The Orwellian logic of William Kristol

In a world of straw-man arguments, where winning means loosing and failure means success, William Kristol’s editorial, The Left’s Cruelest Month, must seem rational.

For anyone else however, it was a silly attempt first to misrepresent what “the left” wants, and then to argue that things are going splendidly for Bush!

According to Kristol, “the left” was supposed to want the following things to happen in October:

• The meltdown of the loathed Bush presidency
  
• Iraq to fail
  
• Gas prices to rise
  
• A weak Supreme Court nominee to be under assault,
  
• The White House was under siege from a special prosecutor.
  

What more, he asked, could a Bush-hater want? Of the 5 items listed above, the first is probably what liberals most want, not because we hate Bush (although many do), but primarily because to the extent that virtually every policy that comes out of this White House is bad for this country, a so-called “meltdown” (whatever that means) would likely force Bush to either reverse course to more sensible policies or actually (GASP!) compromise with the half of the country who disagrees with him. In fairness, of course, we also really want the last one as well but again not because liberals want to embarrass Bush (although again, some want to). Liberals however, mainstream one's anyway, do not frequently behave like conservatives. Remember that when Clinton was impeached, Republicans seemed less concerned about finding the truth than about publishing every lurid disgusting sexual detail that had nothing to do with perjury and everything to do with degrading the President.

No, liberals are eager to see the White House “under siege from a special prosecutor” because as far as this liberal is concerned, the administration broke the law and have gotten away with it because of a partisan Congress. As for Iraq failing and gas prices increasing, no liberal who actually knows what the word means wants those things to happen. They are happening, and to the extent that it is because of something the administration has done or has not done, liberals are going to point it out. So, Mr. Kristol, do not confuse pointing out the failures of this administration for the sake of democratic accountability with actually desiring those failures. For 8 years, Republicans lamented Clinton’s policies and pointing out every failing and yet I cannot any prominant liberal accusing them of actually wanting us to fail in Kosovo or Bosnia for example, or in the Middle East (they may have been out there mirroring Kristol current charges but I am not familiar with any- by all means correct me if I am mistaken).

Kristol than goes on to note how great things are doing for Bush and for Iraq. “On October 15, the Iraqi people voted for the second time this year, and progress--slow and difficult--gradually became visible on the ground. The economy, it turned out, was chugging along at a 3.8 percent growth rate. Harriet Miers withdrew--and President Bush followed that foul ball with a home run in the impressive person of Judge Samuel Alito. And the special prosecutor produced only one indictment, and one that will lead no further than a trial focused on what Scooter Libby said or didn't say to three journalists."

How odd it is that the Associated Press titled their headline only a few days ago, “Bush Looks to Bounce Back from Bad News.” From the AP: “The week that was: conservatives in the president's own party hounded him into withdrawing Harriet Miers' Supreme Court nomination; the U.S. death toll in Iraq surpassed 2,000; and Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff was indicted by a federal grand jury.”

According to polls, 62% of Americans do believe that someone in the White House leaked the name of a CIA agent, and what’s more, an astounding 86% of Americans believe that it has some or great importance (only 62% believed the same of the Clinton scandal and 81% thought that of Iran-Contra). And not that it should be much of a comfort for liberals, but if the 2004 presidential election were held today, Kerry would beat Bush by 5 points (with 13% saying that they would vote for someone else). To top it off, Bush’s approval rating is now 35% and falling (don’t worry though, the Republican Congress rated even lower). Only Nixon’s numbers were lower, and not by THAT much. By the way, did anyone notice that Democrats won both gubernatorial campaigns last night, despite (or perhaps because of) Bush’s last-minute campaign stops for the Republican candidate in VA? According to those like Kristol however, this is all part of the master plan and that Bush has those nasty liberals right where he wants them! Right.

In 2003, pundits and observers noted with laughter the statements of “Baghdad Bob,” whose press statements were so divorced from reality ("There is no presence of American infidels in the city of Baghdad” he said in April after the US occupation of the city had already been broadcast on CNN) he became a figure of mockery. We have our own versions of Baghdad Bob, true believers in the infallibility of Bush and it seems pretty clear that one of them is an editor for the Weekly Standard.

Frist's fits

In a Chicago Tribune editorial today, Bill Frist again launched into the feigned self-righteousness that has become emblematic of the Republican leadership. “Many Democrats.” Frist laments, “have decided to mock the Senate's rules in the name of partisan advantage. For more than three years, the Democrats have abused Senate rules to impede the judicial nomination process.”

Ah, the “abuse Senate rules” charge. We have been hearing this ever since the Democrats began filibustering. And what is the abuse here? Even if filibustering judges were truly unprecedented (which is not exactly true), why is filibustering a judge that could easily be re-nominated, appointed during Congressional recess, or replaced with a slightly less crazy individual, more insidious or abusive than filibustering a piece of legislation?

