Affirmative Action in Michigan

In 2006 Michigan voters, via a voter's referendum, constitutionally banned public sector affirmative action for race and gender in education, employment and contracting. This meant that race or gender could officially no longer be taken in account when deciding who was accepted to a given school, which company won the bid for a state or local contract, or who got hired to a public sector job. This referendum was named Proposition 2 and passed easily by a 58-42 margin. The impact of this was mixed to say the least, as there is a Federal Executive Order 11246 ,which under certain circumstances requires federal contractors (ie. public universities) to have affirmative action programs or goals. 

But honestly few people in Michigan cared too much about the impact on employment or contracting so much as they did about the impact on education. Proposition 2 was passed as a reaction to two cases involving the University of Michigan and two different plaintiffs,  Jennifer Gratz (pictured above with Ward Connerly) and Barbara Grutter, who upon being denied admission to the undergrad program and the law school program respectively, threw the mother of all temper tantrums and literally decided to make a federal case out of it. Ultimately Gratz won her case and Grutter lost, for reasons which I am sure The Janitor can explain in great detail. Basically the Supreme Court decided that the undergrad affirmative action admissions policy was too strict and too close to a quota while the law school admissions policy was more narrowly structured, although Justice Sandra Day O'Connor noted that she did not expect that the law school's policy would be necessary 25 years from her decision approving it.

A 50% win wasn't good enough for Grutter and especially Gratz so in short order they hooked up with Ward Connerly, a man who proves that yes you can still make a living as a token minority, and convinced the majority of Michigan voters to alter our constitution to make it crystal clear that public sector affirmative action wasn't allowed any more, no way no how. Period.

Now here's where it gets kind of tricky. The other side (i.e. the good guys) decided to fight this ban in court. Although it was a long shot and I wasn't totally convinced of the validity of the legal arguments, to many's surprise, recently they actually won in federal court-The US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The appeals court said Proposal 2, which was [passed] by a 58-42 percentage margin, is unconstitutional because it restructured Michigan’s political process in a way that placed special burdens on minorities that deprived them of equal protection under the law.“The majority may not manipulate the channels of change in a manner that places unique burdens on issues of importance to racial minorities,” Judge R. Guy Cole said in an opinion joined by Judge Martha Daughtrey. Judge Julia Gibbons dissented, saying she didn’t think Proposal 2 impermissibly restructured the political process.Cole and Daughtrey were appointed by President Bill Clinton. Gibbons was appointed by George W. Bush.Attorney Washington said Michigan colleges and universities provide preferential treatment to a variety of groups, including veterans, the poor and students from rural areas. He said Proposal 2 discriminated against blacks, Latinos and native Americans.Today’s decision is the latest development in a long and bitter battle over race admission policies in Michigan colleges and universities.

Needless to say Miss Jennifer wasn't too happy about this turn of events:

Gratz, however, said the majority opinion is “ludicrous and illogical.”
“This court is saying that we place a burden on minorities by treating them equally with non-minorities…that we have to treat people unequally in order to treat them equally,” Gratz said, “That is insane.”

And Michigan, which is now under Republican management, has promised to appeal.

But Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette said this afternoon the decision will be appealed to the full 6th U.S. Circuit, and that, in the mean time, Proposal 2 will remain in effect.
"MCRI embodies the fundamental premise of what America is all about: equal opportunity under the law," Schuette said in a statement. "Entrance to our great universities must be based upon merit, and I will continue the fight for equality, fairness and rule of law."

Article

Court Decision

I think that Grutter's and Gratz's arguments were ultimately unconvincing because there were several white people that had received admission to the law school or undergraduate program that had less competitive scores or grades than they did. In addition as supporters of affirmative action court pointed out there were several other categories of students who received diversity points in the admission process (geographical/poverty/veterans) besides just racial minorities. However I also must confess a slight bias against affirmative action in so-called objective criteria (i.e. grades/tests) while having a HUGE bias for it where the criteria aren't objective (real life/the workplace). In the workplace I've just seen and experienced too many instances where it's not what you know but who you know, who you are, how people respond and relate to you. I've seen whites with high school degrees making the same or more money than blacks with college degrees. I've seen whites picked out and groomed for promotion by white managers while blacks languish in the same area for years.  In virtually every organization I've been in the further up the chain you go the fewer and fewer black people you see. There I think some form of affirmative action is not only a good thing but required.

