Abortion Doctor, And O'Reilly Target, Assassinated
Courtesy of Andrew, I just read that abortion doctor George Tiller was murderedinside his church this morning. This was the second time he'd been shot. Andrew has the info on all of this--including the role that an odious Bill O'Reilly (he accused Tiller of running a "death-mill") played in this. I couldn't even bear to watch the first O'Reilly tape, where he
interviews one of Tiller's ex-patients. I've been thinking so much this past week about the right's rhetoric, in relation to Sotomayor--especially toward the end of the week when Rush Limbaugh said the following:
How do you get promoted in a Barack Obama administration? By hating
white people or even saying you do, or that they're not good or put 'em
down, whatever...make white people the new oppressed minority and
they're going right along with it because they're shutting up. They're
moving to the back of the bus and I can't use that drinking fountain,
okay. I can't use that restroom, okay.
Anyone who knows anything about American history knows what lies at the end of this kind of rhetoric. Anyone who knows what "Redemption" is all about knows where this goes. We don't have the luxury of thinking about these bilious hate-mongers as loonies running off the lip. People are dying. And these shameless goons are cashing checks. Disgusting. I'm sick over this.
May 29, 2009
Echoes Of The Crack Age
Nevertheless they could not understand That I'm a black man, and I could never be a veteran...
Emily Bazelon over at Slate has the goods on a Sotomayor case that those of us with a concern about the cops and civil liberties will find disturbing. I'm mostly interested in a point that's received scant attention in something Emily raises, which I havent seen explored much by the press--How Sotomayor's time as a prosecutor shaped her thinking:
Open Thread At Noon
Among thousand and thousand of very good MCs, A poet will flow like the breeze...
BARNES: I think you can make the case that she's one of those who has
benefited from affirmative action over the years tremendously.
BENNETT: Yeah, well, maybe so. Did she get into Princeton on affirmative action, one wonders.
BARNES: One wonders.
BENNETT: Summa Cum Laude, I don't think you get on affirmative
action. I don't know what her major was, but Summa Cum Laude's a pretty
big deal.
BARNES: I guess it is, but you know, there's some schools and maybe
Princeton's not one of them, where if you don't get Summa Cum Laude
then or some kind of Cum Laude, you then, you're a D+ student.
Soon, I'll stop being amazed. I promise.
The Importance Of Being Politically Correct
Liberals have, for decades, taken shots for being political correct, for being sensitive, and for trying to "understand" people who are different from them. It's been a long road since the 60s. I don't know how I feel about Affirmative Action, these days. I remember cringing (even in my nationalist days) when I heard people says blacks couldn't be racist. I remember cringing more when that dude in D.C. got fired for using "niggardly." There's a way of looking at all the places liberals have gone wrong, and seeing this (what, 40 year?) exercise in tolerance as bad acid trip. But there's another way of looking at the great tolerance experiment--practicing for the future.
It may well be true that Geraldine Ferraro was a token choice for the VP slot in 84. But I was eight years old when that happened, and understood that Mondale was doing something that had never been done before, and thus assuming a level of risk. I don't think it's so much the act of nominating Ferraro, as it is the act of having people around you who have some sense of what sexism in this country means. I don't think it's so much having Jesse Jackson run in 84 and 88, as it is having people in your camp who understand what his run means. And then after his run is over, putting his people in positions of power in your party.
It's about practicing Tolerance. It's about attempting to understand people who are radically different from you, and saying to them you want their voice in the process. Tolerance isn't just a value you hold, so much as it's something you
do repeatedly. It's uncomfortable. You fuck up. You go to parties where they play
music that you don't know how to dance to. You go to restaurants where
the food is difference. You go to neighborhoods, where no one speaks
English. The whole time people on the outside are laughing at you. The
people you're trying to understand get pissed at you, and call you
racist, homophobe, bigot, sexist etc.
But they ultimately respect you for trying. And you get better. You pick up bits of a second language. You learn to like the food, to enjoy the music. And then one day you look up, and lo and behold, it seems like the whole world is dancing to that same music, eating that same food.
I respect Andrew's point about gay marriage being a conservative argument--except that most of the people making that argument aren't conservative at all. They're people like me, people whose parents came out of the allegedly disastrous 1960s. People who taught their kids the importance of understanding and respecting people who aren't like you.
The conservative movement has never gotten "tolerance." They think tolerance is something you do as a favor for someone else, that it's a slogan, that it involves appointing a showman who employs ancient slang. They don't understand. Tolerance is about warfare--it makes your army bigger than the other guy's army. It gives you access to weaponry that your enemies have seemingly never heard of (like, the internet).
Liberal Tolerance is the long war, it's the long game. It's Barack Obama, at his core. Liberal
tolerance--not Jesse Helms--argued for interracial unions. Liberal tolerance is what
allowed Obama to neutralize Rev. Wright, and make his race speech.
Liberal tolerance is what allowed him to go to Notre Dame and talk with
empathy about abortion. Liberal tolerance bets on the future. It presages that world (the world of today) that the GOP has spent very little time preparing for.
Below is a video of Tom Tancredo claiming that La Raza is the Latino KKK. But Tom Tancredo knows very little about Latinos, La Raza or the KKK. He is the embodiment of conservative ignorance. He is the apex of Schiavo, "white hands," creationist museums, and, presently, the notion that the thrice-married should carry the banner for marriage.
I know that out in the world there are conservatives who are appalled by this. But they were not so outraged when times were swell. One reckoning that needs to come is the role that conservatives who knew better played, or rather didn't play, in the GOP's current predicament. Tom Tancredo is not a raving crazy--he's their invention. As a black dude who spent virtually his entire life on the bad end of conservative electoral strategy, I'm trying not to love this. But it is hard. I'll have to learn to be more tolerant.
I think if you look at election results over time, it's clear that a
large number of non-white or non-Anglo Americans seem to have the sense
that the Republican Party and the conservative movement don't have
their best interests at heart. And when people see conservatives not
just saying "well, I'm a conservative and Sotomayor isn't, so I'm not
happy about the choice" but engaging in bizarre tirades against the "unnatural" pronunciation of her name and the evils of Puerto Rican cuisine
while suggesting that the kind of resume that was suitable for Samuel
Alito doesn't cut the mustard for Sonia Sotomayor, well then I think
that tends to reinforce the sense that conservatives are very interested in white people's problems and not so interested in anyone else.
One problem with the GOP is that when you build your brand on Willie Horton, "white hands" and the Minutemen, you end up with a party that, well, believes in those things. People keep saying that the GOP is playing into Obama's hands. I've said similar. But as I think about this, that takes chess-match thinking to a rather silly extreme.
More likely, when you have a party, in which people feel comfortable coming to rallies and saying on camera that they won't vote for a black guy, then that party will have people asserting the right to mispronounce Sotomayor's name. That party will have people arguing that Sotomayer's food choices are evil. It's highly unlikely that that party will have some sort of sophisticated tolerence game at the ready. They are who they are.
That said, it's interesting to note the difference in tone between GOP figures with something at stake (people who have to win elections) and those who have nothing at stake. Newt has a megaphone, but he has no real responsibility. He can yell whatever he wants. He's got books to hustle, dog--not Senators to elect.
They know my name cause I told it to them But they don't know where and they don't know when...
Putting Gay Marriage To A Vote In D.C.
Harry Jackson, who does not live in Washington, is leading a group to put gay marriage up for a ballot referendum. His chances look slim:
Under D.C. election law, referendums cannot be used to appropriate
funds, overturn a budget act or violate the Human Rights Act. Mark
Levine, a lawyer and gay rights activist, said he's confident that
Mendelson's bill falls under the Human Rights Act. He said the
elections board would be "engaged in an extraordinary act of
lawlessness" if it allows the referendum to move forward.
"The D.C. government cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual
orientation, and for them to recognize marriages of straight couples
and not to recognize marriages of gay couples would be a clear
violation of the Human Rights Act," Levine said.
A spokesperson for the elections board did not return calls
yesterday. Jackson said he is willing to pursue the matter in court if
the board rejects his application.
If the board approves the application, opponents will have 180 days
to meet the requirements of a referendum, which involves collecting
signatures from at least 5 percent of the registered voters in at least
five of the city's eight wards. That has proved to be a formidable task
in previous referendum efforts.
In 2004, supporters of slot machine gambling in the District failed
to get their referendum on the ballot after thousands of signatures
were deemed invalid.
There's a part of me that would love to see a referendum in D.C. But it's a stupid and vain part. My rights aren't at stake. Still, I think Phil Pannell gets it right:
"It's a different electorate" than in California, Pannell said. "We
have a much more activist black, gay and lesbian community here in
D.C., and they will step up and speak out and organize against it. But
it will be a struggle."