In other words, why do Republicans believe that filibustering important legislation like Civil Rights (a la Strom Thumond, who holds the filibuster record at over 24 hours), or filibustering Wilson’s League of Nations in 1919 (initiated by another Republican) are legitimate uses of the filibuster but judicial nominees, who serve for life and can effect millions of Americans with their rulings, are illegitimate and indeed “abusive”?

And has the use of filibusters really, as Frist charges, “impeded the judicial nomination process”? Let’s take a look at a few facts:

• Today, 97% of the federal judiciary is filled, and there are fewer vacancies since the Reagan Administration. There are now fewer vacancies on both the Circuit and District Courts than at any time in President Clinton's two terms.
• 88% of Bush's nominees have been confirmed thus far, compared to 81% confirmed during Clinton's first four years.
• Democrats have actually exercised their right to filibuster, thus prompting the Republicans to consider abolishing this time-honored practice, a mere 10 times (if you include the threat of filibuster- only 7 have actually been filibustered) and Bush re-nominated almost all of them! Those judges included such ultra-conservative activists as Priscilla Owen, Miguel Estrada, and David McKeague (who was filibustered largely as a result of the Senate Judiciary Chair’s disrespect of the ‘blue slip’ by home-state Michigan Senators - an established Senate precedent which allows for a Senator to put a hold on a troubling nominee to a court in his/her state. McKeague was then renominated in February, 2005, and confirmed after the compromise on the filibuster and after the Michigan Senators withdrew their objections).
  

In short, there is nothing alarming or abusive about the Democrats filibustering a small handful of judicial nominees, men and women who will serve on the bench and effect public policy long after every Senator in Congress has gone.

If Frist’s exaggerated and melodramatic cries about how abusive the judicial filibuster is fails to confront reality, his next claim is perhaps the most hypocritical talking point of them all (a high charge given how hypocritical Republicans have become since Bush took office):

Said Frist, “As a body, the Senate needs to debate and deliberate but, ultimately, it exists to vote. If Alito has enough votes for approval, he should take his place on the bench. If he does not, the president will have to find another nominee. It's that simple.”

That simple, aye? Frist was elected to the Senate in 1994, during the so-called Republican Revolution, so he must be aware that what is saying directly contradicts his party’s actions under President Clinton.

Prior to the late 1990’s, virtually every judicial nominee received a hearing

From Herman Schwartz’s article, Senate Rules Meltdown:

“All this changed in 1996. Rather than openly challenge President Clinton's nominees on the floor, Republicans decided to deny them Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. Between 1996 and 2000, 20 of Bill Clinton's appeals-court nominees were denied hearings, including Elena Kagan, now dean of the Harvard Law School, and many other women and minorities. In 1999, Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch refused to hold hearings for almost six months on any of 16 circuit-court and 31 district-court nominations Clinton had sent up. Three appeals-court nominees who did manage to obtain a hearing in Clinton's second term were denied a committee vote, including Allen R. Snyder, a distinguished Washington lawyer, Clinton White House aide, and former Rehnquist law clerk, who drew lavish praise at his hearing -- but never got a committee vote. Some 45 district-court nominees were also denied hearings, and two more were afforded hearings but not a committee vote.

Even votes that did occur were often delayed for months and even years. In late 1999, New Hampshire Republican Bob Smith blocked a vote on 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Richard Paez for months by putting an anonymous hold on the nomination. When Majority Leader Trent Lott could no longer preserve the hold, Smith and 13 other Republicans tried to mount a filibuster against the vote, but cloture was voted and Paez easily confirmed. It had been over four years since his nomination.

When his tactics on the Paez and Marsha Berzon nominations (Berzon was filibustered along with Paez, more than two years after her nomination) were challenged, Smith responded with an impassioned floor speech in defense of the judicial filibuster: "Don't pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don't think deserves to be on the circuit court ... That is my responsibility. That is my advice and consent role, and I intend to exercise it.”

So why don’t the Democrats try and use the same tactics as the Republicans did? In part, it is because the Republicans changed the rules once they controlled the game. Senator Hatch, then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced that he would abandon the "blue-slip system" he had insisted on since 1995, whereby a senator could block action on a nominee from his or her home state. This system permitted Jesse Helms to block all of the three black candidates to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Anonymous floor holds were also abolished, as was the rule requiring that at least one minority-party senator on the Judiciary Committee must agree to a vote on a nominee if any committee member objects. These rules changes left the Democrats with only the filibuster.

Frist and other Republicans base their charges on two simple assumptions and they are that Americans neither know or care about Senate procedures, and that Americans have a short enough memory span not to realize that everything Frist says is contracted by Republican actions during the Clinton administration. Sadly, those assumptions are likely correct, but I would implore anything reading this to consider the following two points:

At one time in our nations history, the House of Representatives allowed filibusters and unlimited speaking time. When they were forced to abandon it in the 1890’s because sectional North/South differences were dominating business, it radically altered the nature of the House, and left the Senate as the final haven for uninterrupted debate. If the Republicans abolish this right for judicial nominees, why would they not one day abolish it for regular legislation? And even if it were limited to judicial nominations, I suspect the law of unintended consequences will quickly show itself.

