Pride & Arrogance: A Preview of Things to Come...

Aside from the quality of being a royal Texas-sized jackass, Tom DeLay has something else that's pretty identifiable: a cool politician's name. If you get rid of the 2nd capital letter in his last name, you get what his contibutions to societal progress has been: delay...delay...delay. Very few individuals have a name that's both revealing & amusing like that.

If you haven't read, DeLay just got a gift from his Republican colleagues in the House when they changed a rule that would have required him to give up his leadership poistion if he was indicted for a felony. Delay's political action committee is under investigation in Texas for allegedly accepting illegal corporate contributions (Republicans accepting too many corporate contributions? That's shocking!). This rule change allows DeLay to keep his job as GOP leader in the House just in case things go really bad for him & he gets indicted. Keep in mind that the old rule was an internal Republican House rule, not an actual statute, only applicable to Republicans b/c it enacted by Republicans. Also, DeLay hasn't been indicted yet & may not be in the future. The sole purpose of the rule change was for House Republicans to show fealty to their dear leader. Personally, I just think it's plain corruption.

However, this episode is more revealing about the arrogance that's pervasive in the House Republicans as a whole. In 1994, most of these guys came in as self-puported revolutionaries on a mission to sweep away what they saw as 40 years of House domination by Dems. In 10 years, these "revolutionaries" have become the type of ruling class they used to bemoan during the decades of Democratic majorities. During those days of Dems controlling the House, Newt Gingirch said the big problem was an unwillingness for "real reforms...in the 99 percent re-election rate and campaign laws, so [Republicans] can take power away from the incumbents and give it back to the American people." (By the way, this year, w/ a Republican-controlled House, the re-election rate was 99%.)

In addition to being the ruling class they used to hate, House Republicans have gone a step further by sqeulching dissent from Dems AND other Republicans. Let me give you an example. If you haven't noticed, an intelligence reform bill hasn't been passed yet in the house. The bill that's delayed right now has Bush' support & bi-partisan support in the Senate. What's the holdup? House Republicans have sworn to only pass bills that a majority of its own members support & they're a few votes short. Right now, the bill could pass w/ a bi-parisan majority b/c more than enough House Dems support it. Meanwhile, intelligence reform, which is a key recommendation of the 9/11 commission, is delayed b/c of pride & arrogance.

I expect stuff like this to be common in the next few years. But, it wasn't that long ago when policy was actually more important than politics. Bill Clinton passed welfare reform & NAFTA w/o a majority of Democratic votes, but went ahead anyway to get things done, even if it meant getting GOP support from Congress. Hopefully, as Newt Gingrich can tell you, the type of arrogance & overeaching we see now can backfire. Gingrich, like DeLay, had his own ethcial issues to deal with & is now relegated to teaching in relative anonymity, which is where he belongs.

What's great about having racial minorities in positions of power???

This is from an email from S.B. Woo. He's an Asian American activist who desires to build a political coalition amongst Asian Americans.

I agree with S.B. Woo about racial minorities serving their own communities while in positions of power.
**************************************

There have been two black SCJs. Thurgood Marshall was the first black to serve on the Supreme Court. He served the black community greatly, including serving as the chief counsel for NAACP. He continued to speak out for minority rights after being a SCJ. He is a hero of his people and hero of ALL Americans.
Clarence Thomas, the recent black SCJ, may be a counter example. He has a meager record of serving his own community. More often than not, he seems to forget the hopes and fears of the minority. Most of the African Ams don't identify with him, in spite of his lofty position. 80-20 fervently hopes that all AsAm legal eagles are “Thurgood Marshalls.” Realistically, the AsAm community has its own share of folks who are strictly career minded and whose hearts are NOT with us. Hence, we need to be MORE DISCRIMINATING than just getting an AsAm appointed a SCJ.

I care only when it happens to me.

Why do we only care about things when it happens to us? Have you guys ever heard of that saying going something like this -- I didn't say anything when they took you away, or our neighbors away. I didn't defend you. So when they came to take me away, I looked around and realized there was no one left to defend me. (Something like that).

Well, that's how I feel about how people see the Patriot Act and the abuses against "Arab" or "Muslim" male non-US-citizens. The Patriot Act can potentially affect everyone -- it does not distinguish between US citizens, non-US citizens, Muslims, Christians, males, or females. Why doesn't anyone care about others' abuses until it affects them personally? (Happy Thanksgiving!)

California Bar Results

For those of you who don't know, results from the July 2004 California Bar Examination came out today. Congratulations to all who passed. =)

"God" starring George W. Bush...

I just read an article about Arlen Specter. Apparently, Specter worked out a deal w/ his fellow Republicans who were trying to block him as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In short, he had to sign a "Pledge" to George W. Bush where Specter would have to show great deference to anti-abortion judicial nominations & give a de-facto rubberstamp to any Bush judicial nominees. Additionally, Specter also promised, in writing, to vote for getting rid of the fillibuster in the Senate, which would allow for Bush to get some really messed up laws passed.

The article reminded me how much conservatives like Bush. They like him enough to bully a respected Senator like Arlen Specter. They also like him enough to force Specter to sign a loyalty pledge to get a job that Senate rules already entitle him to. They even like him enough to force Specter into giving up all personal & independent judgment for essential parts of his duties in the Senate. This incident also reminded me of how many people in the red states see Bush as this quasi-religious figure who must be afforded undying loyalty similar to how a parishioner treats God. The US Constitution explicitly prohibits any loyalty oath to God or religion in order to hold public office. But, Specter was forced to sign a loyalty oath to a specific person where he would entrust all decisions in his committee's area to a "higher power," that of the President. Sounds like a de-facto religious oath to me.

If you think I'm exaggerating, here are 2 more articles that show this perception of Bush being in personal relation to God. The article of about the Arlen Specter incident reminded me of them.

The first article describes how many of Bush's supporters, voters & politicians alike, believe that God made Bush president & wanted him to be reelcted. The argument that God wants Bush to be President has a type of preverse logic that insulates him from any repsonsibility. If something goes bad, it's a "challenge" from God. If Bush does a bad job, then it's simply part of a larger plan.

