Thoughts, comments, musings on life, politics, current events and the media.



Blogroll Me!


Comments by YACCS

 

Black humor

Was I the only one whose first thought, after hearing of Strom Thurmond's death, was that Trent Lott was probably saying to himself, "Damn, why couldn't this have happened six months ago?"
posted by David Nieporent at 6/27/2003 09:01:00 PM |

 

Shock and Awe

Michelangelo Signorile of the New York Press doesn't get it:

It was a week of raised eyebrows and dropped jaws on the sexual diversity front. Sit down for this one, but George W. Bush actually seemed to get it recently while meeting a transgendered woman in, of all places, the White House. In a report sent my way over a week after it was published–and apparently unnoticed elsewhere–San Francisco Chronicle columnist Leah Garchik noted that at W.’s recent Yale reunion at the White House, Yale alum Louise Casselman saw a female classmate approach Bush.

"You might remember me as Peter," the woman stated, referring to her years with Bush at Yale, which was an all-male school at the time. Bush apparently didn’t bat an eyelid, grabbed her hand, and replied, "Now you’ve come back as yourself." (No word yet on what Christian Right leaders thought of that–perhaps because no other media organization seems to have picked up on it–nor if Karl Rove will have Bush backing away from the comment).

"Sit down for this one"? Only if you're a leftist like Signorlie are you going to be shocked and amazed that the President can be a decent guy!


posted by Peter at 6/25/2003 09:42:00 PM |

 

A voice of reason

In the midst of a series of death threats issued in the name of the religion of peace against those who offend its followers, Salman Rushdie asks where, after all, is the Muslim outrage at these events? That's what I'd like to know. If, as we're told, Islam is a religion of peace, if, as we're told, most Muslims don't support Muslim fanaticism, then where are these people? Islamic rioters in Nigeria have killed hundreds of people in a couple of days, but... silence. But let one Israeli soldier shoot a Palestinian teenager, even if that Palestinian is himself rioting, and we hear an international outcry. Isn't it time someone holds the Islamic world to the same standards as the rest of us?
posted by David Nieporent at 6/25/2003 03:31:00 PM |

 

If I were a rich man

From the New York Times editorial on the Michigan cases:

The court's analysis was far from perfect. In evaluating the undergraduate program, the majority was too quick to accept that all uses of race are equally suspect — that helping disadvantaged blacks is akin to saving seats at the front of a bus for whites. The court also failed to recognize that the point scale, by giving a distinct but limited advantage to minority applicants, used just the sort of "plus" factor Bakke permitted.

Here's what the New York Times doesn't mention: the undergraduate program was not designed to "help disadvantaged blacks." Indeed, the exact opposite: the undergraduate program was designed to help already advantaged blacks.

The "point system" established by the University of Michigan gave a bonus to all disadvantaged people, regardless of skin color -- and under the system, an applicant could earn only one bonus in this area. (In other words, a poor black could get the plus for being poor, or for being black, but not both.) Hence, even in the absence of the black bonus, disadvantaged blacks would get the boost, by virtue of being disadvantaged. In short, the only blacks who needed the "black boost "were middle-class or rich. In other words, the people who need it least.

So, what explains the editorial comment?
A) The New York Times didn't know how the program worked.
B) The New York Times was being deliberately misleading.
C) The New York Times thinks all blacks are inherently disadvantaged simply because of their skin color.
D) Some combination of the above.
posted by David Nieporent at 6/24/2003 04:17:00 AM |

 

Same difference

I noted that the two Michigan policies (undergraduate and law school) were similar; the Washington Post agrees, in an editorial (while supporting the ruling):

The undergraduate program differs from the law school's less in its substance than in its transparency; it systematizes much that the law school leaves to the invisible discretion of admissions officers. The message is that the use of race will stand a better chance of being sustained if it is shrouded in vague terms than if it is quantified and easily assessed.

Exactly my point about O'Connor's dust-splitting. She felt the need to wobble, so she invented imaginary distinctions between the two programs, but there's no difference between adding 20 points to a specific score in order to get a "critical mass" and adding a "flexible, nonmechanical" bonus to a non-specific score in order to get a "critical mass." In each case, the admissions office starts with the desired outcome and then works backwards, racially, until it gets the preferred statistics.
posted by David Nieporent at 6/24/2003 04:04:00 AM |

 

Deep thoughts

Having read the two Supreme Court race preference decisions today, a few brief thoughts that came to mind:

1. While not shocked, I was a little surprised (although I shouldn't have been) to see these cases come down as they did. I couldn't see any real difference between the undergraduate and law school policies, and assumed that a judge trying to evaluate the cases would come down on them the same way. In retrospect, I'm convinced I was right in my evaluation -- the two policies being challenged are very similar -- and naive in my politics. The issue was never really whether the policies were similar, but whether they looked different enough so that people could pretend that there were distinctions. With Sandra Day O'Connor being the key vote, of course the court was able to find distinctions. Where some people split hairs, O'Connor splits invisible specks of dust.
   
   
2. Here's something to ponder: if there had been only one case, instead of two, how would Justice O'Connor have ruled? It's obviously harder to split the difference -- not that O'Connor wouldn't have tried -- when you have to make a ruling one way or the other. By presenting her with two cases, the University of Michigan gave her an easy out: strike down one program, and uphold the other.
   
   
3. Does O'Connor receive kickbacks from trial lawyers? These decisions, while definitively clarifying one point -- that "diversity" is a compelling interest which justifies racial discrimination -- give very little guidance to schools. They know they can't explicitly give fixed points for race, that they need to provide "individualized" assessments of candidates. But unless they copy the Michigan law school plan exactly -- and it may be rather difficult to scale up a plan designed for a few hundred students to a situation involving tens of thousands of applicants -- they're going to be subject to litigation from every third non-minority student rejected.
   
