What's Done is Done: Getting Out of Dissertation "Project Mode"

I expect this to be the last post on my dissertation - in fact, that it should be is part of the point of this post. A friend of mine that completed who successfully defended her own just a little over a year ago thought it would probably feel weird for me to not have that ongoing project anymore. At the time, I still had some revisions and edits to make, but I didn't figure that would be the case for me. I expected to be glad to be done. This thing that I'd let hang over me too long was finally put to bed. I found it still lingering, though, just as she'd suspected.

Continuing to think about your research agenda is good. At least for me, it meant there were still some embers I could stoke to escape the onset of burnout. My chair and I had discussed the possibility of pursuing the publication of some chapters separately, so when I found a source that looked like it would have been a great inclusion for Chapter 2, I was sure to link and save it. It would not be lingering in the past to improve that chapter while prepping it to stand on its own as a journal article. In my view, that is moving forward.

Look! The desks have surface area.

Still, I wanted to make sure my orientation stayed that way. The book I mentioned in the last two posts - Sternberg (1981) - suggested having a space to work that was dissertation-centric, with little else. So, I think it is a good corollary that in moving past "project mode", that organizational centrality needs to be deconstructed. For those with a whole office, and who can afford it, a redecorate might be a great idea, but personally I just put the notes, edits, and printed sources in a binder, and printed a "working copy" of the dissertation should I need to reference it or loan it to someone. Printed copies are too pricey to loan, and seeing a fresh copy drives home some finality; meanwhile, the "active folder" in my desk file system has gone from bulging to flat, and "hen-scratched" pages don't adorn my peninsula desk. Unfortunately, I can't similarly cleanse the job search folder, but otherwise the space is fresh for new projects. If you've recently finished a big project that had consumed your office, perhaps getting the space organized will help you get reoriented as well.

"What's next?" The Doctorate is Secured, but Beyond Remains Shrouded

In the last post, I mentioned finishing my dissertation in the context of reflecting on writing strategy. This post will be a bit more personal. On her own blog (here), a friend and colleague raised the existential question of not yet knowing "...what (fingers crossed!) being Dr. Cass means for my future and our family," and indeed that is the impasse I face. First, let me sum up the facts.

Officially, I will graduate in the Fall, but on August 12 I successfully defended my dissertation before my committee, with only minor revisions required. Then, I did some fact-checking and editing, and on Monday (18th), my chair and I met to review my revisions, which in the aggregate were approximately 3 pages. For the remainder of the week, I made the last few tweaks, got approval to print, and took the final necessary steps (i.e., checking the copies, uploading the draft to a database, taking surveys, etc.) to complete my degree, among which the last one was filing for in absentia status for next Fall. So, setting aside whether or not I can claim "Dr." yet, I'm at least a "graduand."

I'm feeling better about it now than I was after passing the defense. Even though I knew the edits wouldn't take long or be contentious, I now get why my good friend that graduated last Summer initially wasn't as excited as I expected when she passed. We know it'll be done, but there's still something about merrily striding to the Graduate Dean's Office with a copy that is signed, sealed, and about to be delivered.

For me, part of the existential ambiguity about this new development comes from not having an answer to the seemingly simple but incessantly haunting inquiry, "What's next?" I have had trouble finding a position in the field in which I did my internship, though I keep looking. That too many applicants remain per post offers only some salve to the ego, but leaves the problem unsolved. My long-time interest in my field of study survived the dissertation process alive and well - after some languish between the 60-80% marks - but right now at this point in my life, a role that would require my continued engagement with academic research culture doesn't seem viable. I would be up for teaching - and could very well enjoy it - but not pledging to publish x by date y. I like researching to tackle problems, but I lack the "sterner stuff" for the nit-picky, ego-driven, competitive style that leaves me feeling inadequate in the very subject otherwise engaging.

There are three more points of Alexis' blog post to which I related, and they all center around purposefulness. She found her stress over asking, "what does it mean" is mollified considerably by knowing she is where she should be. Her home life gives her solace, comfort, purpose, and joy (...or that's what I took from the post.) I want to find a decent position, preferably in my field so I can build on it, but I don't want my job to be all-consuming. The book I cited in this weekend's post is aware of the relationship problems that heavy research can bring before candidly suggesting that if you continue as a professor, they never go away. I want my relationship to come first.

At least, when I find one. I'm not in a relationship right now, and without going "TMI", I do want to acknowledge that two relevant contributing factors to the breakup of my last relationship were my inability to find a job, and lack of dissertation productivity. Well, one of those problems is gone, but, first, I sure don't want to recreate it! Second, when I ask, "what does this mean for me", one of the sub-questions entangled in that rather bloated one is, how will this - finishing, getting my PhD - impact my search for someone special with which to share my unknown future? For just over a year, "working on my dissertation" has been the main thing I've been doing. (The dissertation took longer, but before that I also had classes.) Now, what do I say?