The second article is even weirder b/c it describes what happened at a Bush campaign rally where those who attended recited the "Bush Pledge" at the beginning. Here's an excerpt form the article that should give you a general idea:

"I want you to stand, raise your right hands," and recite "the Bush Pledge," said Florida state Sen. Ken Pruitt. The assembled mass of about 2,000 in this Treasure Coast town about an hour north of West Palm Beach dutifully rose, arms aloft, and repeated after Pruitt: "I care about freedom and liberty. I care about my family. I care about my country. Because I care, I promise to work hard to re-elect, re-elect George W. Bush as president of the United States."...I know the Bush-Cheney campaign occasionally requires the people who attend its events to sign loyalty oaths, but this was the first time I have ever seen an audience actually stand and utter one.

Considering all the fuss about "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, the "Bush Pledge" is actually more unsettling than the belief that Bush was sent to be President by God. The latter is a subjective belief that still keeps Bush as 1 of God's followers. The "Bush Pledge," on the other hand, treats Bush as if he were God-like, an exalted figure we must pledge our undying loyalty to or risk untold harms (i.e., terrorism, gay marriage, unending war in Iraq, etc.). I may be overstating the issue, but the practical implications are clear. Bush is not going to be checked by a Congress where most of its members treat him as a messiah-like figure and will comply to his wishes. In the past, when 1 party controlled 2 branches on government, there were still checks on the President. (See Clinton 1992-94) It's amazing how much adding a little bit of religion to politics can mess up over 200 years of government. I guess this is what Thomas Jefferson was referring to when he said, "History...furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

For those of you who think God helped Bush get reelected, here's a quote from 1 of the articles I thought sounded cool: "After all, in the Bible, God is described as doing things for all sorts of inexplicable reasons—sometimes as a reward to the people, and sometimes as a punishment."

Blaming the UN? There you go again...

(Note: I put this in smaller font to save space. I apologize if it's harder to read)

I read Kevin's post w/ his arguments about the UN. Unforutnately, they don't answer the important the question of whether it was correct for Bush to go to war w/ Iraq when he did. Only then can the UN's role can be properly intperpreted. Before that, I'd like to mention 2 minor criticisms. First, I'm always suspect of citing William Safire. That's a guy w/ an agenda and is always willing to do Bush's dirty work (i.e., Valerie Plame). Second, mentioning the word "corruption" without mentioning "Bush Administration" is a huge oversight. Whatever the UN's shortcomings are, the Bush presidency blows my mind. But, I'll get to that later.

As I see it, if you still support the Iraq war, even after everything that's happened, then you must really believe in the UN as a vital organization. Otherwise, you're either a hypocrite or confused. Let me explain. Before Bush decided to invade Iraq, the argument for war had 4 parts (in order of importance): (1) Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), (2) Terrorism (emphasizing 9/11 links), (3) Violation of UN resolutions, & (4) Human rights. Looking back, 3 of those rationales (numbers 1, 2, & 4) have evaporated as more information has surfaced. Let's look at them 1 at a time.

First, until WMDs are actually found in Iraq, it can't seriously be used as a justification for war. Not believing Hans Blix is 1 thing. However, when Bush's own handpicked weapon's inspector says there are no weapons, that's just embarassing for this administration. Also, the Senate intelligence investigation has shown that Iraq's capacity to create WMDs was actually diminishing leading up to the war. (Hmm...Maybe those UN sanctions were working after all) Moreover, Iraq's capacity to create a nuclear bomb, which was Condi Rice's big fear, was so much of a pipe dream that's it's amzaing Saddam Hussein was able to give that impression to anybody. In fact, 30 countries are currently closer to developing nuclear weapons than Iraq was and I'm pretty sure not all of them are friendly. That doesn't even count North Kroea, which already has nuclear weapons. Intelligence failures have been rampant for the Bush administration and maybe being so wrong should be expected. In any event, until WMDs can be found in Iraq, the Bush adminsitration must be admonished for either not knowing better or simply not paying attention to unfavorable facts.

Second, terrorism as a rationale for the Iraq war is an argument that has also been discredited. This is especially true for the belief that Iraq was behind 9/11. The 9/11 commission has concluded that Iraq had nothing to do w/ 9/11. In fact, no substantial links between Iraq & Al Queda have been proven yet. This actually makes sense when you consider who Osama bin Laden & Saddam Hussein actually are. Hussein created a secular Islamic state in Iraq, which is something the more radical fundamentalist bin Laden didn't like. Ideologically, these 2 are incompatible and it makes sense that they hated each other when they met to dicuss a possible alliance. As for terrorism in general, it should be noted that Iraq did have terrorists inside its borders before the war. However, these were terrorists that Saddam Hussein had no control over and wanted to get rid of. They were located in the northen No Fly zone, where Saddam Hussein couldn't reach them. Also, their primary goal was to overthrow Saddam Hussein to make Iraq a fundamentalist, non-secular state. By invading Iraq, these terrorists have inadvertantly been helped in their cause. As a result, Iraq is more of a terrorist state NOW than it was before the war and is in danger of falling under fundamentalist rule.

Third, there was the assertion that Saddam Hussein had violated the rights of his people so egregiously that he had lost the privilege of ruling Iraq (i.e., human rights). This argument would actually have the most sway w/ me. But, I am troubled how this rationale has been bootstrapped by the Bush Administration to justify its actions. If human rights were really that much a concern to Bush and other conservatives, then they should have been more supportive of military action in Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo during the Clinton Administration. Moreover, there are many countires w/ worse human rights records than Iraq & Bush isn't going to help out those people any time soon. (See Sudan) Also, the Iraqi prisoner torture scandal undermines the assertion that the US is looking out for the welfare of the Iraqi people. Some conservatives say these prisoners were terrorists. Reality, as opposed to ideology, suggests that most of the prisoners were either petty criminals or were detained for fitting a very general portrait of a suspected terrorist, which is young Arab male between the ages of 16-35. Geez, I wonder how many of those there are in Iraq.