Especially The Blacks And The Latinos
My former colleague Tim Padgett has an unfortunate and deeply problematic article on Sotamayor's effect on the relationship between blacks and Latinos, a subject that major media has never gotten a solid handle on, for reasons that are made clear in Padgett's lede:
Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court is a historic
milestone for Latinos, but it resonates well beyond Hispanic pride. It is
perhaps the most potent symbol yet of a 21st century rapprochement between
the U.S.'s two largest minorities, Latino Americans and African Americans,
who in the 20th century could be as violently distrustful of each other as
blacks and whites were.
One must be clear about what constituted "violent" distrust "between" blacks and whites in the 20th century. It meant thousands of whites, in Atlanta, in 1906, assembling on the streets to randomly murder black people. In Springfield, Illinois,
in 1908, it meant whites pillaging a Jewish businesses for arms, and then
proceeding to the black side of town, attacking black business and
black homes, and thousands of black people fleeing for their lives. It meant whites--across the nation--in 1910 assembling in mobs and murdering random black people (On the 4th of July!). The cause? Jack Johnson had the temerity to win the championship. It meant whites in East St. Louis, in 1918, perpetrating a pogrom against the city's black population, and killing over 100 black people because, "southern niggers need a lynching."
I have not known Latinos in the 20th Century to perpetrate a Red Summer. I have not known blacks to lynch Latino veterans, returning from war, in their uniforms. The fact is that there was no violent distrust between blacks and whites in the 20th century. Rather there was a one-sided war waged against black people by white terrorists, which government, in the best cases, failed to prevent, in many cases, stood idly by, and in the worst cases actually aided and abetted. I'm sorry but comparing that to whatever's happening between blacks and Latinos, is a slander against both those groups, and an amazingly naive take on the history of white America in regards to race.
The great problem with this whole Latino/Black divide story, is the undergirding idea that "the divide" even comes close to approaching the cluster-bomb of racist terrorism, government-sponsored wealth destruction, systemic discrimination which was visited on blacks in the 20th century. For nearly half that century, blacks in the South--on pain of death--were essentially forbidden from voting. Its amazingly self-serving to suggest that that evil even approaches anything that's happened between blacks and Latinos in this country. It also conveniently allays American discomfort, with an ugly, shameful past that we'd love to see go away.
Leaving aside the differences between how blacks relate to
Puerto-Ricans in the Bronx, versus how they relate to
Cuban-Americans in Florida, it is borderline delusional to pretend that some beef between some folks in L.A is the equivalent of Martin Luther King. Or even Rodney King. It isn't. And the fact that we can't tell the difference is still haunting us.
Roland Burris--Painful
I don't even know what to say about this. It's like watching Greek tragedy. Here you have a guy who lived a decent, honorable life, brought low by ambition. This is an ugly, ugly stain. Greed kills. On another note, who advised Burris to go on Hardball? What were they thinking?
Conservatives are already citing my initial
piece on Sotomayor as a basis for opposing her. This willfully misreads
both my piece and the follow-up response.
A few months ago I had the privilege of sitting on a panel with Chris Hayes, over at The Nation. We were talking to a bunch of students who hoped to one day be lefty opinion journalists. A woman asked Chris how the a liberal journalists can make a presumably apathetic, and ill-informed public care about liberal issues. Chris gave a beautiful answer--Do your fucking job.
OK, so maybe it wasn't that colorful. But the essence was that the reader has no obligation to pay attention to what you care about. It's your job to apply the basic tools of journalism--great reporting and writing--and thus make people care. His argument was that the best thing the liberal writer could do for other liberals, was be a great writer.
I thought about that when I read Rosen today. The fact is that he was sloppy, and his sloppiness empowered people whom he probably doesn't care much for. But had he not rushed the piece in the first place, had he taken more time, it never would have come to that. The first rule, always, always, is to do your fucking job.
Mickey Kaus--Meh
Today we face the ever-present dilemma--How do you respond to the disingenuous argument? Do you simply ignore it (Did you hear something?) and keep going? Or do you respond (I'LL CUT YOU!!!) and dignify the dishonesty. Today I opt to respond mostly because, well, this is funny.
Mickey Kaus takes note of a WSJ article pointing out that rappers are scaling back on their bling because of the recession. Mickey then takes this as evidence that Maria Batiata cringe-worthy contention that Obama would kill off "bling" and make black kids think its cool to wear a suit (stop laughing) has been redeemed.
The problems with Battiata's piece were legion. The problem with Kaus's piece is, as Conor Clarke points out, singular--Obama isn't mentioned in the entire piece. Like not once. Now, I don't put it past Mickey to believe that Obama is responsible for the recession. And who knows, maybe Obama is responsible for it-- right along with climate change, mumbo sauce, and the decline of British sea power.
Still, while I've yet to see proof of Obama's divinity, I think this post is proof of Kaus arguing in bad faith. Kaus knows full well that Battiata didn't claim the recession would kill off bling. But he doesn't much care about facts, nor does he care about the actual content of his arguments, nor does he care about the people reading his blog. He just says shit, mostly with the intent of being heard.
Now that I've obliged him, I feel just a little dumber this afternoon. A simple "I'LL CUT YOU!!!" would have sufficed. Or rather this...
Open Thread At Noon
He holds scrolls, lo and behold, Know who's the illest ever, like the greatest story told.
Especially The Blacks And The Jews...
Received this note yesterday, and I think it presents it an excellent opportunity to expand my portfolio:
Someone still needs to set up a Blacks-n-Jews matchmaking service.
Clearly, that someone should be you. The Onion has personals,
presumably for folks who want to date someone with a similar sense of
humor - likewise, sort of, your blog could really fill a niche by
targeting Black-Jewish unions, the subject of some great posts (okay,
not always romantic unions, but just go with me on the theme). I
really think you're in a great position to pull this alliance even
tighter.
Give it some thought.
Hah. You guys are free to do you in the comment sections. Just keep it clean. One thing I'd like to see some data on is, in terms of interracial relationships, are blacks any more likely to hook up with Jews than whites of other ethnic backgrounds? I suspect not. I think living in the Northeast will play tricks on your eyes.
Lefty Fan-Boy Time
I really hope these fools listen to Pat Buchanan. I'd love to see them push the argument that a Latina who goes from the the South Bronx to Princeton summa cum laude, who has more time on the bench than of the people serving had when they were nominated, who was nominated to the bench by a Republican, is an unqualified Affirmative Action pick.
My sense is that they aren't that stupid--at least in the Senate. Michael Steele and his band are another story. But, after thinking about this some more today, I'd actually be shocked if the GOP fought this the way Buchanan wants them to fight it.
On another note, maybe that Rosen piece was some sort of stealth liberal tactic. It really would be a disaster (for them, not us) to go around (as Buchanan does here) claiming this woman isn't that smart.
It's worth looking at the whole speech, and at least considering the statement in context:
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural
differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my
colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will
make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited
as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same
conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the
author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to
Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with
the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can
never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a
wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often
than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived
that life.
I think we can immediately dispense with the crazies who think this statement should disqualify Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. It's worth noting that William Rehnquist once endorsed segregation, and yet rose to be Chief Justice of the court.
That said, I think Sotomayor's statement is quite wrong. I understand the basis of it, laid out pretty well by Kerry Howley over at Hit & Run. The idea is that Latinos have a dual experience that whites don't have and that, all things being equal, they'll be able to pull from that experience and see things that whites don't. The problem with this reasoning is it implicitly accepts the logic (made for years by white racists) that there is something essential and unifying running through all white people, everywhere. But White--as we know it--is a word so big that, as a descriptor of experience, it almost doesn't exist.
Indeed, it's claims are preposterous. It seeks to lump the miner in Eastern Kentucky, the Upper West Side Jew, the yuppie in Seattle, the Irish Catholic in South Boston, the hipster in Brooklyn, the Cuban-American in Florida, or even the Mexican-American in California all together, and erase the richness of their experience, by marking the bag "White." This is a lie--and another example of how a frame invented (and for decades endorsed) by whites is, at the end of the day, bad for whites. White racism, in this country, was invented to erase the humanity and individuality of blacks. But for it to work it must, necessarily, erase the humanity of whites, too.
Sotomayor, unwittingly, buys into that logic by conjuring the strawman of "a white male." But, in the context that she's discussing, no such person exists. What is true of the straight Polish-American in Chicago, may not be true for the white gay dude working in D.C. I'm not even convinced that what is true for the white dude in West Texas, is true for the white dude in Austin--or that what's true of the white dude in Austin, is true of other white dudes in Austin. There's just too much variation among people to make such a broad statement about millions of people.
I think this blog offers some context for what I'm writing here. I hope people won't interpret this as an "End of Racism" argument. It really should go without saying that people act on falsehoods all the time. I also don't raise this as an argument for why Sotomayor should not be on the Supreme Court. I raise it because I think a lot of us would do well to challenge our thinking in spaces like this. I know I would.
