I was just scrolling through some old videos, and came across the Feelin' It video. My son came in and asked me the name of the song--I told him and mentioned to him that I play it all the time. He remembered. I told him the sound sucked, and decided to play the real one.
I have a general rule about most hip-hop in this house--more important than what the boy hears, is who is willing to talk to him about it. So we've had our share of conversations about everything from Ghetto Boys to Ghostface--that last one was hard. I like to think of myself as liberal. Still, no Dad is prepared to hear his 8-year old say, "If you feel it raise your L in the sky"--even if you've done exactly that in last, uhm, decade.
Hip-Hop wasn't created with the idea that one day heads would be fathers. Anyway a much better--and tagentially related--video is below. This is actually probably my favorite hip-hop video ever, and one of my favorite period. This is so how it feels...The life of a black male in four minutes, "Everybody start to rush\Swinging through is your friendly neighborhood lush..."
I Never Change
Via Andrew, Who you know like Rove...
The Book List
Stephen Hahn's A Nation Under Our Feet came in the mail yesterday (thanks for the recommendation, guys). Today, I got the second volume of Louis Harlan's Booker T. biography. I thought Norrell's was really well-written, but I found its polemical aspects unconvincing. I'm going to knock out Capitol Men by week's end, then tackle this Wells Towers joint. I need a fiction break.
I'm having a rather layered reaction to all this reading on Reconstruction. It's surreal to read about P.B.S. Pinchback, or any of the seemingly numerous dudes who were slaves, walked to another state, went to college and then became lawyers. But at the same time it's very hard to take the tragedy of it all. On a personal level, it's hard to read about getting your ass kicked repeatedly by the most vile elements of the country. I've got a bio on "Pitchfork" Ben Tillman waiting for me, but I'm scared to read it. All you need to know about this dude is that his name was "Pitchfork." Pitchfork Tillman. He just sounds like he should be leading a lynch-mob.
I get a lot of comments about my blogging style. A lot of folks want me to twist the knife more, or go a little harder, or throw a few more elbows. I understand the impulse. Part of its racial--they're just so few black writers who get to get on the mic. And there are so many sucker MCs spewing weak shit about black people. You want to see someone force some humility on these dudes.
But the one thing about reading a quality book is that, if you're in the right frame of mind, you're reminded that you're in no position to humble anyone. I remember being young, with my beads, with my tie-die book-bag, my Bob Marley tee-shirt, and my baby dreads. I thought all you needed to know of the world was somewhere between Cointelpro and Kimet. What did I know of class struggle, then? I didn't know even Jack & Jill existed. What did I know of "women's issues?" What do I know now? [MORE] .
In one respect, a lot of this reflects where Americans have been trending--these are basically the opinions of the young. But I also think it shows how a strong leadership can transform how people see an agenda.
Frak me, I've already said too much. It could just be a bad poll. The temptation to pontificate is strong. My only salvation is to get my kicks by watching you guys go at it.
The historic gap between blacks and whites in voter participation
evaporated in last year's presidential race, according to an analysis
released today, with black, Hispanic and Asian voters comprising nearly
a quarter of the electorate, setting a record.
The analysis, by the Pew Research Center, also found that for the first time, black women turned out at a higher rate than any other racial, ethnic and gender group...
Together, black, Hispanic and Asian voters made up nearly 24 percent of the voters, compared with about 12 percent in 1988.
The
analysis found that southern states with large populations of black
eligible voters recorded the greatest increase in turnout rates. In
Mississippi, the rate increased by 8 percentage points, from 61.7
percent in 2004 to 69.7 percent in 2008.
Mr. Obama scored upsets
in several southern states, which were attributed to the growing number
of migrants from other parts of the country, younger voters and a surge
in turnout among blacks.
Obviously, part of this is history. I doubt it will be the same in the next few presidential elections. That said, I think we're getting a glimpse of the future here. I'm thinking back to that meme about Mark Penn and him writing off states that "don't really matter." How'd that work out? Yeah...
More On "Not Counting"
It's worth noting, as Robert George does here, that this notion that Obama's share of the black vote is a problem in a way that, say, George Bush's share of evangelicals weren't. George notes a particularly egregious example, where Bill Schnieder did a whole piece for CNN about the Dems "dependency" on the black vote:
The
"problem" with this analysis is -- what's the point? Analysis of the
GOP's relative strengths and weaknesses comes down to geographic
assessment. Schneider doesn't devote a segment to "What would the
Senate look like if white Southerners didn vote for Republicans (which
in some states they do to upwards of 70 or 80 percent)?" But blacks
voting for Democrats is staged as some sort of "exception" that should
implicitly invalidate the reality of the current political situation.
I'd go even further. The best kept secret amongst people like Obama is this--the black vote is the best bargain in politics.
The Democrats monopoly on the black vote is almost wholly based on the perception of the Republican party as racist, and the brand Kennedy built, but LBJ really enacted, in the 60s. Now, because of the black community's demography, it's likely that Democrats would still get a majority of black votes, even if this weren't the case.
But the GOP could probably peel off a 20-30 percent or so, and here is why they should be trying: Unlike evangelicals, black voters of this era, don't have a list of polarizing demands. Obama doesn't have to fear a Terri Schiavo incident, for instance.
Which is not to say that black voters don't have issues, but in the last election, I'm hard pressed to think of one that would crack the top three (health care, the war, the economy) that differ from those you'd find among white people that voted for Obama. All they ask is that you not have people at your rallies who feel comfortable (on camera!!) saying that they don't want a black president.
What was Obama's great strategy for securing the black vote? First, winning Iowa. Second, as Marc has reported, going on Tom Joyner. Repeatedly. I'm a black guy that would like to see torture investigated--but that's not because people in Harlem are out in the streets. It's because of what I believe individually.
People need to understand that this isn't 1988. Welfare was reformed, and Bill Clinton didn't lose a black supporter for it. The Crime Bill was passed, and they still called Clinton the "First Black president." You can't do Willie Horton today. You can't run a presidential campaign on Affirmative Action. There simply isn't a national issue that black voters are pushing for that white voters hate. The South Side isn't organizing around reparations. Maybe they should be. But they aren't.
Open Thread At High Noon
Go for yours...
Fatal Attraction Remakes
A lot of folks have written in about Obsessed with some version of the following argument, "What's the problem? It's just Fatal Attraction for the hood!" In that light, I this comment from Daphne is worth highlighting:
So this film is a remake of Fatal Attraction? It sure sounds as if
everybody has forgotten the feminist critique about that film, after it
first came out. It was a highly convenient vehicle for a lot of sexist
crap, with Glenn Close in the role of unmarried psycho bitch. Fatal
Attraction delved into the psyche of unmarried successful career women,
who, it transpired in that film, must be crazy and violent. A deep well
of blatant sexism was opened up there.
Obsessed has not reached Europe yet, so I am judging from the trailer
only. But it sure sounds as if that particular sexism debate has only
moved backward. The psycho unmarried blonde in the remake looks as if
she has become even more weird and emotionally unstable than the
original character, who at least had some real sex with Michael Douglas
to back up her 'claim'. Also, the power dynamic is even more screwed
up. Glenn Close's character was a professional woman, working in
publishing, if I remember correctly. Her character, twenty-odd-years on, now
has no power in the workplace at all, and works as a temp.
Calling Spades
Let me precede what I am about to say by noting that I've written some of what follows before. But I think it bears repeating, and so with that in mind, I offer this:
On his 100th day in office, Barack Obama enjoys high job approval
ratings, no matter what poll you consult. But if a new survey by the
New York Times is accurate, the president and some of his policies are
significantly less popular with white Americans than with black
Americans, and his sky-high ratings among African-Americans make some
of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually
are.
At first, I said I wouldn't--mostly because I don't want to be that guy who patrols the net looking for right-wingers who say dumb shit about black people. Moreover my fellow Left-CoastAvengers were already on the case. But then the quote stayed with me. And after thinking on it, I realized why--Even by the standards of a National Review alum, I think that Byron York's column is incredibly racist.
We spend a lot of time attacking people for playing the race-card--I've done my share. But what largely animates this idea that crying racism is an overused tactic (as opposed to say crying antisemitism) is this notion that among polite, thinking people, there are no employers of racism. Racism is the trade of the American savage--the man who flies the Confederate flag, has an undiscovered dead dog under the porch, and lives in West Virginia. This man doesn't walk among the civilized.
But here is your political correctness run amok:
James Watson argues, not simply that there may be a biological explanation for IQ differences, but says of notions of intellectual equality, "people who have to deal with black employees find this not to be true," and be held up as a truth-teller.
A series of newsletters entitled the Ron Paul Freedom Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report, The Ron Paul Politcal Report are revealed to be incredibly racist. ("Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks" Martin Luther King "seduced underaged girls and boys.") But Paul knows nothing about them, and is the farthest thing from a racist. ("Ron thinks Martin Luther King is a hero.")
Duane "Dog Chapman is recorded repeatedly calling a black woman a
nigger, but his son says the following of him, "My dad is not a racist
man. If he was he would have no hair. He'd have
swastikas on his body and he would go around talking about Hitler.
That's what a racist is to me."
Geraldine Ferraro claims that a black guy has only succeeded at presidential politics because he's black (twice!) but is most offended by the notion that someone would think she was racist. (Since March, when I was accused of being racist for a statement I made
about the influence of blacks on Obama's historic campaign, people have
been stopping me to express a common sentiment: If you're white you
can't open your mouth without being accused of being racist.")
Michael Richards, repeatedly, yells at a black heckler, "He's a
nigger!" then goes on national TV and says he's bothered that people
think he's racist. "I'm not a racist," Richards said. "That's what's so
insane."
We live in a country that may well be offended by racism, but it's equally offended that anyone might actually charge as much. [MORE]
Here it is for those who didn't see it. I don't have much to say. I think it's worth looking at some old Bush pressers. The difference is, even now, shocking. That we could elect both of these guys says something about us, though I'm not sure what. Otherwise, I thought his answer on torture was dead on. He did what all great debaters do--he focused on the strongest arguments.
Postbourgie writes about the new Beyonce\Ali Larter\Idriss Elba flick obsessed, and in the process, goes where I've feared to:
But come on. Who isn't into this flick for the beatdown? Trust. You
won't be disappointed (unless you're looking for an abundance of punny
smack-talk). Just turn off your brain, embrace the derivativeness, and
close your ears to the Beyonce power ballad playing over the credits.
("I wanna run smash into you," Beyonce? Really?)
On one level this is just flicks like Trois, going mainstream--Obsessed carried the weekend. But I've stayed away from this, mostly because I feel the film is feeding on a hostility toward white women.
I'm haunted by an old memory: Back in college I went to see Waiting To Exhale. The theater was overrun with black women, which was cool with me. I actually like seeing films in the hood, given that there's often something participatory, if ignorant about it--Only negroes bring their two-year old to see The Two Towers.
Anyway, the thing that got me was the scene where Anglea Bassett barges in the boardroom and slaps the shit out of the white woman her husband has been sleeping with. The whole theater lost it--I'm talking damn near a standing ovation. Word is that this scene was repeated around the country. Now maybe Negroes just liked Bassett's bop. Maybe they just were happy to see the "other woman" get hers. Maybe everyone just wanted to stand at the same time. But I don't think so. I think race was essential to that scene and the crowd's reaction.
I could have this wrong, but I think pitting a blonde homewrecker against and upwardly couple played by Elba and Beyonce is speaking in crude code to black women. Or maybe not. Maybe I'm stuck on race. Maybe I just need to see the movie. Kenyatta saw the flick at Court Street in Brooklyn, a theater which I love almost as much as the one up here on 125th. She said fools lost it on the fight scene. Anyway here's the trailer, for those who don't know.
The Battle Flag
I found this note from frequent commenter Sporcupine to be revealing:
The flag we're discussing, the
"Battle Flag" with the big X across it, became the overwhelming symbol
not in the 1860s, but in the 1950s. It's about revolt and rejection,
heavily on race, but not entirely so. It includes a heavy helping of
"Don't tread on me." It also has a loud, rambunctious, beer-and-pickup
truck style. It's Lester Maddox and George Wallace and the Dukes of
Hazzard.
I'm told my grandfather's comment on the Klan was "When they go
marching in their sheets, just look at their shoes." He meant that they
were poor men, with few options and a large helping of desperation. And
he also meant that he, a man with a college education, a law practice,
and inherited land, was too good for that.
My grandfather was raised in home that displayed a flag with two red
bars with a white one in between, and a blue field at upper left with
thirteen stars in a circle. That's the "Stars and Bars." It goes with
verandas and juleps and cavalry officers and gentility. It's Ashley and
Melanie Wilkes. It's a different symbol than the one we're puzzling
here.
Seeing that divide may help untangle what's up with the heritage v. hate argument about the Battle Flag.
When we ask someone to let the Battle Flag go, I think they hear a
request to let go of those other loyalties too, to say they wish they'd
grown up in a bigger house, with a newer car and more educated parents
and a life style Martha Stewart would approve. They think we're asking
them to say they look down on what their parents were able to provide,
and on their parents. They think we're asking them to sign up not just
for my grandfather's relatively decent views on race, but his smug,
witty, indecent view of social class. And, of course, they're not
entirely wrong.
The heritage thing isn't the whole truth. It isn't even half the
truth. But it is a part of the truth, and very few people who fly the
Battle Flag will take it down if they have to let that family pride
element go to do it.
(My current take on the issue in small Kentucky towns is to say "I'm
a one-flag Southerner" and "When I say the Pledge of Allegiance, I mean
it all." I've gotten at least a few Battle-Flag fans to chuckle and nod
in response.)
The Long-Term Effects Of Bullying
UPDATE: This is one response. Please don't take it as a decleration of what happens to all people in all places, or even most people in most places. It's freestlye memoir. Not science.
It's worth spending some time with Terry Gross's piece on the new Mike Tyson doc. I appreciate the fact that Gross didn't just hand the megaphone to James Toback, the director. Instead she also talked to journalist Elmer Smith who was able to balance out Toback's partiality. This was particularly important for the discussion of Tyson's rape case and the events leading up to his infamous bite.
There's a lot of time spent discussing the fact that Tyson was bullied as a child, and how he learned to master that fear. It led me to want to read more journalism on the psychological effects of bullying. I don't mean the "Ban Bullying!" placard waving kind, but some investigation of the long-term effects. I don't think I ever recovered from getting my ass kicked--a few times--in middle school by the local hard-rocks. But I'm not sure I want to recover either.
Yeah, they roped me in to--but with a great idea. Here I am chatting with Andrew Sullivan about Barry. This was, to put it mildly, an honor.
Open Thread At High Noon
The world is yours...
We Don't Believe You. You Need More People.
Michael Steele's statement on Arlen Specter deserves a hard look:
Some in the Republican Party are
happy about this. I am not. Let's be honest-Senator Specter didn't
leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his
personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose
a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record. Republicans
look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats
don't do it first.
