Thursday, September 04, 2008
Did Independents Buy Palin's Speech
If this Detroit Free Press focus group is at all accurate, not even close. Palin seriously turned off independents last night with her biting, sarcastic, and at times frankly vicious speech. Did the speech rally the base? Of course, and quite effectively at that. But it is hard for me to believe that rallying the base will be sufficient for the GOP this cycle.
Civil Rights Roundup: 09/04/08
Your daily dose of civil rights and related news
This is a little late, but the Atlanta Journal-Constitution had a fascinating story about an area police office who found out recently that she was intersex.
A judge has ruled that the ADA applies to airlines.
My home county is posting a decline test scores and an increase in the racial achievement gap. Mounting economic diversity is to blame, claims the school superintendent.
A Texas woman is fighting back against predatory lenders, saying they targeted her because she was Black.
Maryland's new DNA law is under criticism due to concerns it would allow police to keep a suspect's DNA on file even if she or he was not convicted.
The Human Rights Campaign's equality index shows an increase in firms' protections of LGBT Americans.
The chair of Vermont's commission on Native Americans has resigned in frustration with legislative inaction on recognizing local tribes.
Steven Steinlight of the far-right Center for Immigration Studies tries to convince Jews to oppose immigration (legal and illegal). Somehow, I'm skeptical it will work.
The Ft. Myers News-Press lauds a recent slavery conviction of several agricultural owners in Florida, but lays the blame for the problem squarely on our immigration policy. "Disrespect for human beings is in the DNA of the current system. Respect demands that we legalize the foreign labor we clearly need to harvest our crops."
The ACLU is suing to block Rhode Island's use of e-verify, which they say improperly labels foreign workers as ineligible to work.
The New York Times reports that the process of transitioning in the workplace has become easier for transgender individuals.
Federal job bias claims are down, but Paul Secunda thinks that it's mostly due to an unfriendly environment to whistle-blowing.
A Georgia man is scheduled to be executed in a few days, despite the fact that seven witnesses have now recanted the statements that got him convicted in the first place.
The few remaining Black Republicans are bemoaning the fact that their party seems to have all but given up on attracting Black voters.
The Colorado affirmative action counter-measure has failed to make the ballot. In contrast to the original, Ward Connerly-backed initiative, which would have barred affirmative action in all forms outright, this one would have only clarified that racial quotas are illegal.
This is a little late, but the Atlanta Journal-Constitution had a fascinating story about an area police office who found out recently that she was intersex.
A judge has ruled that the ADA applies to airlines.
My home county is posting a decline test scores and an increase in the racial achievement gap. Mounting economic diversity is to blame, claims the school superintendent.
A Texas woman is fighting back against predatory lenders, saying they targeted her because she was Black.
Maryland's new DNA law is under criticism due to concerns it would allow police to keep a suspect's DNA on file even if she or he was not convicted.
The Human Rights Campaign's equality index shows an increase in firms' protections of LGBT Americans.
The chair of Vermont's commission on Native Americans has resigned in frustration with legislative inaction on recognizing local tribes.
Steven Steinlight of the far-right Center for Immigration Studies tries to convince Jews to oppose immigration (legal and illegal). Somehow, I'm skeptical it will work.
The Ft. Myers News-Press lauds a recent slavery conviction of several agricultural owners in Florida, but lays the blame for the problem squarely on our immigration policy. "Disrespect for human beings is in the DNA of the current system. Respect demands that we legalize the foreign labor we clearly need to harvest our crops."
The ACLU is suing to block Rhode Island's use of e-verify, which they say improperly labels foreign workers as ineligible to work.
The New York Times reports that the process of transitioning in the workplace has become easier for transgender individuals.
Federal job bias claims are down, but Paul Secunda thinks that it's mostly due to an unfriendly environment to whistle-blowing.
A Georgia man is scheduled to be executed in a few days, despite the fact that seven witnesses have now recanted the statements that got him convicted in the first place.
The few remaining Black Republicans are bemoaning the fact that their party seems to have all but given up on attracting Black voters.
The Colorado affirmative action counter-measure has failed to make the ballot. In contrast to the original, Ward Connerly-backed initiative, which would have barred affirmative action in all forms outright, this one would have only clarified that racial quotas are illegal.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Sarah Palin: Can You Feel The Energy?
I can, but that's because Gov. Palin's speech only delved into substance on the topic of energy. Which makes sense -- it is the one national-caliber issue on which she has any expertise. And she definitely sounded like she knew what she was talking about -- though I'm not entirely convinced that the Republican Party wanted "drill, baby drill" to be the defining chant of its convention.
But other than that, I thought the speech was a net negative for Governor Palin. Mostly, its because of what I said earlier: "nice" politicians who go nasty end up hurting themselves. The fact that she seemed to relish in the attacks didn't seem to help (my girlfriend disagrees me on this score -- she thought she looked "awkward" making the attacks. What Jill interpreted as a quavering face, I read as sneer. Your mileage varies.).
