LA County Settles Police Brutality Case For $650K

The 5-member Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a settlement of $650,000 to Erick Hoxey and his girlfriend Shatwan Smith in response to a civil lawsuit which charged outrageous behavior by Los Angeles County Sherriff officials during an April 2008 incident in Compton.

The Los Angeles Times covers the story:

On trial for allegedly assaulting two Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies, Erick Hoxey took the witness stand in his own defense and told jurors it was the other way around.

He said he was waiting in his car outside a Compton apartment building where his girlfriend was making an appointment to braid a little girl's hair, when deputies pulled up. After asking him a few questions, Hoxey said they inexplicably yanked him out of the car, punched him and struck him with a flashlight before pepper-spraying his eyes and inside his mouth.


Then, he said, one grabbed him by the hair and slammed his head twice against the pavement.

The prosecutor, troubled by the young man's testimony, cut him off suddenly and asked the judge for a recess. When he returned an hour and a half later, the prosecutor announced that all charges were being dropped.

On Tuesday, two years after the criminal case fizzled, the county agreed to pay Hoxey, now 24, and his girlfriend $650,000.

The payout comes despite the Sheriff's Department defending the deputies' conduct in arresting Hoxey, his girlfriend, Shatwan Smith, and a bystander who came to their aid during the April 2008 altercation.

According to Deputies Samuel Orozco and Scott Giles, they were on patrol when they spotted Hoxey driving with his seatbelt off. The deputies said Hoxey was immediately aggressive, cursing at them, before reaching under his leg for what they believed was a handgun. The deputies unlocked the car door and pulled Hoxey out of the vehicle. The young man then spun around and took a swing at them, according to the deputies' account. Hoxey continued to fight back, the deputies said, while his girlfriend ran out from the apartment building and began hitting them too.

Although the deputies said they believed Hoxey was armed with a gun, no weapon was recovered. Deputy Orozco testified that a woman at the scene, who did not identify herself because she feared retribution, told him that she saw a man run and grab something from the car, presumably the weapon.

The couple, and the bystander who interceded and pleaded with the deputies to stop, denied the deputies were assaulted.

After hearing the conflicting testimony about the incident, the L.A. County district attorney's office abandoned its prosecution of Hoxey and Smith.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Eric Siddall said in a deposition that Hoxey's testimony "made me think that there was reasonable doubt in the case."

The couple's civil attorney, Glen Jonas, accused the deputies of framing Hoxey on charges of resisting arrest and drug possession and Smith of resisting arrest and assault. Giles said he found a cocaine rock in Hoxey's car, while he and other deputies were searching the vehicle.

"It ruined their lives," Jonas said of the ordeal. He said Smith, who was a student at UC San Diego at the time, "was so distraught over being falsely prosecuted that she couldn't concentrate in school…her grades fell and ultimately she wasn't able to stay in school."

During the trial, Orozco's past on-duty behavior was also scrutinized in testimony from residents in the area who said they had run-ins with him. One woman said he used the N-word against her. Another testified that she'd also been roughed up by Orozco, booked and was eventually acquitted.

Sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore declined to comment on specific allegations but said the department maintains the couple was resisting arrest. "This settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing," he said. "Deputies don't make stuff up, the hope is, and we contend they did not fabricate anything."

I don't usually include such an extensive excerpt from a newspaper story but one really needs to see all the paragraphs that I have included in order to draw your own conclusions about what really happened*. Two Sheriff deputies see a Black guy sitting in a car and decide to rough him up for some bizarre reason only known to themselves. They start beating the crap out of him, then his girlfriend and a bystander come to the guy's defense.  Then the deputies have the gall to claim that the person that they assaulted was "resisting arrest" AND they claim the existence of a gun which is not found AND attempt to plant drugs in the vehicle. It reads like something out of FX's The Shield!
(That was a show starring Michael Chiklis as a rogue cop who basically takes the law into his own hands.)

The real hero of the piece is the Deputy District Attorney Eric Siddall who refused to condone the cops lying and when he realized what was going on, declined to perpetrate a fraud upon the court. I'm not convinced that $650,000 is enough money for the two people who were attacked by the very same people their own taxes pay to protect them and keep them safe. What is a reasonable price for violation of the public trust?

Another question is why do Samuel Orozco and Scott Giles still have jobs with Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and why hasn't the Los Angeles County District Attorney charged them with perjury?
Even the Sheriff's Department spokesperson says "Deputies don't make stuff up, the hope is." Really? Do you think this is some kind of joke?

 It is incredibly damaging to how all police officers are viewed and public safety overall if it appears that some officers of the court are getting away with activities that if they were just regular people would result in jail time. Police officers and sheriff's deputies (and elected officials) who are presumed to have the public trust should be held to a higher ethical standard than the general public. Even the appearance of hypocrisy is unacceptable.

