Civil Rights Not on the Ballot June 18th, 2009

The bad part about direct democracy is that it empowers the tyranny of the majority to overrun the rights of unpopular minorities.

We have reported before that when the D.C. city council voted to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, the lone dissenting vote was cast by Marion Barry, who claimed to stand “on the moral compass of God” and opposed the legislation also out of what he claimed to be racial solidarity. Joining him in standing in the schoolhouse door was Bishop Harry Jackson, a District resident (more on that below) who is the pastor of a Maryland church.

Unhappy that the city council passed the civil rights legislation, Jackson threatened to bring the matter to a city-wide referendum, where, as we have noted before, it just might pass.  Jackson hit a snag earlier this week, though, when the city’s Board of Elections invalidated the proposed ballot question since it would deny civil rights to LGBT people, whom the city’s Human Rights Act protects from discrimination. City law wisely prohibits ballot referenda that contradict the Human Rights Act; human rights are not, and should never be, up for a popular vote.

Mr. Jackson is challenging the board’s decision in court, hoping an “activist judge” will side with him and let him put the discriminatory civil rights question on the ballot. Complicating the matter is whether Mr. Jackson has standing as a District resident to propose the referendum. As the Washington Blade has reported, Jackson and his wife own two houses (blessed are the poor?) in Montgomery County, Maryland, and neighbors claim they reside in one of those houses, a $1.1-million mansion. The Jacksons, however, claim neither home as their principal residence according to tax records. For the purpose of voting, Mr. Jackson claims residence in unit 630 in the tony Whitman condominium building in the Mount Vernon Triangle area of DC. Tax records show that a Mr. Joseph Honaker owns this one-bedroom condo and claims it as his primary residence. If these records all hold true, it would appear that Mr. Jackson shares a one-bedroom condo with another man.

Joining Mr. Jackson in his battle against civil rights is Rev. Walter E. Fauntroy, former D.C. Delegate to the House of Representatives, former city councilman, and civil rights activist (until now); Rev. Dale E. Wafer, pastor of the Harvest Church in Northeast; Melvin Dupree; Sandra B. Harris, a real estate agent with Cosmopolitan Properties in Shaw; Dr. Patricia Johnson, dean of a local Christian liberal arts college; and Bobby Perkins, Sr., pastor of World Missions for Christ Church in Shaw.  Even if Mr. Jackson is not a bona fide resident, that still doesn’t necessarily stop the ballot referendum since one of these other residents could carry the torch of discrimination.

Nobody knows how the court will rule (our guess is that they will defer to the Board of Elections,  City Council and city attorney), but it is truly shocking to see such strident opposition to civil rights in a supposedly liberal city, where over 90% of the electorate cast ballots for Barack Obama.  Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Perhaps Ahmadinejad Actually Won June 15th, 2009

In the 2004 documentary Control Room, an Al Jazeera producer explains that rumor and conspiracy theory often pass for journalism in the Middle East. If a water main breaks in Damascus, he explained, the papers there will find a way to blame Israel or America. Indeed, Western observers often note how casually conspiracy theories are taken as actual truth, but the recent election in Iran shows that suspicion and whispers are not solely the province of the Middle East.

The re-election of Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has sparked an outcry not only in Iran, but in many other countries, where the media seem quick to assume the vote was rigged. How could it be, these outlets demanded to know, that a majority of the Iranian public would re-elect an angry, right-wing demagogue, who carries little support among Iranians who live in the West an appear on CNN? The elite papers asked the same question after George W. Bush beat John Kerry in 2004. So disconnected and self-assured are these editors, that they arrogantly dismiss another inconvenient possibility: that a majority of Iranian voters actually prefer Ahmadinejad.

Too many outlets have been quick to accept the opinions of Ahmadinejad’s opponents, including Iran’s well-off, Tehran’s students, and well-to-do Iranian émigrés, who proclaim that the re-election victory was a complete fraud. If one were to listen only to these opinions, one might get a skewed view of the world. Americans living abroad overwhelmingly voted absentee for John Kerry, but the preference of jet-setting ex-pats does not a democratic majority make!