By now, you may be wondering where Kevin's posting & the UN fit in all of this. Out of the original justifications for war, the only one that still stands is Iraq's violations of UN resolutions. After all, Saddam Hussein violating UN resolutions is the one thing everybody agrees actually happened. Thus, those of you who still think the war was a good idea must really love the UN b/c no other reason for going to war still exisits w/ any authority. However, most people who still support the war don't feel that way & think the UN is irrelevant &/or corrupt. This certainly descbribes Bush, who admonished & deliberatley tried to undermine the UN in the period leading up to the war, but is now purportedly sitcking up for it 2 years later to justify his own failures. Using simplified "Bush logic" (oxymoron?), you either think the UN is an imporatant & vital organization worth fighting for, or you don't. Otherwise, you'd have to admit that the US invaded Iraq to stand up for corruption, it's own or the UN's. You can't have it both ways.

Specifically, Kevin argues the UN Oil-for-Food programs shows that the UN is corrupt b/c it allowed other nations to profit from Iraq not getting invaded. However, this would suggest that tightening sanctions or ending the Oil-for-Food program alltogether were more appropriate to get rid of this alleged loophole instead of going to all out war. This point also ignores the financial stake the US had in invading Iraq. (Here's a hint: Think of a word that starts w/ "H" & ends in "-alliburton") Instead of taking actions to stop anyone from profitting from Iraq, the Bush administration invaded & ensured that only the US, if anybody, could profit from Iraq. So laying out the corruption allegation entirely on the UN doesn't tell the whole story. The Bush administration had its own corrupt reasons for going to war & not mentioning them is silly. I'm certainly not saying the UN doesn't have issues or that Bush invaded Iraq soley for money, but blaming the current situation in Iraq solely on the UN is giving the UN way too much credit/blame. Moreover, arguing that the gaming of a UN program is, by itself, a compelling cause to go to war over isn't that convicing when you think about it. (As for international organizations in general, there was a time when we didn't have them. It was called the 1st half of the 20th century. Not exactly a stable or peaceful time in world history.)

Looking back, the UN was the only one who saw this all coming. They said, "Let us do our work first, b/c if you go to war now & it goes bad, you'll regret it." Going through the accepted process of inspections & debate is important b/c that process' transparency ensures to others that there are legitimate motives behind whatever decision is eventually made. This would also give time Bush to be more credible to the world by getting more international support, like his father did. This Bush simply wouldn't wait b/c he had a "gut" feeling. Personally, I tend to think that Bush would have gone to war even if the UN was allowed to finish its work & concluded all the information we now know to be true. He's not known as a guy who lets inconvenient things like facts & truth contradict his ideology.

The Iraq war is an American contraption & not enough blame has been put on the Bush administration for not knowing what it was getting into beforehand. Some of you may say that it's easy to criticize after the fact. But, it's part of the President's job to know as much of this stuff as possible before taking military action. The fact that so much has been proven wrong suggests that more could have have been known and someone in the West Wing was asleep at the switch. Blaming the UN is the easy way out & is getting tiresome. On one hand, it's argued that the UN is so powerful that it successfully sabotaged the US on purpose. On the other hand, it's supposedly so weak & corrupt that it needs the US to enforce its decisions. Make up your friggin' mind! Overall, blindly blaming the UN w/o any introspection is just another way to avoid accountabilty. That's just sad.

P.S. - Here's a cool story from Slate about Bush's reasons for going to war in Iraq. Here's the link.

Untied Nations [sic]

Unfortunately, the rumors of a Kofi Annan no confidence vote doesn't appear to be a reality. The inability of the United Nations to carry out any meaningful actions merely reinforces the reality that it is simply a giant bureaucratic entity aimed at sucking up and wasting Ted Turner's billion dollar boondoggle.

As much as the Democrats pin the situation in Iraq on Bush, I don't think he deserves so much credit/blame. The Iraq situation escalated because of the inability of the UN to enforce it's very own decrees. The repeated snubs by Saddam was likely a result of the coziness the UN had with the dictator. Further investigation into the oil-for-food corruption will likely show the decay in the UN. Indeed, the problems already appear to run very deep. The Oregonian reports, "Early estimates suggested that $5 billion to $10 billion had been raked off of the $60 billion oil-for-food escrow account. This went undetected, or at least unreported, by the U.N., whose officers supposedly were monitoring the program."

William Safire writes in the NYT, "The principal investigating body of the Senate is not helpless. Today witnesses from Treasury and C.I.A., as well as its own investigators, will present evidence that the huge rip-off engineered by Saddam Hussein - with the connivance of corrupt U.N. officials and companies protected by Security Council members like Russia and France - was even greater than the $10 billion figure estimated by our G.A.O. Going back to 1991 and including the predecessor to oil-for-food, an outside source tells me that the U.N.-maladministered profiteering reached $23 billion. Such heavy spending affects U.N. votes."

What a shock that the UN and some countries did not want Iraq liberated, arguing for time to allow these corrupt actions to continue. Should this continue, it wouldn't be a surprise for the United Nations to go the way of that other international organization that fell apart. What should be done? Clearly, a new leader needs to take control of the UN and clear out the corruption. More oversight needs to be done and the pandering to individual countries needs to be stopped. Governing by consensus is not always effective and the UN is a clear example of when it isn't. Unfortunately, there is also likely not an easy situation since there needs to be a carrot along with the stick of being a part of an international organization.

UPDATE: I just noticed skimming through the Wikipedia entry about the reasons the League of Nations failed--worth comparing to today.

The Dangers of Winning and Complacency

The Republican Party needs to be careful in the aftermath of the 2004 Election not to take this victory too far. Despite picking up a few more seats in the House and the Senate, as well as retaining the Presidency, the divided country will expect the GOP to carry through in its promise and leading the nation to prosperity. Further stumblign could result in a very sharp backlash.