Also, Sternberg seems to think finishing might alter one's social networks, but I'm not sure if I want that, either. After all, if I don't want to be a profession-first/relationship-second type, I don't want my networking opportunities to bias toward that type, either. I just hope it doesn't put distance between me and my match, though that at least seems more in my control than answering the question, "what now?" or "what next?" In seeking to de-emphasize those questions, and in how they make me feel, I put myself in an insecure light - the psychological footprint of social dislocation.

I'm scared to launch out far and wide. I do look off in not-too-distant metropolitan areas (i.e. others in North, South, and East Texas, Oklahoma). Although I enjoy living where I do, I understand I may have to make some adjustments - just as I had to move to pursue this degree (my alumnus didn't offer any doctorates in the School of Arts & Sciences). Still, I am not up for chucking it all and going somewhere like D.C. or marooning in Fargo or Fairbanks. Maybe that makes me "entitled" - so be it.

Part of my friend's purpose comes from her 3 miracle babies. Well, actually, as I type this, I'm enjoying a new partial addition of my own. No, not my non-existent illegitimate child visiting for the weekend, but the very real "TNR" neighborhood cat who visits me regularly. While I'm not going to equate my cat(s) with her kids, they're still a source of purpose. A handsome chum like "Bob" - what I call him - should easily find a home, don't you agree?

From what I've read, the ear clipping suggests that whoever found him thought he was too feral to be homed. He showed up on my patio months ago, and we've slowly gotten to know each other. He was skittish once upon a time, but given a chance he's quite the companion. He's found he actually wants more than just a refueling depot - he wants attention. He's sometimes too much cat for Chelsea (more on the cat that is definitely mine some other time), but no doubt he's a lover not a fighter. The last furry addition wasn't a match, so I'm thankful to God for the chance to share some kibble with this guy, spend time with him, and enjoy the humor of his antics - such as with the toys that now bore Chelsea. If I have to move, will he come?

When it comes to God's hand on relationships, though, I wish I knew more what was to come. I wish he could have guided me to renew my last relationship, and helped us see one another as we once did - along with the possibilities. In fact, I wish I could trust in those possibilities with someone yet to come. That aspect of the road that lies ahead remains just as shrouded in the dense fog of mystery as does my career. On some level, what will be - like what turns I'll take on that route - has yet to be decided, and that's never been something with which I've been very comfortable.

Productive Dissertation Writing - Tips and Reflections

...because occasionally there is such a thing.

Shortly after finishing my dissertation (the subject of the next post), I was asked on Facebook to share my thoughts on productive writing. Actually, I think I pursued this goal with anything but productivity, but perhaps lessons might be learned alike from what I would rather have not done as what I found to be helpful. After all, the clarity of hindsight doesn't come from how well we worked before its benefit, right? Now seemed like a good time to reflect on the experience and attempt to glean some tips, if only to keep them in mind for my own self-improvement. Hopefully, others might also find them useful.

Heads-Up: 10 Total, and the first 3 apply to the proposal stage.

1. Always see term papers as opportunities to write potential chapters. This advice comes second hand from a dear friend in my program, and it served me quite well. Notice, I said "potential". If you're in a doctoral program, and you don't yet know your topic and/or thesis, that's okay! Before that time, one way you can do this is to just treat your term papers more seriously. I don't mean be more rigorous - though that couldn't hurt - I mean choose topics that really interest you, rather than just taking the quickest route to "found something that will work" to "I think this will get me the A or B I want." You might just get practice, but maybe you'll end the paper wanting to research the topic further.
   
   This does get easier once you pick a topic, as - proposed or not - you can start working on your dissertation. Say you only have one section you can import into your dissertation, that still means at least one chapter will not be the ominous "blank page" that I often saw as a foreboding mental mountain. Even if it needs a ton of polishing, it anchors your thought, and launches you. I had a rough version of what would become my first chapter, and a few pieces before I would say I began researching, but by the time I formally proposed, I had rough material useful for  60-75% of 2 chapters, and 25-35% of 2 more. Previous work combined with a term paper in a seminar that same semester to give me 40-50% of the rough innards of one more, so only one chapter would ominously stare back at me.
   