*DISCLAIMER: Nothing in this blog posting should be construed as claiming any individual of having committed any criminal or civil offense.

CDC Releases New Data on HIV Infections 2006-2009

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released their latest analysis of HIV infections from 2006-2009 today. The full report (pdf) is available online. This is the first time the CDC has been able to estimate HIV infections from actual HIV test data, thanks to the passage of HIV names reporting legislation which has been enacted by several states (including California) in recent years. 2009 is the most recent year for which data is available so far.

A key excerpt from the press release:

According to the new estimates, there were 48,600 new HIV infections in the United States in 2006, 56,000 in 2007, 47,800 in 2008 and 48,100 in 2009.  The multi-year incidence estimates allow for a reliable examination of trends over time.  They reveal no statistically significant change in HIV incidence overall from 2006 to 2009, with an average of 50,000 for the four-year period.  In 2009, the largest number of new infections was among white MSM (11,400), followed closely by black MSM (10,800).  Hispanic MSM (6,000) and black women (5,400) were also heavily affected.   

“While we’re encouraged that prevention efforts have helped avoid overall increases in HIV infections in the United States, and have significantly reduced new infections from the peak in the mid-1980s, we have plateaued at an unacceptably high level,” said Kevin Fenton, M.D., director of CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention.  “Without intensified HIV prevention efforts, we are likely to face an era of rising infection rates and higher health care costs for a preventable condition that already affects more than one million people in this country.”

Some of the key take-aways from the report are:

• Overall HIV incidence in the U.S. has been relatively stable, with approximately 50,000 annual new infections

• New infections among young men who have sex with men (MSM) increased 34% between 2006 and 1009

• Young, black MSM (aged 13-29) is the only subpopulation in the U.S. to experience a statistically significant increase from 2006 through 2009
• New HIV infections increased 48% – from 4,400 in 2006 to 6,500 in 2009

• The new data confirm that HIV continues to disproportionately affect MSM of all races/ethnicities
• MSM represent 2% of the total U.S. population, but accounted for 61% all new HIV infections in 2009
• Among MSM in 2009, white MSM represented the greatest number of new HIV infections (11,400), followed closely by black MSM (10,800) and Hispanic MSM (6,000)
  

Read that line again: "MSM represent 2% of the total U.S. population, but accounted for 61% all new HIV infections in 2009." People who says HIV/AIDS is not a "gay" issue don't know what the heck they are talking about!

Black Man Perceived To Be Gay Barred From Donating Blood

Aaron Pace, a self-described effeminate straight man, was prevented from
donating blood due to his perceived sexual orientation

I have previously blogged abuut the ban on gay people from donating blood in the United States and have expressed my opinion that the ban should be lifted. The alleged rationale by the Food and Drug Administration is that a man who has had sex with another man even once since 1979 has blood which is riskier than other people's despite the fact all blood that is donated is tested by the American Red Cross for the presence of HIV antibodies and other STDs.

Now a heterosexual man named Aaron Pace, who happens to be Black and describes himself as "effeminate," has been prevented from donating blood in Gary, Indiana.

The story was first published in the Chicago Sun-Times:

“I was humiliated and embarrassed,” said Pace, 22. of Gary. “It’s not right that homeless people can give blood but homosexuals can’t. And I’m not even a homosexual.”

Pace visited Bio-Blood Components Inc. in Gary, which pays for blood and plasma donations, up to $40 a visit. But during the interview screening process, Pace said he was told he could not be a blood donor there because he “appears to be a homosexual.”

No one at Bio-Blood returned calls seeking comment, but donation centers like it, and even the American Red Cross, are still citing a nearly 30-year-old federal policy to turn away gay men from donating.

The Food and Drug Administration policy, implemented in 1983, states that men who have had sex — even once — with another man (since 1977) are not allowed to donate blood.

The policy was sparked by concerns that HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, was tainting the blood supply. And, back then, screening tests to identify HIV-positive blood had not yet been developed.

Today, all donated blood is tested for HIV, as well as for hepatitis B and C, syphilis and other infectious diseases, before it can be released to hospitals. This is why gay activists, blood centers including the American Red Cross, and even some lawmakers now claim the lifetime ban is “medically and scientifically unwarranted.”

I should repeat what the Los Angeles Times said last year in an editorial that "there were 4 known cases of HIV transmission out of 122 million units of blood donated between 1999 and 2007." Is that infinitesimal risk worth the discrimination against all gay men in the light of a nationwide blood shortage?

I wonder if Marcus Bachmann would be allowed to give blood at Bio-Blood?

D.C., "Chocolate City" Now White Chocolate?

A curious result from the 2010 Census (which generally showed how America in general is becoming less white) is that Washington, D.C., a city which was nearly 71% Black is now only plurality African-American.

