In the year of the dragon, lots of men disappear...

Happy New Year boys and girls. 2008 has been good to me--but not as good as the people who read this blog. Hope 2009 is beautiful for every one of you. With your support--as well as the continued insanity of this post-racial age--it'll be a good one for this blogs. Kiss your wives. Hug your daughters. Give a pound to your sons. We're off.

Burris not backing down on the race issue

Man, oh man. This has all the feel of a kind of Last Stand. It's amazing to see people invoking a struggle that stretches back to cotton and chains, simply in pursuit of naked power.

A good comment.

Buried down below, here's Deva on the reaction in Chicago. I'd like to hear more from my Illinois people on this if I can:

I live in Chicago. In fact, my Congressman is Bobby Rush, and while I am not in the "Cracker Ass Cracker" demographic, my family is full of people who are. I've not heard from any who are impressed with Mr. Rush's argument. They don't necessarily feel the "anguish" as you put it, of this ham-handed nonsensical move (I think that we should ban the word "lynch" from politics unless we're you know, referring to a literal instance. It's like everyone being a "Nazi" of some kind. Give me a f*cking break), but everybody knows Obama is on the other side of this equation and that not seating Burris does not, by any stretch of the imagination mean, that a black senator from illinois, appointed by someone who's not as messed up as Blago, will not eventually be seated.

I think the "now or never" race card has simply lost it's bite. Illinois has sent black senators to the capital twice and we're the only state since reconstruction that has. There's no political race panic here and I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that these men will not be able to create one.

Bobby Rush on CNN

Here's Rush arguing for the importance of a black senator. To which I respond--Nigga, please!!

I don't know if I've shifted politically or what. But after watching a black man named Barack Obama--who couldn't get into the Democratic convention eight years ago--win Virginia, North Carolina, New Mexico and Colorado, my tolerance for Negroes claiming that we need an appointment like this--in this kind of situation--is zilch.

Look, I say this as a black dude obviously concerned about race in this country. If you want a black senator go out and do the work to get yourself one. Build the organizations, build the fund-raising, do a black version of Emily's List, if need be. At some point, you have to stop bitching about the track. You have to stop bitching about your hand-me-down spikes. At some point, you just have to go out and run. I have little tolerance for the racial grievances of upper-middle class blacks. Do for your damn self, and speak for your damn self. Keep my name out your mouth.

UPDATE: It is amazing to hear Rush make this argument, given that if left to him, there would be no black Senators anyway. Rush backed the very-white Blair Hull against Obama in 2004. Are these people serious?

UPDATE #2: After thinking about that update, I just want to reiterate--with authority--Nigga please!!

The Cracker-Ass-Cracker Vote

Here's the Chris Rock clip here. The whole thing is gold. The part I reference starts about three minutes in.

Some thoughts on Blago and Burris

This is a sickening display--especially Bobby Rush's invocation of God. Rush\Blago\Burris's race argument  is rather incredible. I've been thinking about this for awhile as a political move. It strikes as a kind of suicide bomb. Blago is going down. Burris has nothing to lose. And Rush has never been on great terms for Obama. It's very easy, as a young black person, to be really angry about this move. Trust me, the old generational anguish is stewing in the heart of a lot of young black Chicago folks this morning. More on that later.

My immediate reaction is that Rush is overplaying his hand. He's basically arguing that a pol should fear the black backlash should they oppose Burris's appointment. But there's one problem with that logic--Barack Obama is on the other side of the table. Rush's logic basically asks politicians to chose between the will of a corrupt governor, and the will of the first black president of the United States.  I don't know, but it would seem that now would be a good time for Obama to flex some muscle and make it clear that folks support this move at their peril. I really, really, really hope the CBC doesn't back this move. But I wouldn't be surprised if they did.

