Adam Serwer

Adam Serwer

Reporter

Adam Serwer is a reporter at Mother Jones. Formerly a staff writer at the American Prospect, his writing has appeared in the Washington Post, the Root, the Village Voice, and the New York Daily News

Get my RSS |

National Review Blogger Discovers Gay Lawyers At DOJ

| Wed Sep. 7, 2011 1:51 PM PDT

National Review blogger Ed Whelan has found a terrible case of politicization at the Justice Department! It turns out that two Justice Department attorneys assigned to a case involving whether or not a religious school is excepted from federal anti-discrimination laws are in same-sex relationships!

What does this have to do with the merits of the case? Unclear, except that gay people, wanting all those special rights and whatnot, don't really belong in a case involving a religious organization, since gay rights infringe on the rights of religious people to discriminate against gays, even though that's not what the case is about. It's about a teacher who claims she was fired because of her narcolepsy, and whether or not the so-called "ministerial exception" to federal anti-discrimination laws applies in this context. But you let gays near religious freedom cases, and pretty soon they'll be…something terrible:

A reader passes along that Schuham’s same-sex partner is (or, at least as of the 2009 White House Easter Egg Roll, was) Chris Anders, federal policy director for the ACLU’s LGBT Rights project.

Another of the attorneys on the DOJ brief is Sharon M. McGowan. As another reader calls to my attention, McGowan was also a staffer on the ACLU’s LGBT Rights project, and the New York Times announced last year her same-sex marriage to the Family Equality Council’s “federal lobbyist on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender family issues.”

Thus, insofar as personnel is policy,* it may well be that the Obama DOJ’s hostility to the ministerial exemption in the Hosanna-Tabor case is part and parcel of a broader ideological agenda that would have gay causes trump religious liberty.

Part of Whelan's problem is that since both Schuham and McGowan have backgrounds in civil rights law, they have no business um, working on civil rights cases. This is kind of a meme on the right these days, it's part of an effort by veterans of the notoriously politicized Bush Justice Department to accuse the Obama administration of being just as bad.

But Whelan's bigger problem, judging by his value-added, is that only straight people should be allowed near the law, lest it get all gayified. In April Whelan complained that the judge in the California Prop 8 case, Vaughn Walker, should have recused himself because he was in a same-sex relationship and so he stood to benefit directly from overturning the law. Of course by the logic of anti-gay rights advocates like Whelan, a straight judge trying to preserve his "traditional marriage" would also benefit directly, and should also recuse themselves. But since the latter wouldn't have "trumped" the right of conservatives like Whelan to define and limit the civil rights of same-sex couples that wouldn't have been so terrible.

This is getting complicated. All you need to know is there are gay people in Obama’s Justice Department. They’re doing stuff. And that's really bad.

UPDATE: Previous version of the post didn't have a link to Whelan's original post.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Fox News' Paranoid Alternate Universe

| Wed Sep. 7, 2011 8:27 AM PDT

Two-thirds of viewers who say Fox News is the news source they trust most believe discrimination against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against minority groups, according to a study released Tuesday by the Brookings Institution and the Public Religion Research Institute. The number, 68 percent, is an exact reversal of the percentage of black people in the same poll who say that discrimination against whites is not as big a problem as discrimination against minorities. The study was based on polling conducted by PRRI.*

The Brookings/PRRI study uses "reverse discrimination"—an unfortunate term that suggests a difference in kind, not in degree—to describe anti-white discrimination. Nevertheless, the revelations about the views of consumers who most trust Fox News are disturbing:

Among Americans who say they most trust Fox News, 26 percent say reverse discrimination is a critical issue, nearly twice as many as say discrimination against minority groups is a critical issue (14 percent). At the other end of the spectrum, only 8 percent of Americans who most trust public television say reverse discrimination is a critical issue, compared to 27 percent who say discrimination against minorities is a critical issue.

The financial crisis wiped out 20 years of minority wealth gains, and minority incarceration and unemployment rates are far higher than those of whites, but white Americans have nevertheless become more receptive to the idea that whites face as much discrimination as minorities. While the numbers for those who trust Fox News are much higher, a majority of whites in the study, 51 percent, also say they believe discrimination against whites is as big of a problem as discrimination against minorities. That's despite relatively low levels of interaction between whites and minorities. According to the study, "More than 8-in-10 Americans report having a conversation with an African-American person at least once a day (43 percent) or occasionally (40 percent)." Most of these exchanges, apparently, involve black people callously turning down whites applying for jobs or home loans. Nevertheless, while opinions of Muslims and immigrants vary by age and political perspective, demographic groups surveyed expressed positive impressions of African Americans across the board. (Otherwise, they might be racist or something.)

When it comes to Muslims, the study shows that the funders of the more than $40 million Shariah panic industry are getting their money's worth. Although two-thirds of Americans say that Muslims are not trying to establish Shariah law in the US, "[o]ver the last 8 months agreement with this question has increased by 7 points, from 23 percent in February 2011 to 30 percent today." The number of Republicans who buy that Muslims are trying to establish Shariah law in the US is up 14 points since August 2011, from 31 percent to 45 percent. 

Fox News is a crucial outlet for fomenting Shariah panic. According to the study, "There is a strong correlation between trusting Fox News and negative views of Islam and Muslims," as "[n]early 6-in-10 Republicans who most trust Fox News believe that American Muslims are trying to establish Shari'a law in the U.S.," and 72 percent of "Fox News Republicans" agree that Islam is "at odds with American values." If you're a Republican, you're more likely to think that white people are as discriminated against as minorities and that American Muslims represent a fifth column trying to subvert the Constitution. But if you're a Republican who watches Fox News, then you're far more likely to believe those things, thanks to a steady media diet of racial resentment and Muslim-baiting paranoia.