Two think-takers published their Iranian opinion poll in today’s Post proving that Ahmadinejad does command wide support throughout Iran. Furthermore, those questioned openly expressed  supposedly seditious opinions, such as the view that their government is too secretive and that the Supreme Leader should be elected. If those polled were willing to say these things to strangers on the phone, they certainly must have felt comfortable to express their presidential preferences freely.

We are not fans of Ahmadinejad, but Westerners should end their condescending disbelief and face the possibility that a majority of Iranian voters have a different view of what’s best for Iran.

Civil Rights on the Ballot? May 27th, 2009

Bishop Harry Jackson, who, while a District resident, is the pastor of a Maryland church and is pushing to put civil rights up to a popular vote. The Post reports that he is going to try to bring to a referendum the city council’s near-unanimous vote to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.  (Councilman Marion Barry, claiming to stand “on the moral compass of God”, was the lone dissenter)

Though we have worried before that such a referendum might pass, the city council could avoid a ballot measure altogether by inserting the marriage language into the city’s human rights code. According to existing statues, the District’s human rights code is not subject to voter referenda— this is wise, as civil rights should never be put to a popular vote.

However, even if Mr. Jackson fails to get the question on the ballot and even if such a question were rejected by the electorate, Congress could always intervene.  In fact, Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Dan Boren (D-Oklahoma) have introduced a bill to prevent the city council from recognizing same-sex marriage.

It’s unlikely such a bill would pass.  Soon the District will be added to the list of American juridictions that have ended marriage discrimination.

Obama’s Compromise on DC Vouchers May 7th, 2009

We lamented President Obama’s decision to swiftly end the D.C. voucher program, noting that his administration, which doles out billions of dollars for careless bankers and failed automakers, couldn’t find a trifling $15 million for poor children in the District of Columbia.  The Post reports today that the president has yielded to his better judgment and is proposing a fairer method of ending a program, which ideally would not end.

The program provided school vouchers for low-income children in the District to attend private schools for two-year stints.  Those in the program showed modest academic improvement and parents were much happier with their chosen schools.  It’s no secret that teachers’ unions are hostile to school choice, since it risks diverting public funds from the failed schools they control to the private and parochial schools in which they have little clout.  The unions pressured Congress, which is now majority Democrat, and Congress obliged by refusing to renew the voucher program.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan swiftly rescinded the vouchers for the upcoming year, pronouncing the program dead.

The president is now proposing a compromise: the children currently enrolled in the program will receive vouchers through their high school graduations, but no new students will be admitted to the program.  This is an improvement over the previous plan, which would have kicked kids of modest means to the curb come September.

The president is right to strike a compromise— compromises are necessary in a democracy— but the president’s choice to compromise on this subject is worrying.  On one side are children from low-income families that have few choices for quality education.  On the other side are powerful, deep-pocketed teachers’ unions that oppose reform or real accountability measures that might inconvenience or shrink their membership.

Ideally, Mr. Obama would expand the program to afford more low-income District children the ability to escape the city’s schools, which are among the worst in the nation.  Mr. and Mrs. Obama, upon moving to the White House, passed over the city’s public schools in favor of the private Sidwell Friends School.  Why are the Obamas’ neighbors any less deserving?

Normally it is good for a president to compromise, and this compromise is likely the best he could achieve with this Congress.  Nonetheless, this compromise suggests a moral equivalence between low-income children looking for a good education and powerful teachers’ unions looking to protect their privilege.

---

Update:
On a positive note, the president is proposing $517 million for merit-pay programs.  Let us hope this is not window-dressing.

Marion Barry: Civil Rights For Me, But Not For Thee May 5th, 2009

Civil rights advanced today in the District of Columbia in spite of Marion Barry, who cast the lone vote in opposition to the city’s recognition of same-sex marriage.  The former mayor, drug convict, habitual tax-cheat, and overwhelmingly re-elected councilman from Ward 8 justified his vote with an outrageous claim of racial solidarity:

What you’ve got to understand is 98 percent of my constituents are black and we don’t have but a handful of openly gay residents.  Secondly, at least 70 percent of those who express themselves to me about this are opposed to anything dealing with this issue. The ministers think it is a sin, and I have to be sensitive to that.