However one can make a convincing argument that because of historical and ongoing segregation, discrimination and consumption and endorsements of racist beliefs that blacks are still suffering from a disbelief in their own abilities and that this shows up in tests and grades. If this is really the case then it is incumbent upon society to provide some form of corrective to this reality.

Although I find this argument to have merit I don't think that Gratz or more importantly the Supreme Court will. Honestly I think this is just a road bump to the Supreme Court allowing Proposition 2 to stand. It's a huge step from saying that you can allow affirmative action to you must allow affirmative action.

QUESTIONS:

What's your take?

Do the voters of Michigan have the right to ban state public sector affirmative action?

Do you think affirmative action is a winner politically?

Do you find the Court of Appeals' reasoning valid?

Rules of Engagement

I think there is a pretty strong consensus that marriage proposals and engagements supposed to be special, memorable, and – dare I say – conditional.? I think it is safe to say that there are rules that most folks would agree too. Of course, these rules are… fuzzy…and can be subjective. But for the most part, you would get most folks to agree that there were a couple of things that went wrong in Roy Williams' proposal to his girlfriend Brooke Daniels.

Let me give you the background in a nutshell. Just before Valentine’s Day, Williams, an NFL wide receiver with the Dallas Cowboys, attempted to propose to his girlfriend Daniels, a former Miss Texas. This proposal, which was sent by mail (yes, mail – USPS), consisted of a signed baseball for her brother, money for school and dental bills (Destiny’s Child – Pay My Bills?), a recording of his proposal, and a $75,000 engagement ring. Got all that? He mailed a baseball, money for school and dental bills, a recording of his proposal, $75,000 engagement ring. After receiving her care package, Daniels rejected Williams leading to him asking for his ring back. Daniels said she lost the ring so Williams filed an insurance claim on the “lost” ring. Of course, the insurance company isn’t going to just pay the claim on a near $80K ring – right? Of course not; they investigated. During their investigation, they found that, in fact, the ring wasn’t lost; it was in the possession of Daniels’ father. Neither Daniels nor her father had plans to the ring to Williams. So, what started off as an act of “love” ended up as a law suit for a $75K platinum ring.


A lot's going on wouldn’t you say? Now, I’ve had many-a conversation with friends and family – as I’m sure you have as well. It is pretty apparent to me, that there are some pretty straight forward rules both Williams and Daniels broke:

1.) The only time recording a marriage proposal is acceptable is if: If you’re going to do a recording a marriage proposal, you must be:

a. You are in the military or away in another country,
b. You put it on the big screen at a professional sports event (or high school/college if it is big in your town), or
c. You record it, but then you pop up from behind the curtains or something yelling “Surprise!” Bottom line, you need to BE THERE!!! 

OBSERVE

Otherwise you just look like a lazy asshole who isn't interested in actually putting forth the effort for a face-to-face proposal thereby making it appear as if you aren't interested in the person.

2.) You MUST be more than 90 – 95% (or better) sure that the young lady (or gentleman) you are about to propose to will say “YES!” If the rule – for non-NFL folks – is to spend upwards of three times your monthly salary on your engagement ring, you need to be damn sure there’s a YES on the other end of that question. Clearly nothing is 100%; some folks will get cold feet or what-have-you. But we are in a recession; I don’t know about you, but a little more homework is needed prior to taking that leap. I don’t know, maybe some sort of consultation with your partner… Just a thought.

3.) IF proposal is made and/or you break off your engagement, YOU DO NOT GET TO KEEP THE RING!!! This isn’t a “gift” it is an engagement ring. If there is no longer an engagement, then there is no longer a ring! Even if that ring is delivered in a piss ass way – like through the mail – neither you nor your father get to keep said ring!

