's close to both Rahm Emanuel, and probably soon-to-be Governor, current Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn (D).

Blackwell for RNC?

I didn't know former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell was in the running to be the new RNC chief until I read that Steve Forbes had endorsed him. The field is crowded to begin with, but this above all is bad news for Michael Steele: Blackwell is African-American, but doesn't use scary egalitarian rhetoric of inclusion, and has the advantage of being (in contrast to the former Republican Leadership Council affiliated Steele), absolutely crazy to boot.

Dodging Bullets

As Jason Zenegrle points out, the Rod Blagojevich scandal was this close to being an outright disaster for Barack Obama. If Obama had engaged in even a little quid pro quo for Blago's favor, it'd have been caught entirely on tape, and his presidency would be ruined before it started. Instead, Obama gets a rousing endorsement of his incorruptability through Blagojevich yelling futilely into the phone "Fuck him. For nothing? Fuck him."

Meanwhile Spencer Ackerman marvels at the sheer gangsta displayed by the Illinois Governor, while Adam Serwer calls it an act of self-suicide of Scarface proportions and Ta-Nehisi Coates goes with the simple but evocative "inter-stellar fail".

Meanwhile, in (slightly) better news for the soon to be ex-gov, Eugene Volokh wonders if one of his alleged acts of corruption really ought be considered illegal at all.

Revenge of the Blip

Lay observers who watched a good old fashioned spread debater in high school LD invariably come out appalled. What possible use does this serve? What is the educational value? When will you ever be faced with a situation where the goal is to spit out as much information as possible with reckless disregard for accuracy or even coherency?

The answer, my friends, is a law school final. Years of debate training have finally paid off.

Corruption Machine

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has been arrested on allegations that he tried to literally sell the appointment to the Senate seat currently held by Barack Obama. Anybody who even remotely follows Illinois politics is, shall we say, less than surprised, as Blago has quite the reputation for sleaze.

Word is that federal prosecutors received a tip from none other than Rahm Emanuel, Chicago-area Congressman and Obama's to-be chief of staff. That'd be a nice touch -- in addition to adding to the "don't mess with Rahm-bo" vibe, it's a good thing when Democrats don't tolerate their fellows corruption.

Indeed, with William Jefferson knocked out of office and Blago looking to follow him to federal prison, the Democratic Party is losing two of its biggest blights in the space of a week. As far as I'm concerned, this is good news.

You Know What That Makes Us?

Karl Rove is set to reveal a new class of big damn heroes:

Enemies of President Bush take heed: Karl Rove is set to name names.

The man widely credited with Bush's two presidential victories says his new book will include an accounting of those in Washington who never accepted the president as a legitimate commander-in-chief.

"I've got behind-the-scenes episodes that are going to show how unreceiving they were of this man as president of the United States," Rove told Cox News in an interview published Sunday. "I'm going to name names and show examples."

Given the reputation President Bush is leaving office with, I'm sure these guys are just quaking in their boots that they might be revealed as "enemies" of the administration.

Great Moments in Airline Routing

If I want to fly from Minneapolis to Chicago for anything approaching a reasonable price, I have to connect through Atlanta. Because Chicago's not, like, a major hub or anything. And I'm pretty sure that if I fly from DC to Minneapolis, I have to connect in ... Chicago. Maybe they just can't imagine anyone would want spend more than a two hour layover in the Windy City.

Amtrak it is, then.

Supreme Court Denies Review of Obama Citizenship Case

Unsurprising. The article says what I suspected but was unsure of -- that both the orders of Justice Souter and Justice Thomas were routine decisions that had nothing to do with the merits of the case itself.

The Obama case was dismissed on "standing" grounds, which is essentially the doctrine the courts use to avoid hearing cases they really don't want to hear (see also: The Pledge case). Now, courts do this all the time, but there is something admittedly unseemly about it. If a Justice who is particularly incensed about the practice is faced with a case such as this, what is he do? Should he just let it slide because it'd be really awkward for the court to hear the issue?

The answer might be that the judge should wait for a less politically charged case to present itself with the same issue. The problem is that elections are always politically charged (albeit some less so than this), and in any event, that sort of thinking is precisely the sort that points towards these faux-standing rulings in the first place. So I can imagine a somewhat ornery judge trying to make trouble for his colleagues by sending a message that he thinks they are engaging in extra-legal reasoning -- a point that can be made while still thinking the underlying merits of the case are absolute garbage.

Link Disgorgement

I took my first practice exam yesterday. It could have gone worse, which is all I'm asking for at this point. Unfortunately, I still have another week of study study study. Blegh. In the meantime, a roundup comes your way:

Kenya's President calls for troops, African or otherwise, to come and overthrow Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

The Vatican has come out against a UN resolution urging the decriminalization of homosexuality -- the only European state taking that stance. In a world where gays and lesbians can still be legally stoned in some places, this is an unconscionable decision and a formal decision to cooperate with intrinsic evil.

If Mary Beth Maxwell is appointed to be Secretary of Labor, as is rumored, she would be the first openly gay person to serve as a cabinet secretary.

Speaking of cabinet appointees, Spencer Ackerman and Hilzoy wax lyrical about the appointment of retired Army General Eric Shinseki to head up the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The Blackwater employees alleged to have killed 17 Iraqi civilians in a shooting spree have surrendered to authorities in Utah, where they are hoping to be tried (instead of the presumably less friendly Washington). The Iraqi public rejoyced upon hearing the news.

Tragically for my plans to rib them over Winter Break, my parents appear to have born about a decade too early to officially have been part of the dumbest generation.

Finally, if you haven't seen this episode of blogging heads TV, featuring the brilliant Ta-Nehisi Coates and the recently shot Brian Beutler (who by all accounts is also brilliant, but who I haven't really read), you really need to. I don't recommend BHTV that often, but this edition, focusing on street crime through the lens of Beutler's incident, is phenomenal.