In general, though, her speech and Rudy Giuliani's showed something quite revealing about the RNC. They had applause lines, but they were far dwarfed by the "boo" lines. The crowd was most into it when they were being called on to chant "zero", or laugh mockingly at being a community organizer (it took them awhile to catch on that this was funny), or simply boo the fact that Barack Obama wants terrorists to win. And that echoes the general Republican mood, I feel. They hate liberals as much as they've always had -- there's nothing that's changed in the last eight years to make them feel that pro-choice policies or more balanced tax plans are the right things to pursue. They still have a massive victimhood complex with regards to the media (a play whose efficacy will be judged based on whether the news calls Palin out on her chutzpah-laden decision to -- again -- nakedly lie about opposing the "bridge to nowhere"). The difference is that this year they're just not that excited about their own brand. So they're happiest when they don't have to think about the Republican Party, today, but can recall Senator McCain's heroism in Vietnam, or can roast the always-worse Democratic Party.
The final verdict? Palin's speech would have made a solid, if unexceptional, performance by Josephine Average RNC Speaker. If Palin had given this speech, then worked quietly as Governor of Alaska for four years, it might even have set her up for a run later on. But in this environment, in this year, it did not rise to Vice Presidential levels. It was very defensive. It did not "change the game", or even move the ball. And, in something that has become a McCain campaign theme, it made a major long-term sacrifice in evaporating Gov. Palin's likability for the short-term image of a riled-up base. That, I think, is seriously going to backfire as the campaign progresses.
But other than that, I thought the speech was a net negative for Governor Palin. Mostly, its because of what I said earlier: "nice" politicians who go nasty end up hurting themselves. The fact that she seemed to relish in the attacks didn't seem to help (my girlfriend disagrees me on this score -- she thought she looked "awkward" making the attacks. What Jill interpreted as a quavering face, I read as sneer. Your mileage varies.).
In general, though, her speech and Rudy Giuliani's showed something quite revealing about the RNC. They had applause lines, but they were far dwarfed by the "boo" lines. The crowd was most into it when they were being called on to chant "zero", or laugh mockingly at being a community organizer (it took them awhile to catch on that this was funny), or simply boo the fact that Barack Obama wants terrorists to win. And that echoes the general Republican mood, I feel. They hate liberals as much as they've always had -- there's nothing that's changed in the last eight years to make them feel that pro-choice policies or more balanced tax plans are the right things to pursue. They still have a massive victimhood complex with regards to the media (a play whose efficacy will be judged based on whether the news calls Palin out on her chutzpah-laden decision to -- again -- nakedly lie about opposing the "bridge to nowhere"). The difference is that this year they're just not that excited about their own brand. So they're happiest when they don't have to think about the Republican Party, today, but can recall Senator McCain's heroism in Vietnam, or can roast the always-worse Democratic Party.
The final verdict? Palin's speech would have made a solid, if unexceptional, performance by Josephine Average RNC Speaker. If Palin had given this speech, then worked quietly as Governor of Alaska for four years, it might even have set her up for a run later on. But in this environment, in this year, it did not rise to Vice Presidential levels. It was very defensive. It did not "change the game", or even move the ball. And, in something that has become a McCain campaign theme, it made a major long-term sacrifice in evaporating Gov. Palin's likability for the short-term image of a riled-up base. That, I think, is seriously going to backfire as the campaign progresses.
Palin To Blow Her One Advantage
Looks like Palin's speech is going to be standard Republican attack dog fare:
Here, watch me play Obama campaign for a second:
Wow. She walked into that.
Anyway, aside from the fact that her record is just wide open to critique, I don't think going into slam-mode is a good move for Palin. All she has at this point is the perception of being "nice" -- indeed, the GOP's latest strategy to deal with all the negative press around her is to cast it as beating up on the poor, defenseless Palin. If she goes out and gives a standard attack-ad speech, the base will love it, but it will shred her last remaining advantage with swing voters. Former Rep. Connie Morella (D-MD) found this out the hard way in 2002 -- a politician who survived on unfriendly terrain by cultivating a reputation as "nice Connie" was left without a leg to stand on when she started going negative in her race against now-Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D). Likewise, when Palin goes up against Joe Biden or any other Democratic surrogate launching attacks against her, voters will remember that she's perfectly capable of dishing it out -- so she better know how to take it.
Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin directs a sharp jibe at Barack Obama in her speech to the Republican National Convention Wednesday night, according to excerpts released by the campaign.
Contrasting her resume with that of the Democratic presidential nominee, she says: "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."
Here, watch me play Obama campaign for a second:
Judging by her record, Governor Palin's view of "responsibility" appears to be identical to George W. Bush and John McCain's: leaving the next generation laboring under a crushing load of debt.
Wow. She walked into that.
Anyway, aside from the fact that her record is just wide open to critique, I don't think going into slam-mode is a good move for Palin. All she has at this point is the perception of being "nice" -- indeed, the GOP's latest strategy to deal with all the negative press around her is to cast it as beating up on the poor, defenseless Palin. If she goes out and gives a standard attack-ad speech, the base will love it, but it will shred her last remaining advantage with swing voters. Former Rep. Connie Morella (D-MD) found this out the hard way in 2002 -- a politician who survived on unfriendly terrain by cultivating a reputation as "nice Connie" was left without a leg to stand on when she started going negative in her race against now-Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D). Likewise, when Palin goes up against Joe Biden or any other Democratic surrogate launching attacks against her, voters will remember that she's perfectly capable of dishing it out -- so she better know how to take it.
