Sotomayor and race

It seems like Judge Sotomayor will be a great addition to the Supreme Court. I’ve only read a bit about her, but she meets my qualifications for a good appointee, namely:

1. Smart.
2. Liberal.
3. Appointed by a Democratic president.

A pretty ridiculous rubric, I know. But it’s great to watching a more progressive judge get onto the court, whomever it may be, to balance out the very conservative John Roberts and Samuel Alito. And Sotomayor really does seem to be an accomplished and thoughtful longtime civil servant who belongs to be on the bench. Bonus points for being a minority and a women – it makes sense that the demographic makeup of the court should mirror that of the population at large, but it shouldn’t be a priority. 

Of course, a handful of asshole conservatives conservatives (Michael Goldfarb a good example) are all up in arms, claiming that Sotomayor couldn’t possibly be a good nominee, because she is not a white male, and therefore must have been given preferential treatment – via affirmative action, Title IX, and all of the other unfair practices that America uses to give minority women a better chance than white males. Unfair treatment like growing up poor in small apartments in the Bronx and attending large public schools (just like the Bush family experience). 

Andrew Sullivan highlights an interesting call and response between the NYT and the knowledgeable SCOTUSblog. On Friday, the Times’ David Kirkpatrick wrote about how Sotomayor has been active in promoting diversity and Hispanic issues throughout her life. He writes that Sotomayor has

championed the importance of considering race and ethnicity in admissions, hiring and even judicial selection at almost every stage of her career — as a student activist at Princeton and at Yale Law School, as a board member of left-leaning Hispanic advocacy groups and as a federal judge arguing for diversity on the bench,

which certainly seems to imply that her views on race and and benefits of (and challenges of achieving) diversity will weigh in on her judicial opinions and interpretation of the law, which is the issue at stake. Raise up the bogeyman!

Or not, according to Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSblog. Perhaps a good way to get a good idea about how Judge Sotomayor interprets the law (especially around race issues) is to see how she, in fact, interprets the law. Goldstein researched every opinion issued by Sotomayor and her panel regarding race-related cases, and found that

Other than Ricci, Judge Sotomayor has decided 96 race-related cases while on the court of appeals. 

Of the 96 cases, Judge Sotomayor and the panel rejected the claim of discrimination roughly 78 times and agreed with the claim of discrimination 10 times; the remaining 8 involved other kinds of claims or dispositions.  Of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination, 9 were unanimous.  (Many, by the way, were procedural victories rather than judgments that discrimination had occurred.)  Of those 9, in 7, the unanimous panel included at least one Republican-appointed judge.  In the one divided panel opinion, the dissent’s point dealt only with the technical question of whether the criminal defendant in that case had forfeited his challenge to the jury selection in his case.  So Judge Sotomayor rejected discrimination-related claims by a margin of roughly 8 to 1.

So while the heavily influential and very serious New York Times postulates and guesses about how race may bias Sotomayor, SCOTUSblog does some actual work, and reasonably concludes that 

… it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking.

Take that, old media.

 

I been gone…

I'm back to being a scientist. Bonus nerd points to anyone who knows why this actor in this stock photo is totally ruining her experiment.

And I been busy. But I’ll be trying to post again on a more regular basis, but it may be a little more aggregator-y, and more brief. But good aggregation! And who has time to read my boring long posts anyway!

Remember when I was excited about Arlen Specter as a Democrat?

Well, now I’m not so much anymore. Seems like he’s still just being a Republican:

“There’s still time for the Minnesota courts to do justice and declare Norm Coleman the winner.”

Do “justice”? Seriously? They already did justice, and found that Coleman’s shitty case was just that. But now we wait for appeals, on an on…

Rumor has it that Tom Ridge may run for the Pennsylvania Senate seat. So if the Dems don’t throw Specter’s ass out in a primary, a Ridge-Specter battle for PA Senator would be no sure thing for the Democrats.