Oh, just as a practical matter, you should NEVER - EVER - EVVVER, put jewlery in the mail - let alone something worth $75 grand!

Understand this isn’t a complete list. There are plenty of other “Rules of Engagement.” I pretty sure that list is dynamic and changing all the time, but I had to pause for a moment and ask “WTF” with this story.

Am I wrong, or are these pretty universal rules?
Was a marriage proposal through the mail romantic or tacky?
Should you have to give the engagement ring back?
Are there more rules? What are they?

He Say, She Say: The DSK Case

Rich man flirts with poor woman. Flirting becomes aggressive sexual advances. Agressive advances become F*** me and I'll pay you. Poor woman sees the payday and agrees. After it's all over she decides to cry rape.

Sound familiar?

No this isn't the scenario of the latest episode of Law & Order: SVU this is the case of one of the most powerful men in the world Dominique Strauss-Khan former head of the International Monetary Fund.

Nearly two months ago the man was pulled off his plane to Paris and arrested on sexual assault charges. The accusation was made by a hotel maid. Working in television news,I have followed this story closely. Immediately after his arrest, I ran a story in my show from France with women's reactions there. The general consensus was that this arrest was coming because he's always been a playboy; the kind of man that gets whatever girl he wants even if it is by force.

He was arrested, charged, spent a day in jail, and then released on a six million dollar bond, and put on house arrest in a penthouse in TriBeCa. As he stay holed up in luxurious confinement the case against him began to fall apart.

It was found out that the 32-year-old Guinean woman accusing Strauss-Khan of rape waited to report the incident. She cleaned Strauss-Khan's room, as well as another room, and then made a phone call from a pay phone saying she was about to get paid, all before reporting her rape to the police.

Furthermore, the Guinean woman is now found to be an illegal immigrant, one who did not gain asylum to be in this country and may find herself deported when all of this is over. Meanwhile, Strauss-Khan may be able to save his political career and run for President of France; another sexual assault case in his home country not-withstanding.

So what have we here, a potential rape victim who's lost all credibility because she's told more lies than Casey Anthony, and a playboy regaining his only slightly blemished reputation day-by-day by doing nothing.

This is a problem not only for rape victims and the justice system but the way society looks at such crimes as a whole. For the better part of the summer, women in the United States, Canada and elsewhere around the world have been holding "Slut Walks." The initial protest was against a Toronto cop's statement at a college campus safety event. The cop said, "Women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized."

The sentiment is not one that women haven't heard before. The line of questioning for a rape victim that goes, "What were you wearing? Did you in anyway suggest sex?" For true rape victims these questions, I assume, are humiliating. No woman wants to be forced into sex against her will.

Yet when cases such as the one against the Duke Lacrosse Players or Dominique Strauss-Khan come about, the validity of rape as a crime as a whole is undermined because the victims have ulterior motives even if they are truly victims.

Strauss-Khan now joins a long line of men who have been able to take advantage of women, either by force, coercion, bribery, or charm and get away with it even after an investigation is initiated.

No one is winning in these cases. Not the men who get off freely or the women who are reduced to greedy whores and gold digging sluts. We are all losing. A violent crime is reduced to a game of who touched who first and how will the alleged victim profit from it.

Real victims are losing out at the hands of high profile would-be suspects and less than witness stand ready victims. The charges against DSK may be dropped come his next court appearance on July 18th, and his accuser may be deported, but what happens to the women just doing their jobs as a hotel maid, a secretary, a waitress, a teacher, an executive Vice President or even a CEO that is approached for sex by a colleague, a friend, or even a stranger and the advance is more sour than sweet, more power than love, and the aftermath is hatred and humiliation, shame and embarrassment? What happens to those women and their cases?

If we've learned anything from this DSK case it is that it is not the named suspects and victims that we should concern ourselves with over their guilt or innocence, but the ones whose names we don't know, whose statuses are not front page news, whose backgrounds are average, who are just like us, who are hurting more than any rich man and his accuser that sees dollar signs.