*Updated to reflect the fact that the poll was done by PRRI, and that the study was a joint venture.

Romney's Chart Fraud

| Tue Sep. 6, 2011 1:54 PM PDT

On Tuesday, Massachussetts Governor Mitt Romney unveiled his "jobs plan," which unsurprisingly mostly involves tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. Oliver Willis catches Romney engaging in a pretty blatant example of chart fraud, highlighting job loss during 2007 and 2008, the last two years of the Bush administration, as part of the "Obama recovery."

Here's the thing: With employment still hovering around nine percent, it's not like Romney needs to lie in order to go after Obama's record on the economy. Recent polls have shown nothing but grim news for the president on this front. Why be so conspicuously dishonest about it?

American Muslims: Incredibly Normal, Also Trusting Of Obama

| Tue Sep. 6, 2011 1:38 PM PDT

Last week Jen Quraishi wrote an excellent summary of Pew's latest study on American Muslims, aptly titled "Report: Muslim Americans Are Incredibly Normal." The Washington Times did a largely straight write-up of the study, except for this paragraph:

When asked to choose, nearly half of Muslims in the U.S. say they think of themselves first as Muslim, rather than as American. Roughly 60 percent say that most Muslims come to the U.S. to adopt the American way of life and see no conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society.

Nearly half of American Muslims think of themselves as Muslims first! Sounds sinister—until you consider that description applies to "nearly half" of American Christians as well, with the percentage of Muslims identifying themselves by religion before nationality (49 percent) being only three points higher than the number of American Christians who say the same (46 percent).

The Times writeup also flags an interesting statistic from the Pew report I haven't seen highlighted elsewhere: a plurality of Muslim Americans, 43 percent, now see American efforts to combat terrorism as "sincere," up from 26 percent in 2007. That's in spite of the Obama administration's aggressive FBI sting operations, its asserting the authority to kill Americans suspected of terrorism abroad, its failure to close Guantanamo and the perpetuation of a litany of Bush-era national security policies. When it comes to drone strikes or escalating troop levels in Afghanistan, Obama has actually out-hawked his predecessor. 

Despite all that, Muslim Americans like and trust Obama more than they trusted Bush, with 76 percent approving of the president's record. Obama's effort to "reset" U.S. relations with Muslims abroad doesn't appear to have worked. At home, though, Obama's outreach seems to be working pretty well. That's despite the fact that, as the Washington Post reported Tuesday, Obama has avoided certain personal public gestures that his predecessor willingly made (like visiting a mosque, for example).

I can't help but wonder if part of the difference has to do with the persistent conspiracy theories about the president being a secret Muslim—on some level, obviously, the president gets what it's like to be singled out for being "different." But perhaps it's also that Obama's gestures of tolerance, such as his support for the so-called Ground Zero Mosque, represent much more of a political risk for him than they did for Bush. Or it might just be that Democrats, the Dubai Ports World fiasco aside, never completely succumbed to the kind of anti-Muslim rhetoric common in the Republican Party today. The bigger difference may simply be that in the age of full-blown Sharia panic, the contrast between the president and the opposition makes Obama's inclusive rhetoric all the more meaningful.

Coming Soon: Keeping Your Shoes On At The Airport

| Tue Sep. 6, 2011 9:43 AM PDT

One of the most recognizable post-9/11 security rituals is on its way out, according to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Politico's Josh Gerstein reports that the days of taking your shoes off in the airport are coming to a close:

"We are moving towards an intelligence and risk-based approach to how we screen," Napolitano told Mike Allen during a morning forum at the Newseum. "I think one of the first things you will see over time is the ability to keep your shoes on. One of the last things you will [see] is the reduction or limitation on liquids."

The phrase "risk-based approach" can mean different things in the context of airport security. Sometimes it's a euphemism for Israeli-style passenger screening involving individual interviews and racial profiling, neither of which would fly politically in the US—and as Jeffrey Goldberg has pointed out, Israel's one international airport has about half the traffic of one of Washington DC's three.

Then there's the "trusted traveler" approach, which would exempt certain frequent travelers from enhanced screening and focus on those about whom DHS has little information. TSA head John Pistole has been a supporter of the concept in the past, and he said in a speech two weeks ago that his agency will begin testing out this program in the fall. There are risks to this approach too—namely that exempting some passengers from screening procedures will create an obvious loophole for terrorists to exploit.

What will the "trusted traveler" approach mean for the average, non-frequent flier? Unclear, but the end of the era of taking off your shoes probably has more to do with the advent of invasive tech like backscatter machines than the new "intelligence-based approach" to airport security. As Napolitano told Politico, "The solution to many if not all of these inconveniences is better and better technology." But what this may really mean is that the better TSA gets at invading your privacy, the less the agency needs your assistance in doing it. 

Tue Mar. 19, 2013 9:44 AM PDT
Mon Mar. 11, 2013 8:30 AM PDT
Fri Mar. 8, 2013 12:24 PM PST
Thu Feb. 7, 2013 5:35 PM PST
Thu Jan. 31, 2013 10:37 AM PST
Tue Jan. 29, 2013 3:26 PM PST
Tue Jan. 29, 2013 12:33 PM PST
Fri Jan. 18, 2013 1:37 PM PST