This is an amazing statement when you think about it. Steele is basically arguing that the left-wing stretches from from Dennis Kucinich to Arlen Specter. That's quite the big tent--and it's being pitched by the head of the Republican party. It's based on the notion that you can just say "liberal," "socialist," "lefty" 100 times and
then say "Vote for me!" I know a lot of us think people are that
stupid, but they aren't. And they especially aren't in these times.
The purpose of name-calling is to draw contrast, to draw dividing lines, with the understanding that if do the math right more people will end up on your side. But the GOP of late have excelled at drawing lines that leave them with less voters on their side. The implicit message in Steele's statement is that if you think like Arlen Specter, if you voted for the Iraq War, if you oppose card check, if you think government should have some role in health care, you're "left-wing." So much for a center-right nation.
A Black Man On White People's Money
Nate Dimeo makes the case for Frederick Douglass replacing Ulyssess Grant on the $50 dollar bill. I'm reading about Reconstruction these days--you know what I think of this idea. The obvious choice for a black man is King. But I'd go with Douglass. I see him, in many ways, as a founding father. He really helped finish the work the Jefferson, Washington, Madison etc. started.
Will Pat Toomey Make It Out Of The GOP Primary?
Interesting point by Michael Smerconish. He notes that someone like the Tom Ridge, whose more moderate than Toomey, may end up taking on Specter.
One defense of the Confederate flag, made below, is that people who fly the flag and wear it on their tee-shirts aren't necessarily, themselves, racist. This is a rather low hurdle to clear. The harder test doesn't question your where your heart, but your sword.
From this perspective, the question isn't "Do you hate black people?" It isn't "Would you invite a black person to your barbecue?" It's "Are you more offended by black people who recoil in horror at the Confederate flag, than you are by the flag's history?"
It may well be true that Alabama's desire to fly the Confederate flag at the state capitol, or the desire of many Alabamans to use it themselves as they see fit, has nothing to do with the fact that the state was the last to drop its (unenforceable) prohibition against interracial marriage (in 2000!). It may be a mere coincidence that the only people to oppose the Alabama repeal were leaders of the states' "Confederate heritage group." But if the flag's defenders aren't racist (which I can accept) the necessary conclusion, while banal and common, isn't anymore comforting--a shocking ignorance of one's own history.
Well here's the thing: Historically racist often don't declare themselves. And when they do, they often claim to be acting in the interest of blacks and whites. Indeed the "not a racist" argument has been upheld, in varying forms, since the end of Reconstruction.
In terms of the confederate flag, the people claiming "not a racist" are the same people who name their parks, roads, and squares after generals who served in an army of white supremacy. Or they are the same people who remain willfully ignorant that this is being done in their name. One enduring fact of black life is that the willfully ignorant are as dangerous, or more, than the knowledged racist. Lynch mobs were led by the latter, but comprised of the former.
Perhaps this generation is different. Perhaps they are owed the benefit of the doubt. Indeed, perhaps this has always been so--maybe Fort Pillow really wasn't a massacre. But, were I them, I would not ask for that benefit, nor would I be shocked and appalled were I to see it withheld.
...talk of a "filibuster-proof" Democratic majority is a stretch. For
one thing, Norm Coleman just received a powerful reminder incentive to
keep his legal fight going for as long as humanly possible. For
another, the Democratic caucus, even at 60, still has Ben Nelson and
Evan Bayh to consider.
But if reaching the 60-vote threshold doesn't make Arlen Specter's
big switch "huge," what makes today's news a seismic political shift?
It's further evidence of a Republican Party in steep decline, driven by
a misguided ideological rigidity. Indeed, Specter suggested as much in his statement: "Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right."
Basically. It's much more significant for the GOP than the Dems. I think getting 60 will still be a challenge. But Republicans face a more existential problem--not becoming the party of "We wuz robbed."
Echoes Of The Crack Age
Of course I'm untouchable...
The Essential Americaness Of African-Americans
The CBS News polling data has some interesting results on race. Matt was surprised that a significant number (44 percent) of African-Americans believe that blacks and whites have the same shot at success in this country:
I'm surprised that as many as forty-four percent of blacks say that
both races have equal opportunity. I think the evidence is
unambiguously clear that they do not. African-American children have
parents with lower levels of income and education. Their families, even
when they have above-average incomes, tend to have less wealth
than white families. And even controlling for parental income and
educational attainment, black kids do worse in schools than white kids.
Then beyond all that, there's clear evidence of discrimination against job applicants with "black" names
that tends to suggest a broader pattern of employment discrimination.
There are inequities in the criminal justice system both in terms of
more punishment being meted out to black offenders, and the police and
the courts doing less to protect black victims.
I'm not surprised that most white people prefer to ignore this sort
of evidence and believe in the existence of equal opportunities, but
it's surprising to me how many African-Americans have adopted an
unrealistically optimistic view.
I obviously agree with Matt's assessment of the socioeconomic plight of black folks. But I don't share his surprise. First there is this--If you're black, a quick way to go insane is to think about how much racism has altered your life. But beyond that, I spent a lot of time in my youth as a left-black nationalist arguing with friends and family about race. One thing that became clear is that while a large number of black people recognize the ugly history of racism in this country, many have a hard time seeing themselves as victims of that racism.
This makes sense if you think about it from a human perspective. Black people have to compete, and their kids have to compete. In order to wake up every morning, work your ass off, and pay taxes, then tell your to do the same, it helps to buy in to the idea that "you can win." Perhaps more important than that, African-Americans are Americans, and "you can win" is a part of our ethos. I suspect that overestimating the extent to which "individual effort" matters is an American trait. Maybe even a human one, I'm not sure.
This is why I always thought Shelby Steele's "Divided Man" theory of Obama was mostly fodder for people who think that saying fathers should be responsible for their kids, will cause you to lose black votes. If you walked 125th a year ago and asked black people what they wanted from Obama, you would have heard more about the war and the economy, then about racial justice. My point being that Obama's attitude on race is a pretty common one around black people
Personally, I've never seen myself--as an individual--as having less of a shot because I'm black. With a kid, bills, and my own personal problems, I can't really afford to think like that. I suspect this is even more true of a lot of black women. Even the Detroit Lions think they win the Super Bowl. Why else would they step on the field if they didn't?
More Thoughts On Arlen Specter
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!!!11
Seriously. I can't believe none of you said it. You guys disappoint.
Questions: Will he have seniority in the Democratic caucus? Will he
vote like a northeastern Democrat, or will he vote like Ben Nelson?
I don't have a TV. Please fill in what you know. I'll update as news comes in. This "no TV" thing has been great. I don't know how long I can maintain it, with this job though.
UPDATE: It's official. Here's part of Specter's statement. The full one is at the link:
....It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a
schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the
record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged
by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not
represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of
Pennsylvania. I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary. I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election. I
deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters.
I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so
many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not
want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I
thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance...
Amazing. Can the Palin\Limbaugh wing continuing to dominate like this?
Open Thread At High Noon
Too many songs, weak rhymes that's mad long, Make it brief son--half-short and twice strong.
Ill Visions
Last night I read this rather chilling quote from Adelbert Ames, the Reconstruction-era governor of Mississippi. Ames, himself, is rather amazing and worth reading about. (He is, amongst other things, George Plimpton's great-grandfather) Here he is writing to Mississippi senator Blanche Bruce on the plight of blacks in the state, just as Reconstruction is ending:
Election day may find our voters fleeing before rebel bullets rather than balloting for their rights. They are to be returned to a condition of serfdom--an era of second slavery. It is their fault (not mine, personally) that this fate is before them. They refused to prepare for war when in times of peace, when they could have done so. Now it is too late. The nation should have acted but it was "tired of the annual autumnal outbreaks in the South"...The political death of the negro will forever release the nation from the weariness from such "political outbreaks" You may think I exaggerate. Time will show you how accurate my statements are.
The "autumnal outbreaks" Ames is referring to reference Grant's Attorney General, Edwards Pierrepoint, who refused to send troops to Mississippi, telling Ames that the nation was "tired of the annual autumnal outbreaks in the South," and that the state would have to fend for itself. Shortly thereafter Mississippi's white supremacists effectively staged an armed coup. You know the rest of the story.
...however much Obama may differ from
Bush on particulars, he appears intent on sustaining the essentials on
which the Bush policies were grounded. Put simply, Obama's pragmatism
poses no threat to the reigning national security consensus. Consistent
with the tradition of American liberalism, he appears intent on
salvaging that consensus.
For
decades now, that consensus has centered on what we might call the
Sacred Trinity of global power projection, global military presence,
and global activism - the concrete expression of what politicians
commonly refer to as "American global leadership." The United States
configures its armed forces not for defense but for overseas
"contingencies." To facilitate the deployment of these forces it
maintains a vast network of foreign bases, complemented by various
access and overflight agreements. Capabilities and bases mesh with and
foster a penchant for meddling in the affairs of others, sometimes
revealed to the public, but often concealed.
Bush
did not invent the Sacred Trinity. He merely inherited it and then
abused it, thereby reviving the conviction entertained by critics of
American globalism, progressives and conservatives alike, that the
principles underlying this trinity are pernicious and should be
scrapped. Most of these progressives and at least some conservatives
voted for Obama with expectations that, if elected, he would do just
that. Based on what he has said and done over the past three months,
however, the president appears intent instead on shielding the Sacred
Trinity from serious scrutiny.
I wish I was more prepared to tackle this critique. One problem with blogging is you end up talking about everything you're reading. But interest isn't the same as deep knowledge, and when it comes out to national security, I admit to my status as a tadpole.
Nevertheless, indulge me a moment, as I doggie-paddle with the sharks.
Andrew (Sullivan, not Bacevich) posed an interesting question to me
yesterday. He
asked me if there was anything about Obama that scared me. I answered
that the thing that scared me most, was the possibility that Paul
Krugman was right.
I mean that in the specific sense (about the economy) and in the
broader philosophical sense. I think it's fair to say that Obama is,
temperamentally, conservative. I mean conservative in opposition to
"radical," not progressive or liberal. I
think that approach undergirds everything from his stance on the
economic crisis to his unwillingness to push too hard on torture.
George Packer summed it all up pretty well:
What underlies so many of Obama's decisions is an attachment to the
institutions that hold up American society, a desire to make them
function better rather than remake them altogether.
I differ with Andrew (Bacevich, this time) in that I'm not really
surprised by any of this. I didn't think Obama's campaign was
especially
radical, and I thought his anti-war bonafides were more born of caution
and skepticism than out of a deep critique of American military power.
That is, in large measure, why I voted for Obama. After eight years of
dealing, not simply with an impulsive, anti-intellectual, hot-headed,
president, but a rigidly ideological president, I thought the answer
was someone who was more pragmatic--even when their politics (as on
torture) didn't match up with my own.
But
what if pragmatism isn't enough? The danger of a conservative approach,
of too much respect for institutions, is that it's liable to deeply
underestimate that rot eating away at the girders. It tends to
downplay the evil at home, preferring to believe that was is old is,
essentially, always good. I think the challenge Bacevich (on foreign
policy) and Krugman (on the economy) are posing is this: Pragmatism
isn't going to cut it. Only a deep and fundamental overhaul will do.
That's Not How You Get Invited To Rush's Xmas Party
Ross, silky-smooth as ever, wonders if conservatism would have been better if Dick Cheney were the Republican nominee:
"Real conservatism," in this narrative, means a particular strain of
right-wingery: a conservatism of supply-side economics and stress
positions, uninterested in social policy and dismissive of libertarian
qualms about the national-security state. And Dick Cheney happens to be
its diamond-hard distillation. The former vice-president kept his distance
from the Bush administration's attempts at domestic reform, and he had
little time for the idealistic, religiously infused side of his boss's
policy agenda. He was for tax cuts at home and pre-emptive warfare
overseas; anything else he seemed to disdain as sentimentalism.
This is precisely the sort of conservatism that's ascendant in today's much-reduced Republican Party, from the talk radio dials to the party's grassroots. And a Cheney-for-President campaign would have been an instructive test of its political viability.
As
a candidate, Cheney would have doubtless been as disciplined and
ideologically consistent as McCain was feckless. In debates with Barack
Obama, he would have been as cuttingly effective as he was in his
encounters with Joe Lieberman and John Edwards in 2000 and 2004
respectively. And when he went down to a landslide loss, the
conservative movement might - might! - have been jolted into the kind
of rethinking that's necessary if it hopes to regain power.
It's worth noting that "real conservatism" means being pro-life and anti-gay marriage also. But that aside, I'm mostly interested in this column for the writing. Which is pretty damn good. I don't know how he'll hold up after a few years of this. But he isn't Bill Kristol.
April 27, 2009
Newt Trapped On Torture
I think Newt knows the right answer on waterboarding. But I think the laws of politics dictate that he can't call waterboarding torture, because he won't be able to score points. And that's all that really matters.
Echoes Of The Crack Age
Crazy dedication to my Mom and my Dad...
A Sprawling Post Of Middling Genius
This post allows me to engage in some old-fashion lit journalism, boosterism. I want to talk about Caitlin Flanagan's piece on Alec Baldwin. But I can't really do that without recommending Ian Parker's deeply-reported, and beautifully written profile of Baldwin as a companion.
Now on to to the Flanagan piece. When I was coming up, I can't tell you how many hack editors told me that young people should never write in the first person. I understand the argument--self-absorption and ego generally make for boring writing. But writers don't learn to use the first person by avoiding it. They don't find a voice without looking for one.
Anyway, I have a weird fetish for the piece that proceeds ordinarily along, and then suddenly drops the writer in as a character. I first thrilled at this a decade ago, back home, when my old friend Amanda Ripley did exactly that, while chasing a phantom across Capitol Hill.
There's a sense of shock when you see it done right--it's a kind of card trick pulled on the reader and our assumptions. We assume we're reading a piece of objective journalism. And then the writer does this reveal, and says "No, I'm human too. Here are the assumptions, I bring to bear, and here is what they may tell you." [MORE]
I once thought that civil rights group made too much hay out of the confederate flag. This was, by and large, a product of me having spent all my life in places where no one really flies a confederate flag.
This came back to me this weekend while reading Capitol Men. I was digging through a chapter which talks about the famous Congressional debate between Robert Brown Elliot and Alexander Stephens over Charles Sumner's posthumously enacted Civil Rights Act of 1875. Better schooled men than me were probably wise to Stephens infamous statements about the Confederacy at the time of secession. I wasn't. Here's an excerpt from Stephens "Cornerstone Speech," which he explains the basis of the Confederate Constitution, and attacks Thomas Jefferson's stated opposition to slavery.
The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the
leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution,
were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws
of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and
politically....Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the
assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy
foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came
and the wind blew."
Our
new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its
foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth
that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery
subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.
This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world,
based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
I recollect once of having
heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and
ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing
effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield
upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war
successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or
mechanics...I admitted;
but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were
warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal
which the Creator had made unequal.
Consider that this isn't just some loudmouth Confederate delegate spouting off, this is the Vice-President of the Confederacy making the case. Also note his invocation of the Creator, the notion white supremacy is not just natural, but divinely inspired. Stephens' clarification is here. I don't think it will make you feel any better though.