May 26, 2009
Echoes Of The Crack Age
Man, what happened to Vinia Mojica? I thought she was so hot in this video. No bikini, no grind, no crazy extensions. Just a tee-shirt, jeans, doorknockers and a smile. What else did a 15-year old kid really need? Almost 20 years later, and I haven't changed.
Anyway, I'm ashamed to say that I didn't realize how great this song was until I heard it at a party a few years back. I loved it as a kid, but hearing it at live spot all these years later (and not in the middle of the cliche-ass old school set) had me wide open. I put my ring up to my man's waves, and saw the ocean...
The Case Against Gay Marriage
Made by a dude who knows all about marriage, since he's been married thrice:
But I think that the fundamental objection to gay marriage among most
who oppose it has very little to do with one's feelings about the
nature of homosexuality or what the Bible has to say about sodomy. The
obstacle to wanting gay marriage is instead how we use and depend on
marriage itself--and how little marriage, understood completely,
affects or is relevant to gay people in love. Gay marriage is not so
much wrong as unnecessary. But if it comes about, it will not be gay
marriage that causes the harm I fear, as what will succeed its
inevitable failure.
There is something nice--refreshing
even--about a single article that incorporates everything you despise
in a certain worldview. What's more, rather than looking for polite or
euphemistic words, it is lovely to be able to say that the article is,
simply, dreadful.
A Warcraft Memorial Day
There were a couple of redeeming features to my Memorial Day--I knocked out my morning run in Central Park. I knocked out a solid 50 pages of A Nation Under Our Feet. I cooked dinner.
But on the whole, it was straight nerd debauchery around these parts as I spent most of Memorial Day raiding in Naxx. It was insane. If you ever want to lose weight, try playing a marathon WoW session. I ate at like 11 and then didn't eat again until like 8:30 that night--Diet Coke doesn't count.
It was a good raid. I've started tanking recently, and I did OK for the most part. We were running ten-man and (no disrespect to my guildies) it
was mostly our B-team, in terms of gear. We could not get Kel'Thuzad
down. That ice-block was just too devastating.
I think all told I put a solid eight hours, easily breaking my "longest WoW session" record. It really is something to spend that sort of time, via TeamSpeak, with a bunch of people you've never met in person. And yet the numbers keep growing. I can't tell you how many people approach me, when I'm traveling for the book, and either note that they play, or complain about their husband playing.
An Inauspicious Start
Mike Huckabee denouncesMaria Sotomayor. Heh, just call her Concepción and get it over with. I always liked that name, anyway.
Open Thread At Noon
Came from the dirt I emerged from it all without a stain on my shirt, You can blame my Old Earth..
Especially harsh reprisals could be brought against blacks aligned with conservatives and Democrats, for they were generally regarded not merely as opponents but as "traitors."...In the rural hinterlands of Portsmouth, Virginia, black Republicans attacked "colored conservatives" at a prayer meeting and beat two of them badly. In southside Virginia's Campbell County, a black man who betrayed the Union League was tied up by his heels and suspended from a tree for several hours until he agreed to take an oath of loyalty. Two "conservative negroes" in Lincoln County, North Carolina, had their houses stoned and doors broken down...One black man living outside Augusta, Georgia, went so far as to insist that he would cut the throat of any son "willing to be a Democrat."
Even knowing the history, it's surreal to read about a black dude saying he would "cut the throat" of any of his kids, should he turn about to be a Democrat. This is taken from Steven Hahn's wonderful and epic history A Nation Under Our Feet. I want to thank all the commenters and e-mailers who urged me to read this book. It really is incredible and it gives such a textured portrait of black people living in the 19th century.
As I've talked about before, it's really unfortunate that our narrative of black life goes something like this--Slavery, Civil War, Dark Ages, Civil Rights, Dark Ages Again, Barack Obama. Maybe those last two can still change. But my point is that this notion of summits and valleys does a disservice to all the black people, many of whom were killed, who worked to make all those summits possible. There's a portion in the book where Hahn just reads down this list of names of black folks who were murdered for defying the the conservative white supremacists in the South. The handles are so ordinary and there's an incredible power in seeing them one after the other. So many people who are just names. So many martyrs forgotten.
I think Hahn's book will be hard for those who don't have an intense interest in the subject. It's really well-written, but also dense (as it should be). Still this is a major, major work in the effort to break this notion of black passivity and victimhood. I'm 160 pages out. I'll write again when I'm done.
Segregated Proms
Not that this was the first we've heard of it, but this piece on segregated proms was pretty interesting. I wish the editors had opted for a full on feature, instead of just a photo essay. Still, one theme came across that I found, at once, depressing and uplifting. The notion of segregated proms, really, is about the inability of white parents in the town to let go:
Black members of the student council say they have asked school
administrators about holding a single school-sponsored prom, but that,
along with efforts to collaborate with white prom planners, has failed.
According to Timothy Wiggs, the outgoing student council president and
one of 21 black students graduating this year, "We just never get
anywhere with it." Principal Luke Smith says the school has no plans to
sponsor a prom, noting that when it did so in 1995, attendance was
poor.
Students of both races say that interracial friendships
are common at Montgomery County High School. Black and white students
also date one another, though often out of sight of judgmental parents.
"Most of the students do want to have a prom together," says Terra
Fountain, a white 18-year-old who graduated from Montgomery County High
School last year and is now living with her black boyfriend. "But it's
the white parents who say no. ... They're like, if you're going with the
black people, I'm not going to pay for it."
"It's awkward,"
acknowledges JonPaul Edge, a senior who is white. "I have as many black
friends as I do white friends. We do everything else together. We hang
out. We play sports together. We go to class together. I don't think
anybody at our school is racist." Trying to explain the continued
existence of segregated proms, Edge falls back on the same reasoning
offered by a number of white students and their parents. "It's how it's
always been," he says. "It's just a tradition."
It's obviously cool to hear that young people are leading integrated social lives. You could see people like this ending the tradition once they become parents. Or not. I kept thinking that if you're the sort of person who is pissed that your town had a segregated prom, you're also a likely candidate to leave and raise a family elsewhere.
Sotamayor To The Supreme Court
If Obama gets his way. I'll have more thoughts on this later. But one thing that's clear to me, is that this notion that Obama won't fight, really doesn't hold up. He sometimes doesn't fight for things that we want him to fight for. But he isn't afraid. I don't know if it's because of that Rosen piece, or what, but my initial impression is that this is very good fight to engage--politically and otherwise.
Back to that first point, Obama is tactical as always--I just don't think Jeff Sessions, with his history, really wants it with a Puerto-Rican woman who worked her way up from the projects and went on to be summa cum laude at Princeton, and went on to Yale Law. Not to mention you have the first Latina Supreme Court judge, appointed by the first black president. Just on the crass politics, it ain't a good look.
Maybe, I'll feel differently after I think on it. But that's my initial thought.
UPDATE: The presser is scheded for 10:15. You should be able to see it, at this link below.
She's the 69-year-old speaker of the House of Representatives, second
in the line of succession and the most powerful woman in U.S. history.
But when you see Nancy Pelosi, the Republican National Committee wants you to think "Pussy Galore."
At least that's the takeaway from a video released
by the committee this week - a video that puts Pelosi side-by-side with
the aforementioned villainess from the 1964 James Bond film
"Goldfinger...."
"It's an attempt to demean your opponent, rather than debate them. If
they're serious that this is an issue of national security, then you'd
think that one would want to debate it on the merits," she says. "It's
almost as if they can't help themselves."
That's because they can't.
May 22, 2009
The Reeling
Young Chris suggested. TNC approved. This joint is pretty sick. I bet it's getting run at parties everywhere. Wish I was there. As it is, I'm trapped in the bat-cave, working on the latest concoction.
Conservative Radio Host Has Himself Waterboarded (Video)
Via Yglesias, and Jon Chait, we have conservative shock-jock Erich "Mancow" Muller has himself waterboarded to prove that it isn't torture:
"I want to find out if it's torture," Mancow told his listeners Friday
morning, adding that he hoped his on-air test would help prove that
waterboarding did not, in fact, constitute torture..."
"The average person can take this for 14 seconds," Marine Sergeant Clay South answered, adding, "He's going to wiggle, he's going to scream, he's going to wish he never did this."
With a Chicago Fire Department paramedic on hand, Mancow was placed on
a 7-foot long table, his legs were elevated, and his feet were tied up.
Turns out the stunt wasn't so funny. Witnesses said Muller thrashed on
the table, and even instantly threw the toy cow he was holding as his
emergency tool to signify when he wanted the experiment to stop. He
only lasted 6 or 7 seconds.
Below is a video of Muller, post-waterboarding. For those who can't watch this at work, suffice to say he had a change of heart.
The first model for an urban renaissance was, after all, New York. But
while New York's renaissance was certainly a product of a lot of
factors, all of the institutional improvements were funded by the
post-1982 financial services boom. New York City is projecting its
2010 revenue will be down 30% from FY2008. That's three years after the recession started.