Quote for the Day

Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), in the Huffington Post:

The rule of law is not just a lofty concept to which we should aspire only when convenient. It is a fundamental principal upon which our Republic was founded, and it is the foundation of our free society. I understand the desire to look forward and to forge a new path on high ground instead of on the low road of the past eight years. But to use the need to move on as a reason not to investigate basic human rights violations is unacceptable. Excusing individuals at the highest levels of government from adhering to the rule of law, whether in wartime or not, is a dangerous precedent, for it undercuts the principle of accountability which permeates representative democracy.

Digby echoes:

Those who would condone war crimes at this point look increasingly foolish. We are a nation of laws, and if you don’t want a law prosecuted, you repeal it, but you cannot ignore it.

Casual use of the word “rape” implies that actual sexual violence is not a misanthropic atrocity

Amy Benfer as a post up about casual use of the word “rape” to describe some unimportant situation where one feels powerless: “we got raped in that softball game,” “the boss totally raped me in the meeting,” etc. 

My view on this is that it’s totally unacceptable. I clicked on the comments section to post a quick “thanks”-type post, but was then surprised to see that most of the comments involved some iteration of “get over it, you can’t tell me what to do or say.” They’re right in that nobody can tell anyone else what to say, but what people say does give a lot of insight into our society in general. I can’t stop anyone from saying “you’re such a Nazi about x,” or “that guy looks like a pedophile,” but necessary involved in choosing to use those words is somewhat of an unserious attitude about what the Nazis did, or what pedophilia is. In my response at Salon I did draw a distinction between “murder” and “rape” using the rationale that we’ve pretty much decided, as a society, that murder is really, really bad, but rape may not be. I suppose you could apply that rational to “Nazi” or “pedophile” as well, but still: why use such loaded words? And while nobody can explain away murder (and it has been roundly, and publicly condemned for many thousands of years), there is still an undercurrent (albeit small and dead wrong) in our society that minimizes the importance and damage done by Nazism (holocaust denial and anti-semitism in general) and pedophiles (stories about survivors being shamed for speaking up, calls for help unheeded, etc.). Perhaps another distinction is that while murder victims are dead, survivors of Nazism, pedophilia, and rape have that weight to carry for years afterwards. 

Anyway, here is my post in regard to Benfer’s original article:

I’m surprised by the amount of backlash I’ve seen in regard to the original article – and I can’t help but think that none of the posters who think “rape” is a fine euphemism for losing a softball game have not experienced the horror of sexual violence in their lives. I agree 100% that casually using “rape” takes away some of its semantic power, and in doing so gives users (and listeners) the idea that rape isn’t really that big of a deal: Hey, after all, Jon Stewart just totally raped Jim Cramer.

And to respond to those equating the casual use of “murder,” “fuck,” or similar misplaced words and “rape”: Our society still has a long way to go in terms of accepting the gravity, danger, and gross immorality of rape and sexual assault. As a society, we tend to downplay the horror and lasting trauma of rape and other sexual violence. We are willing to laugh away misogyny (or “rape”) and murder, but the salient point is that we don’t really have a problem with how we understand murder: everyone hates it, it is not excused by anyone, and it’s seen as pretty much the pinnacle of misanthropic immorality. On the other hand, misogyny still gets a pass, and use of the word “rape” in inappropriate situations signals that yeah, it’s pretty much OK if we make fun of something that does lasting and horrific harm to women, but not (nearly as often, at least) men. I’m not going to tell anyone to stop using a word (and neither was Ms. Benfer), but our choice of words says a lot about who we are personally, and how our society operates. Using the word “rape” casually indicates a degree of unseriousness about rape. And while it’s well established that “murder” is very serious, “fuck” is decidedly unserious (pretty much the most common curse word in American English for who knows how long), we don’t yet understand just how very, very serious, harmful, and dehumanizing “rape” and misogyny are to the people that are directly affected by it . Using “rape” casually in this context gives it a far too large range of interpretation, and yields the potential that “rape,” as a forced sexual assault, be taken lightly. 

