Archive for February, 2008


The prompt:

In 2006, Rachel Orsborne sought and was denied a marriage license by the state of Massachusetts. She had hoped to enter into a “plural marriage” between herself and two other adults – a couple who has been legally married for 25 years. Ms. Orsborne, who recently turned 19 years of age, notes that she is deeply in love with both of her prospective partners, that the state of Massachusetts recognizes and performs same-sex marriages, and that there is both a long-standing cultural tradition of plural marriage (in the Old Testament as well as in the United States) as well as persecution and discrimination against those in polygamous unions. Ms. Orsborne professes no religious affiliation and does not claim any First Amendment violation of religious freedom. She does claim that by denying a marriage license, the state of Massachusetts has unconstitutionally discriminated against her, in violation of the Equal Protection clause, as well as violating her fundamental rights to marriage under the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Circuit Court rejected Ms. Orsborne’s claim, citing Reynolds v. United States (1878), in which the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of prohibitions against polygamy. However, because that case was argued principally as a religious Free Exercise case, the Supreme Court today has granted certiorari on the fundamental rights claim (although not on the question of equal protection). You are clerking for one of the Justices and have been asked to write either a brief or a draft opinion (your choice) roughly 4-6 pages in length, to be filed with the faculty administrative assistant in Balch 216 no later than 11am on Monday, February 25.

The opinion (written under the name of “Justice Lessig,” bahahaha):

PDF

View Full Article »

For God’s sake hold your tongue, and let me love,
Or chide my palsy, or my gout,
My five grey hairs, or ruin’d fortune flout,
With wealth your state, your mind with arts improve,
Take you a course, get you a place,
Observe his Honour, or his Grace,
Or the King’s real, or his stamped face
Contemplate, what you will, approve,
So you will let me love.

Alas, alas, who’s injur’d by my love?
What merchant’s ships have my sighs drown’d?
Who says my tears have overflow’d his ground?
When did my colds a forward spring remove?
When did the heats which my veins fill
Add one more to the plaguy bill?
Soldiers find wars, and lawyers find out still
Litigious men, which quarrels move,
Though she and I do love.

Call us what you will, we are made such by love;
Call her one, me another fly,
We are tapers too, and at our own cost die,
And we in us find th’ eagle and the dove.
The phoenix riddle hath more wit
By us; we two being one, are it.
So, to one neutral thing both sexes fit,
We die and rise the same, and prove
Mysterious by this love.

We can die by it, if not live by love,
And if unfit for tombs and hearse
Our legend be, it will be fit for verse;
And if no piece of chronicle we prove,
We’ll build in sonnets pretty rooms;
As well a well-wrought urn becomes
The greatest ashes, as half-acre tombs,
And by these hymns all shall approve
Us canoniz’d for love;

And thus invoke us: “You, whom reverend love
Made one another’s hermitage;
You, to whom love was peace, that now is rage;
Who did the whole world’s soul contract, and drove
Into the glasses of your eyes
(So made such mirrors, and such spies,
That they did all to you epitomize)
Countries, towns, courts: beg from above
A pattern of your love!”

– “The Canonization,” John Donne

I just used this poem in a footnote for a mock opinion overturning Reynolds and legalizing plural marriage. Oh yes.

Have I ever mentioned how much I love Donne?

Compare and contrast:

Shudder-inducing Jackson Five ripoff versus sweet speech-based edit job:

Hmmm, this is a toughie…

On a completely unrelated note, I think I may be following this campaign too much. A week ago I had a dream in which Barack Obama danced around in a zoot suit singing this song:

Which in retrospect does make a kind of sense, given his message… Can Obama sing? Can he do this when he wins the nomination? Please please please?

ICCA 2008 videos! Hooray!

It turns out that ChiroJoel was able to sneak his camera into this year’s ICCA quarterfinals concert. Here’s the Youtube playlist of all the songs performed. Keep in mind that the SoCal VoCals and These Guys songs are private, so as to not give their opponents an advantage; once they’re no longer in the running, they’ll be made available to watch.

In the meantime, though…some highlights:

“Apologize,” by some guy who gets over-played on the radio. That there’s a lady winning the award for Best Beatboxer. Heck yes.