Has Anyone Checked To See If The Philippines Are Still Intact?

Congratulations to Manny Pacquiao on what by all accounts was a dominating victory over boxing's biggest star. I didn't believe he could do it, and I certainly never dreamed it would come by stoppage.

Incredible.

Oh, and in answer to my question, The International Herald Tribune reports that the country basically came to a halt on Saturday -- including a one-day ceasefire between government forces and Muslim insurgents.

Jefferson Loses

Corrupt and indicted Congressman William Jefferson (D-LA) has lost his bid for re-election in his deep blue Louisiana district.

Excellent. He was an embarrassment to our caucus. Let him twist, I say.

The Anti-Settler Turn

An old friend of mine remarked to me a few weeks ago that he thought my opinions on Israel had changed dramatically since we first met. I was skeptical: I always (well, at least since we met) supported a two-state solution. I always was a strong advocate that liberals and leftists pay more attention to the rampant anti-Semitism latent in Palestinian terrorism (and the global reaction to it). Insofar as I have changed, it's more a matter of focus: noting and calling out the human rights abuses committed by Israel and Israelis, while still not letting that excuse Palestinian acts of terror.

But one area in which I think I may have changed pretty substantially has been my views on the settlers. I wouldn't say I used to be "pro-settler", per se, but I didn't think of them as a huge deal. People living in houses in the desert were not "obstacles to peace". I wasn't committed to letting them stay -- but it rang uncomfortable to me that "peace" was taken to mean a Judenrein Palestinian state.

In recent times though, I've begun to revise my opinion. And I think the events surrounding the evacuation of settlers in Hebron have crystallized this instinct, not just for me, but for many other pro-Israel commentators. In their actions, the settlers have revealed themselves to be not just "obstacles to peace", but murderous, terrorist thugs. Their response to the Hebron evacuation was to launch what was called by both Ha'aretz and Israel's own Justice Minister a "pogrom". Marty Peretz says "shame on us". Eamonn McDonaugh of the Z-Word blog calls the settlers "religiofascists" who need to be "crushed" by the Israeli government.

Israeli commentators warn that the settlers, left unchecked, could lead to "civil war". Other writers continue to urge that we take the settler threat seriously as something that can single-handedly derail the peace process. Steve Clemons suggests officially labeling extremist terrorist factions working to propagate violence as "terror organizations", allowing their assets to be frozen.

The point being, we seem to be seeing (inside and outside of Israel) a broad-based backlash against the crypto-fascist settler movement whose primary political agenda at this point is to sabotage the peace process. The trick, now, is to get that outrage translated into some action. The Israeli government, slowly and belatedly, seems to be waking up to the threat that radical right-wing settlers pose to the state's liberal democratic character. And pro-Israel groups in the US are starting to recognize that the settlers are an insult to the very idea of Israel that they want to protect. Together, they can get something done. But it will take guts, and it will take courage.

Count me in.

UPDATE: Current (but outgoing) Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert joins the chorus:

"We are the children of a people whose historic ethos is built on the memory of pogroms," Olmert said. "The sight of Jews firing at innocent Palestinians has no other name than pogrom. Even when Jews do this, it is a pogrom.

"As a Jew, I am ashamed that Jews could do such a thing."

He was addressing the riots last week in which Jewish settlers -- angry over the forced evacuation of a contested house in Hebron -- attacked Palestinians, setting fire to their houses.

In a statement released by his office, Olmert told the Cabinet that he chose the term "pogrom" -- a Yiddish word meaning an organized massacre, usually referring to such attacks against Jews -- "after much thought."

"I formulate these words with the greatest care that I can," the prime minister said.

The CNN article's headline says Olmert called the events "tantamount" to a pogrom. I didn't see the caveat.

Nothing To Cheer About

CNN has a video story up about high school cheerleaders who were kicked off the team, after it was revealed they had texted nude pictures of themselves to their boyfriends. Everyone CNN talked to was in 100% righteous fury mode, absolutely convinced the school did the right thing, lamenting how today's girls are sluts, and slamming the parents for trying to get their daughter's reinstated.

Can I try and offer a dissenting opinion here?* If you watch the piece, there seem to be two conflicting narratives being forwarded about the girls. The first is that they are victims of over-sexed boyfriends who "pressured" them into sending the photos. The second is that the girls are trashy whores, presumably because they sent the pictures even though they weren't so "pressured".

Not only are these claims inconsistent with each other, neither warrants the response given. If the young women are really victims here, then I'm confused why we should be punishing them, rather than turning our attention to the putative victimizers. And if there was no pressure, but this was totally voluntary and consensual activity between girlfriend and boyfriend, well, guess what? Having a sexualized relationship does not make one a slut. I'm uncomfortable with the idea that the school system should be punishing private, consensual sexual activity between students off of school property. I also have trouble believing that we'd come down this hard if it was known that the cheerleaders were having sex with their boyfriends, even though that is theoretically "worse" than exchanging nude photos with them. And I categorically refuse to buy into this awful social fiction whereby any sort of teenage sexual activity is met with apocalyptic sermonizing on the evils of the younger generation.

The only vaguely compelling argument I've heard is that the atmosphere of cheerleading caused the girls to view themselves as "performers", and assign their own value solely in terms of the reaction they can elicit from their "performance". The pictures are supposedly a product of this mentality, and thus they are being removed from the team, not as a punitive measure, but because it is leading to a damaging conceptualization of self-worth.