That’s completely irrelevant. Mr. Barry believes that civil rights should be up to the popular vote, though he, of all people, as a former civil rights activist, should know how morally problematic that is.  Individual rights (especially the right to equal protection) are for individual citizens to have and not for others to take away; this is the absolutely essential foundation of a free constitutional democracy.

Furthermore, contentious civil rights never pass on popular vote— if they did, they wouldn’t be contentious.  The purpose of federal civil rights laws and Constitutional rights is to prevent the tyranny of the majority from abridging the rights of unpopular minorities.

Mr. Barry, completely oblivious to the fact that his very same arguments have been used to justify racial segregation, disenfranchisement, and discrimination, predicted alarmingly that the council’s vote would provoke a “civil war.”

The language of civil war was also a favorite of Gov. George Wallace (pictured above), who infamously promised “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever,” in his inaugural speech standing at the same exact spot where Jefferson Davis was sworn in as president of the Confederacy.  Whereas Mr. Wallace decades later repented for his dreadful segregationism, Mr. Barry (yet again) has no shame.

After the 2004 election, some asked what’s the matter with Kansas? After this incident and after noticing that Mr. Barry was re-elected to the council with an astonishing 91% of the vote, we wonder, what’s the matter with Ward 8?

A Torturous Past May 3rd, 2009

President Obama’s recent decision on the torture memos (to release the memos, but not to prosecute the authors), though dissatisfying to many, is politically a good compromise.  It partly addresses the need for accountability for Executive Branch abuses by exposing public officials and their support of torture.  The president’s decision not to investigate and prosecute further, though not the ideal solution to upholding the rule of law, will spare the country and Congress from a protracted political argument that would prove to be a needless distraction.

Though some in the administration have justified the end of the torture policy as a way to deprive al-Qaeda and its sympathizers of a recruitment tool, it’s hard to believe that suicide bombers are recruited to their cause solely because of a far-off country’s limited violation of the Geneva Conventions.  That said, it is hypocritical for the former vice-president Dick Cheney to demand the full release of all the memos that might suggest the efficacy of torture.  During much of his tenure, he defended the administration’s secrecy as necessary for national security.  How quickly he changes his mind when it suits his political opinion.

Even if CIA records reveal the efficacy of torture (we believe the CIA can probably torture information out of a suspect provided they find the right suspect), that does not make it right.  Mr. Cheney’s utilitarian argument for torture is wrong: we cannot sacrifice human rights in the pursuit of terrorists.

We agree with the president’s decision—certainly a difficult decision for him—to move on.

Marion Barry Opposes Same-Sex Marriage Because “I Am A Politician Who Is Moral” April 29th, 2009

We wrote before of the fact that an astonishing 70% of black Californians voted for Proposition 8, which prohibited same-sex marriage.  We also wrote before that when we extrapolate the California results and apply them to the District, a similar city ballot question would pass if one considers income, education, or race.*

Just a few weeks ago, to our surprise, the city council unanimously passed a bill to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. That very same day, the Vermont legislature stole much of the media thunder by overriding the governor’s veto and legalizing same-sex marriage in the Green Mountain State.  Nonetheless, it was a bold move for Washington, a city whose every decision can be vetoed by a Congress looking to make a statement. The issue of marriage is usually portrayed in the media as a religious-secular struggle and another side of the issue rarely discussed: race.

The relationship between race and opinion on same-sex marriage— a relationship so quietly whispered it dare not speak its name!— has come out of the closet in DC, a city that votes overwhelmingly Democrat and is also 56% black.

Several area churches (all predominantly black and some of them suburban) spent part of Tuesday protesting the city council’s recent decision and lined up outside the Wilson Building on Freedom Plaza to voice their displeasure. (See the Post’s video of the event)

Bishop Harry Jackson (pictured above) of the New Hope Christian Church— which is outside the District— recently penned his own opinion on the matter in Newsweek lamenting his own “robbery” at the city council meeting by those dastardly “equality vigilantes”!