It's wrong to say that this is a move to appeal to black voters, because it isn't--it's a dogwhistle for a certain sector of the black vote, an older portion of the commuity that was responsive to Rush's charges against Obama, that is still angry past injustices, and is deeply distrustful of all this "change" hooey. This is--to paraphrase Chris Rock--the an appeal to the "Cracker-Ass-Cracker" vote. I suspect that this move will be divisive even among black folks. Certainly there will be Blago apologists and political cynics. And there will be people, likely still angry over Jeremiah Wright, who will rally. But there will also be that section of black folks who will this for the ugly pandering that it is.

I'd remind folks that Blago--who once had strong support in Illinois' black community--now has a 32 percent approval rating among black voters. That's higher than the overall state numbers--but when you consider just having a D in front your name gets you a baseline of support among black folks, it's still really really low. People expecting a rather reflexive black backlash should remember Sarah Palin. The old CW was that Palin would rally women, angry at Obama over Hillary's loss. How'd that work out?

I'm not saying I know which way this will swing. Chicago's an old-school town, for which I have a deep, abiding affection. But the "Cracker Ass Cracker" contingent in black America is still strong. But Corey Booker did win. Anthony Williams served two terms. Adrian Fenty won. Who knows what will happen here.

Roland Burris in effect

Here he is. The shortsightedness of grown men is amazing.  Below Sg notes that this is brilliant political move by Blago. I guess that's true--in the most cynical, and immediate sense of the word "political." But in any sort of higher sense--in terms of actually getting anything done, in terms of attaching your name to an issue, in terms of doing anything beyond keeping your job--Blago ceased to be political brilliant a long time ago.

Obama's campaign this year was brilliant, in the sense that he kept his adversaries on defense. But it was also brilliant because it was in service of something--an argument for universal health-care, for an exit from Iraq, for an end to liberal defensive crouch. Now, one can agree or disagree with those issues. But the point is that Obama was not merely fighting for his job, but for actual issues.

Which leads me to Bobby Rush. Look that "lynching" statement is exactly what it is--crass and silly. One good thing about having a Barack Obama around, is that that sort of tactic doesn't become the face of black politics. That said, can we kill the phrase "Race Card?" Is that statement by Bobby Rush actually going to scare anybody? All the black people who see a racial angle in this, please post here. I desperately want to hear from you...

Blago names a senator

Amazing. But more amazing is that he found someone to actually accept an appointment. And of course the dude had to be black. Damn, Jeana. Video of Blago's announcement below. I didn't catch all of it but I did hear him say something like, "Don't see myself resinging, even if these feds house me\Big up to Jesse Jr. Big up to Jan Schakowsky..." And then he dissed Common.

The real problem with black on black crime

It's clearly gangsta rap, or lack thereof. Seriously, I'm always amused by people who blame gangsta rap for black crime. Anyone who knows hip-hop knows that when the music was most conscious--late 80s, early 90s--the streets were insane. And when the streets were most sane--mid to late 90s--any fool who could gun-talk was going platinum. Proper Talks points us to this helpful graph.




Whatever. I don't need no visual aids to tell me what I've known for years--niggers done loss their minds since Dre fell off.

The shocking rise in black homicide

I got a lot of e-mails from folks about this story yesterday, and frankly, I didn't know what to make of it:

The murder rate among black teenagers has climbed since 2000 even as murders by young whites have scarcely grown or declined in some places, according to a new report.

The celebrated reduction in murder rates nationally has concealed a "worrisome divergence," said James Alan Fox, a criminal justice professor at Northeastern University who wrote the report, to be released Monday, with Marc L. Swatt. And there are signs, they said, that the racial gap will grow without countermeasures like restoring police officers in the streets and creating social programs for poor youths.

The main racial difference involves juveniles ages 14 to 17. In 2000, 539 white and 851 black juveniles committed murder, according to an analysis of federal data by the authors. In 2007, the number for whites, 547, had barely changed, while that for blacks was 1,142, up 34 percent.

People are used to the idea of black people coming out on the truly horrific end of stats--and for good reason. We live poorer and die faster. Our SAT scores are lower and our dropout rate is higher, and so on. But that sense of black folks bringing up the rear, in addition to an uncritical allegiance to thin stats, is blinding and leads to fools talking super-predators and the Apocalypse. There's a thin line between understanding that black people are in a bad way, and believing every awful thing you hear.