Host group TroyTones rocks up some Sister Act.

Claremont REPRESENT!

Brought to you by rstevens.

We got tagged ‘asinine’ for Dean Wood declaring a 70s-themed CMC party racist and sexist. It was the “White Party”: a scary name, perhaps, but the idea was to wear white attire to glow under the blacklights. At least that’s how everyone I know interpreted it; if anyone accidentally showed up in a KKK hood, well, that’s their own fault.

Sometime in the last few days, the CMC class of 2010 left racist and sexist party invitations with what appears to be a racist party theme on the dining room tables at Scripps College, Malott Commons.

I will not describe the content of the invitations so as not to do any more harm or damage to women and African Americans than has already been done , as I suspect these invitations were deposited throughout one or more of The Colleges.

[...]

While principles of free speech may protect these students’ rights to advertise in this manner, free speech is best exercised with common sense, intelligence and sensitivity. I am saddened and dismayed , and angered, that students in the year 2008 would use this kind advertising to promote a party. It harms not only women and African Americans, but all of us here at the colleges and undermines our educational efforts.

I urge any other campus which received these invites to take a similar stand against racism and sexism and communicate their anger and dismay to the CMC Class of 2010 through appropriate ways- such as not attending the party, writing letters to the class leadership and/or student news papers, and refusing to tolerate this kind of treatment of members of our communities.

Heh. The flyers were taken down at Scripps, but so far as I can tell they stayed up everywhere else. My suitemates went to the party. It was alright.

Dean Wood said she had already communicated with the CMC dean on the subject, but the president of ASPC said they never heard anything from her until she sent the campus-wide email and felt her conduct was “unprofessional.” And, given that they were the ones throwing the party, and the ones being publicly dragged through the mud as racist and sexist, he may have a point.

I mean, you could probably make the argument that the flyers are sexist because they have two ladies in gold bikini tops on them. You may or may not be right, but you could at least make the argument. But why *this* flyer? Loads of other parties advertise with scantily-clad chicks yearly–the go-go party at Linde, Bros and Hos, etc… Does this email mean that there is now an embargo on women on advertisements at Scripps? Or just this one because it made the dean mad?

On a final note, the DJ for the party sounds hilarious:

Where the racism came in, I have no idea, other than the theme of the party was misconstrued,” he said. “And sexist? I’d say sexy. I’ll meet them halfway on that.

I like how there was more GOTV on campus for the 2008 primary than the 2004 election. Posters on every lamp post, draped across Seal Court, a huge Obama logo made out of red, white, and blue flyers taped to the building across from the polling place… There were Hillary flyers finally, as of two days ago, but Obama was the clear Claremont choice.

Across the country, though, the choice was less clear. Obama won more states, but Clinton won the big ones (resulting a *one*-delegate Super Tuesday difference between the two!)

Pretty much everywhere had record turnout. It took my parents a half-hour to get to the middle school to participate in the primary; 62 was backed up in both directions. In a normal year, they combine two precincts in one building and *still* only have ten people show up. This year there were over 200 for the single precinct, not to mention those dissuaded by the traffic and insane lack of parking. There were similar stories all over Minnesota:

My wife left at 6:30, expecting to be five or ten minutes late, because the caucus site is about five miles from our house. It took her an hour to get there; traffic was just jammed. She got in at 7:30, got to vote at 8:00, just before it was supposed to close, but by then they had run out of ballots and were voting on torn strips of paper. They had filled the ballot boxes and were using the manila envelopes the convener kits came in as substitutes. Just as she placed her ballot in the envelope, it was announced that they were going to hold the vote open, as there were still two miles of cars waiting to get into the site. Biggest turnout in recent memory (Minnesota, Dakota County).

The enthusiasm was deafening. Hilariously enough, though, my precinct could send up to 30 state delegates, but out of those 200 people, only 20 people signed up to participate on the state level. Two of those are my parents. Still, that’s double the usual *turnout*, so I can’t complain too much.

I am hearing from multiple sources that the longer the race goes on, the more likely it is Obama wins. Not sure what all the reasons for this are. I guess as of January he has the fundraising advantage (wow, where did that come from?), so we should expect to see Hillary begging for more debates, both for the free advertising and because Obama, despite his oratory skills, desperately needs to hire a debate coach to rehearse responses. (Hey, now he’s got plenty of donations to pay for it!)