I think the recent actions in the House in changing the rules for Tom Delay is a bad idea as it smacks of party-politics. Professor Bainbridge articulates this concern much more eloquently. Indeed, I agree that the downfall for the Republican Party in 2006 or 2008 would likely not be a strong Democratic contender, but failings by the GOP itself. I seem to recall that people voted not as much for Kerry, but rather against Bush despite what the rhetoric of the exit polls seem to suggest.

One thing that bothers me is the disappearance of the middle. Indeed, Time Magazine has an article entitled, "Conservatives Go RINO Hunting" discussing the uproar by the religious right about Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Spector's comments about the unlikelihood of the Senate confirming justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade. Hopefully, other elements such as the fiscal conservatives can bring about a check on certain elements of the GOP to prevent it from imploding since the country as a whole gains nothing by allowing one entity to gain too much power.

It's Starting. . .

"WASHINGTON, Saturday, Nov. 20 - House and Senate negotiators have tucked a potentially far-reaching anti-abortion provision into a $388 billion must-pass spending bill, complicating plans for Congress to wrap up its business and adjourn for the year."

Cheers to Senator Boxer for standing up for liberty.
Jeers to Tom DeLay, because he's Tom DeLay. (Oops, there goes my elitist side!)

Supreme Court All Stars

In class today, my professor played a game he called "Name that Justice." Considering William Rehnquist's precarious health, I started thinking about the history of the Supreme Court. (If you're curious, click here for a Newsweek article speculating about Rehnquist's legacy.) So I decided to make my all-time all star list of Supreme Court justices. I picked 9 total, w/ 8 spots for associate justices & 1 spot for the all-time chief justice. Here they are in no pariticular order:

1. John Harlan (either one)
2. William O. Douglas
3. Louis Brandeis
4. Antonin Scalia
5. Potter Stewart
6. Oliver Wendell Holmes
7. Robert Jackson
8. William Brennan
9. John Marshall & Earl Warren (tie for Chief Justice)

Bill Clinton's Library...

Today is the opening of Bill Clinton's Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas. The building itself looks pretty impressive and has already won several awards for architecture. The opening of Clinton's library makes me think of a couple of things. First, if there was no 22nd Amendment, Clinton would have beaten George W. Bush for a 3rd term easily, Lewinsky trouble and all. He was really that good as a politician and policymaker. On the bright side, that Amendment also prevents Bush/Cheney in 2008. Second, a lot has happened the last 4 years. Four years isn't a long time, but it seems a lot longer since we've actually had peace, prosperity, and hope for the future. I suppose smart government is something that's easy to forget when you haven't had it for a while.

Last, and most interesting to me, is that Bush also gets a Presidential library in the future and I wonder how that one will be in comparison. Clinton has a lot of materials in his and I wonder if there will be a similar amount for Bush. The Bush administration has been pretty secretive and probably doesn't produce much of a paper trail, except for stuff like torture memos and leaked names of CIA operatives. Also, I read that Clinton has an exact replica of his Oval Office in the library, which is even accurate to the books on the shelves. In particular, I wonder what types of books are on the real Oval Office shelves right now. Supposedly, Clinton is amazing at compartmentalizing information and reads somthing like 5 or 6 challenging books at any given time. I'll let you speculate on how much Bush reads and what level he likes to read at.

Anyways, I hope the opening goes well and that the Clinton library doesn't get burned down by red, drunken hillbillies before I get the chance to visit it in person. =)

P.S. - Here's hoping that Elizabeth Edwards gets better. Breast cancer is a serious matter that already affects too many women. I always liked Mrs. Edwards b/c she has this nice motherly persona and seemed like someone who'd be cool to hang with. Also, she has 2 small kids who, like all children, deserve the chance to know both their parents.

Where we go from here...

Hello everyone. I haven't posted anything in 10 days. After some time for reflection, I've learned 2 things. First, I learned that not writing for 10 days means this blog gets overloaded w/ red & purple postings. Second, I learned that a lot can happen in 10 days, indicating that the next 4 years will be a hell of a ride, even if it is downhill. In the last 10 days, half of the Bush cabinent resigned, w/ more departures still possible. Most notably, John Ashcroft & Colin Powell will be leaving. Powell will probably be doing some philanthropy to help out others while Ashcroft gets to do whatever jackasses from Missouri do in their spare time. I'll write about the changes in the Bush cabinet, including Bush's record for diversity in government, in another posting.

However, I came across something during my hiatus from blogging that I wanted to show for today. Slate put up a series titled "Why Americans Hate Democrats - A Dialogue" that was really interesting. Aside from a title that make "Red" people writhe in ecstasy, the actual articles displayed the ideological diversity of Dems, each of whom percieved the same election in unique ways. The articles were written by a wide range of contributors, including prominent Dems like Robert Reich, Bruce Reed, and Donna Brazile. Each contributor posed their own ideas about why the Dems lost the election & how to come back. Personally, I thought that Robert Reich ("Gotta Have Faith") and Bruce Reed ("The Fight for the Middle") had the best insights.

I liked how they were both Reich & Reed were Clinton Dems who knew how to craft good policy AND win elections. Both feel that the answer isn't becoming more conservative or fighting as dirty as conservatives. Rather, the answer lies in actually showing how the Democrats' ideas appeal to the voters' hearts, in addition to their minds. Specifially, the solution is to make already good policy seem better appealing to peoples' true values and faith, which is different than religion. Reich defines "values" as principles like social justice and respnsibility; and "faith" as the idea we can achieve a better scoiety by working together and realizing we all need each other. Reed says that until the Dems shows that it will stand up for those things w/ determination, middle class voters who live in a world of uncertainty won't vote for them. Otherwise, the candidate w/ a better "message" will always have the better chance of winning, even if he suffers from bad policy and poor job performance. That's the reason why many Bush voters were those who voted against their own self-interest. (Reed puts up this cool stat: Out of the 28 states w/ the lowest per capita income, 26 went for Bush, which is an amazing fact considering how much the Bush administration does to help out the wealthy & widen income inequality.) In any case, you should actually read the articles. They're well-written and say a lot more than what I can post up.