I didn't know why someone telling me that homicide rate for black tens had jumped 34percent struck me as wrong--I just heard my bullshit meter going off. Somewhat predictably, So did Steven Levitt:

The numbers in The New York Times graphic and most of the James Alan Fox report fail to control for the change in the population of young black males over this time period.

According to U.S. Census data, the number of blacks aged 15 to 19 rose by about 15 percent between 2000 and 2007.

So even if any individual black teen's propensity for crime was unchanged over this time period, the aggregate amount of black-teen crime would have risen by 15 percent. In other words, in that New York Times graphic on perpetrators, just based on changes in population, the number of perpetrators would have been expected to rise from a little over 800 to nearly 1,000. Knowing that, the actual rise to roughly 1,150 doesn't seem that noteworthy.

I don't want to be glib about a very real problem. But  the nature and tragedy of black on black crime doesn't excuse inflation and exaggeration. I've learned my lesson about this, after hearing people--black and white--parrot inane foolishness like "they're more black men in jail than college." Or better still the "70 percent out of wedlock" stat which every intellectual likes to whip out to show how gangsta rap destroyed the Negroes. Glib cuts both ways, you know.

That said...

Richard Cohen actually takes the Rove Reading Challenge seriously:

Still, the fact remains that Bush is a prodigious, industrial reader, and this does not conform at all to his critics' idea of who he is. They would prefer seeing him as a dolt, since that, as opposed to policy or ideological differences, is a briefer, more bloggish explanation of what went wrong.

Yes, as opposed to something more columnish.

Tis the season...

Blogging will be slow today. I'm sorry guys, some holiday ghosts--but not spirits--are still haunting the Harlem manse.

T.

The "Wasn't Me" Defense.

Fairness says that I must note that several Republicans have denounced the Barack the Magic Negro episode. I think Newt basically had it right. That said, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that this GOP apparatchik in the video below is just lying. To defend Limbaugh and his Magic Negro anthem, she cries Sharpton, claiming the song makes fun of Rev. Al saying that Barack isn't black enough. Please tell me when exactly Al Sharpton said that. I don't make a habit of defending Al, but I don't recall him ever saying that. But I do recall someone else questioning Obama's blackness:

Hey, Barack Obama has picked up another endorsement: Halfrican American actress Halle Berry. "As a Halfrican American, I am honored to have Ms. Berry's support, as well as the support of other Halfrican Americans.

That would be Rush Limbaugh talking. The same Rush Limbaugh who we are to believe was defending Barack Obama from this mythical claim by Sharpton. Amazing.

In what universe are we to take satire about black people from Rush Limbaugh? Here is the thing--if you made your career crusading against the Veteran's Day, don't expect people to laugh when you make a "satirical" joke about the Army.

An issue close to my heart

Jim Webb is going to try to do something about prison reform. 

The war on Kwanzaa

An annual ritual begins anew:

In some ways, Kwanzaa seems more and more entrenched in Americana each year. Recently, Sandra Lee on the Food Network put her culinary touch on the celebration with her Kwanzaa cake. And U.S. presidents are obliged to acknowledge the celebration. Barack Obama has been invited to celebrate Kwanzaa in Flint, Mich. on Dec. 29.

But all the commercialization and lack of real observance makes me wonder where the celebration will be in a generation or two...

Right, unlike Christmas which has survived on the basis of its spiritual purity and strict avoidance of commercialism....

Meh, I don't celebrate Kwanzaa. My Dad was a Black Panther, so I wasn't exactly brought up to think of Karenga (call that Negro "Ron") as heroic. I didn't celebrate Christmas either, and the general consensus in my home was that Kwanzaa was throw-away for people who couldn't deal with not getting gifts.

