Dahlia Lithwick Zings Hillary

H/T: Andrew Sullivan.

Here's the page. The title alone, "Feminism Means Never Having to Say 'I'm Toast'" should give you a good idea. As it's short enough, here's the whole text:

Emily asked a good question yesterday about the proper feminist reading of Hillary Clinton’s weird new Bartleby phase—wherein she is all but mathematically eliminated; superdelegates are running screaming for the exits; the office furniture is being carted out onto the moving vans; and yet still she soldiers on, undaunted, because real women “don’t give up in difficult situations.”

I suppose you can call all this “feminism.” But, as my husband pointed out this morning, if the inability to concede error or defeat—even in light of irrefutable, empirical evidence and in the face of spiraling support and tanking morale—is feminism, George Bush must be the feminist icon of the ages.

BURN!

Racism Update

The Secret Service is in on the fun, too, according to e-mails handed over in a racial discrimination lawsuit. Slate's Hot Document series has them here. No, I won't repeat any excerpts here, as I don't wish to dirty my page with them, so you'll have to look yourself.

I should mention that I got a hit yesterday off the search term "half breed muslim," because I quoted an article where someone described Obama in those words. I can't help wondering what that person was searching for.

Mav Gets OWNed

I've been added as a "featured blog" at One Wisconsin Now. Many thanks to them for the recognition.

However, I confess seeing my rather boring banner isolated on their page is making me think that maybe I need a new one. I'll try to get about rectifying that eventually.

On a Lighter Note. . .

MSNBC article headline: Seal tries sex with penguin.

Racism: Alive and Well

MSNBC has a piece on the bigoted responses Obama campaign volunteers have been encountering in states like Indiana and Pennsylvania. Money quote:

Victoria Switzer, a retired social studies teacher, was on phone-bank duty one night during the Pennsylvania primary campaign. One night was all she could take: "It wasn't pretty." She made 60 calls to prospective voters in Susquehanna County, her home county, which is 98 percent white. The responses were dispiriting. One caller, Switzer remembers, said he couldn't possibly vote for Obama and concluded: "Hang that darky from a tree!"

Wow. But even worse are the people who are quoted as saying, "He's a half-breed and he's a Muslim. How can you trust that?" and "I think if it was somebody other than him, I'd accept it. If Colin Powell had run, I would be willing to accept him."

Can someone explain exactly what the fundamental difference between Obama's "blackness" and Colin Powell's is that makes this voter willing to "accept" one, but not the other? I'm hoping it's more than their names, but that seems like the only possibility.

Having worked on campaigns in the past and endured the inevitable abuse that comes when you knock on the door of someone who supports the other guy, or when you call someone who just really doesn't like your candidate. (A funny anecdote: When I volunteered for the Gore campaign, I once knocked on the door of what turned out to be the home of a supporter of Pat Buchanan. I'm sure you can imagine what came of that.) But never did I have to endure the vitriol that these Obama workers are getting, and my heart goes out to them.

I'm hopeful that if Obama gets elected and the sky doesn't fall afterward, at least some of these people might have a change of heart and realize that a candidate's skin color, middle name, and father's religion have absolutely nothing to do with his or her qualifications to hold our nation's highest office. If that happened, can anyone say that our country wouldn't be better for it?

American Dad does Oliver North

This song was on last night's episode. Absolutely brilliant, and fairly educational on the subject of Iran-Contra. For a cartoon, that is.

And Seth McFarlane can sing pretty well, too. But I think many episodes of Family Guy have established that.

Enjoy.

Sullivan-stravaganza!

All of these are ripped from Andrew Sullivan:

First: This is pretty bad. Apparently Obama isn't "full-blooded American." By that, I assume the person being interviewed means "white."

Second: One of the simplest, and most effective statements about why we shouldn't torture:

"The Geneva Conventions were set aside in February 2002 by decision of the president, at the insistence of Doug Feith and a small group, including some lawyers. And the memo by Donald Rumsfeld then came in December, 2002, after they had identified Muhammed al-Qahtani. But it was permitted to occupy the space that had been created by clearing away the brush work of the Geneva Conventions. And by removing Geneva, that memo became possible.

Why does it abandon American values? It abandons American values because this military in this country has a very fine tradition, as we've been discussing, of not doing cruelty. It's a proud tradition, and it's a tradition born on issues of principle, but also pragmatism. No country is more exposed internationally than the United States. I've listened, for example, to Justice Antonin Scalia saying, if the president wants to authorize torture, there's nothing in our constitution which stops it. Now, pause for a moment. That is such a foolish thing to say. If the United States president can do that, then why can't the Iranian president do that, or the British prime minister do that, or the Egyptian president do that? You open the door in that way, to all sorts of abuses, and you expose the American military to real dangers," - Philippe Sands.