Never Calls or Writes
For some reason, I find this hilarious:
I do feel bad for her -- she sounds very sad. But the image of a cute old lady like her trying desperately to talk to somebody -- anybody -- only to be stymied by an armada of handlers and secret service agents is really just cracking me up.
I introduced myself, and she [Roberta McCain, Senator McCain's 96-year old mother] smiled graciously and seemed eager to speak as I asked her what the week was like for her. But then she spotted one of her handlers coming through, and looked at me sheepishly, and said, "They won't let me be interviewed." Her facial expressed became pained: "They won't let me talk." One of the handlers, a blonde woman with a Sarah Palin hairstyle and glasses (very popular here now), then pulled her away, along with a male secret service guy, and Roberta McCain looked into my eyes, helplessly, pleadingly, and repeated, "They won't let me talk!"
I do feel bad for her -- she sounds very sad. But the image of a cute old lady like her trying desperately to talk to somebody -- anybody -- only to be stymied by an armada of handlers and secret service agents is really just cracking me up.
Judgement Day
I may be the only political observer out there who feels more comfortable talking about Black political thought and theology than "mainstream" White conservative evangelical Christianity. So while I feel pretty good giving context to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, I don't have the requisite background to know if there's any reason not to take Sarah Palin's pastor at face-value. Because while Rev. Wright certainly had some guests who weren't as Jew-philic as I would have liked, I don't think any of his mates thought that Jewish deaths represented the just judgment of God. (And with Rev. Hagee still lurking in the background of my memory, isn't this the second time we've had to deal with this issue?). She's already been dealing with the allegation that she was a Pat Buchanan supporter (David Bernstein has mostly convinced me that she was not, but at the same time I think Harry's Place is not being entirely off-base when it wonders if Palin would have sported a David Duke button had he dropped by town. After all, most Jews think, at best, the difference between the two is one of degree, not kind.). The info about her pastor will only inflame the situation (to be fair, he seems across-the-board crazy, rather than focusing solely on Jews).
Now, here's the problem: Palin's new emergence on the political scene means that she's a totally unknown quantity to Jews. With Barack Obama, he did in fact have a long pedigree dealing with Jews and Whites -- we had data points on him personally which demonstrated he wasn't going to launch on an anti-White and anti-Semitic crusade once in office. And he has also done an excellent outreach job to us as a community, something I am very grateful of. Meanwhile, Palin is being tied to possibly the most reviled organization in the Jewish community that isn't actively launching suicide attacks on us -- Jews for Jesus. It's possible she does not subscribe to their creed, and maybe we should give her the benefit of the doubt. But unlike Barack Obama, she just hasn't spent much time courting Jews on a national stage. I don't think we're unreasonable to ask for some heart-to-hearts -- particularly given that she comes from a community (evangelical Christianity) that has not always been the most respectful or friendly to Jews in the past (being apocalyptically pro-Israel doesn't get you as far as one might think).
My presumption on Palin is that her views on Jews are standard evangelical fare -- outward positivity (enemy of my enemy -- Islam -- is my friend) and some personal respect, mixed with a desire for our social extermination (via conversion) and very little grasp or concern with the issues that actually are important to Jews (or why, or how, they're important to us). Fortunately, this means my bar is not being set high -- it would not take much for her to dispel those sentiments. At which point, I would happily oppose her on pure political grounds. I'm not going to pretend that by assuaging the concerns of the Jewish community she's going to get my vote. She won't. But I greatly prefer opposing someone because I disagree with their policy stances than because I think they're actively or covertly hostile to me as a person.
Now, here's the problem: Palin's new emergence on the political scene means that she's a totally unknown quantity to Jews. With Barack Obama, he did in fact have a long pedigree dealing with Jews and Whites -- we had data points on him personally which demonstrated he wasn't going to launch on an anti-White and anti-Semitic crusade once in office. And he has also done an excellent outreach job to us as a community, something I am very grateful of. Meanwhile, Palin is being tied to possibly the most reviled organization in the Jewish community that isn't actively launching suicide attacks on us -- Jews for Jesus. It's possible she does not subscribe to their creed, and maybe we should give her the benefit of the doubt. But unlike Barack Obama, she just hasn't spent much time courting Jews on a national stage. I don't think we're unreasonable to ask for some heart-to-hearts -- particularly given that she comes from a community (evangelical Christianity) that has not always been the most respectful or friendly to Jews in the past (being apocalyptically pro-Israel doesn't get you as far as one might think).
My presumption on Palin is that her views on Jews are standard evangelical fare -- outward positivity (enemy of my enemy -- Islam -- is my friend) and some personal respect, mixed with a desire for our social extermination (via conversion) and very little grasp or concern with the issues that actually are important to Jews (or why, or how, they're important to us). Fortunately, this means my bar is not being set high -- it would not take much for her to dispel those sentiments. At which point, I would happily oppose her on pure political grounds. I'm not going to pretend that by assuaging the concerns of the Jewish community she's going to get my vote. She won't. But I greatly prefer opposing someone because I disagree with their policy stances than because I think they're actively or covertly hostile to me as a person.
