Gabriel AranaJul 20, 2010
*/ @DanFosterNRO On poor white Christians, contra @AdamSerwer and @TimFernholz: http://bit.ly/bfj5vN @TimFernholz Wow, that's really...um...not responding to any of our arguments with Douthat. @TimFernholz Adam specifically said, btb, and I concur, that increasing socioeconomic diversity from all racial backgrounds is critical. @TimFernholz And, incidentally, is your post an affirmation that diversity should be a factor in college admissions? @TimFernholz Also super-curious if feeling discriminated = actual discrimination only applies to white folks, or all groups? @DanFosterNRO feeling discriminated against becomes important when it warps our political discourse, black/white whatever. @DanFosterNRO idea is that it's something to be addressed, not that feelings alone can/should form basis of claims for political restitution @DanFosterNRO Not sure where you saw support for diversity agenda in my post. One can say AA fails on its own terms w/o supporting said terms. Follow the rest of...
Gabriel AranaJul 13, 2010
*/ @reihansalam @willwilkinson really is very passive re: abuses of power that would shock @normative or @adamserwer, due to a cultural faith in authority. @AdamSerwer @reihansalam @willwilkinson whawetalkinbout? @reihansalam @AdamSerwer Attitudes towards the use and abuse of state power. @AdamSerwer @reihansalam @willwilkinson Porky's II is clearly an abuse of something
Gabriel AranaJul 13, 2010
In response to last week's court ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in the states, anti-gay-marriage crusader Maggie Gallagher predictably called the proceedings a "sham trial" and the judge's decision a "moral outrage" and "intellectually absurd." Which is what Gallagher seems to say about every gay-rights trial that does not go her way. What's interesting about her comments on CBN is that she accuses the Massachusetts judge of defining "marriage" for the rest of the country: Nobody is saying that the state of Massachusetts doesn't have the right to define marriage for state purposes ... [But] what Massachusetts is now saying that they have the right to overturn and decide what the federal government defines as marriage. The more important point, however, is that this is not a case of a federal court in Massachusetts deciding what marriage means for the whole country; it's quite the...
Gabriel AranaJul 08, 2010
In response to the Justice Department's lawsuit [PDF] against Arizona and similar challenges from various civil-rights groups and law-enforcement agencies, Adam and I have noted that for all the outcry over its potential for civil-rights violations, the legal challenges to SB 1070 center around whether the state is pre-empting the federal government's constitutional authority to regulate immigration. This has led conservative commentators like the National Review 's Rich Lowry to question the "sincerity" of the administration's legal argument -- which, if you consider that the primary objective in court is to get a decision in your favor, is pretty naive -- and others to ask whether Obama is avoiding the race issue. But the most immediate consideration is whether the federal suit will prevail in its primary short-term objective: stopping the law from going into effect on July 29. In its initial legal filings, the Justice Department requested a preliminary injunction to do just that...
Gabriel AranaJul 06, 2010
*/ @jbouie New Post: Freedom of Choice? http://dlvr.it/1pcVb @MonicaBPotts bless you, you're the one person not talking about one sport or another. @jbouie LOL. Yeah, I really don't care about sports, so twitter is kind of lame for me too.