For those of you who want to read something w/ more entertainment value, read the article in the series written by Jane Smiley. She talks about how fostering ignorance is a useful tool in elections b/c it prevents people from thinking things through. Here's the link.

Purpose of Affirmative Action

After reading Volokh's Conspiracy and Professor Sander's entries, I wonder -- what does he and others think is the purpose of affirmative action? It seems as if Professor Sander is measuring the success of a legal career by whether you can get a firm job or pass the bar on your first try. It's odd how he emphasizes these easily qualititative markers of legal success as measures of how successful you are as a lawyer. Yet he does not and easily cannot measure the intangible benefits a black student may have in being surrounded by great faculty, intelligent/enthuisastic classmates, etc. and the benefits all students obtain from having various perspectives in the classroom. He also fails to address the social good that attorneys who may have "less successful" jobs such as being a DA or PD provide for our communities.

I do think that affirmative action can be improved. Perhaps having academic help in conjunction with affirmative action admissions. Additionally, I feel Professor Sander fails to address the reason why we even have affirmative action to begin with -- b/c of the current systematic racial discrimination and oppression that certain racial minorities face. What can be done to address this problem if the current implementation of affirmative action is not working? Are we putting disadvantaged racial minorities in a canoe without a paddle and asking them to race others better equipped than they are? Professor Sander instead frames the issue as how to get blacks in law firms and passing the bar on their first time based on what law schools they attend. In framing the issue like this, Professor Sander perpetuates the pervasive and destructive stereotype of Blacks being inferior to whites. Since expectations imposed on humans often correlate to their performance and success, this stereotype of inferiority may result in worse performance results from Black students. I think Professor Sander's article framework does injustice to the purposes of affirmative action.

Hey, one of you should apply. . .

William Safire is retiring from the NY Times. They have yet to hire a replacement. One of you should apply. I nominate Kevin. Is there a second?

Prof. Sander: What Would the Black Bar Look Like With a Reduction or Elimination of Law School Racial Preferences?

Last update reminder for Prof. Sander's posts. Click on the above headline for his entry.

Link pointing to list of previous statements.

WSJ Editorial: "More Muscle, More God, Less Shrum"

Some advice to the Democrats from Dan Gerstein, an independent consultant in New York, was formerly communications director for Sen. Joe Lieberman and a senior strategist for his presidential campaign, on the WSJ (free this week).

His suggestions:

• Finding Credibility on Security
• Closing the God Gap
• Developing New Solutions
• Breaking Old Habits
  

Prof. Sander: Black law graduates in the job market

Continuing update reminders for Prof. Sander's posts. Click on the above headline for his entry. He notes:

Analyses of the data show, quite strikingly, that employers care — and care a lot — about how job-seekers did in law school. Law school prestige is important, but for law graduates as a whole, good grades are a much more powerful predictor of getting a higher-paying job than the eliteness of one's school.

An interesting conclusion he draws:

One might suppose that some employers use grade cutoffs, in part, as a device to discriminate against minority job candidates. This may be true for some, but the general pattern is just the opposite: legal employers pay a premium to recruit junior black lawyers. In other words, when one controls for lots of background characteristics, new black lawyers earn seven to nine percent more than other lawyers with comparable backgrounds (I found no similar premium for Hispanic or Asian attorneys). (emphasis added)

Link pointing to previous statements.

Article: The Great Black Hope

The Washington Monthly has a cover story about Barack Obama. Click on the headline for a link.

Cabinet Resignations

Attorney General John Ashcroft and Commerce Secretary Don Evans have resigned.

* Fox News
* Washington Times
* CNN

Click on the headline for further searches from Google News.

On the lighter side...

From Slate Cartoons:

Prof Sanders: Affirmative Action in Law Schools, Part 2

Continuing update reminders for Prof. Sander's posts. Click on the above headline for his entry.

Link pointing to previous statements.

Arnold Can't Escape His Past...In Japan

The "Governator" is going to Japan. What most people don't know is that he made a lot of television commericals in Japan selling a variety of products. I've been to Japan & saw several of these commercials. These were some of the weirdest advertisements I've ever seen. Keep in mind that I've seen a lot of Japanese commercials & many of them are pretty weird. (If it helps, think of the "Mr. Sparkle" commercial from The Simpsons) The one I remember the most is where Arnold is trying to sell a vitamin drink by dressing up in a male kimono & singing in Japanese. Not a pretty sight. Here's a newspaper article talking about the ads & here's a website where you can actually see them. Enjoy. (Props to my friend Chris for emailing me the sites)

Now we're part of the pop culture. Armageddon is coming sooner than we thought.

I was just too curious not to try this out. Guess what happens when you type in "dual coasts" into Google. Try it & check out the 3rd site.

Prof Sanders: Affirmative Action in Law Schools, Part 1

As noted before, Prof Sanders is guest-blogging on the Volokh Conspiracy about his article. His post today talks about the basis of the issue:

Herein lies the collective action problem. The preferences awarded by the top tier law schools absorb all the black applicants that would be admitted, in a race-blind system, to second-tier schools. These schools must therefore choose between having essentially no black students or duplicating the types of preferences pursued in the top-tier. Nearly all the second-tier schools choose the latter course, thus putting third-tier schools into the same bind, and so on. The net effect of this system is to move nearly all blacks up a tier (or two) in the law school hierarchy, thus placing nearly all blacks at an enormous academic disadvantage in the schools they attend. The only net addition of blacks to the system comes in the lowest-tier schools, and the black students they admit have such marginal academic credentials that they face long odds against every becoming attorneys.

Some more comic relief...

For those of you who don't watch The Daily Show, Lewis Black is a comedian who appears evey Friday to satirize and rant about the stories that appear during the week. His segment is called "Back in Black." He had some pretty funny stuff around the election and it can be found via the link below. I like the ones called "Death vs. Taxes" & "Ballot Initiatives." Here's the link.

UPDATE: converted link {11/8 - Kevin}.