Look at Me Still Talking When There's BrowsingTo Do!
Am I the only one who thinks that Google's new web-browser logo has some uncomfortable overtones?
Google "Chrome":
GLaDOS:
343 Guilty Spark:
Not good for a company that's trying to dispel the idea that they're looking to take over the world.
Google "Chrome":
GLaDOS:
343 Guilty Spark:
Not good for a company that's trying to dispel the idea that they're looking to take over the world.
Should They Stay or Should They Go?
A few days ago, The New York Times had an article about businesses which cater to designing products which are "Shabbat-friendly" -- that is, which won't cause observant Jews to violate their Sabbath upon use. Generally, this involves a lot of automation and a fair amount of creativity (Rabbinic maxims about "indirect effect" help a lot). Not being quite that observant myself, the exercise strikes me as a little silly, but at the same time I'm happy that people are catering to this need.
But that's not why I want to post. Rather, I was struck by the article's off-hand notation that one of the groups engaging in the work, the non-profit Zomet Institute, had its research facility located in a West Bank settlement, Alon Shvut. So I'm curious -- when Israel eventually cedes control of the West Bank (as it inevitably will, and should), what happens to the facility?* Should the Israeli organization relocate, or should it stay and maintain operations?
On the one hand, withdrawal means withdrawal. There is little indication that Palestinian groups are interested in residual Israeli institutions remaining in their territory, nor that Israeli organizations are all that keen at operating under Palestinian jurisdiction. Security, obviously, is a major problem. And, not to put too fine a point on it, but a significant stroke of Palestinian advocacy on the final status of the West Bank has taken a definitive "judenrein" tint to it.
On the other hand, a high-tech research facility would undoubtedly be a boon to a fledgling Palestinian state, giving high paying jobs, a good tax base, and trade opportunities with Israel and the wider world. Also, if I can be optimistic for a moment, it offers a chance for Jews and Arabs to work side by side in the new state to sell to the broad, global Jewish community. That's an opportunity to heal a lot of wounds. For Palestine to survive in the global environment, it's going to need companies like this located inside its borders. This group is a non-profit, but it offers the chance to be the locus of a technology hub in the future Palestinian state. I thus hope that it is able to stay. Even in a two-state solution, the destinies of Israel and Palestine will remain woven together. It is the groups that cross-borders which offer the way forward for both peoples.
* Though I think that Israel eventually will leave the West Bank, and most definitely should, the exact borders of any final settlement are, of course, unknown. It is likely that clusters of Israeli settlements near the border will eventually be incorporated into Israel proper, possibly as part of a land swap, and perhaps Alon Shvut will be included. But I'm operating off the assumption that it won't be.
But that's not why I want to post. Rather, I was struck by the article's off-hand notation that one of the groups engaging in the work, the non-profit Zomet Institute, had its research facility located in a West Bank settlement, Alon Shvut. So I'm curious -- when Israel eventually cedes control of the West Bank (as it inevitably will, and should), what happens to the facility?* Should the Israeli organization relocate, or should it stay and maintain operations?
On the one hand, withdrawal means withdrawal. There is little indication that Palestinian groups are interested in residual Israeli institutions remaining in their territory, nor that Israeli organizations are all that keen at operating under Palestinian jurisdiction. Security, obviously, is a major problem. And, not to put too fine a point on it, but a significant stroke of Palestinian advocacy on the final status of the West Bank has taken a definitive "judenrein" tint to it.
On the other hand, a high-tech research facility would undoubtedly be a boon to a fledgling Palestinian state, giving high paying jobs, a good tax base, and trade opportunities with Israel and the wider world. Also, if I can be optimistic for a moment, it offers a chance for Jews and Arabs to work side by side in the new state to sell to the broad, global Jewish community. That's an opportunity to heal a lot of wounds. For Palestine to survive in the global environment, it's going to need companies like this located inside its borders. This group is a non-profit, but it offers the chance to be the locus of a technology hub in the future Palestinian state. I thus hope that it is able to stay. Even in a two-state solution, the destinies of Israel and Palestine will remain woven together. It is the groups that cross-borders which offer the way forward for both peoples.
* Though I think that Israel eventually will leave the West Bank, and most definitely should, the exact borders of any final settlement are, of course, unknown. It is likely that clusters of Israeli settlements near the border will eventually be incorporated into Israel proper, possibly as part of a land swap, and perhaps Alon Shvut will be included. But I'm operating off the assumption that it won't be.
Civil Rights Roundup: 09/03/08
Your daily dose of civil rights and related news
Backlash over the Postville raid may be prompting the government to change its immigration enforcement tactics somewhat.
Orange County Register: The diversity given by immigration is a source of strength, not weakness, to our nation.
Same-sex marriage: good for the economy. How long until "pro-family" groups start up their victim complex by railing against "Big Marriage"?
Also on the marriage front, a New York court has thrown out a suit challenging Gov. David Patterson's (D) decision to recognize out of state gay marriages.
Police are charging several men with civil rights violations after shouting homophobic slurs and assaulting four men outside of a night club.