And third: Courtesy of SNL, a pretty accurate assessment of why Hillary isn't dropping out:

Constitutional Perspective

Slate has a legal blog going called Convictions, where several prominent legal scholars are currently debating the ins and outs of liberal constitutionalism versus Justice Scalia's "original expected intent" philosophy. This morning's post is by Jack Balkin of Balkinization (skip straight to full text here), and is certainly worth the read. Here's the money passage:

Scalia well knows that strictly applied, his version of originalism produces results that would be unpalatable to most Americans. He accepts the New Deal not because he thinks that it is faithful to the original meaning but because he agrees that we have to keep the nonoriginalist precedents that permitted it around. They are all mistakes but we have to accept them. So he routinely accepts expansive federal power that is well beyond what the framers would have imagined. That is why he calls himself a "faint hearted originalist." But "faint hearted" is another way of saying "my principles are wildly unrealistic and I throw them out the window whenever they would be too politically embarrassing."

In fact, Scalia isn't really an originalist at all. He is what I would call a "New Deal/Brown originalist." That is, he is a conservative who accepts the New Deal and very basic elements of the civil rights revolution because all Americans have come to accept them, but insists that we go no further down that road. Scalia is not defending the framers; he's actually defending a conservative version of the constitutional status quo circa 1960. There is no particular reason to defend the Constitution of 1960 from further change. It is certainly not the framers' constitution. And it is not our Constitution.

Scalia may say his originalism is respectful of majority rule, but he is perfectly happy to strike down lots of laws for which there is little basis in the original expected application: Affirmative action and commercial speech are two examples; Bush v. Gore is another. Scalia says that his philosophy leaves decisions to We the People, and only imposes limits the framers would have imposed. To quote his own opinion in Lawrence v. Texas: Do not believe it. Scalia picks and chooses when to apply his originalist rhetoric, to strike down laws he opposes and uphold laws that he likes or that he realizes would be to embarrassing to strike down. There are several things we might call this, but judicial restraint isn't one of them.

Ouch.

I'll have more thoughts on this later, but for now, I must get to work.

Wigderson versus U.S. Constitution

Hmmmm.

Dropping into Milwaukee to remind us all why she was President Ronald Reagan’s biggest mistake, former US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor told her audience that electing judges is wrong, and that Arizona has a better way. Of course, the Arizona method made her a judge, and her tenure on the US Supreme Court is strong evidence that an unaccountable judiciary is not a good thing.

Okay. I can understand having objections to changing Wisconsin's judiciary to an appointed, rather than elected, one. Reasonable people certainly can disagree. But is Wigderson really saying that the framers made a huge mistake when they wrote Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, which reads as follows:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, recieve for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

(Emphasis mine.) Yes, Sandra Day O'Connor is proof positive that the framers got it wrong. It's miraculous that the Republic was not undone by her wanton flip-floppery. (Sarcasm!) Of course, Wigderson is probably thanking his lucky stars that Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito will be serving for life or good behavior, so I really wonder if he'd be willing to give that up in exchange for knowing that there would be no more "unaccountable" O'Connors on the loose.

I suppose I could use Scalia et al as evidence that an appointed judiciary is a bad thing. But I accept that the framers intended for Supreme Court justices to be essentially above reproach. I would argue that justices of state supreme courts serve much the same function and deserve the same protection, be they liberal or conservative. Justices of the highest courts in the land, be it the state or the country, should not, to my mind, have to worry about whether following the law will cost them in the next election. The framers, at least, understood this when they wrote Article III, Section 1.

What Clinton Ought to Do

This is a wise suggestion.

Read into it whatever you want.

Meanwhile, Sullivan posts this analysis of her campaign.

New to the National Blogroll

Pruning Shears, a blog intended to "make the issue of executive power the main issue in the forthcoming 2008 presidential debates." As I'm in agreement that the power of the executive has grown by unfathomable amounts during the current administration, I would be remiss if I didn't add it to the blogroll. Check it out.

McCain's Bigger Pastor Problem

Forget Hagee. Forget Wright. Forget Farrakhan. Apparently America was founded with the destruction of Islam in mind. I kid you not. Sullivan has the scoop.



Every conservative who is bashing Obama for Wright's remarks has some 'splaining to do about why what Wright said (and Obama rejected) is bad (no argument here), but what Rod Parsley says (and McCain has not rejected) is just fine.

Zing!

I don't like American Spectator magazine. At all. But this conservative rebuke of "Operation Chaos hits the nail on the head:

IT HAS BECOME popular in conservative circles these days to suggest that "you just gotta admire her tenacity," a sentiment that is advanced at her campaign rallies.

Introducing Clinton, North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley said she was "strong as train smoke." Bill Clinton, speaking outside the campaign's Raleigh headquarters in an 11 p.m. appearance (his ninth of the day), fed into this narrative, boasting, "You know, they declared her dead more times than a cat's got lives."

But what is there to admire about this so-called "tenacity"? Clinton began this campaign with a financial edge, the support of a popular former Democratic president, a built-in political apparatus, a consistent lead of more than 20 points in national polls, and more than a hundred superdelegates.