2. Don't let administrative challenges inhibit your writing. Above, note the emphasis on formal proposal. I've learned from other programs that some require you to organize your committee considerably earlier, as they have to approve what amounts to a ~3-7 page prospectus before a proposal. Even if this isn't a requirement, as you recruit professors, you will need to get ready. I hit a snag - I found professors willing to be members quickly, but took a while to find a chair. I was also hesitant to outright ask people. Though I continued to take useful courses for some time, I had most if not all of the courses I had to have done over a year before I proposed. That may sound good, but it's not, because of what felt like a "Catch 22": I had to defend my proposal to enroll in dissertation hours, and I couldn't propose without a committee to hear it. I got to do some independent study when I was close enough I could craft the proposal, but those hours are capped. Also, I was far less productive without that organization in place, especially since I didn't want to "get too far down a rabbit hole" without an agreed framework.
   
   Do: Try to find the chair first (probably a full professor, or a sister-program even restricts who can serve as a chair so there may be a subset), who can advise on other members, and don't let delay impede your progress until you've at least finished a proposal.
   
3. Know the framework your proposal provides you, and use it. A member recommended a book for me before I proposed called How to Complete and Survive a Doctoral Dissertation by David Sternberg (1981, NY: St. Martin's Griffin). It's 226 pages, and the first 107 pages take you up to the proposal point, so you get a half-way stop to help advise you better than I can for efficiently pursuing the proposal. Here, I just want to say there are two main approaches to a proposal: a "mini-dissertation" that is larger, and a smaller, basic pitch of the thesis and research design.
   
   Both have advantages (i.e., get more direction up front versus ability to move to research sooner) and disadvantages, but both are a framework for the product. I would say mine was closer to the mini-diss approach, and I liked having a little more batter in the muffin slots before I cooked what I proposed. Sternberg may overplay the extent to which it is a contract, but it is so in two important points: it's a way for them to assess the baked product - did you do what you said you would, regardless of the results - and it lays out a roadmap to guide completion. If you haven't proposed, give these alternatives a google and think about which would work best for you.
   
4. Don't underestimate diplomacy and collaboration. Partly, I owe completing my task to a patient chair who didn't throw up his hands from working with me. Perhaps this view is discipline- or topic-dependent, obviously it doesn't hold for ethnographers, but I suspect most graduate students have a view of the dissertation as a very independent endeavor. Indeed, the need to make an original contribution and (usual) lack of a coauthor on what for many of us is our largest writing to date means it definitely demands independence.
   
   Still, in many ways you must collaborate, for such important tasks as attaining data, issuing surveys or conducting experiments with space requirements, etc. Even if, like me, you don't conduct surveys or experiments (my theorizing was supplemented by existing data and simulation), you will still need to get feedback on drafts and bounce ideas / problems with others. When you're organizing your writing tasks, allow more time than you think this will take, and don't interpret silence as "everything is fine".
   
   This isn't my forté - woe unto you if it's not - so I'll refer you to the book that I suggested in the last tip: Sternberg (1981). If it's not your strong suit, at least be aware of that, and compensate. Also, don't be too proud to ask your chair for a hand in that area. Maybe s/he will assist (i.e. facilitate a meeting), or maybe s/he'll advise you on scheduling them or addressing concerns, but either way, you don't want to remain stalled in neutral.
   
   Do: Know that there will be pitfalls arise that - though better treated as challenges - you will experience as problems! Plan ahead. If you need feedback on a chapter, unless it's your last one, structure your tasks so you can move on to other chapters, even if it's just editing, while you wait.
   
5. Outline, then outline some more! It really helped me jumpstart. If I wasn't ready to write further in a chapter - and sometimes you can't force it - I could at least work on the outline ahead. It's helpful so you can start thinking and hit fewer intellectual cattle guards in the future. (That metaphor works better for fellow Texans.) Plus, it may feel like "skipping" to another part of the work, but getting a firmer grasp on what's ahead will help you write. Speaking of, ...
   
6. Don't get inhibited by organizational challenges! Here, I mean the writing structure and interconnections, not organizing the research (i.e., time management, committee). Maybe this doesn't hinder the motivation of others, but personally, if I couldn't figure out how to structure something - what point to make first so I could build on it efficiently - I'd meander, dwelling to much on outlining. (I said it was useful, but not without end.) Your organization will change! Most of my proposal was Chapter 1, but a section got large, and a mitosis produced Chapter 2. Something I proposed would be tackled in the summary moved one chapter back. Even after my defense, minor revisions necessitated a small organizational change.
   
   Do: Look for linkages, but without thinking you need to get it right the first time.
   