People like to debate about the salience of white racism in our daily lives. I think the fact that there are entrenched interest in this country, and in one of our major parties, that continues to honor a treason founded on white racism really says a lot.
Those interests are shrinking, no doubt. But they are there. And so is the confederate flag. I don't know how black people live in Mississippi. I'm not trying to dis. I, in all seriousness, don't get it.
Open Thread At High Noon
Education brings false words, what do they teach, Everything that I learned, I had to self-reach...
If You Don't Like The Argument, Just Change The Subject
Obama, to his credit, has ended one of the darkest chapters of American
history, when certain terrorist suspects were whisked off to secret
prisons and subjected to waterboarding and other forms of painful
coercion in hopes of extracting information about threats to the United
States.
He was right to do this. But he was just as right to declare that
there should be no prosecution of those who carried out what had been
the policy of the United States government. And he was right when he
sent out his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, to declare that the same
amnesty should apply to the lawyers and bureaucrats who devised and
justified the Bush administration practices.
But now Obama is being lobbied by politicians and voters who want
something more -- the humiliation and/or punishment of those
responsible for the policies of the past. They are looking for
individual scalps -- or, at least, careers and reputations.
Their argument is that without identifying and punishing the
perpetrators, there can be no accountability -- and therefore no
deterrent lesson for future administrations. It is a plausible-sounding
rationale, but it cloaks an unworthy desire for vengeance.
Broder admirably avoids the strawman of "accountability," and instead gamely steps up to duke it out with the nuanced, and complicated "unworthy desire for vengeance" argument. Let us all stand back and applaud his intellectual courage.
Listen, there's a case to be made against pushing forward on torture--mostly a political one, that many commenters have made in this space. (Marc gives another one here.) But Broder isn't even serious enough to do that. He is a pug confusing a journeyman with the champ.
I'm always amazed at how people accrue these reputations in high places. Watching Broder fumble with the basic, rudimentary work of intellectual honesty is like watching a Harvard physicist fumble with basic Algebra. And yet somehow, much, much worse.
Speaking Of Wonder Mike...
Things done changed. And then not so much--don't read the comments on the youtube page. Heh, dig QuestLove in the back.
A new Rasmussen poll of Pennsylvania finds that Arlen Specter appears to be in serious trouble going into his 2010 primary against conservative challenger Pat Toomey.
The numbers: Toomey 51%, Specter 30%.
Toomey, a former Congressman, previously ran against Specter in the
2004 primary, and made it into a 51%-49% race. Specter has since
provided Toomey a huge opening this time thanks to his vote for the
stimulus bill. And Pennsylvania is a closed-primary state, too, meaning
that Specter faces a conservative base vote.
From the pollster's analysis: "In another sign that could be
troubling for Specter, the current poll finds that 79% of Pennsylvania
Republicans have a favorable opinion of the "Tea Party" protests
against big government spending and higher taxes held across the nation
last week. Thirty percent (30%) know someone personally who took part."
Is Ed Rendell interested in the Senate? Michael Nutter?
April 25, 2009
Draft Day Open Thread
Sorry this is late guys. Have at it.
April 24, 2009
Echoes Of The Crack Age
When I get on the mic, my windpipe strikes and ignites A lyric, when you hear it, you fear it and like...
The Chubbster. Made of win. Every bit of him.
Why Can't Everything In Life Be Mysterious...
Kenyatta and me, rotate Saturday duty for Samori. This means Kenyatta handles three Saturdays a month and I handle one. She's told me before that this is unfair. I've told her that it's best if we "focus on looking toward the future." She's told me that, "the future looks unfair." I've settled on simply repeating the phrases "retribution" "focus on the future," and "looking forward" undulating tones until she gets tired and takes a nap.
This Saturday is my Saturday. I'm supposed to take Samori to Spring football practice. I usually enjoy this very much. But I plan to be recovering from a hangover after taking Ten Shots Of Anything. I think my son will be disappointed, because he'll miss practice, and his father will be a babbling mess.
I suspect, though I'm not sure, that this behavior may have some impact on my status as a positive male role model in his life (This is to say nothing of his mother yelling "I can't believe you slept with that nasty whore!" in the background.) I think that Samori may have some questions for me, if not now, then perhaps when he's 18. I think I've found a most agreeable soloution. I'll simply peer deep into his eyes, with the smuggest, most self-regarding look I can muster, and say, "Son, some thing in life must be mysterious."
I think this is an adequate substituite for actual parenting. I think it also ensures another ten shots next Friday. Hey, ladies...
The hunger strike is the most universal form of human protest, employed by kings and commoners alike, for reasons ranging from the noble to the mundane. Today brings news of actress Mia Farrow preparing to try her hand at hunger,
in the admirable name of bringing attention to Darfur. According to her
Farrow's publicist, she'll forego food "for as long as [she] is able to
survive."
But how long might that be? Over the past few years, the aggrieved
have perfected the art of the hunger strike, prolonging their agony
(and increasing their visibility) to disturbing degrees.
Why Don't We All Focus On "Looking Forward"
There's a bar in the East Village that offers five shots of anything for ten bucks. I'm going there tonight, and taking 10 shots of anything the crowd reccommends. Then I'm going to stand on the street soliciting random women for sex. Should I be arrested I shall have the perfect rejoinder, "Officer, I think we should focus on looking forward." Should I be slapped, I'll have the perfect rebuttal, "Baby, I think we really should be focused on looking forward." Should I succeed and come home, hung-over, and have to face my spouse's accusing eyes, I shall be armed with the perfect riposte, "This relationship should focus on looking forward."
Lawrence O'Donnell On Liz Cheney's Lies
As Matt points out, Liz Cheney raises SERE as an argument against waterboarding being defined as torture. Yet SERE was designed to prepare soldiers for the prospect of being tortured. In other words, if waterboarding isn't torture, than the program Cheney is lauding is a fucking joke. Here's O'Donnell making the point, but with less profanity.
Open Thread At Noon
I'm low key like sea-shells...
What Would A Community Organizer Do?
One point worth making, repeatedly, is that the "Look Forward" crowd is effectively calling for a sliding scale of justice. I try to avoid broad statements like this, but in this case, there really is no way out--A "Look Forward," approach is, at its core, an endorsement for kind of justice for the politically powerful and connected, and another for those who aren't. Rebutting Roger Cohen, Adam makes this point perfectly:
I agree with Cohen that the press failed miserably in the aftermath of
9/11, but given that the coverage of the torture debate has focused not
on whether American officials broke the law but rather how the
president might be weathering the political storm surrounding the
release of the torture memos, I'd suggest that the press really isn't
done failing yet.
Cohen's argument simply reflects the consensus among certain
journalistic and political elites that the powerful simply shouldn't be
held accountable when they make mistakes, because, after all, we all
make mistakes. This compassionate attitude naturally doesn't extend
beyond this small group. America has the highest incarceration rate
in the world, fully 1 percent of the population. I'm sure there are
millions of people currently incarcerated who would like it if Cohen's
policy of absolution for crimes was extended to them.
There really two great points there--the first being about how the press is still failing on torture, by looking at it from the horse-race perspective. Back on topic, the second points out who gets what justice, and what kind. It's amazing that in a column rightfully detailing the Orwellian use of language by the Bushies, Cohen terms investigating torture abuses, "retribution." This is, indeed, some justice. It's not retribution to, say, try someone for a robbery they committed five years ago, that's the "the system working." But it is retribution to try ask that a man who is a sitting judge be investigated, for potentially skirting the law. To accept the "Look Forward" argument, you have to accept that the enforcement arm of government will, as policy, give some people "compassion" and withhold it from others, on the basis of power.
I would even take this beyond prison. The United States isn't run
along Social Darwinist lines, but we're closer than any other major
developed country. To an extent that I find frankly astounding--and
certainly unseen in other wealthy nations--people from modest
backgrounds are expected to suffer the economic consequences of poor
decision-making or bad luck, all in the name of personal
responsibility. But when someone really important screws up,
either in terms of provoking a financial crisis or overseeing a policy
disaster or breaking the law or whatever, well then it turns out that
we have better things to do than "look backwards" at who deserves what.
Let me make this even more personal. Endorsing justice, consequences, and "personal responsibility" for poor black fathers, as Obama does for instance, is moral, upstanding, and honest. Endorsing justice, consequences and "personal responsibility" for your colleagues who are charged with safegaurding the future of hundreds of millions of people is, apparently, mere retribution. What a joke.
Defining Journalism
A lot of folks took issue with me challenging Peggy Noonan, and to a lesser extent George Will, on the grounds of journalism. The basic argument being, "She isn't a journalist, how can you be surprised by this?" Given that Noonan and Will (to my knowledge) have never been reporters, and don't do much of it, I understand the basic thrust of the argument.
But it's false on the merits. Journalism doesn't simply include reporters--but editors, producers, and yes, opinion writers. Indeed, this is why, if you go to j-school, you might very well end up taking a class in op-ed writing. In fact, in its earliest forms, journalism was more opinion then reporting.
I think it's fair to consider Noonan, a columnist for the Wall Street Journal, a journalist. I think it's fair to consider Will, someone who's won a Pulitizer Prize for Journalism, a journalist. I now write, at most, four reported pieces a year--most of my words are unreported, and on this blog. I still think of myself as journalist. (Though reporting those pieces is very, very, very important to me. Indeed, I think the blog would suffer if I didn't do it.)
To Turn Your Stomach
Watch this video. One thing that concerns me is how much these guys are clearly spoiling for a fight. Given the discussions this week, I really think Holder has to go after these fools. Obama, not so much. Walk and chew gum.
One of the great arguments against rappers who claim that they're just reporting what goes on, and against conservatives who think "hip-hop" can tell you something about the performance of black boys in schools, is the music itself. It's amazing that when we were at our lowest, in the early 90s, the music was its most diverse. Not to act like it's all gravy now, but the most violent years for black men, in recent memory, were the late 80s and early 90s. And yet, when you listen to the music, the gun element, is an element, but not a dominant one.
In fact, the popularity of gangsta rap has an inverse relationship to the actual conditions in the streets. After steadily increasing throughout the 80s, the murder rate among African-American males peaked at 50.4 per 100,000 in 1991. That was a lovely and diverse year for hip-hop. Then the murder rate declined until it was 25.6 per 100,000 in 2000. By then, gangsta rap was the dominant genre in the music.
It's weird to think about that, and surfing I came across this gem, made right about the time I was in Baltimore, and the city was going crazy. This, I assure you, is not a love ballad. But it is a beautiful song.
Ignorance Is Bliss
The more I think about Peggy Noonan's statements on Sunday, the more horrified I get. Noonan is a graceful writer who was particularly hot during the campaign. And yet is there anyway to listen to her comments, and not hear them as a willful endorsement of kind of national blindness?
The job of journalists is to challenge the government and to challenge their readers and viewers. What sort of journalist tells his readers that some things must be mysterious? What sort of writer tells her readers, and viewers, essentially, to not ask too many questions? We have a fine era, when otherwise respected, intelligent, and well-read people step on a national stage and endorse national ignorance. What a mess.
In case you haven't seen them, Noonan's comments are below. George Will doesn't come off any better. I'm less surprised by that. In fact the whole panel is kind of depressing. They've been in the same city for too long.
Bigger Plantains To Fry
Stephen Colbert on Obama and Chavez. Plantains are awesome.
Former FBI Agent Ali Soufan's piece in the Times today is fascinating, and will be talked about quite a bit, I assume. But what I'm most interested in is this:
There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced
interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn't, or couldn't have
been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these
alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few
occasions -- all of which are still classified. The short sightedness
behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the
methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of
the terrorists, and due process.
I am so scared of what we don't know. What we often forget is that these documents are only part of the picture. God only knows what's yet to be unclassified, or what will never be known.
Frank Ricci has been a firefighter here for 11 years, and he would do just about anything to advance to lieutenant.
The last time the city offered a promotional exam, he said in a sworn statement,
he gave up a second job and studied up to 13 hours a day. Mr. Ricci,
who is dyslexic, paid an acquaintance more than $1,000 to read
textbooks onto audiotapes. He made flashcards, took practice tests,
worked with a study group and participated in mock interviews.
Mr.
Ricci did well, he said, coming in sixth among the 77 candidates who
took the exam. But the city threw out the test, because none of the 19
African-American firefighters who took it qualified for promotion. That
decision prompted Mr. Ricci and 17 other white firefighters, including
one Hispanic, to sue the city, alleging racial discrimination....
But Donald Day, a representative of the International Association of
Black Professional Fire Fighters, questioned the value of the New Haven
test, which included written and oral components. "An individual's
ability to answer a multiple-choice exam," Mr. Day told the city's Civil Service Board, "does nothing but measure their ability to read and retain."
There
are more important values, he added. "Young black and Latino kids have
every right," he said, "to see black and Latino officers on those fire
trucks that are riding through their community. They have every right
to look for a role model."
No they don't. Look if the test is a bad test, then get rid of the the test. But if you administered it as tool for promotion, then you need to be good on you word. I get that the firefighting departments, nationally, have been bastion of discrimination. People are right to be horrified by that. By how is it that no one is horrified that not a single black firefighter did well enough on the test to qualify for a promotion.
People should have the right to compete in this country-- not the right to win. I'm not indifferent to changing the way these guys do hiring. But you can't do it like this. This is just stupid and hamfisted.
The Measure Of A Great Politician
I keep getting e-mails from people who think we should stop pressing Obama on torture. The basic argument is, would you rather have this inquiry or would you rather have health care? I think it's becoming clear that we may not necessarily need Obama, himself, to launch an inquiry. But be that as it may, I want to push back against this idea that the only job of a great politician is to set a list of achievable priorities. It's, of course, a large part of the job--but the other part is making sure as many of those priorities get done as possible.
I expect a lot out of Obama, mostly because of what I saw in the campaign. He was not a politician simply capable of taking what was given to him. Not to rehash this, but that was I saw in Hillary. Obama was the politician who was capable of creating more, of expanding the coalition. People laughed at a lot of us Obama supporters when we talked about expanding the map. I begrudge any of that. In 2004, none of us thought that a Democrat running in 2008 could win--not just Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania--but Virginia, North Carolina and Indiana. Had someone told us this would happen, we would have assumed it was some grizzled white war hero, not a black community organizer, who'd done this. You don't get to win, in the manner Obama won, and not have some demands put on you,
I believe that while a good politician accomplishes what is possible, a great one expands the realm of possibility. He doesn't simply accept the lines of argument as they're drawn and hew to the side with the most soldiers, he tries to redraw those lines to benefit his ideals. Obama's jobs isn't simply to spend his own political capital, it's to grow his capital, and by extension, the moral weight of his ideals. Perhaps pushing torture investigations would make passing health care harder. But this is the business he chose. This is the business of becoming great. And after what happened last year, we have the right to expect more of him. We have the right to demand more.
Speaking Of The Man
For years, King's family has been accused of profiting off his name. This won't help:
Nothing is too small for the family to ignore. Isaac Newton Farris,
King's nephew and chief executive officer of the King Center in
Atlanta, demanded payments for images showing President Obama and King
on the same T-shirts. "We're not trying to stop anybody from
legitimately supporting themselves," Farris said. "But we cannot allow
our brand to be abused." It is hard to imagine King himself demanding
payment from someone who wanted to put his image alongside that of the
nation's first African American president.