The Washington Post reports:

The number of African Americans residing in the District plummeted by more than 11 percent during the past decade, with blacks on the verge of losing their majority status in the city for the first time in half a century.

According to census statistics released Thursday, barely 50 percent of the District’s population was African American in 2010 — a remarkable shift in a place once nicknamed “Chocolate City.” 

The black population dropped by more than 39,000 over the decade, down to 301,000 of the city’s 601,700 residents. At the same time, the non-Hispanic white population skyrocketed by more than 50,000 to 209,000 residents, almost a third higher than a decade earlier. 

The census statistics showed a steeper change for both blacks and whites than had been estimated. With the city ‘s black population dropping by about 1 percent a year, African Americans might already be below the 50 percent mark in the city.

In a city that prides itself on being a hub of black culture and politics, a majority of residents have been black since whites began moving to the suburbs en masse at the end of World War II. By 1970, seven out of 10 Washingtonians were black.

The loss of blacks comes at a time when the city is experiencing a rebound, reversing a 60-year-long slide in population and adding almost 20,000 new residents between 2000 and 2010.

I wonder if the change in racial demographhics will make it more likely that D.C. will finally become  a state and get actual representation in Congress? It has a larger population than Wyoming, which of course is overwhelmingly white. It's within striking distance of Vermont and North Dakota's population in size as well.
Of course the bigger question is "Does it matter if the racial demographics of a city (or country) change over time?" And, what is race, anyway?

Speaking of race, you MUST read this Daily Kos article on the nature of race which ran yesterday. Here's a small excerpt:

Historical research has shown that the idea of "race" has always carried more meanings than mere physical differences; indeed, physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them. Today scholars in many fields argue that "race" as it is understood in the United States of America was a social mechanism invented during the 18th century to refer to those populations brought together in colonial America: the English and other European settlers, the conquered Indian peoples, and those peoples of Africa brought in to provide slave labor.

From its inception, this modern concept of "race" was modeled after an ancient theorem of the Great Chain of Being, which posited natural categories on a hierarchy established by God or nature. Thus "race" was a mode of classification linked specifically to peoples in the colonial situation. It subsumed a growing ideology of inequality devised to rationalize European attitudes and treatment of the conquered and enslaved peoples. Proponents of slavery in particular during the 19th century used "race" to justify the retention of slavery. The ideology magnified the differences among Europeans, Africans, and Indians, established a rigid hierarchy of socially exclusive categories underscored and bolstered unequal rank and status differences, and provided the rationalization that the inequality was natural or God-given. The different physical traits of African-Americans and Indians became markers or symbols of their status differences.

As they were constructing US society, leaders among European-Americans fabricated the cultural/behavioral characteristics associated with each "race," linking superior traits with Europeans and negative and inferior ones to blacks and Indians. Numerous arbitrary and fictitious beliefs about the different peoples were institutionalized and deeply embedded in American thought.

I strongly encourage you to read the piece (which includes a quiz!), which was written by Denise Oliver Velez.

WATCH: Olson/Boies Tribute To Loving v. Virginia

June 12 is the 44th anniversary of the unanimous Loving v. Virginia United States Supreme Court case which overturned all state-enacted bans on interracial marriages. David Boies and Ted Olson are the lead attorneys in the federal lawsuit against Proposition 8, a 2008 California ballot measure which bans same-sex marriage. They have recorded a special video tribute acknowledging the significance of the Loving decision, and its potential impacyt on the Perry v. Brown case.

Hat/tip to TowleRoad.

Celebrity Friday: Goodwin Liu Withdraws Nomination

Goodwin Liu, Professor of Law at University of California, Berkeley has written President Obama, withdrawing his name from consideration for a seat on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after Republicans successfully filibustered his nomination on the floor of the United States Senate on May 19th.

The text of the letter is here:

Dear Mr. President:


I have been deeply honored to be your nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The nomination has been a tremendous source of pride for my family and community, and it would be a great privilege and responsibility to serve our country as a member of the judiciary. 


In light of last week's unsuccessful cloture vote, however, I respectfully ask that you withdraw my nomination from further consideration by the United States Senate. With no possibility of an up-or-down vote on the horizon, my family and I have decided that it is time for us to regain the ability to make plans for the future. In addition, the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit has noted the "desperate need for judges" to fill current vacancies,  and it is now clear that continuing my nomination will not address that need any time soon.


I am profoundly indebted to you for your confidence in me and to the many people wh workd tirelessly in support of my nomination. Thank you for this great honor and opportunity


Sincerely,


Goodwin Liu

Sometimes the bad guys win. Interestingly, President Obama has now nominated a judge named Morgen Christen from Alaska put on that state's Supreme Court by Governor Sarah Palin for the 9th Circuit. It will be interesting to see what response she gets from Senate Republicans!