7. Know what energizes you outside of the dissertation, so you can "refuel". There will be times when someone thinks a part of your dissertation sucks - sometimes you - or when you're just stuck. This is doubly an energy sap because those not in GradWorld, Inc. will not get this reality, and may just think the demotivation or mental impasse is slacking off. Admittedly, sometimes I did waste time, but there's more to the story than a need of "Red Foreman" getting you to "buckle down". (Although, turning off That 70's Show re-runs might have helped.) The next 3 tips are ones that worked for me, but if they're not your cup of tea, find motivators.
   
8. Change up your environment - rough draft a portion elsewhere. It doesn't even have to be a section, though it could be. After I'd done the reading for a section in my fifth chapter, the first pass-through was mostly outputted at Starbucks. I run on caffeine more than one should, but I wanted a change of venue, and the "carrot" of a double chocolate brownie to get me to write. Sternberg (1981) advises you to have a writing space that is first and foremost for dissertation writing. I think that's great advice, and near proposal time I reduced my desk to just dissertation files. (Yeah, guess how long that lasted :-P ) After awhile, though, I think writing there felt like a chore. I associated "my office" - the converted dining space - with what will at times be drudgery.
   
   Because my portable option was a scaled down Android Office substitute, I'd write the portion separately, and edit it as I connected it with the larger work. This tack was driven by the tech, but I think having it separated out was very invigorating. Looking at a new blank page - no longer "the" blank page - was refreshing, and with no true pagination, I might expect just to write a couple paragraphs and wind up with 4 pages! Plus, I prefer to do my rougher, new material in single-space. I wish I had done this ecological pick-me-up sooner.
   
9. Know what helps you generate thought - go on other reading and writing quests. I know I'm not alone in feeling that, really, if I have time to read or write anything bigger than a Newspaper column (in online format, of course!), then I should return to "the Big D." Don't lasso yourself in guilt. Developing a thesis requires some structure and linearity, but just as you didn't arrive it at by tunnel vision, neither will such over-focus deliver you from it. I'm going to pass on the constipation analogy, but if you're an X-Files fan, you know the dangers of just bearing through it.
   
   Does revving the engine after you've gone off the road sound determined and focused? (...and we're back to That 70's Show - use the kitty litter.) You may be weary of letting yourself go off on tangents after too many bouts of procrastination, but guess what? Just as you need tools to get unstuck from the road ("...Jedi Dumbass"), you need to vary your mental diet so chewing on other nuggets will restart your noggin. Let the dissertation run on a different core in your processor, and read and write on other matters. "Thinking outside the box" can't just be a euphemism - it means giving yourself the freedom to literally get outside your own categories!
   
   Side Research Projects are Great! Logically, we would think additional projects are distractions, but that's not always the case. I got the opportunity to co-author a separate manuscript with a professor last summer. This helped for the thought-diversity rationale, but also because, in line with Tip #7, it gave me a win more quickly attainable. Two people can get a version of one article done far more quickly than one person can complete multiple chapters. Additionally, Sternberg (1981, last chapter) admonishes the dissertation survivalist to not vacay too long, lest "burnout" develop, so I think continuing to help with the redraft will be a good way for me to get back to riding the bike before I let the wheels get squeaky. We'll see.
   
10. Also, maybe take a few extra seminars, even when you can just take dissertation hours. I would have liked to enroll in dissertation hours sooner, but if I could have done it years sooner, I would still take the occasional seminar, because I find the give-and-take on topics that may not be directly related, but are at least pertinent to my field, helps me refresh, learn of new research grounds I can drill (non-Texans get dry well problems, right?), and generate ideas. If nothing else, you don't want your whole world to be working on your dissertation. When that was the case, I felt quite small on dry well days.
    
    Balance the load: I agree with Sternberg [1981] when he reminds you to consider how any work will effect not only your time, but your energy for dissertation work. My part-time internship in 2012 was only a few months before proposing, and paired well. On the other hand, if you're in an emotionally or physically draining job, and there's any fiscal way you can lighten the load, it's probably worth it.)

Update!

In 2012, I started this blog, and I'm finally attempting to renew it. I think I'd be more inclined to keep this blog going if it were a bit more organized. Going forward, I'm going to move the political posts to their own page. I also plan to create some additional pages for other topics I find interesting.

In the coming weeks, I plan to add a page for coffee reviews, and maybe one for cuisine commentary. Sometimes, this will just be a clearing house for reviews I post elsewhere - such as a yelp post on a restaurant - but I also have been trying some new coffee beans from Central Market lately, and might want to post a review or two of them. I'll also add a page for random posts. If I don't feel confined to stay on only one or two topics, and that the page has to be only about that/those subjects, I'll probably be more inclined to return more often with hopefully the occasional pithy musing.

