April 2007 Archives

Dean of MIT Admissions, Marilee Jones, resigned today because she fabricated her own resume. All I can say is "good riddance" since this memo is what I remember most about Ms. Jones:

They [students] need to be involved in decision making, but they need for us to make the final decisions. We Boomers in particular have a tendency toward consensus even when consensus is inappropriate. They don't want us to be friends. They want us to lead.
[...]
Stand firm through all of their excuses and whining. Eventually they will realize that you mean business and they'll comply because Millennials generally want to obey the rules.
[...]
They do not need 30+ choices of living groups - they are busy...they just want a room.

I was in a bad mood (we just lost the softball championship game), but now I'm quite pissed. I just read the seven-year-old Supreme Court case United States v. Morrison, which struck down part of the Violence Against Women Act. Unless I'm completely missing something, it appears to me that (1) five (or maybe even seven) members of the court and I have seriously different definitions of logic, and (2) these members nonchalantly promulgated an overtly racist view of America.

First, of all the 14th Amendment states "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." To that end Congress collected data and held hearings about how states were withholding due process from their female citizens. They found 21 states' justice systems to have severe biases. The majority readily notes that this is not a majority, but I'm fairly sure the 14th Amendment outlaws any state from withholding due process. Further, the majority noted that "Petitioners’ assertion that there is pervasive bias in various state justice systems against victims of gender-motivated violence is supported by a voluminous congressional record." Congress is the fact-finding institution; not the courts. So how did the majority get around the reasonable, and intuitive, conclusion that "bias" is a form of "action"? By adhering, incredibly, to the principles of racism!

They cite the Civil Rights Cases favorably, and apply the principle of stare decisis in upholding the 1886 case's logic. For those not well-versed in 19th Century judicial history, the court ruled in the Civil Rights Cases that a series of federal, anti-discrimination laws were unconstitutional. Before this ruling from the high court, Blacks were allowed in theaters, inns, etc, and were not generally segregated from whites. Immediately upon learning of the Court's ruling, however, owners of public gathering spaces kicked Blacks out and 70+ years of segregation followed [1]. The day of the decision was a sad (if mostly forgotten) moment in the history of our country. Almost inconceivably, the majority of the Court in 2000 affirmed that 1883 decision and used it as the basis for the Morrison ruling! I truly find this action unconscionable and repugnant. What's even more disappointing is that only *two* justices (Breyer and Stevens) dissented to that part of the majority opinion. What is wrong with our Supreme Court?!

The more I think about it, the less I can focus my disgust into coherent thoughts. So I'll leave you with Harlan's words from his dissent to the Civil Rights Cases:

The statute of 1875, now adjudged to be unconstitutional, is for the benefit of citizens of every race and color. What the nation, through Congress, has sought to accomplish in reference to that race is what had already been done in every State of the Union for the white race -- to secure and protect rights belonging to them as freemen and citizens, nothing more. It was not deemed enough "to help the feeble up, but to support him after."

For those of you who haven't heard, the Supreme Court upheld the federal "Partial Birth" (Intact D&X) Abortion ban. Here's my quick (non-lawyer) interpretation:

1) The majority (written by Justice Kennedy) believe that the barn adheres the to Roe standard because Roe mandates that restrictions on post-viability abortions have exceptions for the "life or health" of the mother. The ban does have an exception for the life of the mother, but not the health. Fair enough: with the help of a conjunction, the ban does not run afoul of Roe. But, as Justice Ginsberg points out, Casey mandates an exception for the health of the mother. So, Kennedy, what happened to stare decisis? Are we vacating Casey without saying as much?

2) Also, Roe says that the state has legitimate interest in protecting the health of the mother and the life of the fetus. But, this ban does not stop any abortions from being performed. It blocks a specific procedure (intact D & X), but says nothing of a similar procedure (D & E) which will be performed in its place. D & E has a greater chance of complications for some women. So, if no fetuses are being protected, and the law is detrimental to the health of women, where's the legitimate interest?

3) But the most disturbing part of the decision is its view on women. Justice Kennedy says "it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained." Kennedy's solution? Ban the procedure! I'm sure some men regret buying Viagra (for any number of reasons). Somehow I'm guessing the Kennedy would say a ban on Viagra was unconstitutional. (Note: I'm not comparing abortion to Viagra, just noting that when some people regret choices the answer is not to restrict their freedom.)

The silver lining:
1) Though some women may be harmed as a result of this decision, no one will die.* Somehow I think the Court should set a higher bar for itself. (*The "life of the mother" clause and the availability of other procedures should prevent this tragic possibility.)

2) The Court opened the door for another constitutional challenge under some legal framework I don't really understand, but that I think involves doctors suing. So that lawsuit will be filed shortly, and the law probably won't go into effect (at least for now).

Overall, my largest worry is that this decision opens the door for many more restrictions on a woman's right to determine her own actions.

I was just invited to the GooglePlex (Google's HQ) in Mountain View, CA! But, the meeting in question is on the day before my American Generals exams, so I can't go. So sad. Chicklet recommends taking my generals in the fall. I think I'll just hang my hopes on touring the GooglePlex another time.

I’m in Chicago (with ADale) for the Midwest conference to present out paper on text messaging. Our presentation is going well, and we received very helpful feedback. The complete results will be ready in August and we’ll be back in Chicago (for APSA) to present the final paper then. We’ll have a larger audience then as well – we were placed in the “Technology and Politics� section yesterday, but we’ll be in “Voting Behavior� at APSA. Unfortunately, not too many people have moved from comp sci to poli sci as I have, though I had a great conversation with Micah Altman about his new redistricting algorithm.