Values vs. Safety: The Economist gets inside voters' heads

Earlier, I posted up an article by The Economist where it gave its endorsement to John Kerry before the election. Here's another article where it gives its own take on how Bush won. If you like pictures, The Economist also provided a cool looking map & chart. This is an excerpt I thought was particular interesting:

But perhaps the most important explanation for Mr Bush’s success was the unexpected appearance of “moral values” as the top issue of the campaign. In exit polls, more people said this was the most important issue for them than mentioned the economy, Iraq or terrorism. Four-fifths of those who put moral values first voted for Mr Bush...On the face of it, it suggests that issues such as gay marriage and abortion trumped the war on terrorism and the economy...Together with the Republican success at turning out the base, that suggests Mr Rove’s ambition to win the 2004 election by using social issues to mobilise 4m “missing” evangelical Protestants (who, he says, could have voted for Mr Bush in 2000 but did not) worked triumphantly.

Some people say that Bush winning on cultural issues (i.e., "moral values") is too simplistic an explanation. Instead, they assert that people voted for him b/c he had a clear message for the future. To be fair, the article says that's also possible. However, I still think that Bush won b/c he got his base out more effectively by being against gay marriage, abortion, stem-cell research, & other such "moral values." I said as much in an earlier posting when I said Karl Rove was a winner from the election for getting those 4 million evangelicals to come out this time. I was particularly surprised that "values" even trumpted terrorism as the top issue for the most voters. I thought terorism & safety were supposed to be the determinative issues of the election. Here's the link.

UPDATE: converted link {11/8 - Kevin}.

Why I'm Proud I Voted for Kerry

So, you've probably heard the same thing I did -- President Clinton called Kerry during the campaign to urge Senator Kerry to back the ballot measures in the 11 states to ban gay marriage. It was President's Clinton's belief that this would garner more of the red votes for Kerry (which probably is right). Kerry declined to do this, based on his principles. I guess he wasn't just saying "anything" necessary in order to get elected.

The Washington Post & I Agree

In a previous posting, I said that karl Rove was a winner from the 2004 election b/c of his succcessful strategy to focus more resouces on getting votes from religious and evengelical convservatives (i.e., Bush's base). As a result, Bush propelled to victory even though he lost the indpendent/swing voters to Kerry. Here's an article from the Washington Post titled "Evangelicals Say They Led Charge For the GOP" that seems to flush out this argument. Although there was increased voter turnout across the board, the article asserts that turnout by religious conservatives soared. This was caused by, amongst other things, churches and congregations in "friendly" (i.e., red) communities urging their members to vote for Bush b/c he shared their "values." If only Karl Rove would use his genius for good, and not evil. Here's the link.

Update: converted link {11/8 - Kevin}

Drudge: Thomas, CJ?

From the Drudge Report:

Don't file this as news, obviously more like gossip... Drudge is saying:

President Bush has launched an internal review of the pros and cons of nominating Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as the chief justice if ailing William Rehnquist retires, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

A top White House source familiar with Bush's thinking explains the review of Thomas as chief justice is one of several options currently under serious consideration. But Thomas is Bush's personal favorite to take the position, the source claims.

Read more here.

Religion and the vote

From Yahoo! News:

On the lighter side of the news...

If you live in a blue state & are unhappy about the election, here's some sites that you may want to read:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2109317/
http://slate.msn.com/id/2109300/
http://slate.msn.com/id/2109135/
The first one is about blue state secession and the last 2 are about moving to Canada. The secession option doesn't look too promising, but moving to Canada may be for you. Just make sure you look at these sites before packing your bags for a trip up north. Personally, I'm generally skeptical of any country where it snows most of the year and the national sport is hockey.

If you're more of a visual person. Try to download the episode of CNN's Crossfire where Jon Stewart was the guest. It's friggin' hilarious. Also, start watching The Daily Show if you aren't already. It has some of the sharpest writing on all of television and probably has much more useful content than Fox News and CNN combined.

Prof Sander and Affirmative Action

Following up on Arthur's earlier post, Professor Sander will be guest-blogging on the Volokh Conspiracy next week (Monday-Thursday). The topics he has planned are:

• How does affirmative action in law schools work? (Monday)
• How do racial preferences affect the performance of blacks in law school and on the bar? (Tuesday)
• How do racial preferences affect how blacks do in the job market for lawyers? (Wednesday Thursday)
• What would the black bar look like if we abolished or limited racial preferences? (Thursday Friday)
  

Links added to each topic as they appeared.

UPDATED: Added links {11/8, 11/9, 11/11, 11/13 - Kevin}

Case of the Dueling Exit Polls

Following up on Jeff's comment, the LA Time's national exit polls (PDF) show the vote split at 86% for Kerry and 14% for Bush, which is considerably less* than the 88% for Kerry cited by Jeff via MSNBC and at least the 90% for Gore--would this now 5% swing explain some of the difference?

Also, the LA Times article that summarized the trend (and which links to the results of the national exit polls) notes that Bush also picked up more of the Latino vote this time around.

* Granted, 2% might not be considered "considerably less" but when you're looking at gains and instead get a slide...

What Could Have Been...

Hello everyone. This blog started on election day, so I didn't have the chance to post this article up. It's from The Economist and gives its endorsement for the election. As a primer, the magazine endorsed Bush 4 years ago, supported invading Iraq, and is respected by both sides of the politcal spectrum (i.e., it is NOT partisan propoganda). This year, it thought that Kerry was better on the domestic and economic issues, but the standard by which it would give its endorsement would be foreign policy. Surprisingly, depsite enodorsing him 4 years ago and agreeing with Bush's general vision, the Economist said that its confidence in Bush has been "shattered." Specifically, it says that Bush has lost the "moral" authority to do what is needed in the future. According to them, Bush lost that moral authroity by allowing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to fester, not holding anyone accountable for the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal, lack of a plan for rebuilding Iraq, and refusal to admit even the most obvious mistakes. Specifically, they felt the election offered an opportunity for the winner to stop and consider where we were, where we are, and where we're going as a nation. Only then, can there be moral credibility to start fresh and make progress. According to the Economist, John Kerry had the discipline and character to go on that necessary, thoughful journey of self-relfection. Also, it stated that a good way for the voters to show moral leadership is to uphold the principle of accountabilty and imposing it on Bush, even if he won't impose it on himself. Anyways, the election is over and Bush has a second term. Hopefully, he read this article. It's actually not that negative about him and it's certainly not going crazy over Kerry. Basically, it says we can still prevail if we're honest with ourselves and think things through. Sound like good advice. Here's the link

Winners & Losers, Part 2

Hello. I was bored again and some more winners and losers from the 2004 election came up.