Questions:

1. Do you believe DSK actually raped the Guinean woman?

2. Do you think the crime of rape is being trivialized by every high profile sexual assault case that falls apart?

3. If there was any blame who does it fall on?

Music Reviews- Earl Greyhound and Joe Tex

Earl Greyhound

Earl Greyhound is a power trio rock band from Brooklyn, that has been tagged as the "next big thing" for more than a few years now. Unfortunately and rather strangely they've never quite lived up to expectations in terms of sales or media attention. They give very energetic live shows though and could well be one of the better rock bands no one's ever heard of. Earl Greyhound consists of Kamara Thomas on vocals and bass, Matt Whyte on vocals and guitar and Ricc Sheridan on drums.

Yes, in some respects they are a seventies revivalist rock band but if that hook can propel the Black Crowes and Lenny Kravitz to fame and fortune, why not Earl Greyhound? Anyway they're more than seventies wannabees. That they are a mostly black band working in what has come to be a mostly white genre may not help matters as well as the fact that they only release an album every four years or so. It's hard to build excitement and following with such a leisurely release schedule. But these days albums are just about dead anyway. Hmm.

Anyway the obvious comparisons are to Led Zeppelin (especially because of Thomas' banshee vocals and Sheridan's crushing bass drum work) but actually because of the vocal interplay between Thomas and Whyte, on some cuts they sound more like what The Carpenters would have sounded like if they had turned everything up to 11. The call and response between Thomas and Whyte is one of the best things about this band. Whyte's guitar work may owe some debt to Marc Bolan, Big Star, Jimmy Page and Jimi Hendrix but he's not just an empty copycat. He has his own, still evolving sound.

Earl Greyhound only has two official full length releases: 2006's Soft Targets and 2010's Suspicious Package. Their first album was almost entirely very very very loud blues-rock and hard rock while their second album showed some serious expansion both musically and tonally. The second album showed some hints of progressive rock influences (imagine Pink Floyd with better rhythm) as well as samba and Afro-Cuban interests. It also had slightly better sound production. If you are interested you could do worse than to check them out when they come to your town. They tour incessantly.

SOS            Shotgun          Acoustic version of "The Eyes of Cassandra"   Misty Morning

Live version of "Yeah I love You"    Live Version of "It's Over"


Joe Tex

Joe Tex (1933-1982) was a soul/R&B/funk singer. He was also a member of the Soul Clan, a short lived  and mostly informal supergroup of soul and funk singers who generally first made their mark in the sixties.

Like James Brown, a sometime romantic and musical rival, Joe Tex was not really a great singer per se but helped to create funk with a great many herky-jerk syncopated songs that straddled the bridge between soul and funk. He talked or rapped over songs as often as he sang over them.

He did sing a great many tearjerker ballads but is probably best known for his takes on "Tramp (Papa was too)", "Skinny Legs and all", and especially "I Gotcha".
Joe Tex usually used an integrated band in the studio (often the F.A.M.E. Studio)  and had more than a passing familiarity with country music. This mix of gospel, blues,soul, country and later funk was a lot of fun. If you go back a few years there are more than a few similarities between country and soul. Like many other singers of his time, he was eclipsed by the rise of disco in the early seventies and after a few game attempts at that style he withdrew from music. He died far too young from a heart attack.

I Gotcha!   Skinny Legs and All   Don't make your children pay  Papa was Too

I want to be free  You're Right, Ray Charles  A woman can change a man

International Treaties and Texas

Humberto Leal Garcia

Texas has given us a lot of good things:  Albert Collins. James Lee Burke. Freddie King.  ZZ Top. Cornell Dupree.  Barbara Jordan.

Texas has also given us a justice system that makes it very clear that if you do the crime you most definitely are gonna do the time. Texas has no issue with the death penalty. Since the death penalty was allowed again, Texas has executed more people than anywhere else. Texas also has a reputation for not really seeming to care too much about that whole dotting the i's and crossing the t's thingie when it comes to getting convictions. 