The Boston Globe reviews Mark A. Noll's new book, God and Race in American Politics: A Short History. Noll is an evangelical Christian who documents the way in which religion and race have always been intertwined on both sides of America's race question -- from slavery to civil rights. Also interesting: I didn't know that Harriet Beecher Stove became a White supremacist after the Civil War.
Obama is up with radio ads attacking John McCain on abortion. That's rare from a Democratic candidate, but the fact that Roe is genuinely imperiled this election makes it wise move, in my view (and others as well).
A New York area supermarket chain was found to have cheated some of its managers out of overtime pay. Basically, the company tried to claim they were salaried employees to avoid giving overtime, but then would treat them as hourly to dock them pay if they missed part of the day.
Third Circuit: Spanish-speaking workers bound by arbitration ruling written in English. The trial court had held the agreement unenforceable because the workers had no way of knowing that it had an arbitration clause at all.
New Jersey schools still asking enrolling students about immigration status, despite it being a violation of state and federal(?) law.
Conservatives and Black people? Together under one roof? What a weird place New York is! Rich Lowry brings the funny.
Backlash over the Postville raid may be prompting the government to change its immigration enforcement tactics somewhat.
Orange County Register: The diversity given by immigration is a source of strength, not weakness, to our nation.
Same-sex marriage: good for the economy. How long until "pro-family" groups start up their victim complex by railing against "Big Marriage"?
Also on the marriage front, a New York court has thrown out a suit challenging Gov. David Patterson's (D) decision to recognize out of state gay marriages.
Police are charging several men with civil rights violations after shouting homophobic slurs and assaulting four men outside of a night club.
The Boston Globe reviews Mark A. Noll's new book, God and Race in American Politics: A Short History. Noll is an evangelical Christian who documents the way in which religion and race have always been intertwined on both sides of America's race question -- from slavery to civil rights. Also interesting: I didn't know that Harriet Beecher Stove became a White supremacist after the Civil War.
Obama is up with radio ads attacking John McCain on abortion. That's rare from a Democratic candidate, but the fact that Roe is genuinely imperiled this election makes it wise move, in my view (and others as well).
A New York area supermarket chain was found to have cheated some of its managers out of overtime pay. Basically, the company tried to claim they were salaried employees to avoid giving overtime, but then would treat them as hourly to dock them pay if they missed part of the day.
Third Circuit: Spanish-speaking workers bound by arbitration ruling written in English. The trial court had held the agreement unenforceable because the workers had no way of knowing that it had an arbitration clause at all.
New Jersey schools still asking enrolling students about immigration status, despite it being a violation of state and federal(?) law.
Conservatives and Black people? Together under one roof? What a weird place New York is! Rich Lowry brings the funny.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Norm!
I saw the second half of Sen. Norm Coleman's (R-MN) speech before the RNC. It was bad. I mean, bad. Nobody was into it, the crowd was tepid, at best, and the "theme" was utterly bizarre. "John McCain has a face that says yes"? The hell?
I always thought Coleman was known as a relatively effective pit bull politician. Is that incorrect? Or is the problem that the "serious" theme the RNC has had to put on due to Gustav means that their attack dogs aren't able to really get into their groove?
I always thought Coleman was known as a relatively effective pit bull politician. Is that incorrect? Or is the problem that the "serious" theme the RNC has had to put on due to Gustav means that their attack dogs aren't able to really get into their groove?
The AG with a Thousand Lives
Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales mis-handled classified data (shades of Sandy Berger?), according to a just-released DoJ report. In classic Gonzales fashion, he reported that
And, also in classic Gonzales fashion, the upshot of this ordeal will be....nada:
Is this guy made of teflon or what?
he did not remember whether he took home notes regarding the government's most sensitive national security programs and did not know they contained classified information despite notations on the papers that they were "eyes only -- top secret," according to a report released this morning.
The Justice Department's inspector general concluded that Gonzales had improperly handled materials about the government's most sensitive national security programs, carrying the notes home in an unlocked briefcase for an "indeterminate" period of time. Gonzales failed to keep them in a safe at his Northern Virginia home because he "could not remember the combination," according to the report.
And, also in classic Gonzales fashion, the upshot of this ordeal will be....nada:
Improper handling of classified material can result in criminal charges, but prosecutors in the department's National Security Division declined to bring a case after reviewing the allegations and consulting with senior career officials at Justice, according to the report and lawyers involved in the case.
Is this guy made of teflon or what?
The Round Mound Holds Court
TNR has a very entertaining interview up with Charles Barkley. Barkley continues to flirt with running for Governor of Alabama. I have no idea how it'll play (I don't even know if he'd run as a Democrat or an Independent), but there is no denying he'd shake up the terrain there.
Carleton Prof Arrested at RNC
Carleton College Phyiscs and Astronomy professor Joel Weisberg was arrested after committing civil disobedience at the Republican National Convention. He doesn't dispute his own arrest (he was consciously engaging in civil disobedience by crossing a police line), but he reports that there has been a very aggressive police presence illegitimately targeting peaceful protesters and journalists.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Who is Against Bristol Palin?