Ultimately, it is the Congress, and not the President, that is supposed to be the most direct arm of the American people. If Bush or the Republicans wanted to solve this “problem,” they could easily do so with negotiation and compromise, the very hallmark of our government. It is only because, like our current foreign policy, threats and demands are the only language the Republicans seem to know, that the issue of judicial filibusters have been forced on conscientious Democrats. The Republican opposition to judicial filibusters has nothing to do with principle or practicality and everything to do with forcing the Democrats to act and then trying to take political advantage by attacking them.

Judge a Book By Its Cover

The cover image for Bleeding Red is now up over at Amazon. It's like a real book!

Scarcity

I spent most of last week in Atlanta for the Southern Historical Association's annual meeting, and today I head off to DC for a wedding, research, and book stuff, so dcat will once again be in the hands of Marc, the British contingent, and a handful of ne'er do wells.

Misc. Red Sox Book Stuff

I've been getting a ton of emails from many of you about the Red Sox book. Among the most popular questions have been the following:

Will I sign the book?

Absolutely. I may be doing an appearance at the ESPNZone in either DC or Baltimore this week/weekend as well as a signing at a bookstore -- all tba. But since most of you do not live in the DC area, I will gladly sign any copies you send to me. The address is:

Derek Catsam
Dept. of Humanities and Fine Arts
University of Texas of the Permian Basin
4901 East University Blvd.
Odessa, TX 79762

The second question a surprising number of you have asked, not all tongue in cheek, is about Amazon reviews. Since the publicist for my book also wondered if anyone I knew would be writing reviews, I thought I would address this question. I do not want any of you planting reviews unless you get the book, read the book, and like the book. If you meet all of those criteria, of course, and you want to review it, who am I to stop you? But for the correpondent who asked if he should go on and write five different, glowing reviews, I'd say no, that would seem wrong. Obviously I'd love good reviews on Amazon. I just want them to be earnest.

Can I get the book at my local bookstore?

The odds are, no. My publisher is small, works on print-on-demand technology, (which means bookstores can not load up and then dump them back to the publisher if they don't sell them), and does not have the wide reach of a major trade press. The book may appear in bookstores in scattered places, and you can always order it, but your best bet is still to order it online. (Here's the Amazon Link again).

Thanks so much for all of your support. We have a modest sales spike now, and of course I hope more of you will consider buying the book.

Since when did less than half = "the public"?

Today’s Washington Post had a cover story titled: “Public Supportive of Alito.” Oddly however, the actual text of the article belies that title, claiming that only 49% of the public support him, with 30% unsupportive. The article went on to say the following:

“The poll suggests that Alito's supporters had some reason for concern. Initial public reaction to Alito was considerably less favorable than it has been to a number of other recent successful court nominees, according to Post-ABC News polls.”

Other finding from Gallup (courtesy of Taegan Goddard's Political Wire):

• If it becomes clear Alito would vote to reverse Roe v. Wade, Americans would not want the Senate to confirm him, by 53% to 37%.
  
• If most Senate Democrats oppose the nomination and decide to filibuster against Alito, 50% of Americans believe they would be justified, while 40% say they would not.
  
• If the Republicans pursue the "nuclear option" and eliminate the filibuster on judicial nominations, Americans would be evenly divided as to whether that tactic was justified -- 45% say it would be, 47% say it would not.

Bleeding Red (Shameless Self-Promotion Alert!)

Bleeding Red: A Red Sox Fan's Diary of the 2004 Season is now available at Amazon. I'm not sure when the cover image will be up and available, but it really does look pretty cool. Buy a copy for yourself, tell your friends, and do remember, the holiday season is coming up: Give the gift of reading!

3 items in the news

I have been so busy lately that I have not had much time to post, but a lot has happened lately so I figured I would weight in on the top three news items of the past week:

1) Rule 21

It seems the Libby indictment, which came without explanation or apology from the Bush administration (no surprise there) was the last straw for transforming the Bruce Banner-like Democratic Party into the more Hulk-like opposition party many of the rank-and-file has called for. The stunt, which entailed forcing the Senate into a rare closed-door session by invoking the now infamous “rule 21” (not to be confused with rule 66, requiring the death of all Jedi), infuriated Republicans, and prompting Senate Leader Bill Frist into what Dana Milbank called “a screaming temper tantrum.” The purpose was to force action on the stalled investigation into the pre-war claims by the administration regarding Iraq’s WMD. So, was it a good idea? A resounding YES, and for the following reasons:

