I take the view that, for undergraduates, the rule ought to be that the lesson should last a lifetime, the punishment shouldn't. An F doesn't go away. Undergrads may be adults legally, but they're really just children. The purpose of education is to cure ignorance and mold character.

The punishment should be sufficient that the lesson lasts a lifetime. An F is not a death sentence, it's a result of a choice. In my memory, most of the college students who acted like children were treated as children, supported fully by mommy and daddy (or a Prof like Cohen with the pathetic 'we all screw up' enabling....incredible). It's nice to know that Cal Poly was more vigorous scholastically than Stanford. I had one biology prof who would seize your blue book and give you an automatic F if you even looked anywhere but at your work or straight ahead during exams. The reason students try this stuff in college is because of 'we all screw up' parents, teachers and admins in earlier schooling. I screwed up in my freshman year of high school (not cheating but surfing and dope) and got an F and 2 Ds. My dad's solution was

Great to see both Josh and Dan. Welcome, gentlemen! Thank you for taking the time to talk to us.

I wasn't aware that being a death sentence and being a result of choice are mutually exclusive. I would think that the two go together quite easily. My point is not about the degree of punishment, but the method. Posting a sign in your window was a method that made the lesson stick without seriously affecting the trajectory of your life. So it pretty much was exactly what I was suggesting. As for what a university should do, for first offenses requiring community service to remove the F and notation from the external record would work. The offense has a high immediate cost to promote reform, but a low long-term cost. When people start committing multiple offenses, you deal with them more harshly; that's just being reasonable. Undergraduates should be treating like works in progress because that is what they are. However, the purpose is not to promote infantilization but to promote maturation. You bake a cake by treating it like batter (in need of baking) rather than treating it like it already is a cake.

Does anyone else think it's ironic that Josh agonized at length over how to deal with students who plagiarize, and then immediately afterwards he wants to criticize how Condi Rice dealt with the issues of interrogation and protecting the country post 9-11? Nice contrast. Perhaps this is why Obama punted and re-appointed Gates to Defense.

I plagiarized once in my life - and was commended by my teacher. It was in third grade. The teacher was a nun whose usual interaction with me was whacking me on the head with a yardstick. She told us to write a few sentences about an animal (I think it was a tiger). I imagine it was more of an exercise to see who could write. I copied a two paragraph article from the Britannica Junior Encyclopedia. So did someone else in the class. She talked to us after class, commended us on having the initiative to look it up in the encyclopedia and then explained plagiarism to us in very simple terms.

plagiarism....who gives a shit? 99% of college papers are ripping off ideas from a bunch of different sources and putting them together. wtf difference does it make if you copy it directly or change some of the words around. wow, yeah, college has such high standards now...with their multiple choice tests and grading on curves. all anyone does in college is memorize a tests worth of answers for 24 hours and then forget everything once it's over. the vast majority of college papers are boring nonsense. it's like demanding integrity on a hotlink site.

Josh tends to be long-winded, but 15 minutes to (sort of) concede that Condi Rice might not be a criminal is a bit much. Furthermore, if he wants to invoke a lack of recent publications in obscure journals as a disqualifier, I suggest (as a thought experiment) he put himself in the place of an administration forced to choose between bringing her back and keeping him. Josh's generation of academics has enjoyed the fattest University budgets, easiest path to tenure, lightest teaching loads, and the greatest freedom from relevance of any before or since. My advice to Josh: banish such thoughts from your mind (they don't flatter you), count your blessings, and drink one for me at your retirement party.
-Namazu

Dan, 95% of the black vote did not go to the 'black candidate'. It went to the democratic candidate. You don't seriously think Alan Keyes, had he miracuosly secured the Republican nomination, would've receive anywhere near 90% of the black vote against Hillary Clinton, do you? It's an insult to reduce the black vote to a lowest racial denominator. In fact, the survey Josh alluded to, which reported 75% of the black vote made race a factor in their decision, has to be understood in the historic context of the presidential race.

Quoting Foobs: 4) I take the view that, for undergraduates, the rule ought to be that the lesson should last a lifetime, the punishment shouldn't. An F doesn't go away. Undergrads may be adults legally, but they're really just children. The purpose of education is to cure ignorance and mold character.

Very well put. I agree that there's a lot to be said for forgiving the first slip for freshmen -- you hand the paper back to the student, and say, "You have three days to write your own. You'll lose a full letter grade, if you do turn it in. You'll get an F for the paper if you don't. This is the last time you'll get off this easily." Or something like that. By the time junior or senior year rolls around, though, flunking a class for plagiarism does not seem excessive. Yes, it's a permanent mark on the student's, but compared to other punishments, it's not so much. One F won't kill a GPA. Both of my sisters are college profs, and they say the problem is out of control, compared to when we were undergrads. I don't know how someone makes it through 12 or 13 years of school without knowing that plagiarism is heinous, so I have

Quoting Salt: Does anyone else think it's ironic that Josh agonized at length over how to deal with students who plagiarize, and then immediately afterwards he wants to criticize how Condi Rice dealt with the issues of interrogation and protecting the country post 9-11? Nice contrast.

So it's your view that the National Security Advisor and Secretary of State should be held to a standard no higher than a college undergraduate? And that cheating on a school paper is just as bad as contributing to the invasion of another country and starting a trillion-dollar war? Gotta love that supposed conservative belief in personal responsibility and accountability. You always preach it until it's time to apply to one of your own.