Those tax revenues supported New York's extraordinarily odd income
structure. New York has extraordinarily generous poverty benefits,
made possible because so many of its residents make so much money that
they don't really miss the extra taxes. A city with a more normal
income distribution couldn't support that level of spending. So if the
financial industry really is permanently smaller and less lucrative,
what happens to the 650,000 New Yorkers in public housing, the one in three New Yorkers on Medicaid, the 50,000 or so on TANF, and so forth?
Presumably they get fewer services, and get angrier, and commit more
crimes, which don't get solved as rapidly by the smaller police force.
And the families with children start moving back out. And presumably
this problem is replicated in cities like San Francisco and Seattle
which depend, indirectly, on revenue generated by the financial
markets.
Heh, I wish. Then maybe I could afford to actually live in a city. OK, that's a pretty stupid way of looking at cities. The larger problem, at least here in NY, is the seeming insanity of being middle class and living here. I'm slowly coming to grips with the fact that we probably can't continue to live here--the boy's getting big, Kenyatta has dreams, and I'm writing. (Always a bad idea, if you wanna be rich)
I love Harlem, but I don't know whether it's worth crying over it's rise. And, despite Megan's prognosis, I'd be shocked if prices (over the long term) didn't keep going up. The world changes. We like yesterday better because it's the devil we know, and the one we've faced.
Especially The Blacks And The Jews...
Continuing on the Ofra Haza\Rakim tip, I'd like to report that Adam Serwer sent me a business-like e-mail this morning announcing "We're Taking Over." The news? Well as Adam notes, "being a black Jews, just got a little less lonely"
Growing up in a black, Pentecostal family in Cleveland, Alysa Stanton never imagined the day when she would be preparing to be ordained as a rabbi.
Awesome. Rebuilding the coalition one step at a time. Or not. A little more from Adam:
Ironically, I think that the fact that Stanton is a woman will be more
trouble for her trying to find a congregation than the fact that she's
black. Sadly, female rabbis are still somewhat controversial--there's
that apocryphal saying from a rabbi that "a woman will be a rabbi when
there's an orange on the seder plate." That prompted a number of Jewish
families to actually start putting an orange on their seder plates.
Something for President Obama to think about if he does another White House seder next year.
Open Thread At Noon
Hardcore, no R&B singer...
Ofra Haza And The God
I'm saying, since you mentioned it...
This is one of my favorite hip-hop remixes. It's that rare instance where the producer doesn't simply switch the beat, but actually tries to make a different song. Pretty amazing. Who says the blacks and Jews can't come together?
John has a bone to pick with Hua, Alyssa and Gauthum, in regards to political hip-hop:
For example, the participants look back fondly on the days when more of the music was "political," with Alyssa Rosenberg opining that
it's unrealistic to decree that musicians follow our bidding and be
"constructive." But this whole wing of the discussion presupposes a
hypothetical possibility that hiphop could serve some kind of purpose
beyond being just entertainment, that it is at least worth discussion
whether rappers have some kind of "responsibility." Gautham Nagesh even
thinks
that way back, rap actually did play a crucial part in making people
aware of ghetto life ("rap has played a key role in raising awareness
of issues such as urban poverty").
The question here is: what is the purpose of this supposedly
politically important rap supposed to be? Let's even say consciousness
is raised: now that Scarsdale Chad knows what it's like growing up in
the 'hood, then what? What does Chad do besides walk down the street
lurching and mouthing along to Tupac or whoever it was he learned this
from in the early nineties? The consciousness was raised - and what
legislation did it create? In a history book 100 years from now, we
will see it written that "Because of hiphop raising consciousness of
ghetto poverty starting in the late 1980s, _______." Fill in the blank.
Note the difficulty.
I think that the point about "legislation" is important, because it underlines the problem with McWhorter's critique. A commenter said this earlier, but this notion that rappers should be responsible for inspiring legislation is rooted in some kind of weird communist/utilitarian view of art, that holds that any "political art" which can't be directly tied to a political act is entertainment. Fair enough--as long as we acknowledge that "Change Is Gonna Come" is also entertainment. I don't think Sam Cooke signed any civil rights legislation. I don't think Bob Dylan ended the Vietnam War.
To take John's argument to its logical conclusion, one could fairly ask "Because of Robert Hayden raising consciousness about the slave trade "____"" Note the difficulty. What legislation did "Middle Passage" inspire? No political art can live up to that standard, and let's hope it doesn't. When art starts to resemble position papers, it tends to be didactic and fail at, both, influencing and the basic mission of art.
I think political art--like all art--isn't judged by what it makes you go out and do, as much as by how it makes you feel. I love John Coltrane's "Alabama," not because I think it chills the hearts of racists, but because it allows me to feel a particular time and place. I wouldn't confuse Billie Holiday's rendition of "Strange Fruit" with L.C. Dyer's anti-lynching bill. But one reason I don't play that song, to this day, is because it fills me with a deep and particular sadness emanating from half a century ago. I love "I Wish I Knew How It Would Feel To Be Free," not because it facilitated the March On Washington, but because it expresses the optimism of the period.
These songs, as Gautham pointed out, make you more aware. They allow me to feel some sliver of a world that is impossible for me to inhabit. Likewise, if you want some "awareness" of how it might feel to be a black male, in the inner city, in the early 90s, Illmatic is a good start. Death Certificate, with all its unfortunate racism, is a good start. It Takes A Nation, is a good start. They allow you to feel a place that is not your own, and yet in the end, is ultimately human. That's what art is supposed to do.
Now, you may well disagree that with the notion that any of these albums succeed--just like you may think "Alabama" is kind of boring, or Nina Simone is overly sentimental. I think that's fair. But asking for hip-hop to do the work of Congress seems a bit much.
The city of Philadelphia, Miss., where members of the Ku Klux Klan killed three civil rights workers in 1964 in one of the era's most infamous acts, on Tuesday elected its first black mayor.
James A. Young, a Pentecostal minister and former county supervisor,
narrowly beat the incumbent, Rayburn Waddell, in the Democratic
primary. There is no Republican challenger.
The results,
announced Wednesday night, were a turning point for a mostly white city
of 7,300 people in east-central Mississippi still haunted by the
killings, which captured front-page headlines across the nation and
were featured in the 1988 film "Mississippi Burning."
May 21, 2009
Know The Ledge
A couple commenters and e-mailers were a little miffed that I didn't join in on the Atlantic's rap convo. One comment from below:
When people like you opt out of these discussions, the discussions are framed by either:
1. (mostly white) rock/pop critics who don't know or care much about
rap beyond what appeals to (mostly white) rock/pop critics.
or
2.) rap revisionists, KRS-type 4 elements zealots, hip hop
"activists," simpletons who think in binaries ("conscious vs
gangsta...underground vs. corporate...hip hop vs. rap"), and out of
touch hip hop academics, who care so much about hip hop that they have
an unhealthy and unrealistic view of its history and importance.
The absence of voices such as yours is why mainstream rap criticism is so terrible these days. Even worse than the music.
I used to care a lot about the race of the writers talking about black
music, culture, history etc. Then I realized how much awful writing
there out there about black people, authored by writers of all races.
Moreover there's the fact that a lot of the work I adore about
African-American culture is, in fact, written by white writers
This isn't because black writers lack any sort of ability or insight. It's because writing is a luxury occupation which requires time and resources--something black people are lacking in at the moment. We're still in the "Go to school, study something that can get you a job" phase. A brief perusal of the wealth stats in black community, as compared to white community, will demonstrate why this is the case.
One way to add to the pile of ill-informed opinion out there is to presume to know more than you do. When you do that on the basis of skin-color ("I'm the black guy, I have to have an opinion on all things colored") you do a disservice to the noble aims of diversity. You really shouldn't be making big pronouncements about the current state of hip-hop if (like me) you don't know what the Asher Roth or the latest Kanye West sound like. You especially should not be making pronouncements if you don't really care what either sounds like. It may be genius, or it may be whack--I knew what Hammer sounded like, I knew what Vanilla Ice sounded like. And I knew why they sucked.
While
conventional wisdom holds that modern technology allows musicians to
work from anywhere they choose (while weakening the influence of
traditional record labels and rights-management organizations), the
reality is music, like many other industries, is actually becoming more concentrated and clustered over time.
In 1970, Nashville was a minor center focused on country music. By
2004, only New York and L.A. boasted more musicians. The extent of its
growth was so significant that when my research team and I charted the
geographic centers of the music industry from 1970 and 2004 using
a metric called a location quotient, Nashville was the only city that registered positive growth. In effect, it sucked up all the growth in the music industry.
...the movie, directed by McG (yes, him, the one-named auteur at the helm of the "Charlie's Angels"
pictures) from a script by John Brancato and Michael Ferris, has a
brute integrity lacking in some of the other seasonal franchise movies.