HBO's Game Of Thrones Renewed For Season 2!

Excellent news! HB0 has announced they have renewed their new fantasy series Game of Thrones for a second season. Game of Thrones is an adaptation of George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series, which is a planned 7-book fantasy series in set in the fictional land of Westeros where seasons can last years and civilization is basically at the Bronze Age of medieval times.

The plan is for each season of the HBO show to be based on each of the books. The first book in the series is called A Game of Thrones (click to see MadProfessah review). The second book (which is even better than the first) is called A Clash of Kings (click to see MadProfessah review) and immediately follows the events of the first book.

Overall, I have been very impressed with HBO's television adaptation of George R.R. Martin's work, for the most part. The books depict the fight for control of the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros between members of several major houses. Martin analyzes many topics in thee very long books, among them the nature of gender in a feudal society, the irrationality of hereditary government, and especially the meanings of political power in a society where everyone carries a sword and "might makes right" is a generally accepted ethos.

The TV series has done an excellent job of animating these concepts by actually improving on Martin's plotting by adding scenes and interactions between characters which do not appear in the original text.
What the TV series has not done well is depict people of color. There is an important subplot in the series which involves action on a far-away continent (across the Narrow Sea from Westeros) called Essos where the Dothraki people like. The Dothraki are a war-like, nomadic people who have "copper skin and almond eyes." In the books, Martin is able to fully explain their specific cultural traditions and motivate their harsh and violent actions. In the HBO series the head of the Dothraki Khal Drogo is portrayed by a massively buff Jason Momoa who speaks in a  rough guttural tongue. The Dothraki are depicted as wild-eyed savages for the most part, without the  descriptive context the book supplies them. This is unfortunate, because the chapters of the books which involve the Dothraki and the blonde refugee from Westeros named Daenerys Targaryen who becomes their Queen (Khaleesi) are some of the best sections of the story. Martin won a Hugo award for a novella about Daenerys.

In the series there are some epic scenes involving Daenerys, the Dothraki and her dragon eggs which, if depicted badly, could ruin the entire series for me. Daenerys and the Dothraki are incredibly important characters, and it is disturbing that, so far, they have not been depicted as effectively as the other, predominantly white, characters. It's no coincidence that the upcoming fifth book is called, A Dance with Dragons. Hopefully, the series will make that far.

WATCH: Black Lesbian Couple 1st To Get Illinois Civil Union

Lakeesha Harris and Jeanean Watkins, a Black lesbian couple with a registered domestic partnership, were first in line to get their civil union license when Illinois civil unions law went into effect today, June 1. Governor Pat Quinn signed the bill into law earlier this year. Hawaii and Delaware also enacted civil union laws this year that go into effect later.

Hat/tip to Wonder Man.

Eddie Long Settles 4 Sexual Misconduct Cases

Things that make you go hmmmmm. Eddie Long, an Atlanta-area evangelical preacher who was accused of sexual misconduct with four young Black men involved in his church's youth ministry, has decided to settle the lawsuits for an undisclosed sum and guaranteed secrecy.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports:

Attorneys involved in the four lawsuits against Long, the LongFellows Youth Academy and the 25,000-member Lithonia megachurch said the case had been settled but declined to comment further. The case is expected to be dismissed "with prejudice" -- meaning the defendant cannot be sued by the plaintiffs again in the same alleged offense -- by close of business Friday, said Barbara Marschalk, who represents New Birth Missionary Baptist Church and LongFellows Youth Academy.

B.J. Bernstein, who represents the four men who sued Long, New Birth and the academy, also confirmed the lawsuits had been settled. The academy was named in three of the suits.

Long, pastor of the Lithonia megachurch, which has an international following, had denied the men's allegations through a spokesman shortly after they first became public in September and told his congregation he planned to "vigorously" fight them.

The accusations made against Long by Anthony Flagg, Spencer LeGrande, Jamal Parris and Maurice Robinson alleged that the bishop used his influence, trips, gifts and jobs to coerce them into sexual relations.

Of course, does the fact that the terms of the agreement were undisclosed and the parties are not able to discuss the amount of money involved change how Long is viewed by his parishioners? These people believe  an old white guy in the sky watches over every word, thought and deed so reality-based they are not:

Kamelya Hinson, a Web content editor who lives in Decatur, said the settlement has not shaken her faith.

"It doesn't make me think he's guilty or anything," she said. "I decided when this came out that I loved my pastor unconditionally. Even if he came out and grabbed the mic and said ‘I'm guilty,' it wouldn't change the way I feel about him. I wouldn't be angry like a lot of people are. You can't walk away after 15 years of being a member of a church."

Hinson said it doesn't bother her that she may never know whether the allegations are true. "He's done 1,000 good things," she said, "and he may or may not have done four really bad things."

A fool and his money are soon parted.