Very enjoyable conversation, overall. Thanks, Dan and Josh.

I don't know how someone makes it through 12 or 13 years of school without knowing that plagiarism is heinous, so I have less sympathy for your view that colleges ought to do more to educate their students about this.

Exactly. There is no way to get into Stanford or any other elite joint without knowing just how serious plagiarism is. Anyone who plagiarizes at Stanford did it not out of ignorance of the ethics, but because s/he thought s/he wouldn't get caught. I would go with a D- if and when you hand in the real paper.

Quoting Wonderment: I would go with a D- if and when you hand in the real paper.

For the first offense? Nah. Especially not for a freshman.

yeah; i can't believe what a pushover josh is when it comes to plagarism! at my undergraduate institution, plagarism is not something that is dealt with by professors individually. it's a disciplinary issue (actually, we don't have disciplinary issues; we have 'honor' issues) ; it's theft, after all! i'm lucky to go to a school that doesn't seem to have much of an issue with this kind of crap.

Woohoo! Christmas came early for nikkibong: a josh cohen diavlog! Methinks that the political scientists (unpronouncable or otherwise) discussed at the end of the diavlog miss an important point in their specious claim that race decided obama's election. Prior to the election, the CW was that obama would underperform among white voters compared to generic (read: white) democratic candidates. (Remember HRC braying about "hard working, white Americans" ?) Therefore, the fact that he not only held white voters, but actually gained points among them indicates something huge; and confounds their thesis.

Quoting BJ:
So it's your view that the National Security Advisor and Secretary of State should be held to a standard no higher than a college undergraduate? Thanks, but that is not what I wrote. Nice try. What I was talking about was the context in which he put his "I'm not comfortable with having Condi as a colleague on the faculty" sermon (it wasn't a particularly passionate or effective sermon, I grant you). The juxtaposition was probably accidental, but it was definitely humorous and MAYBE telling. "Okay KSM, we're really disappointed with you for chopping (Stanford grad and WSJ reporter) Danny Pearl's head off with a rusty butter knife, so were expelling you from Gitmo and extraditing you to Denmark where you'll be lucky if you can get a job in the airport." Aside: Danny Pearl, that was a guy with real courage, God rest his soul.

Question: why didn't race decide the election if Obama got 97% + of the Black vote; and why wouldn't it be racist for such an overhwelming % of black voters to vote for him just because he's black, if that's what they did? It would decidedly be racist for anybody not to vote for Obama just because he was Black. I ask this liking Obama more all the time as he veers to the centre more and more. I like Cohen very much but thought that in this exchange he was rather underwhelming and agree with those that threw cold water on any suggestion that Rice might be liable for criminal prosecution. Itzik Basman

Quoting basman: Question: why didn't race decide the election if Obama got 97% + of the Black vote; and why wouldn't it be racist for such an overhwelming % of black voters to vote for him just because he's black, if that's what they did? It would decidedly be racist for anybody not to vote for Obama just because he was Black.

What I don't quite get is why are we deriving all of the racial significance of the democratic victory from blacks voting 95% democratic. Yes, I know its an astonishing % in its own right, but not all that surprising given blacks are overwhelmingly democratic to begin with, voted 88% in 2004, and the historical context of the election. As the Boston Review article points out, the rise in the latino vote for democrats was significantly greater than the rise in the black vote. So why are we not asking if the latino vote was racist? As for the why wouldn't it be racist question ... it would be if those same black democrats voted for a black republican whose policies were diametrically opposed to their collective interests.

Quoting Salt: Quoting BJ:
So it's your view that the National Security Advisor and Secretary of State should be held to a standard no higher than a college undergraduate?

Thanks, but that is not what I wrote. Nice try. What I was talking about was the context in which he put his "I'm not comfortable with having Condi as a colleague on the faculty" sermon (it wasn't a particularly passionate or effective sermon, I grant you). The juxtaposition was probably accidental, but it was definitely humorous and MAYBE telling. "Okay KSM, we're really disappointed with you for chopping (Stanford grad and WSJ reporter) Danny Pearl's head off with a rusty butter knife, so were expelling you from Gitmo and extraditing you to Denmark where you'll be lucky if you can get a job in the airport." Aside: Danny Pearl, that was a guy with real courage, God rest his soul.

Best instance of ducking since Bush avoided the two size-10s. Bonus points for the fake piety, too.

Quoting BJ;
Best instance of ducking since Bush avoided the two size-10s. Agreed. Bush looked quite lithe and athletic up there. If it had been butterball Gore, there would have been no way for him to roll himself out the way. Hillary or Kerry would have been toast because there clearly wasn't enough time to flip-flop into the clear. It must really irk you that the American military has basically defeated it's enemies in Iraq, "willing suspension of disbelief", " Gen Betrayus" and all that. And now, of course, the real priority is nuclear-armed Pakistan and stone-age Afghanistan. Add that to the other dem priorities over the last four years: Darfur, North Korea. Going further back: Somalia, Viet Nam. Regarding Danny Pearl, do I detect some jealously? Perhaps it rankles that someone might have done something else with his career other than chucking bricks and kissing the derriere of every Josh Cohen who ascends the podium? Call it what you want, but Pearl gave his life for his country. He didn't just slap on some kevlar and do a couple photo-ops in a humvee so he could return home and pander to the defeatists. Strangely enough, he seemed to

Quoting grits-n-gravy: What I don't quite get is why are we deriving all of the racial significance of the democratic victory from blacks voting 95% democratic. Yes, I know its an astonishing % in its own right, but not all that surprising given blacks are overwhelmingly democratic to begin with, voted 88% in 2004, and the historical context of the election. As the Boston Review article points out, the rise in the latino vote for democrats was significantly greater than the rise in the black vote. So why are we not asking if the latino vote was racist?

