There’s another important point to be made that’s particular to the gay marriage context.  The unwillingness of opponents of gay marriage to have their opposition made public demonstrates the hollowness of the dramatic rhetoric their movement employs.  The “why does this matter to you?” question is a difficult one for opponents of gay marriage, as Jonathan Chait demonstrated last year in The New Republic when he convincingly took apart any argument against gay marriage based on anything beyond simple discomfort with homosexuality.  As much as opponents of gay marriage talk about heterosexual marriage being the backbone of our society and the fight to protect traditional marriage as being the real civil rights battle, the unwillingness to publicly state these views when there could be reprisals shows that they are not taken seriously even within the anti-gay marriage movement.  To the extent that there are actual threats being made against opponents of gay marriage, they cannot be nearly as serious as the threats faced by Civil Rights activists in the 1960s.  But because African Americans actually had their freedom and their welfare at stake, Civil Rights leaders and activists fought for their rights in the most public ways possible, whatever the costs.  If opponents of gay marriage truly believed that allowing gay marriage would have the dire consequences they claim, there would be no shortage of brave activists willing to publicly take this stand and suffer whatever consequences may come.

-AR

-AR

Barton’s apology to BP CEO Tony Hayward at this morning’s Congressional hearing  for the Obama administration’s “shakedown” of BP lacked many of the flaws one usually sees in a public apology.  It sounded sincere and unequivocal, did not make any excuses and did not blame BP for it’s own role in the underlying matter.  The problem, however, is that the “shakedown” for which Barton was apologizing was actually a perfectly reasonable demand that BP pay its share for causing one of the worst environmental disasters in history.

In a rare moment of good taste and political sense, the Republican leadership demanded Barton retract his apology, and issue a new apology for the apology.  (Finally answering the question of how outrageous a Republican member of Congress’s statement must be before Republican leadership will consider it to be out of line.)  Barton’s apology for the apology provides an interesting combination of what are perhaps the two most common and obnoxious species of bad public apologies:  “I’m sorry if anyone was offended” and “My comments were misinterpreted.”  Barton indeed claims his words were misconstrued (how could anyone belief that apologizing to BP meant he was sympathetic to BP?), and then goes on to conclude “I want to apologize for that misconstruction.”  The “I want to apologize for that misconstruction,” phrasing, like “I’m sorry if anyone was offended,”  is interesting because the speaker is essentially apologizing to the listener on the listener’s own behalf.  Even if the problem really were with how Barton’s comments were construed by others, and not that they were out of line with reality and indicative of political corruption, then he should at least be apologizing for his own poor word choice.  Or, of course, he could have avoided this all entirely by not siding with the oil company in an oil spill.

-AR

The second point is that Americans in general are not very ideological, at least about the size and scope of government.  The popularity or lack thereof of government programs is dictated by whether they are seen as effective and, more importantly, whether they benefit whoever you’re asking.  Even the Tea Party, which in general presents itself as opposed to big government as a matter of principle, is willing to fight for big government when self-interest so demands.  As Potts points out, Southern concerns about the size and role of government have always been tied up with race, going back to slavery.  Potts also could have pointed to the South’s continuing support for the Democratic Party through the New Deal, which dramatically increased the size and role of government.  Put another way, Southerners were fine with the federal government providing electricity, jobs, and income security, but not saying who gets to drink at which water fountain.  Conservative politicians and commentators like Rand Paul, Barry Goldwater, and William F. Buckley may be sincere in opposing/having opposed the Civil Rights Act on “role of government” rather than racist grounds (which of course doesn’t excuse how callous and misguided their position was/is), but it simply isn’t accurate to ascribe that sincerity to white Southerners in general.

-AR

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

In fairness to Robertson, his job as a pastor is not to take sides in America’s culture wars, but rather to interpret and spread the word of Christ.  And I believe his remarks here are taken almost verbatim from Jesus’ Sermon to the Sadducees, commonly referred to as the “Lighten Up, Toots” sermon.