Judicial Activism - A Dangerous Appeal

Judicial Activism - A Dangerous Appeal

Today, Lauren Davidson wrote a piece (available here on PolicyMic) about a recent ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that effectively made it legal to "upskirt" subway riders. As Ms. Davidson explains, a lady riding on a Boston subway no longer has an expectation of privacy that is violated by someone covertly taking cell pics up her skirt. Well before closing with an acknowledgment of the backlash consensus - with which, let there be no doubt, I add my own voice - she mentions that this ruling was handed down in spite of laws easily interpreted as barring the practice.

Conspicuously absent is any mention that this is the same high court that imposed Gay Marriage by directing the legislature to change the law by a deadline. I find this highly relevant, especially in bringing popular outrage to bear as part of the criticism of this ruling. Why should that matter? The defense was first amendment, and most gay marriage rulings include a presupposition that marriage is a "fundamental right", or that the right to "equal protection" requires states to grant it. Is this court free to take very broad views of areas carved out from legislative prerogative, or isn't it?

Please don't misunderstand: I am not equating gay marriage with being a pervert on a subway. Morally and ethically, there is no comparison. I think a person sitting on a subway has a "reasonable expectation" of privacy, and this violates it; however, when a court takes a broad view of individual rights carved out and protected, permitting no sway to community standards, then advocates of individual rights will not always agree with the interpretation. 

After all, Ms  Davidson reminds us that "[p]eeping Toms are by no means a new phenomenon", and technology merely eases their ability to act as they will. Alright, so a court tempered by concern for local customs, mores, and the reasonable expectations that are culturally embedded by these customs might extend the logic of previous interpretations to new conditions of the day (i.e. smartphones with cameras). Should anyone be surprised when a court that ignores history and original intent and sweeps aside deep understandings of civil institutions fails to uphold other aspects of civil society, though?

My main admonition to advocates of gay marriage that I feel this story underscores is this: Even if your argument is right in every way, there is still value to you of not supporting judicial activism and making appeals at the ballot box, in elections, and to elected leaders. You should respect the process because there will be other aspects of judicial activism you won't support. After all, a lesbian couple might like to ride a subway in Boston and be respected and feel safe.

I think it is an individual's right to contract as one sees fit; however, many economic progressives see Lochner v. New York as one of the strongest showings of libertarian judicial activism ever handed down from the U.S. Supreme Court. If civil liberties are sufficient justification to run roughshod over popular sentiment, then it's certainly fair, though. There was a judicial majority in favor of quashing the minimum wage. How can there be an absolute right to have community acknowledgement and equal treatment of a marital union, but no absolute right to ply a trade and develop skills before existing productivity garners a certain wage on the free market? It cannot be more natural to marry than to eat!

This argument does not, reductio ad absurdum, imply that I oppose any judicial protections from legislative infringements. If legislation allowed indentured servitude, that would be neither an area for "local standards" nor for "freedom of contract", because the 13th Amendment clearly bars that practice. Likewise, I wish the courts would hold the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to the strictures of the 4th Amendment. There is a textual basis for proscribing legislative authority in these areas. If you attempt to give the judiciary an even broader scope, without Constitutional grounding gained at the ballot box, be wary: the pendulum tends to reverse sway.

This post is a reply to a YouTube comment. I wanted to address multiple issues in more than 450 characters. I asked Sam Snee why he found Dr. Ron Paul "distasteful".  He volunteered the epithet, but this elaboration was requested, so lets all respect he was just answering my question.

Ron Paul was a REMF that gave physicals to the brass during Vietnam, not exactly on par with what Dewhurst did. I find him distateful because he uses states rights as a justification for states to walk over human rights (read Amendment 10 is not greater than any of the others). He has an uncomfortable following of the sourge of humanity (read white power and antisemitism). I don't like his earmark hypocrisy. His views on economics suck (fiscally he is ok). His foreign policy is unrealistic.

Military Experience
This is the part with which I'm the least familiar, and you mention it first, so just a quick response.  Someone has to do the supplementary jobs to keep the front-lines a well-oiled machine, and if it's not done right, there are more casualties.  It's probably true he didn't have a "charging the hill" moment, thought.  I found  this link with people discussing his service.  You might also like to see the link because someone challenges how "American" Mitt Romney is, and another Paul supporter who enthusiastically dismisses Dr. Paul's opponents is quick to point out that being an American has nothing to do with ethnicity, but about coming together to be free.

Paul made his small contribution to that effort.  If need be, he probably could have been reassigned.  Mitt Romney protested draft dodgers, yet didn't serve himself.