In the latest monumental shakedown, the King family's Intellectual
Properties Management Inc. was paid $761,160 by the nonprofit
foundation raising money for the Washington memorial. This was on top
of a "management" fee of $71,700 paid in 2003. The Kings have defended
the payments by noting that donations to the foundation have been down
because people were giving to the monument fund instead. The other
possibility is that fewer people want to give to a foundation run by
the King family.
Few people familiar with the family are shocked by their demands. What
is shocking is the failure of the memorial foundation to call their
bluff and simply stop work on the memorial. Foundation officials should
have publicly announced the payment so that donors could think
seriously about whether they want to contribute to such an outrageous
arrangement. Instead, officials waited for the Associated Press to
force the disclosure. Donors have complained that they were never told
of the arrangement.
The Problem Of King, Obama And Heroic History
As a lot of you know my interest, of late, has dipped toward Reconstruction and immediate post-Reconstruction black America. One side effect of a lot of my recent reading is a reevaluation of some of my childhood prejudices toward the South. I started school just 13 years after Martin Luther King was assassinated. Whenever we had Black History Month, his legacy was simply dominant. I don't just mean King the man, but the portrait of black people during the King era, and especially black Southerners. According to the films we saw, all black Southerners, in King's era, were Christian, law-abiding, nonviolent, salt of the earth types besieged by hooligans. In those days, Malcolm X wasn't talked about at my school.
Anyway, you hear about the Edmund Pettis bridge enough times, and you come think of the rest of your history as a kind of Dark Age, peopled with a few peanut scientists, heart surgeons, and traffic light tinkerers. All those folks are complicated in their own right (read this piece on Garrett A. Morgan) but they got reduced to a list of "firsts" and one sentence deeds. And then, seemingly out of nowhere, rises Martin Luther King, who redeems the country, and saves us all.
But you get no sense of agency from people in the meantime. You get no sense of how and why the world had changed over the course of a century. And most of all, you get no sense of the complicated people who laid the path. I thought about this this morning, because I was reading about P.B.S. Pinchback, whose colorful biography I would only disservice by summarizing. But my point is that the world comes alive so much more when you can see the past in detail, and not always and only as a narrative of black Messiahs triumphing over white racists.
I worry about Barack Obama being discussed in this same King-like way--as though nothing changed among the people to make him possible, or no actors before existed, like Jesse Jackson, for all his flaws, didn't make Obama possible. This isn't a shot at Obama or King, as much as its a collection of rather random thoughts and observations. I'm just walking my way through some things.
Shep Smith Loses It (In A Good Way)
Wow.
April 22, 2009
As Promised--New Edition
I was born grimy, taking straight shots from dirty glasses. But circa 91, this was on any slow jam tape that slid to any shorty. Who could front on Johnny Gill?
Heh, Troy Patterson and Rebbecca Traister look at the new, unprecedented, never before witnessed phenomena of 40 year old women bagging 20 year old dudes. Evidently there's not just a reality show about this on TV, there's actually a sitcom coming out which will explain to us why "The Graduate" never got made. Meh. Here's Traister on the show:
So because the men her age have a ticking clock and she no longer does,
she tries to fulfill her romantic dreams by moving in with 20 men under
30, the kinds of guys "who can keep up" with her. Evidence that they
can "keep up" begins with their arrival on some kind of frat party bus,
where they are shown swigging beers and saying things like, "I can't
wait to meet this cougar!" and "I really hope this cougar likes lamb,
cause I'm nice and sweet and tender." Ah, liberation! Sweet, hot
congress with dudes you were so glad you never had to deal with again
after graduation! Mee-ow.
Is it possible that Stacey -- and all the other women who embrace
the term "cougar" -- don't know that, on some level, they're being
laughed at?
Original "Cougar" author Valerie Gibson has claimed
that the term was coined as derogatory (no shit!), in reference to
older women who went out drinking and went home with whatever guys were
left at the end of the night -- like the weakest members of the pack,
see? And even though women are making extravagant efforts to reclaim it
as empowering, it remains offensive and dehumanizing on almost every
level, as "Daily Show" senior women's issues commentator Kristin Schaal
illustrated in a piece
in which she had an animal handler carry a grown woman to the news
desk, Jack Hanna style, so that Jon Stewart could examine her up close:
"Do you want to hold her, Jon?"
Slow down Rebecca, you're killing em.They aren't laughing at her because she's enjoyed the company of young dudes--they're laughing at her because she's called a cougar. Much as I would, now, laugh at any dude who, with no sense of irony, referred to himself as a "sugardaddy."
Look, people come together in all kinds of ways, for all kinds of reasons. I'm a huge believer that the human race's survival depends on this fact. If you're 20 and you fall for someone older than you, it's all love. If you're 40 and you fall in love with someone who's 20, it's mo' love. If you just have a friend with benefits who's half--or twice--your age, it may not be love, but it hopefully it's peach pie. But all of that said, don't let them turn you into a name, into a marketing ploy.
On another note, a lot of this reminds me of the 70s, and blaxploitation's odd obsession with white women. There was this whole line of Cleaveresque Black Power logic that argued that it was somehow empowering to mimic one of the more repulsive relics of White Power--the sexual subjugation of black women. This isn't a perfect parallel, I know. But there is that kind of, "Well, if my ex-husband can be lecherous, so can I."
The obvious backdrop is a long history of men engaging whatever fantasy suits them, and then standing in judgement of women's sexual predilictions. That's a nasty problem. But I don't think embracing a sexuality, which much be animalized in order to be accepted, helps much.
Jane Harman is so shrill and angry today. She sounds like some sort of unhinged leftist blogger. As The Washington Post's Dana Milbank so insightfully asked this week,
what could any Democrat possibly have to be angry about? After all,
they won. I wonder how long it's going to be before Harman joins the
ACLU? What's that old saying -- a "civil liberties extremist" is
a former Bush-enabling, Surveillance State-defending Blue Dog who
learns that their own personal conversations were intercepted by the
same government that they demanded be vested with unchecked power...
Capitol Men
I'm reading Phillip Dray's rather incredible history of Reconstruction, Capitol Men, told from the perspective of the nation's first black Congressmen. I'm only 90 pages in, but I'm immediately reminded of why I love great books about history. Probably out of necessity, history is taught to us in a utilitarian form--a list of facts, dates, names and ultimate results. But a great book doesn't go from event to event, and it's not over-interested in getting to the end. This is sort of an extension of my comments about plot and character, and the problems of Black History Month.
Capitol Men is, in many ways, a sad book. But that isn't the point. The point is Robert Charles Smalls, a biracial black man born into slavery, who plots with his fellow slaves to steal a Confederate ship, and upon reaching Union lines exclaims to his black brethren, "We're all free niggers now!" The point is the rather mystical, and likely fraudulent, Robert Brown Elliot, who was trilingual and had this mysterious past--almost literally hailing from parts unknown. In 1869, Elliot accused a Union vet of trying to woo his wife, then whipped him in the middle of Columbia, South Carolina. The next day the local paper ran the following headline--"A Negro From Massachusetts Cowhides a White Carpetbagger." The point is Elias Hill--a 50-year old black preacher and dwarf who was beaten by the Klan, and immediately left, with his congregation in tow, for Liberia.
The point is people, people, people. We should never presume to know too much of them. They always surprise us. Anyway, it's a great book.
The Road To 60
Via Yglesias, Jim John Cornyn surveys the electoral landscape, and doesn't like what he sees:
"That's going to be real hard, to be honest with you," Cornyn said of keeping Democrats from reaching 60 seats, adding:
"Everybody
who runs could be the potential tipping point to get Democrats to 60.
We've not only got to play defense; we've got to claw our way back in
2010. It'll be a huge challenge."
So far this cycle,
Republicans have been faced with retirements in four swing states,
emerging primaries against at least three of their members and a map
that, after two cycles of big GOP losses, continues to favor Democrats.
For Cornyn, the man tasked with avoiding sinking below 41 seats, it's become a very tough job. And it's clear he's nervous.
Aside
from all the developments so far, the one race Cornyn brought up
unprompted in a lengthy interview with The Hill was Texas, where Sen.
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) is aiming for the governor's mansion and could
vacate her seat at any time, paving the way for an open, no-primary
free-for-all in the Lone Star State.
Indications lately have
been that she will remain in her seat, which isn't up until 2012. But
her Texas colleague made it clear Monday that he's not counting his
blessings just yet.
"What I am concerned about is that it
will be a special election that will be held perhaps as early as May
2010," Cornyn said. "I don't want this to turn into a situation where
we elect a Democrat in Texas and further erode our possibilities."
I don't think Cornyn should worry so much. The way forward is clear: Talk more about tea parties and torture. Have thrice-married, known adulterers, offer more sanctimonious lectures to Americans on "traditional marriage." Then have thrice-married, cross-dressing Manhattanites make the case against gay marriage. Make Sarah Palin the face of your party. Keep Dick Cheney talking. And when all else fails, just ask yourself this question, "What would Rush do?" Follow these steps, and I promise, you will give new meaning to the term "minority party." You have the power.
Open Thread At High Noon
Well what can I say, like JJ in a gold cape...
Because It's Wednesday
I thought about linking some old New Edition videos. Maybe later. For now, I'll indulge myself. Here I am reading two poems by Frederick Seidel at Russian Samovar. All you need to know about this reading is they gave me free vodka--thus explaining my inability to pronounce "exemplar."
Props to Lorin Stein at FSG for putting this together. Props to Ben Kunkel who also read from Siedel. I wish Sam Lipsyte's reading was on video. He was amazing.
Anyway, there was something transgressive about this entire exercise. The first poem is about a son who's father exhibits a kind of paternal racism toward his black servants, and how the implicit brutality of it all thrills the son. The second poem ends with Seidel admiring the woman's "blond hair at dawn"--among other things. Readers of this blog will know how distant I am from both paternal racism, and any woman's "blond hair at dawn." OK, being from Baltimore where the black girls dye their hair all sorts of colors, I confess to knowing a little about "blond hair at dawn."
But my point is that reading these pieces was like living in someone else's skin for a moment. And yet, in some deep sense, finding myself there at the bone. It is human to revel in brutality--race is irrelevant to this fact. It is human to revel in beauty---race is irrelevant to this fact.
"Q
So I understand, you're saying that people in the CIA who followed
through in what they were told was legal, they should not be
prosecuted. But why not the Bush administration lawyers who, in the
eyes of a lot of your supporters on the left, twisted the law -- why
are they not being held accountable?
MR. GIBBS: The President is focused on looking forward, that's why."
You
know what? I'm focused on looking forward too. And as I gaze into my
crystal ball, I see a world in which members of the executive branch
take it for granted that they can do whatever they want with impunity.
Why not break the law? Why not eavesdrop on Americans? Why not torture
people? Why not detain citizens indefinitely without charges? Heck, why
not impose martial law and make yourself dictator for life?
There is nothing to stop the people who make these decisions. They have
nothing to fear. Because once they've made them, their actions are back
there, in the past that no one ever wants to look at.
I also see a world in which everyone takes it for granted that there
are two kinds of people, as far as the law is concerned. If most people
tried to make the case that prosecuting their criminal acts was just
"looking backwards", or a sign that the prosecutor was motivated by a
desire for retribution, they'd be laughed out of court. Imagine the
likely reaction if your average crack dealer were to urge the judge not
to dwell on the past, or if someone who used accounting fraud to flip
houses told offered a prosecutor the chance to be "very Mandelalike
in the sense [of] saying let the past be the past and let us move into
the future", or if I were pulled over for speeding and, when asked if I
knew how fast I was going, replied that "Some things in life need to be mysterious ... Sometimes you need to just keep walking." I don't think any of us would get very far.
The only way you can embrace the "Looking Forward" line of logic, or the "some things in life need to be mysterious" line of logic, is to accept that the law works one way for people who've accrued political power, and another way for those who don't. The worst part is its not even necessary. I think a lot of us would accept what Obama said yesterday. A lot of us have sympathy for troops in the field who, as Hilzoy, were following the OLC. But from those who drafted the guidelines, we'd like some answers.
Larry Kudlow (yelling, yelling, yelling) claims Obama gave Chavez a "Boyz N The Hood" handshake.
Some Explanation Is Due
A friend wrote me this morning to say I was unduly harsh in my reply to KCN. This is likely true. One problem with highlighting your commenters is you have to respect the basic asymmetry--you have the megaphone, not them. Smugness and sarcasm doen't really exhibit that sort of respect.
Having said that, I wanted folks to understand why this line of cultural argument rankles so much. For those who know this, I'm sorry to repeat. But it's indispensable to what I'm about to say.
You guys know me--I came up in Baltimore, during the crack era, across the street from Mondawmin Mall (before they added that Target). I was born out of wedlock (my parents married when I was four) to a father with kids strewn across the city. I went to public school all my life. I spent much of childhood underachieving in school--until high school when I summarily failed out of school. Twice. I went to college, but dropped-out. I've got an eight-year old son out of wedlock. I've been living in sin with his mother for years now. For the vast majority of those years, her income has dwarfed mine--some years even tripled it.
From a socio-economic perspective, that's my biography. Rightly or wrongly, I identify with people who come up in a similar fashion, while at the same time recognizing the great diversity amongst them.
This isn't about hood credentialism. I ran from more fights than I stood for. I think Dungeons & Dragons changed my life. I never lived in the projects. I never worried once about what would be for dinner. I rocked my share of off-brands, but all I ever really wanted for, as a child, were a pair of Lottoes, a Le Coq Sportif sweat-suit, and cable television. When I talk, my diction bears all of those experiences, and one of the reasons I chose not to change it, is because I want you to know who I am and where I've been, because that's exactly what I'd want out of you. [MORE]
One reason why I reject the hamfisted argument that marriage is the best option for everyone, everywhere, at all times, as well as its oft-invoked corollary that none of this applies to gays, is that it's an argument that overstates our knowledge of other people's lives. In its worst form, its invoked by characters so sanctimonious that you smell the bad faith on their breath before they utter a word.
Thus Yglesias brings us the exhortations of men like Rudy Guliani and Newt Gingrich in favor of traditional values. What a joke. As Matt says:
Far be it from me to say that Newt Gingrich's 1981 decision to ask his
first wife for a divorce while she was in the hospital recuperating
from cancer should bar him from commenting on the value of traditional
marriage. But six months after the divorce was finalized, he married a
new woman, Marianne Ginther, which suggests there was some infidelity
involved. Then in 2000 he divorced Ginther and married a third woman
with whom it turns out he'd been having an affair. That, I think, is a
bit much. Then after that, he became a Catholic!
As for Guliani, I don't know how much his postion is going to help him. He's in favor of "civil unions."
On Sunday, Rahm Emanuel,
the White House chief of staff, said on the ABC News program "This
Week" that "those who devised policy" also "should not be prosecuted."
But administration officials said Monday that Mr. Emanuel had meant the
officials who ordered the policies carried out, not the lawyers who
provided the legal rationale.