• It worked: within two hours, Republicans appointed a bipartisan panel to report on the progress of a Senate intelligence committee report on prewar intelligence, which has been delayed for nearly a year.
• It actually puts the word “Democrats” in a news byline regarding something they did, rather than something they opposed. Better late than never. This not only invigorates Democrats throughout the nation (I know it did this one), but as a policy matter, having an opposition party question the seemingly obvious flaws in the case for war is good for the country.
• They are right! As far as I am concerned, this administration lied about what Iraq had prior to the war and any objective analysis of the evidence will demonstrate this. Those who disagree tend to simply be either misinformed, or so devoted to Bush, the messiah complex blinds them to reality (I recall one former HNN sparring partner who insisted that Iraq was indeed partly responsible for 9/11, had extensive ties to bin Laden, and his nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons will one day be uncovered or found to have been moved to Syria, and any media source that says otherwise is lying to discredit Bush- sigh). Thus, I am confident that any actual investigation will at least make clear to the American people what this administration has done. Even if there are ZERO legal ramifications (despite the fact that it would be, as John Dean wrote in this article that was later expanded into a book, “worse than Watergate”, history alone demands a complete analysis of what happened that led to this conflict.
• Finally, and least important, it was a good idea because in the short term, it prevented massive coverage on the other big story, the nomination of Samual Alito to the Supreme Court. Coverage of this only helps Bush since it tends to highlight his experience and qualifications and arouse the conservative base. And speaking of the nomination

2) Justice "Scalito"?

Obviously, any real evaluation should wait until the confirmation hearings, but really, that is like saying that speculation over who wins the Super bowl should wait until the game is over. So here is my two cents. Conservatives have demonstrated through the Miers fiasco what everyone but them admitted anyway: ideology matters and it is not just about qualifications. My first is impression is that Alito should be resisted by a united Democratic party. Although I do not yet believe that the Filibuster should be invoked, even a straight party line vote with Alito getting confirmed would be a powerful lesson to the American people to take their votes seriously in 2006 as well as a message to liberals that the Democrats are trying to help.

So why should Democrats oppose Alito? Not just because, as Charles Lane of the WP predicts, he would likely vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. No, the reason is simply because I believe that Alito is more conservative than a Justice should be, and even has a long record of judicial activism (defined here as overturning an act of the legislature) in pursuit of his conservative goals. Here is a sample of the rulings that concern me (courtesy of the Center for American Progress):

• In 1996, Judge Alito was the sole dissenter on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Rybar where his colleagues upheld Congress's right to ban fully automatic machine guns. Alito argued that Congress had no power under the Commerce Clause to enact such a law. But he did not stop there. He further demanded that "Congress be required to make findings showing a link between the regulation and its effect on interstate commerce, or that Congress or the president document such a link with empirical evidence."
• Striking down the FMLA: In the 2000 case Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, Alito used his judicial position to "prevent the federal government from enforcing civil rights protections." Alito held that Congress overstepped its authority under the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore had no power to require employers to comply with the Family Medical Leave Act. It should be noted that in 2003, the Supreme Court, led by the late Chief Justice, overturned Alito’s ruling.
  Regarding Anti-trust and discrimination laws: In the 2001 case, LePage's v. 3M Corp. Alito sided with the 3M Corp, arguing that its bundling techniques did not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act. Judge Sloviter, the sole dissenter on the 3-person panel, argued that Alito's decision would "weaken Section 2 of the Sherman Act to the point of impotence," in addition to weakening marketplace competition. (The Third Court eventually heard the case en banc and sided with Sloviter, in a 7-3 decision.)
• In Bray v. Marriott Hotels (1996), Marriott sought to deny the plaintiff, an African-American woman, the right to present her case of racial discrimination. Alito sided with Marriott, while the majority siding with Bray criticized Alito for overstepping his judicial role and "acting as a factfinder [and] taking it upon himself to interpret the meaning of the deposition testimony of one of the defendants." "Title VII would be eviscerated if our analysis were to halt where the dissent suggests," wrote the majority.

There is more, of course, but you get the idea: A review of his cases suggests that Alito’s judicial philosophy seems to be simply whatever his conservative ideology suggests.

3) So only Republicans can try Republicans?

In perhaps the most inexplicable news item I have heard recently, Former House majority leader Tom DeLay won an early round in his money-laundering and conspiracy trial Tuesday by getting a judge removed from the case. Why? The judge had donated money to Democratic causes, including John Kerry and MoveOn.org. This is astonishing! President Clinton’s impeachment trial was conducted by the Senate, and inherently political body, and the case of Bush v. Gore was decided by the following people:

• Justice O’Connor: After hearing that Florida had gone for Gore, and thus the election, O’Connor said, “This is terrible,” according to news reports and those present. Says one eye-witness, “when O'Connor angrily left to get her dinner from the buffet table upstairs, O'Connor's husband John explained that she was upset because the couple wanted to retire to Arizona, but that his wife would never vacate her seat if Gore won. She would remain on the court to deny Gore the opportunity of replacing her.”
• Justice Scalia: Uh… his son works in the law firms of Ted Olson and Barry Richard (click here and look under "S": Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher), attorneys representing George W. Bush's legal interest in the cases regarding the 2000 Presidential election. In other words, the man who argued the case before Scalia was his son’s boss!
• Justice Thomas: His WIFE, Virginia, worked at the Heritage Foundation reviewing Republican resumes for future appointments for the Bush administration! Note that section 455 of Title 28 of the United States Code, “Disqualification of Justices, Judges or Magistrates,” requires court officers to excuse themselves if a spouse has “an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”
  

And yet for the Republicans, only one of their own can justly sit over their case. Here is the problem with that twisted and clearly inconsistent belief: Texas, like most other states, elect their judges, putting them into a political position and most frequently aligning them with one party or another (even if they don’t, the parties will almost always give an endorsement to someone). Are we then to create two separate legal systems in this country, one for Democrats and one for Republicans? If you don’t like the idea of judges having political beliefs, than by all means, pass a law prohibiting it. But don’t create a system whereby any politician under investigation gets to select his own judge!! This is truly an astonishing, and frightening, development in our country. I wonder if it applies to race or sex, too?

