-
- |
-
- |
- 1
—Where have all the Dirty Girls gone? [Observer]
—Much to her doctor’s horror, comedian Jessi Klein refuses to freeze her eggs. [The Daily Beast]
—Pundits discuss whether the public wants Michelle Obama to just shut up and bake cookies. [New York Times]
—Sources say Snooki may be sneaking out on her court hearing. [CNN]
—Western states like Arizona and Montana take pride in their gun-toting soccer moms. [Washington Post]
-
- |
-
- |
- 2
Good, if unsurprising news: The Obama administration won Round 1 of the battle against the Arizona law targeting people that could be perceived as illegal immigrants for harassment if they don't happen to be carrying proof that they're not illegal immigrants. Judge Susan R. Bolton halted enforcement of the law while she hears the arguments, indicating that the state of Arizona's case probably isn't going to go so well for them.
In all honesty, Arizona Republicans should be thanking the Obama administration for aggressively fighting this law. If the law never goes into effect, Republicans get much of the benefits of scapegoating immigrants this election season while not being blamed for the inevitable fallout if this law ever starts getting enforced. Voters probably like this law better in theory than in practice, in other words. If the law never goes into effect, voters won't have to contemplate spending tax money fighting off the inevitable lawsuits when the wrong people are inevitably targeted. Nor will they have to live with the consequences of putting the police in a situation in which they have to harass witnesses to crimes for their papers instead of simply taking their testimony. Or worse, having to give up investigating certain crimes at all because all the witnesses who were out and about without papers will flee the scene.
What's especially troubling to me is the apparent cynicism of those who are pushing this ridiculous law in the first place. Arizona Republicans practically seemed to be reading off a chart: "Hmmmm, historically speaking, bad economies tend to produce nativist, racist fervor. We should get in on the ground floor of that, drum up some votes." And most of the reaction to the Obama administration's swift response is to read it as strictly a political move, as if the Democrats are betting on anti-racism because the Republicans have tied up the racist vote. A small part of me wants to believe there's an off-chance that the administration could be moving so rapidly not out of pure political calculation, but because it might just be the right thing to do.
-
- |
-
- |
- 10
Last January a group of cheerleading coaches and administrators from eight universities united to form the National Competitive Stunts and Tumbling Association, a centralized governing body whose stated purpose was to elevate competitive college cheer to the level of NCAA-sanctioned varsity sport. Despite the artful rebranding efforts of NCSTA members like Oregon coach Felecia Mulkey—who excised all traces of “cheer” and “spirit” from her squad’s name and now calls the program "team stunts and gymnastics”—a federal judge ruled Wednesday that competitive cheerleading is not an official sport. As such, it cannot be used to satisfy Title IX gender equity requirements for college athletics. The decision came in a case in which Quinnipiac University dropped the women’s volleyball team and promoted its sideline cheerleading squad, whose primary duty had been pompom pumping and audience baiting, to competitive cheer squad in order to comply with federal law.
While the decision has some cheer partisans crying foul, Judge Stefan Underhill’s ruling is an unequivocal victory for gender equality and serves as a powerful warning to universities who try to cut funds for established women’s sports. The judge’s reasoning was fairly straightforward: To be deemed a sport under Title IX, activities must have coaches, practices, and seasonal competitions, with competition, not support of other teams, as their raisons d’être. Not so with cheer. As Underhill noted, there is no intercollegiate playoff system, and the new governing body doesn’t have a board of directors or voting system for its members.
With the rapid growth and evolution of the NCSTA, cheerleaders and coaches see an “inevitable march toward acceptance,” possibly within the next six months. But even if cheer were to get its act together and meet the baseline criteria for Title IX protection, is it really a sport, one worthy of inclusion in our country’s landmark provision against gender discrimination? Probably not.
No one disputes that excelling in competitive cheerleading requires dedication, physical stamina, technical skill, and other traditional hallmarks of athleticism. But so do most forms of dance. And that’s the problem with cheerleading. Like dance, it’s primarily about putting on a show, an aesthetic performance meant to tantalize and entertain a rapt audience. Judge Underhill was right to repudiate Quinnipiac’s bait-and-switch. Title IX aims to root out gender discrimination, not protect and elevate activities that rely on subjective appraisal of high-kicks and crowd appeal.
Photograph of pompoms by Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images.
-
- |
-
- |
- 3
Remember the mother who used Twitter to announce her 2-year-old son’s drowning, or the woman who live-tweeted her abortion? Well, these gals are no longer the Web’s most maligned oversharers. Now that title belongs to a man: Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff. Just after midnight last night, Shurtleff tweeted his approval of a convicted killer’s death by firing squad. "I just gave the go ahead to Corrections Director to proceed with Gardner’s execution. May God grant him the mercy he denied his victims."
