We've Moved! (Tell your friends)

It's a new school year. Time for a new blog.

The blog formerly known as "Liberal One L" is now known as "Liberal Carolina."

The Web address is www.liberalcarolina.blogspot.com.

Check us out and tell your friends.

"Classroom Justice" Matters

One anonymous writer posted a comment on this blog stating that "Classroom Justice" is a joke. Conservatives don't take it seriously, he/she said. Anyone interested in liberal bias at the law school should not consult the site, but talk to conservative students.

This will not do.

In The Right Flank, public allegations of liberal bias at UNC were made. Because the allegations were made in public, those making them should be challenged to substantiate them in public. If the bias is as bad as alleged, this should be a simple task.

Within the last day or so, an anonymous poster has put information on "Classroom Justice" reporting that Professors Broun, Orth, and Wegner have donated to Democrats. This is presumably to demonstrate the bias that exists at Carolina Law. It falls far short of its goal.

Does it follow from contributions to Democrats that classroom instruction is tilted to the left? No, it does not. Are Professors Broun, Orth, and Wegner such poor professors that they allow their political beliefs to animate their teaching? I doubt it.

Perhaps the anonymous poster has details about instances of improper bias by Professors Broun, Orth, and Wegner that he/she would be willing to share with us. If he/she doesn't, perhaps someone else can offer some details.

Surely if the bias is as bad at Carolina Law as alleged in TRF it should be an easy task to provide examples. So where are they?

Maybe there aren't any to speak of. Maybe allegations of bias are nothing more than a tactic used by the conservative movement to put people on the defensive. Maybe it's all just a bunch of bull.

It is up to the conservatives who make such allegations to prove them. So far, they've not been up to the task. They should explain why.

Look From The Left: April 16, 2006

Race: Lawmakers in Nebraska have adopted a plan to carve the Omaha-area schools into racially identifiable districts.

Iran: The news out of Tehran may be getting worse. Or are federal officials exaggerating the threat Iran poses because it has become the enemy de jour?

Grandstanding: Ah, what would a racially-charged story be without the unnecessary involvement of Jesse Jackson?

Immigration: The risk of cultural division is present in the debate over immigration.

Rumsfeld: A retired general comes (mostly) to the defense secretary's defense.

Iraq: A planned meeting of parliament is off. And are the billions spent on reconstruction all for nothing?

Abramoff: Evidence the disgraced lobbyist's ties reached into the White House.

Howdy, Brother

An interesting comment has been posted under the "Let The Rich Pay More" post.

It reads, "Try this to figure out how to use a blog. Your computer skills are on par with your spelling skills, Napoleon. I look forward to your next condescension." It was posted by "m. timmes" and is linked to a site for Push America.

Push America is the philanthropy of Pi Kappa Phi fraternity. Mr. Timmes, if he is the person who actually posted the comment, is Mark Timmes, the CEO of Pi Kappa Phi. He is a graduate of the Pi Kappa Phi chapter at the University of Florida.

He is my brother.

The Eta Zeta chapter of Pi Kappa Phi fraternity is at Queens University of Charlotte (formerly Queens College). I served as vice president and president of the Queens chapter during my undergraduate years and was the 57th person to be initiated into the brotherhood at Queens. (It's a young chapter; Queens only went co-ed in 1986.)

It is sad to find that the chief executive officer of the national fraternity, if he be the person who posted the comment, would think it proper to address his brother with such hostility and insult.

I am hopeful the "m. timmes" who posted the comment is an imposter; if not, he has besmirched the brotherhood he leads with his condescension and disrespect. Perhaps the "m. timmes" who posted the comment will let us know if he is who he says he is.

What's A Just Tax System?

JP asked what was meant by a more just tax system. A fair question. Here are some thoughts:

As a preliminary matter, two points should be made. First, the government is spending much more than it is collecting. Second, few officials -- Democrat or Republican -- are seriously arguing for substantial reductions in government spending.

The question then becomes one of means. How can we pay our nation's bills without inviting financial disaster?

We should first note that so-called flat taxes, such as a sales tax, are more burdensome to working class folks than rich folks. Yes, the tax rate is the same, but working class families have less total money to spend. Thus a 6% tax on $100 may matter more to them than to wealthy families.

We should also note that the social security tax hits those of modest and middling means harder than those who are affluent. The current rate taken from workers' checks is 6.2% on the first $87,900 they make. Employers make a matching contribution to the same level of income. After that, an employee's wages are not subject to the tax. Thus someone making $50,000 a year pays a social security tax of 6.2% So does someone making $87,900. But someone making twice the limit -- $175,800 -- pays a 3.1% tax. The tax rate continues to fall by half with every doubling of income. Bottom line: The wealthy pay a lower social security tax than the working class. Eliminating this disparity would be one step in the direction of a more just tax system.

