Then again, maybe Jim Crow just moved:

Last post, I made fun of CNN for apparently not realizing that Jim Crow laws were no longer in effect. Turns out I misspoke (miswrote?). As luck would have it, Jim Crow is alive and well. Ha’aretz is reporting that:

The Yemin Yehuda non-profit association has begun building 200 housing units in the Shimon Hatzaddik compound, in the heart of East Jerusalem's Sheikh Jarra neighborhood. In the process, the organization intends to demolish the homes of dozens of Palestinian families who live there.

Ah. So you demolish the homes of Palestinians in order to build Jews-only neighborhoods. But why would anyone enact such a blatantly racist project?

This neighborhood is in a strategic location: If Yemin Yehuda completes its plan, it will cut the Old City off from the Palestinian neighborhoods in northern Jerusalem.

As a complete non-sequitar, the Oxford English Dictionary (membership required) defines 'ethnic cleansing' as:

The purging, by mass expulsion or killing, of one ethnic or religious group by another, esp. from an area of former cohabitation. Cf. earlier *CLEANSING vbl. n.

Meanwhile, all of Israel is trying to figure out what to do with Jerusalem. So, they launch a survey, and find:

Only 16 percent of Israeli Jews think that Diaspora Jewry should be involved in decisions on the future of Jerusalem, according to a poll commissioned by the Shalem Center's Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies.

OK. So far so good: Jews who are not citizens of Israel have no business deciding national affairs. I’m optimistic, so let’s continue:

However, most Israeli Jews also oppose leaving the decision solely to the government: Only 5 percent of the 500 respondents thought the prime minister was entitled to decide Jerusalem's fate, and only 13 percent were willing to let the cabinet and Knesset make this choice. Fully 34 percent said it should be made by all Israeli citizens, and 32 percent thought it should be made by all Israeli Jews. (emphasis added).

I don’t know what to be more amazed by: that one third of Israeli citizens think that 1 in 5 of their fellow citizens should have no say in what is quite possibly the most important and contentious national issue, or the fact that the person who designed the survey thought it prudent to include an option in the multiple-choice response survey that says 20% of citizens are second-class citizens.

PS. The irony of Jim Crow laws being used against Jews in the U.S. is both acknowledged and intentional.

Holy Crap! Jim Crow Ended?!

This post is proof positive that I am having a bad influence on my friends. Shawn (Year Of The Rats and Probably Too Late To Read fame) sent me a CNN article featuring this quote:

After a week of at times bitter campaigning, Sen. Barack Obama faces a crucial test of his support from within the party Saturday as South Carolina Democrats head to the polls in a race that features black voters for the first time this presidential primary season.

Pssst. CNN. I really hate to be the one to tell you this, but the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were passed in 1964 and 1965 respectively. Black people have been voting in this country for quite some time.

CNN: The most offensive name is news

<-- Dude. Check it out! Diversity-rific!

I’ve resisted commenting on the absurdity of the ID politics game in the Democratic primaries thus far, mostly due to laziness and the lack of a really great article. Thanks to CNN, I no longer have that problem/excuse:

Gender or race: Black women voters face tough choices in S.C.

The article is everything you could ever hope for. Normally, would be making a snarky comment here, but this article was just so offensive that CNN actually ran another article to highlight the snarky reactions of others to their own article. So, without any shame, I defer (read: plagirize) from Michael:

Since Edwards no longer officially exists, as a white male I face the same choice - either I vote my race (Clinton) or my gender (Obama). Or I could just pick the candidate based on who I think would be best,"

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Contender for worst context paragraph of the year award:

As my regular readers (reader?) probably have figure out by now, I read a whole lot of terribly written news stories. But no matte how jaded I get, every now and then I still find myself shocked. Enter Ha’aretz:

Nearing the Nevada caucus, polls bear a similarity to those from Iowa two weeks before its vote. While the media is now occupied with covering the Obama-Clinton race, Senator Barack Obama is in the lead, with Senator Hillary Clinton in second and closely followed by Senator John Edwards. In Iowa, it ended with Obama first and Edwards second. It was a situation akin to that Seinfeld episode, "The Other Guy," where George, Jerry and Elaine remember Luciano Pavarotti and Placido Domingo but cannot remember the name of Jose Carreras, the third member of the Three Tenors.

Ha’aretz: newspaper or after-work-bar-magazine? You decide.

As for me? I’m trying to decide whether this represents a new brand of populist news, in which case it is oddly appropriate that the inaugural article be about John Edwards, or whether to start mourning the death of news reporting. Maybe both.

If you are going to be a pundit...

...don't make errors in the title of your book. I mean, can't Lou Dobbs afford a freakin' editor? Or have illegal immigrants monopolized that industry?

Look: I know it isn't the biggest problem with Dobbs, but apparently he wants us to take him seriously. Yet how are we to do so when he can't eve punctuate the title of his book properly? Before we get of of the cover, we already have something wrong with this book.

I get the play on Independence Day. But do you suddenly pronounce Independents' differently from Independents? Presumably the title is meant to imply that the day belongs to the Independents, whoever they may be.

9:00 PM: I'm right, but I'm wrong. And I'm happy all around.

WOOHOOOOO!!!! I have never been so happy to be so wrong.

With 91% of Democratic precincts reporting, it looks like my man, Barack Obama is gonna win by a landslide. As for Clinton? Looks like she is coming out third.

On the Republican side, it looks like Huckabee by a landslide, as I predicted. And, the suprise of the night is that, with 72% reporting, Ron Paul has 10.1%. Will he pull the 10% mark as I predicted? Stay tuned...

New Feature: Caucus Predictions

OK: It's been a crazy couple of days, and a crazier caucus season. Now that they are all inside, and in 15 minutes the doors will be locked and no one will be allowed out until they have a decision, it is time for some random predictions:

Democrats: I hope I'm wrong, but I am predicting a Clinton victory, on the strength of her organization on the ground. Obama's only chance is a rediculously high voter turnout and a lot of luck. I think Edwards will come in third.

Republicans: Again, not quite sure where to go with this one. I'm going to say that Huckabee will pull it off, despite himself. Again, not sure on this and caucus rules favor the frontrunner much more on the GOP side than on the Democratic side. My shocking pick of the night though: I think you will see Ron Paul poll higher than expected, maybe as high as 10%. The big questions left are whether Thompson or McCain will come in third. I think it will be Thompson, but watch out if it is McCain. The other big question is whether Guiliani will place last (I think he will), and if it will hurt him (I think it will again).

There you have it. Now let's sit back and enjoy seeing me gloat or hang my head in shame in a few hours.