I think that's at least a little better, in that it doesn't berate the women and at least nominally ties the school's action to a legitimate educational purpose. But my feeling is that it is both insufficient and (more importantly) pre-textual. Insufficient, in that I don't think there is enough evidence to show the causal between cheering and nude photos (and there are many far simpler causal chains that could explain why a young woman might reveal her naked body to her boyfriend -- starting with "partner pressure" and ending with "we're in a relationship, part of which involves sexual expression!"). Pre-textual, in that the heaviest theme extant here is a feeling of moral superiority combined with heavy doses of slut-shaming. If we really were looking after the well-being of these young women, we wouldn't be so insistently screaming "WHORE!"

There are many things that can go wrong with teenage sexual exploration. And I'll concede that the fungibility of digital photos raises special concerns, given that the women may not have been aware of the risk that these pictures would get out into the public arena. But the mere fact that teenagers are engaging in sexual activity, absent anything else, is not something to get the vapors over. Aside from how hypocritical it is of, well, virtually all of us, if there is one thing this case is demonstrating, it's that the guardians of sexual morality enforce their code virtually exclusively through demeaning young women. And that will probably be more damaging than anything else.

* A caveat: I vaguely recall reading a similar story to this, which also alleged these girls were basically school terrors, openly flouting the authority of the teachers and administration, considering themselves above all rules and restraints due to their status. If this is that case, then obviously none of the above applies. I'm operating off the assumption that the nude pictures are the sole reason for punishing these young women.

Selling Votes

Matt Yglesias presses for DC statehood -- even going so far to demarcate the borders of a new "federal" district which would have the important governmental buildings but no residents (aside from the President himself). The Debatable Land (my blog had the initials longer!), noting that Republicans would never acquiesce to the basic democratic right of enfranchisement if it will lead to more Democrats, offers an alternative: exempting DC entirely from federal income taxes.

It may have some practical benefits, but check me off under the box that says voting rights can't be bought. No deal.

Via Andrew Sullivan, who says that under the latter proposal, DC could become "Hong Kong on the Potomac". I never realized Andrew was such a fan of China's model of governance.

Update: Some folks are really more excited about alternatives to DC statehood, namely, retrocession to Maryland or (worse yet) ceding the territory to Virginia, than is warranted. The retrocession proposal at least makes some sense -- DC was originally carved out of territory belonging to Maryland (and Virginia, but the latter already took its territory back). The Virginia proposal, by contrast, appears solely motivated by the desire to solidify VA as a "blue state" for the foreseeable future. In other words, it's nakedly partisan.

I don't think these folks get it. DC deserves representation in Congress because it has a right to democratic participation. Enhancing the political prospects of the Democratic Party has literally nothing to do with it, and is not a legitimate consideration. Now, as it happens, DC statehood would be very good for Democrats. That's fortunate for them, just as the ultimate borders of Wyoming have been a boon for Republicans. Since in neither case were the borders drawn with an eye towards partisan political advantage, the advantages that accrued are morally neutral.

But it would be an entirely different thing to deliberately redraw the boundaries of a political unit for such an advantage. It's bad enough in Congressional gerrymandering, and I'd like to keep the dragon in its cage, such as it is. How badly do we want to open the door to Texas Tots type thinking? At least the retrocession to Maryland can plausibly claim to be flowing from neutral principles (it helps that the partisan boon for Democrats would be minimal -- though not non-existent -- in that case). The Virginia plan has literally nothing going for it other than partisan considerations.

There's another consideration at work here, that's being nearly entirely ignored: the will of DC voters. Has anyone bothered to ask if they want to be ceded to another political unit? If it became a state, DC would become the only majority-Black state in the nation. Needless to say, shifting it to either Virginia or Maryland would eliminate that distinction. I think DC voters should be in charge of their own destiny, and just as their democratic rights shouldn't be held hostage to economic advantage, neither should they be made pawns of Democratic Party political strategy.

The Deepest Element

I finished the last set of readings for my "Elements of the Law" course today. The last excerpt was from Hobbes, which I liked. It's such a delightfully despondent note to end the class on.

UPDATE: Aw, man. Professor Strauss said he ended with Hobbes as an example of what type of argument we need to reject as lawyers. Lame, lame, lame!

It's Not What It Seems

I may have left Facebook's group "I support Israel's right to exist" solely because it listed as its home web page the risible Little Green Footballs, but it still feels odd. I hope it doesn't show up on my feed.

OPIRG Snubs Hillel

Many universities across North America have branches of "PIRG" (Public Interest Research Group) -- college based progressive grassroots organization. My girlfriend, for example, did a lot of work for Carleton's chapter of MPIRG (Minnesota-PIRG). They often team up with other campus-based organizations on various projects related to human rights and social justice.

At the University of Ottawa, the local Hillel (Jewish students group) thought it had just such an event: a speaker from the African Jewish community coming to talk about sustainable development projects and interfaith schooling for Jewish, Muslim, and Christian children. But when it asked OPIRG for funds, it received a shocking rebuke:

Hillel organizers didn't get a response to their request before the event, but later received an e-mail from the board of directors at the research group, saying it had researched Hillel and decided that though the event "seems very interesting," the board of directors had decided not to endorse or promote it.

"This decision was made because your organization (Hillel) and its relationship to apartheid Israel," said the e-mail. "Zionist Ideology does not fit within OPIRG's mandate of human right's (sic), social justice."

Pressed by the Ottawa Citizen, the organization refused to even identify who made the decision, but affirmed that "Our position is outlined in that e-mail you have." Given the attenuated relationship Hillel has to Israeli policies (it does generically support "Zionism" as the Jewish right of self-determination -- a far cry from any reasonable definition of apartheid), I'd say that there is a name for OPIRG's position: anti-Semitism.

Via The Z-Word. And I should note that MPIRG is entirely independent from the broader PIRG structure.

Birth Wrong?

I was all prepared to be worked up into a righteous fury by this article, alleging that Birthright Israel has been essentially highjacked by a big-spending right-wing donor. Then I read it and, well, there's nothing there.