Yeah Pablo!

This is cool to see. I hope Sandoval keeps it up all year. Grant at the McCovey Chronicles:

I wish Comcast Sportsnet had a picture-in-picture thingie going on Pablo Sandoval at all times. He’s so freaking into the game. When Aurilia walked, Sandoval tossed a paper cup in the air and did a little dance. He looked back at Molina, who kind of made a face like, “yeah, uh, that’s great, kid.” Sandoval didn’t care and kept beaming. It was awesome.

Update: 

More happy Pablo news from Andrew Baggarly’s blog:

Molina hit his triple in the first inning when Juan Pierre didn’t do a great job playing the drive off the wall in center field. The dugout went nuts. Pablo Sandoval reacted like it’s the greatest thing he’s ever seen. 

You gotta be happy to have a guy like that on your team.

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA)

That’s right, Democrat of Pennsylvania. According to the NYT Caucus blog, Sen. Specter has announced that he is switching parties. 

In a statement issued about noon as the Capitol was digesting the stunning turn of events, Mr. Specter said he had concluded that his party had moved too far to the right, a fact demonstrated by the migration of 200,000 Pennsylvania Republicans to the Democratic Party.

“I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans,” Mr. Specter said, acknowledging that his decision was certain to disappoint colleagues and supporters.

If Al Franken prevails in his ongoing court case in Minnesota and Mr. Specter begins caucusing with Democrats, Democrats would have 60 votes and the ability to deny Republicans the chance to stall legislation. Mr. Specter was one of only three Republicans to support President Obama’s economic recovery legislation.

Over the past few years, Sen. Specter has frequently disagreed with Republican colleagues (but often caucused with them all the same). This move should free him up to support and vote for the his own legislative philosophy without fear of party retribution. 

I wonder if he’s angling for a Supreme Court spot. He would make a good justice, I believe.

 

Update 11:15 am: 

No, I don’t think he’s going for SCOTUS. He’s had health problems, and this move, as Kos says, is obviously about maintaining electability: he was on track to get killed by the ever-dwindling far-right Republican base in the primary, and now he’s pretty much a shoe-in to be reelected to the Senate in 2010. And although Specter’s switch is a huge blow to the Republicans, it may not actually be that great for the Democrats. Kos:

In some ways, Specter’s switch doesn’t give us anything much. As his statement says, he’s not switching back on EFCA, he won’t be a reliable Democratic vote, and he’ll probably duke it out with Lieberman to be the most obnoxious anti-Democratic voice from within the caucus.

On the other hand, he was going to lose his primary and we’d easily pick up the seat against Toomey, giving us a real Democrat in that seat. Doesn’t seem like a great deal.

I think there’s room for Specter in the Democratic party; he’s a really smart guy with a long history of principled public service. He might be annoying at some times, and a bit of a maverick from the party line, but I’m glad to see Sen. Specter as a Democrat.

Reminder about “detox”

Just a quick reminder from Dr. Rob at getbetterhealth.org: There is no such thing as a “detoxifying regimen” or any of that bullshit. Keep these 7 points in mind next time you’re about to get your colon blasted by water or embark upon multiple days of consuming some weird potion for all of your meals:

1. Your body is not “full of toxins.”  When it is, your liver and kidneys are designed to handle those “toxins” and will do so far better than anything someone tries to sell you.
2. Diets only work when they restrict calories.
3. Your colon is fine and does not deserve to be regularly “cleansed.”  Colonics have been around since the early 1900’s (maybe earlier) and the fact that they are still being used is only evidence of the gullibility of humans.
4. Never trust something that claims to “strengthen the immune system.”  It is an impossible claim to prove or disprove, and so is made with impunity.
5. Look for the word “supports.”  Phrases such as “supports prostate health” or “supports a healthy immune system” are big signs that you are being BS’d.
6. I never give patients medicines I would not take myself in the same circumstance.  I know no doctors who do.  It is fine to say “why do I need this medicine?” or “Is this medication really necessary?” but to ask “is it safe?” or “doesn’t this destroy the liver?” is kind of insulting.
7. I guarantee that any plan like this one will cause significant weight loss…in your wallet.

