Those of you who saw that one movie where Keanu Reeves plays Thomas Jefferson during the constitutional ratification debates will really appreciate Lee’s quote from the movie: the constitution was “designed to be a little bit harsh.”

- AS

- AS

I can’t help but be irritated by the coverage of the ruling, however. Even the New York Times says “Calif. Court Backs Illegal Immigrants.” AB-540 was indeed intended to help ease the burden on undocumented students in California, who are ineligible for student loans. But it is misleading to characterize upholding AB-540 as “backing illegal immigrants.”  After all, the vast majority of students benefitting from AB-540 are citizens and permanent residents. (This fact is included in the case itself, which you can see here, and in the yearly reports on AB-540 – see 2009′s here.) This is not surprising, given the rising cost of UC and CSU education in California — made especially crippling without the possibility of student aid — and the stress of being undocumented generally. (If you haven’t heard it already, I highly recommend listening to This American Life’s “Nice Work if You Can Get It” episode – Act Four tells the story of an undocumented student in California.)

In the struggle to come up with a meaningful solution to the problem of millions of people who are  living, working, and studying in this country – with little legal security and few protections – AB-540 is only another stopgap, and not a long-term solution.

I must mention one other source of irritation I have RE: this case. Kris Kobach brought this lawsuit in California (and wasted our money in doing so) as part of a litigation strategy to push anti-immigrant policies at the local level. Kobach recently lost a major immigration case in Hazleton — one which required that small town to pay $2.4 million in legal fees. Enough is enough, Kobach. At a time when California is broke, and California public college students are suffering more than ever, it is unfathomable that you are wasting our time on whether or not a few undocumented students might pay a few thousand less OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKETS for a college education. Good grief.

- AS

AR alerted me to this story by Abbie Boudreau, an investigative reporter for CNN. Boudreau has been working on a report about young conservatives, and set up an interview with James O’Keefe. You probably remember O’Keefe because he is just that idiotic — but hopefully you don’t. Suffice it to say that he calls himself an investigative journalist, but when journalists write about him they have to use phrases like “self-proclaimed ‘investive journalist’ O’Keefe . . . .” You get the picture.

So O’Keefe decided to “punk” Boudreau by inviting her onto a boat for their interview and then taping a mock-seduction of the reporter. CNN obtained documents that appear to be plans for the event, including a list of “props” (a condom jar and dildos) and other “equipment” (lube, hidden cameras, posters & paintings of naked women, and porn). This was all designed as a means of paying Boudreau back for what he describes as her efforts to “seduce” him into an interview.

I’m not sure if you’ve seen O’Keefe, but it’s probably been a while since he was seduced into anything more than an interview. Which could explain why the Boat of Seduction was supposed to stocked with “stamina pills” and playing “80s romance songs, things that are typically James.”

Um.

Thankfully, Boudreau discovered the plan and cancelled the interview. And she was rightfully angry. O’Keefe’s plan had nothing to do with criticizing CNN, and everything to do with belittling her as a female reporter.

Let me explain, lest I get accused of that most inane of the critiques of feminists — that I can’t take a joke. I actually have a modest sense of humor (for a woman), but here’s why O’Keefe isn’t funny.

First of all, he’s a young conservative. That’s not funny ha-ha, that’s just funny weird. There is a reason why most people aren’t that interested in taxes and welfare until they’re older, and I assume it has something to do with not having sex as much. (?)

More importantly, though, O’Keefe was trying to rattle a female reporter by treating her as a sex object. This would upset her, he figured, because she is trying to work, and he is pointing out that she is a woman, and therefore she has sex. With men! And he is a man. Ergo, it is physically possible (however implausible) that she could have sex with him.

As Boudreau describes in her report, this is nothing new, which is exactly the point of the prank. O’Keefe’s gimmick would have no real sting if women didn’t still have to deal with sexism in the workplace.

My point is that although some humor gets its power from its hyper-realism – Stephen Colbert‘s recent brand is just one example that comes to mind – O’Keefe’s is not that type of humor. His sexism isn’t in the service of something funny. It’s not, say, exposing this CNN reporter as a hypocrite. It’s just using sexism the way it’s always used – to try to belittle a woman.