Now, Sheldon Adelson was not my favorite person to start with, and his apparent support for Bibi Netanyahu certainly doesn't help matters. But absent some (any!) proof that Adelson is subjecting Jews on Birthright to "hours of propaganda" in favor of hawkish, anti-Palestinian policies, I don't think there are any grounds to protest his donation. And in the entire article, not a whit of such evidence is provided, or even seriously alleged. All we get is vague concerns about the power of "mega-donors" to bend charitable organizations to their will. Which may be something to worry about, but which so far is not happening on Birthright (so far as has been presented).

Modesty Patrols Under Attack

The Israeli government is finally responding to the terrorist actions of Haredi "modesty patrols" -- basically, ultra-orthodox Judaism's answer to the Taliban. Women have been assaulted in their homes, had acid thrown upon them, and faced constant threats and intimidation by (generally young) men claiming to be enforcing the strictures of their faith. There have also been violence directed at stores said to be selling irreligious items (in this case, media players with small screens which could be used to discretely watch adult movies).

The Orthodox organizations which organize the patrols do not explicitly endorse the violence, but do not condemn it either.

[Rabbi Shmuel] Pappenheim said the committee follows very legitimate and acceptable methods but is also willing to let street justice step in if its efforts are unsuccessful.

He says the committee does not approve of violence, yet it also doesn't necessarily condemn it.

"They are not sorry that this individual brought this upon himself, that he ignited his environs against him and caused himself to be beaten," Pappenheim said. "They say, 'You thought you were smart enough on your own and didn't want to understand us, so you got what was coming to you.'"

These people represent a massive threat to Israel's liberal democratic structure. It's well past time the Israeli government deal with the extremists running rampant throughout their society.

Via AAB's link farm.

Return of the Old Guard

Sexism on the rise in Italy. Unfortunate. But women's groups are hopeful that this generation of students -- who are majority female for the first time in Italian history -- will push back.

Is Iced Tea Tea?

There is a lot to dislike about this post critiquing those who would detach "oral sex" from "sex". It's not even the conclusion that grates, so much as the argumentative process that gets us there. Given that the whole thing is a product of the loose way in which we use the word "sex", I feel like we're dealing with a tempest in a teacup -- but the fury that the author seems to feel that this might even be an issue is bothersome to me.

So, does oral sex qualify as sex?

I had to chuckle when I first read the question because, for me, if it has sex as part of it's name, then yes, oral sex is sex. It's like asking "is the hot tea, tea?"

Well, no. That's not the way language works. If I invite you in for a "cup of tea", you'll be rather surprised if I pour a small dollop of Lipton's iced. "Tea" means different things in different contexts, and while we would admit iced tea to be a "type of tea", it would not be what we would consider to be "tea" given the very particular confines of the question. (Wittgenstein uses a better example: "teach the children a game" being taken to include blackjack. It's gaming! Right in the name!)

And so it is with sex. I would simultaneously say the oral sex is a form of sex, and not feel strange saying "I have only had sex with [X] number of people", where X includes only those I've had intercourse with (but not just oral sex). That's because, like with tea, certain types of questions imply a sort of shorthand that is understand by all. We can participate in that shorthand without actually excluding the other elements of the object. And insofar as we understand intercourse as a fundamentally different type of sexual expression compared to oral sex, this sort of understood distinction makes sense.

The author also claims that sex-as-intercourse is "heterocentric and phallocentric". The former is a stronger claim. To the latter: intercourse does not have to operate within rhetorical confines that cast men as active and women as passive. We can use words like "penetrate" or "pierce", sure, but we can also talk of "consume", "devour", or "envelope". Or (horrors upon horrors) we can use both. I think it's a dangerous game when we ossify heterosexual sex as inherently male-dominated, rather than seeing that domination as a product of particular patriarchal assumptions that can be contested.

As to the heteronormativity, I think this goes back to my point about meaning and context. If I ask a gay or lesbian friend (presumably after a few drinks) "how many people have you had sex with", we both understand that here the context is not restricted to PIV intercourse.

Humans are flexible creatures. We can handle this sort of ambiguity.

MacKinnon Appointed to Advisory Post at the ICC

Just a quick congratulations to feminist pioneer Catherine MacKinnon, who has been appointed as a special gender adviser to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. MacKinnon, who recently has won some major legal victories securing the rights of women in the context of war crimes, will make an excellent addition to the body as it seeks to enforce international human rights norms.

Get Down Again!

Adam Serwer comments on the machismo response tragedies like Mumbai elicit from some conservatives. Here's John Hinderaker:

I wondered earlier today how a mere ten terrorists could bring a city of 19 million to a standstill. Here in the U.S., I don't think it would happen. I think we have armed security guards who know how to use their weapons, supplemented by an unknown number of private citizens who are armed and capable of returning fire. The Indian experience shows it is vitally important that this continue to be the case. This is a matter of culture as much as, or more than, a matter of laws.

Serwer responds:

This is a really strange and immature coping mechanism that manifests on the right in times of high profile tragedy. Rather than contemplate being a victim of a terrorist attack, the subject imagines him or herself as the star of a Jerry Bruckheimer movie. I'd say it's simple racism, but it really is fear masquerading as bravado, a cultural chauvanism that directs itself at other Americans as readily as it does at foreigners. It is the "short skirt" theory of violence. If it happened, you must have been asking for it.

Look, I admit to doing this too. I have my own little fantasies of disarming the baddie with a well placed strike to the wrist, downing him with a left hook to the liver, then grabbing the now-abandoned gun to give my compatriots time to escape and seek aid (I suppose it's my wussy liberalism that prevents me from systematically gunning down the remaining perps with my shirt torn masculinely asunder). The difference is that I don't explode these adolescent dreams into a full-fledged national security policy.