In a related post, Dr. Rob goes off on Gwyneth Paltrow, who is probably one of the most “going off on” deserving people around. Funny:

Somehow the medical community has missed a very important news Item.  In her website goop.com (dang, I was going to go for that domain), movie star Gwyneth Paltrow weighed in on a very frightening medical subject.

Shampoo.

“A couple of years ago, I was asked to give a quote for a book concerning environmental toxins and their effects on our children.

“While I was reading up on the subject, I was seized with fear about what the research said. Foetuses, infants and toddlers are basically unable to metabolise toxins the way that adults are and we are constantly filling our environments with chemicals that may or may not be safe.

“The research is troubling; the incidence of diseases in children such as asthma, cancer and autism have shot up exponentially and many children we all know and love have been diagnosed with developmental issues like ADHD [Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder].”

Apparently, she went on to point the finger at shampoo as a potential major problem in our society and raised a possible link between shampoo and childhood cancers.  Now, I am not sure how one can use shampoo on the head of a foetus (or a fetus, for that matter), but we have to tip our hat to celebrities for bringing such associations to the forefront.

So I did a bit of science myself to assess the voracity of her claims.  I too was seized with fear when I noted the following:

• All of the kids in my practice who have ADHD have used shampoo.
• All of the kids with cancer have also used shampoo.
• I used shampoo as a kid (but not as a fetus), and I have ADHD.
• The projection is that 100% of the people now using shampoo will die.

I love science!

Words of Wisdom from General Petraeus

From Wired’s Danger Room:

Yesterday, at a forum here at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, U.S. Central Command chief General David Petraeus had a message for the Pakistanis: Get over it. These days, your biggest enemy isn’t India. It’s home-grown extremists.

…

“The biggest of the big ideas with respect to Pakistan is that the existential threat to the country is the internal extremist threat, not the Indians — and that is a pretty big idea,” Petraeus said. “It is an intellectually dislocating idea for the institutions of Pakistan, for the military, for others that have spent — just as we spent decades faced off against the Warsaw Pact and were almost comfortable with that.”

It’s pretty good advice. I can’t imagine that the world would allow for full-scale war at this point in time between India and Pakistan, so it seems relatively pointless to

Gen. David Petraeus

continue to mold the military and intelligence services (of Pakistan, especially) around the prospect of such a war. Meanwhile, Zardari’s new government is getting trampled by the Taliban. Time for a strategic realignment of defense spending, indeed. 

One of the great things about Gen. Petraeus is that he seems to have a real intellectual understanding of the tensions that cause both outright and guerilla war. This is about 180 degrees removed from his old neocon bosses in the Bush administration, who didn’t care about or comprehend the importance of using cultural literacy to our advantage. Whereas one might imagine members of the Bush/Cheney axis demanding that Pakistan stop caring about India at once!!!, Petraeus emphasizes the centrality the Indian conflict in Pakistani military policy, realizes that a departure from this worldview will take a while, and knows that slow, even pressure on Zardari is preferable to ultimatums and bluster. Like Obama, Petraeus is optimistic about America’s power to increase not just national but global security. But he’s also a realist, and knows that the truths of foreign affairs don’t always match up with our idealistic expectations. Hopefully Obama and Petraeus can work together to stabilize and withdraw from Iraq and Central Asia as soon (but not too soon) as possible.