But so what? Seriously, this idea that Kwanzaa is fundamentally different from other holidays is silly and unreflective. Debating the holidays, is like debating sex acts. Dude, there's no clean or dirty, only what you're into or what you're not. Do we really want to do the knowledge on Christmas here? Seriously??

I could have Peter King's job

I don't think I've ever seen a Cowboys team underachieve more than this year's team. The only solace I can take is in thinking we were overrated from the start:

Look I've been a Cowboys fan since I was five and saw that gorgeous blue star on the silver helmet. But seriously, we commit too many penalties under Wade Phillips, and tend to come up big in the small games, and small in the big games. Love the players. The team, not so much.

I've got some difficult emotions to grapple with--I can't believe Jerry is keeping Wade. Still, not as many emotions as this guy. 0-16 is a special thing. I almost would trade places with the Lions. At least they have our draft picks to comfort them. Thanks Roy Williams

What's beef...

Yglesias points us to Peretz chest-thumping analysis of  Gaza:

Message: do not fuck with the Jews.

Trash-talking from across an ocean. That'll show em Marty. It's wrong but I've almost--almost--stopped reading about anything dealing with the Israel-Palestinian beef. It just feels like nothing changes. I've never understood why anyone in their right mind would accept us as an honest broker, given our declared allegiances. But more than that, I wonder why it's incumbent on us to broker at all. Lately, our judgment hasn't exactly been the greatest either.

Karl Rove on Bush's reading

Seriously, this is laughable:

It all started on New Year's Eve in 2005. President Bush asked what my New Year's resolutions were. I told him that as a regular reader who'd gotten out of the habit, my goal was to read a book a week in 2006. Three days later, we were in the Oval Office when he fixed me in his sights and said, "I'm on my second. Where are you?" Mr. Bush had turned my resolution into a contest.

By coincidence, we were both reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals." The president jumped to a slim early lead and remained ahead until March, when I moved decisively in front. The competition soon spun out of control. We kept track not just of books read, but also the number of pages and later the combined size of each book's pages -- its "Total Lateral Area."

We recommended volumes to each other (for example, he encouraged me to read a Mao biography; I suggested a book on Reconstruction's unhappy end). We discussed the books and wrote thank-you notes to some authors.

At year's end, I defeated the president, 110 books to 95. My trophy looks suspiciously like those given out at junior bowling finals. The president lamely insisted he'd lost because he'd been busy as Leader of the Free World.

Really Karl? I did that same contest at the local library--when I was six. Anyone who actually reads books knows that reading the words off the page is half the job, at best. The hard part is digesting the book, getting to its essential themes and then weighing them against your own body of knowledge. Look I love books, was raised in the business of publishing books and printing books. But watching a pundit--or president--brag about reading a book a week, is like watching a freshly-minted 21-year old get smashed at a wine-tasting. Only a rookie would set that sort of goal--and then brag about it. Either that or, you know, someone who doesn't really read...

Open NFL Thread

Go for it folks. Blog returns to full strength tomorrow.

UPDATE: This is why we don't regularly do open threads. Probably a worse idea to do one during the holidays when most of the adults are away. I'm never shocked by trolls. I'm always shocked by the people who take the bait. We have to do better. Comments closed and the ban-stick is in motion.

The best candidate for RNC chair...

Is clearly this guy.

RNC candidate Chip Saltsman's Christmas greeting to committee members includes a music CD with lyrics from a song called "Barack the Magic Negro," first played on Rush Limbaugh's popular radio show.

There's also a tune called "The Star Spanglish Banner." Get it? Negroes!! Spanglish!! No?? Clearly you're too PC. Seriously, where do people get this idea that the GOP is racist? It really is one of the great mysteries of our time. Oh well. Saltsman's got my vote. Even if he believes I shouldn't have one. He's still got it.

UPDATE: As you guys can imagine, I haven't been checking in as much. This got nasty pretty fast. I don't know if this convo is still going. If it is, do us all a favor and give Thomas the respect he deserves. Seriously. The venom helps nothing.

To all a good night

Catch you guys in a few. For obvious reasons.