I think the way Super Tuesday went down was interesting. Yes, Hillary won most of the Democratic strongholds, plus Arkansas, Oklahoma and Tennessee (AR is obvious, but given Obama’s general strength in the South, why the other two?). But you’d have to run a hell of broken campaign if you were in serious danger of losing California and New York as a Democrat. If Clinton doesn’t win the nomination, those states’ll still vote for Obama. However, given Obama’s overwhelming success (and turnout) in states like Colorado and South Carolina, it seems that he has the best chance of pulling off the 50 State Strategy that Howard Dean has been pushing. With Clinton, so far it looks like we’re stuck with the “All we need is our base plus a couple swing states, f*** flyover country!” strategy of Gore and Kerry. And we all know how well that went. Even if we *can* win that way, it’s not sustainable. One Florida, or one Ohio, and we’re back where we started.

Still, my God! This deafening enthusiasm is heartening. Let’s try and not kill it.

Also, more hilarity from the conservative pundit front: It’s not just Ann Coulter who’s endorsed Clinton. Glenn Beck has too, and Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham have “vowed to destroy McCain.” Man, if the Republican party doesn’t get its act together, it’s gonna be the most fragmented election ever. You already have Ron Paul, who if he has any brains in his head will woo the Libertarian endorsement once the Republicans reject him since he’s got the fanatical constituency to support a decent independent/third-party run. Meanwhile, you’ve got evangelicals and the 20% of America that still likes Bush jonesing for a candidate, probably Huckabee. Huckabee himself seems to be wrangling his way into becoming McCain’s VP; we’ll have to see if that soothes the far right. If he doesn’t get the job, though, I think an evangelical-moderate party split would be hilarious.

Dolls, adoption, and race

Interesting article on racial preference in adoption as applied to dolls. Go read.

Summary: In its store, FAO Schwartz has an “adoption” center where you can buyadopt realistic baby dolls. When the dolls become a hit, all the white dolls sell out. After much semi-PC wrangling by parents, the Asian dolls sell out. Then the Hispanic dolls. And the last white doll, special needsdefective, with melted hands, is sold before the rows upon rows of Black baby dolls are.

Talk about play, or art, imitating life.

I mean, this in part seems to be the result of poor planning on FAO Schwartz’s part. When you are an overpriced toy store catering to the wealthy, you simply aren’t going to have that many customers of color as compared with the number of white ones. So don’t select your purchase distribution as if we live in a happy egalitarian race-free society.

But it also reflects the reality of American adoption (of real babies), as well as the fact that racism isn’t just black and white (so to speak): it’s a multilevel hierarchy of status, at least when you’re looking at it from the top. The Asian baby dolls are the “next best thing” to white. Why is that? Does this merely reflect the frequency of Chinese-US adoptions (thus normalizing the practice) or was it a preference to begin with? It does seem that, exoticism notwithstanding, (some) East Asians are in the process of “becoming white” within the race hierarchy, as Irish, Italian, Eastern European, and Jewish people have already done. (A lot of this is a class thing, I suspect; since many Asians who come to the US get the visa because they have a high level of education and can work as engineers, doctors, etc., that eliminates one major barrier between them and white elites. Consider how differently people treat Joe Kim in the cube next door and a Hmong refugee single mother–who, likely as not, has the tanner skin of the two.)

It’s such a complicated question. On the one hand, transracial adoption is definitely not easy. Pretending to be race-blind is neither practicable nor the best parenting strategy; the kid’s gonna have to deal with a second, assumed cultural identity whether or not you recognize it. Being prepared to recognize it, and do so helpfully, is hard. Furthermore, it seems weird to foist the duty of creating a multicultural society onto adopting couples. No one asks fertile couples to have babies of a different race than their own. (“How dare you have babies that look like you?!”) Because that would be stupid.