Torture

About a week ago, the Obama administration decided to obey the rule of law and release some previously classified memos regarding the “enhanced interrogation,” or torture, of prisoners detained under the Bush government. The memos, written by now Federal Judge (then Assistant AG) Jay Bybee and former Assistant AG Stephen Bradbury, provided legal cover to begin torturing suspected terrorists in US captivity using a wide variety of physically violent and shameful practices, including waterboarding, slamming the prisoner against the wall, sleep deprivation, shackling in stress positions, and placing an insect into a locked box with a suspect, among others. One of the main justifications provided by the memos was that these techniques did not, in fact, produce “pain and suffering” (intentionally taken as one, singular clause, as opposed to pain and suffering as unique, separate things), so they were actually not illegal under US statute and international treaty at all! Whew. An example: waterboarding is only simulated suffocation, which doesn’t hurt, per se, and because it only lasts for a few minutes, it does not constitute suffering, which implies a much longer duration of acute distress. Or, set to music:

The memos are infuriating to read. The methods of torture described by these memos (and others, such as the John Yoo memos that have been circulating for a while) is evil. I’ve always felt proud to be living in the most successful, free, and reason-based nation that has ever been conceived upon this earth; even as a young person I remember learning about what torture was, and being so impressed and proud that we, the United States, did not partake in such depraved activities. And it breaks my heart to find out that under our last President the United States did begin to torture suspects who have been detained and are helpless. 

If you look around the progressive blogosphere (and even some on the right), it’s easy to find people like me, who are disgusted by torture, and who, like Shepherd Smith of Fox News, feel that as Americans, “we don’t fucking torture.” But in my personal conversations, even with close friends and family, I’ve found a lot of resistance. The ridiculous, ticking time-bomb scenario comes up over and over, as does the claim that torture is more effective than traditional, non-barbaric (and well studied and practiced) methods of interrogation. There is nothing to suggest that this is true, and plenty to suggest that it is false, including this testimony in an op-ed in today’s NYT by a former FBI interrogator who interrogated terrorist suspects:

There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions —all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.

Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. This is false. The information that led to Mr. Shibh’s capture came primarily from a different terrorist operative who was interviewed using traditional methods. As for Mr. Padilla, the dates just don’t add up: the harsh techniques were approved in the memo of August 2002, Mr. Padilla had been arrested that May.

The author of that op-ed, Ali Soufan, does not take the time to shoot down another important claim that torture worked. President Bush claimed in 2008 (and other times, I can’t find them right now though) that “enhanced interrogation” of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had lead to disruption of the “Library Tower” plot to blow up that building in Los Angeles. However, that plot was actually “discovered” in 2002 (having been all but abandoned after Sept 11, 2001, when using airplanes as missiles ceased to become a viable terrorist tool), well before torture was illegally “legalized” and KSM was captured. 

Torture is not a useful tool. If you are being tortured, you’ll say anything to make the pain and suffering stop: that’s why it is so useful for extracting false confessions (the military’s SERE program, on which the Bush admin modeled their torture program, was created to expose US soldiers to some of the techniques that may be used against them to illicit false confessions if they were captured by brutal dictatorships). Because false information so frequently pours out during torture sessions, any real intelligence that also comes out is obscured and possibly lost, especially when it is later confirmed that much of what the suspect was saying was false. Yglesias expounds:

Suppose a Fox News producer was holding me hostage and torturing me to get me to reveal the links between George Soros, Think Progress, and NBC News in a vast conspiracy to subvert Bill O’Reilly. I would, I think, quickly “break” and tell him everything I know. But what I know isn’t what he wants to hear. After all, he already “knows” all kinds of stuff there’s a “well coordinated, well financed cabal” that we’re involved with. He doesn’t want to know what I know, he wants confirmation of what he already thinks he knows plus some additional juicy details.