That seems a good argument against the proposition that the election turned on race but not racism and against the answer my question was pointing to without necessarily compelling it. The Latino vote wouldn’t be racial because of the racial difference between Blacks and Latinos. The Boston Review authors make the case for the former—race—and arguably imply the latter--racism: “Had the racial composition of the electorate stayed the same in 2008 as it was in 2004, and had whites remained as supportive of Republicans as they were in 2004, Obama would still have won

Quoting basman: ...My underlying point remains the same: a vote for or against Obama predominately on the basis of the colour of his skin is racist in either instance. And that skin colour motivated a statistically significant portion of the Black vote I have no doubt.

Itzik Basman

I have to disagree. Blacks were disenfranchised for a significant portion of the istory of this country. Only within the span of my lifetime was their status as citizens to be recognized as equal to that of whites. Forty years ago the very idea of a black man running, let alone winning, the highest office in the land was risible fantasy. Barack Obama, as a viable candidate represented a degree of political validation to a group of people, most of whom never could have imagined such a thing - not in their lifetime, not in the lifetime of their great-grandchildren. That they've been offered the opportunity to actualize that dream, here and now, and taken full advantage of the opportunity should not be called racism. I'd say, given the sorry history of this country on this particular score that een the suggestion carries deep, extremely unfortunate irony.

. . .The Black Hispanic vote differential speaks as well to an argument of an element of racism in the Black vote as opposed to the Latino vote, as does the defection of Black voters away from prior years’ of Republican support and the increase in Black voter turn out over previous years of voting Democrat and the Black voting rates speak to an element racism in the Black vote. My underlying point remains the same: a vote for or against Obama predominately on the basis of the colour of his skin is racist in either instance. And that skin colour motivated a statistically significant portion of the Black vote I have no doubt. -- Itzik Basman

I think you're playing fast-n-loose with the term "racism". To suggest the black vote for Obama was somehow an anti-white vote, which would have to be the case if it were racist, is absurd on its face. Conversely, there is evidence that many white democrats voted against Obama for racial reasons; and I'm sure many white and black republicans voted for Obama because he is black, in part. I submit to you that the

Quoting Salt: Quoting BJ;
Best instance of ducking since Bush avoided the two size-10s.

Agreed. Bush looked quite lithe and athletic up there. If it had been butterball Gore, there would have been no way for him to roll himself out the way.

Of course, had Gore become president, he wouldn't have been at a podium in front of a bunch of justifiably hostile Iraqis in the first place. But if squawking Gore is fat! Gore is fat! Gore is fat! as an all-purpose response gives you some comfort in the face of the disaster your hero Bush turned out to be, hey, by all means.

Quoting Salt: Regarding Danny Pearl, do I detect some jealously?

The only thing I think about Pearl is that it's a shame people like you want to inflate him into some sort of demigod and then hope that if you invoke his name often enough, this created radiance will reflect on your sorry chickenhawk asses. Why not try to achieve something for yourselves? Besides perpetual outrage at my refusal to genuflect to whatever fantasy you wingnuts are wanking to at the moment, I mean.

Quoting grits-n-gravy: I think you're playing fast-n-loose with the term "racism". To suggest the black vote for Obama was somehow an anti-white vote, which would have to be the case if it were racist, is absurd on its face. Conversely, there is evidence that many white democrats voted against Obama for racial reasons; and I'm sure many white and black republicans voted for Obama because he is black, in part. I submit to you that the former was racist while latter was not. Moreover, there is evidence that, all things being equal, had Obama been white his support among whites would've been larger. Does racism explain the gap? IMO, not necessarily.

And putting aside the question of whether latinos constitutes a race, I'd also point out that the perceived racial difference between latinos and blacks doesn't preclude the possibility of the former's vote being anti-white. (For the record, I don't think the latino vote nor the black vote was anti-white) The Boston Review article wasn't implying racist motives on the part of blacks or latinos, at least the way I read it.

Let’s both of us try to read and think more precisely and more carefully: 1. Firstly I’ll remind

Quoting basman: Let’s both of us try to read and think more precisely and more carefully:

1. . . . If an Asian votes for another Asian for a variety of reasons including an undeterminative one of Asianness, that is race playing a factor but not racism. If an Asian wins an election because of a preponderance of Asian votes, that that is race playing a factor but not racism. But if a White or Black voter, or any voter really, votes for a candidate or against a candidate as determined (no one usually acts for a single reason) by the colour of that candidate’s skin, that is, I argue, racist. And the voter may not *be* a racist, as opposed to doing, in that instance, a racist act. (Query: whether even race as one undeterminative factor contains an element of racism insofar as race is a factor?)