Three Bush administration lawyers who signed memos, John C. Yoo,
Jay S. Bybee and Steven G. Bradbury, are the subjects of a coming
report by the Justice Department's ethics office that officials say is
sharply critical of their work. The ethics office has the power to
recommend disbarment or other professional penalties or, less likely,
to refer cases for criminal prosecution.
The administration has also not ruled out prosecuting anyone who
exceeded the legal guidelines, and officials have discussed appointing
a special prosecutor. One option might be giving the job to John H.
Durham, a federal prosecutor who has spent 15 months investigating the
C.I.A.'s destruction of videotapes of harsh interrogations.
Jon Stewart On Torture
Do you know I couldn't laugh? I think Peggy Noonan's argument for not releasing the documents was so absurd ("some of life has to be mysterious") that it's hard to satirize. Anyway, judge for yourself.
I would really love to hear TNC's thoughts on the NYT article on
"downward assimilation" among second-generation Latinos. I agree with
Storm that the article really made me squirm. I am married to an
African immigrant and the article basically described my husband's
worst nightmare--that our kids would grow up to act "ghetto."
Every African immigrant familiy knows a family whose kids (usually
US born although this also happens to kids who immigrated at a young
age) ended up doing poorly in school, abusing substances or otherwise
acting "ghetto" like the girl in the NYT article. My husband has made
it clear to our kids that "ghetto" speech, dress and attitudes are not
welcome in our home and that anyone who has a problem with this policy
is welcome to go back to Africa to live with relatives (usually this
comes with a reminder like, "did you know that 5 gallons of water
weighs 40 pounds? Forty pounds is a lot to carry on your head....."
I think a lot of Black Americans interpret African immigrants as
being snobbish (or dare I say uppity?) but the root is a deep fear that
our kids will grow up to be entitled and lazy.
I'm flattered by the eagerness for a response, but I really don't know what there is to say. I think if you truly believe that "African immigrants are snobbish" you should avoid "African immigrants" at all costs. I'm sure said immigrants would appreciate it. Greatly.
Likewise, if you really believe that the negative potency of native black kids is such that mere socializing will cause your "kids to grow up and act ghetto" then you should avoid native black kids. As the father of a "native black kid" and, as the partner of a native born black woman, as someone who has grown up and regularly acts ghetto, I can tell you that we would, likewise, appreciate it. Greatly.
I generally avoid talking to people who insist on thinking in broad
generalities. I imagine a lot of Africans, immigrants or not, could
understand why. I'm a fan of people's right to be as prejudice as they
wish. But I think those who truly believe in their prejudice shouldn't talk our ears off--they should get to stepping.
The prejudiced mind has made its judgment--that's what it means to be prejudiced. Life is too short to spend it washing other people's laundry. These are my personal limitations. Better men than me can spend their hours disabusing people of their notions. I have my own issues to wrestle with.
As to the article, I didn't get the sense that the Latinos were blaming their own issues on black culture. Nevertheless, if you want to credit us with MS-13, we'll take that. Whatever you need to get through the day. That's what we're here for.
The Psuedoscience Edition
Brendan does the knowledge on Frans Boas, who, amongst other things helped give us Zora Neal Hurston. Still, he was not immune from the taint.
When I Get Challenged By A Million MCs
Seeing KRS-ONE used to a rite of passage--like going to Mecca. I saw him circa 95 at The Ritz in D.C. Kool G Rap was supposed to open up, but didn't show. Kris existed in our minds as a kind of myth, so much so that when he came out on stage, and they played the baseline to The Bridge Is Over he didn't even have to say anything. He just kind of stood there and looked at the crowd which was going nuts. Something about the first few bars. They just take you to another place. Needless to say he gave a great show.
Many years later I saw Bjork, and was convinced that hip-hop, live, just couldn't compete. I mean this chick was out on Coney Island, the ocean at her back, fireworks going off in the distance, jets of flame shooting up whenever she bellowed "state of emregency" from "Joga." Meanwhile some dude was cutting on the turntables, and she had a string section doing work. Was amazing. Still a KRS show holds a special place in my heart. Maybe we shouldn't compare. But what the hell. I'm no fucking Bhuddist.
That footnote also demonstrates why if we're going to
investigate or prosecute anyone, it shouldn't be the agents on the scene. In
the wake of Obama's carefully crafted statement fending off prosecution for
anyone who relied in good-faith on the DoJ memos, some commentators have called
for looking into whether CIA agents could go down for torturing before the
memos were written in August 2002. This seems wrong to me. If we went that
route, we'd get around version of Abu Ghraib: a few low-level scapegoats
standing in for their far more culpable superiors. Much more interesting is
another possibility Obama left open: going after the lawyers who wrote the
memos and the officials who demanded and approved them--David Addington, Alberto
Gonzales, Jim Haynes. Rahm Emanuel told
George Stephanopoulos on Sunday that Obama believes that "those who devised
policy... should not be prosecuted either." But what about disbarment? And impeachment for Jay Bybee, the
torture memo author who got life tenure on the 9th Circuit? It would
be a start. If you think these memos are good lawyering, then you don't deserve
to be a lawyer. That's a lesson the bar should desperately want to impart.
On thing that I've wondered for some time is why we expect the Attorney General, appointed by the president, to actually be independent of the president. I don't have a good answer there. But it seems like the very nature of the appointment process lends itself to corruption.
Black Immigrants (Again)
In a blog post entitled "Africans Still Trumping American Blacks," Keith Josef Adkins observes:
In 2004 Dr. Henry Louis Gates insisted that African and Caribbean
immigrants as well as bi-racial students were trumping American Blacks
in numbers at top-ranked universities. In 2008 I blogged extensively
about my experience within the Afropolitan culture, the
social/intellectual circle where Africans [from abroad and
second-generation] mingle and organic global consciousness is
commonplace. My 2008 assessment? Africans and Caribbeans were
trumping American blacks on the corporate climb as well as the
artistic.
I couldn't decide whether I should address this or not. I think this was written with the intent of garnering more heat than light--or without regard to either. I can't know a man's heart, but I suspect that when you use a phrase like "trumping American blacks" you aren't exactly interested in reflection or conversation. I think anyone with any serious knowledge of how immigration works, understands the problem with comparing self-selecting group to a native mass. Indeed, if you follow through to the original article you'll note that immigrant blacks aren't just doing better in these areas than native-born blacks, they're doing better than whites also:
The data showed that 75 percent of first- or
second-generation immigrant blacks enrolled in college after high
school. For whites, the figure was 72 percent. For blacks whose
families had been in this country for more than two generations, only
60 percent of high school graduates went on to college.
Slightly more than 9 percent of immigrant black high
school graduates enrolled at the nation's most selective colleges. Only
2.4 percent of native-born blacks and 7 percent of whites enrolled at
these schools.
I'm not really surprised by any of this, and I'm not sure why anyone else with a cursory knowledge of immigration history would be. And yet we keep hearing this whisper. In the context which Gates raised the issue--around Affirmative Action, not who's trumping who--I think it does, indeed, point of the problem with race-based AA. But beyond that, I don't know what else to say.
And now allow me to digress to a broader, more existential dilemma. Every time I read something like "Africans Still Trumping American Blacks" I'm struck by the fundamental limitations of argument and dialouge and consequently the limits of blogging. One of my great qualms about this whole enterprise is that settled debates are rehashed, not because of new evidence, but because of the nature of punditry, because of a profession (??) that boils down to a kind of vulgar exhibitionism.
Punditry is often disparaged as a sport or theater--but this is demeaning to sports and actual theater. It's more like wrestling--it cloaks itself in the veneer of truth-seeking, but beneath the surface is all the bombast and overstatement that can be mustered. Except wrestling bills itself as entertainment and punditry is self-regarding. Thus even this comparison may be demeaning to wrestling.
I don't mean to come down on Adkins--anyone who's watched Sunday talk shows knows this is the form argument has taken. Nor do I mean to absolve myself. I have, in my time, allowed outrageto get the best of me. But it's something to turn that outrage into a mode of argument, into a business model.
Open Thread At Noon
To cut down on threadjacking, there will be more of these. I keep thinking this is my house. And it kinda is, and then not really.
Madden before Madden
CHFF looks at Madden's coaching years. Sorry guys. Gonna be a lot of Madden talk over the next few days.
Obama On Cuba
What I like about this answer is the paucity of ideological abstractions ("tyranny' "communism" etc.) and the focus on specifics issues. I think being proud of the fact that all the summit leaders are democratically elected, despite the fact that you may not like all of them, is evidence of why I voted for Obama. The dude is the un-Bush. Nuance isn't weakness. Hopefully we've learned that.
I think we'll talk about torture quite a bit today--lotta thoughts swimming around after digesting it all this week. I think people should read this post by Andrew. It contains one of the ugliest statements I've heard made in relation to the War On Terror:
So we had Deroy Murdock in one of the most repulsive columns ever printed in that magazine declaring:
Waterboarding is something of which every American should be proud.
Not reluctantly forced to contemplate torture in the last act of desperation to save mass death. But proud. Nonetheless, Murdock was at pains to tell us:
But the bigger point that Andrew makes is that even after the Justice Department set parameters for torture, the CIA still violated them. Khalid Shiek Muhammad was waterboarded 183 times in one month--roughly six times a day, and more than double the number of times that a sympathetic Justice Department said was legal.
It would boggle the mind if it didn't make so much sense. This is what happens when you cross over to the "dark side." When you embrace the tactics of those you decry. The law exists to curb the worst instincts of men. Why would anyone think that once those boundaries are crossed, newly erected boundaries will be respected? You can't regulate "the dark side." That's why they call it the dark side.
Even Tom Delay Deserves Some Respect
Oh how it pains me to do this. But do it I must. Lots of folks wrote in about that Texas and wealth post below. I think this is the best illustration of what was wrong:
You fuckers are killing me today. I say that with love. Seriously. Fuckers is a term of endearment. Mostly.
Texas is like a poor man's Alaska, with the substantial natural
resource wealth but with the wealth spread across a much greater
population.
This is pretty ignorant. The GDP of Texas, in 2007, was 1.14
trillion dollars, close to nine percent of the national GDP (13.7
trillion). In this Texas stood just below California (1.8 trillion) and
above New York (1.10 trillion). Taking the median income may say a lot
about wealth distribution in Texas, but it's a stupid measure of how
"wealthy" the state is. Tell me again how Texas is a "poor man's"
Alaska (GDP 44 billion).
By the way -- this means Texas' economy would make it the
fourteenth-largest in the world, larger than Australia, Ireland, Italy,
etc.
Note: I think the secession talk is stupid grandstanding (albeit,
grandstanding drilled into us by the mandatory Texas history course we
public schoolers take). But it shouldn't be dismissed as an
operationally insignificant possibility.
The central question, as I understand it, is how wealthy the state
is, not what is the centerpoint value of the wealth distribution. Using
the median confuses wealth with income equality. California's median
income was $56,000 for 2006-7, Texas's $45,000 for the same period. But
if you divide GDP by population, California's GDP per person was
$49,000, Texas' 48,000 (rounded up from 47,581). What this suggests is
that the *wealth* on a population basis for Texas is roughly
equivalent, but distributed much less broadly than in California. If
we're talking about just policy, then California looks a hell of a lot
better. But in terms of whose policy is better at generating wealth,
it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. THAT's why the "flaws" of
median income make its use in this context misleading (if not ignorant).
I apologize to Tom Delay, and all the fine residents of Texas. Every so often, while licking shots, I hit the wrong target. By and by, I hope it happens less and less. To all the commenters who shot me full of holes, as I've often said to Kenyatta after she's deflated my burgeoning ego with some snide (yet perceptive) shot, "This is why I keep you around." Anyway Sgwhite, points us to this small addendum:
Just one minor issue: you really shouldn't use median income, which can
be distorted to the extent that inequality differs across states. You
should instead use income per capita.
As it happens, the comparison is even more striking. Texas, with its
glorious free market regime and deeply incentive-creating 25 percent rate of health uninsurance,
has a per capita income of $37,187; nanny-state New Jersey, with its
oppressive taxes and regulation of everything (what it takes to get
permission to cut down a dying tree ... ), has a per capita income of
$49,194.
Not that that makes the kid right.
April 19, 2009
The U.N. Racism Conference
Obama is boycotting. I don't have much of a reaction to this, since I don't have much faith in conferences on racism. I don't know why this rubs me the wrong way. Perhaps it extends out of my lack of faith in having a "conversation around race." I need to think more about it. For now, I find other things about Obama more troubling and we'll talk about that soon.
April 17, 2009
The Political Case
A reader writes:
Given that the Bush-Cheney torture program reflected the will of the people at the time, and to your point, reflects a smaller but large chunk of the will of the people today, President Obama's semi-selective enforcement makes sense to me. Purity to the rule of law in the face of overwhelming popular will is something only for constitutional law professors.
This is a point that a buddy of mine made this morning, and that we see in comments below. Politically, prosecution is a loser. That doesn't make Obama right. But I think it offers an opportunity to examine why it's a loser. We live under The Constitution. But do we all really believe in it?
One problem here is that Texas isn't a wealthy state. Its median household income of $47,548 made it 28th in the country.
Below average, in other words. New Jersey is second, California is
eighth, and New York is nineteenth. Indeed, of the top ten states in
per capita income nine are "blue" states.
The exception is Alaska, whose wealthy is due not to "hard work" on
the part of the population or a business-friendly policy environment
but to the combination of substantial natural resource wealth and a
small population. Texas is like a poor man's Alaska, with the
substantial natural resource wealth but with the wealth spread across a
much greater population. Absent oil, Texas would probably look more
like its even poorer neighbors Louisiana (46), Oklahoma (44), Arkansas
(49), and New Mexico (45).
Matthews should have called him on that. I don't even give Delay enough credit to say that he was lying. He's just ignorant.
Ramblesauce
I think just a few notches below "I can take a phrase that's rarely heard\Flip it, now it's a daily word," is "We knew from the start, that things fall apart and tend to shatter..."
Heh, when me and Kenyatta first hooked up we used to always say that. Like all couples there's a kind of risk involved, and we weren't sure what would happen. But the only way to make it work was to leap into it violently, to go all in like Atwater on Okoye. And then there's Samori. Unplanned for, but there it was--we're in our early 20s, dangerously in love, and now there's someone growing between us. I wish I could tell you that there was something solemn, deep, profound and spiritual that pushed us forward.
There were a lot of conversations. But more than anything I think it was the spirit of adventure that bonds us. It was less a feeling of being awed by the beauty of life, than a kind of "What the hell, right? We're all going to fall apart and shatter anyway--let's go for it." Yeah, not exactly great family planning. And yet now I think that worse things could have come of such randomness.
That line "things fall apart and tend to shatter" has a deep resonance of death to it. But it's a great statement on the human condition, this idea that though everything we are will one day be wiped from all existence, we act anyway. Not a thing we do ultimately matters, and yet we act. Meh, better men than me have tackled this one. But I love that line because it's so much bigger than itself. The video's pretty awesome too.