So I’ll tell him the truth and he’ll conclude that I’m lying or holding out on him. Then I’ll start lying and trying to tell him what I think he wants to hear. Some of what I say will be what he already “knows” and he’ll be happy. But then he’ll check out some of the other stuff I told him, and it won’t check out because I was just making it up to get him to stop torturing me. Then he figures out that I’ve been lying to him, so he tortured me some more. Then I try to explain that, yes, yes, I was lying but only to get him to stop torturing me! Really, I was telling the truth the first time! But of course nobody’s going to believe that. I’m just doing more holding out. So he needs to devise some additional “enhanced interrogation techniques.”
And he’ll make me talk allright! I’ll say tons of stuff. And he’ll waste time trying to verify baseless leads. And any inaccurate suppositions he already has will be confirmed. Sometimes he may wind up making a mistake, and “confirming” made up stuff I tell him. And he’ll get true stuff out of me, too. Some of it he won’t believe and some of it he will.

On the other hand, there is a long history (by good guys and bad) of effective intelligence gathering from captives using psychological pressure, trickery, and trust-building. The London Times’ Ben Macintyre, via Sullivan:

Colonel Robin “Tin Eye”Stephens was the commander of the wartime spy prison and interrogation centre codenamed Camp 020, an ugly Victorian mansion surrounded by barbed wire on the edge of Ham Common. In the course of the war, some 500 enemy spies from 44 countries passed through Camp 020; most were interrogated, at some point, by Stephens; all but a tiny handful crumbled.

…

he terrifying commandant of Camp 020 refined psychological intimidation to an art form. Suspects often left the interrogation cells legless with fear after an all-night grilling. An inspired amateur psychologist, Stephens used every trick, lie and bullying tactic to get what he needed; he deployed threats, drugs, drink and deceit. But he never once resorted to violence. “Figuratively,” he said, “a spy in war should be at the point of a bayonet.” But only ever figuratively. As one colleague wrote: “The Commandant obtained results without recourse to assault and battery. It was the very basis of Camp 020 procedure that nobody raised a hand against a prisoner.”…. His motives were strictly practical. “Never strike a man. It is unintelligent, for the spy will give an answer to please, an answer to escape punishment. And having given a false answer, all else depends upon the false premise.”

Sullivan goes on to quote the wiki profile of Hans-Joachim Gottlob Scharff, the chief interrogator for the Germans during WWII:

He is highly praised for the success of his techniques, especially considering he never used physical means to obtain the required information. No evidence exists he even raised his voice in the presence of a prisoner of war (POW)….

Scharff was opposed to physically abusing prisoners with the intent to obtain information. Taught on the job, Scharff instead relied upon the Luftwaffe’s approved list of techniques which mostly involved making the interrogator seem as if he is his prisoner’s greatest advocate while in captivity.

After the end of WWII, Scharff was invited by the United States Air Force to give lectures on his interrogation techniques and first-hand experiences. The U.S. military later incorporated Scharff’s methods into its curriculum at its interrogation schools. Scharff’s methods are still taught in US Army interrogation schools…

It’s clear that many actual intelligence-gathering professionals (including Souref, “Tin Eye,” and Sharff, but excluding Cheney, Jay Bybee, John Yoo, et al.) feel that torture is ineffective, and will not produce intelligence to better protect us. I honestly have not seen any testimony of agents/intelligence professionals who claim that torture was effective – point them out if you do. So there you go. That’s great fodder for me to present when I’m arguing next time.

But what really gets me is the lack of consensus that morality is a essential and worthy good. Due process, criminal justice, lawful search and seizure, and our prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment are things that directly benefit every American, every day. We live with great freedom to do what we want, we do not live in fear of our government, we know that there must be good evidence against us to put us in captivity, and we know that if there is some mistake, we have redress, and we won’t get beaten up by the state in the meantime. Additionally, our moral high ground and civil processes inspire people in other nations all around the world, and it is invaluable for our national security. What’s more, it’s something that we can take pride in. It is a great and valuable thing to say that we do not torture, that we do not stoop to the barbaric and cruel level of our enemies. Even putting all of the gross illegality of the torture aside, I believe that the immorality of these torture memos do more to degrade the indomitable American spirit than any terrorist attack ever could. 

There is a lot of good, important stuff to read about the ramifications of the release of these torture memos; Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald‘s blogs are good places to start.