How do you conclude that an Asian vote for asianness is not racist yet a black vote based on color (or more precisely, blackness) is? I guess you'll have to accuse blacks of racist voting in Bill Clinton's case since some agree with Toni Morrison when she wrote that he was our

Ron Walters' open letter to Barack Obama during the Presidential primaries is instructive in sorting out the nonsense that BR is impying racism or racist voting among minority groups, especially blacks. http://www.npr.org/blogs/newsandview...letter_to.html

I write this "open letter" to Barack Obama, because I am concerned about one recently written by Harold Ford Jr., urging Obama to try harder to connect with white blue-collar voters by engaging them in states like Kentucky and Indiana in the fall elections. And while I would not argue that he should ignore these states, I worry that the agenda he would use to attract conservative voters could weaken the force of change.

To begin with, worry about the blue collar vote is based on the perception of their strength as a part of the Democratic base. But this year will probably not reflect the 1980s, when they went over to the Republican party en masse, or in 1992 when they were a large part of the Ross Perot vote. . . .

There is the distinct possibility that a great deal of the loss of blue collar whites could be made up by the new coalition that Obama promises to

Grits: 1. You are having a bad hair day reading comprehension wise. It is impossible to take from what I wrote that an Asian voting for reasons including Asianness is not racism but that a Black voting for reasons including Blackness is. Read what I wrote again: both cases of the involve race but are not racist, both cases of voting predominately for Asianness or Blackness are racist. Get me? 2. We will have to agree to disagree on the drawing of inferences: that can be argued both ways. But I won’t agree to disagree on your assertion that anti Whiteness is a necessary condition for black racism: “It would be a reasonable inference if you can establish that the vote was anti-white…’’ You are just wrong here. I repeat someone might have benign feelings about whites and still vote for Obama only because he is a Black man. (Forget about brown and half white, and all that bull shit—he is for our purposes taken to be a Black man; he takes himself to be a Black man. And let’s not worry about your dating choices, in which I have nada interest.) If you don’t

Grits: PS: Perhaps you would like to characterize the virtually total Black vote for Obama in the primaries against Hillary: you will be struck no doubt by how that was by and large not a vote on the basis of the content of anyone's character. Itzik Basman

Quoting basman: Grits:

1. You are having a bad hair day reading comprehension wise. It is impossible to take from what I wrote that an Asian voting for reasons including Asianness is not racism but that a Black voting for reasons including Blackness is. Read what I wrote again: both cases of the involve race but are not racist, both cases of voting predominately for Asianness or Blackness are racist. Get me?

It could be I'm having a 'bad hair day', or it could be you're struggling to communicate your thoughts clearly and precisely on this topic. And no, I don't get you. What do you mean by 'predominately'? If you mean an individual or group putting more weight on the race of a candidate than the issues he/she represents then you have no basis to infer that was the case with blacks voting for Obama in overwhelming numbers. The Boston Review article doesn't imply that at all.

2. . . . But I won’t agree to disagree on your assertion that anti Whiteness is a necessary condition for black racism: “It would be a reasonable inference if you can establish that the vote was anti-white…’’ You

Josh, just wanted to let you know that this was one of your more plodding diavlogs in awhile. I certainly appreciate the amount of thought you put into each discussion (especially on matters like plagiarism), but I think in this vlog you dragged out your thought-processes so much that it ended up being a relatively one-sided discussion. Not gonna call for expulsion, but just something to keep in mind for next time for making a smotther diavlog, sinc you have expressed an interest in the past in hearing constructive advice from the peanut gallery! Happy Chanuka! Thanks to both participants. I really enjoyed the substance of this episode.

To BJ:
There is no way I want to match your sputtering/meandering rants, so I must plagiarize from David Mamet's piece last spring.
For, in the abstract, we may envision an Olympian perfection of perfect beings in Washington doing the business of their employers, the people, but any of us who has ever been at a zoning meeting with our property at stake is aware of the urge to cut through all the pernicious bullshit and go straight to firearms.
I found not only that I didn't trust the current government (that, to me, was no surprise), but that an impartial review revealed that the faults of this president—whom I, a good liberal, considered a monster—were little different from those of a president whom I revered.
Bush got us into Iraq, JFK into Vietnam. Bush stole the election in Florida; Kennedy stole his in Chicago. Bush outed a CIA agent; Kennedy left hundreds of them to die in the surf at the Bay of Pigs. Bush lied about his military service; Kennedy accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book written by Ted Sorenson. Bush was in bed with the Saudis, Kennedy with the Mafia. Oh.
And I began to question my hatred for

Bah, humbug, ebenezer! I, for one, love the 'plodding' Josh Cohen style; you really follow his train of thought, clearly. It makes Josh Cohen one of my favourite 'heads! Can't wait to see him and Glenn Loury go at it again . . .

Grits in brief answer riddle me this as already *put* to you: ...Perhaps you would like to characterize the virtually total Black vote for Obama in the primaries against Hillary: you will be struck no doubt by how that was by and large not a vote on the basis of the content of anyone's character...
Itzik Basman

Quoting basman: Grits in brief answer riddle me this as already *put* to you:

...Perhaps you would like to characterize the virtually total Black vote for Obama in the primaries against Hillary: you will be struck no doubt by how that was by and large not a vote on the basis of the content of anyone's character...