Income tax rates are progressive. The unfairness of this system, despite the effort to make it progressive, is underscored by the large corporations who find a way out of paying their fair share. These exemptions and give-aways and loopholes need to be eliminated. See here and here and here.

It seems addressing these issues would make the tax system more fair. They're just steps, of course, but important ones.

The importance of the poll that shows a majority of Americans support higher taxes on the wealthy is that there is a sense that those who benefit most from their positions in society ought to be expected to give back the most. It is this idea that Democrats should champion.

Let the Rich Pay More

A new poll found that 6 in 10 Americans believe the rich should pay more in taxes.

Who knew there were so many class warriors in the U.S.?

There is a serious lesson for liberals to learn from this poll.

Conservatives scare liberals from making the argument that wealthier Americans should pay more in taxes as part of the social compact that forms the foundation of our society, economy, and polity. Conservatives have been largely successful in this campaign.

Despite that, about 60 percent of Americans still think the rich should pay more. Imagine the support an idea could get if liberals honestly and successfully argued for a more progressive tax system.

Let's hope some 2008 candidates see this data and argue for a more just tax system.

Bush Shows He's Out-Of-Touch (Again)

President Bush has answered increasing calls by retired military officers for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign. He thinks Rummy's doing a swell job. (The full White House statement can be found here.)

Here's the question: How much is it worth when a president who's approval ratings are hovering in the mid-30s endorses someone's job performance?

A Pragmatic Abortion Politics

Is there room for a calmer, more reasonable debate about abortion?

Maybe. Look here.

Marking an Activist's Death

William Sloane Coffin Jr., the former Yale chaplain, died this week.

His was a powerful voice for social justice and peace. Pieces on Coffin's life can be found here and here and here.

Look From The Left: April 13, 2006

Iran: IAEA officials met with Iranians to talk about the country's nuclear plans. No apparent progress was made. And to fan the flames of hysteria, Bill Kristol is comparing the current Iranian regime to Hitler and the United States' possible responses to Tehran as those that faced France in 1936. Others at the neo-conservative publication are doing to Iran now what they were doing to Iraq in 2002 and 2003: building a case for war. See here and here. (Nevermind that U.S. intelligence agencies believe Iran is as much as 10 years away from getting a nuclear weapon.) One question for those who advocate a precision military strike to wipe out Iran's nuclear programs: Do you really think it would end there and that Iran would not strike back? If you answer "yes," explain why we should believe you, given the gross errors many of you made in the build-up to war with Iraq.

Duke Allegations: The alleged victim in the lacrosse rape was apparently "passed-out drunk" when a police officer first arrived after being called. And the grand jury might get the case Monday.

Voting Rights: A Justice Department official who signed off on a Georgia measure to require photo IDs for voters wrote a law review article advocating for such a measure before he was to officially consider the measure.

Afghanistan: It's getting harder to ignore the mission-that-was-never-accomplished.

Religion: The recently unveiled Gospel of Judas is being well received among some progressive Christians.

Big Business: Large corporations are getting huge tax breaks -- for no good reason.

Will He Ever Leave?

Yet another retired general is calling for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. This time the general saying Rummy should step down commanded troops in Iraq as recently as 2004.

Will Rumsfeld listen? Will the president understand that these calls are not the work of anti-war lefties, but experienced warriors who have concluded that Rumsfeld is just not up to the job?

If the first five years of the Bush administration is any indication, Rumsfeld will be in his Pentagon office until January 2009. The White House continues to defend Rumsfeld's performance.

But on what grounds?

We underestimated the number of troops needed to win the war in Iraq. We underestimated the strength of the insurgency. We underestimated the divisions between Muslim sects. We underestimated the war's cost. Oh, and we have no plan for short-term victory or long-term stability. Or an exit strategy.

So why should Rumsfeld resign?

The answer is clear to everyone except the president.

The End Of "Classroom Justice?"

One anonymous poster writes on the "Classroom Justice" blog that it is "a total bust."

Indeed.

To hear conservatives talk, there's so much liberal bias in the academy -- and Carolina Law in particular -- that you have to wear fishing boots to avoid getting any on you. But there has not been a single example of inappropriate bias documented on the "Classroom Justice" blog.

What gives?

Look From The Left: April 12, 2006

Iran: The world is denouncing Iran's latest nuclear move.

Iraq: Parliament will make another go next week to try to form a government. More evidence has surfaced that President Bush misstated the evidence surrounding Iraqi WMD programs. Here's the White House response to the latest story.

Immigration: Republicans are starting to worry about how all those immigrants in the street are seeing them.

Gay Rights: A setback for fair treatment in Kentucky.

Rumsfeld: More retired military officers are calling for the defense secretary's resignation.

Supreme Court: Justice Scalia, in typical overblown language, defends his decision to hear a case in 2004 involving the vice president.

Hillary Clinton: Watch how she runs.

Jim Black: Shameless.