Statham's real genius, of course, is physical. Jaw clenched, sinews
tensed, pate gleaming, Statham churns across the screen, as aerodynamic
as the Audi A8 he drives in the Transporter movies. (Given a
choice, you'd rather collide with the car than the chauffeur.) The
athleticism is not a special effect. Before getting into acting,
Statham was a member of the British National Diving Team. And he is an
accomplished mixed martial artist, which explains his finesse in the
kinetic Transporter fight scenes and in the climactic showdown in War
(2007), where Statham and Jet Li face off, armed with sledgehammers and
shovels. In fact, Statham's combination of brawn and flair is very
Li-esque, very Hong Kong. Turns out, Hollywood's biggest Asian action
star in years is a white guy from Sydenham, South London.
Mr. Obama condemned what he called a "dark and painful chapter in our
history" and said that the interrogation techniques would never be used
again. But he also repeated his opposition to a lengthy inquiry into
the program, saying that "nothing will be gained by spending our time
and energy laying blame for the past."
I think this is wrong. More than that I think it's dismissive, silly and bordering on insult to any literate human being. In point of fact "spending our time and energy laying blame for the past" is exactly what the justice system does. By Obama's logic murderers would go free in the streets. The real question is not whether you're going to lay blame for the past, but who your going to lay it on, and for which past. What Obama is really saying in this statement is he won't hold this particular group accountable, for this particular past.
This is a dangerous course because it doesn't simply not "lay blame for the past," it shrugs off arguably the solemn responsibility of safeguarding the future. The price of doing nothing, of not enforcing laws, is the implicit statement that it really is OK to torture, that the most you'll face is a wag of the finger. The concern isn't mere vengeance.
All of that said, what really disturbs me about all of this, is that most Americans still don't think torture is a big deal. I think in the case of Bush, particularly after 2004, we--the American people--got the government we deserved. I think Bush said a lot about who we were post-9/11. I'd like to see some exploration into how to make this torture argument directly to the people. Maybe we can't. Maybe people really don't care that much. But if we're wondering why Obama isn't willing to press forward, I think it's fair to also wonder why the people aren't pressing him to press forward.
Oh by the way...
Was looking for some old Madden calls, and came across this gem. How many of Cowboys remember this? I'm embarrassed to say that I actually cut this game off in the the third quarter--we were just getting mauled. And then the Cowboys come charging back in the Fourth. There's so much poetry here, starting with the fact that Boys were supposed to get Rocket anyway, but he went to the CFL and we got Russell Maryland. Dig Dave Lefluer in there too--who we took over Tony Gonzales (gah!!!). This OT bomb had actually been tried earlier in the game, and The Rocket dropped the ball. I remember thinking it was crazy because it was third and short and we had Emmitt. It's one of those "great call if it works" things.
This was probably Troy Aikmen's last truly great game. It was also likely the last truly great Aikman/Irvin/Smith peformance. This was also the first time I saw Champ Bailey, who was able to stick with Michael Irvin in a way that Darrell Green never could. But if I recall correctly, Bailey got hurt in the third, and the game shifted.
I watched this clip, and it was suddenly 1999 again, and I was back in Chocolate City, shit-talking all my Redskin-loving friends. Football is incredible that way. It really transports.
Madden 5000
John Madden taught me to love football. Short of late night D&D sessions with my brother Malik, nothing was was better in the mid-80s than Sunday, Redskins vs. Cowboys, Madden and Summerall on the one and two. And the Cowboys sucked then. I didn't care. People say Madden's skills declined in recent years. I guess. But I watch football the way men pilot time machines. There's something so boyish about the game, about the physicality of it, and how all your hopes hang on stupid things. Madden always took me back. He will be missed.
Also, my apologies to Packers fans, but I love this clip, in part because you can feel Madden's passion.
April 16, 2009
The Dithering Storm
So awesome...
Behold The Power Of Greens
My folks were partial to Collards, Mustard and Beat Greens. But we didn't mess with the hog, and back then, even the fowl. Still, my Pops was nice with his. I've moved on to using turkey wings mostly, these days. Anyway, Ari Weinzweig does the knowledge pm greens, and their stock, over at the Food Channel:
While most everyone in the South generally seems to like greens,
there's no question that they play a particularly big role in
African-American cooking in the region, and anywhere in the country, in
fact, southern blacks moved to in large numbers.
Having learned
a bit (I have a lot more to still learn) about the historical role of
greens in the southern kitchen, I realized that all Ted and I were
doing was unknowingly recreating what used to go on in the plantation
kitchens: white masters wanted the cooked greens, but they ignored the
potlikker. Slave cooks a) were understandably always working to provide
food for their families and b) understood the high nutrient value of
potlikker. So they happily drained it off the greens and used the broth
to feed their own families.
Today it's worth having a bit of the potlikker just because it tastes
so good. But I think it's also worth raising a shot glass of it in a
respectful toast to the slave cooks who did the unglamorous work. They
developed the roots of African-American eating the rest of us get to
enjoy today.
Having read this, I'm sure someone will remark that there's nothing black about collards because their (white) family loves them too. Yes, we get that. No one's trying to leave you out. You don't have to be black to like them. Though they do tend to tighten those curls.
The Annals Of White Music Pt. 30404567
My buddy Brendan Koerner recently steered me to Ziggy Stardust, in an effort to help me with a story I'm working on. This suggestion has also aided my transformation from authentic b-boy to authentic white boy, though I don't think that was Brendan's intent, I can, indeed, feel the my Caesar untightening as we speak.
Anyway, I'm really enjoying the album. Reminded me a lot of The Flaming Lips Yoshimi record. But that aside, I went searching for some live renditions of Ziggy, and found this gem with Arcade Fire. Which of course led me to another gem. Enjoy. I'm off to apply the skin lighteners. Man, that burns...
But Rick Perry Goes Harder
Secession anyone?
CNN Goes Hard
Who knew, fam? The guy with the Obam as Hitler sign is surprising. Neither is the dude with his two-year old. I'm shocked at how aggressive the reporter was--clearly made her anchor uncomfortable.
I Think This Will End Badly
Mike Vick is shopping a reality show. I understand why. He's under a mountain of debt. But I really don't think any of this has a happy ending.
After Mr. Specter's stimulus vote in February, he plunged in polls
of Republican voters. And Pat Toomey, a conservative and former
congressman who narrowly lost to Mr. Specter in the 2004 primary,
smelled blood. Mr. Toomey officially announced Wednesday that he would
challenge Mr. Specter in the primary in May 2010.
"For 30 years, Senator Specter has consistently voted for increased government spending and a liberal agenda on social, labor, immigration and national security policies," Mr. Toomey said, adding that those positions were "wrong" for Pennsylvania.
April 15, 2009
One Last Note On Spousal Abuse
That post a few spaces down wasn't supposed to be what it turned out to be. It was actually meant to link to Linda Hirshman's rebuttal to Hilzoy. But you know me. I get to running at the lip and I'm gone.
What In Living Color Will Do For You
Who woulda bet on Jamie Foxx? Man. Here he is on Leno, doing his thing and apologizing for going hard at Miley Cyrus. It's hard for me to judge. I wasn't one of these people who thought Imus should be tossed.
As the Sentencing Project details, a big part of the decline is
structural. Crack busts drove drug arrests and convictions in black
neighborhoods. But crack long ago faded from the drug market, if not
the popular culture. Moreover, the large-scale drug dealing
businesses--and that's what they are, like it or not--have adapted their
distribution channels in response to the cops' military-style sweeps of
the '80s and '90s. Here's how John Jay College of Criminal Justice
scholar Ric Curtis once explained the shift to me:
"Many of the businesses had been modeled on the McDonald's or
Wal-Mart style of operation. ... They had all these street-level
functionaries that were just interchangeable cogs for them, but they
were getting arrested in extraordinary numbers. ... So eventually they
said, 'You know what? Fuck this. It's too much of a pain in the ass.
We're gonna downsize. We'll retain management and lop off labor. And
management is gonna go to a new style of business.'"
The new style of business, as the Sentencing Project notes, abandons
the street corner and instead focuses on delivery to regular, known
clients. So the big players moved the market off the street and out of
the cops' hair. Cynical as it sounds, that's actually something of a
policing victory--it means fewer turf wars and safer neighborhoods.
(Sure, it literally sweeps the problem out of sight, but it certainly
doesn't get rid of drug use and -dealing, and in no way mitigates the
damage both wreak upon individuals, families and communities.) In any
case, the new distribution system means fewer black arrests, fewer
black convictions and fewer black inmates.
Heh, talk about acting white. Best comment I've seen on this was from some joker over at Yglesias's place, who noted with mock outrage, that "the whites were muscling in on the black drug trade." Fuckers. Can't ever let us have anything.
Bottom line: mock drafts are useless. They serve no purpose. If you
want to educate yourself about the draft, study the most highly rated
players at each position and then study team needs and draw your own
conclusions. Do not waste another second of your life on the mock
draft.
I guess mock drafts aren't made to be taken seriously. Still it's silly to have "draft gurus" pretending like they know who's going where and in what round. The don't. And that's the beauty of it. The not knowing.
Words Of Wisdom
Metal-face finster, playing with the dirty money. Don't know what he said, but the words be funny...
Failsauce
Heh, Andrew offers us the following as a metaphor for the GOP's attacks on Obama.
Rambling, Rambling and more rambling
This spousal abuse conversation is getting awkward for me. In theory, I always say that anyone should participate an any conversation, as long as they're bringing a basic level of respect. In practice, I'm starting to feel like I'm discussing other people's business. I also think I'm applying a rather rough ideological prism. Norman Mailer (probably not the best name to invoke in this discussion, but I've already stepped in it, so what the hell) used to call himself a "left-wing conservative." I've always felt much the same way.
Again, it comes from my background as a nationalist. One of the seldom acknowledged facets of black nationalism is its emphasis on personal agency and responsibility. It is, at its core, a rather conservative (small "c") belief system. It proffers a world of competing powers and interests, and is deeply skeptical of cooperation between those powers based on anything other than clear, mutual interests. Hence the critique of integration. Black nationalism shares the problems of all other forms of nationalism--it easily slips into prejudice, it can blind its believers to other world-views, and it's subject to shaping history narrative in a manner that suits its own interest.
But one thing that it understands and appreciates, which I've always found wanting in the cold machinery of liberalism, is the power of individual agency. Those of us who preferred Malcolm to Martin did so, not so much out of animus towards whites, but because implicit in Martin's message was, "your doomed if these people who hate you don't see the light." Malcolm, on the other hand, seemed to say, "Let white folks be white folks. You be you. You have the power to be you, and you have a responsibility to be you."
Perhaps that's Pollyanna-ish. It may be true that our greatest barriers are institutional. It's also probably true that integration was the only moral and practical option. But I think what a lot of us responded to when we heard Malcolm, was the idea of personal agency. The thought that we could "do for self," as my Dad used to say to me. Most of us heard Martin and were enthralled. But still others of us heard him and were terrified. The implicit notion of integration--that your welfare is fundamentally tied to the children of your overlords, that you exist at their tolerance, at their sufferance--will do that to you.
For the first time since crack cocaine sparked a war on drugs 20 years
ago, the number of black Americans in state prisons for drug offenses
has fallen sharply, while the number of white prisoners convicted for
drug crimes has increased, according to a report released yesterday.
The D.C.-based Sentencing Project reported that the number of black
inmates in state prisons for drug offenses had fallen from 145,000 in
1999 to 113,500 in 2005, a 22 percent decline. In that period, the
number of white drug offenders rose steadily, from about 50,000 to more
than 72,000, a 43 percent increase. The number of Latino drug offenders
was virtually unchanged at about 51,000.
The findings represent a significant shift in the racial makeup of
those incarcerated for drug crimes and could signal a gradual change in
the demographics of the nation's prison population of 2 million, which
has been disproportionately black for decades. Drug offenders make up
about a quarter of the prison population.
The decline of crack, and the rise of meth probably has a lot to do with this. The dip looks pretty real, given that it covers a decent amount of time.
April 14, 2009
Name Your Dual-Spec
1.) This is a World of Warcraft post.
2.) If you don't play WoW, stop reading now. It's about to get real nerdy in here.
3.) You've been warned.
Alright. I'm going frost for PvP on my mage, and Arcane for PvE. On my paladin, I think I'm going holy\healadin for PvP and tankadin for PvE--though I'm not completely sure on that count. What's everyone else going?
For The New Yorker Who Loves Poetry
Tonight I, along with Benjamin Kunkel, have the honor of reading from the work of Frederick Seidel at Russian Samovar. We'll open for Sam Lipsyte, who will be reading from his novel in progress, "The Ask." Come out, if you can. If you're a commenter, I may even buy you a drink.
Battered Women And Responsibility Pt. 2
This is a pretty solid rebuttal to Linda Hirshman's piece by Hilzoy. One thing Hilzoy brings to bear here is some actual life experience (which she writes) and I'm generally more swayed by lived narrative than theory. Having said that let me respecfully quibble with something:
It seems fairly clear to me that it is not helpful to battered women to
tell them that they should 'take responsibility for their own
well-being.' Battered women are not, in general, under the impression
that they are not responsible for their actions. On the contrary: while
there are exceptions, a lot of battered women I have known tend to
believe such things as: that it is their fault that they were beaten.
Moreover, most already think that they were stupid to stay. They don't
need other people to tell them this, or even to suggest obliquely that
they ought to recognize their own "bad choices", any more than an
anorexic needs lectures on the dangers of obesity.
We shall immediately reject the idea of blaming any woman for the mere fact of being battered, or saying that any one is responsible for someone else battering them. That isn't being debated here. That said, I think it's worth teasing out the difference between blaming someone, or even blaming yourself, and, as Hilzoy, says taking responsibility for your own well-being.
I don't like the word blame. I don't like the idea of "blaming" women for being battered, nor do I like the idea of "blaming" women for not leaving. Also, as I just said, I don't like the idea of telling battered women that they are "responsible" for some dude deciding to hit them--mostly because they manifestly aren't. A person's decision to strike someone is his decision alone.
I think where I part ways with Hilzoy is in conflating, say, thinking that it's "their fault that they were beaten," or thinking, "they were stupid to stay" and taking "responsibility for their own well-being." I don't think the former and the latter are the same. You can "blame yourself" or "fault yourself" for any number of reasons, many of them having little to do with taking responsibility. A kid may well blame himself for doing poor on a math test by saying he's stupid, but that doesn't mean he's taken responsibility, that he's acknowledged that he's capable of doing better the next time. Likewise, an abuse victim who blames herself for being beaten by saying she's "a bad person" is, for sure, finding fault with herself, but isn't, necessarily, claiming responsibility for leaving.
Unlike responsibility, fault and blame don't require choice, and they don't neccessarily offer any prospect of power. This, to my humble mind, is extremely key. Blaming a battered woman for being battered is foolish, not because it makes the woman "responsible," but because it doesn't point to a way out. At it's best it invokes a false responsibility (making the victim "responsible" for the aggressive action of the batterer) at precisely the wrong point (your responsible for the assault, not the leaving). At it's worse it is actually an evasion of responsibility because it looks to something innate and unchangeable as the source.