   
4. These decisions may create muddled law, but they make one thing abundantly clear: diversity is a total red herring, a desperate attempt to find some rationalization for a policy everyone knows can't be justified. George Bush was criticized by his political adversaries before the Iraq war began for allegedly giving continually shifting reasons as to why war with Iraq was justified, but he had nothing on supporters of race preferences. In O'Connor's opinion alone, we hear, inter alia, that diversity (as represented by a "critical mass") can help teach whites that blacks can think differently -- though one would hope that an elite school would only admit applicants who already knew this -- that diversity teaches white people to understand black people, that diversity teaches white people to get along with black people, and that diversity will cause citizens to have faith in our politicians. But nothing explaining why any of these represent a compelling state interest.
   
   
5. Justice Scalia really doesn't care about making friends, does he? What other justice would dare write that the respondents' argument -- one accepted by the court's majority -- "challenges even the most gullible mind."?

I'm sure much more will come to me as I have more time to digest these cases.
posted by David Nieporent at 6/24/2003 03:40:00 AM |

 

Show wrist, slap

Orin Kerr points us towards this rare story of a "Nigerian" scammer (that is, he was running the Nigerian scam; he himself wasn't Nigerian) actually being caught and punished. Sort of. He cheated at least 20 people of at least $6 million, and prosecutors think it could be as much as $15 million. (Admittedly, it was a Canadian $6 million, which is worth about three dollars and seventy-five cents American.) He "has a history of fraud convictions dating back to the 1960s." And do you know how much prison time this recidivist criminal got?

Mr. Statz, an Alberta native, was sentenced to 18 months probation, and was given credit for 10 months he already spent in custody.

In short, none. Just the time already spent in prison.

I'm not sure I actually have much sympathy for the victims; if this was a typical Nigerian scam, the scammer tells his prey that he needs their help in escaping with ill-gotten gains. But do you think, perhaps, that might not have a "history of fraud convictions" if the government would actually take his crimes seriously?

Sheesh, if I want to break the law, I know what country I'm moving to.
posted by David Nieporent at 6/22/2003 10:30:00 PM |

 

Good theory, poor execution

Over in Reason, Ron Bailey has a column explaining why he joined the ACLU for the first time, prompting a discussion over in their blog.

I was a card-carrying member of the ACLU for a long time -- enduring jibes from certain other members of my family (you know who you are). I've always thought of the ACLU in the abstract as playing a crucial role; it's important to have an organization standing up to the government, taking on unpopular causes, fighting for civil liberties even at times like this, when many are ready to toss the Bill of Rights overboard.

The problem is that this describes the ACLU in the abstract. In practice, the ACLU all too often seems to be a one-track-minded organization that is more interested in making petty points in the name of ideological purity than in doing the things we need them out there doing. Now, I'm not talking about the fact that they've only decided to focus on certain aspects of civil liberties (e.g. speech, equal protection), while ignoring others (e.g. gun rights, economic liberty). That's reasonable, if a little disappointing; after all, we can find other organizations (the NRA, the Institute for Justice) to handle those matters. Rather, I refer to their obsession with the most trivial of issues, as long as those issues fit their agenda.

Take, for instance, this case. The ACLU recently lost a suit over a county court's seal. The seal, a one-inch circle stamped only on court documents, contains a picture of the ten commandments. Well, actually, that's not quite accurate -- actually, it contains a picture of two rounded stone tablets, with the roman numerals I-X on them, and no text at all. The ACLU spent three years litigating over this. And in describing this in the past tense, I'm being misleading; according to the story, they're still planning to appeal further.

Now, let's stipulate for the sake of argument that the ACLU is right. Maybe this is a clear violation of the Constitution -- though they couldn't find judges who agreed. But who cares? Is it important? Why on earth would you spend limited time and resources litigating this? Some guy out there was offended. Big deal. The ACLU will spend mucho time ranting about the evil John Ashcroft and the horrible Patriot Act -- but then they spend their resources suing over whether a couple of tablet-shaped blips that nobody ever sees in something the size of a quarter violate the Constitution. Good choice, guys.

And then there are the issues on which the ACLU takes a political stand, such as arguing against school vouchers or for driver's licenses for illegal aliens. These policies may be good ideas, or bad ideas, but they're far outside the areas upon which the ACLU should be focusing. They, of course, have every right to take such stands; I just don't want to support an organization which does so. These are policy matters, not civil liberties matters.

If I'm going to give them my money, I expect them to use it for the big issues. The big legal issues. So, currently, I'm not a member. I'll give my money to the Institute for Justice instead.
posted by David Nieporent at 6/22/2003 08:07:00 PM |

 

Who paid for this study?

If Eugene Volokh can write about Lesbian Barbie to increase his hit counts, then I can write about women sexually aroused by other women.

It's no surprise that lesbians like to watch lesbian pornography. But the big news in a new study is that they also get turned on by watching heterosexuals and gay men have sex.

And straight women? They like it all, too.

The findings confirm what researchers have suspected for some time -- women may prefer to date one gender or the other, but they get sexually aroused by both.

Men, on the other hand, aren't nearly as flexible. Straight men like to watch women have sex, and gay men like to watch men. Case closed.

So the dreams of teenage males everywhere are for real? Women are all attracted to other women?

And what does this all mean? From the researchers' press release:

“The fact that women’s sexual arousal patterns are not all predicted by their sexual orientations suggests that men’s and women’s minds and brains are very different,” Bailey said.

Well, duh. Don't you wish you had tenure?
posted by David Nieporent at 6/22/2003 12:00:00 AM |