This Halloween one is sad to report the story Man jumps off Spaghetti Bowl: Note found addressed to ‘Obama’,

     A man who jumped 60 feet to his death from the Spaghetti Bowl on Thursday left a note with a message for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama.
     A note to “Obama” was found in the man’s car, which was parked on the top ramp of the Spaghetti Bowl. …
     About 7:45 a.m., police responded to a report that the 52-year-old El Paso man had jumped off the uppermost ramp of the Spaghetti Bowl. His body was found on I-10 west just before the Copia Street exit. His name was not released. …
     Police confirmed that the man left behind a note that read, “Obama take care of my family.” …

     Poignant. One hopes Obama will do the job.
     Our prayers for the man and his family.

     Well, maybe not 30 full minutes of wheaty, but on last night’s Obama TV special, it started off with a waving wheatfield or such. “Amber waves of grain” or what-have you.
     This doesn’t mean that the show was devoid of substance: some notable points are that

it wasn’t just speeches, it ws about real live (featured) families and their problems;

re the Wall Street bailout, he would make sure taxpayers will be paid back first (from what I remember; paid first before CEO’s?);

Kathleen Sebelius praised his Kansas roots;
  
his long-term solutions included wind power (no jokes about Obama’s own wind power here, please); spending cuts to pay for increases in budget (nice countermove to McCain’s assertion that Obama’s another tax-and-spender); a clever working in of Iraq as an economic issue, e.g., we could use the money we spend there on small businesses etc.;

the need for education to have involved parents (”values”);

his own absent dad, and his mother dying early of cancer. Not only establishing his family history, but, frankly, offering sentimental force to support and like Obama;

bipartisan locking down of “loose nukes” with Richard Lugar;

his mention of working class families (how long has it been since someone actually said “working class”? Good deal! Just don’t let anyone call you a socialist!!)

the need to defend liberty, rebuild our military, and deal with Iran, Russia, and al-Qaeda; 

a testimonial (among many) from a bearded Bill Richardson, calling Obama “a good, decent man” (what else was he going to call him?);

O humbly mentioning he himself was not perfect, and calling Americans to get “involved in your own democracy”;

and the live portion ending the show, with sound bits on things like the time for change has come, change we need.

     So there were the patriotic moments, the people, the testimonials, the family, the sentiment, the policy proposals, the cut to the live stuff…..what is this guy, a professional?? Just don’t call him Perotbama (cf. Ross Perot’s mastery of the infomercial)…

     See NY Post, “Page Six”, MISSING RING,

     IS it over between John Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth? “The wedding band is missing,” the Washington Post reported yesterday after covering a speech the cancer-stricken mother of two gave in DC on Monday night. Edwards, the former North Carolina senator who ran for president twice, finally acknowledged three months ago that he had an affair with campaign videographer Rielle Hunter. …A source said Edwards is no longer living with Elizabeth and that the couple have separated. But reps for Elizabeth Edwards did not return calls and e-mails.

     How come the Obamas don’t have these kinds of problems?

     Today we have an interview, by e-mail, with Richard D. Kahlenberg of the Century Foundation; a brief biography/resume is on the Foundation website here. Mr. Kahlenberg works largely on educational issues, including overcoming of class barriers, although he has expressed opposition to “traditional” gender- and race-based affirmative action.

(courtesy of the CF site)
 
     I first heard of Kahlenberg when reading his entertaining and noteworthy book Broken Contract: A Memoir of Harvard Law School, which is largely about the rottenness of future corporate lawyers etc. Truer words were never spo…
     –In my previous posts here about affirmative action, What should Obama do on affirmative action? Proposals (Part I) and Part II, I referenced some of his work, i.e., this snippet from the Guardian,

     …Just to be sure, however, Obama could call for a transition period from race-based to class-based affirmative action, during which time minority representation would be held harmless. And he could require conservatives to give a guarantee of support for more federal college aid before any switch occurs. …

 
     My questions follow, with his answers in blockquotes (and in all caps: to each his own style, I guess–it’s harder to ignore capital letters!!):

1.

a. Do you think a gradual, planned phase-out of affirmative action, e.g., legislatively limiting it to 20 more years, a la Sandra Day O’Connor’s quote (paraphrased) about “give affirmative action 25 more years” from her Grutter v. Bollinger opinion in 2003, is a good idea, or a bad one? And how so either way?
     (Feel free to address alternatives to a planned “compromise” sunset period for affirmative action: e.g., Ward Connerly’s ballot-initiative attempts to destroy affirmative action immediately; or, by contrast, Connerly’s opponents’ efforts to keep affirmative action for…an apparently indefinite period.)