Anyway, as Serwer notes we saw this same thing after Virginia Tech (although Hokies apparently aren't "real Americans" to Hinderaker, presumably because they're attending college). I'd also like to add that a) your average security guard is neither trained nor equipped to counter highly trained suicidal terrorists bent on destruction and carrying automatic weapons and grenades, and b) a firefight breaking out between, say, the terrorists and hotel guests, will not only likely turn out badly for the guests, but will make rescue operations an absolute nightmare for the police.

Via Ezra Klein.

And You'd Prefer....

Douglas Kmiec, the pro-life Catholic stalwart who sent shockwaves through the conservative Catholic community due to his support of Barack Obama for President, is being floated by some for the ambassadorship to the Vatican.

Stephen Bainbridge and Feddie are not happy, calling an "insult". Which is odd, because my first reaction would have been "gesture of good faith". Professor Bainbridge draws an analogy to the appointment of Norman Finkelstein as ambassador to Israel. But the actual proper analogy would be President Finkelstein (shudder) appointing his inexplicable supporter, Richard Rubenstein to the post. As unhappy as I'd be with the election of President Finkelstein, I can't think of anybody I'd rather he appoint as ambassador than Rubenstein.

The Vatican ambassadorship is typically given to a prominent Catholic supporter of the President. Kmiec, however, is apparently disqualified because he is a "traitor" to the pro-life movement through his support of Obama. It's not that I don't understand why these folks were upset by Obama's move. I just fail to see what would be a preferable alternative. A non-Catholic? An avowedly pro-choice Catholic? What is the game plan here?

UPDATE: Henry Farrell chimes in with more.

Killing Americans

Speaking of things that kill Americans, perhaps Justice Scalia should read this piece by an American military interrogator about the fruits of American torture (H/T):

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans.

I'd say duh, but that would be too kind to the conservative enablers of this immoral and ultimately lethal regime.

Indeed, in the author's experience, torture isn't just dangerous, it's unnecessary:

Amid the chaos, four other Air Force criminal investigators and I joined an elite team of interrogators attempting to locate Zarqawi. What I soon discovered about our methods astonished me. The Army was still conducting interrogations according to the Guantanamo Bay model: Interrogators were nominally using the methods outlined in the U.S. Army Field Manual, the interrogators' bible, but they were pushing in every way possible to bend the rules -- and often break them. I don't have to belabor the point; dozens of newspaper articles and books have been written about the misconduct that resulted. These interrogations were based on fear and control; they often resulted in torture and abuse.

I refused to participate in such practices, and a month later, I extended that prohibition to the team of interrogators I was assigned to lead. I taught the members of my unit a new methodology -- one based on building rapport with suspects, showing cultural understanding and using good old-fashioned brainpower to tease out information. I personally conducted more than 300 interrogations, and I supervised more than 1,000. The methods my team used are not classified (they're listed in the unclassified Field Manual), but the way we used them was, I like to think, unique. We got to know our enemies, we learned to negotiate with them, and we adapted criminal investigative techniques to our work (something that the Field Manual permits, under the concept of "ruses and trickery"). It worked. Our efforts started a chain of successes that ultimately led to Zarqawi.

Over the course of this renaissance in interrogation tactics, our attitudes changed. We no longer saw our prisoners as the stereotypical al-Qaeda evildoers we had been repeatedly briefed to expect; we saw them as Sunni Iraqis, often family men protecting themselves from Shiite militias and trying to ensure that their fellow Sunnis would still have some access to wealth and power in the new Iraq. Most surprisingly, they turned out to despise al-Qaeda in Iraq as much as they despised us, but Zarqawi and his thugs were willing to provide them with arms and money. I pointed this out to Gen. George Casey, the former top U.S. commander in Iraq, when he visited my prison in the summer of 2006. He did not respond.

Perhaps he should have. It turns out that my team was right to think that many disgruntled Sunnis could be peeled away from Zarqawi. A year later, Gen. David Petraeus helped boost the so-called Anbar Awakening, in which tens of thousands of Sunnis turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq and signed up with U.S. forces, cutting violence in the country dramatically.

Our new interrogation methods led to one of the war's biggest breakthroughs: We convinced one of Zarqawi's associates to give up the al-Qaeda in Iraq leader's location. On June 8, 2006, U.S. warplanes dropped two 500-pound bombs on a house where Zarqawi was meeting with other insurgent leaders.

But Zarqawi's death wasn't enough to convince the joint Special Operations task force for which I worked to change its attitude toward interrogations. The old methods continued. I came home from Iraq feeling as if my mission was far from accomplished. Soon after my return, the public learned that another part of our government, the CIA, had repeatedly used waterboarding to try to get information out of detainees.

I know the counter-argument well -- that we need the rough stuff for the truly hard cases, such as battle-hardened core leaders of al-Qaeda, not just run-of-the-mill Iraqi insurgents. But that's not always true: We turned several hard cases, including some foreign fighters, by using our new techniques. A few of them never abandoned the jihadist cause but still gave up critical information. One actually told me, "I thought you would torture me, and when you didn't, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That's why I decided to cooperate."

Once again, folks could have figured this out from World War II.

The author (writing under a pseudonym for security purposes) is a 14-year military veteran with a background in special forces and counterintelligence. He'll freely tell you that torture is wrong. But it also is unnecessary, and gets Americans killed. Every day we allow this blot upon our constitution to continue, we dishonor his service.

Duh! Redcoats!

There are several BYU grads in my 1L class at the University of Chicago. All are very smart, qualified, intelligent people. I have to remember that upon reading statements like this:

David Hunsaker and his sister, Katie Hunsaker, traveled with the Brigham Young University Campus Republicans from Provo to help get out the vote. The group arrived in Clark County on Friday.