To go back to Hilzoy's point, it's true that the battered woman, indeed, does not need a lecture on "bad choices." That said, how can one ever leave if they don't understand that they have some power to do so? How does one accept that they do, indeed, have some power to leace, and then turn around and say that the power comes with no responsibility?
Perhaps we are hitting on a point of ideology, and deeply ingrained beliefs. In my case, that a person is, in fact, ultimately responsible for their well-being, that in fact the world can't really exist any other way. That doesn't make leaches and cowards, any more than they actually are. But I don't know how those of us who are personally oppressed, or historically have been oppressed, can claim power in any other way, but to define how we want to live, and, if need be, how we want to die.
Bernard Goldberg Defends Obama
No seriously. But of course it comes with a swipe at the left. That's fine. He's a conservative partisan. It's what he supoosed to do.
More On The CBC And Castro
First the obligatory declaration: The embargo is bad policy. The embargo is bad policy. The embargo is really bad policy. Sorry for being facetious, but I don't want to get dragged into a side-debate on the evils of the embargo--evils which 99 percent of us here acknowledge and condemn. I'm attracted to something a little more introspective.
Having said that, I think Eugene Robinson really has a good take on the CBC's visit last week to Havana:
By now it should be dawning on the seven U.S. legislators who got the
red-carpet tour last week -- including six members of the Black Caucus
-- that first impressions can be unreliable. Three members of the
delegation were granted a rare audience with the ailing Fidel Castro.
"He looked directly into my eyes," said Rep. Laura Richardson
(D-Calif.), "and then he asked: 'How can we help President Obama?'
[Fidel Castro] really wants President Obama to succeed."
No, he really doesn't. As it happened, Castro quickly demonstrated
that he didn't even wish the delegation well, let alone the current
occupant of the White House. After the meeting, Castro issued a
statement claiming that one of his visitors had said the United States
should "apologize" to Cuba and that another had said U.S. society is
still "racist." Members of the delegation denied that any such
exchanges had taken place -- and I believe them.
It is in Castro's interest to sabotage any genuine movement in
Washington toward normalized relations, because a lessening of tension
would destroy the government's stated rationale for denying Cubans
basic political freedoms: that any opening would be exploited by the
imperialist enemy to the north. It is also in Castro's interest to
portray the United States as irredeemably racist -- unlike Cuba under
the tutelage of the revolution.
I'm with Gene, it's quite believable that Castro would lie. Should the CBC object, so what? Who's really going to believe them? People believe that a dude like Rush would say that the U.S. should apologize, and he would say that U.S. society is still racist. Personally, I object more to the latter charge than the former. U.S. society probably is still racist--just as swaths of Europe are still racist toward immigrants. It's a damning claim, but it isn't a particularly unique one. Which leads us to this.
In 10 reporting trips to the island, I have met Afro-Cubans who told me
with conviction that they have had opportunities under the Castro
regime -- especially in health and education -- that would have been
unimaginable before the revolution. But I've also heard bitter
complaints about deep-seated racism that many black Cubans believe is
getting worse.
Race is a touchy subject in Cuba, and for many years it went all but
unmentioned. Raúl Castro, who knows the island and its people as well
as his older brother does, caused a stir in 2000 when he said that if a
hotel were to deny entry to a person because he or she is black, that
hotel should be shut down -- an acknowledgment that such things happen.
Popular rappers in Cuba's hip-hop underground have made racial
grievance a major theme of their daring lyrics. I once interviewed
a Cuban scholar whose husband, an officer in the military, pooh-poohed
her research into racial discrimination -- until he had the experience
of being detained and harassed by police for no apparent reason other
than his dark skin.
Even without meeting with any of the well-known black dissidents on
the island, the visitors from Washington could have observed that the
workforce in Cuba's burgeoning tourism industry -- arguably the most
privileged class, since waiters and cab drivers receive tips in hard
currency, which allows them a standard of living far beyond what is
possible with Cuban pesos and government rations -- is
disproportionately white.
Again, read the piece. It's pretty good.
Cadillac Records
I finally saw this flick while I was on vacation in Chicago this weekend. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I've generally avoided movie theaters lately (Too damn loud. I need to see The Dark Knight again, mostly because I feel like I couldn't pay attention to the movie because of the sheer volume.) but I really regretted not seeing this one, especially because it apparently didn't clear budget. Beyonce was pretty damn good. Adrian Brody was good. Eammon Walker kicked ass. Mos Def played Chuck Berry with a perfect mix of humor and pride.
Jeffrey Wright was Jeffrey Wright--which means he was not even himself, nor was he playing someone else, so much as he was walking in someone else's skin. Truly amazing. As always. But I was most surprised by Columbus Short's take on Little Walter, mostly because I'd never seen the kid. He really brought it.
It's weird, but the older I get, the less attuned I am to plot, and the more interested I become in character. The movies and TV shows I hate are the ones where I can feel the director reaching in and steering events in a particular direction or because the formula calls for a "twist." I'm much more interested in something more organic--watching actors inhabit interesting characters, and then watching those characters bump off of each other. I wasn't so much interested in what was going to happen, or how it was going to happen, as I was captivated by the chemistry of Wright, Gabrielle Union and Short. Ditto for Wright and Walker.
Right before we watched Cadillac Records, me and Kenyatta tried out Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist, and we cut it off, mostly because we could see the plot unfolding. My general sense is that if you find yourself calling out scenes before they happen, you're in trouble. I like the lead actors, but like a lot of film and television, I thought the plot was overpowering, the MacGuffin forced, and the whole exercise artificial. I'm not picking on Nick and Norah--perhaps it got better after the friend earled in the toilet, and then dropped her phone in. I guess I'll never know.
But seriously, we live in the era of the "twist ending," (The Sixth Sense fucked everybody up) and romantic comedies driven by gimmicks and device. Nothing wrong with that per se (40-Year-Old Virgin, for instance) but my personal taste leans toward an architecture that's concealed by characters, not the other way around.
UPDATE: My whole point in writing this was to note my shock that nothing in this film warranted an Oscar nod. Pretty amazing. I thought there was some really great acting. Maybe it was too small. I don't know.
UPDATE #2: I guess my objection is to art that needs to declare itself. I think Terrance Howard is a really good actor, and I liked him in Hustle And Flow. But ultimately, I felt like the "pimp with the heart of gold" device could only go so far. I wanted to see him bumping into and off of, detailed, precise, identifiable people. I wanted to see human beings.
Through The Looking Glass
To a place where white folks are under siege, or at least feel like they are:
Fifteen years after Nelson Mandela negotiated power away from the white
Afrikaner government that ruled for half a century by means of a web of
racist laws, South Africa's small Afrikaner population now struggles
for political clout. Afrikaner organizations and scholars say many feel
sidelined in a land where their language and culture are in decline,
even resented. But though few are expected to vote for his party, some
see a hint of hope in Zuma.
His party, the ruling African National Congress, has been wooing
Afrikaners -- descendants of mainly Dutch and French settlers whose
presence here dates to the 17th century -- and other minority groups
with renewed vigor. Afrikaners make up less than 6 percent of the
population, 9 percent of which is white.
Analysts say the efforts are partly a response to a new opposition
party that has threatened the ANC's dominance by energizing
disillusioned white voters and partly a cynical fanning of ethnic
pride. But some say they also reflect a real concern within the ANC --
which claims to represent all South Africans -- that the party had
evolved under then-President Thabo Mbeki into an organization seen as
only for blacks. According to one recent poll, blacks make up 96
percent of its supporters.
"People actually feel that government is not governing or serving
us, they're actually governing against us," said Kallie Kriel, chief
executive of AfriForum, an Afrikaner interest group whose members, he
said, remain skeptical of the ANC outreach. Still, he said, "Jacob Zuma
shows more sensitivity to these issues."
Zuma, a down-to-earth populist, visited a squatter camp of
Afrikaners last year. Last month, he sent an ambassador to the most
extreme example of Afrikaner nationalism, the desert town of Orania.
There, Afrikaners have carved out an all-white enclave where they hope
to create an independent state dedicated to preserving a culture they
fear is being swallowed up.
Check it out. It's a well-reported story.
April 13, 2009
Tardiness
I just noticed that Marion Nestle is writing for the Atlantic's Food Channel. As someone who believes her book What To Eat is essential, I thought I'd offer a shot-out. This probably happened weeks ago, so I'm likely late. Still better late than never. Here she is on how food labels should work.
One Last Note On Karen O
Got a few notes reminding me that Karen O was not, in fact, white, but that one of her parents is white and the other is Korean. It was thus rather reductive to refer to her as "a white girl." This is a matter of fact. I regret the error.
Byron Leftwich To The Bucs
Man, this dude seemed to decline with shocking swiftness. He used to be tough as nails. Maybe still is, but took too many hits. Anyway, looks like he'll be competing for a starting spot.
Days after his elevation, Mr. Paterson was welcomed at a rally in
Harlem, which he had represented for years in the State Senate, with
standing ovations and cries of, "We love you, David."
The
disappointment expressed by some black voters in interviews appears
distinct from the more dominant critique of Mr. Paterson as ineffective
and lacking in focus. They cited Mr. Paterson's efforts to remake
himself as a moderate, fiscally conservative politician, a break from
his beginnings as a liberal Democrat and defender of social programs.
As a result, the enthusiasm many African-Americans once felt has evaporated.
According to a Quinnipiac University
poll released last week, fewer than half of black voters in the state
approve of how the governor is handling his job, down from two-thirds
last summer, reflecting a broader decline among his core
constituencies, including Democrats and New York City voters.
"To be below 50 percent among any group is bad," said Maurice Carroll, director
of the university's polling institute. "But there's no way a black
governor can get re-elected when he's below 50 percent among black
voters. That's desperation time."
That 50 percent figure is incredible. I think Blago was doing better than that among black folks. One thing missing from this otherwise fine story, is some reporting on Paterson's political chops. I know that times are rough, but that's the playing field. I still wonder how good Paterson is at navigating it.
On Tea-Bagging
Huhuhuhuhuhhuhu. You said tea-bagging...
Anyway, now that I'm done with Beavis, I see that Paul Krugman notes that GOP zaniness is positively ancient:
One way to get a good sense of the current state of the G.O.P., and
also to see how little has really changed, is to look at the "tea
parties" that have been held in a number of places already, and will be
held across the country on Wednesday. These parties -- antitaxation
demonstrations that are supposed to evoke the memory of the Boston Tea
Party and the American Revolution -- have been the subject of considerable mockery, and rightly so.
But everything that critics mock about these parties has long been standard practice within the Republican Party.
Thus,
President Obama is being called a "socialist" who seeks to destroy
capitalism. Why? Because he wants to raise the tax rate on the
highest-income Americans back to, um, about 10 percentage points less
than it was for most of the Reagan administration. Bizarre.
But
the charge of socialism is being thrown around only because "liberal"
doesn't seem to carry the punch it used to. And if you go back just a
few years, you find top Republican figures making equally bizarre
claims about what liberals were up to. Remember when Karl Rove declared
that liberals wanted to offer "therapy and understanding" to the 9/11
terrorists?
I've said this before, but it was Schiavo that did it for me. That was the moment when GOP kookery went into full blossom.
April 10, 2009
And I'm Out...
For the Easter weekend, at least. Headed to Chicago for a bit to max and relax. Moms has Samori, and we've been set free. If any Chicago folks are heading to Africa Hi-Fi, I'll be the one rolling with the chocolate dime-piece. Holler if you hear me.
April 9, 2009
Abuse And Responsibility
This is at the bottom of the spousal abuse thread. It's a shame that it got buried. It's worth pulling out, as I think it points to a rather difficult catch-22. How do you empower people without giving them agency and responsibility? And how do you tell them any agency and responsibility, without blame?
I once heard Bill Cosby try this while talking to some kids in jail, most of them who had been abandoned by their father's. He told them that someone had hurt them, and that that wasn't their fault, but that, ultimately, they'd be the ones who'd have to fix it. It's an unfair deal. But there's really no other way. Anyway, here's someone who'd know better than me:
There's a lot going on in this
comments thread. And I haven't taken the time to carefully read all of
it, though I've had a good skim over it. Honestly, I can't quite bring
myself to read all of this in too much detail. My hands are already
shaking just having read the piece Ta-Nehisi linked to.
I'm an abuse survivor, and Linda Hirshman's piece and the majority
of these comments just don't have anything to do with my experience.
I'm not doing a very good job structuring an argument here because,
well, I'm not looking to be logically compelling, refute points, or
even advance any particular assertion...except that I would really
encourage everyone who is discussing this stuff here, and Hirschman, if
they want to understand why women stay in abusive relationships, to
trying asking a woman who was in one. And then five or ten more,
because reasons vary a lot.
Somebody wrote something above, poking fun at an abused woman
because "he left HER ass" or something to that effect. Well, I was left
by my abuser and not the other way around. It took me a year after he
left to figure out that it was abuse. If you want to ridicule someone,
ridicule me. When I got together with my abuser, I was the head of a
feminist organization at the university I attended. My feminism didn't
prevent me from getting into an abusive relationship, unfortunately--in
large part because, like others mentioned here, I thought it was
something that happened to other people. Once the abuse began, I was so
ashamed of having gotten into that relationship that it prevented me
from reaching out to others and getting out. The problem wasn't that I
was a feminist, of course. It was that although I was a feminist, I
didn't know enough about intimate partner violence--both how to
recognize it in its initial stages and the fact that the shame that
isolates you from others is one of the most potent tools that abusers
have.
A while back a buddy of mine was critiquing the whole "white people can't dance" thing. His point was that so many black kids, historically, grow up in conditions where all you have to control is your body. You have no other real way to demonstrate power, and so "body control" becomes a measure of power. Indeed the great popular dancers in our cosmology--James Brown, Michael Jackson etc.--had so much control that it almost seemed like they weren't even exerting any. They looked they weren't trying.
Anyway, he was saying that whenever he hears black people brag about being able to dance better than white folks, he has to laugh to himself. It's like a kid from Harlem bragging to some Wall Street dude about the width of his gold rope. "You have to be able to dance," my buddy said. "because you have nothing else." On the contrary, when you see that white dude out on the floor, he's free to just enjoy himself. He has nothing at stake--nothing hanging in the balance. For us it's ritual. But for them--it's just a good time. And they're free to do that. Hell, we wish we lived in a world where we couldn't dance.
I thought of that convo watching this beautiful YYY's performance. Karen O is jumping around, doing what we imagine when we say the "white girl thing." It's quite thrilling--she's leaping all over the place, and there's a kind of submission to herself at work, a sense that she could care less who's watching. And the crowd just loves it. As for me, I desperately wanted her to stop. Because the whole time, thrilling as it was, I was afraid she was going to fall...
UPDATE: For the record, the kid can't dance a lick either. My folks didn't celebrate holidays. I missed all those chances at family dinners to get my coordination right.