Winner - Antonin Scalia
If Kerry had won, there was talk that Scalia would have resigned out of frustration. Kerry would have appointed left/center justcies to the Supreme Court, ensuring that Scalia wouldn' have an ideological companion (otther than Clarence Thomas) for at least 4 years. Bush's second term will almost certainly mean some new justices to the court that will be more to Scalia's liking. Not only that, Scalia is now the frontrunner to be the next Chief Justice if William Rehquist, who is 80 yeas old, leaves any time soon. Curiously, the Supreme Court seemed to be a lost issue during the campaign. The only memorable mention of the Court occurred in the second debate, when Bush said he wouldn't appoint a justice who agreed with the Dred Scott decision. If you want some background on this, check out this link. In any event, it will be interesting to see how many of those voters who went for Bush b/c of "values" will still be happy in 4 years w/ a slew on young, conservative Bush appointees onthe Supreme Court. Remember, individual rights are also a value. Hopefully, it wasn't forgotten on Tuesday.

Loser - African Americans
We were told that each side would have to get their base out. This year, African American voters went to great lengths to make sure they got to the polls and gave over 90% of their votes to Kerry. Unfortunately, black voters are losers of this election because their votes did nothing to change the outcome. Like I mentioned in part 1, Karl Rove thought he could better spend his resources on new white conservative voters, which are Bush's natural base, rather than trying to get votes from the existing pool. Worse yet, the GOP see little benefit or motivation to appeal to African Americans in the near future. Since Reagan, the GOP has used African Americans as a scapegoat in order to court suburban white voters. (Remember? If you're taxes are too high, "welfare queens" are to blame. If you're afraid of crime, that's because "urban" youth are running the streets. If you can get a promotion or your kid can't get into a good college, affirmative action is to blame.) The results of 2004 only reaffirm the reality that the GOP can still win w/o the African American vote and have little reason for them to try.

Winner - Osama bin Laden
This choice will certainly make some of you mad. I'm in no way complimenting Osama bin Laden. Just give me a chance to explain before you go watch Fox News to soothe your nerves. Almost everyone would agree that Bush is a very polarizing figure in American politics. Logically, the name George W. Bush must create even stronger, more extreme feelings in the Middle East. Admittedly, a Bush loss would have been perceived as a win for bin Laden in the Middle East. If Bush lost, then bin Laden could have taken credit for brining down the President of the United States. However, a second Bush term also helps out bin Laden by allowing him to keep his most recognizible recruiting symbol. Bush supporters say you know what he stands for. In the Middle East, that simplicity (or "moral clairty") can work as a detriment b/c terorists & Islamic extremists can also craft a simple picture of Bush for their own purposes. Also, reelecting Bush gives bin Laden the argument that the American people are just as bad as its President. For a better explanation from guys who actually know how to write, check out these links http://slate.msn.com/id/2108930/ & http://slate.msn.com/id/2108870/.

Loser - Intelligence & Job Peformance
Not too long ago, these 2 things were actually the main criteria by which most people voted for presidential candidates. Most polling right before the election show Kerry ahead on both these marks. I'm not saying that Bush is dimwitted. Actually, I think he's brighter than he appears. However, it would be a stretch to say that he'd be my first (or even second) choice as my lifeline on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" Also, post-9/11 world aside, Bush's job performace the last 4 years was lackluster at best. Many policy decisions were not exaclty thought through or implemented particularly well. For example, despite rising costs in Iraq and rising budget deficits, Bush still chose to fo forward w/ missile defense and a presciption drug plan for Medicare. The missile defense system will cost at least $50 billion just to test and find out if it will work. If it does work, it may cost up to another $200 billion to actually build it, even though it probably won't be very effective. The Medicare drug plan is a real piece of work. It costs $800 billion over ten years and actually RAISES the cost of prescription drugs for most seniors.

Neither Winner nor Loser - The Democratic Party
Admittedly, 2004 didn't go as well as planned for the Democrats and people keep saying how the GOP can run the table for a while now. I don't think it looks that dire. Unilke some of the "experts," I actually looked at the election data carefully. Here are some things to consider.

First, Bush didn't win as much of a mandate as he thinks. He did get a majority of the popular vote, but that diffeence was made up largely by religious conservatives that Karl Rove has been targetting that last 4 years. Also, Bill Clinton showed in 1996 Democrats can win the subrban voters by having clear policies on issues like education & crime. These voters went for Bush in 2004, but can be persuaded to go back to the Democrats if good, specific proposal on their issues are put forth.

Second, Bush can't run in 2008. This seems to be more of a fact than an assertion, but it holds lots of importance. Very few politicans are as completely loved by his base as Bush curently is. A lot of it has to do with his style and personality, which are strong enough to overcome low job approval ratings. It's unclear if that same devotion will trasfer easily to the next GOP candidate, who would have a tough act to follow in campaign style to begin with.

Lastly, there's the Electoral College. Bush may have won by 3 million in the popular vote. But, in reality, he won the election by less than 150,000 votes in Ohio, which reprsented a margin of victory of less than 2%. Also, there are several states where Bush won by very small margins. Nevada, Iowa, and New Mexico were decided by factions of a percent. This isn't a lot of room to work with, but it's still doable.

However, the Demcrats aren't winners yet. They'll need to work hard the next 4 years to craft smart policies and be known as the party of responsibile government again. It's already true in substance, but it needs to be shown to the voters.

Arnold appoints new Finance Chair

From the California Insider:

Gov. Schwarzenegger has just named his new finance director: Tom Campbell, the former congressman from Stanford and now dean of the UC Berkeley business school.