"We can't believe that Americans can be so blind as to chose socialism when that's what our founding fathers fought against," Katie Hunsaker said after Obama's victory was announced.

Umm....better take another look in your history book, Katie.

Via UCL.

Clearing the Pile

Stuff has been accumulating since Thanksgiving. Time to dump it on you.

The myth that Blacks were responsible for the passage of Prop. 8 has been debunked. But the need to engage that community remains as strong as ever. My friend Lauren sent me an interesting article trying to break down why Blacks (and specifically, Black women) voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage.

The breadth and scope of the Mumbai terrorist attacks made it feel churlish to focus on the specific attack on Jews. But as this Z-Word comment points out, the decision to devote resources towards Chabad House was actually remarkably inefficient for the terrorists. In other words, they went out of their way to kill Jews. Particularly given PG's explication of patterns of Indian terrorism (see comments), this is disturbing.

Echidne has the story of a woman, convicted of running errands for her cousin's cocaine ring, who was originally sentenced to four life terms. It got reduced to 12 years, but the government appealed and bumped it back up to 27 years. This is for a first time non-violent offender, mind you. As Echidne says, there are first degree murderers who get out faster than that.

Chicago Law Professor Geoffrey Stone argues that the passage of Prop. 8 implicates Establishment Clause values, because at root it "enact[s] into law a particular religious belief." Rick Garnett dissents, and I think he has the better of the argument.

Following up on my previous posts, The Gaucho Politico sent me another link on the obstacles former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele is facing to become RNC chief.

Saudi Girls love to rock. Or at least four of them do.

Should We Stay or Should We Go?

The Forward has a good article up on the tough decision President Obama has to make regarding the UN Anti-Racism Conference, Durban II. The last time around, Durban devolved into an orgy of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic hate, prompting a departure of Israel and the United States (as well as several Jewish NGOs who were being excluded -- solely on basis of religion/ethnicity -- from participation). Israel has already announced it won't attend the current version, whose draft statement currently is accusing them of "genocide". But the United States may wish to attend anyway in hope of providing countervailing pressure and stemming the anti-Semitic excesses.

It's tough for me to feel optimistic that a committee chaired by Libya is really going to accomplish all that much productive on issues of racism, regardless of what kind of pressure the United States provides. At the very least, it looks like we'll be playing defense, merely trying to mitigate some of the worst excesses rather than actually achieve a fair and balanced resolution. But at the same time, we can't just ignore these groups forever. At some point, the western community is going to have to dive headlong into this maelstrom and get the international community on track. And, not to take another swig of the Kool-Aid, but the time to strike might be while Obama's prestige is highest in the developing world.

It's a tough call, but I'm still leaning against participation. It's not that I don't think that, in the abstract, these sorts of conferences aren't important. It's just that I'm not convinced that, right now, the forces of good have the firepower to get a good, rather than perhaps palatable, resolution on the table. Without that, it strikes me as a waste of our time and prestige, and demeaning to boot. Countries that want spend the weekend ranting about the Zionist Juggernaut can do so on their own time.

(Via Antoine)

Brief Update

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure can go die in a fire.

That is all.

How Mumbai Indicts Iraq (Again)

Obviously, the horrifying attacks in Mumbai, India, continue to be in everyone's thoughts. It seems like the violence is winding down, but the repercussions are likely just beginning. India has faced terrorist violence before. But for some reason, this feels different. It was more organized, more coordinated, and (by the use of gunmen rather than bombs) more visceral than ever before.

Reading USA Today this morning, though, I was struck by how this attack really undermines a central component of how we've been prosecuting our war on terror.

Though it was unclear exactly who orchestrated the attacks, they appear to provide further evidence that the main battleground for Islamist extremists is shifting from Iraq, where violence has fallen dramatically this year, to the democracies of South Asia. Militants are inflicting heavy casualties on U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, seizing control of territory from a fragile government in Pakistan and proving they can strike just about anywhere in India.

Some would look at this and say, "victory in Iraq"! And perhaps it is indicative of the fruits of American blood and iron in that country. But if so, so what? If the tangible impact of the Iraq war is simply to have terrorists shift terrain from Iraq to India, we've spent the last five years going in neutral.

The problem is one I brought forward in the very early days of this blog: the overemphasis on sovereign states as the arena for combating terrorists. This, I held, was misplaced, since the very nature of terrorist groups makes them transnational and relatively untied to traditional geographic borders. If we view al-Qaeda as seeking to disrupt the hegemonic power of the Western world (ideally to bring up a new Islamic counterweight), it can accomplish that through operations nearly anywhere in the world. Al-Qaeda could flee the field entirely in Iraq tomorrow, and it wouldn't accomplish anything if they merely reconstituted themselves in South Asia.

The signal of the Mumbai attacks is that we've been looking at the problem all wrong. Cowboy rhetoric of "force being the only language evildoers understand" notwithstanding, it is becoming more apparent that while force is necessary to react to terrorist violence, it is a relatively ineffective weapon for creating an offensive posture. We need to start looking into alternative strategies for stopping terrorist activity before it starts. That's an intelligence issue, in part, but (as much as conservatives hate to admit it) it also is a question of greater engagement with countries and peoples worldwide, and (perhaps more importantly) a greater commitment to inclusion in the world's bounty.

Iraq was the last gasp of the belief that American muscle, alone, could solve any problem. We went into Iraq with the deliberate view that we didn't have to account for any other place or any other people. This was where the terrorists were, we go in, we take 'em out, mission accomplished, let's go home. That has proven to be a fatal error in judgment. And the longer way take to learn from it, the more Mumbai's the democratic world will have to suffer.