Rosa Parks, Historical Complexity, and Timing Outrage

Juan Williams and Ellen Goodman address Rosa Parks' death and how her story was too often reduced to a comfortable and simplistic fable during her lifetime. The Williams piece is especially strong. Goodman is a bit defensively shrill, such as her response to Al Sharpton's gracious praise of Parks as "someone who 'changed American life, having never held public office, having no political ambition, just her quiet dignity and courage'.":

Is this how we praise women? As unambitious, accidental heroines?

I don't know, Ellen, is THIS how we honor the memory of our heroines? By making the story about our own outrage over something frankly not that outrageous? My God, I'd even say that on the whole, Sharpton was -- gasp -- right! There is plenty of reason still to be indignant over gender inequality in America. I'm not certain Goodman's piece captures it especially well or in the best context.

It must be hell being a featured columnist for one of the most respected newspapers in America.

San Antonio Bound

I'm off to San Antonio for the weekend, but I am sure you are in good hands with the rest of the dcat crew. My car has a sudden issue I cannot fix it until Tuesday so I will be heading to SA in a colleague's SUV that will make me feel cool even as it gets 13 miles to the gallon and I may as well just grind up American trops in lieu of gas. But on the plus side I get to take my first long trip with my XM satellite radio and I get barbacoa and tamales on Sunday morning, so it all evens out.

The Fisher DeBarry Case

"It just seems to be that way, that Afro-American kids can run very, very well. That doesn't mean that Caucasian kids and other descents can't run, but it's very obvious to me they run extremely well." These are the words that U.S. Air Force academy football coach Fisher DeBerry said in remarks broadcast Tuesday night by Denver television station KWGN. Given that his comments were about race, and may have been courting a stereotype, I suppose we should not be surprised that he is in hot water. I hope that my civil rights/anti-apartheid historian/liberal credentials are enough that what I am about to say does not get me in hot water, but Air Force should not punish DeBerry, who, beyond being a very successful coach (which is not all that important), also did not really say anything wrong.

Now don’t take me the wrong way – I would not place DeBerry as the most eloquent spokesman on race in America. But look at what he said – from his years of coaching football, in general black kids run well. There are white ids and others who run well, but black kids run well. Now I do take issue with the implied inclusion that “all “ black kids run well. They do not, of course, and I am sure DeBerry knows this.

Let me illustrate my argument by way of two anecdotes, both related to my own years as a track athlete in college, one of which may not make me look all that great, so I will tell it first:

I competed in events that Fisher DeBerry might associate with black success: The jumps, especially the long and the triple jump. Williams had a very good track team, and one of the great things about track and field is that you get to find out exactly where you are in the global hierarchy. In addition to being very numbers driven, if you are good enough at a lower level you will qualify for bigger meets. Williams is a division III school, but we routinely competed against DI schools. I was a good enough jumper to compete against the big boys, but I was well aware of where I fit into the overall world of track and field. In any case, when I would get to bigger meets where I may have known fewer of the athletes, or if I competed away from New England, say in the South, I would look around and scout out the competition. When I was trying to size up the competition, when I was looking at strangers wearing university of Miami or Florida State or Christopher Newport or whatever other jerseys, I would tend to focus more on the black jumpers than the white guys. I am not proud of it, but I am also not ashamed. And I certainly would not say that it was an illogical conclusion to draw. I would guess that I have a batter grasp on track and field than most of my readers, but even acknowledging that, I think I am on pretty firm ground to ask anyone who would criticize me the following question: Name five truly great white American long jumpers in the last ten years. Twenty years. Now the irony, as I discovered many times, is that there were times when I should have been watching out for the big white guy from Western Carolina or Albany State or the University of Miami (at the biggest meet I ever competed in, the Florida Relays in 1993, I got beaten out for third place by a Miami (Florida) guy on his last triple jump who was, if it is possible, paler than I am. There were even times when those guys maybe should have been looking out for me, as I ended up winning.

Anecdote #2: When my fellow jumper and teammate “Boogie” (His name was Stuart, but we called him Stu, and then it became “Boogie” after the Led Zeppelin song “Boogie With Stu”) would get to the really big meet, the DI/All New England meet, say, we’d always joke as we watched the early rounds of the sprints about the white guys and how they had better enjoy their time, because they would be watching the finals. Boogie was also a sprinter. He was also black. And lo and behold, once the finals of the 60 or 100 rolled around at the All New England meet or the Florida State relays or nationals, the finals were overwhelmingly African American. We were always joking, but the joke, like many jokes, had an element of truth to it.

