Will Bernie Sanders Win the Platform? →

The left wing of the party has never been given more power to shape the platform. Sanders appointed five of the 15 members of the platform drafting committee, with six allotted to Hillary Clinton and the other four to the DNC. That’s a big variation from past practice: Clinton lost by a smaller margin to Barack Obama in 2008, and got zero slots on the platform committee.
...
This gives a serious presence to avowed liberal activists on the platform committee, compared to the mostly elected officials and policy advisors of 2008. (Warren Gunnels, Bernie Sanders’ policy director, also is a non-voting committee member.) On controversial issues like fracking or Israel/Palestine negotiations, Sanders’s choices bring career-defining positions into the debate.
Clinton’s allies, if they’re intent on seeking the typical broad coalition heading into the general election, could simply outvote the Sanders faction and brush aside their viewpoints. But on several issues, that would put Clinton at odds not just with Sanders supporters, but with the mainstream of the party.

The Split [in the Democratic party] →

Some great, wide-ranging thoughts on the causes and consequences of this moment in the Democratic party.

To help make sense of what’s causing the split, and where it’s headed, we turned to 23 leading historians, political scientists, pollsters, artists, and activists...

The Fallibility of DNA Evidence →

DNA identification, like all science these days, relies on probability and statistics. If the public is being kept from knowing how any company's DNA ID process works, justice is very literally blind:

It's the same problem as any biometric: we need to know the rates of both false positives and false negatives. And if these algorithms are being used to determine guilt, we have a right to examine them.

Will Democrats Pay a Price for Obama’s Deportation Raids? →

...In other words, there are lots of things the Obama administration is doing to make life miserable for survivors of extreme violence, going way beyond merely enforcing the law. And that brings us back to politics, because it cannot help but have an indelible impact on how those communities feel about Democrats over the long term.

...

But considering Clinton spent the entire primary positioning herself as the natural heir to the Obama coalition, separating herself could prove difficult. At the most basic level, the raids will hinder her campaign’s efforts to contact Latino voters, as even naturalized immigrants in mixed-status families don’t want to give out their information. A fresh round of headlines about families ripped apart and even killed could dampen Latino voter enthusiasm even more.

Latinos certainly don’t consider Trump a better option. But the horror stories might discourage many in the Latino community from believing that there’s any hope of receiving respect and dignity from either party. They may tune out of politics, considering both sides equally belligerent. And that matters way beyond one election.

All of which begs the question of why the White House is embarking on this—and why now?...

The Truth About China’s Missing Daughters →

Fascinating, occasionally horrifying, account of the effects of the one child policy on families, how it wasn't as simple as we've often heard here, and how that interacted with the adoption industry.

...The Dying Rooms brought attention to the warehouse-like conditions in some of these orphanages. But it did something else too: It popularized the image of deeply patriarchal Chinese families who blithely discarded their daughters in pursuit of a son, and of a Chinese culture so hostile to taking in other parents’ children that Chinese girls faced no other option than being adopted abroad.
What Johnson and her research associates found, however, as they interviewed thousands of Chinese families, was that this picture was far from complete. Talking to rural Chinese parents who relinquished daughters, other rural families who took those daughters in, and a third, almost entirely unrecognized category of parents—those who hid over-quota, unregistered children from population control officials—Johnson learned that few families in the region used the expression “more sons, more happiness” that was supposedly typical of Chinese son preference.
By contrast, many of those two thousand families spoke extensively of their desire for both a daughter and a son, since having both, they said, would “make a family complete.” This idealized family was so important that, for years before and even during the one-child policy, many parents who only had sons adopted daughters in order to thus “complete” their families. And where daughters were given up, among the families Johnson met, it was never casual, but almost always an agonized decision that, in the context of government repression, could hardly be called a choice. It wasn’t the people, in other words, so much as the policy.

The Whigs and The Republicans →

The last time a major Political Party broke apart was in the early 1850s when the Whig Party collapsed because of the Compromise of 1850. The Compromise was an effort by Party leaders to settle the various controversies between North and South with a classic set of tradeoffs. The Compromise was made possible by the death of President Zachary Taylor on 9 July 1850.
...
As we argued in our last post the Republican Party in the House seems very likely to split into two factions as the result of the 2016 elections. Many Republican voters (enough to make Donald Trump the nominee) are angry at the Republican “Establishment” for not stopping President Obama on a variety of issues...

The “Free Speech” Charade →

Thus, when a campus is embroiled in protests (speech) over bigotry or disinvited speakers, the real censorship happens by ripping the debate away from the substance of marginalized students’ concerns and focusing instead on “free speech”—that is, on the sensitivities of those who would rather not have to think about their capacity to hurt or offend. But an intellectually honest free-speech advocate wouldn’t cry censorship; they’d instead address the substance of the speech being censored or marginalized, and argue for why that speech deserves to be heard on a college campus in the first place.