Only the Real Thing

Eamonn McDonagh of the Z-word points out the importance of Palestinians receiving a "real state". By real, he means one with an independent and fully functioning military -- not the demilitarized option occasionally floated mostly by pro-Israel partisans:

[O]ne of the few things worse than the Palestinians not getting a state of their own soon would be them getting some kind of emaciated ghost of a state instead, an autonomous polity with a flag and an anthem but shorn of many of the basic rights and prerogatives of states.

The motive for restricting the powers of the new state would be to address the - entirely understandable - fears of Israelis that the new state would only serve as a stepping stone on the road to their destruction. That risk exist certainly exists, but the prevailing situation isn't exactly free of risks. I think that attempts to hobble the new state from the moment of its birth would do nothing to reduce the long term risks to Israel while serving as a perfect excuse for radical Palestinian groups to continue the struggle to destroy Israel.

I agree. McDonagh says (and I also agree) that a few very limited concessions may be reasonable (such as agreeing to an Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley -- a key early warning region for attacks coming from Iran), but by and large restricting Palestinian sovereignty would be disastrous. An independent, functioning military is a source of pride to every nation -- Palestine won't be any different. And if Palestine is to live independently and peacefully with Israel, it will need a strong internal security force capable of fighting radical elements, Islamic and otherwise (several Palestinian terrorist groups are not Islamist at all, like the PFLP). Is it true that a Palestinian army could turn on Israel, or at least shelter rather than suppress its radicals? Yes, of course. But that's no different than the status quo, where the radicals are in essence the army, and there is no chance of checking them at all save by constant Israeli military intervention.

Printer Trouble

You think of all places, the University of Chicago could have seen this coming in advance:

Dear House System residents,

I write to update you about a decision that has been reached regarding printing in the residence halls. As you know, at the beginning of this quarter we launched a system that enabled all residents to print for no charge to the printers in the residence halls. We did this because of the failure of our own internal pay-for-printing system and our decision to participate in a unified printing system that is scheduled to be in place this year. Unified printing, a system whereby students could print at the libraries, at the NSIT clusters, and the residence halls from the same printing account, is something our students have been requesting for the past 3 years.

Within the first three weeks of this quarter we saw unprecedented usage of the residence hall printing system. 232,000 pages were printed in three weeks compared to 625,000 pages for the entirety of last year. In mid-October we sent you a message to enlist your help in encouraging students to limit the amount of pages being printed. Unfortunately, despite those efforts, printing continued a high rate and we decided to limit printing to half of the computers in each of the residence hall computer labs.

However, this measure has not resulted in the hoped for reduction of printing. Printing has continued a rate of 60,000 pages per week, and from the beginning of the year through yesterday there had been a total of 635,000 pages printed. We project that the quarterly printing total will exceed 800,000 pages. This amount of printing far exceeds what we had projected and therefore we will need to discontinue printing in the residence halls, at the end of Fall Quarter, until we have implemented the new unified pay-for-printing system. We expect the new system to be up and running by the beginning of Spring Quarter.


Sincerely,

XXXXX XXXXXX
Director of Operations & Communications
Housing & Dining Services

Libertarian economic theory, for the win!

Pre-Thanksgiving Roundup

I'm traveling tomorrow, and also kicking off the first tri-annual "study-for-law-school-finals-suicide-a-thon"! What fun! And what better way to start the festivities than a roundup?

Glenn Beck hates America.

CNN forced to rehire 110 workers fired for belonging to a union.

Yet another example of the Bush administration selling our wounded veterans short.

Ta-Nehisi: Saying someone is a "great Black woman" doesn't erase all the rest of their identity (American, intellectual, whatever).

Another Florida state judge has struck down that state's ban on gay adoption.

John Brennan has withdrawn his name from consideration to lead the CIA. Some have questioned whether Brennan was sufficiently opposed to torture and extraordinary rendition during his tenure with the agency.

Matt criticizes the appropriation of Jewish anti-Zionist voices by the gentile community.

The NYT deals with domestic violence in military families. Loved ones who return from war with PTSD, and aren't getting the counseling they need ... that's a problem we can do something about.

Continuing on the theme of calling a man's wife his "girlfriend" or "partner" ("I don't believe in marriage"), we also explore not letting adopted children use the term "mommy" or "daddy". What, do you want devalue natural reproduction and God's Will? (Courtesy of the same source as the last time).

Happy Thanksgiving, and enjoy your dead animal (as my lovely Jill would say)!

And How Are Your Sinful Cavortings?

A Marriage Manifesto ... Of Sorts:

I no longer recognize marriage. It's a new thing I'm trying.

Turns out it's fun.

Yesterday I called a woman's spouse her boyfriend.

She says, correcting me, "He's my husband,"
"Oh," I say, "I no longer recognize marriage."

The impact is obvious. I tried it on a man who has been in a relationship for years,

"How's your longtime companion, Jill?"
"She's my wife!"
"Yeah, well, my beliefs don't recognize marriage."

Fun. And instant, eyebrow-raising recognition. Suddenly the majority gets to feel what the minority feels. In a moment they feel what it's like to have their relationship downgraded, and to have a much taken-for-granted right called into question because of another's beliefs.

Via kath.A.rine. Unfortunately, I don't think I know any straight couples who oppose gay marriage. But as guerrilla warfare, it kind of rocks.

The Spirit is Willing, but the Flesh is Spongy...Bruised

Minister who encouraged parishioners to have sex for seven straight days went only six for seven, claiming that one day he was too tired.

As to the "challenge" itself, I'm conflicted. The pastor is obviously approaching the topic of sex from an orientation that has some significant retrograde elements -- they're not front and center, but you can always taste them in the background. That being said, it does seem like his heart is in the right place: recognizing that sexual expression is an important part of human relationships, and trying to strip away some of the taboo and stigma that couples (particularly, I imagine, religious couples) feel about sexuality and potential sexual problems in their marriage.