I have no idea why this is so. There are certainly fast white guys. And Asian guys. And Hispanics. And most people, black, white, Asian, and Hispanic, are slow, cannot jump, cannot lift things and so forth – when you are looking at college athletes you are already talking about a genetically exceptional subset, so drawing widespread racial differences from the whole population seems foolish. But I will double down my bet on the long jumpers. I’ll grant you Jeremy Wariner, the 2004 Olympic Champion in the 400. I’ll even give you the Greek 200 runner who won in 2000 (and who failed a piss test in 2004 . . .) And I will remind you exactly what DeBarry said about white athletes: “That doesn't mean that Caucasian kids and other descents can't run.” And then I will ask a simple question related to the one I asked earlier: Howe many white medalists have their been in the Olympics and World Championships in the 100, 200, and 400 since 1968? That is 10 Olympics, times three events, times three medals in each event. I’m not much at math, but that is 90 possible medals. Even keeping in mind that the United States, the world’s most dominant sprint nation for most of that period, boycotted the 1980 Olympics, is there anyone out there who wants to bet that thirty (33%) of those medals went to athletes who were not black? Anyone want to bet on whether or not twenty (22%) did? Anyone for 15 (17%)? Now does anyone really want to make anysuch bets on American track and field teams during that same time period, which is the more relevant frame of comparison? I did not think so.

Now let’s bring it back o football. Jason Sehorn made some waves for the very fact that he was a decent white starting cornerback in the NFL. And in some attempts to explain why that was so, there was one compelling argument made: That one factor is that coaches simply steer black athletes toward certain positions and white athletes toward others so that irrespective of actual abilities, black kids in integrated high schools will play corner, their white teammate safety. That makes at least some sense.

But whatever the case, can anyone honestly say that however anecdotal, and however clumsily stated, Fisher DeBarry was actually wrong? And can his desire to recruit more black athletes to the Air Force Academy actually be something we want to condemn? Especially when DeBarry’s black players have rallied around him? It would seem patently unfair to punish him for his comments. There is lots of very real, very serious, very disturbing racism out there. There are coaches who certainly are racists. But it would be absurd to punish Fisher DeBerry for the current reality of the nature of the sprinting and jumping events and the skill positions in the NFL (and anyone who has been to a college track meet knows that these two things are fungible).

Tom: "Dear Diary"

Tom has a brilliant, touching post on memories (and diaries) over on Big Tent Extra. It's a must read.

The (Other) Sox Are Champs

Congratulations to the Chicago White Sox for ending an 88 year run of futility. I only know of one reader who is a White Sox fan, Chris Pettit, and to his eternal credit he is not one of those bandwagon guys temporarily switching his loyalties from the North Side.

The White Sox have an interesting history. Unlike the Red Sox they do not have a tremendous legacy of success that ended in them just falling short. There is not a lot of heartbreak. And the ChiSox are only the second most popular baseball team in their own city. listening to the announcers' calls, the baseball Tonight and Sortscenter guys, and reading the coverage, this year simply did not match the national story that was the Red Sox (then again, that comeback against the Yankees really helped make the Sox a great story in 2004).

Despite the uniqueness of the matchup, and the fact that Chicago and Houston are the third and fourth largest cities in the US, this World Series had record lows for viewership. I am sure this is made all the worse by the fact that the series ended in a sweep. On that front, however, this was the least lopsided sweep I have ever seen. last year, when THE Sox beat the Cards, they took the lead from the outset, never relinquished it, and at no time did it seem like they were in jeopardy of so much as losing a game. This year Houston had its chances but just could not pull any of those games out.

In any case, the White Sox were the best team and they proved as much when it counted. I miss baseball when it is gone, but it has the Hot Stove League, the best offseason of any sport. We have the free agent market, the pending MVP votes, and in the next few days the veins in my neck might pop out if the Red Sox do not sign Theo Epstein to a long-term deal.

Unintended Consequences: Harriet Miers Edition

Those liberals who are rubbing their hands in glee over the withdrawal of Herriet Miers probably ought to be a lot more circumspect. This is a victory for competence, to be sure, but only by happenstance. The real winners here are those on the Christian conservative right. My prediction: Bush is going to appoint a doctrinaire but highly qualified conservative now. Oddly, if no indictments come down today, this might go down as one of the unexpectedly victorious days for this teflon presidency, the day when he starts to turn the corner. If indictments do come down, it might end up the opposite -- the day the edifice crumbled. Stay tuned.

Has nation-building ever actually worked? Not usually.

I happen to disagree with some of the implications of the following article and believe that nation-building can indeed be effective and needs to be given more attention by academics and practitioners, and more international (read-American) legitimacy. Furthermore, in situations like Afghanistan, I am not really sure what the alternative to nation-building is, other than leaving the nation to descend into anarchy and blooshed. Simply because it has not worked when done unilaterally and hald-heartedly does not mean that it cannot work multilaterally and with sufficient dedication and resources.