This is painful to watch

In what world must a black gay man debate civil rights a man who believes blacks should be thankful they were slaves, and once advised Nixon to link an opponent to "New York Jewish money?"

Capehart went for his, did his best, and somehow managed to not catch a case. But my heart broke watching this. I am feeling like Carolyn Forche in "Return." "It is not your right to feel powerless," she says in that piece. "Better people than you were powerless."

On Chad Pennington

I told you so:

Let go by the Jets in August after eight years of service, Pennington, 32, is having a career renaissance with the resurgent Dolphins. Winners of one game in 2007, the Dolphins are 10-5 and can claim the American Football Conference East crown by beating the Jets on Sunday at Giants Stadium. Pennington has thrown for 3,453 yards, a career best. He has completed 67 percent of his passes, and his passer rating, 96.4, is the second best in the N.F.L., behind Philip Rivers's 104.0.

Sorta.

Hold on, I hear somebody coming...

This is James Bennet, editor of The Atlantic.

Most readers know that the views expressed on Ta-Nehisi's blog are his own and don't always reflect the views of The Atlantic. Such is the case with regard to Ta-Nehisi's "analysis" of the Dallas Cowboys and the Washington Redskins. Our institution has partnered with the Redskins, and Daniel Snyder, on a number of projects, and we have a great deal of respect for Snyder's, uhm, personnel moves. We at The Atlantic do not take sides in the ongoing dispute between that asshole Jerry Jones's Cowgirls and the winning machine built by Daniel Snyder. The Redskins are historic leaders in the sports world, and Dan Snyder may be the greatest owner in history. We look forward to box seats in the future.

Not sure what this means

John McWhorter has a piece in TNR in which he argues, among other things, that Rick Warren represents "black views" on social issues better than Joseph Lowery:

Warren opposes gay marriage; 70 percent of black voters in California supported Proposition 8. Warren is pro-life; in 2004, a Zogby poll tabulated that while about half of Americans overall were pro-life, 62 percent of blacks were.

Black Reverend Joseph Lowery, heading up the rear doing the inaugural benediction, has the positions Warren's detractors prefer: pro-choice, in favor of gay marriage. These, however, cannot be treated as default "black" views, because so very many black people of all walks do not share them. Warren and Lowery will represent two variations on black ideology, of which the one Warren represents is arguably the dominant one.

That's true. Of course it's also true that Warren's view on social issues--among Americans at large--is also dominant. But it's much more important to note that the Warren view is 12 percent more dominant among a disproportionately undereducated, impoverished, and hyper-religious group which comprises 13 percent of the country. Shocking, shocking stuff.

Then there's this:

Do Warren's un-PC views really merit so much agita over his participation in the inaugural? Let's try a thought experiment: Suppose Obama had invited black megastar preacher T.D. Jakes instead. Jakes heads a 30,000 member Dallas church, reaches millions more with the television show The Potter's Touch, and was designated "perhaps the most influential black leader in America" by The Atlantic. His church runs outreach programs as well as anti-poverty efforts in Africa. Yet like Warren, Jakes dissociates himself from those who "support abortion, homosexuality and other things I see as unscriptural."

Still, I suspect that progressives' reaction to Jakes' inclusion would be vastly less indignant. Surely the justification for that view would not be that black people, shall we say, "cling to" religion because of the exigencies of their past and present. No--there would be a sense that for a black preacher, views like Jakes's were something to let pass as "diverse," unsurprising in a pastor of any color, with his presence as an articulate and inspiring figure in black America more important than ideological details at such a momentous event. Why must Warren be fumigated against, then? Because as a white person, he's supposed to know better? What other difference between Warren and Jakes is so crucial?

Right. Because, the interwebs have been utterly silent on the role black voters in California played in passing Prop 8. And no one protested Obama campaigning with Donnie McClurkin. No that didn't happen.

Jokes aside, this really is a text-book case of shifting the burden of proof. John literally offers no evidence that the scene would play out as he imagined--He just conjures it and then assumes it's true.And then of course there's the capper:

Black he is not, but at the inauguration ceremony next month, Rick Warren will be every bit as much in line with the black American soul as Aretha Franklin.