Humberto Leal Garcia was convicted of raping and murdering a 16 year old girl. Her name was Adria Sauceda. She was kidnapped, raped, sodomized, and finally bludgeoned to death with a hunk of asphalt. 


Now, 17 yrs after her death, Leal is due to be executed for that crime. In the meantime he has discovered that he is a Mexican citizen and evidently didn't talk to his consular before his trial and conviction. This is required under international law. But during the Bush Administration, faced with a similar case, in Medellin v. Texas, the SC has ruled that absent a law from Congress the US government can't tell Texas what to do on this issue. 

Apparently the Feds are all hat, no cattle when it comes to Texas. Leal has also claimed that he was molested by a Catholic priest. The Catholic Church has added its voice to those calling for a stay of execution. You can read Leal's pov here. But Texas Governor Perry doesn't seem inclined to stay or commute the sentence. So absent a miracle, on July 7 Leal will be executed. The blog members hashed this out and as usual everyone had different opinions. Mine is pretty apparent so I'll skip that.

GrandCentral said this:
As a nation we have a moral obligation, to honor our commitments and lead by example. When an American citizen commits a crime abroad, it is not only presumed, but often demanded that the individual be given adequate legal representation and access to the US Embassy. The United States should respectfully extend the same courtesy to any individual who is convicted of a crime here. 

Euna Lee and Laura Ling, two American journalists, were convicted of illegally entering North Korea and sentenced to 12 years of hard labor. According to the North Korean government, they committed a crime. Their families along with the US State Department,  pleaded with the North Koreans and demanded their release. We cannot expect fair treatment of our citizens abroad, when we don't extend the same courtesy to citizens of other nations.


The Janitor pointed out:
When it comes to criminal laws of a state, the feds are pretty much powerless to intervene with the sovereignty of a state's internal judicial process.  You violate a law of the state, the state has jurisdiction over you.  The feds can't intervene UNLESS there is some constitutional violation, in which case the feds can overturn state convictions.  That's the general rule.

This case presents a rare exception where international law may apply.  Things get tricky once you start talking about conventions and treaties and whatnot.

"While a treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-984.ZS.html
And in this case, Congress has not implemented any statutes implementing the Vienna Convention.  In fact, in 2005 the U.S. opted out of the convention's international court provision that would have allowed the international court to decide whether or not a Mexican like the guy in this case should be able to overturn his conviction by Texas state law. So is the US a party to this treaty?  Yes.  Is it binding on the States? No, thanks to the SCOTUS.

However, even if it isn't LEGALLY binding on the states, Texas should realize there is an internationally political aspect here that is bigger than the wishes of one state to execute one person.   If we execute this guy, as much as he may deserve to be executed, then we are basically giving other countries the green light to disregard our rights to consult with our embassies overseas whenever we get in trouble. Texas needs to be a team player here, but somehow I doubt they will.


The Fed stated:

This is where I DISAGREE with the SCOTUS... State law is NOT Supreme law in this country! HOWEVER, along with the constitution, treaties and international agreements are.  This isn't an issue of State's Rights vs Fed's Rights.  States HAVE NO RIGHTS on this issue.  They should stop trying to force their make believe rights. The US signed an agreement that said XYZ.  PERIOD.  As a result, Texas can't decide it doesn't want to follow that law. What good are treaties if states don't have to follow?

QUESTIONS:
Is this impending execution problematic? If so, why?

Should Congress pass a law preventing state executions where there's a conflict with a treaty?

Is an execution that takes place 17 yrs after the crime any sort of deterrent?
Should the Administration seek other ways to pressure Texas absent a bill from Congress?