Nevertheless, the following article, "Deconstructing Nation Building" by Dr. James L. Payne, which systematically shows that nation-building tends not to work by analyzing the 51 cases of "genuine" nation-building that the author identifies (his methodology is certainly open to debate) is well worth a serious look by anyone interested in the subject.

Here are some excerpts from the article:

• "To see how nation building in general works out, I have compiled a list of all the cases since 1850 in which the United States and Great Britain employed military forces in a foreign land to cultivate democracy. I included only those cases where ground troops were deployed and clearly intervened in local politics. I have left aside the cases involving lesser types of involvement such as sending aid or military advisors or limited peacekeeping efforts or simply having military bases in the country."

...

• "The nation-building idea has a critical, generally overlooked, gap: who knows how to do it? Pundits and presidents talk about nation building as if it were a settled technology, like building bridges or removing gall bladders. Huge amounts of government and foundation money have been poured into the topic of democracy building, and academics and bureaucrats have produced reams of verbose commentary. But still there is no concrete, useable body of knowledge. "

...

• "Nation building by military force is not a coherent, defensible policy. It is based on no theory, it has no proven technique or methodology, and there are no experts who know how to do it. The record shows that it usually fails, and even when it appears to succeed, the positive result owes more to historical evolution and local political culture than anything nation builders might have done. "

For more on this important issue, I would recommend Marina Ottaway's list of some common myths about nation-building from her article in Foreign Policy. For a more practical analysis of nation-building in recent times (including a discussion on Afghanistan and Iraq), you can check out former Ambassador James Dobbins' piece from the New York Jewish Times (and no, that is not just a crude pun on the New York Times). Here is an excerpt from Dobbins' piece:

• "Nation-building has been a growth industry since the end of the Cold War. The United Nations, NATO, the United States and more recently the European Union have all become engaged in missions that employ armed force in post-conflict environments with the objective of supporting a political transformation, that is to say democratisation. Not every recent military expedition fits this description, but nation-building, peace-building or stabilisation operations, depending on one’s preferred terminology, have become the dominant paradigm for the use of armed force in the post-Cold War world.
• Since 1989, the frequency, scale, scope and duration of these nation-building missions have steadily risen. During the Cold War the United States mounted a new military intervention, on average, once a decade. The United Nations launched a new peacekeeping operation, on average, once every four years. Since 1989, the frequency of US-led interventions is approaching one every other year. New UN peacekeeping missions are being launched, on average, about once every six months.
  
• The cumulative effect of all this activity has been measurably beneficial. Over the past decade the number of civil conflicts underway around the world has been halved and the annual death toll from such conflicts reduced still further. Contrary to the popular impression, the world has become a less violent place since the end of the Cold War. Armed force has proved an essential component of multinational action to prevent societies emerging from conflict from returning to it. Peacekeeping has proved itself the most cost-effective instrument available to the international community in such circumstances, the only one with high levels of success. Economic assistance can reinforce the effects of peacekeeping in a post-conflict society, but in the absence of externally provided military stabilisation, most countries emerging from conflict will return to it within a few years, no matter how much economic aid, advice and other forms of support they receive. "

New Deal = "Affirmative Action for Whites"?

I have been intending to post this piece by Columbia historian and political scientist Ira Katznelson for a while. i just received my copy of Katznelson's new book, When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth Century America, and while I have skimmed it, I am still looking forward to reading it. At its essence is a provocative argument that also informs this op-ed, which is about Katrina and some observers' responses that we need a new New Deal to address America's racial and class inequalities. The gist of Katznelson's argument:

It was during the administrations of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman that such great progressive policies as Social Security, protective labor laws and the GI Bill were adopted. But with them came something else that was quite destructive for the nation: what I have called "affirmative action for whites." During Jim Crow's last hurrah in the 1930s and 1940s, when southern members of Congress controlled the gateways to legislation, policy decisions dealing with welfare, work and war either excluded the vast majority of African Americans or treated them differently from others.

Between 1945 and 1955, the federal government transferred more than $100 billion to support retirement programs and fashion opportunities for job skills, education, homeownership and small-business formation. Together, these domestic programs dramatically reshaped the country's social structure by creating a modern, well-schooled, homeowning middle class. At no other time in American history had so much money and so many resources been targeted at the generation completing its education, entering the workforce and forming families.

But most blacks were left out of all this. Southern members of Congress used occupational exclusions and took advantage of American federalism to ensure that national policies would not disturb their region's racial order. Farmworkers and maids, the jobs held by most blacks in the South, were denied Social Security pensions and access to labor unions. Benefits for veterans were administered locally. The GI Bill adapted to "the southern way of life" by accommodating itself to segregation in higher education, to the job ceilings that local officials imposed on returning black soldiers and to a general unwillingness to offer loans to blacks even when such loans were insured by the federal government. Of the 3,229 GI Bill-guaranteed loans for homes, businesses and farms made in 1947 in Mississippi, for example, only two were offered to black veterans.