It parades neither the egghead aspirations of "Star Trek" nor the thick-skulled pretensions of "X-Men Origins: Wolverine," but instead feels both comfortable with its limitations and justly proud of its accomplishments.
Among these are efficient, reasonably swift storytelling --
the movie, less than two hours long, is densely populated with
semi-important characters and crammed with exposition and incident, but
it rarely feels busy or talky -- and a mastery of the vernacular of
chases, fights, explosions and crashes. McG may not yet have a
signature style -- he lacks the baroque vulgarity of Michael Bay ("Pearl Harbor" and "Transformers") or the punchy inventiveness of Brett Ratner (the "Rush Hour" movies and "X-Men: The Last Stand") -- but he manages speed, impact and the choreography of technomayhem with aplomb and a measure of wit.
I think I'm going to see this. Christian Bale is a favorite around these parts.
Question For The Room
Received this note today:
I read your blog all the time and enjoy your perspective. I was really pleased to see you plug The Promised Land
in a recent post. I had just finished that book and thought it was
brilliant. It really laid out how the context I grew up in came about,
but it trailed off right around the time I was born, and left me hungry
for a continuation of the story of public policy and poor blacks later
in the 70s and on into the 80's. Any recommendations?
I can't think of anything quite that epic. Jason Deparle has some good stuff on the 90s, and welfare reform, but from the perspective of history, I'm actually stumped. Any thoughts?
Obama's Speech
I missed it. Watching it now. Here it is, for those like me.
I know I contradicted myself, look I don't need that now...
Four Months To Football...
Man Bo Jackson looks like he's playing against college teams.
Superfools!
One way of understanding to the debate over Guantanamo prisoners in the U.S. is to consider the possibility that terrorists have heat-vision, supersonic speed, and the ability to absorb your life essence with a kiss. I guess reading the Koran will do that to you. Maybe I should convert.
Part of it is just an effort to dehumanize your enemy--the idea being that those held at Guantanamo constitute a particular sort of evil, the likes of which Charles Manson could never approach. But the larger part is just typical Republican scare tactics. And then, as Greenwald demonstrates, there's history:
Until recently, I thought the single most embarrassingly stupid event
of the last decade's national security debates -- the kind that will
make historians look back with slack-jawed amazement -- was the joint
dissemination in the run-up to the war by the Bush administration and the American media of playing cards that featured all of the "Most Wanted" Iraqi Villains and their cartoon villain nicknames. Saddam Hussein was the Ace of Spades; Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash -- Mrs. Anthrax -- was the Five of Hearts; Ali Hassan al-Majid -- Chemical Ali -- was the King of Spades;
sadly, Dr. Rihab Rashid Taha -- the dreaded "Dr. Germ" -- didn't make
it to the deck, but she certainly had her day in the American media sun
(AP: "Iraq's 'Dr. Germ' Surrenders to Coalition" -- CNN: "U.S. military holding 'Dr. Germ,' 'Mrs. Anthrax'")...
Despite all that, we never tire of the specter of the Big, Bad,
Villainous, Omnipotent Muslim Terrorist. They're back, and now they're
going to wreak havoc on the Homeland -- devastate our communities --
even as they're imprisoned in super-max prison facilities. How utterly
irrational is that fear?
Not very irrational at all...if you're at war with a dude who shoots yellow rays from his ring finger, and a redhead who can grow to 20 stories. Inyuk-Chuk!
Obama And The Civil Libs
Pretty interesting stuff. I'm not constitutional lawyer. But the president appointing the AG still seems like a problem. I think that's on display here.
This is a pretty interesting piece by John McWhorter comparing how Obama and Steele use the cadence and jargon of black English. Shockingly, I have only one minor quibble:
The black English cadence is an accent
(just as the mainstream English cadence is). Yet Obama did not grow up
with it. At 16 and 17 he was in Hawaii; before that he had been in
Indonesia. Surely he didn't pick up the cadences of Oakland in either
locale. (Maybe today, with the reign of hiphop, he might have, since
"Ebonics" is increasingly a youth "dialecta franca." But in the mid-70s
hiphop's worldwide breakout was years away.)
Obama himself does not describe "learning to speak like a black
American"--it was likely an unconscious process, part of coming to feel
part of the culture in his late twenties as he settled in Chicago. Thus
there is no claim here that Obama is a phony: people generally do not
take on accents deliberately. Many of us have friends who moved to
England as adults and have lived there for several years. They wind up
with halfway English accents--but not on purpose.
McWhorter goes on to call Obama a "gifted mimic." I'm not convinced that Obama wasn't exposed to black English until he got to Chicago. It's true that there aren't a lot of blacks in Hawaii, at Occidental or Harvard. But we shouldn't confuse a minority black environment with one where there are no blacks.
Many of my current friends are black people who grew up in lily white neighborhoods--but that doesn't mean they didn't have any contact with black culture. My B-More brogue may be a little thick, but on the basics of Ebonics, I've got nothing on them. Moreover (if I'm remembering right) Obama actually describes, in his memoir, going to black parties, as well as his black friends in Hawaii. Also, again if I'm remembering right, his mother made an effort to expose him to black culture.
Maybe, I've got this wrong. I'm betting that I've got more than a few readers who grew up like Obama who can weigh in.
Open Thread At Noon
I ran like a cheetah, with thoughts of an assassin...
In The Ensuing Melee...
Someone mentioned Okkerville River in the hip-hop thread. That's all I need to link to my favorite cut on the new album--"Lost Coastlines." Only "On Tour With Zykos" comes close. Nice to see a brother in the video giving dap.
Man, this is a long way from "Verbal Intercourse." This may not be your speed, feel free to talk up whatever you're digging these days.
Michael Steele Threatens To Quit
Republicans rejoice. Liberal bloggers mourn. In all seriousness, I doubt it'll come to this. It's a bizarre trap, they've got themselves in. I respect the move toward diversity, and I don't think the impulse should be discounted. But the problem is, given their past baggage, they can't really dump the guy. If they did, I'd be shocked if Steele didn't--I can't believe I'm saying this--play the race card.
The Extinction Agenda
Regrettably, it's behind a curtain, but it's worth checking out Elizabeth Kolbert's piece on mass extinction. I kept thinking of Tom Bissell's A Comet's Tale. But that isn't the point. Kolbert's is a really elegant take on a truly terrifying subject.
The Atlantic Debates Hip-Hop
No, I can't believe I wrote that headline either. Still, this dialogue between Alyssa Rosenberg, Gautham Nagesh and Hua Hsu fits perfectly into our discussion yesterday. I considered jumping in myself, but thought better of it--the only hip-hop I'm listening to these days is Doom and the occasional Ghost. I'm basically done with the music for reasons I haven't yet figured out. And if you're done, you kind of give up all right to make big pronouncements about its future. Still, this line from Alyssa made the old man in me proud:
Jay-Z's still rapping, but hearing him rhyme "My president is black /
My Maybach, too / And I'll be goddamned if my diamonds ain't blue" on his cover of a Young Jeezy track celebrating Obama's inauguration in the middle of an economic downturn just depressed me.
I actually love that line, but I take the point.
May 19, 2009
No One Left To Take Shots At
I think Hitchens attacks on Wanda Sykes say a lot about his deterioration as a writer, and a thinker. In one instance he calls her a "black dyke." In another he calls her a "sable sapphist."
Writing is really hard work--mostly because thinking is really hard work. When you don't want to do that work, but you want the meager payment it offers, the fleeting fame it brings, than you resort to thinking on the cheap. You go for shock. And you do it that way because you have nothing to offer except your rep as contrarian, and a provocateur. You do it because you are lazy.
To call his statements racist, or homophobic, demeans racist and homophobes. Indeed Hitchens displays something more than that--weakness. Weakness is the root of these sorts of slurs--an unwillingness to do the hard work of taking your opponents at their merits. So you name call and strawman. You mock what you don't understand, what you fear.
Adam has a nice take-down, in which he notes that Hitchens doesn't even get the humor he's objecting to. I wrote a post doing the same, and then thought better of it. Life is short. Enough letters today on who's wrong on the internet.
The Next WoW
So much for World of Starcraft. Whatever they do, it's going to have to have a serious PvP system to make me wander over. WoW may be it for the kid. It's going to take something compelling to get me to play another MMO.
The New Shady Joint
I can't even lie and claim that I'm going to cop it. I'm just too old to be amazed by the schitck. Now that's not correct--ever was never amazed by shock-rap, but I endured it if you had the mic skills and the beats. But these days, I can't even take Straight Outta Compton--except "Parental Discretion" and "If It Ain't Ruff" which is still amazing ("Ice Cube is equipped to rip shit in a battle\Move like a snake when I'm mad and then my tale rattle...")