Which is not to say that there is nothing funny about this story, especially since Boudreau did not end up going on the creep-o boat. I personally enjoyed that O’Keefe planned to have “posters and paintings of naked women” on the walls of the boat. I get posters, although that seems a little college dorm-y for a boat, but paintings of naked women? Where was he going to find these paintings, exactly? Are we talking, like, blacklight paintings? Or more like Botticellis? Either way, that’s funny.

-AS

In case you ever wished you were privy to the snarky political chats that regularly occur between your inveterate editors AR and AS, this is your dream come true. What follows is our liveblog of tonight’s debate.

We join our hopefuls halfway through the proceedings:

AR:     So I was listening on the drive home, but I’m confused on a couple things. Was Jerry Brown governor before? How does Meg Whitman feel about public employee unions? They need to be clearer on these things.

AS:      Yes,  he was governor before.  He is so funny.  And yes, she blows.  The nice thing about Jerry Brown is that he actually knows how the government and court systems work.

AR:     Oh, details. Schwarzenegger didn’t know any of that stuff, and, uh. . .

Q:    Ms. Whitman, fact-checking organizations have concluded that your ads are misleading, or even worse.  How can voters trust you to communicate honestly with them about the state’s problems when you’re willing to distort the truth to win a campaign?

AR:    Oh, snap!

MW:    Governor Brown opposed Prop. 13.  He said it was a fraud.

AS:     Proposition 13 was a fraud.

AR:     No, Prop 13 has nothing to do with the crisis in California. It is solely the fault of pensioners.  Who needs tax revenues?

AS:     Yeah, damn unions.

AS:      She keeps calling college students children.

AS:     Ohh,  immigration!!

AR:     I’ll let you handle this one.

AS:     So far, so good.  Secure communities is a disaster and doesn’t actually deport dangerous criminals.

JB:    Any time one of these illegal people*, uh, undocumented workers, commits a crime, they will be     deported.

AS:    Boo.

AR:      I’m guessing Whitman’s softened her “I hate Mexicans more than Poizner” stance since she won the primary.

AS:      We’re about to find out

MW:    I wouldn’t support a path to citizenship.  We have got to get our arms around what is a very large illegal immigrations problem. . . first, we have to secure our borders.

AS:     Meg Whitman: Adios, Hispanic Votes!

MW:    We have not given those border patrol agents the resources that they need.

AR:     Doesn’t she know border patrol agents are public employees?!?

MW:    We have got to get rid of these sanctuary cities, San Francisco being, of course, the worst.

AS:     Adios, San Francisco!  Adios, Los Angeles!

AR:     San Francisco is always the worst.

AS:     Although Silicon Valley is apparently the brainchild of the universe.

MW:    I was not for Prop. 187. . .

AS:     Although … she forgot to vote against it …

MW:    If we can hold employees accountable for hiring documented workers. .  .

AS:     Wait, hiring documented workers?  Woops.

MW:    We have to stop the magnet.  Most illegal immigrants, I believe, come here for the jobs.

AR:     I thought we didn’t have any jobs here?  Pretty weak magnet.

AS:     Yeah, so why are they coming? I’m confused.

Q:    Ms. Whitman, you’ve broken the record for spending by a self-financed candidate.  Please address the criticism that you are trying to buy the office of governor.

AR:     “Beholden to the public sector unions” in 3. . . 2. . .1. . .

MW:    Well, I have invested a lot of money in this campaign, and the reason is I’m up against some very significant forces.  In the last five years, the public employee unions and unions throughout California have spent over $300 million on politics in California.  So I’m up against a pretty big set of entrenched interests.

AR:       Yes!

AS:     And they’re up against … you!

MW:    But you know what, I think Californians are smart.  I don’t think you can buy elections.

AR:     But I’m sure as hell gonna try!

AS:     That’s where she’s wrong. Californians are dumb. We just elected Arnold Schwarzenegger.

MW:    That independence allows me to go to California, break glass, and really change how things are done there.