Hat/tip to Rod 2.0

Analyzing Poll Data On Interracial Marriage Equality

In 1948, the California Supreme Court ruled in Perez v Sharp that the state's prohibition on interracial marriages was invalid. That was the first state Supreme Court decision to strike down an anti-miscegenation statute. 10 years later a national poll of Americans by Gallup in September 1958 showed that 94% of respondents disapproved of "marriages between blacks and whites." The United States Supreme Court did not invalidate all remaining laws banning interracial marriage (which were still on the books in 16 states) until 1967, and a year later a mere 20 percent of respondents approved of interracial marriages (73 percent disapproved) in a June 1968 Gallup poll. It was not until the mid-1990s that a majority of poll respondents said that they approved of interracial marriage equality.

In 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision Goodridge v. Department of Public Health went into effect, legalizing marriages between same-sex couples on May 17. At the time 42% of Americans approved of marriage equality, with 55 percent disapproving of civil marriages between same-sex couples. As I noted yesterday, it is only in 2011 that Gallup has shown majority support for marriage equality nationwide, even though there are only 5 states and the District of Columbia where the practice is legal.

Hat/tip to Zack Ford.

Goodwin Liu Cloture Vote Set For Thursday

Finally! The United States Senate is poised to vote Thursday on ending debate on the nomination of Goodwin Liu to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. MadProfessah has been following the process of this nomination very closely, since it was first made last Spring. Republicans in the Senate killed the nominations of Liu to the 9th U.S. Circuit and Ed Chen to the U.S. Northern District of California right before the November 2010 election.

When the 112th Congress convened in January 2011, President Barack Obama re-nominated both Liu and Chen and last week the United States Senate confirmed Chen by a vote of 56 to 42.

Majority Leader Harry Reid filed a cloture vote on Tuesday afternoon which means that sometime on Thursday a vote will be held to end debate on the Liu nomination. Liu, 40, if approved to the appellate court, could become a likely Supreme Court nominee in a 2nd Obama administration. He is extremely well-qualified, personable and has an amazing life story.

Many, many progressive organizations are urging people to contact their Senators to vote in favor of the Liu nomination. Here's an excerpt of what Alliance for Justice has to say about Liu's nomination:

Goodwin Liu is extremely well qualified to be a circuit court judge. 

• He has sterling academic qualification. Liu attended Stanford University, graduating Phi Beta Kappa in 1991.  He was co-president of the student body and the recipient of the Lloyd W. Dinkelspiel Award, the University’s highest honor for outstanding service to undergraduate education.  He went on to receive his M.A. at Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar in 1993.  He later graduated from Yale Law School in 1998, where he was an editor of the Yale Law Journal.
•  He received the highest possible rating from the ABA: “unanimously well-qualified.”
• Liu has broad experience in the academic, public and private sectors, providing the varied experience and perspectives that make a great judge. He served in the public sector at the Corporation for National Service and the U.S. Department of Education, and practiced law in the private sector at O’Melveny & Myers. He currently is Associate Dean and Professor of Law at University of California Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall). 

Goodwin Liu is a mainstream nominee with strong support from across the ideological spectrum, including Republican lawyers and academics.

• Liu’s views are well within the legal mainstream and are not ideological. For example, his academic writings include support for charter schools and school vouchers.
•  He has won strong praise from individuals representing a wide variety of ideologies, interests, and viewpoints: 
•  Kenneth Starr, former Whitewater prosecutor and appeals court judge called Liu “a person of great intellect, accomplishment, and integrity,” and “an extraordinarily qualified nominee.” 
• Former Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) said Liu’s writing “reveals his commitment to the Constitution.”
• Former Congressman Tom Campbell (R- Calif.) said that “Liu will bring scholarly distinction and a strong reputation for integrity, fair-mindedness, and collegiality to the Ninth Circuit.”
• Richard Painter, who worked on the confirmations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito as President George W. Bush’s chief ethics counsel, wrote that Liu is an “exceptionally qualified, measured, and mainstream nominee” who the Senate should “vote to confirm.”
•  Christopher Edley, Dean of the University of California, Berkley, Law School, said that Liu “has wonderful values, but at the end of the day, he’s not ideological.”
• Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) noted, “[h]e’s as sharp as they come, with a kind demeanor and a good temperament . . . [a]nd he’s someone who has earned the broad respect of his colleagues on the left and the right.” Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) echoed these sentiments, stating, “He is a proven authority on constitutional law with a keen intellect.”
• A bipartisan group of education policy experts, wrote that, “… his record demonstrates the habits of rigorous inquiry, open-mindedness, independence, and intellectual honesty that we want and expect our judges to have. His writings are meticulously researched and carefully argued, and they reflect a willingness to consider ideas on their substantive merits no matter where they lie on the political spectrum. Moreover, we are confident in Professor Liu’s ability to decide cases based on the facts and the law, regardless of his policy views. His scholarship amply demonstrates that kind of intellectual discipline, and our high regard for his work is widely shared.”
• The California Correctional Peace Officers Association, endorsed his nomination, writing that “We are confident he will further the cause of justice and follow the law and Constitution for all parties that come before his Court, again including crime victims and peace officers.”
• Twenty-seven former federal judges and prosecutors wrote to protest attacks on Liu’s record, saying that “rhetoric surrounding the criticism of his nomination has reached an unacceptable level, beyond what is appropriate in a civil, spirited debate,” and concluding that, “We applaud Professor Liu’s commitment to ensuring the constitutional rights of defendants facing the death penalty. Contrary to his critics’ claims, his commitment to the Constitution is commendable and vital for anyone seeking a position in what is often the court of last resort for individuals seeking to protect their constitutional rights.” 