-AR

While the Greene story is certainly fascinating, particularly if there ends up being some kind of trickery involved, it is ultimately rather insignificant because the Republican, incumbent Jim DeMint, was an overwhelming favorite to win re-election regardless of the Democratic nominee.  What is far more significant are the crazy people Republicans have been voluntarily placing on November’s ballot through their own primaries.  On the same night as Greene’s mysterious victory, Nevada Republicans gave Sharron Angle their nomination to take on vulnerable Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid.  Huffington Post has helpfully chronicled some of Angle’s more extreme positions, such as believing that fluoridation of water is a nefarious governmental plot, advocating the revival of prohibition, and promoting the myth that abortions cause breast cancer.  Angle’s nomination comes weeks after Rand Paul captured the Republican nomination in Kentucky’s Senate race and promptly announced his opposition to provisions of the Civil Rights Act banning private discrimination.  (This put Senate Republicans in the awkward position of choosing between their new golden child and an incredibly popular piece of legislation, not to mention their ongoing, always awkward efforts to ensure people of color that the Republican Party isn’t just for white folks.)  Paul, like Angle, subscribes to anti-government conspiracy theories, such as secret plots to bring about the union of the United States, Mexico, and Canada.

Whereas Greene’s victory merely turns a near certain Republican victory into a certain Republican victory, the primary wins of Paul and Angle, and the subsequent light shed on their more extreme views, have turned what were expected to be comfortable Republican wins into competitive races.  In short, I’m all in favor of Republicans putting as many unqualified candidates as they like on November’s ballot, Democrat or Republican, as long as they continue to do so in a way that only enhances Democrats’ prospects of holding their majority.

-AR

The law was intended to shut down a couple of ethnic studies programs in Tuscon, which focus on the influence of particular ethnic groups in American history and literature. This is a big problem, according to the state schools chief, Tom Horne, because . . . wait for it . . . the program teaches Latino students that they are oppressed by white people. That just cracks me up. I mean, I hate to break it to Horne, but Latino students don’t need an ethnic studies class to know that. Rest assured, they’ll learn that lesson one way or another.

But wait, there’s more. Horne also said the presence of the ethnic studies program has created an environment in Tuscon schools that is “just like the old South.” Whoa there! Looks like the Horne-ster may have been the product of America’s Failing Public Schools himself! Brief refresher. Old South: Lynching. Racial terrorism. School segregation. Jim Crow. Violence. KKK. Literacy tests. And most importantly? Notable absence of ethnic studies programs.

It says a lot about the pitiable state of things in Arizona that the man in charge of schools (the chief, no less) believes in pacifying students by teaching them complete nonsense. It takes a special kind of educator to get behind a program that seeks not to teach.

The ACLU has already argued the law violates the First Amendment and is hopelessly vague. Presumably, Horne’s going to be a little biased when he decides what classes “are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group.” But look. Isn’t a history class that excludes the perspectives of ethnic minorities in America designed primarily for white people? Maybe the real problem with the law is that, if taken seriously, it could knock out 99% of all public education in Arizona for lack of racial bias.

Finally — isn’t overthrow of the U.S. government more of an after-school club?

-AS

As has been discussed previously on this blog, no one can really can say what gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that a person is undocumented.  This lack of a non-racial basis for determining what raises reasonable suspicion renders the ban on racial profiling dead letter.  Without articulable standards, an officer has broad leeway to invent whatever reasons he chooses for finding a particular person suspicious, and as long as he avoids saying, “Well, doesn’t she Mexican to you?” it will be nearly impossible to prove that the ban on racial profiling has been violated.  The lack of articulable standards also means that enforcement of the law will be imprecise, and many people will be asked for papers who are American citizens or legal residents.  Because being Latino is a baseline requirement for suspicion of being undocumented in Arizona, whether we admit it or not and regardless of whatever other factors may or may not exist, this burden will be borne solely by the Latino community even if police officers act in good faith and do not target anyone solely for being Latino.

The “the bill doesn’t allow racial profiling because we say it doesn’t allow racial profiling” argument follows similar logic to the infamous John Yoo “what we’re doing isn’t torture because I’m telling you it isn’t torture, and in any case the United States doesn’t torture anyone ’cause that would be illegal” memos.  Given the racial dynamic to this issues, perhaps a better analogy would be the “separate but equal” fiction that American law recognized in the nine decades between the adoption of the 14th Amendment and Brown v. Board of Education.  Much like the Arizona bill’s “no racial profiling, honest” provision, the separate but equal doctrine lent segregation a sheen of neutrality that was completely detached from the reality of what motivated Jim Crow laws and how they were actually experienced.   Sure, blacks can’t go to white schools, but whites can’t go to black schools either, so who really gets to complain?  Fortunately, the Warren Court intervened in Brown, saying, in essence, “Jesus Christ, you fucking assholes!”

In full disclosure, I myself have not read the entirety of the Arizona’s immigration law.  Nor have I read the actual text of, for example, Mississippi’s pre-Brown school segregation laws.  I have no hesitation about condemning either.

-AR