More On Cuba
Again, this comment is worth pulling out. From frequent commenter Eduardo who is, himself, Cuban-American:
I have been working so much and I am very tired. I am equally tired
of those people who claim themselves to be for the little guy,
democracy and all that, and then cannot understand that if a country
--a Western country at that-- is ruled by 50 years by one guy and his
brother without elections or opposition or freedom of press etc that is
a cruel, brutal tyranny. These people are simply stupid or lack
empathy.
Sometimes people ask me why Cubans vote so overwhelmingly Republican
despite that anybody who knows us a little bit knows we are neither
social conservatives and probably are to the left on economic issues.
Well, here is your answer. And it is not just them, it is Michael Moore, and
Stone, and a big long etc.
I get the politics of the 60s and the 70s. I understand that the Vietnam-era was a different dynamic. But today, in the 21st century, in the era of Barack Obama, I have no idea how any lefty can say of Castro, "It was like listening to an old friend." Here is Human Rights Watch on Castro's Cuba:
Over the past forty years, Cuba has developed
a highly effective machinery of repression. The denial of basic civil and
political rights is written into Cuban law. In the name of legality, armed
security forces, aided by state-controlled mass organizations, silence
dissent with heavy prison terms, threats of prosecution, harassment, or
exile. Cuba uses these tools to restrict severely the exercise of fundamental
human rights of expression, association, and assembly. The conditions in
Cuba's prisons are inhuman, and political prisoners suffer additional degrading
treatment and torture. In recent years, Cuba has added new repressive laws
and continued prosecuting nonviolent dissidents while shrugging off international
appeals for reform and placating visiting dignitaries with occasional releases
of political prisoners.=
Check out the report, the best part is that it ends by calling out the insanity of the embargo. But my point is that it's weak to act like Castro is consistent with best of the progressive
tradition. It's weak to call out Dick Cheney here, and cheer on Castro over there. It's weak to shout apartheid at Israel, and then turn around and applaud Castro. It's weak to say, "Yeah, I hear you but..." Either repressively ruling a country for half a century and then conspiring to pass power to your brother, is wrong or it isn't. We have to choose. Or we have to be jesters.
When You Love Someone Who Chokes You
Since we started with the whole "I want to break your back" thing, I figure we should just go full bore. Here's Linda Hirshman discussing victims of domestic violence, and the victims responsibility. Here's she's talking about Morgan Steiner's memoir, Crazy Love:
In this latest episode of bad choices, her future husband
gave her clear warning. Once when they were having sex, long before
they got engaged, he choked her until she almost passed out and
informed her that he "owned" her before he came. Still, she made
herself available for the hurting. Since the relationship ends when he
walks out of their apartment after three years of marriage, we never
know if she would have left on her own.
In the press kit for Crazy Love, Steiner says it's easy to see
why she married someone who choked her on a regular basis. She was, she
says, "kind, insecure and desperate for intimacy. ... It is not difficult
to understand why anyone ... could become trapped in an intimate
manipulative relationship." She also relentlessly reminds the reader
that she is a WASP of impeccable ancestry and therefore an improbable
abuse victim. "All my family is blond," Steiner writes. "I do not look
the part." Her abuser was blond, too. It was the first thing she
noticed about him. She also acknowledges that she should have picked up
on the warnings he littered behind him.
Steiner is wrong: It is difficult to understand why she stayed
in this awful relationship, given that she was not risking starvation
and had no children with her abuser. Which is why, no matter how many
times Steiner and Marcotte and the others tell them not to, people keep asking the question.
And it's terribly important to do exactly that. Asking why women
participate in destructive relationships is a mark of respect. The
amazing thing is that, four decades after the birth of feminism, we are
still arguing about it.
I have no idea why anyone would think that blonde hair is a force-field against crazy. Perhaps thinking that there's a physical profile for battered women is part of the problem. But I digress, folks should read the whole piece. Again, I'm a lapsed nationalist--and there is weird gender nationalism going on in this piece that I actually respect and agree with. One good thing about nationalism, is that it knows how to hold individuals responsible without letting its persecutors off the hook. I don't think Hirshman is arguing that Rihanna rammed her face into Chris Brown's fist. But on some level, people have to be responsible for their lives. Saying that doesn't make Chris Brown any less of a dirt-bag.
Two Thoughts Can't Occupy The Lame Brain At The Same Time
It's against the laws of physics, and apparently against the creed of the Congressional Black Caucus. Here's Bobby Rush having returned from Cuba on a trip with the CBC:
Lee and others heaped praise on Castro, calling him warm and receptive
during their discussion. But the lawmakers disputed Castro's later
statement that members of the congressional delegation said American
society is still racist.
"It was quite a moment to behold," Lee said, recalling her moments with Castro.
"It was almost like listening to an old friend," said Rep. Bobby Rush
(D-Il.), adding that he found Castro's home to be modest and Castro's
wife to be particularly hospitable.
"In my household I told Castro he is known as the ultimate survivor," Rush said.
Right. I get that the embargo hasn't worked. I get that it's bad policy. But dude, he's a dictator. And no amount of subject-changing can get around that fact.
UPDATE: I just want to emphasize the point is to reject dichotomy. You don't have to endorse American Cuban policy, to understand that no one can makes you become a despot. No one makes you lock up artists and intellectuals. No one makes you spend 50 years as the head of a totalitarian state. America didn't make Castro a dictator, anymore than Castro made America embark on a failed embargo policy. Two people arguing can both be wrong.
April 8, 2009
The Amazing Thing About The Palin Family Feud Is...
...the fact that people believed that the indisputable, inarguable, right thing was for these two kids to get married. Amazing. I hope they reconcile, in some way. And I'm glad they had the kid. My son wasn't "planned." But I feel what dude is saying--he also wasn't a mistake. I hope he gets access to his boy. Fathers can't be replaced
I really don't want to post audio for this song, because I think people really need to buy this album. It is great. But I think the song should be heard given the debate. Here's the link. If Tunde Adibempe sends me hatemail, I can blame you guys.
The new evidence -- including satellite data showing that the average
multiyear wintertime sea ice cover in the Arctic in 2005 and 2006 was
nine feet thick, a significant decline from the 1980s -- contradicts
data cited in widely circulated reports by Washington Post columnist
George F. Will that sea ice in the Arctic has not significantly
declined since 1979.
That was written by two Washington Post reporters. And they aren't alone. I think it's truly weak that Will's editors stood by his efforts to misrepresent climate change data. In the face of such weakness, Will, of course, didn't back down but was emboldened. It's great to see reporters not just avoiding on-the-other-handism, but actually challenging someone in their midst.
But I have a deeper question. Why is Will even fighting this one? Why can't the "sensible" right let this go? The other day I watched David Frum and my colleague Reihan Salam argue on Bill Maher about climate change. They weren't backing denialism, but Frum kept arguing that liberals are alarmists, and Al Gore's overstated the data. But I kept thinking, why would anyone ever listen to anything David Frum has to say about climate change?
That's not fair--which is really my point. Will's denialism tarnishes the conservative brand. It also makes it hard to take lectures about "liberal alarmism" on climate change seriously. There's a basic credibility problem. Any argument that sees Al Gore and George Will as two sides of the same problem isn't serious. And taking advice from a guy who worked for George Bush on how to proceed on climate change will always be laughable.
Gay Marriage And The District
The D.C. Council just voted--unanimously--to recognize gay marriages from other states. The next step will likely be voting to legalize gay marriage period. Andrew frets:
This is particularly appealing to the Rove wing of the GOP, because
they can use black homophobia as a wedge issue. DC is a perfect place
to pit gays and straight, religious African-Americans, and we know that
Republicanism as it has evolved under Rove is almost defined by finding
groups of Americans to pit against each other.
Hmm, not to minimize, but I don't think that's likely. Unlike, other municipalities, I don't think this is going to be a ballot initiative. Even if it were, the dynamics in a city like D.C. are unique. D.C. is a city that (with Congressional approval) passes it's own laws. Because of the relative size of the city, and it's history, I doubt a gay marriage initiative would play out like it would in, say, Alabama. You can be black and live in Alabama and never see anything like a Dupont Circle--or what Dupont Circle used to be, I guess.
It's not that there isn't any homophobia in black D.C.--there most certainly is--it's that the fight isn't exactly new in the city. There is no Phillip Pannell, for instance, in Alabama. State legislators don't have to deal with a Jim Graham, or a David Catania, in the way you have to in the District, given that there are only 13 members on the D.C. Council. Also, and I could be wrong about this, it seems like the politically active gay community in D.C. is as organized, and as powerful as they are anywhere else in the country.
The other thing is that homophobia--intense as it is--doesn't trump all. Black people don't like Republicans--but black people in D.C. hate Republicans. Part of it is the truly ugly history of putting Southern bigots in charge of D.C.'s affairs. But more presently, Republicans are seen as the main obstacle between the city and statehood. D.C. may be the only place where Karl Rove could actually help gay marriage activists.
April 7, 2009
On Breaking Backs
In relation to the TVOTR post, Rudimudi offers a woman's perspective on that "I wanna break your back" line. I think it's worth teasing this out some:
I was with you on this until you got to the "I wanna break your back"
part. I'm not sure that the violent desire you describe is better than
the macho posing. Or rather, I don't know if this sort of desire for
women SHOULD be considered an authentic expression of masculinity. It
seems to me that both attitudes are rooted in the same sort of
patriarchal disposition toward women. We often attack the first one
because it manifests itself in pretty obvious ways(and also, causes
people to make bad records). But speaking as a woman, it freaks ME out
to read that an authentic description of how some men feel when we walk
in the room is the desire to violently possess us. You say there is a
crucial distinction between "wanting" to do it and knowing that you're
"going" to do it. I don't understand that. I guess what I'm trying to
say is, at the end of the day, the way you understand sexual desire for
women is still rooted in ideas of dominance. I don't see the
vulnerability there, except for the fact that the language is different.
And:
...didn't take it to mean that this song suggests doing bodily harm to
women. I was speaking more to the ideology that that kind of language
reflects. I recently read a piece by Catherine MacKinnon, and she
talked about how the way that we conceptualize sex and desire is
ultimately grounded in the idea that it is natural for men to dominate
women. Porn, snuff films, rape, etc are the most blatant examples of
this, but she argues that this attitude trickles down into even normal,
consensual relationships between men and women. Ta-Nehisi himself is
evidently somewhat aware of this connection, since he cops to feeling
like its pornographic and "borderline violent" to express lust in that
way. And he's right, it is. In fact, it's not borderline violent; it's
violent. Cultural understandings of lust, desire, etc are informed by
ideas of domination and subordination.
So I was just troubled by the
fact that Ta-Nehisi was writing as if that approach is a more mature,
more nuanced way of looking at women. To me, it's the same, albeit more
articulate.
In other words, I don't agree that it's just human nature---people
are socialized into conceptualizing sexuality that way, even women. The
only difference is that women are often taught to be the willing
recipients of sexual acts, of desiring to be that dimepiece who sets
off sexual fantasies.
Hmmm. Well it only felt pornographic because I'm blogging at the Atlantic. There is, believe it or not, still some element of puritanism running through me. But to the broader point, I don't know where the nature/nurture thing begins and ends for sexual desire. I guess it's possible that we're socialized in certain terrible ways about sex. The whole conceit in horror flicks of killing sexually active young women freaks me the fuck out. Likewise, I've never gotten the appeal of the pimp aesthetic.
That said, all I have to offer here is some modest life-experience. The kid was never Denzel, so you can take this for what it's worth. My limited experience tells me that both men and women enjoy, at times, dominating and being dominated. My limited experience tells me you'll be shocked by who pulls out the handcuffs, and what they plan to do with them. My limited experience tells me that the key thing, that all people want, is a choice.
Objectification isn't simply wanting someone physically--it's a denial of their right to choose, it's a denial of their will, their independence, their agency. The person literally becomes an object. That's where, I think, so much of hip-hop goes wrong--black women are rarely given the sort of agency, that any dude who's lived in a hood knows that they exhibit on a daily. [MORE]
One frequent retort to the notion that blacks pay a particularly high price for the drug war, is the argument that this is the case because blacks do a disproportionate share of the dealing. Probably not. Here's Jacob Sullum (via Andrew, again) replying to Jonah Goldberg:
Goldberg assumes that blacks are disproportionately arrested for
selling drugs because they are "disproportionately in this line of
work." That is not at all clear. Considerable research, including
studies by the National Institute of Justice, indicates that drug users
tend to buy from people of the same racial or ethnic group. (This report [PDF] includes a quick summary of the research.) Given this pattern, since whites are about as likely
as blacks to use illegal drugs, they should be about as likely to
sell them. Yet blacks, who represent 13 percent of the general
population, account for about 40 percent of drug offenders in federal prison and 45 percent of drug offenders in state prison (PDF).
Further
evidence that blacks' disproportionate share of drug arrests cannot be
explained by disproportionate involvement with drugs comes from New
York City's little-noticed crackdown
on pot smokers under Mayors Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg. Survey
data indicate that among 18-to-25-year-olds, the age group where these
pot busts are concentrated, whites are more likely than blacks or Hispanics to smoke marijuana. Yet a 2008 study
by the New York Civil Liberties Union found that in the Big Apple
blacks and Hispanics are, respectively, five and three times as likely
to be arrested for marijuana possession...
Read the post, there's a lot of great stuff in there. The tough thing about drug law is it require that you accept that, while two groups will commit a crime at the same rate, one group will be more harshly punished. I was just wondering how far this goes. In a country like ours, wealth will always impact, not just crime rates, but actual sentencing. The better representation you can afford, the more likely it is that you'll get off or get a lighter sentence--regardless of what crime you've committed.
Thus on some level, we're going to have to expect that poor people are going to suffer more than those who aren't poor. The troubling thing about the drug war is that it, as Jacob notes, it doesn't simply hit blacks harder, it actually has racist roots. At some point it seems fair to say, Look these folks have been screwed over pretty royally. Let's do what we can to not make it worse.
Tonight's Reading
It's off guys. We got our dates confused. Was supposed to be in BK at the Court Street B&N. No dice.
What The Geese Are All Roaring About
I simply couldn't make it through the new Eminem video--you know the one where he waxes humorously about sex with Sarah Palin. Part of it is the fact that, skills aside, Eminem is a bully. Rap beefs are played, no doubt, but no one has picked weaker opponents than Eminem. Here is guy who feuded with Britney Spears and Christina Aguliera. Kim Kardashian? Come on killer, at least lick a few hot ones at Ray J.
But there's also a bigger issue that's been plaguing me about hip-hop. The music has always caught its share of criticism for misogyny/sexism. But I actually think that doesn't quite get at the problem. When you listen to hip-hop, even much of the golden-age stuff, you get the feeling that for all the pimp talk, for all the "I'm a player" posing, you get the feeling that you're listening to a group of dudes who don't know much about women, and--worse--don't know much about themselves.
One of the reasons I've always had a semi-beef with "One More Chance" (I say semi, because I will dance if it's played at a party) is because it's basically a battle rap, in which women are the objects. There's this weird dissonance--you've got this laid-back track, perfect for setting the mood (cool, cool), you've got Big playing the Lothario role (tell em how you do it, Big), but then you listen to the lyrics and you realize that what you're hearing is not a dude spitting game at a honey, but a dude talking to another dude.