Goodwin Liu’s story exemplifies the American Dream.

• His parents are immigrants from Taiwan, and although born in Georgia, he learned English only when he began attending public school in kindergarten. After moving to California, he overcame struggles with language to rise to co-valedictorian of his high school class, and then went on to academic distinction at Stanford, Oxford, and Yale.
• He would be only the second Asian American serving on a federal court of appeals, and the only Asian-American judge in active service on the Ninth Circuit, which includes Western states with large Asian-American populations.

I met Professor Liu when he testified in opposition to Proposition 8 in 2008 and strongly support his nomination to the 9th Circuit.

WATCH: Don Lemon Discusses Being Gay On CNN HLN

As I mentioned on Monday, CNN anchor Don Lemon has come out as openly gay. He is currently making the media rounds promoting his book Transparent. Below is his appearance on Joy Behar's nightly talk show which airs on CNN's Headline News.

STUDY: Racial Disparities In Perceived Racial Progress Revealed!

There is an interesting new study ("Whites See Racism as a Zero-Sum Game That They Are Now Losing,” Michael I. Norton and Samuel R. Sommers, Perspectives on Psychological Science, May 2011) which compares how "Black" Americans and "White" Americans perceive racial progress of the last few decades in America. The Wall Street Journal (!) reported a summary of the results:

The researchers contacted a random national sample of 209 whites and 208 blacks, and asked them how much discrimination each group faced, on a scale of one to ten, for each decade since the 1950s.

Black Americans saw anti-black bias as declining steadily, from 9.7 in the ’50s to 6.1 in the ’00s. Over the same period, they perceived a small increase in anti-white bias, from 1.4 to 1.8.

White Americans saw an even steeper decline in anti-black bias: from 9.1, in the ’50s, to 3.6, in the ’00s. But more striking, according to the researchers, was the sharp increase in perceived anti-white bias: Among whites, it shot up from 1.8 to 4.7.

White Americans, in short, thought that anti-white bias was a greater societal problem by the ’00s than anti-black bias.

The researchers described the pattern—which did not vary markedly with regard to age or education levels—as evidence that white Americans see race relations as a zero-sum game, in which one group’s gains must be offset by another’s loss.

My friend, Professor Ange-Marie Hancock of the USC Political Science department, would call this an example of Leapfrog Paranoia, which is the mistaken belief by one group that they are going to be surpassed in status by another group which they previously had perceived to be their inferior. Leapfrog paranoia generally leads to or is coupled with Movement backlash which is where the movement for progress by the inferior group experiences backlash as the currently superior group portrays itself as the victim precisely because there has been progress by the previously (and currently) inferior group. One obvious example of this is fundamentalist Christians saying that "militant homosexual activists" are persecuting them for their beliefs and forms of worship when LGBT activists are asking for equal access to civil liberties and civil rights without discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in the public sphere.

HIV Treatment *IS* HIV Prevention

There's an interesting twist to the news that HIV+ people on anti-retroviral medication have surprisingly low chances of passing the virus on to their sexual partners in this weekend's New York Times column by Charles Blow.

Blow makes the point that the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) has been a victim of both state and federal budget cutting and points out the long-term fiscal irresponsibility of such actions.

According to data from the ADAP Advocacy Association: as of last week, the number of people on ADAP waiting lists had risen to 7,873; between April 2009 and April 2011, 14 states reduced the number and types of drugs they would pay for. A number of states have stiffened financial eligibility requirements, capped enrollment or removed some people already enrolled. Other states are considering doing so.


This is particularly problematic since the National ADAP Monitoring Project’s annual report, released in March, showed that those most dependent on the program are some of society’s most vulnerable. About a third of all people diagnosed with AIDS are enrolled in ADAPs, three-quarters of them had incomes of less than 200 percent of the national poverty level, 61 percent were uninsured, and 55 percent were black or Hispanic.