Read more here.

International Reaction to Bush

Art -- I miss your tutorials on all this international stuff that I don't understand: Does the rest of the world hate Bush? Are we at more risk from terrorists after his re-election? What's going to happen when Arafat dies?

Art Imitates Life?

Is it just me or does Mrs. Bartlett look a lot like Teresa Heinz tonight?

Winners & Losers from the 2004 Election

Hello. It looks like George W. Bush won and John Kerry lost. But, if you look more closely, they aren't the only winners and losers from the 2004 election. These are just some reflections rumbling in my head ever since Kerry's concession.

Winner #1 - Karl Rove
Aside from getting Bush elected again, Karl Rove is a winner for proving all the pundits wrong. Let me explain. Usually, the candidate who wins the middle or independent (i.e., swing) voters is the guy who wins the election. That's how we got terms like "Reagan Democrats," "New Democrats," & "Compassionate Conservatism." This year, Rove gambled that he could find more votes from religous conservatives than he could from the middle. Hence, Bush has governed & campainged as a hardline conservative. He's adovcated for banning gay marriage, restricitng stem cell research, & helping out the wealthy. It's hard to find a position where Bush is even slightly moderate. If you look at the data, Kerry won the middle by a margin of about 10% and got over 90% of the Democratic vote. However, Bush won the election by getting over 95% of the cosnervative votes. Specifically, Rove was targeting the 4 million religious conservatives who stayed home in 2000. Bush ended up winning the popular vote by 3 million in 2004. Nuff said.

Loser #1 - Jeb Bush
It may seem odd to call Jeb Bush a loser when his brother just won the election. However, George W. Bush's reelection virtually guarantees that Jeb won't ever be President. As I mentioned above, George W. Bush now has a reputation as a conservative who fuses poltics & religion in a lot of overt ways. That's what people now think of when they hear the political brandname "Bush." Jeb's not like his brother. He's more of a moderate Republican who doesn't seem so driven by faith & ideology. If Jeb did try to run, he'd never make it out of the primaries because Republican voters will keep asking why he isn't as desirable (or religious) as his brother. Also, if his brother's second term is just as bad as the first, then Jeb would be crazy to run with the family name. This also makes his father, George H.W. Bush, a loser because Jeb got his moderate Republican beliefs from his dad. Besides, it would just seem odd to have another Bush be President. It would make the US look less like an elective government and more like a monarchy.

Winner #2 - Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, & Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton is an obivous winner because a Kerry defeat leaves open the possibility of herself running in 2008. Bush's win shows that even the most divisive figure can win if he or she is popular enough with their base. She's always been popular with women voters, holds pretty moderate views (i.e., she's NOT liberal), and knows how to raise money. Also, I heard a rumor that her husband knows a little about beating Republicans at politics. John Edwards, to a lesser degree, is also a winner. Although he didn't help much w/ the rural voters that proved pivotal to Bush's win, Edwards did an o.k. job as Kerry's running mate without damaging himself politically. He's another moderate who now has the experience of a national campaign. Being good on t.v. and raised in the South doesn't hurt either. Also, I'm sure there are enough upset Kerry voters out there willing to give cash in 4 years. In any event, Barack Obama is unquestionably a winner. We've all seen the speech at the DNC and know he'd have a compelling message to convey. Can you hear Clinton-Obama or Edwards-Obama in 2008?

Loser#2 - John Paul Stevens & Sandra Day O'Connor
A second Bush terms means that neither of these 2 Supreme Court Justices will retire before death. It's currently a balanced court and both of them know it. Replacing the Court's leading liberal or its swing vote w/ a conservative Bush appointee could potentially wreak havoc with decades of established legal precedent. Keep in mind that Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, & Souter are traditional conservatives who would rather keep the law where it is right now than make things more difficult by suddenly changing law that people rely on. Stevens is 84 and O'Connor is 74. Both are great legal minds and deserve a retirement after a lifetime of service. Too bad they won't get it.
(P.S. - Hoping that William Rehnquist gets better. I don't agree w/ most of his opinions, but he's loosened up over the years and cancer is no joking matter.)

Winner #3 - Saturday Night Live & The Daily Show
Even the most ardent conservatives have to admit that Bush & his cabinet make great late night comedy fodder. Just look at Will Ferrell's impression of George W. Bush. It's realistic and funny as hell. Bush winning means 4 more years of fresh material.

Loser #3 - John McCain & other Moderate Republicans
If Abraham Lincoln or Theodore Roosavelt were alive today, they'd have trouble recognizing today's version of the Republican Party. If you believe in strong individual rights at home and internationalist foreign policy abroad, you'd be a Democrat nowadays. The Republican Party is now a conservative party and doesn't have a lot of room for anybody else. Mavericks and moderates like John McCain, Arlen Specter, or Geroge Pataki are an endangered species in the GOP and no longer set the party's agenda. Simply put, if you like moderate positions, then vote Democrat. Think I'm exaggerating? Aside from the 3 guys I just mentioned, try to name 5 moderate Republicans who are currently in office and aren't women. (No cheating by naming Arnold)

* Neither Winner nor Loser - US Soldiers in Iraq
They probably wouldn't be coming home soon even if Kerry had been elected. However, I don't see much of a plan from Bush that doesn't resemble wishful thinking. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if most of them still aren't home in 4 years. In the meantime, more casualties are inevitable, along with a continuing erosion of American credibility abroad. This credibility would be necessary if there is a threat to US security in the future and we needed help to fight it. In any event, here's hoping the troops get home sooner rather than later.

Historical Electoral results

BBC News has an interactive map of electoral votes from 1948 onwards.

Voter turnout

From the LA Times:



Wow, 59%!

New Beginnings

Here we go. This is a start of what may potentially be a sparsely posted blog. Then it'll be no different than most of the others out there. But we'll see. The point of this is a place for some of us to rant and rave...

The name of this blog reflects the differing viewpoints of the folks here, reflective of left and right; blue and red. The pairings could go on. Anyway, we'll see how colorful this thing gets!