Playing the Odds

CNSNews is reporting that Catholic lawmakers who vote for the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) could face "automatic excommunication", if it is determined that such a vote constituted "formal cooperation" with the "evil" of abortion. This is a question of canonical law that I have no knowledge of, so I won't go into whether a FOCA vote actually warrants automatic excommunication.

What I am interested in is how much of a backlash the Catholic Church will suffer if it excommunicates a large number of high profile members. Obviously, this would be a very high profile act, sure to get lots of media attention. With more than half of all American Catholics holding the belief that abortion should generally be legal, it will be interesting to say how the American Catholic population writ large reacts to what amount to a huge escalation in the internal stand-off between pro-life and pro-choice members of faith.

It wouldn't surprise me to see many members simply leave the church as a result. That may not be a bad thing -- I know many more traditional Catholics would happily trade size for purity in practice. But it would definitely be interesting if an automatic excommunication triggered a significant chunk of the Catholic laity to leave their faith behind.

H/T: Southern Appeal

Essentially Married

French Court: Virginity not an "essential quality" for a bridge. Good to know.

UPDATE: Bride! BRIDE! God I'm an idiot. And here I am, trying to parse the double entendre behind PG's comment, when the real solution is (as usual) "David's a moron".

Goode to Seek a Recount

Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA), down 745 votes in his race against Tom Perriello, is asking for a recount. Perriello's victory was one of the bigger upsets of the 2008 cycle, a fact made all the sweeter due to the nature of his opponent.

Yet, watch me be principled. Goode has every right to ask for this recount. If he requests it, it should be granted. Democracy means knowing who actually won contested elections. If it turns out Goode won, he should be re-elected. It's that simple.

Thai Win

Work those thighs, general:

A MAVERICK Thai general who has threatened to bomb anti-government protesters and drop snakes on them from helicopters has been reassigned as an aerobics teacher, the Bangkok Post said on Friday.

Major-general Khattiya Sawasdipol, a Rambo-esque anti-communist fighter more commonly known as Seh Daeng, reacted with disappointment to his new role as a military instructor promoting public fitness at marketplaces.

'It is ridiculous to send me, a warrior, to dance at markets,' he said, before launching an attack on his boss, army chief Anupong Paochinda.

'The army chief wants me to be a presenter leading aerobics dancers. I have prepared one dance. It's called the 'throwing-a-hand-grenade' dance', he said.

Via Hilzoy, who sees inspiration in how to treat unqualified Bush apparatchiks buried in the Justice Department.

Take a Pill

I wanted to post something substantive about this post, but never got around to it. Suffice to say, conservative contempt for "emotion" and "feelings" and all that jazz lasts right up to the point where they want to cry victim. It'd be amusing if it wasn't so pathetic.

"Leave the land so we won't rape you"

An Egyptian blogger points to comments by a female Egyptian lawyer (who apparently heads up a "human rights NGO") urging that Arab men "sexual harass", and possibly rape, Israeli women, as a form of "resistance" to Zionism. Excerpts from the interview:

Interviewer: Egyptian lawyer Nagla Al-Imam has proposed that young Arab men should sexually harass Israeli girls wherever they may be and using any possible method, as a new means in the resistance against Israel.

[...]

Interviewer: We have with us the lawyer Nagla Al-Imam from Cairo. Welcome. What is the purpose of this proposal of yours?

Nagla Al-Imam: This is a form of resistance. In my opinion, they are fair game for all Arabs, and there is nothing wrong with...

Interviewer: On what grounds?

Nagla Al-Imam: First of all, they violate our rights, and they "rape" the land. Few things are as grave as the rape of land. In my view, this is a new form of resistance.

Interviewer: As a lawyer, don't you think this might expose Arab youth to punishment for violating laws against sexual harassment?

Nagla Al-Imam: Most Arab countries... With the exception of three or four Arab countries, which I don’t think allow Israeli women to enter anyway, most Arab countries do not have sexual harassment laws. Therefore, if [Arab women] are fair game for Arab men, there is nothing wrong with Israeli women being fair game as well.

Interviewer: Does this also include rape?

Nagla Al-Imam: No. Sexual harassment... In my view, the [Israeli women] do not have any right to respond. The resistance fighters would not initiate such a thing, because their moral values are much loftier than that. However if such a thing did happen to them, the [Israeli women] have no right to make any demands, because this would put us on equal terms – leave the land so we won't rape you. These two things are equal.

[...]

I don't want young Arab men to be interrogated. I want these Zionist girls with Israeli citizenship to be expelled from our Arab countries. This is a form of resistance, and a way of rejecting their presence.

Yikes. Even if this was "limited" to sexual harassment, it'd be repulsive, and despite a mild backtrack by Ms. Al-Imam, it is clear that she thinks rape of Israeli women should be tolerated as legitimate "resistance".

I've been trying to figure out who Ms. Al-Imam is. Obviously, most of the google hits are in reference to this story. However, I did come across this story in which Ms. Al-Imam appears, in reference to Egypt's first successful prosecution for sexual assault. Ms. Al-Imam is cited as an attorney who initially supported the victim, but later turned on her:

Nagla Al Imam, a lawyer who initially voiced support for Rushdi, has also taken to the airwaves, claiming the young woman lied about her charges and argued that she is an Israeli and should be deported for "unsettling Egyptian sentiments".

Women's groups in Egypt have been scrambling in response to this "allegation", affirming that the victim is not Israeli while still stating that "Even if she were an Israeli tourist it wouldn't matter. She still got assaulted."

In any event, it's pretty clear that Ms. Al-Imam is a rather repellent individual, who is perfectly willing to let rampant anti-Semitism manifest itself in the form of violent misogyny. The fact that she styles herself a human rights activist makes matters only worse.

Via AAB