AS:      Break glass? Is that feminist??

AR:      Jerry Brown is bat shit crazy, and everyone in California knows it.  No one’s going to buy that he ain’t gonna do his own thing, no matter how much money he gets from anyone.

MW:    You can’t go to Sacremento and boil the ocean. . .

AS:     Boil the ocean? That’ll happen once we lift all the environmental restrictions on big business — zing!

AS:    Dude is like a million years old.  He looks like Dr. Zoidberg.

JB:    Now, look, unions, yeah, they have their problems*, but what about business over here? [Recounts how Wall Street/corporations nearly destroyed our country.]

AR:      Yeah! Fuck business! Go unions!

JB:    But I have to say something about our teachers, the people who clean bedpans in hospitals, our policemen, our firefighters, they’re the people who really have embarked on public service as a calling. . . I cherish and appreciate the work that they do.

AR:     Solllllllllidarity forever

JB:    We tried this business of  the inexperienced private sector person with the spine of steel, and they get flummoxed by the shark infested waters of Sacremento.

AR:    Soooo. . . spine of steel. . . good or bad?

AS:     These metaphors are getting confusing.

AR:     Fucking sharks, man

AS:     Flummoxing

MW:    The fact that Jerry Brown is trying to distance himself from the labor unions is amazing to me.

AS:    She has sarcasm DOWN.  May as well be doing a slow clap.

MW:    Putting Jerry Brown in charge of negotiating with the labor unions is like putting Count Dracula in charge of the blood bank.

AS:    Whatever, Dracula doesn’t need a blood bank.  For godssakes, he has teeth.

MW:    I want to empanel a grand jury so that if people are ripping off the state of California, they will go to jail.

AS:    What the hell does she know about grand juries?

AR:    Right, cause California has so much room in its jails.

JB:    I have the spine and the wisdom, and, at my age, the independence to do what’s right.

AR:     Oooh, that’s a good point. Old people are independent.  Also known as, cranky.

AS:     Did you hear that part about the death penalty?  Eerie. She was like, “we gotta start killing people before we have to build another jail to hold ‘em all.”

AR:    Yeah, that was frightening.  But she is for conservative judges who won’t legislate from the bench. That’s an innovative idea.

AS:     Yeah, they’ll follow all parts of the Constitution. That should help.

JB:    When you benefit directly from water, you gotta pay.

AR:    Oh no, is this about riparian rights?

AS:     They’re really ending on a high point.  I’m already confused.

JB:    We have to ensure clean drinking water.  There are kids in the Central Valley with birth defects.

AS:    Wait, there are people in the Central Valley??!!

MW:    Turning our backs on water is turning our backs on jobs.

AS:    Never turn your back on water.

MW:    So, that’s my stand on water.

AR:     Only Jesus can stand on water.

AS:     There are like 5 people who are really invested in this part of the debate.

MW:    If we are going to change the direction of the state, we are going to have to do it very differently.

AR:     Very differently. . . by electing someone with a lot of their own wealth and no political experience who believes government should be run more like a business.

MW:    I am a big believer in the power of many.

AR:    Sounds like a union organizer!

AS:     She sounds like Obama.  She’s just stealing his punchlines but using them for evil.  Eeeevvviiilll!

JB:    In the very neighborhood [in Oakland] where my wife and I lived, there were nine murders within five blocks.  But I didn’t have a guard.  I didn’t have a driver.  I walked the streets.

AR:    Jerry Brown: badass!

JB:    So that’s one major difference, know-how and experience.

AR:    That’s two major differences.

JB:    I’d like to see those with the biggest belts tuck them in first.

AR:     Do you tuck in a belt?  They really are bad with metaphors.

AS:     I can kill a man using only my two hands, a small twig, and a belt. Scratch that, two belts.

-AR & AS

*  While LTMF fully endorses Jerry Brown for governor, we do not endorse every word that comes out of his mouth.

The unanimous decision was decided on federal preemption grounds, which is not as sexy as some of the district court’s holdings (especially the §1981 bit), but it’ll do.