Then, shortly after, he returned to Twitter to publicize his upcoming presser: "We will be streaming live my press conference as soon as I'm told Gardner is dead. Watch it at www.attorneygeneral.Utah.gov/live.html."
Shurtleff’s antics have horrified many Twitter users, and one predicted that the AG’s message “will probably go down in history as the dumbest most disgusting use of Twitter ever.”
Ladies, you’ve got some catching up to do.
Photograph of Mark Shurtleff by George Frey/Getty Images.
-
- |
-
- |
- 0
A new report says that the past decade has brought an enormous increase in lawsuits against employers for discrimination on the basis of family responsibilities. A quieter, dramatic example of the child-care crisis is a recent postponement of the prison sentence of a mother of three, granted solely because she has no child care.
Janira Bueno was convicted in New York federal court, after a guilty plea to multiple fraud counts in a tax-fraud conspiracy, along with 11 other defendants (including her husband). She’ll serve her two-year prison sentence eventually, but has up to three years or even longer to find suitable care for her three children, the youngest of whom is two.
Judge Harold Baer decided that the “extraordinary circumstances” related to the care of Bueno’s children and the lack of an available caregiver demanded an unusual solution in setting the terms of Bueno’s sentence. In a compassionate opinion filed last week, Judge Baer wrote that he sought to balance the need to sentence Bueno appropriately with “the need to ensure that innocent children are properly cared for and do not become wards of the state, or in foster care.” He cited evidence of her devotion to her children and her lack of previous criminal record as factors in his decision. The youngest child will be kindergarten-aged by the time Bueno likely will have to surrender; the oldest of the three will be a teenager. From a child-development perspective, the adjournment of her sentence could, obviously, have (or avoid) dramatic effects on the kids. Self-described "sentencing geeks" find this kind of move interesting because it illustrates the effects of recent Supreme Court decisions that have given sentencing judges more flexibility in abiding by the notorious federal sentencing guidelines. The Bueno decision relies more on logic and on practical considerations than on a technical formula.
Too bad for workers—and for Bueno—that prison terms aren’t as easy to lose as jobs. Federal law forces employers to keep jobs available (sort of, if workers qualify, if and if and if) for a luxurious 12 weeks while you sort out child care and other family-related responsibilities. After that, better catch a windfall or find someone to watch the kids. The data reported by the Center for WorkLife Law clangs the bell: Lawsuits against employers on the basis of “family responsibility discrimination” are up 400 percent in the last 10 years, even while overall employment discrimination lawsuits decreased.
Herein lies the peculiarity of the outcome of the case of Janira Bueno. Meet and right that her kids’ welfare determined the terms of her sentence. But isn’t it weird that the American way of child care (expensive, inaccessible, both, or worse) is so gnarled that a federal judge has to tinker with details when the goal is to make sure a convict serves her time? Prison service shouldn’t be the call to arms that gets us to a reasonable solution for families who want to 1) stay employed and 2) secure care for their children. I guess, with a groan and lots of salt, we’re to ask W.W.S.D. (what would Sweden do)?
Photograph of children by Karim Sahib/Getty Images.
-
- |
-
- |
- 0
A new report says that the past decade has brought an enormous increase in lawsuits against employers for discrimination on the basis of family responsibilities. A quieter, dramatic example of the child-care crisis is a recent postponement of the prison sentence of a mother of three, granted solely because she has no child care.
Janira Bueno was convicted in New York federal court, after a guilty plea to multiple fraud counts in a tax-fraud conspiracy, along with 11 other defendants (including her husband). She’ll serve her two-year prison sentence eventually, but has up to three years or even longer to find suitable care for her three children, the youngest of whom is two.
Judge Harold Baer decided that the “extraordinary circumstances” related to the care of Bueno’s children and the lack of an available caregiver demanded an unusual solution in setting the terms of Bueno’s sentence. In a compassionate opinion filed last week, Judge Baer wrote that he sought to balance the need to sentence Bueno appropriately with “the need to ensure that innocent children are properly cared for and do not become wards of the state, or in foster care.” He cited evidence of her devotion to her children and her lack of previous criminal record as factors in his decision. The youngest child will be kindergarten-aged by the time Bueno likely will have to surrender; the oldest of the three will be a teenager. From a child-development perspective, the adjournment of her sentence could, obviously, have (or avoid) dramatic effects on the kids. Self-described "sentencing geeks" find this kind of move interesting because it illustrates the effects of recent Supreme Court decisions that have given sentencing judges more flexibility in abiding by the notorious federal sentencing guidelines. The Bueno decision relies more on logic and on practical considerations than on a technical formula.