That said, I always appreciate a fine piece of writing and this piece over at Pitchfork was pretty good:
Star Trek isn't the only franchise reboot expected to do big numbers this summer-- instead of the 13-year-old who got into The Slim Shady LP and found that underground shit he did with Scam, Relapse is for that guy's little brother who's 13-years old right now,
and Eminem is fully committed to upping the ante for today's
desensitized sensibilities. Do a double-take when he rapped "I just
found out my mom does more dope than I do"? This time, you get to
untangle the knotty word thickets of "My Mom", wherein young Marshall
gets bullied and tricked by you-know-who into an addiction to
prescription pills. Recoil when he threatened to push a fat girl off
the high dive in swim class? He's now murdering his cousin in a tub and
drinking the bathwater. Cringe at Eminem advocating roofies at a
kegger? Get ready for the term "felching" to enter the public
consciousness as Eminem gets anally raped by his stepfather in a tool
shed. Got all that? Congrats, you're now four songs into Relapse.
As much as I loved music, I always found telling someone how something sounded really hard, and thus music criticism really tough. Still, this is a nice contribution to the genre.
One question I have for the assembled. Does Em have a truly classic album? He's a great rapper, no doubt. But does he have an It Takes A Nation, an Illmatic, an Aquemini or a Death Certificate?
He wears a mask just to dodge his face So each and every race, can absorb the bass..
Live From Ward 8
Always nice to get some reporting from the ground. Adam, tempers some of my enthusiasm for my old home, and notes that this weekend's victory probably has a lot more to do with strategy than with war against homophobia:
I would say that it's very early to draw too many conclusions from
the results in Ward 8. The marriage equality resolution passed in large
part because the people who really cared about the issue showed up, and
those people were in favor. Thirty-two people can hardly be seen as an
accurate representation of views in Ward 8, which has a population of
70,000 people. Polling suggests that in a citywide referendum,
supporters of marriage equality would be facing an uphill battle, which
is precisely why opponents support a referendum and gay-rights
advocates oppose one.
At the same time, I think polling on the subject
has largely overstated the intensity of black opposition to marriage
equality in D.C: My theory is that if gay marriage was legalized, no
one would care. But if it were put to a vote, the result would be very
close. That's because while black people tend to be more opposed to gay
marriage, it's not an identity-defining issue in the same way it is for
white folks in the religious right. The memory of institutionalized
oppression creates doubt where in others there might be religious
certainty.
I think black voters, particularly in D.C., are malleable on this issue. (We did, after all, have
domestic partnership laws "before it was cool"). The line that got the
most applause during the entire meeting was the Rev. Wiley's
declaration that "we would be in serious trouble if, as slaves, our
freedom was put to a referendum." But that's just what might happen,
and if gay-rights activists drop the ball in reaching out to the black
community like they did in California, they'll lose.
I think this pretty much on the money. It's a winnable fight. And a lose-able one. That said, I'd be shocked if this came up for referendum. Although part of me almost wishes that it would. I really believe we could win it.
Look at me, talking that we shit. I mean, I like boobs as much as the next guy, so take this with a grain of salt...
How We Talk About Abortion
Our debate yesterday over how pro-choicers talked reminded me of this Fresh Air piece an Ayelet Waldman. From my perspective, whatever the moral problems presented abortion itself, the specter of a ban instituted and enforced by the State, present many more. But then there's another debate, which we hinted at yesterday--how we talk about abortion. My own pro-choiceness doesn't really procede from the question of whether a zygote is a life, as much as it does from a rejection of utopianism. Still, I was struck by how Waldman talked about her abortion. I don't think it much helps to render a moral judgement here--at least I didn't find it helpful. That said, I think the difference in how Waldman thinks about abortion, and how her mother thought about it are arresting.
Seriously, is there anything left to say? I don't know why I'm amazed. The politics of this are obvious--this thuggish, moronic excuse for a political group is eating itself alive. The Ignorance of the Southern Strategy begets the ignorance of this video. But we already knew that.
I'm here to talk about something else. I was actually shocked to see this. And then I felt stupid for being shocked. I think this points to something that men just
don't think much about: That being, how it feels for your looks to be
fair game. I think this is what makes bigotry so tough to fight. It's not about the limits of empathy--it's the limits of imagination . Women make this point all the time about the pressure of being judged for their looks. And I sorta of nod in that, "Yeah, that's fucked up, I'll take your word for it" sort of way. But the truth is I can't see it. I don't get it. It's like when women describe walking down the street and getting cat-called all the way. Because it never happens when I'm walking with a woman, I don't quite get it. It's not that I don't believe it--it's that I can't imagine it.
And then one day you see it naked, hateful, right in front of you. It must be akin to being white and seeing the Rodney King video--you'd heard black people say that this sort of thing happens. But to see it...
Rush Limbaugh attacking
Nancy Pelosi's looks is beyond sureal--I can't even think of a good metaphor. It's beyond him giving a lecture on drug abuse. It's more than him giving weight loss tips. It's like watching Martians land, like watching a major party--in this era--hand the mic off to an unrepentant bigot.
Amazing. Don't they know who the fuck votes? Do they really think Sarah Palin can fix this?
Foolish (NSFW)
If you're offended by strong language, don't read any further.
James Harrison doesn't want to go to the White House because anyone who wins the Super Bowl gets invited to the White House. The Steelers are special however, and deserve to be invited when they're 1-15. Right.
This is, to paraphrase MF Doom, how you talk white and act niggerish. If you don't want to go--don't go. But trying to cover it up with some overly clever explanation that fools no one just makes you look stupider. In other news, Skip Bayless is just as bad.
Ezra Has A Blog
A new one actually. Here's one of his early, and typically smart, posts on food policy and menu labeling:
The key insight here is that small changes in behavior can have large impacts on outcomes. A Health Impact Assessment
(pdf) prepared for the city of Los Angeles estimated that if calorie
labeling convinced a mere 10 percent of large-chain patrons to order
meals that were merely 100 calories lighter, then menu labeling "would
avert 38.9% of the 6.75 million pound average annual weight gain in the
county population aged 5 years and older." Get 20 percent to reduce
their meals by 75 calories? You've knocked out 58.3 percent of the
projected 6.75 million pounds. That's huge.
Kornheiser Audi Five
They're bringing in Gruden. I'm one of the who liked Dan Dierdorf. Monday Night Football ain't been the same, since.
Open Thread At Noon
Like trees to branches, cliffs to avalanches...
Seattle
What a gorgeous city. It's weird. I've been so sheltered and unexposed for much of my life. I stayed in Baltimore as a kid, went to school in D.C., had a kid and that was it. I was all East Coast. One thing about rising up in the writing game (just a little folks, it's still gully over here!) is that I've seen so much more. I think I've traveled more in the past two years, than I had in my entire life.Kind of sad, huh?
A lot of times I feel like Malcolm off to Mecca--race exists in a really specific way on the East Coast and in the South. But out West, it just feels different. I can't even describe it. I was in Colorado last summer, in an area where you probably could have counted the black folks on one hand. (including me and Kenyatta) Normally, in those situations out east, I get my guard up--half expecting the Skinheads (or worse the cops) to materialize out of nothing. But out there, I never thought twice about our diminished numbers. It just felt different.
Sometimes, I wonder how long I can exist like this. I'm not saying it's gravy everywhere else. But it'd be nice to take a load off. To not constantly think about this shit, to not have it weighing down on you. It'd be nice to just exist. I love being black. I love the food. I love the culture. I love the dancing. I love the music (most of it). I love the basketball (watching it). I love humor. And I think the language, in all its dialects, is just beautiful.
But (quiet as it's kept) I hate talking about it. I hate justifying the humanity of it. I hate explaining to people that we are not interchangeable, and yet that doesn't mean that one of us is more, or less, black than the other. I hate, as Du Bois would say, being a problem. It'd be nice to just live a little. Kiss my woman. Take the boy for a hike. Breath some air.
Peace to commenter Breadandroses for coming out--and Glenn for buying a book. For the horde, indeed.
Gay Marriage And D.C.
I think the fight for gay marriage in D.C. is classic example of why it's misleading to think that black communities--and black people--are interchangeable, that what holds for Inglewood necessarily holds for LeDroit Park. That's a strained metaphor--as we now know, what people thought held for Inglewood was, in fact, deeply flawed. (How am I doing on my geography, Cali people?)
A few weeks ago Marion Barry promised that Ward 8 would lead a "Civil War" against gay marriage in the District. Some of us found his comments not only repulsive, but preposterous. And frankly, here is why:
....yesterday, gay rights advocates declared victory in a key battle to
set the tone for the issue when the Ward 8 Democrats voted 21 to 11 to
support the legalization of same-sex marriage, in preparation for
legislation expected to be introduced in the D.C. Council this year.
The Ward 8 vote came after almost two hours of discussion about
religion, referendums and civil rights among the crowd of about 100
people at the Washington Highlands Library on Atlantic Avenue SW.