States' Rights
Now we're on a topic near and dear to my heart, and on which I've read quite a bit.  I think a crucial distinction needs to be made from the outset: natural rights and legal rights aren't the same.  The task of statecraft is to so structure political communities as to assure that legal rights will approach natural rights, on this claim I hope (and suspect) we can all agree.  Since political constitutions are the product of error-prone humans, though, we have to ask, if we get it wrong, or exigent circumstances really do justify temporary suspension of those rights, what system of governance will encourage us to get back on track with maximum rapidity?

"States' Rights" sounds as if it is a special carve out of privilege for the state regardless of the effect on subjects, a concept wholly unfit for a free people; however, here's a quote from James Madison, 4th President and father of the Constitution, that I found useful for a presentation on the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights:

Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone, they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantage of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

~ Federalist No. 46, my emphasis.

If the federal government goes astray, what recourse is there if it is imbued with unlimited sovereignty?  If the state government tramples your right - which absolutely can happen, no dispute there - you at least have recourse to neighboring states that must respect your "privileges and immunities" as American citizens.  In a worst-case scenario, no state can discriminate against waves of immigrants fleeing the failing state if both are part of the American Federation, which aims to divide power into safer portions.

Significantly, though, what concerns you seems to be that the balance embodied in a Tenth Amendment taken too out of context from the other amendments doesn't strike that balance, but gives the states too much power.  I support a robust tenth amendment.  I certainly don't support a states' right to hold different legal standards on the basis of race, because the Civil War Amendments make clear that's disallowed.  I do, though, support the right of a state to restrict rights covered under the Bill of Rights, because:

1. These rights were never intended to be absolute carve outs where no regulation can make the freedom of all commensurate with the freedom of the individual (to paraphrase Immanual Kant), but rather to protect domains from federal incursions.
2. My understanding post-dates the Civil War by many decades, and was the understanding of our federal system before the 1920s, when the Supreme Court - without any additional changes to our Constitution - divined the "Doctrine of Incorporation", purporting to "incorporate" the Bill of Rights by a new interpretation of the due process clause ("substantive due process").  
3. Due process refers to procedure - making sure all Americans have access to the courts, and that the same legal procedures are followed regardless of sex, race, religion, etc.  For example, a voting test that asks the poor white guy to read See Spot Run and then asks the black guy to read Chaucer violates due process.  

You need a federal negative when institutional shenanigans try to get around due process by institutionalizing what is "arbitrary and capricious", another part of 14th amendment jurisprudence; however, incorporation doctrine still does a dirty deed upon the body politic.  For instance, the culture wars - on so many different fronts - wouldn't be as inflamed if we recognized the state, between the federation and the citizen, was the instrument through which local representatives struck the balance with regulation on many matters, including speech and gun regulation.

His Supporters, and His Position on Racial & Religious Equality
Everybody has some unsavory supporters if they're on the national stage, just by the law of numbers.  I do agree, though, that if someone stokes and encourages hatred to ride its wave into power - that's not just distasteful, that's repugnant!  However, Ron Paul has not done that.

First, some claim he catered with his Newsletter.  He did not write most of the newsletters, though, he was merely hosting a forum for free speech.  It would really be no different than if I made this blog a collaborative effort, and you slipped in something offensive.  With the internet, all someone has to do is write me an e-mail that says, "Sam Snee called gay people [BLEEP] on your blog, whadiya gonna do about it?!" And I can take ownership and delete your post.

Unfortunately, with ye olde print media, though, once it's out there, it's out there.  The bulk of the offensive material that slipped through editing seems to have come from a Mr. James Powell, according to some investigation done by Ben Swann available here.  Still, Dr. Paul has apologized that it got through.

He maintains he never wrote anything racist, and that claim goes unrefuted.  His individualist principles don't admit of any institutionalized racism!  I think he opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1965 (as did Barry Goldwater), but I agree with that stance.  Again, this is partly out of wariness of centralized power, but also out of unintended consequences that actually hurt minorities.  Both problems:

1. If the central government can decide what is and is not discriminatory action by private individuals, then the central government itself can become discriminatory - holding groups out of favor to higher burdens.  For instance, if you have a high probability of voting for the government, your claim might be looked at more favorably by the administrative organs who enforce.  Sure, there's recourse to Article III courts, but that costs money, and so many (i.e. employers) will yield.  
2. That doesn't help minorities, though.  If it's more expensive to fire someone, it's correspondingly more expensive to hire that person.  If you can fire someone very easily, well, then if you have an opening and someone seems like they might work out well, trying them out is fairly risk free.  If firing could be costly, you have to more rigorously scrutinize, because the decision is less reversible.  Likewise, you can add costs in more ways than just employment.  Landlords worried about false accusations will have to pass legal costs on to all renters.  This adds to housing costs.  