But, on the other hand, as in the FAO Schwartz scenario, it results in a mismatch in the adoption “market.” There are orphans waiting for adoption in the US, right now. You don’t *have* to wait years and years or fly off to Russia. The problem is that the available adoptees are mostly Black/Latino, while the class of adopting couples is mostly white. (Many of the unadopted are also older, while most adopters want infants.) Which leads to fun exchanges like this:

I remember one pre-adoptive parent I was working with who was considering switching from the willing-to-accept-a-White-baby-only category to the ‘biracial’ category. This parent had a potential ‘match’ and wanted to know if their unborn biracial child would look ‘more White or more Black’. I gave the standard multiracial-children-come-in-all-shades response. But what I really wanted to say was, “If you have to ask that question, I don’t think you get it.”

Really, what we need is a class of adopters that roughly matches the class of adoptees. Which would involve having true socioeconomic equality. And stuff.

…Isn’t that always the solution? *sigh*

In an aside, the article also suggests that there is a strong preference among adoptive parents for girls over boys (“adoptive parents request girls and the boys just wait”). As two out of the threefour out of the five adoptees in my family are boys, this surprised me. This is true domestically, not just as an artifact of all the one-child-policy girls? Why would this be?

[Edit: Here's a Slate article discussing possible reasons for the gender imbalance in adoptions. Interesting stuff.]

When discussing the Democratic presidential hopefuls, my mom pointed out that Obama, as a Democratic senator of Illinois, is a Chicago politician. Chicago is not known for its squeaky-clean political class. Thus, while it may not be apparent from his platform, there is a perfectly good chance that he owes somebody big time for his meteoric rise to contention. (Whereas we already know of many of Clinton’s liabilities and special interests. To quote Rumsfeld, “There are known knowns, and known unknowns…”)

This is, of course, a risk you take with any politician, whether they hail from Chicago or not. But I am willing to take that risk with Obama, and consider him, of the two, the actual candidate of change. And here is why.

Eight years ago, I took Government and watched my teacher bounce off the walls when the election was too close to call and a court called it. I have spent the entirety of my politically-aware life being horrified by my government and disgusted with the opposition party, which by rights ought to be mine. Wars plural. Poverty. Katrina. The Constitution eviscerated. Financiers run amok. Police brutality. The Moral Majority. Ridiculous debt levels. Broken trade policy. The military-industrial complex on crack. Etcetera. During these eight years, my political beliefs have settled into a odd equilibrium: half liberal, half libertarian.

Believe me, given the events of the last eight years, I am more than prepared to be disappointed. Perhaps it is true that nothing in our political system really works, that both parties represent pigs at the trough, and that smaller government is the least bad option. Perhaps I will be a full libertarian by the time I’m thirty.

But first I want my chance to believe in DC. I want a chance to be proud of my government, my president, and my country. I’ve only followed politics for eight years–I’ve never had that.

I’m willing to give the Democratic Party its chance to look in its pants, find its balls, and lead this damn country. (So to speak.) More than just changing the name of the party in power, though, I am willing to believe that there is a candidate who will revolutionize the face of American politics and take us out of this era of insanity.

I’m giving America one chance. And I think Obama has the best shot of making good on it.

P.S. In a move of epic hilarity, Ann Coulter endorsed Clinton over McCain. More food for thought.

ICCA 2008

Last week Elaine and I went again to the ICCA acapella quarterfinals concert at USC. (Last year’s roundup here and here.) Unfortunately it seems this year no one taped the whole thing. However, there was, at least, a Reverse Osmosis fan in the audience. You may remember them as the 2006 winner, 2007 host group, and perennial melter of my face.

So, you can see their three songs. First, “Supermassive Black Hole”. The group also has a Knights of Cydonia/Carol of the Bells medley; clearly their arranger likes Muse. Good on them.

Mmm, rump-wiggling. Now for the “Best Solo” award winner:

I promise you, it was about a billion times as moving when not filtered through a crappy camera microphone. Somebody get that lady on American Idol already.

And now bask in the glory of “Carry On Wayward Son”:

And the crime of the evening: this set got fourth place. Fourth. Granted, SoCal VoCal’s set was also mind-blowing; if anyone’s got footage, I’d love to be reminded. (Hint hint.) But still. What.

Clearly none of the judges are Guitar Hero fans.

Creative Commons License
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Powered by WordPress.
Theme NewRiver by Karen Rustad, based on Motion by 85ideas.