I felt robbed and disenfranchised as I observed “equality vigilantes” setting up an unjust concept of civil rights.

Mr. Jackson seems to have his own peculiar interpretation of civil rights.  In the Post video above, he states:

Marriage is not a right.  Brothers and sisters can’t get married. People who are related can’t get married.  You can’t marry a three-year-old.  There are parameters that are for the benefit of the society about marriage.

Wrong.  In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a basic civil right.  To deny a civil right on account of sex (that is, to disqualify a woman from marrying another woman solely because she is a woman) requires a compelling state interest.  Some states have decided there is such an interest, some have found there is not.  Nonetheless, in American jurisprudence marriage is a civil right.

Mr. Jackson, who, as the Post’s Marc Fisher has noted, has strong connections to the national conservative movement, continues, “I’d rather be politically courageous than politically correct.”  That’s a noble sentiment, for sure, but it is certainly possible to be selfishly courageous, too.

Lynne Breece, a District resident and a bystander at the event, offered some hope that not everyone shares Mr. Jackson’s views:

As a black woman, I know a lot about discrimination on both ends, and I know what it feels like.  And for us, of all people, black ministers to use the pulpit to oppress another minority and then to cloak that bigotry using the bible! This happened to black people!

Indeed, though Dr. Martin Luther King cited scripture to demand equality, Jim Crow supporters and defenders of slavery never hesitated to quote the good book either.

Councilman Marion Barry, who didn’t show up to vote on the bill, but who previously promised to vote for same-sex marriage, managed to make it to the rally and profess his new-found opposition.  Why the change of heart?  Barry provided a great gem of a quotation:

I am a politician who is moral.

Dream on!

Even with Barry’s opposition, the rest of the council and the mayor have all voiced support for eventual same-sex marriage licensing in the city.  Messrs. Barry and Jackson notwithstanding, justice and fairness shall overcome someday.

---

* A majority of California’s urban voters voted against Prop. 8.  Since DC is technically 100% urban, a similar proposition would be defeated by this measure.  Admittedly, extrapolating from the results of the California electorate is difficult since California is much more diverse than DC on several important points.  California includes liberal cities, conservative cities, liberal suburbs, conservative suburbs, and plenty of rural areas.  Nonetheless, there are no public opinion polls for District residents on the matter of same-sex marriage, leaving us only to offer these educated guesses.

Imperial Ads on the New York Times April 28th, 2009

We have noticed that the ads on the New York Times website have become increasingly intrusive on the home page.  Look at this imperial ad by Apple:

One must scroll so far to find the opinion section!

We were about to curse the Gray Lady but then remembered that we read it for free.  Such is the life of a freeloader.

Another Item for the List of Stuff White People Like: Protesting Globalization April 27th, 2009

It’s often joked that finding a person of color in an Abercrombie & Fitch catalog is like playing Where’s Waldo? Likewise, in a country that is only 80% white, it is always suspicious to see political movements that suffer a demographic skew.

While browsing photos of this weekend’s anti-World Bank and anti-IMF protests, we noticed a particularly Vermontish tinge to the protest crowd.  Other than the Metropolitan Police Department officers keeping order, can you spot the non-white protesters?

Not here:

Nor here:

Nor here:

Pony-tail, check.  Flag desecration, check.  Birkenstocks, maybe. Diversity, nope.

Black Bandanna: $5.  Che Guevara shirt: $36.  Criticizing the system from which you lavishly benefit: priceless.

“I hear the Gap is having a sale!”

There he is!  Look to the right side of the photo; sail your eyes through the White Sea and there you will get your first glimpse of diversity.

Again!  Just behind ‘NO’.  Almost, missed him, didn’t you?

In all seriousness, though, the protest crowd’s lack of diversity is typical for Washington’s protest movements. One might expect this sort of whitewashing on the Right, but from the Left it has become commonplace too.