     I’M OPPOSED TO SIMPLY ELIMINATING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WITHOUT REPLACING IT WITH SOMETHING BETTER. IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, I’M A STRONG SUPPORTER OF A PERMANENT PROGRAM OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR STUDENTS WHO, BECAUSE OF ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGE, HAVE MORE POTENTIAL THAN THEIR ACADEMIC RECORDS WOULD SUGGEST. I THINK THE SWITCH FROM RACE TO CLASS, IF STRUCTURED PROPERLY, WILL NOT DO HARM TO THE REPRESENTATION OF STUDENTS OF COLOR. THE KEY IS TO USE FACTORS LIKE WEALTH AND LIVING IN CONCENTRATED POVERTY WHICH CAPTURE SOME OF THE RACIAL INEQUALITIES IN OUR SOCIETY INDIRECTLY. THIS SWITCH COULD HAPPEN IMMEDIATELY, BUT I REALIZE THAT AS A POLITICAL MATTER, A PHASE IN PERIOD MAY MAKE SENSE.

b. Re your own well-known stance on affirmative action, i.e., “need-based or class-based good, race-based bad”–if I may simplify it to that pithy iteration; cf. your book “The Remedy: Class, Race, And Affirmative Action”–: was Rosa Parks wrong to support race- (and gender-) based affirmative action in the 1990’s, when it was overturned in California? (I do not have it in my hand, but somewhere in my possession is a letter of hers to the Los Angeles Times from that period, not only attacking Proposition 209 that banned affirmative action, but also explicitly supporting affirmative action.)

     GIVEN THE CHOICE BETWEEN RACE BASED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND DOING NOTHING, I WOULD AGREE WITH ROSA PARKS THAT RACE AND GENDER BASED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS PREFERABLE. BUT WE’RE NOT CONSTRAINED TO THOSE TWO CHOICES AND I BELIEVE CLASS-BASED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS PREFERABLE TO BOTH RACE-BASED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND NO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.

2. Assuming he wins the Presidency in November 2008, what do you think Barack Obama should do about race…and class? And by the way, are “race” and “class” illusory constructs, or obvious realities, or a little of both?

     I’VE WRITTEN ELSEWHERE THAT I BELIEVE BARACK OBAMA IS UNIQUELY POSITIONED TO BEGIN THE SHIFT FROM RACE TO CLASS-BASED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. HE’S ALREADY BEGUN THAT CONVERSATION BY SAYING THAT HIS OWN DAUGHTERS DO NOT DESERVE PREFERENCES IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS AND THAT LOW INCOME STUDENTS OF ALL RACES DO.

     (Okay, I don’t see anything on the “illusory constructs” issue, so I guess race and class are real…which I thought myself anyway, although there are degrees of reality, e.g., class may not be formalized as it is in England with the House of Lords, and there may or may not be a “one-drop” rule, depending on your country and your era, re what makes you “black” or not…..)

     Also, before I forget: there should probably be a voluntary opt-out for affirmative action, e.g., Obama’s daughters, or others, should have a right to say, “Please don’t count my ethnicity/gender in my favor.” As well, one hopes that admissions boards would be doing something of a “sliding scale” anyway, e.g., “Hey, I see Oprah’s kid is applying to this school, maybe we shouldn’t give her/him too many gender/racial preference points, if any.”

3. As a Harvard Law School graduate, what do you think of Obama as a schoolmate of yours? E.g., has he been successful in avoiding the corporate-law-firm shallowness you seem to pillory in your book “Broken Contract: A Memoir of Harvard Law School”, or is he just another cookie-cutter attorney with big ambitions and little else to offer?

     I BELIEVE BARACK OBAMA WAS TWO YEARS BEHIND ME IN LAW SCHOOL AND I DID NOT KNOW HIM, THOUGH I HEARD ABOUT HIS GROUND-BREAKING ELECTION AS PRESIDENT OF THE HARVARD LAW REVIEW. I THINK HE DESERVES GREAT CREDIT FOR REJECTING THE OFFERERS OF BIG CORPORATE FIRMS AND INSTEAD GOING INTO PUBLIC SERVICE. I HOPE HIS PATH WILL BE A MODEL FOR TODAY’S LAW STUDENTS STRUGGLING WITH WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR LIVES.

4. Are your observations about race and class extendable to other phenomena, whether gay rights/marriage, feminism, or anything else? Equality–especially in education–seems to be a strong concern of yours, although “*the right way* to get to equality” also seems to be a strong concern. So is there a “Kahlenberg formula” to decipher the social world, or nothing so fancy as yet?

     GAY RIGHTS IS AT THE STAGE THAT CIVIL RIGHTS WERE IN THE 1950S: SEEKING EQUALITY, RATHER THAN PREFERENCES; I CERTAINLY SUPPORT ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS FOR GAYS JUST AS I STRONGLY SUPPORT ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS FOR WOMEN AND PEOPLE OF COLOR. THE MAIN EMPHASIS IN MY WRITING, HOWEVER, HAS BEEN GOING BEYOND SIMPLY OUTLAWING DISCRIMINATION TO ADDRESSING THE REMAINING ISSUE OF CLASS INEQUALITY.