Itzik Basman

Must I remind you that simply reasserting the same proposition is not evidence. Citing the high % of black support for a viable black candidate is not prima facie evidence of why they supported Obama, much less that race was the dominant reason. Asking me to offer up an alternative explanation is an artful dodge. Try again.

Quoting Salt: To BJ:
There is no way I want to match your sputtering/meandering rants, so I must plagiarize from David Mamet's piece last spring.

It's not plagiarism if you cite your source and don't claim the words as your own. However, it says a great deal about the poorness of your thinking that you are unable to respond for yourself, and that the best you can offer is that old whinefest from Mamet -- one guy dissatisfied with his life constructing a bunch of straw men and false equivalencies -- none of which addresses the points I made in my previous comment. I could offer, in response, a bunch of more recent essays from conservatives denouncing the staleness of thought among people like you, but since your estimation is that five sentences is "meandering," I'm sure you'd be unable to make it through them. Perhaps someday? When you've grown up a little and developed an attention span for something beyond preaching to your own choir? As to "sputtering" ... well, I suppose if it makes you feel better to attach a pejorative to words when you can't rebut them, I need not deny you that one small comfort.

Nikki, I agree. I love Josh's deliberate style. But several others here always get on his case about it and he has even said in the past that it is something he's working on. So I'd rather give him the feedback that he seems to want rather than have 10 comments spring up about how "insufferable" he is etc. I'd rather have people focus on the content of whet he says, but since he has signalled an interest in getting better at diavlogging....well... FWIW- Josh is probably one of my top 5 BH participants and I never miss his segments.

Quoting BJ: perpetual outrage at my refusal to genuflect to whatever fantasy you wingnuts are wanking to at the moment When I described your prose as sputtering and meandering, I was being generous. Degenerate hallucinations would have been a better evaluation. To save you the embarassment, I will endeavor to never mention Danny Pearl again on this site. Since I know you're inevitable retort will have no substance or brevity whatsoever, I bid you goodnight.

Quoting Salt: ... I will endeavor to never mention Danny Pearl again on this site.

You'll endeavor? Will it really be that hard to resist?

Quoting Salt: Since I know you're inevitable retort ...

You know I am inevitable retort?

Guys, Glenn is right! Drezner talks about the "why." Douat acknowledges it was wrong, but he feels some measure of guilt (narcissism). Glenn is right!!! Joshua Cohen - thinking about the people involved. Natural human, blah blah. Sense of guilt about 9/11. Excuses all!

Quoting grits-n-gravy: Must I remind you that simply reasserting the same proposition is not evidence. Citing the high % of black support for a viable black candidate is not prima facie evidence of why they supported Obama, much less that race was the dominant reason. Asking me to offer up an alternative explanation is an artful dodge.

Try again.

Grits: (You'll be getting pretentious on me when you start calling yourself "Polenta") I did not explicitly--maybe I did it unconsciously, we''ll never know--assert any proposition, let alone reassert one, I only asked you to think about, characterize, explain--whatever-- the irrefutable data of the primary contests. The first time you ignored it; the second time you evaded it. It presents a harder case for you, because Hillary and Obama were pretty ideologically similar. "A viable Black candidate" in this context--your attempt at an answer while preteneding to be above answering , not needing to, answer-- is a non sequitur because you had an equivalently, as these things go, viable White candidiate. The White vote went to no one in a block as did the Black vote in an overwhelming block plus Obama won the White vote in a number of states against Hillary. That speaks

Quoting basman: Grits: (You'll be getting pretentious on me when you start calling yourself "Polenta") I did not explicitly--maybe I did it unconsciously--assert any proposition letalone reasert one, I simply asked you to think about, characterize, and explain the irrefutable date of the primary contests. The first time you ignored it; the second time you evaded it. It presents a harder case for you, because Hillary and Obama were pretty ideologically similar. "A viable Black candidate" in this context is a non sequitur because you had an equivalently, as these things go, viable White candidiate. The White vote went to no one in a block as did the Black vote in an overwhelming block plus
Obama won the White vote in a number of states against Hillary. That speaks well for White voters and less well for Black voters.

Now I will assert something:

1. The primary vote is consistent with the evidence cited in B.R. as to Blacks voting for Obama because he was Black. (Btw, "predominately" means "in large part; mainly or chiefly.")

2. A vote for a Black candidate running against a White candidate because of skin colour is a vote against the White candidate because of skin colour.

Your problem

Grits: One p.s. What would you say the thesis of the B.R. piece is? Is it, could it be, is it possible that it is, that the evidence of the last election speaks not to a "post racial" America, but, antithetically, to a more racially divided America. Grits, do you think there is some racism in that division, if these authors are correct? And if there is, Grits, is the only place that racism didn't show up, the 2008 Black vote for Obama. That's like the scene, Grits, in My Cousin Vinny when the slow witness need to admit, if his grits testimony was accurate, that the laws of physics stopped right at his stove. Itzik Basman

Quoting AemJeff: Pardon me for interrupting again - but Basman, I still think that you're trying to make a sweeping characterization with broad implications from a completely sui generis event. And I think, as I said previously, that the implications of that characterization are unfortunate.