On the Left, the typical narrative of world oppression a well-worn tale of woe: privileged white society relentlessly oppresses everyone else. Indeed, these protesters seem to aim their anger at the IMF and World Bank for being the ultimate manifestations of this struggle. Unfortunately, under the protesters’ narrative, their own lack of diversity belies their sincerity; they themselves are the privileged set—who, after all, can afford to travel to Washington on such a frivolous pretext?

In addition to demographics (i.e., entirely white, with one or two “exotic” faces), these protest movements also share the same frivolity and ephemeral imagination of an Abercrombie catalog.  Watch as privileged youth frolic on a warm spring day, all dressed in themed couture, exhibiting a casual solidarity.

And, like those models in the catalog, when the seasons change, they’ll move on to the next fashion.

White Suburban Kids Can Be Terrorists, Too April 26th, 2009

Though George W. Bush often defined terrorism incorrectly as taking up arms against the United States or its interests, a more accurate definition would be the actual or threatened  destruction of people or property as a means of political intimidation.  States can commit terrorism against opposition parties just as stateless Islamists can bomb hotels.  Either way, the use of violence for political intimidation is terrorism.

The definition came to mind to today when reading about fifteen people who smashed and vandalized two banks in Logan Circle early Saturday morning.  They weren’t there to steal money, but, as the anti-IMF and anti-World Bank graffiti they left in their wake suggests, they had a beef against the capitalist system.  It’s no coincidence that these acts of violence coincided with the annual meeting of the World Bank and IMF, a perennial target of anarchist and anti-capitalist theatrics.

Since this violent destruction of property was motivated by a hatred of the relationship between capitalism and the world’s political systems, this violence, which the Post reported as mere “vandalism” qualifies as terrorism.  The Post won’t classify this violence as terrorism and the city’s police aren’t likely to either.  But had a similar crime been committed not by young, white Marxists, but by middle-aged Muslim extremists, the media and police would have likely classified this violence as terrorism.

This is a shameful double standard we ought to eliminate.  Radical Muslims aren’t the only people who can commit terrorism.

The Bible and Amnesty April 24th, 2009

Just when you thought citing the bible for political purposes was solely the province of the Right, our quick perusal today of Leviticus turned up these verses:

And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.

But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. (19:33-4)

If there’s a so-called “Defense” of Marriage Act, based largely on prejudices inspired from odd passages from Leviticus, shouldn’t there also be an accompanying amnesty statute for illegal immigrants?

The Suit in the Schoolhouse Door April 23rd, 2009

“George Bush doesn’t care about black people.”

So said Kanye West in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina when hundreds of poor, mostly black, residents of New Orleans were stranded in the Superdome and atop flood houses in the Big Easy.

No matter, with the election of Barack Obama, surely the Federal government now attends to the best interests of disadvantaged minority populations, right?  Not always.

In 2004 Congress passed the District of Columbia School Choice Incentive Act, providing vouchers of up to $7,500 for low-income children in the District to attend private schools. Since the District’s public schools are among the worst in the nation and considering that poor parents love their children, too, it’s no surprise that parents jumped on the opportunity with such enthusiasm that the program developed a waiting list. A recent U.S. Department of Education study found that children in the program scored about the same in math and slightly more in reading.  Nonetheless, voucher parents were much more satisfied with their chosen schools than public school parents were with their schools.*

The voucher program operated with the strong support of the mayor, the District’s “state” superintendent, and the low-income parents of the voucher recipients (90% black, 9% Latino), who finally got the chance to give their children what their neighbors Mr. & Mrs. Obama give to their children: a quality private education.  The parents were happy and the kids’ performance improved modestly.  In an era when the Treasury hands out hundreds of billions of dollars to shoddy banks and failed carmakers, certainly the voucher program’s modest success was worth the paltry $15 million annual cost.

Not so fast!  Enter the teachers’ unions and their partner-in-disparity, Eleanor Holmes Norton, D.C.’s non-voting Delegate to the House of Representatives.  She made clear her opposition to the program, telling the Post, “…the Democratic Congress is not about to extend this program.”

With Democratic majorities in both houses and at the behest of the teachers’ unions, Congress, fresh from passing $410 billion budget bill, callously failed to renew the voucher program.