CNN reports that evangelicals are rallying around Bristol Palin. And I'm glad to hear it. I'm glad that nobody is portraying her as a slut or whore. I'm glad that the evangelical community is reacting to the news with compassion given that they believe her to have engaged in what they see as immoral behavior, and I hope that they would demonstrate that compassion to all other women who have engaged in similar behavior -- both on a micro-level (in personal relations) and a macro-level (in terms of public policy).
And I, along with everybody else who identifies as pro-choice, respect her choice to keep her child. That is, of course, implicit in the definition of "choice". Assuming (as seems reasonable) that this was not a planned pregnancy, I wish that she had access to contraception and birth control so that she did not become pregnant before she was ready (I feel like it is a fair assumption that she received a pretty strong pro-abstinence message from her family). And if she did use contraception and it failed, then I hope that she had a full array of options presented to her, and that she made a free and independent decision about her future. And yes, I hope that she made it in consultation with her parents, not because I don't respect her autonomy, but because I hope that all teenagers feel safe and comfortable in discussing such weighty matters with their parents. It is a blessing that Bristol did appear to feel secure in talking to her parents about this. Many teens do not have that in their lives.
So when evangelical leader Richard Land says this:
I am left perplexed. Who is "criticizing" Bristol Palin? At absolute worst, it is a data point for the proposition that abstinence-only is an insufficient reproductive health message for teens. But even that argument hasn't really cropped up. At Feministing, they note that insofar as Bristol had a "choice" on whether to keep her child (a point the McCain/Palin campaign emphasized to the press), that's a choice McCain and Palin want to take away. But again, that's not a criticism of Bristol -- that's a request that the right she had over her own body be extended to cover all women.
And certainly, nobody is saying that Bristol is a bad person. Those of us on the left don't even think that she did anything wrong, in a moral sense. We may suspect that she had insufficient access to reproductive health products or information, or that she may have felt uncomfortable using them. But that's hardly her fault.
It is all very simple. We on the left (like, I assume, our friends on the right) want every pregnancy to be a planned pregnancy. Assuming this pregnancy was not planned, then that is unfortunate, and we would like to see young women like Bristol have all the resources they need to prevent it from happening. But once the unplanned pregnancy occurs, we also want Bristol to be in a position where she can choose, in consultation with those close to her, what outcome she feels is right. Insofar as Bristol engaged in that process, and elected to keep her baby, that is a success story. And don't let anybody tell you the left feels otherwise.
And I, along with everybody else who identifies as pro-choice, respect her choice to keep her child. That is, of course, implicit in the definition of "choice". Assuming (as seems reasonable) that this was not a planned pregnancy, I wish that she had access to contraception and birth control so that she did not become pregnant before she was ready (I feel like it is a fair assumption that she received a pretty strong pro-abstinence message from her family). And if she did use contraception and it failed, then I hope that she had a full array of options presented to her, and that she made a free and independent decision about her future. And yes, I hope that she made it in consultation with her parents, not because I don't respect her autonomy, but because I hope that all teenagers feel safe and comfortable in discussing such weighty matters with their parents. It is a blessing that Bristol did appear to feel secure in talking to her parents about this. Many teens do not have that in their lives.
So when evangelical leader Richard Land says this:
"This is the pro-life choice. The fact that people will criticize her for this shows the astounding extent to which the secular critics of the pro-life movement just don't get it," Land said in a statement.
I am left perplexed. Who is "criticizing" Bristol Palin? At absolute worst, it is a data point for the proposition that abstinence-only is an insufficient reproductive health message for teens. But even that argument hasn't really cropped up. At Feministing, they note that insofar as Bristol had a "choice" on whether to keep her child (a point the McCain/Palin campaign emphasized to the press), that's a choice McCain and Palin want to take away. But again, that's not a criticism of Bristol -- that's a request that the right she had over her own body be extended to cover all women.
And certainly, nobody is saying that Bristol is a bad person. Those of us on the left don't even think that she did anything wrong, in a moral sense. We may suspect that she had insufficient access to reproductive health products or information, or that she may have felt uncomfortable using them. But that's hardly her fault.
It is all very simple. We on the left (like, I assume, our friends on the right) want every pregnancy to be a planned pregnancy. Assuming this pregnancy was not planned, then that is unfortunate, and we would like to see young women like Bristol have all the resources they need to prevent it from happening. But once the unplanned pregnancy occurs, we also want Bristol to be in a position where she can choose, in consultation with those close to her, what outcome she feels is right. Insofar as Bristol engaged in that process, and elected to keep her baby, that is a success story. And don't let anybody tell you the left feels otherwise.
What's in your Meat?
We have no idea, and thanks to the Bush administration we legally can't find out:
Via Ezra Klein; see also Dean Baker wondering where all the free-marketers went.
A federal appeals court has ruled that the government can prohibit meat packers from testing their animals for mad cow disease. Because the Agriculture Department tests only a small percentage of cows for the deadly disease, a Kansas meatpacker, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, wanted to test all of its cows, but the government says it cannot. Larger meat companies worry that if Creekstone is allowed to perform the test and advertise its meat as safe, they could be forced to do the expensive test, too. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said restricting the test was allowable.