What's your explanation? (I did not notice the first time you said this. I missed your first "interruption".) And what's your answer to my p.s. to Grits? And why is it sweeping? How would you characterize the black vote that Jesse Jackson got, particularly when he won primaries. I have not looked up the % of the block Black vote in his case. Any anologies, in any respect? Itzik Basman

Jeff//Grits: I am happy to be persuaded otherwise of what I am saying. I have not yet read anything persuasive yet. I can see an argument that racism requires animus towards another race. But so far I am not buying it. I'd say that racism is something like distinguishing/discriminating on account of race when race is irrelevant to the achieving a public objective. Which is an extremly quick to hand, watered down, probably inaccurate, equal protection analysis in American case law. Itzik Basman

I have to disagree. Blacks were disenfranchised for a significant portion of the istory of this country. Only within the span of my lifetime was their status as citizens to be recognized as equal to that of whites. Forty years ago the very idea of a black man running, let alone winning, the highest office in the land was risible fantasy. Barack Obama, as a viable candidate represented a degree of political validation to a group of people, most of whom never could have imagined such a thing - not in their lifetime, not in the lifetime of their great-grandchildren. That they've been offered the opportunity to actualize that dream, here and now, and taken full advantage of the opportunity should not be called racism. I'd say, given the sorry history of this country on this particular score that een the suggestion carries deep, extremely unfortunate irony.

Here's my first post from a few days ago. I'm not questioning the data, I'm just saying that a context must be seen here that preempts any characterization of racism in this particular election.

To BJ:
Okay, my prediction that your response would have zero substance was right on the money, but your response was, to my utter suprise, brief. My compliments.

well, I was way too tired. needed that red pen here. I appreciate your nice comments below, and also really am grateful for the criticism.

No...not an excuse. Not at all. That was the point. the bush crowd had all sorts of reasons to do what they did. fear....guilt...etc etc. BUT that does not mitigate, is not an excuse. glenn's column on Salon was totally wrong on this. To understand is not to forgive, to excuse, to mitigate....you don't have to simplify in order to criticize.

Quoting Salt: To BJ:
Okay, my prediction that your response would have zero substance was right on the money ...

You can't handle substance. Anything of substance that you don't completely agree with you dismiss with insults without addressing any of the arguments. Therefore, starting several responses ago, my only purpose in addressing you has been to annoy you.

Quoting basman: Grits: I did not explicitly--maybe I did it unconsciously, we''ll never know--assert any proposition, let alone reassert one, . . .

Well let's review the record. The implict version goes like this: why didn't race decide the election if Obama got 97% + of the Black vote; and why wouldn't it be racist for such an overhwelming % of black voters to vote for him just because he's black, if that's what they did? Besides hiding behind the "if that's what they did" clause, what you are doing essentially is asking the reader to dispel your assumption even though there is no valid jusitification to make the assumption in the first place. The assumption itself, I might add, is racist. (Btw, I already suggested that the assumption would be valid had blacks voted for Alan Keyes or some other black conservative running on a non-progressive agenda over Hillary Clinton) Now the explicit version: My underlying point remains the same: a vote for or against Obama predominately on the basis of the colour of his skin is racist in either instance. And that skin colour motivated a statistically significant portion of the Black vote I have no doubt. In your most recent post, you

Jeff/Basman, Here's columnist who shares my opinion. http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opini...he_issues.html

Quoting willmybasilgrow: Guys, Glenn is right!

Drezner talks about the "why." Douat acknowledges it was wrong, but he feels some measure of guilt (narcissism).

Glenn is right!!!

Joshua Cohen - thinking about the people involved. Natural human, blah blah. Sense of guilt about 9/11. Excuses all!

will- I just finished reading both of Glenn Greenwald's commentaries and I agree with your succinct assessment. Glenn's take on Dreznier, Douthat, et. al take on the torture issue reminds me of a memorable quote attributed to William James: 'Most people think they are thinking when they are simply rearranging their prejudices'. And we wonder how the US can sit back and watch Israel literally starve and terrorize Gazans. 205 dead. Shameful!

Grits Step 1 No games grits, as long as we are clear that I am talking about a minority of the Black vote, though a statistically meaningful one. You cannot explain why there was such a siginficant vote for Obama over Hillary when they are ideologically similar. There is none except for skin colour. Give me a counter explanation. Step 2 Once we have established that the vote went on the basis of skin colour, you have to tell me why that is not racist. And: Answer my argument that runs from the thesis of the Boston Review piece about heightened racial division, to racism in that division, to that racism manifesting itself in the 2008 election as suggested by the cited voting facts. As for me harbouring racist notions, I don't think I do. And no one is interested in my personal life. I don't pretend to know how anyone thinks. But I can look at facts and not be shy about saying what they suggest to me and defending that. Itzik Basman

p.s. my reference to unconscious motivation was a reference *only* to my question to you about the Hillary vote, and I was partly winding you up. But I am making no bones about what I am arguing. Itzik Basman

Quoting basman: There is none except for skin colour.