Right again. Because the black soul can be reduced to being against gay marriage. No wonder I can't dance.

Of course then you read something like this...

And just want to close ranks:

In the 110th Congress, there were 236 Democrats in the U.S. House, 49 in the Senate, and two "Independents" who caucused with Democrats. Of those 287 congresscritters, 74 were members of the New Democratic Coalition, which is affiliated with the DLC. Overall, 25.8% of the Democratic members of the 110th Congress were openly affiliated with the DLC. An additional 31 members of Congress are affiliated with the Blue Dogs, but not with the New Democratic Coalition. If the Blue Dogs are included, the overall DLC-Blue Dog membership in of Democratic congresscritters increases to 36.6%, and 38.1% in the House.

Now, compare this to Obama's cabinet selections. Of the eighteen cabinet members (not counting Joe Biden, who I have seen listed as a cabinet member at times), sixteen are Democrats. Of those sixteen, eight are affiliated with the DLC, or 50%. Obama's Democratic cabinet selections have twice the DLC representation of the Democratic membership of Congress. This list does not include Rahm Emanuel, who will be the first White House Chief of Staff during the Obama administration. Nor does it include national security advisor Jim Jones, who supported McCain during the election.

That's Chris Bowers asserting that Obama's cabinet is actually to the right of congressional Democrats. Leave aside the statistical problems of comparing a group of hundreds, with a group of 16. Leave aside that Bowers doesn't include Obama's White House staff. Leave aside that the source for that contention that half of Obama administration is the DLC, comes from Politico. And how does Politico know that half of the new administration is DLC? Why the DLC told them, of course! And the DLC has no incentive at all to inflate their importance. No, they'd never do that.

Leaving all that aside, this just feels like a kind of tokenism which ultimately says nothing about policy. And where does all this head-counting leave us?. At war with Bill Richardson? Outraged that Tom Daschle addressed the DLC? Is this what it was about? Really?

The center and change

I think he hits on a good point here--it's pretty hard to, at once, heal the country and then take it into a totally different direction:

The Warren pick is exactly the kind of move you'd expect from a figure who rose to national prominence in 2004 by telling the country that there is not a black america, nor a white america, but the United States of America (that may be the single most italic-worthy sentence of the current millennium.) The problem is that it is not true. We want it to be and more than any politician in recent history, Obama is the beneficiary of a vision of America that we believe in but which does not exist. At least not yet...

It's been my observation that change usually begins on the political margins and has to fight its way to the center. Organized labor was considered a bunch of un-American radicals for decades before the Wagner Act in the 1930s. Civil Rights groups sat on the fringe for a half-century before gaining enough influence for Truman to denounce lynching and integrate the military. Domestic violence was once a fringe issue.

Groups advocating "change" whether of the FDR sort or the Reagan doesn't usually come from the center (unless maybe the "change" is realizing that there actually is a center.) The most important changes of the 20th century -- social security, civil rights, legalized abortion -- have evoked huge controversies and lasting divisions before they came to be generally accepted (that has yet to happen with abortion but it probably will.)

So we get to Obama's fundamental paradox: how do you preserve national unity and institute change simultaneously? That's a hard trick to pull off.

As per Warren, Obama was elected by people who are by and large at least moderately pro-choice and he had the benefit of high levels of support from the gay and lesbian community. For the latter folks, legalized marriage is "the change we need." On the other hand Obama's invitation to Warren is meant to convey a kind of just the kind of post-partisanship that he promised.

Everybody, from the right to the left, now claims Martin Luther King--but he was certainly not a centrist. Part of that is the passage of time, but another part is the mainstreaming of ideas (at least some of them) which once were thought of as radical. Supporters of gay marriage should take heart from that. Today's radical is tomorrow's normative. Time and, to be blunt, the reaper are on our side--not theirs.