What about antisemitism?  Actually, Dr. Ron Paul was the only person in the 1980s to stand up to oppose even the Reagan Administration when Israel exercised self-defense against international wishes.  Further, Dr. Paul has never singled out Israel to lose foreign aid.  He and his son, Sen. Rand Paul, both want to cut out all foreign aid to all other countries.  We have real problems here at home, and shouldn't borrow from China to pay other countries to do what we want them to do.  Further, if we pay $12 billion to countries that are enemies of Israel, and $3 billion to Israel, then in terms of relative aid, cutting out all foreign aid would actually help Israel, because it weakens her enemies more than her!

What's in Ron Paul's heart? Well, I'm not a relative or close family friend, so we can't really know.  Actions do speak louder than words, though.

Earmarks
I don't see any hypocrisy at all here.  I do know he's a prolific earmarker in a sense.  Rick Perry tried to raise this criticism in the debates.  (Mitt was probably thinking, "oh Rick don't touch the 3rd rail ...") Strategy and Constitutionalism shows he's actually doing his duty!  The Constitution gives Congress power over the purse, and if you allow bureaucracy to award grants and such on goals allegedly in the national interest, rather than the parochial ones of congressional districts, the Executive can tilt the federal rules to reward its friends.  Lets make sure Michigan and California - heavily Democratic states - get more transfers in Democratic administrations, and Wyoming and Florida - a loyal Republican state and pivotal swing state Republicans need, respectively - get great transfers in Republican administrations.  Is that what the founders wanted - pay to play?  Earmarks limits executive power.

Also, he'll vote for earmarks in committee, then vote against the final bill.  This is what Gov. Perry saw as "the height of hypocrisy".  It's strategic.  You're voting your principles, but your second-order vote is saying, "if I can't get my way, and all districts get less federal largesse so the American taxpayer can get more back and enjoy a more vibrant economy, then my district shouldn't have to make a larger sacrifice than the big-spenders!"  The opposite wouldn't be principled at all: Those who vote to bust the budget get not only more federal funds, but increase their relative economic strength viz-à-viz the more prudent regions of the country!  That penalizes thrift!

Economics - especially Monetary Policy
Worry about penalizing thrift brings us smack-dab up against Dr. Paul's economic policy.  Since you said he's alright on fiscal policy, I'm going to infer your biggest objections are with his monetary policy.  Perhaps you also see his tax policy as naive.  I'll address tax policy first, because it's more straight-forward.  I don't want to shy away from addressing his monetary policy, though!  I've been an Austrian economics adherent since 2004, when I read a book by Dr. Roger Garrison from Auburn University.  It does a great job of explaining the importance of a "natural interest rate", and if you're interested in a scholarly discussion, I urge you to go to the professor's web page for the book Time and Money and view some powerpoints and sample chapters of the book for free!

First, regarding tax policy, Dr. Paul has advocated a 0% income tax, but only after spending is decreased sufficiently so that alternative revenue sources are sufficient to fund government!  Libertarians recognize government does need to do certain functions.  We want strong national defense, courts that don't suffer under backlog, and (with differing views) a few other services/expenditures.  He has said that if you want a federal government powerful enough to police the world and rich enough to provide cradle-to-grave welfare, you need an income tax. That's not what the Constitution envisages, though!

A tariff that only funded essential services wouldn't really impede free trade.  It's only protectionary - insulating less productive elements of our national economy - if the tariff is arbitrarily high, or high enough to contribute to a bloated state.  Plus, remember, the income tax's multiple brackets, many exemptions, etc. have two major problems:

1. More arbitrary power - reward supporters with exemptions, soak the rich with higher brackets.
2. They create a "wedge" between employer and employee, resulting in overtime and new hires not happening if the equilibrium wage rate isn't viable because the taxes would make the marginal gains (from additional hours worked or additional employees hired) insufficient to offset the costs.

That second reason is especially relevant because David Dewhurst supported a Wage Tax!  A wage tax is basically an income tax on the employer side of the ledger.  If an employer must pay a tax on your wages, your employers true cost of your labor is your wage + the wage tax.  If your marginal product isn't worth that cost - you don't get hired!  Mitt Romney wants to raise the minimum wage!  Again, for the low-skilled in America who are already hurting, that won't help get them started climbing the economic ladder to discourage hiring them for entry level positions!

Lets not forget, no sixteenth amendment was needed for the income tax!  Why?  Around 1895, the Supreme Court ruled that the income tax was an "indirect tax", and so a uniform rate across the states was allowed by the Constitution.  What was not allowed was a capital gains tax, which was a "direct tax" on capital and property!