An unfounded and, as it happens, incorrect assertion. Therefore, a false premise for the rest of your argument. Obama and Clinton may have been similar on stated policy goals, but there were plenty of differences between them: likability, trustworthiness, connection with (baggage from) the past versus hope for the future, a campaign that was often divisive versus one that preached unity, indications of leadership ability based on the two campaign management styles, elements of sexism, and so on. I'm not saying any of these perceptions were necessarily correct, but I am saying that a lot of people held them. I'll add that I think your larger idea, that it's equivalently racist to vote for someone based on his skin color matching yours, compared to voting against someone because it does not, especially given the fact that this was the first time a black candidate had a legitimate shot of winning, is pretty stupid. Sorry, but there's no other word that's as honest. I wonder why you're bothering to spend so much time defending this proposition. It's hard to think of any reason apart from the thought that you're attempting to put an

Quoting grits-n-gravy: Jeff/Basman,

Here's columnist who shares my opinion.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opini...he_issues.html

I read this piece and thought it was pretty good. There is not much in it I would disagree with. It does not reflect, nor answer, what I have been arguing in my posts. I have not argued that all Blacks vote in a monolith all the time. And I have not argued that Blacks, just as most others do not, privilege skin colour over their interests. (As a digression, in fact, I might argue that Harold Jackson makes too much about the near to monolithic nature of black interests or shared experience, though there is a notable amount of that. And I'd contrast what he writes with this admittedly more elaborated and poured over essay:http://www.theamericanscholar.org/su...e-johnson.html.) I argued/argue that in the election between McCain and Obama a statistically telling minority of Black voters voted for Obama because he is Black as manifest in the defection of Black voters who had voted for Bush and the increased rates of the Black vote. Then I cited the example of the Hillary Obama primary vote as an even more telling instance of that. And then I asked that if a vote goes on

Brendan: Ah so now I have racist leanings. I have been insulted by better men than you. … Obama and Clinton may have been similar on stated policy goals, but there were plenty of differences between them: likability, trustworthiness, connection with (baggage from) the past versus hope for the future, a campaign that was often divisive versus one that preached unity, indications of leadership ability based on the two campaign management styles, elements of sexism, and so on. I'm not saying any of these perceptions were necessarily correct, but I am saying that a lot of people held them… With this tripe you disabuse me of my premise? This is your account of a monolithic Black vote for Obama over Hillary? You cannot say this and be intellectually honest. The Black vote went monolithically to Obama over Hillary because Black voters voted for a Black candidate. I mean it wasn’t a 55/45 split a 60/40 split—and these are blow outs—it was a monolithic vote. And you want to tell me about likability and management styles? Please. If that is an example of your argument I’ll rest comfortably with my stupidity. But let’s get a little analytical here. It’s racist to classify

Quoting basman: ... now how about an argument on the merits.

Declined. I'll wait to you want to talk about something else. I just wanted to state my impression for the record. As I said, I just don't get why you're spending so much time and energy on this.

[QUOTE And we wonder how the US can sit back and watch Israel literally starve and terrorize Gazans. 205 dead. Shameful![/quote]
Over the past few weeks, Israel didn’t respond to Hamas rocket fire. Livni went to Egypt. Olmert appeared on Arab television. They both said Israel did not want war with Hamas. They said, instead, Israel wanted to keep things calm. They tried to set up the moral case for retaliating against Hamas and to limit the bad press from Israeli self-defense. But within minutes of this round of self defense, the Arabs screamed "massacre" and the international media forgot Hamas’s serial rocket assaults. Again we hear "disproportionate" and the "continuing cycle of violence" to describe a justified, pinpoint—as these things go-- operation. The exclusive targets have been military, the victims mostly Hamas gunmen. Hamas buries itself among civilians, so there will be civilian casualties.
Why bother? Maybe Israel should say that the slightest violation of the ceasefire--a single rocket--will bring an immediate and disproportionate response. Israel will be condemned regardless: so why not smash Hamas massively and get self-respect, deterrence, and a respite for its citizens. But this it will not do now. The next Israeli leader will be Netanyahu. Then let Hamas be so careless about what it wishes for. Itzik Basman[/quote]

"Declined": your privilege of course, but this from the man who said I had racist leanings and betrayed stupidity in my comments. Kitchens, heat, cool breezes. Itzik Basman

Quoting basman: "Declined": your privilege of course, but this from the man who said I had racist leanings and betrayed stupidity in my comments.

Kitchens, heat, cool breezes.

Itzik Basman

Hi Itzik,
I haven't read the whole thread, yet, so forgive me if I've missed something important. But I wanted to ask something. In (what I believe was) the post that started this discussion, you stated:

and why wouldn't it be racist for such an overhwelming % of black voters to vote for him just because he's black, if that's what they did?

Have you actually proved anywhere in the thread that blacks voted for Obama "just because he's black?" If so, can you direct me to that evidence? One other question, if I may: What percent of the black voting population are you calling racist? Are you saying that ALL black people who voted for Obama are racist?

Quoting basman: Grits

. . . You cannot explain why there was such a siginficant vote for Obama over Hillary when they are ideologically similar. There is none except for skin colour. Give me a counter explanation.

bjkeefe listed several good counter examples. I'll just add that the Iraq war was a big issue among blacks, and recognizing Obama had opposed it from the start gave him a lot of credibility and admiration. Anecdotally, I supported Chris Dodd until he dropped out. Blacks didn't start supporting Obama until after Iowa and that support began to surge when he and his wife began campaigning in urban areas.

. . . Answer my argument that runs from the thesis of the Boston Review piece about heightened racial division, to racism in that division, to that racism manifesting itself in the 2008 election as suggested by the cited voting facts.