Wisconsin,Ohio and the Ongoing Battle Against State Workers

For months we've blogged about the highly contentious debate in Wisconsin over the collective bargaining rights of state employees.  Both Wisconsin's Republican governor, Scott Walker, and Ohio's Republican governor, John Kasich, have signed measures into law that will prevent teachers, police officers, fire fighters and other state employees from being able to come together in a union and bargain for better working conditions, benefits, etc.  Just yesterday, Wisconsin's law officially went into effect.  From the AP:

After months of heated debate, ear-splitting protests and legal maneuvering, Gov. Scott Walker's collective bargaining law is finally set to take effect.Secretary of State Doug La Follette published the law in the Wisconsin State Journal newspaper on Tuesday. The measure goes into effect today, capping a tumultuous four months in Madison that saw state senators flee the state and massive protests at the State Capitol...The law requires almost all public employees on all levels of government — from teachers to librarians to State Capitol janitors — to contribute more to their health care and pensions. The changes amount to an average 8 percent pay cut. The bill also strips them of almost all their collective bargaining rights, allowing them to negotiate only on wages...Meanwhile, a coalition of unions, including the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the state's largest teachers union, have filed a federal lawsuit in Madison alleging the law violates the U.S. Constitution by taking away union rights to bargain, organize and associate.

The anti-union law was held up in the courts, but 2 weeks ago the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the law in a 4-3 ruling that saw Wisconsin's Justices literally get violent with each other over the issue, with Justice David Prosser putting female Justice Ann Walsh Bradley in a choke hold.  (out of control, right?)  Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson wrote a nasty dissent against Justice Prosser and the the majority, accusing them of playing partisan politics from the bench.  In addition to the battle in the courts, the citizens of the state of Wisconsin have already declared their intentions of recalling Governor Walker pursuant to state law after his first year in office is complete in January of next year. 

Meanwhile, in nearby Ohio, the people have collected 1,298,301 signatures to place Ohio's anti-union law on the ballot for repeal; only 231,000 signatures were required by state law.  It's also notable to observe that there are only approximately 400,000 state workers in Ohio, yet over 3 times that amount supported the initiative to place this bill on the ballot.  According to Ohio law, the anti-union bill is now placed on hold until it comes to a vote before the people on November 8th of this year.

Republicans in both state and federal government often phrase their policy talking points as being the will of "the American people," but with such significant opposition in both Ohio and Wisconsin over this issue by the American people, it is difficult to see how that is possible here.

QUESTIONS:
1. Should Wisconsin's law be decided in a federal court?
2. Should Ohio's law be placed on the public ballot in November?
3. Will Gov. Walker survive the recall vote in January?
4. Do state workers' unions really need collective bargaining?
5. Are state workers, in fact, overpaid?

President Obama Press Conference: Opening Statement

It’s a sad day in the United States when we have a Congress that refuses to do its job and the President has to take to a podium to remind them how to do it. The President seemed slightly forceful in his delivery and sure that a deal would be reached regarding the raising of the debt ceiling.



Is it just me or does anyone else feel like the Congress is having a misguided debate? Why are we re-debating the budget, wasn’t this resolved in April? To the average American who doesn’t subscribe to the hocus pocus math that the GOP is trying to feed us, it’s simple - raise revenue, reduce the debt. Why can’t they understand the simple concept of mathematics? If you have a 9% unemployment rate, you have less people paying federal, state and local taxes. The economy is not a result of the deficit, the deficit is a result of the economy. We should not be talking about the deficit right now, we should be increasing revenue to the treasury and putting people back to work.

More people working = More people paying taxes / More people paying taxes = More revenue to the Treasury / More revenue to the Treasury = Lowering the deficit = The possibility for the heinous tax cuts that the GOP is so married to

This Congress promised the American people an economic recovery. They began their session in January and have done NOTHING to promote that recovery. The President listed a number of options that are currently being held up in Congress. A bill to make it easier for entrepreneurs to patent a new product or idea, a bill to put construction workers back on the job rebuilding roads and bridges through loans to private companies, states and local governments, a bill fixing our trade agreements to allow American businesses to sell more goods and services to Asia and South America, and a bill further extending the middle class tax cuts an additional year. All things the President says he is ready to sign immediately should Congress send them to his desk.

Part 2:


Part 3:


Part 4:


Part 5:


Part 6:



Is the debate around the deficit a legitimate debate?
Is Congress broken?
What do you think the Congress should do to further progress the recovery?