That tax is what must go, and it brings us to monetary policy.  First, let me say I do not own any stock.  Capital gains taxes shouldn't just be a concern to stockholders, but to all of us.  Gold - or any asset, really - can be a check against inflation.  If you save 5% of your annual income, and the inflation rate is 3%, you're basically only retaining 2%, as the government erodes the purchasing power of your hard-earned thrift!  What if you could buy a stock, a piece of land, a commodity like gold, silver, or even grain or oil, and hedge against inflation?  You might remark - you can! Go to it, and quit haranguing and belaboring the point! 

Ah, but you will suffer a capital gains tax.  Unless you're a major player, that means the gains from success may no longer be worth the risk of loss.  Government wants a cut of the gains, but doesn't want to cushion anyone but the banks in the event of loss.  How's that fair?  How does that encourage the savings that is an element of individual responsibility!?!

Much more problematic than inflation is the dislocation of productive capital as an unintended consequence of interest rate tinkering.  Even if there were no inflation, if the Federal Reserve drops the interest rate artificially low - and it does, and has, on multiple instances - it can create asset bubbles, and divert capital to sectors with less future demand.

Why?  Well, here's the short version:  the interest rate reflects the return on capital, but also the social time preference in a society.  As people value the future more, they'll save more (for that future).  With more capital available, the interest rate decreases.  A lot of capital improvements further back from the point-of-sale (i.e. oil excavation, new pharmaceutical exploration) has a lot of risk and won't see returns for many years, so when capital is expensive, it's not "worth it" for firms to invest in such endeavors.  If they must borrow, the returns won't offset the borrowing cost.  If they have capital-on-hand, they'd get a higher return by investing in banks/capital markets, and indirectly allocating it to nearer-term, higher-yield projects to which the ultimate borrower will put the money.  Make capital appear cheaper, capital shifts back to more of these projects than individuals really want, and when the future buying patterns don't match-up, and when the savings well runs dry, a bust occurs.

Busts are not natural - that's a popular misconception.  Booms come first, and when the markets become aware the boom isn't a sustainable one born of real increases in savings, productivity, or technology, the bust unravels the financial arrangements building a mountain on quicksand.

Dr. Ron Paul's book End the Fed does not actually call for the Federal Reserve to be abolished overnight.  What it advocates is allowing competing currencies to run parallel to the Federal Reserve Note.  To do this, we need to abolish legal tender laws and the capital gains tax.  The result would so constrain the arbitrary actions of the federal reserve with regard to its Open Market Operations and its tinkering with the federal funds rate and discount rate that it would be a much more neutered agency.  When the dollar loses the last vestiges of its world reserve currency standing, which is already eroding, we will find ourselves facing problems of Greek proportions.

Foreign Policy
Foreign policy is nowhere near my forte.  I'm much more interested in domestic policy.  I will simply ask you this:  Don't you think his objections have merit at the margins?  I can understand some reluctance on some positions, but when he suggests its time to withdraw from Germany and Japan - over fifty years after Hitler and Tojo were annihilated - that makes a lot of sense to me!  Why should we protect Germany and stimulate her economy so that her factories can out-compete ours?!

We shouldn't presume to know how to fix Africa's problems, yet the supposed Anti-War candidate from 2008 has us involved with not only Libya, but Uganda!!

Plus Point: Civil Liberties intersects his Foreign Policy with your Human Rights Concerns
His civil liberties positions are broad and rich enough to warrant their own section, but you didn't object to those, so I'm going to leave that for another day.  I do want to make one point, though - while it is often pitched as a limit on foreign policy, it bears directly on your earlier concern for human rights.  Where is the biggest threat: that the State of Indiana might trample human rights, or that an American President might arbitrarily use the National Defense Authorization Act's power to indefinitely detain an American citizen on American soil who he - without judicial check - classifies as an enemy combatant in the same way that the King of France could use a lettre de cachet??

So, he does share your concern, he just sees the chief threat coming chiefly from a different center of power right now.  Much more recent than the travails of slavery is the internment of Japanese Americans for no reason other than their ethnic origins.  Who has the racist legacy?  The party of FDR, William Fulbright, and ex-Klansman Robert Byrd, or Ron Paul?

Mitt Romney Ad on Daily Paul Site. Google Strikes!

The above is a screen capture from the Daily Paul website. Does anyone think this is a bit wrong? I know, I know, it's just Google Ads. Plus, at least it's not as bad as when there were Barack Obummer ads on the top and side of the site. Really? Birth control paid "covered"? Well, how cheap do you think my vote is?! Speaking of cheap - I paid for a Ron Paul: Restore America Now bumper sticker. Romney can't find anyone willing to risk his sticker not coming off the car when he blunders, and has to give them away. Aww, poor Mitt.