gillian

There are plenty of conservatives voting no on this as well.

I thought that the story did not cast the Germans in a very good light. Indeed, the German prosecutors came across as, well, Nazis. It is one thing to have a strong legal basis for preventing or punishing threats. It is another thing to have a strong legal basis for prevent or punishing insulting language. The German law is ridiculous and is an abomination from a free expression standpoint.

I really, really hope that I am wrong, but I cannot imagine Cleo Fields losing this election. If I were in this district there is no doubt that I would be an enthusiastic supporter of Guillory, but when one combines the large share of black votes for Fields with the votes of white liberals, I expect CF to win by 15-20 points. Like I said, I hope against hope that I am wrong.

Note that the LSU Faculty Senate recently passed, with near unanimous support, a resolution requiring institutional neutrality on social or political issues. The resolution essentially prevents LSU from taking positions that have nothing to do with the main educational function of the university. The goal is to promote the expression of a wide range of diverse viewpoints from faculty and students without having university units stake out an institutional position.

The key part of the resolution:


“On social and political issues, the instrument of dissent and criticism is the individual faculty member or the individual student. The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic. The neutrality of the university as an institution arises then not from a lack of courage nor out of indifference or insensitivity. It arises out of respect for free inquiry and the obligation to cherish a diversity of viewpoints. The neutrality of LSU as an institution has its complement in the fullest freedom for its faculty and students as individuals to participate in political action and social discourse. It also finds its complement in the obligation of the university to provide a forum for the most searching and candid discussions of public issues.

Therefore, to empower and protect academic freedom and inquiry for faculty and students, when a social or political issue arises that does not directly concern the academic mission of LSU, leadership at or above the college or school level will not issue a position statement on that issue and will refrain from any other actions that could constrain faculty discourse. When a public issue arises that directly, significantly, and specifically affects the academic mission of LSU, or jeopardizes the culture of academic freedom and inquiry, leadership at or above the college or school level will have the responsibility to articulate the significance of that issue to our campus community.”

[link=(chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.lsu.edu/senate/resolutions/fsresolutions/resolution24-01.pdf)]LINK[/link]

This decision is an abomination on many levels. First, race should not be used in redistricting. Clarance Thomas has long argued that the interpretations of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and its various amendments are unconstitutional because they favor one racial group over another in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, and he is right.

Second, there is explicit provisions indicating that there is no statutory requirement that there be proportional representation of different groups in a given congressional delegation. When someone says that “group A has X percent of the population and hence should have X percent of the seats,” they are entitled to their opinion, but they are wrong.

Third, there are certain redistricting standards that must be met, including the drawing of compact districts. There is no way that one can look at the second majority black district and say that it meets the compactness standard. It is reminiscent of the “Mark of Zorro” district created for Cleo Fields that the federal courts declared unconstitutional in the 1990s, largely on compactness grounds.

Finally, race is highly related to partisanship. If one did not know the racial makeup of various precincts in the state and drew district lines based on partisanship, one would likely end up with a majority black congressional district. The present interpretation of the law gives Democrats an advantage in the redistricting process throughout the country. If memory serves, Alabama used computer software to draw its congressional district lines without regard to race, but the use of partisanship (which is not illegal) and other race-neutral criteria resulted in fewer black congressional districts than civil rights groups were demanding.

At this point SCOTUS is rendering decisions based on a flawed statute (i.e., the VRA and its subsequent amendments) and a deeply flawed interpretation of the constitutionality of that statute and amendments. What is necessary is for a Republican Congress and a Republican president to revise the VRA to make it clear that there is no expectation of proportional representation of different groups, including racial groups. The standard for invalidating a congressional redistricting plan should be intent—that is, that the legislature drawing congressional district lines purposefully and intentionally seeks to minimize the representation of racial minority groups. If there is intentional racial discrimination, then by all means the federal courts should be involved. If not, then non-racial evaluation criteria (e.g., compactness) should be used in drawing district lines.

I was one of Milazzo's sharpest critics during his first year. My view then was that he was a very fine defensive catcher but was not SEC quality at the plate.

I have shifted my thinking after watching him the past two seasons, and I have to give Milazzo credit. He definitely is not a power hitter, but he has worked on his batting and has learned to work within his abilities to be a credible threat at the plate. By "credible threat" I don't mean that he is going to hit a bunch of extra base hits, but he finds a way to get on base. Having a singles hitter in the lineup who is also a strong defensive player means that we'll get some run production out of him, either when he hits a single with runners in scoring position--in the SEC games we are currently hitting .186 with runners in scoring position--or when he gets on base and comes in when one of our power hitters hits an extra-base hit. It strikes me that he is a potential solution to our problems of leaving too many runners in scoring position and hitting too many solo homeruns.

I have watched Penn State 3-4 times this season and have been struck by how bad their offense is against good opponents. Their offense lacks any real sense of innovation and strikes me as very predictable. This is probably a necessary move by Penn State if they hope to get better.

quote:

---

Turner’s pass deflection on the first play of the fourth quarter led to an interception and Alabama’s 42-28 lead, and then on the very next play for LSU’s offense, Turner crashed through the Tigers’ offensive line and launched into LSU quarterback Jayden Daniels so violently that the hit knocked Daniels out of the game. The shot rattled the bones of Bryant-Denny Stadium and put Daniels into concussion protocol.

At Alabama, that’s the stuff of legends.

---

Reading this quote reminds me of the same kind of immoral and sickening sentiments expressed by the small segment of Americans who have applauded Hamas' terrorist attack on Israel. The statement by this writer is a rationalization and apologia for an indefensible act by an Alabama football player.

Let's be clear: Turner's hit was targeting, and Turner was clearly trying to put a star LSU player out of the game with that hit. He should have been flagged with targeting and kicked out of the game. That would have been an insufficient penalty, but it is the minimum of what should have happened in this instance. The hit was an unsportsmanlike act by a thug masquerading as a football player. That an Alabama zealot would support that unsportsmanlike act and its result is shameful.

Incidentally, I would say the same thing had it been an LSU player who had committed the same offense. Tough defense--sure, that is what the game is all about. Trying to take out an opposing player by injuring him is unsportsmanlike and indefensible, regardless of who does it.

quote:

---

Jack Bech was infinitely better

---

Bech was a wonderful clutch receiver for us. BK letting him go does not speak well of BK's judgment.

To clarify: it does not appear that the student was fired but rather only removed from teaching duties. Graduate assistants at LSU can perform a variety of tasks, including teaching classes, assisting professors with the teaching of classes, or serving as research assistants for professors. It is clear that Mr. Venable has been removed from teaching duties, but it also sounds like LSU has retained him on assistantship and that he will be assigned other duties.