But as the recession put more patients in need, federal and state aid didn’t keep track. From 2007 to 2010, the number of people using ADAPs jumped by a third, but federal and state funds specifically appropriated for it grew by just 3 percent and 18 percent, respectively.


Not only is it morally reprehensible to restrict or deny life-saving drugs to those who need them (talk about death panels), it is a colossal miscalculation of public health policy, not to mention fiscally irresponsible.


The new findings should help change a paradigm that’s badly in need of changing. Treatment benefits the healthy as well as the sick. It not only prolongs and improves the lives of those who are H.I.V.-positive, but also is a prophylactic for those who aren’t. Everyone wins.


It’s time to expand ADAPs, not diminish them.

It's just amazing how we spend health care dollars in this country. It simply is not rational to be cutting funds for  prevention of any disease, especially when prevention is always cheaper than treatment. In the case of HIV, treatment can also improve prevention of future infections so it should be a no-brainer to increase, not decrease such expenditures. Unless you live in Mississippi, of course.

Newt Gingrich: "The Good Ol' Boy" Who Wants To Be Prez

Newt Gingrich, with his 3rd wife (and former aide) Calllista

Newt Gingrich has a long and troubled history with making statements which are both counterfactual and controversial. His mendacity and mischievousness know almost no bounds.

Recently, the Republican presidential candidate has become decidedly non-elliptical in his racially charged remarks. Last week, Newt said this before a Republican audience:

Gingrich sought to lay blame for the recession, as well as the economic and social upheaval in Detroit, on Obama and his policies. “President Obama is the most successful food stamp president in American history,” Gingrich said. “I would like to be the most successful paycheck president in American history.”

Unfortunately for Newt it's not 1994 anymore, it's now 2011 so people like Salon's Joan Walsh and The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates have started to notice Newt's blatant appeals to racial prejudice:

But let me be clear: I might not have paid attention to Gingrich's "food stamp president" jibe had it not come along with a panorama of images designed to make clear Barack Obama is blackity black black. Praising right-wing Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Gingrich said he'll make the U.S. more like Texas, while Obama only "knows how to get the whole country to resemble Detroit." In the speech to Georgia Republicans where he tried out the "food stamp president" slur, Gingrich also told the bastion of the old Confederacy that 2012 would be the biggest election since 1860 -- you know, when Abraham Lincoln got elected and the South began to secede over slavery, commencing the Civil War. He also suggested the U.S. might need to bring back some kind of voting test, banned under the Voting Rights Act. Last year, of course, Gingrich denounced Obama's "Kenyan anti-colonialist behavior," which made him "outside our comprehension" as Americans, spreading the lie that Obama inherited angry African anti-colonialism from his absent African father, though he was raised by his white mother and grandparents. Oh, and he headed the drive to label Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor "racist" when she was nominated in 2009. 

So let's review: Welfare slur? Check. Tie to a troubled, mainly black city? Check. Specious association with African anti-colonialism? Check. Dire reference to Lincoln and the start of the Civil War, while campaigning deep in the heart of Dixie? Check. Suggestion we need a voter test? Check. Oh, and for good measure, calling liberals concerned about racial injustice "racist"? Check. Awesome: They've hit pretty much every way the GOP has used to divide Americans by race in the last 200 years! 

Great job, Newt. You've developed the perfect platform to run a spirited GOP campaign that attracts a cadre of aggrieved white people. You'll never be president of the United States, but you'll be the champion of the declining share of the country that still thrills to what we used to call dog-whistle politics: coded varieties of racism only understood by their intended audience.

It will be interesting to see if  other Republican candidates and politicians call Newt out for his racist remarks, or (more likely) they also use more subtly coded appeals to the predominantly pale populace's anxieties about racial progress. Interestingly, on This Week with Christiane Amanpour even George Will said that Newt "is not a serious candidate" for president.

Let's hope not.

NJ Lawsuit Hinges On Definition Of "Male"

This is an interesting story I discovered via PageOneQ. The New York Times has the deets:

Mr. Devoureau, 39, says he has identified himself as a man all his life. In 2006, after he began taking male hormones and had sex-change surgery, he adopted the name El’Jai (pronounced like L. J.). A new birth certificate issued by the State of Georgia identifies him as male, as does his New Jersey driver’s license, and the Social Security Administration made the change in its records. 

“As long as I’ve been a person, I’ve lived as a man,” he said in an interview. “At age 5, I did everything a boy did: I climbed trees, I played football, I played with trucks. Most of the people in my life, all they know is I’m male.” 

Last June, Urban Treatment Associates in Camden hired Mr. Devoureau as a part-time urine monitor; his job was to make sure that people recovering from addiction did not substitute someone else’s urine for their own during regular drug testing. On his second day, he said, his boss said she had heard he was transgender. 

“I said I was male, and she asked if I had any surgeries,” he said. “I said that was private and I didn’t have to answer, and I was fired.” 