Via Ezra Klein; see also Dean Baker wondering where all the free-marketers went.
Civil Rights Roundup: 09/01/08
Your daily dose of civil rights and related news
I wasn't planning on doing this today, but tomorrow I'm taking my girlfriend to the airport and likely won't have time to post. So tomorrow will be my holiday, and today you get a roundup.
In a whole new level of cattiness, Republican lawmakers in California tried to block courthouse improvements in retaliation over the judiciary's gay marriage rulings.
The anti-affirmative action forces in Arizona have admitted defeat.
The recent economic downturn is hitting Hispanics particularly hard, as they are being forced from full-time to part-time jobs.
Rev. Jeremiah Wright traveled to Houston as a guest preaching, delivering sermons focusing on sexual abuse.
Gregory Rodriguez in the LA Times: Identity still matters.
Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA) wants to end birthright citizenship.
The California Supreme Court has upheld the death sentence of a man convicted of a racially-motivated murder.
A Rutgers University report finds that American workers are in worse shape than they have been in some time.
A young woman was kicked off her football team by the state of Georgia, solely on account of gender.
Immigration ordinances have gotten so strict in Denver that Latinos are afraid to drive downtown.
I wasn't planning on doing this today, but tomorrow I'm taking my girlfriend to the airport and likely won't have time to post. So tomorrow will be my holiday, and today you get a roundup.
In a whole new level of cattiness, Republican lawmakers in California tried to block courthouse improvements in retaliation over the judiciary's gay marriage rulings.
The anti-affirmative action forces in Arizona have admitted defeat.
The recent economic downturn is hitting Hispanics particularly hard, as they are being forced from full-time to part-time jobs.
Rev. Jeremiah Wright traveled to Houston as a guest preaching, delivering sermons focusing on sexual abuse.
Gregory Rodriguez in the LA Times: Identity still matters.
Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA) wants to end birthright citizenship.
The California Supreme Court has upheld the death sentence of a man convicted of a racially-motivated murder.
A Rutgers University report finds that American workers are in worse shape than they have been in some time.
A young woman was kicked off her football team by the state of Georgia, solely on account of gender.
Immigration ordinances have gotten so strict in Denver that Latinos are afraid to drive downtown.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
What Plays in New Hampshire
Here is an ad running for Jeb Bradley, who is running to get his seat back in the 1st Congressional District of New Hampshire. He lost the seat in 2006 to Carol Shea-Porter, but this ad is for his primary campaign against John Stephen.
Notice anything? How about the closing line: "That's not change, that's more of the same." In an ad for a Republican. In a Republican primary.
Sounds like Bradley has insight on where the New Hampshire wind is blowing....
Notice anything? How about the closing line: "That's not change, that's more of the same." In an ad for a Republican. In a Republican primary.
Sounds like Bradley has insight on where the New Hampshire wind is blowing....
What Republicans Really Think About Women
Often times, when Democrats run a candidate for office who is not a White male, Republicans unleash with a familiar refrain. "He's an affirmative action candidate", to Barack Obama. "She only got there because of her husband", to Hillary Clinton. And when these candidates do well, it's not evidence of any merit on their part, or that voters critically evaluated them and decided they were best for the job. It's because of "identity politics": Blacks mindlessly voting for Blacks, women mindlessly voting for women.
I always kind of assumed that this was an argument made in bad faith. But the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin to be McCain's VP candidate made me realize that conservatives really do seem to believe it. They really do seem to think that the only thing one has to do to appeal to women is to put a female candidate on the ticket. The idea that women might be critically evaluating the positions of their choices and voting for the person who best matches up to their interests seemed utterly foreign to them. We saw the same thing with Michael Steele and Alan Keyes -- Republicans ran them both for Senate, and were really perplexed when Black voters didn't show the slightest inclination to bite. The idea that Black people are, just like everybody else, analyzing their preferences and selecting the best candidate for their interests regardless of color seemed to escape them, then and now.
And so we get Gov. Palin, whose putative appeal to women seems to lie solely in the fact that she's a woman. Policy-wise, her rabidly pro-life outlook is a poor match for most women. The fact that she laughed when a female political opponent was called a bitch, appointed a sexual harasser to succeed the civil servant she fired in trooper gate, and that her supporters booed her latest reach out attempt to Hillary Clinton isn't going to help. I've yet to hear a single policy position she's taken that is supposed to give her a comparative advantage with the female vote compared to Obama/Biden. In terms of appealing to women, there is absolutely nothing there beyond biology, which leads one to the inevitable conclusion that Republicans think that's a sufficient credential.
My mother, who was a Clinton supporter, called her selection an insult to her intelligence, and other former Clinton fans seem to agree. Indeed, Palin polls significantly worse with women compared to men -- with a statistical dead heat between those who say it makes them more and less likely to vote for McCain (actually, 1% more say they'd be less likely to vote for him, but that's in the margin of error). As Ta-Nehisi Coates says, part of that has to be chalked up to the "insult" factor, more than anything else. Women aren't going to respond well to a selection that screams "we think you're morons who will vote for anyone with breasts."