Of course there is another lesson to take from this. As I said yesterday, my job isn't to make Barack Obama's job easier. And--as I'm sure he knows--his job isn't to his marching orders from the bloggers who have no political capital to lose. Jelani talks about Adalai Stevenson putting segregationist John Sparkman on the ticket. I think about Lincoln promising to unite the country, blacks be damned. And now Biden defending the Warren pick. I want to be clear--in the context of who they are, national politicians, these people are not "wrong." I think Biden, like Stevenson, and like Lincoln make a solid, political case.

But that doesn't make Frederick Douglass wrong either. That doesn't make black leadership wrong for denouncing Stevenson. And it doesn't make those of us who believe that a man who bans gays from his church should not be giving the invocation, wrong. Obama and co. have the job of building national consensus. We have the job of expanding the boundaries of that consensus. We are in conflict, and this is as it should be. Seriously, what is one without the other?

In case anyone was wondering

This is what people are referring to in regards to Matt. I don't think I've ever seen anyone step in like that on a blog. I'm sympathetic to CAP's position, but I don't get the response. I don't think anyone thinks Ezra speaks for the American Prospect, per se. I know people don't think I speak for The Atlantic. I know CAP isn't a media organization, but still, it all seems sort of silly, and I really have no idea how they thought this would somehow help them. Here's Matt's  original post. Here's Andrew responding.

UPDATE: SG points us to this response by ThinkProgress, which is fine. The clarification in comments goes a little further. One thing I've found is that mistakes and hamfistedness are much more common in the world than deviousness and scheming. We often mistake the latter for the former. It's so much more likely that these guys blundered, than it is that the long arms of Third Way reached into Matt's blog. Nobody's perfect.

Do we believe the Titans yet?

Just asking. Oh man, Vince Young. What will you do now...

Music execs are still dumber than you

This makes no sense. A music video is nothing more than a really expensive ad. It's amazing that these guys want YouTube to pay them for the right to show their videos. They should be trying to leverage the viewers into buyers. These guys are straight out 1963. They deserve whatever's coming to them in this economy.

You wouldn't make it in postracial America

Lemme be clear. If you have a black Barbie half-head doll, you need to cross the street when you see me. I'm a nice guy. I have a kind smile, but you need to know one thing about me: Ta-Nehisi is for the kids--and I will jack your ass.

Here's the thing, my beautiful niece (who makes me desperate for a daughter every time I see her) requested one.It took me a moment to get past the fact that thing was called a "half head." But anyway.  her parents, being black folks of this age, added the rejoinder--"The black one, please." I told Kenyatta that we should order it immediately since it could run out of stock. My partner is a beautiful woman with one fatal flaw--an unwavering belief that racism can be gamed to her benefit. I could almost see the gears turning in her head, "There's no way the black Barbies are gonna be sold out!"

Well, of course she goes to Toys R US this morning and the following convo ensues:

Kenyatta: "I need a Barbie half-head. Erm, a black one"

Black Dude working at Toys R Us: "We're all out of the black ones. But, we got plenty of the white ones!"

Kenyatta:  "They'll kill me if I show up with that."

Black Dude, nodding: "Yeah, I know right?"

Of course I knew this would happen. The math is simple. In Manhattan, the number of liberal whites who have no problem--indeed who would brag about--buying their kid a black doll almost certainly outnumbers the blacks who have no problem giving little Ebony a blond and blue-eyed Barbie.

The temptation to blame the White Man is strong--no doubt this is a part of his plot to further lower the self-esteem of this country's Aishas and Takieshas. But alas, I must be honest with myself and not shrink away from the true lesson--Negroes can no longer move on Negro time. This is postracialism for that ass. Get your weight up. Not your hate up.

UPDATE: Sorry guys, the thing is called a Barbie "Styling Head." Also I think this is apropos.

The Andrews

My colleague now has his own annual Awards. Frankly, I'm hoping for the Malkin Award. Please write my name in. Better yet, why the eff does Yglesias still get an award named after him? He jumped ship! Dump his ass!!