Marion Barry, the elected Councilmember who so inveighed against gay
marriage, who promised a "Civil War," didn't even bother to show up. Folks should have known it was farce because the first shots in this "Civil War" were not, in fact, fired by Ward 8, but by Tony Perkins and the usual suspects.
Look, black Washington is black Washington. It isn't Harlem. It isn't Selma. It isn't West Baltimore. It's a city existing on its own individual terms, with it's own specific individual history. The District's black community extends back to the city's founding. They boast a university which has been a beacon for black progressives for over a century, and a progressive tradition which extends back to home rule.
Indeed, for all the heat over black homophobia, Chocolate City passed a
domestic partnership back in 1992--when it wasn't cool. But
it had no teeth--not because of a band of black homophobes--but because of white homophobia. (that's intentionally absurd) The GOP-led Congress refused to allow it. Even Barry himself is not so
easily pigeonholed. In his movements you see, not the actions of bigot,
but something colder and more sinister a Wallace-esque demagogue appealing to hate to put some shine on his last days.
Obama really excels at it. I was a kid during Reagan's day, so I'm not sure if that was the key to his success. But I watched Obama's speech yesterday, and he did it again. His basic pose is--"I'm willing to concede your good will, and maybe even a couple of periphery issues." When his adversaries can't do the same, they just look small-minded.
It's almost unfair to people who disagree with him--if I truly believed that abortion was the murder of children, I don't think I'd be interested in trading "fair-minded words" with pro-choicers. It's murder, and I think I'd pursue it with exactly the sort of zeal as those who were booing Obama. But that's my perspective, and my outlook--obviously it isn't the outlook of all pro-lifers. I'm just saying, I can see why you might be an extremist on the issue.
Politics aside, I think you have to give Obama credit for stepping right into the issue. I've seen weaker politicians drowning in handlers, reading from a carefully prepared text which fails to acknowledge the elephants dancing in the room. Obama, like he did in his race speech, went right at it. It likely won't please a lot of folks on either side, but if your goal is to grow the base, and expand the party, you've got the best man for the job--even if it, at times, grates on people like me. But, hey. Expanding the party isn't my job--it's his.
The DJ is out. The party goes on. Put a coaster under that glass. And keep your big-ass Airs off my mom's table.
You Hope The Little Black Boy Grows...
Traveling today guys, so no blogging. If you're out in Seattle come holler at me. Here's what I'll be talking about.
Negroes. I'll be looking for you.
May 14, 2009
I Really Hope Seymour Hersh Is Wrong
It's important to me that there not be a tape of American soldiers raping Iraqi kids. This needs to be a hoax or something. I really need for this to be a hoax. What a fucking mess. What a goddamn mess.
UPDATE: Sorry for anyone who doesn't read comments. I was undone by some carelessness here. This link is four years old. Yolk on the face.
Researchers Shocked That Obama's Mere Presence Doesn't Make Negroes Smarter
The original Raekwon line is, of course, "All my Spanish niggers love us..." Man, The Atlantic is really mellowing my style. If I don't go on a
profanity-laced tirade in the next day or so, I might go into shock.
Anyway, it helps to live in New York to really get that Raekwon line. It really helps if you live in Harlem. It helps even more to read some Junot Diaz. I've talked about this before, but it bears repeating. Whenever I hear people talking that black vs. brown isht, I just roll my eyes, not because I believe in rainbows, but because I know that how the Jamaicans relate to the Dominicans, how the Senegalese relate to the Puerto-Ricans, and how my non-pedigree having black-ass (all I've got is slavery, and the Eastern Shore of Murlin') relates to is all can't really be understood via a CNN segment.
Furthermore that relationship is different than the relationship between the Mexican-Americans and the blacks in Texas, the Cubans and the Haitians in Florida, the Salvadoreans and the blacks in D.C. It's just different wherever you are--and it's kind of criminal to throw it all under the rubric of black vs. brown. That's a constant theme on this blog. When it's no longer happening, I think I'll retire to Vail, Colorado. Or maybe just Humboldt Park.
This rambling missive was prompted by long-time poster, and if I recall right, Dallas Cowboys fan, Keith, noting the lack of love for the brown. I was gonna just post this old Mellow Man Ace joint. It's so weird. This song came out when I was 14, in West Baltimore, where the Puerto-Rican population was, in those days, minimal. I remember thinking, "Why is this black guy speaking Spanish?"
Amazing to think about that now. The other day, Kenyatta and me took my son to one of his pre-season games (best defensive end on the field, Coach told him) and we gave a ride to one of the parents and an assistant coach. They're both dating, and both Puerto-Rican--though of different class background. Moreover, the Coach, who knows Harlem and was all hood (in a good way) could pass for white. The parent, who'd been raised around white people most of her life, was darker than many of my relatives.
But they both talked about race as black people. No, that doesn't quite get it--they talked about race the way a cousin may talk about your family, as opposed to an utter stranger. That still doesn't get it. I can't really explain how Puerto-Ricans and Dominicans here relate to blacks and blackness. It really is fascinating. Someone with deeper roots will have to break it down. I think it has to do with proximity. I can't think of another group that's lived so closely to African-Americans, for such a long time. Harlem is their's too. Hell it's their's more than mine.
The Best Who Ever Did It On A Pete Rock Track
I watched this on a lark, but it turned out to be instructional. I voted for Obama, not because I thought he was as liberal as I was, but because I thought he was a deliberative thinker, a progressive and a masterful politician. The Obama attraction, for me anyway, isn't about a guy who will be for the Left, what George Bush was for the Right. I think Bush hurt the right, not simply because he was inept, but because he was uninquisitive, and utterly unreflective. Folks should read Nic Lemann's The Promised Land, to see what happens when the Left is uninquisitive and unreflective.
Anyway, I'm getting off course. I think this is a great example of what a great politician does. For weeks there's been this controversy over ASU not giving Obama a doctorate. Obama doesn't politely ignore it. He certainly doesn't wallow in it (no sensible politician would). He steps right into it, and then advances the ball. I'll stop saying this eventually. But it's nice to have some intellect at the top.
Open Thread At Noon
Charge me your day-rate, I'll turn you round in kind...
Addendum To Cheneyism
I keep hearing this notion repeated that, when we think about the Bush administration and torture we should consider the context. It was post-9/11. The country was under attack. We were at war etc. The basic idea seems to be that torture may be indefensible in normal times, but under pressure it's fine. Or better put, principles are something you cling to when they are convenient.
A political leader who blaming "context" for his bad decisions, is a quarterback blaming crowd noise for his five interceptions, or a writer blaming his fact-checkers for flubbing names.
They put your byline at the top for a reason, dude.
People are judged by what they do under pressure, not what they do at the company picnic. If being a leader was simply a matter of doing the right thing, when it's easy to do the right thing, then anyone could lead. Of course, they think they did the right thing. Which makes me wonder why they keep bringing up context.
It's easy to say this is good news for Democrats. It certainly seems as
if Cheney won't be happy until there are two people left in the
Republican Party, him and Rush Limbaugh. Gen. Powell? Don't let the
door hit you in the ass on the way out. But I also think what Cheney's
doing has disturbing political consequences, for the Obama
administration and for the country. I'm also starting to worry Obama is
internalizing Cheney's values, with a string of bad decisions on
torture, culminating in today's move to reverse his prior commitment to
transparency and block the release of more torture photos.
I think crediting Obama's decisions on torture and transparency to the ex-VP, inflates Cheney. That said, I think Joan is on to something in noting the corrosive nature of "looking forward," and ignoring people who did not simply torture, but now take to the airways to defend waterboarding.
As for Obama, again, he is who I thought he was. I can't quite get why people feel betrayed, or are even surprised.
The Obama administration's new drug czar says he wants to banish
the idea that the U.S. is fighting "a war on drugs," a move that would
underscore a shift favoring treatment over incarceration in trying to
reduce illicit drug use.
In his first interview since being confirmed to head the White House
Office of National Drug Control Policy, Gil Kerlikowske said Wednesday
the bellicose analogy was a barrier to dealing with the nation's drug
issues.
"Regardless of how you try to explain to people it's a 'war on
drugs' or a 'war on a product,' people see a war as a war on them," he
said. "We're not at war with people in this country.
Let's see what comes of it. Time to walk the walk.
Unwed Mothers On The Rise
It's worth reading the latest report from the National Center for Health Statistics on the rise in the number of births of unmarried women. Still, for our purposes let's skip to what everyone cares about:
Birth rates for unmarried women have varied fairly consistently by race and
Hispanic origin. The rates for Hispanic women (106 births per 1,000 unmarried
women in 2006) and black women (72 per 1,000) were highest. Birth rates for
unmarried non-Hispanic white (32 per 1,000) and Asian or Pacific Islander (API)
women (26 per 1,000) were much lower.