But, the conference isn’t the exciting part of the trip. On Thursday night, ADale and I attended a taping of Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me (the NPR News Quiz). And, yes folks, it’s not live, but taped on Thursday night (this fact has already disappointed a few people I’ve run into).

When I had listened to Wait Wait in the past I had formed the mental picture of the cast/setting. Since Carl Kassel makes the “CHASE AUDITORIUM in downtown CHICAGO� sound so impressive, I pictured this large theatre with stadium seating. In reality, it’s this small, flat auditorium in the basement of the Chase building – my high school’s stage sat more people. I had also imagined the panelists facing each other in triangle formation with large radio mikes hanging down at mouth-level. But, without my make-believe stadium seating, this arrangement would force at least one of the panelists to have their back toward the audience, so that wouldn’t work. Instead, they are seated at a long-rectangular table, and the lack of panelist-to-panelist eye contact causes some problems when two of them attempt to make a joke at the same time. (But, since the show is taped, the can edit these goofs out.) Also, Peter Sagal and Karl Cassel are standing at podiums, which I found odd.

This week’s show featured Julia Sweeney (from SNL fame) as the “Not My Job Guest.� She had some funny stories, and hearing about new act about converting from Catholicism to Atheism tempts my to skip the conference this afternoon and get tickets.

But the funniest part of the show was the “Bluff the listener game.� Roxanne Roberts completely lost it as she tried to read her story. She was fine until a third of the way through, at which point she couldn’t stop laughing. She barely got through the piece the first time, but then at the end of the show, the re-tape lines that they screwed up. So Roxanne had to do a “clean take� of her story. This, of course, proved near impossible, as she would get about four lines in and then burst out laughing. We, the audience, weren’t helping as we found this situation hilarious and added to the contagious laughter. Eventually, on about the sixth or seventh take, Roxanne pulled herself together and recorded the version that you’re likely to hear on the radio this weekend. I can only hope that they’ll air the original though.

It's halfway through Passover and I'm in dire need of another food group. Limiting myself to fruits, veggies, and dairy is always a bit of a struggle, and I'm managing decently this year (just made some matzah veggie reubens last night), but macaroons and matzah are quickly losing whatever taste they started with.

I had two very different Seder experiences. The first night was in Long Island with an Orthodox family. We didn't get started until the father returned from services (8:40!) and we read everything (and by everything I mean we didn't skip a single word in their Haggadah) in Hebrew. It gave me a chance to brush up on by Hebrew sight-reading skills; and I successfully led Grace After Meals for the first time ever. A few of us had to leave at 11:30 to catch the last train back to the city -- and we hadn't even had the last of the four requisite cups of wine yet! That family really embraces the spirit of "and it came to pass at midnight..."

My second Seder wasn't even on the second night. It was on Good Friday, because the family hosting it is half Jewish/half Christian. The guest list was me, my parents, my Mom's college roommate, her high school-aged kids, and their friends. Somehow I held my own in conversations that revolved around high school gossip, but the exciting part came after dinner. The son of the hostess (who I knew from Camp Wigwam) introduced me to a very "high-school boy" (if I may generalize) variant of ping pong.

The rules of the game (which seems to go by many names according the Internet, including "ping zing" and "weltball") are very similar to doubles ping pong (with strictly alternating shots). The big chance is that after you screw up and lose the point for your team, you have to stand with your (shirtless) back against the table while one of your opponents smashes a ping pong ball at your back. First team with a combined five ping-pong ball sized welts on their back loses. My teams (we rotated) went 1-2, but my back did not come out the worst of the lot. (Which I think is a decent accomplishment considering I can't remember the last time I played ping pong.)

Speaking of sports, I had a heart-breaking NCAA picks. After going perfect through the first two rounds, two of my teams lost by one point in the third round, then UNC lost in overtime....I just couldn't catch a break. I was one UNC meltdown away from second place and $65, but alas, it just wasn't meant to be. Since I picked the eventual winner correctly I ended up at the 66% percentile in the ESPN big pool, which is decent, but worse than usual for me.

Also, D.C. United, get some defenders. I don't know why the coaches and owners think that three decent (but not terribly good) defenders are sufficient in this league. Why did we only acquire attacking players in the offseason? Now, I have to say I'm happy with those acquisitions (especially Emilio), but even after we signed plenty of forwards, we went out and bought another one in Marc Burch. Am I the only one who has noticed that in United has yet to produce a shutout in their first five games? And Colorado tore up the flanks of the back three in the MLS opener.

And while I'm ranting, did anyone else read the Kathleen Parker's sexist opinion piece? In the column she claims that "mothers" shouldn't be in military situations with "rough men" implying that: (1) once you become a mother you can't be tough/rough, and (2) these "rough men" couldn't possibly fight effectively side-by-side with a woman. And in her most utter disregard for logic, she claims that the "military is not a proper vehicle for social experimentation," implying that these mothers were forced into the military through some sort of random assignment. Perhaps she forgot the military (both in the U.S. and U.K.) is all-volunteer, mothers choose to enlist, and that Ms. Parker is actually the one advocating the restriction of individual freedoms. In one point, I do agree with her: Ms. Parker should take her own advice and be wary when she sides with Pres. Ahmadinejad on controversial social issues.

(Update: Oh, and one more thought for Ms. Parker: let's use the Leo/Hoynes rule of decorum and not exploit the personal military sufferings of others for our own political arguments. That's not the "Welcome Home" the former hostages, and Smn. Faye Turney in particular, deserve.)