Calls to Urban Treatment were not returned. But after Mr. Devoureau made a complaint to the state’s Division on Civil Rights, the treatment center filed a response in January saying that Mr. Devoureau’s dismissal “was not motivated by, nor related in any way to, any discriminatory intention.” 

Civil rights laws and court decisions allow limited cases of favoring one group over another, like giving preference to women for jobs as nurses in maternity wards. In its January filing, Urban Treatment said that firing Mr. Devoureau was legitimate, “since the sex of the employee engaged in that particular job position is a bona fide occupational qualification” — implying that Mr. Devoureau was not really a man. 

Mr. Devoureau’s suit, filed in Superior Court in Camden, is not the first job discrimination case brought by a transgender person, though those remain rare. But Michael D. Silverman, executive director of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund, said it was the first employment case in the country to take on the question of a transgender person’s sex.

The question of what defines male and female is not as simple as "what you see in the mirror when you stand in front of it nude." Scientifically (and legally) there are at least 8 different characteristics which comprise "sex." It will be interesting if this lawsuit forwards this notion in the legal sphere.

Note that there are only 12 states which ban employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The Maryland legislature just failed to enact HB 235 which would have banned gender identity discrimination in employment, housing and credit (but not public accommodations).

Response to Jerome Robinson's Letter to the LA TIMES

In the Los Angeles Times a few days ago I came across this letter to the editor which was published:

Lessons on gays' contributions 

Re "A fight over gays in textbooks," April 2 

I am a black male Democrat. I believe homosexuals are born as such because of factors beyond their control. So I don't view homosexuals as wrongdoers who chose to be different. 

That said, I disagree with gay rights activists supporting legislation to require teaching on the contributions of homosexuals in our society, extending recognition to gays that has been historically given to racial minorities. The experiences of homosexuals simply aren't extensions of those of racial minorities. There's no comparison between race and sexuality. 

I'm sick and tired of gay rights activists and radical liberals attempting to hijack the struggles of racial minorities to advance their agenda. It's insulting to me, and I suspect the vast majority of racial minorities feel the same.
Jerome RobinsonLos Angeles

Where to begin with a response? First, I, too am a "black male Democrat." So the first point to note is that clearly all Black male Democrats do not share the same views. Just as the views expressed in the published letter merely reflect one Black male Democrat, so do my published views here.

I'm glad that Mr. Robinson doesn't "view homosexuals as wrongdoers who chose to be different" so at least we know he's not  some ignorant, raving homophobe. That said, he clearly is lacking in information when he says that requiring teaching the contributions of homosexuals to society is "extending recognition to gays that has been historically given to racial minorities." The presumption here is that requiring teaching of certain groups has been restricted to racial minorities, which is clearly false. The contributions of women and other previously neglected groups has been a basic tenet of curricular reform for decades. Including LGBT people is just the next step.

But it is these next two sentences that set my hair on fire: "There's no comparison between race and sexuality." and "I'm sick and tired of gay rights activists and radical liberals attempting to hijack the struggles of racial minorities to advance their agenda."

There's no comparison between race and "sexuality"? (I presume he means sexual orientation.) What about the fact that until 1967 there were laws on the books preventing people from marrying because of the race of the participants? And there are currently laws on the books preventing people from marrying because of the SEX and SEXUAL ORIENTATION of the participants.

Race is a theoretical aspect of identity which has been reified by society, i.e. it is a social construction. Is there any doubt that sexual orientation is also a social construct? What does it even MEAN to be gay? One could define it using sexual attraction, sexual activity, self-identification. But the difficulty in defining either race or sexual orientation does not make their impact on the actual lives of individuals any less real. It is absolute nonsense to say "there's no comparison between race and sexuality."

"I'm sick and tired of gay rights activists and radical liberals attempting to hijack the struggles of racial minorities to advance their agenda." This is such an old canard I don't know where to begin. My usual response is to quote Dan Savage and say that all LGBT activists acknowledge The Civil Rights Movement of the 60s to end racial segregation, but that the movement for full LGBT equality is also a civil rights movement. See the difference? My friend Craig Konnoth, has written an award-winning article entitled "Created in its image: the race analogy, gay identity, and gay litigation in the 1950s-1970s" which eloquently and brilliantly illuminates how much all other civil rights movements (for women's rights, gay rights, etc) that were contemporaneous with the Black Civil Rights Movement were influenced and impacted by the historical precedents set by racial minorities. This should not be a surprise! This is not about hijacking another groups struggles in order to advance another agenda, and by choosing an oppositional frame between racial minorities and other groups one assumes that there is no overlap, which is FALSE.

I'm still trying to decide whether I should formally write a response to Mr. Robinson's letter to the editor and send it to the Times. What do you think, dear readers?