Here are some problems. First, BR doesn't suggest anything about racism driving the black and hispanic vote. Second, the possible ground you have to assume blacks voted simply because of race or skin color is to point to black republican voters in 2004 who then switched to Obama in 2008; BR doesn't breakdown it's

Quoting basman: And we wonder how the US can sit back and watch Israel literally starve and terrorize Gazans. 205 dead. Shameful!

Over the past few weeks, Israel didn’t respond to Hamas rocket fire. Livni went to Egypt. Olmert appeared on Arab television. They both said Israel did not want war with Hamas. They said, instead, Israel wanted to keep things calm. They tried to set up the moral case for retaliating against Hamas and to limit the bad press from Israeli self-defense. . . .

This is not the place to rehash what led up to the rocket fire to begin up. I'll simply offer a Palestinian perspective on the crisis since I'm not Palestinian. http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10055.shtml

. . . The rationalization for Israel's massacres, already being faithfully transmitted by the English-language media, is that Israel is acting in "retaliation" for Palestinian rockets fired with increasing intensity ever since the six-month truce expired on 19 December (until today, no Israeli had been killed or injured by these recent rocket attacks).

But today's horrific attacks mark only a change in Israel's method of killing Palestinians recently. In recent months they died mostly silent deaths, the elderly and sick especially, deprived of food and necessary medicine

Quoting basman: I'd say that racism is something like distinguishing/discriminating on account of race when race is irrelevant to the achieving a public objective.

What you are missing is that to many blacks, and many whites (myself included), electing a black president in and of itself can "achieve a public objective." Note I did not say "electing any black president." I wouldn't have voted for Alan Keyes, for example. Nor would the overwhelming majority of black people. But Obama was already acceptable to Democrats for a variety of policy reasons, as you have strenuously observed yourself (he was close to Hillary on policy). So, having met the conditions for satisfying Democratic constituencies on this issues that matter to them, many Americans were free to vote for Barack Obama because of the added advantage that his election would advance, to use your words, an important "public objective." Even if Obama and Hillary were completely identical on policy, Obama's election would accomplish an important "public objective" than electing Hillary could not.

I might easily prefer to vote for a woman if I believe that her experience as one informs her world view. That is not a vote against men, but a vote against male-dominated leadership and group think. I might easily prefer to vote for a biracial post-boomer candidate because I believe that his experience must, in some ways, prevent him from believing in some of the dumb myths and CW about race and poverty that still inform our current crop of leaders. Belonging to a group that has been subordinate (culturally, politically) does, in fact, count as a great qualification to lead. There's no better way to recenter American culture than to vote for the people whose ideas and experiences have been seriously underrepresented in the past. That's not racism. That's progress.

Quoting TwinSwords: What you are missing is that to many blacks, and many whites (myself included), electing a black president in and of itself can "achieve a public objective."

Note I did not say "electing any black president." I wouldn't have voted for Alan Keyes, for example. Nor would the overwhelming majority of black people. But Obama was already acceptable to Democrats for a variety of policy reasons, as you have strenuously observed yourself (he was close to Hillary on policy).

So, having met the conditions for satisfying Democratic constituencies on this issues that matter to them, many Americans were free to vote for Barack Obama because of the added advantage that his election would advance, to use your words, an important "public objective."

Even if Obama and Hillary were completely identical on policy, Obama's election would accomplish an important "public objective" than electing Hillary could not.

Very well stated. I wish I were as eloquent.

Quoting grits-n-gravy: Very well stated. I wish I were as eloquent.

Thank you! I appreciate that, but you're much too kind. I am usually happy if my posts aren't completely incoherent. :-)

Grits, Twin Swords, anyone else interested: It's a work day and I don't have much time right now. Let me try to answer you later in the day or early this evening if I can. In fact, I may have over the last day or so come up with an argument against myself that I'll be happy to lay out. Thanks for the interest and, given that this topic is provocative, the civility from those who have been civil. Itzik Basman

I just finished working 10:30 p.m. e.s.t. and am more tired than a one armed paper hanger. I think Twin Swords's comments are are on, or close to, the money, but I will tomorrow take some time to elaborate on where my thinking about this has (de?)evolved to. Itzik Basman

Quoting basman: I just finished working 10:30 p.m. e.s.t. and am more tired than a one armed paper hanger. I think Twin Swords's comments are are on, or close to, the money, but I will tomorrow take some time to elaborate on where my thinking about this has (de?)evolved to.

Itzik Basman

Thanks for the update. Look forward to hearing from you.

Twin Swords, anyone else: 1. Assuming that voting for or against someone just because, or predominately because, of skin colour is racist, I am not saying that all Black voters for Obama are racist. And I cannot specify a % of Black voters who chose on this basis. 2. I cannot *prove* that Blacks voted for Obama just because he is Black. And that “just because” is a difficult notion. One reason, as I tried to say much above, is that folks generally don’t act out of single minded motivation. A lot of the discussion here had to do with what inferences could be permissibly drawn, reasonably drawn, from the Boston Review article and the data its authors cited. There are three things I relied on for the inferences I have tried to argue for: 2(1) The data cited in the piece—compared to 2004—as to the significantly increased turn out in the Black vote and as to the about 10% leap in the rate of the Black vote for Obama over Kerry including many Blacks who had voted Republican in 2004; 2(2) Not cited in the article, but the racially staggering Black vote for Obama over Hillary in the primaries, even though their policies

twin swords: Ou est vous? Itzik Basman