At this point, Arizona’s SB 1070 doesn’t stand a chance. Hopefully Jan “beheadings, beheadings, beheadings” Brewer will be kicked out of office in the meantime.

- AS

This week, Fremont, Nebraska residents passed a local anti-immigrant measure that aims to ban hiring or renting to “illegal immigrants.” Unlike the laws passed in Hazleton, Pennsylvania and Farmers Branch, Texas, this law was enacted by voter referendum. Otherwise, though, the law is pretty similar to its predecessors — it requires local employers to use a federal database to check the status of employees, and bars landlords from renting to any person in the country “illegally.”

The ACLU has already announced they will be filing a lawsuit to challenge the law.

These cases will take years to make their way to the Supreme Court — the Hazleton case has been going on for about 4 years now, and for some reason the Third Circuit has still not issued its decision. So, practically speaking, it was pretty dumb of Fremont to go down this road. Considering the ACLU (not to mention MALDEF, etc.) have aggressively litigated these types of cases elsewhere — and won — Fremont is in way over its Constitutional head.

The reason these local immigration laws get shut down so readily is that our immigration laws are made by the federal government, and they are immensely complicated. I put the term illegal in quotes above because immigration status is rarely that easy to determine. Even if a person enters the country without papers, they will often acquire valid status later – through marriage, or work, or other operation of the laws.

By way of example, the New York Times recently told the incredibly moving story of a deaf man who came to the U.S. illegally in the mid-nineties and was enslaved in New York until federal prosecutors finally discovered the slavery ring. He was allowed to stay in the country, went to a school for the deaf and then a New York City jobs training program, and now has a green card and works — amazingly enough — as a janitor on Ellis Island. The journeys of immigrants are complicated, and the twists and turns of the immigration laws even more so. Suffice it so say that a town like Fremont has no idea which of its non-citizen residents will end up getting a green card if they end up in federal custody and which will be deported.

I think it also bears mentioning, though, that in addition to be misguided for the aforementioned reasons, so-called anti-immigrant measures should more accurately be called anti-Latino measures. Since immigration status is ambiguous and impossible for local officials to determine, the real purpose of laws targeting “illegals” is generally to harass and intimidate Latino residents. The picture above comes from a bar in Hazleton in 2007, and it gets republished often because it bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the ubiquitous signage of the Jim Crow era. I doubt the thousands of undocumented Irish have to worry about landlords giving them a hard time.

All I can hope is that the passage of this law will put even more pressure on the Obama administration to work for meaningful immigration reform in this term.

-AS

Sad news this week. God decided to smite Touchdown Jesus (or as some refer to him, Big Butter Jesus). Touchdown Jesus was hit by lightning and burned completely to the ground, leaving only a steel frame behind. What are the possible implications of this smiting?

1. Burning Man is over.
2. God 1, Jesus 0.
3. Jesus tiring of more subtle face-in-toast, gentle-tears-down-statue-type miracles.
4. God is Jewish.
5. The end is nigh.

- AS

So you can imagine my irritation when I turned away from my property law studies to the New York Times, only to read more tales of rich dead dudes sticking it to the rest of us.

This year, billionaire Dan L. Duncan, soft-spoken hunter of polar bears, died, and it looks like his entire estate will pass to his heirs tax-free. Why, you ask? Why will we lose millions in tax revenue so that Duncan’s heirs can bask in even greater wealth? Like an old dead dude with future property interests, the whims of President Bush are coming back to haunt us. Back in 2001, Bush signed into law a one-year lapse in estate taxes to happen in 2010. (Apparently some of his cronies felt they had about another 9 years in them??) The NYT, being classy, notes this tax break has an element of the macabre:

Some estate lawyers worried that tax considerations might prompt their clients to keep an ill relative on life support through the end of 2009 to get the favorable treatment — or worse, resist life-prolonging measures to hasten a relative’s demise before the end of 2010.

I mean, really? Couple of million in taxes on an estate worth billions is worth making sure Gramps dies in 2010? Rich people are crazy.

Also, when is the ghost of Dubya going to stop haunting us already?

-AS

- AS