Too bad for workers—and for Bueno—that prison terms aren’t as easy to lose as jobs. Federal law forces employers to keep jobs available (sort of, if workers qualify, if and if and if) for a luxurious 12 weeks while you sort out child care and other family-related responsibilities. After that, better catch a windfall or find someone to watch the kids. The data reported by the Center for WorkLife Law clangs the bell: Lawsuits against employers on the basis of “family responsibility discrimination” are up 400 percent in the last 10 years, even while overall employment discrimination lawsuits decreased.
Herein lies the peculiarity of the outcome of the case of Janira Bueno. Meet and right that her kids’ welfare determined the terms of her sentence. But isn’t it weird that the American way of child care (expensive, inaccessible, both, or worse) is so gnarled that a federal judge has to tinker with details when the goal is to make sure a convict serves her time? Prison service shouldn’t be the call to arms that gets us to a reasonable solution for families who want to 1) stay employed and 2) secure care for their children. I guess, with a groan and lots of salt, we’re to ask W.W.S.D. (what would Sweden do)?
Photograph of children by Karim Sahib/Getty Images.
-
- |
-
- |
- 0
—Northern Ireland’s Channel 4 blocks an ad for abortion services. [Guardian]
—Does the new film Mother and Child dispel insulting myths about adoption or perpetuate them? [Salon]
—A new book explores the whether we need laws to protect us from discrimination based on appearance. [Christian Science Monitor]
—If questions about Internet porn consumption are off-limits for Supreme Court nominees, why do we ask about sexuality? Elena Kagan’s critics wrongly equate sexual orientation with sex life. [Salon]
-
- |
-
- |
- 1
Despite Elena Kagan’s past criticism of confirmation theater, her recent comments indicate that she will hew to the same safe script and deliver the kind of nonprejudicial pablum on cultural hot buttons like abortion and gay marriage we’ve come to expect at Supreme Court hearings. Fortunately, the one question for which we can expect some degree of candor is one that touches on the institutional integrity of the Court and its relevance in 21st century public life: cameras in the courtroom.
In contrast to her more outspoken predecessor, newcomer Sonia Sotomayor appeared willing to support broadcasting oral arguments when queried on the subject last summer at her confirmation hearings. And, as this 2009 C-SPAN clip reveals, Kagan has also spoken glowingly of the idea.
This is good news—and not just for rabid wonks and SCOTUS devotees. The argument for televising or, at the very least, streaming oral arguments should be obvious. By giving citizens an unfiltered window into their proceedings, the Court would promote public engagement in civic matters, provide a sorely needed counterweight to less admirable television personalities, and bring an unprecedented level of transparency to the process of deciding the important legal issues that may affect the most intimate aspects of our lives.
Broadcasting Supreme Court proceedings would also aid feminists in achieving gender and racial parity on the court. While many have a vague idea of who makes up the nine judges, actually seeing them enrobed and assembled on the bench would jolt Americans out of complacency and spur them to press their political leaders for greater diversity.
Critics may carp, as one Congressman recently did, that the cloistered intellectual work of appellate judges differs so markedly from that of other political appointees that cameras would mislead lay viewers about how cases are decided. Televising the proceedings, opponents argue, would be like staging a novel-writing competition and serve simply to supply fodder for late-night comedians and fiery, fatuous pundits on cable news. That is a valid concern, no doubt, but justices have life tenure. They’re not going anywhere, no matter how bilious the attacks from Glenn Beck get. The justices should sacrifice their vanity and join their new colleague in supporting this step toward good government.
Photograph of Elena Kagan by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.
-
- |
-
- |
- 0
—Bad news for neglectful parents. A study finds that low-quality childcare early in life can impact learning and behavior through adolescence. [Washington Post]
—According to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, voters prefer Tea Parties to established political parties. [Salon]
—Worst job interview ever. The White House reportedly asked Elena Kagan if she was gay before nominating her for the position of Solicitor General. Despite the controversy surrounding Kagan’s policy toward military recruitment at Harvard Law, moderate Maine Republican Susan Collins says a filibuster is unlikely. [Washington Post, Politico]
—A billionaire’s ex-wife teaches women how to blog tastefully about their messy divorces. [Gawker]
—Is it illegal to talk women into committing suicide? This chilling court case may give us the answer. [New York Times]
-
- |
-
- |
- 0
—South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford rekindled his romance with his Argentine soulmate last weekend in Florida. [Politico]
—Female CEOs now earn more than their male counterparts. [ABC News]
—Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s six appearances before the Supreme Court yield little insight into her views. [Washington Post]
—Newly minted British first lady Samantha Cameron has a dolphin tattoo on her ankle, and other interesting facts. [TresSugar]
—Designers bust onto the scene with more youthful “full-figure” bras. [WSJ]