My impressionistic response is that this is an argument that should make us reconsider our concept of Affirmative Action more than the New Deal. We all knew the limitations of the New Deal when it came to race among many other things. certainly Katznelson's argument will not be startling to those familiar with harvard Sitkoff's, Pat Sullivan's, or John Egerton's work on race in the New Deal era, even though it seems that Katznelson's focus might bring some more critical focus to our ideas of what the New Deal meant. But where this might be an especially useful will be in confronting affirmative action, especially when people argue that the government should not be in the business of ameliorating past wrongs. if we can trace some of those wrongs not to the Governor's mansion in Jackson of the State House in Montgomery, we might suddenly have to address some harsh truths.

In any case, as I say, this is based on a skimming of the book and on the op-ed piece. I might change my tune when I read the whole book, but the argument about affirmative action for whites strikes me as a powerful one.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster (Is Your God)

One of the puzzlements of the age is how the proponents of "intelligent design" jumped the queue and established their view as a viable scientific alternative to biological evolution for America's classrooms. My experience with Darwin involved one history of science course at Williams, the theme of which was evolution. I am thus reasonably well aware of the competing challenges to Darwin, and the questions left unanswered. Yet in an entire semester of work my sophomore year, when I was feverishly trying to fill my science requirements and yet avoid actual science, in a course devoted to a healthy skepticism of doctrinaire Darwinian theory, never once did Intelligent Design come into play. And for good reason: Why should it? What is its scientific basis? It seems like a cute end-run around the wall of separation, but I sure as hell don't want future generations to be learning it alongside biology in their high schools. (And don't get me started about nimrods who go around saying "but evolution is just a theory!" apparently utterly ignorant of the differences between scientific theory and, say, Diane Chambers' theory of picking winning football teams by which mascot is better.)

In any case, you can imagine my amusement when I came across the Flying Spaghetti Monster, thanks to my colleague Roland Spickermann. Here is an excerpt from this brilliant theological treatise:

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

And here's the thing: Why not? If we can accept that we must teach something alongside evolution (rather than take the much less inane approach of teaching about the controversies within biological science regarding evolutionary processes) and that the something of which we speak must be tied to some concept of intelligent design, then why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster? From a scientific vantage point it makes just as much sense, and while the theology might be out there, let us keep in mind that most ardent fundamentalists are usually willing to consign Catholics, who believe in Christ, to hell, so "out there" among the intelligent design crowd might not be too far out at all.

I'd like to posit that sanity should prevail, and that none of this nonsense ought to get past the first level of scrutiny. But if that is the case, why are we yet again fighting the Scopes case?

Rosa Parks, Rest in Peace

I was saddened to read this morning that Civil Rights icon Rosa Parks passed away yesterday. The NAACP activist (the mythology always has preferred to depict her as simply a humble seamstress) who helped kick off the post-Brown wave of the Civil Rights Movement has continued to stand as a representative of a time when black Americans and their courageous white allies stood up against a white supremacist system the very existence of which meant that America had fallen far short of its creed. May she rest in peace and never be forgotten.

Another GREAT O'Reilly moment

CALLER: But the point that I want to make today is, you've been talking a lot about far-left smearing websites. I actually went to one of those websites a couple of days ago. They have your audio, they have your video. And I'm kind of surprised that you're still challenging them on their material. So why don't you invite them, like Media Matters, to your show and debate the issues?

O'REILLY: OK. Number one, [caller], you're a dishonest person. Because you're not a big fan of mine. You're not anything, OK? What you are is one of these little Kool-Aid-drinking, left-wing idiots who calls up and under the guise of "Hey, you know, Bill, I like you, I listen to The Factor" -- yeah, yeah, yeah. You're a liar. You want me to legitimize a website that is 100 percent dishonest, that takes things out of context, that feeds them to fanatical people like Macarena Hernandez, which is where she got her garbage. You want me to put them on and legitimize them. All right? Give them notoriety and all of that. See, look, I know your game. You're a weasel, and you're in with other weasels. You're exactly where you should be. Those people will never, ever -- I don't deal with dishonest people. Don't call here again.

Sounds even funnier listening to it!

Red Sox Diary

As if we needed further evidence that they will let anyone publish a book, Bleeding Red: A Red Sox Fan's Diary of the 2004 Season, has officially been released. For reasons beyond my understanding, it is not yet up on Amazon (I'll shamelessly self-promote when it is), but it is available (in mistitled form, with no cover image yet posted -- these are clearly all intended as reminders of my place in the hierarchy) at Barnes and Noble, here. If you are interested in seeing the publicity material (with the cover image, a picture of yours truly, and blurbs from one Charles Alexander as well as from Saturday Night Live's Red Sox fan and Kerry impersonator Seth Meyers) go here, scroll down to the bottom of the page, and click on the thumbnail cover image.

Thanks to all of you for following along, for your support, and for your patience. Now what are you waiting for? Go buy the book (or wait until it is paired with Sportsguy Bill Simmons' book in the next week on Amazon).