If we ran our elections the way we run many of our public schools, there would be civil rights investigations and lawsuits to match.  Instead, when public-sector mediocrity denies poor children their right to a decent education, thereby reducing their future life opportunities, the Right doesn’t much bother with an issue it never noticed anyway and the Left willfully averts its eyes toward its well-heeled funders.  If voting patterns still hold true, the beneficiaries of these programs would vote overwhelmingly Democrat anyway; the G.O.P. has nothing to gain, the Democrats have nothing to lose.  Sadly, the children have much to lose.

In noting the disparities in the quality of public education in America, Rev. Al Sharpton, in a rare moment of clarity, stated why public education continues to fail millions of Americans:

The people standing in the schoolhouse doorway now are people we thought were our friends, liberals wearing suits not bibb overalls, principals and teachers who want to uphold the status quo — condescending bigots who perpetuate a system we know is profoundly unequal.

Conservatives typically don’t make public education their issue, except when it comes to biology (evolution), health (sex), and school prayer.  Liberals typically advocate the use of government power to equalize social opportunity and even equalize social outcomes.  Even though one would normally expect the Left to advocate policies that best benefit marginalized populations, the Democratic party still knows that both money and ballots talk: the nation’s two big teachers’ unions, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, support Democratic candidates with massive investments, volunteers, and votes.  When the interests of the unions conflict with the interests of disadvantaged children of color, the former constituency holds the trump card.

Tellingly, Ms. Norton also told the Post several months ago, “We have to protect the children, who are the truly innocent victims here.”  Indeed they are.

---

* In fairness, one might attribute this to the fact that people have a tendency to view the consequences of their own choices more positively than consequences imposed on them by others.  Just as people exhibit a pride of ownership in homes, people exhibit a pride of ownership in their own choices.  If “choice” can apply to abortions, it should certainly apply to schooling.

Obama and His Discontents April 18th, 2009

We never thought we’d agree so ardently with Joseph Stiglitz, but he appears to be among the few voices on the Left willing to call out President Obama on the flimsier elements of his economic plans.

We have noted before (to deaf ears, alas!) that the Obama Administration is no stranger to Wall Street.  Not only did Wall Street types donate twice as much to his campaign than to McCain’s, but Mr. Obama then hired Larry Summers as his chief economic adviser.  Before returning to Washington, Mr. Summers, as we noted earlier, “earned” a princely $5.2 million advising the hedge fund D. E. Shaw one day a week for the past two years.  (Talk about lavish executive pay!)

Anyway, Stiglitz, too, has pointed out the blatant conflict of interest in the administration:

“America has had a revolving door. People go from Wall Street to Treasury and back to Wall Street,” he said. “Even if there is no quid pro quo, that is not the issue. The issue is the mindset.”

Stiglitz is also critical of the administration’s stimulus package, since only a fraction of it is destined to be spent in 2009.

O, Tempore! O, the Newspapers! April 15th, 2009

Just when you thought every journalist had already published a piece lamenting the decline of the newspapers, Maureen Dowd, the shrillest voice at the Gray Lady, prints her own J’accuse blaming Google.

We always enjoy watching the ink-fueled spats that ensue when one member of the Establishment (Google) subverts another member (New York Times).

Friedman’s Metaphors April 15th, 2009

If there’s one thing New York Times columnist Tom Friedman likes more than name-dropping, it’s churning out puzzling metaphors.  Two of his book titles, The Lexus and the Olive Tree and The World is Flat, illustrate this pastime of his— the former book comparing financial regulatory frameworks to computer software.  We doubt how helpful it is, though, to compare one complicated abstraction to another and expect the general reader to better understand global finance, but his books sell well.

After many rhetorical misses, Friedman finally makes a hit in contrasting today’s geopolitical problem children (Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea).  Using a metaphor of pulleys and levers, Friedman divides these four countries into two groups: those who promise to “pull levers”, only to find the levers breaking off the wall (Afghanistan, Pakistan), and those who grope around with much fanfare only pretending to pull levers (Iran, North Korea).