At the end of the day, the choice comes off as patronizing more than anything else. Republicans bungled this choice badly, and they did because they believed their own identity politics rhetoric. Running women isn't enough to get women to vote for you. For women, like men; for Blacks, like Whites; it's fundamentally the policies, the record, the experiences, the background, the intellect -- all the things we expect voters to look at -- that count.
I always kind of assumed that this was an argument made in bad faith. But the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin to be McCain's VP candidate made me realize that conservatives really do seem to believe it. They really do seem to think that the only thing one has to do to appeal to women is to put a female candidate on the ticket. The idea that women might be critically evaluating the positions of their choices and voting for the person who best matches up to their interests seemed utterly foreign to them. We saw the same thing with Michael Steele and Alan Keyes -- Republicans ran them both for Senate, and were really perplexed when Black voters didn't show the slightest inclination to bite. The idea that Black people are, just like everybody else, analyzing their preferences and selecting the best candidate for their interests regardless of color seemed to escape them, then and now.
And so we get Gov. Palin, whose putative appeal to women seems to lie solely in the fact that she's a woman. Policy-wise, her rabidly pro-life outlook is a poor match for most women. The fact that she laughed when a female political opponent was called a bitch, appointed a sexual harasser to succeed the civil servant she fired in trooper gate, and that her supporters booed her latest reach out attempt to Hillary Clinton isn't going to help. I've yet to hear a single policy position she's taken that is supposed to give her a comparative advantage with the female vote compared to Obama/Biden. In terms of appealing to women, there is absolutely nothing there beyond biology, which leads one to the inevitable conclusion that Republicans think that's a sufficient credential.
My mother, who was a Clinton supporter, called her selection an insult to her intelligence, and other former Clinton fans seem to agree. Indeed, Palin polls significantly worse with women compared to men -- with a statistical dead heat between those who say it makes them more and less likely to vote for McCain (actually, 1% more say they'd be less likely to vote for him, but that's in the margin of error). As Ta-Nehisi Coates says, part of that has to be chalked up to the "insult" factor, more than anything else. Women aren't going to respond well to a selection that screams "we think you're morons who will vote for anyone with breasts."
At the end of the day, the choice comes off as patronizing more than anything else. Republicans bungled this choice badly, and they did because they believed their own identity politics rhetoric. Running women isn't enough to get women to vote for you. For women, like men; for Blacks, like Whites; it's fundamentally the policies, the record, the experiences, the background, the intellect -- all the things we expect voters to look at -- that count.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Quote of the Evening
From my father, at dinner tonight. He said this unprompted about Sarah Palin:
Both he and my mother (both Clinton supporters in the primary) seemed to take her selection as an insult to their intelligence as voters (quoting my dad again: "It's like he [McCain] thinks he's dealing with a group of moronic Kindergarteners").
What an absurd pick. I mean, two weeks ago, she was the mayor of a Wal-Mart.
Both he and my mother (both Clinton supporters in the primary) seemed to take her selection as an insult to their intelligence as voters (quoting my dad again: "It's like he [McCain] thinks he's dealing with a group of moronic Kindergarteners").
Risks Ahead for Palin
It's been barely a day, and already the Palin pick is starting to look like a big mistake. Cast aside the issues I already raised, as well as the big one I didn't (how the pick stomps on McCain's "experience" narrative). Palin also fits into another important Democratic attack line this cycle: that McCain and the GOP are in the pocket of big oil.
Now, Palin tried to argue that she is actually a crusader against the oil industry. But from the looks of it, she is if anything oil's handpicked candidate. To the extent that she breaks with the industry, it's because they aren't aggressive enough, which is not what most people have in mind when they think of the "energy crisis". This strikes me as a risk free attack on her -- it has no gendered associations, it fits in with Obama's pre-existing strategy, and it keeps McCain on the defensive on an area he's weak in. Palin, in other words, doesn't just negate one of McCain's primary strengths, she also exacerbates one of his biggest weaknesses.
Top that with the fact that a report on her role in an Alaskan corruption scandal is scheduled to come out on the eve of the election, her past close association with indicted Senator Ted Stevens, and the surprisingly tepid response of Alaskans themselves to her addition to the ticket, and we've got issues.
There's one more angle I want to write on Palin, and that's how it'll affect the votes of women. But I'm saving that for another post.
Now, Palin tried to argue that she is actually a crusader against the oil industry. But from the looks of it, she is if anything oil's handpicked candidate. To the extent that she breaks with the industry, it's because they aren't aggressive enough, which is not what most people have in mind when they think of the "energy crisis". This strikes me as a risk free attack on her -- it has no gendered associations, it fits in with Obama's pre-existing strategy, and it keeps McCain on the defensive on an area he's weak in. Palin, in other words, doesn't just negate one of McCain's primary strengths, she also exacerbates one of his biggest weaknesses.
Top that with the fact that a report on her role in an Alaskan corruption scandal is scheduled to come out on the eve of the election, her past close association with indicted Senator Ted Stevens, and the surprisingly tepid response of Alaskans themselves to her addition to the ticket, and we've got issues.
There's one more angle I want to write on Palin, and that's how it'll affect the votes of women. But I'm saving that for another post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