     And that was the interview. Thank you Rick Kahlenberg! And good luck with your efforts toward more equality in society.

Though we said “White people be crazy” re Rev. Wright in the SNL skit here, it’s actually “devils”. Glad we could clear that crucial point up.

See AP via Detroit Free Press, Booker T. and the MGs join Musicians Hall of Fame,

…This year’s additions have a strong Memphis connection with Booker T. and the MGs and the Memphis Horns.
Kix Brooks of the country duo Brooks & Dunn said Booker T. and the MGs “listened and could create something on the spot. They were really great because in a time of racial segregation they were black and white.”
The integrated group served as the studio band for Memphis-based Stax Records in the ’60s, playing on hits for Otis Redding, Sam and Dave and others. They played on Southern soul classics like “Soul Man,” “Dock of the Bay,” and “In the Midnight Hour” and had a major hit of their own with the instrumental “Green Onions.”
Their guitarist, Steve Cropper, recalled doing odd jobs as a kid to save money to buy a $15 guitar and his father telling him if he learned to play it, he’d buy him a better one.
“And he kept his word,” said Cropper, who then introduced his father sitting in the audience. …

Five virtual dollars to the first person who can make an interesting video of Obama doing something to the tune of “Green Onions”.

     See the Guardian, Dan Kennedy, The fat lady has not begun to sing: An Obama victory seems like a forgone conclusion but don’t be surprised if McCain manages to stage a huge upset,

…1. Voter suppression. What do you think the McCain campaign’s full-scale war against Acorn is all about? Acorn, a left-leaning activist organisation, has indeed engaged in voter registration fraud - or, rather, has had registration fraud perpetrated upon it by unscrupulous signature gatherers. But these phony voters are not going to be able to cast ballots unless they show up at the polls with some sort of valid identification.
     No matter. The Acorn storyline gives the Republicans cover to stop legitimate voters from exercising their right to vote. That’s what happened to Al Gore in 2000, when thousands of predominantly African American voters in Florida were wrongly classified as felons who couldn’t vote in that state. …

2. The Bradley effect. …
     …might these voters decide, in the end, to choose an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress kept in check by a Republican - and reassuringly white - president? Yes, they might. We just don’t know.

3. Fear and smear. John McCain and Sarah Palin have thrown everything they can find at Obama, accusing him of hanging out with terrorists, of wanting to turn the Internal Revenue Service into a “welfare” agency (a convenient opportunity to link a black man to the “w” word) and, most recently, of being a “socialist” who just doesn’t understand the life and times of St. Joseph the Plumber.
     The latest attack arose on Monday of this week, when an old radio interview surfaced on the Drudge Report in which Obama said he favoured the “redistribution of wealth”. …

     …if McCain wins, I’ll only be mildly surprised. We’ve all lived through this too many times before.

     Hold on to your hats, so you don’t have to eat them. Remember to vote, too.

     Caught, see here.

     One usually doesn’t post twice about the same story on the same day, but this is just too much to resist; see AP via B-bart, McCain reignites Obama ’socialist’ claim over 2001 interview,

     …”In a radio interview revealed today, he said that one of the quote — ‘tragedies’ of the civil rights movement is that it didn’t bring about a redistribution of wealth in our society,” McCain said.
     “That is what change means for Barack the Redistributor: It means taking your money and giving it to someone else,” he told a crowd of around 2,000 at a sports hall in this key battleground state.
     “He believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that grow our economy and create jobs. He is more interested in controlling wealth than in creating it, in redistributing money instead of spreading opportunity.” … 

     Barack the Redistributor, Kosnan the Barbarian, whatever.

Or close, cf. McCain slams Obama on ‘redistribution of wealth’,

…”The American people continue to learn more about Barack Obama. Now we know that the slogans ‘change you can believe in’ and ‘change we need’ are code words for Barack Obama’s ultimate goal: ‘redistributive change.’ In a previously uncovered interview from September 6, 2001, Barack Obama expressed his regret that the Supreme Court hadn’t been more ‘radical’ and described as a ‘tragedy’ the Court’s refusal to take up ‘the issues of redistribution of wealth.’ No wonder he wants to appoint judges that legislate from the bench – as insurance in case a unified Democratic government under his control fails to meet his basic goal: taking money away from people who work for it and giving it to people who Barack Obama believes deserve it. Europeans call it socialism, Americans call it welfare, and Barack Obama calls it change,” McCain senior policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said in a statement.
The Obama campaign is responding by sending around a report from Politico in which Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor who is advising Obama, downplays the remarks as law professor-speak. …

Next McCain will say Obama wants to replace Alito with Ayers on the Supreme Court.