If a candidate starts off with all of those advantages and is too stubborn to drop out of the race, it's no surprise that she is still hanging on.

There is absolutely nothing admirable about a politician so narcissistic and hungry for power that she is willing to say or do whatever suits her political interests at any given moment.

If the Republican Party has declined to the point where conservatives are so worried about defeating a freshman Senator that they are rooting for Clinton to do their dirty work for them, it is simply pathetic.

H/T: Andrew Sullivan.

Oh, and while I'm directing people to Sullivan, here's his link to this blog post about Kathryn-Jean Lopez and her torture stance, which is quite at odds with the Pope's. Wonder when she'll get the John Kerry treatment and be denied communion. I'm not holding my breath.

You Know My Name

Can we all just stop with the flag pin flap?

Zach wrote a great post yesterday about how the righties have been carefully avoiding the fact that John McCain has stopped wearing his lapel pin while browbeating Obama for the very same sin. I've covered the very same phenomenon in the form of Congressman Jack Kingston bashing Obama on national TV over the issue of the flag pin while neglecting to wear his own, and then forgetting to wear it again when he went to his home district.

I've got a shocking idea: How about we all agree that true patriotism is not something as banal as a lapel pin and move on. If anyone disagrees with that sentiment, I would inquire unto them thusly: Does wearing a crucifix necklace automatically make one a good Christian? How is that any different?

Then again, I don't wear a flag pin on my lapel either, as I prefer to use the limited advertising space on my suit lapels to tout my status as an alumnus of Knox College.

Huge Drug Bust at San Diego State

Wow. Just wow.

Money quote:

Two kilograms of cocaine were seized, along with 350 Ecstasy pills, marijuana, psychedelic mushrooms, hash oil, methamphetamine, illicit prescription drugs, several guns and at least $60,000 in cash, authorities said.

Two kilograms? I'm not exactly abreast of the day-to-day street value of cocaine, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that that's worth a whole lot of money. To put it simply, the text message shown in the article quotes a (reduced) price of $35 a gram. Multiply that by 2000, and you get $70,000 worth of blow. In a frat house. Absolutely unbelievable.

I'd imagine the fallout from this will include a wider investigation to determine who these people were selling to, because unless they have "customers" with massive pocketbooks (not to mention a cocaine habit that is completely out of control), I'd imagine they sell to a lot of people.

Good for the authorities to get those drugs off the campus. I hope they throw the book at these guys, or at least leverage a deal to figure out who on earth sold that much coke to a bunch of frat boys.

Are we there yet?

Russert thinks it's over. It might go on a bit longer, but I just don't see how any superdelegates who haven't decided on Hillary already are going to do so now. She barely wins Indiana, and he crushes her in North Carolina. His position improved, hers did not. Who can she tap for money that she hasn't already gotten the maximum amount from?

Guess this campaign might be ending with a bit of a dull "thud" rather than the shock-and-awe, knock-down-drag-out convention fight many were predicting.

Welcome Home, Mav

I think IT has the right idea here. One day McAdams says the left hates speech it disagrees with (implying that conservatives are big enough not to do the same), the next he's screaming his head off about Maher's "hate speech" against Christians.

Har har. Check please.

Personally, I'm totally cool with idiot righties making as much noise as they want. The more Hagee, Robertson, (Falwell while he was alive), et al ranted and raved about this and that, the more they made their defenders look ridiculous.

Okay, so I just sort of violated my policy of not revealing my religious preference, because I guess you could infer from that statement that I'm not a fundamentalist Baptist or a Pentecostalist. Then again, I'd imagine that much was evident from the beginning of this blog. So if you feel the urge to guess my affiliation so that you may pigeonhole me and criticize my positions on religious grounds (i.e., my positions are incompatible with said affiliation and I am going to Hell, or said affiliation is wrong and I am going to Hell), go right ahead. You'll probably be sadly mistaken, but I can't help but notice that there are several bloggers who must feel compelled to remind themselves of the superiority of their faith over any other.

Take it away, Coheed and Cambria.



Another day of delving into the daily tete-a-tetes of the Wisconsin blogosphere after the chaos of finals. That song seemed appropriate.

Fire at Marquette?

Does anyone know anything about a fire in Humphrey Hall yesterday?

I only ask because, as I was walking back from the Law School around 9:15 AM yesterday, I walked past the building just as something like 8 fire trucks and I don't even know how many Marquette Public Safety and Milwaukee Police Department squad cars rolled up. I saw hydrants being opened and firemen heading in, and heard a bunch of officers yelling about a fire into their radios. I would have stayed to find out what was going on, but I had a take-home final to finish.

Don't Stop Believing

My last exam is tomorrow, so regular blogging should resume tomorrow evening or Tuesday. Thanks to all my readers for bearing with me. Until then, enjoy this classic, which I can't resist posting, partly because it was the theme song of my beloved White Sox (I split time between the Sox and Brewers, both of which lead me to despise the Cubs) during their World Series run in 2005.