From 1995 to 2002, the nonmarital birth rate for black
women declined 12%. Rates for non-Hispanic white and
Hispanic women were essentially unchanged during these
years.
In the recent period 2002-2006, birth rates for unmarried
non-Hispanic white women rose by 14% and for black women by
9%, while the rates climbed 20% for Hispanic women and 24%
for API women.
I'm never sure what to make of any of this. Obviously, you'd like for the rates in black and brown communities to not be double and triple what they are in white communities, respectively. Weighted for income, and better still wealth, I suspect the gap would close some--though not totally. Anyway, here's a bit of good news:
At one time, references to births to unmarried women and births to teenagers
were considered one and the same only because births to unmarried women were
disproportionately, although certainly not exclusively, among teenagers. In
1970, 50% of nonmarital births were to unmarried women under age 20.
In the years since the mid-1970s, this proportion has
fallen steadily. In 2007, 23% of nonmarital births were to
teenagers. The decline largely reflects the drop in birth
rates for unmarried teenagers concurrent with the large
increases in birth rates for adult unmarried women.
Sixty percent of nonmarital births in 2007 were to women in
their twenties, significantly higher than the 42% level in
1970.
About one in six births to unmarried women in 2007 were to
women aged 30 years and over, much higher than the
proportion in 1970, 1 in 12.
And yet even looking at that, I'm not sure what to say. On the one hand, I'm glad teen pregnancy is declining. But on the other, when considering the rise in unmarried mothers, I wonder if the way we live is just changing. Forever.
Not a lot of answers here, folks. Sorry. I'm sure there will be nuff hand-wringing and finger-pointing to come.
May 13, 2009
The Mail He Carried With Him
Some awesome entries from the Inbox today:
Can you write an article...any article. Without mentioning race? No
one really gives a crap about your race. Just write something that's
informative. We or at least I get it. You are not white. No one cares.
Every single thing that happens in this world is not about race. You
are doing a disservice to yourself and this web site. I stopped
reading your articles. Once in a while I check back and yep...it's
about you... not being white...
Well, no. It's about you...not being black...
Here's a more benevolent one:
Its very simple. As a a recent convert to your blog (being a huge reader of your neighbor Andrew), I have learned more about race in three weeks than Lord knows how many years.
Its nice to hear your voice. Franklin Douglass would be proud that the baton was passed to you.
You're now on my mac toolbar. Pressure's on! heh heh heh Keep up the good work.
White people: I appreciate your patronage. In fact, you comprise most of my audience. My black readers are cool, but I deeply suspect that none of them bought my book. Plus Negroes don't click through ads.
That said, I do have one request--I'ma need for ya'll to not call Frederick Douglass, Franklin Douglass. The man was too bad-ass for that. Give em his 'spect.
The Fierce Politics Of Expedience
Heh, that headline from Andrew's post was so cool, I had to rip it. Anyway, here he is with a typically great take on Obama and the gays. I think the post is, for the most part, spot on. I think he may be a little too hard on Obama--but only a little. That said, I think this statement deserves some consideration:
And it's tedious to whine and jump up and down and complain when a wand
isn't waved and everything is made right by the first candidate who
really seemed to get it, who was even able to address black church
congregations about homophobia.
Longtime readers know about the respect I have for Andrew as a thinker and writer. That said, I think, like a lot of whites, Andrew has a particular blind-spot on race--one that I think Obama greatly benefited from during the election.
The problem with this thinking is the presumption that there is some monolith called "The Black Church" which Obama should, and has, confronted. In fact, I deeply suspect that the way the "The Black Church" responds to gays is varied. Obama went to Atlanta on MLK Day and said the following:
And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean.
If we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that our own
community has not always been true to King's vision of a beloved
community.
We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of
embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed
itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants
as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for
opportunity.
I understand why this could be read as a powerful, courageous statement. But it actually is a pretty vague call for tolerance, made on MLK day, in a city with arguably the most politically potent black gay population in the country. I'm aware of Ebeneezer's problems with Rick Warren. But somehow, I just don't see that as the sort of statement that risks any political capital. Seriously, what's the constituency he's offending? Did Nikki Tinker teach us nothing?
It's the same with black men--Obama got a lot of mileage among white people for his Father's Day Speech. The sense was that Obama was saying something that blacks could not say themselves, that we were so immature, and so corrupted that we actually excused deadbeat-ism.
I think people who think that black men who address homosexuality deserve a medal of courage, need to go back and re-read Huey Newton. I think people who think Obama is the first person to say "Any fool can make a baby. A real man is a father," should really listen to more Ed O.G. They should study the Million Man March. Atonement was the theme for a reason.
I'm thinking of Will Smith in Six Degrees. White writers (whose contact with black people often seems to be limited to Harvard Law, Crown Heights and Northwest D.C.) believe us to be a gang of Farrakhan-quoting, Marion Barry-supporting, homophobic deadbeats. And then Obama shows up, and is not only not that, but actually attacks the homophobes and the deadbeats. And white writers stand up and applaud.
But the whole game is based on a deep ignorance, and arrogance--an inability to confess how little they know about race. It really is the twisted vestiges of segregation that allow Obama to stand up in front of a bunch of black Democrats, and say something as banal and qualified as "The scourge of anti-Semitism, at times, revealed itself in our communities" and then get credit. It's what allows Obama to say what black mothers have been saying for three decades now, and garner applause.
White people should demand a little more.
Open Thread At Noon
I'll take seven punk bloggers and put em in line...
I'm In Ur Base, Imitatin Ur Doodz!
Often when a white person wants to give his opinion on something racial, he'll preface it with something like "Now, I'm not black but..." or "Hey, I'm just white but..." or "Hey, I'm the spawn of Yakub, so take this with a grain of salt.."
Whenever someone says that to me, I just kinda shake my head and give them that annoyed "Will you just make your fucking point, white boy" look.
And then I started writing about gay marriage, and yesterday, about the ethics of outing, and I found myself in my head saying, "Now, I'm not gay but..." or "Hey, I'm just a straight guy but..." or "Hey, I'm totally obsessed with boobs, but..." It's the weirdest thing. You keep thinking to yourself, "Maybe I should shut the fuck up now." And yet, you don't...
Anyway, I think this is part of my continued evolution into a white guy. I'm digging on your music. I'm working at The Atlantic (first black guy, since Frederick Douglass). And now, I'm even lecturing oppressed minorities on how to respond to their oppression. Pretty soon, I'll be foreclosing on motherfuckers.
Yes, yes I know. Patience, young grass-smoker. Your time will come...
The End Of The Torture Debate
I think Digby is right--we've lost this one. It's deeply disconcerting to watch journalists embrace the language of politicians. I think it says a lot that we hear those claim to be "keeping them honest" using terms like "enhanced interrogation."
This is a deeply depressing failure on so many levels--and yet I feel like I should have seen it coming. My own deep personal experience with police violence says that people will accept the brutality of the state, if they think the state is trying to protect them. Not to flog this, but I keep going back to how my buddy was killed in PG County, and nothing happened to the officer who did it.
The fact is that that officer represented something about us, something about our hatred of drugs and crime, as well as our self-absorbed lack of empathy for any innocent--especially an innocent who we consider as "other"--caught in the crossfire. Likewise, Cheneyism says something about who we are, and where we're willing to go.
I think our politicians failed us. But it's weak to put it on them. I think journalists failed us. But it's weak to put it on them. We have too much faith in our innate goodness, in our exceptionalism. And if there's one big failing of Barack Obama it's that he continues to sell us on this notion that we're special. Maybe that's how it has to be. I'm admittedly confused by all this. I just suspect that someday soon we're going to find out how "special" we really are.
We really have no idea how low we can really go. And when confronted with evidence of it, we obfuscate. As a black man living in this country, I should have known better. It all makes too much sense.
1.) The notion that one can actually betray the gay rights agenda. This feels dangerous to me. I think it's easy on bright line issues like gay marriage, or even gay adoption. But my experience in the post-civil rights era says that the further you move forward, the more complicated the issues becomes. It's not hard to see a point (and maybe we've reached it) where there are serious fault-lines over what makes the agenda and what doesn't. But once you've embraced the tool of outing, it really can be deployed by any one claiming the sword of righteousness.
I'm not concerned for the Ted Haggards and Larry Craigs of the world.
This is what bothers me- who draws the line at who is "important"
enough to forcibly out? I am worried that someone will interpret this
as open season for anyone in any sort of leadership position, no matter
how loosely defined. To add to that, while there might be legitimate
evidence for people like Larry Craig, what happens when everything
trickles down to the micro level and it becomes a battle of (s)he
said-(s)he said? Bigotry is unacceptable at any level, but when one
outs the head of the neighborhood association (S/he is in a leadership
position, after all) over hearsay evidence, is that really advancing
the cause.
It's worth listening to this interview with an RNC staffer who was outed. He's a conservative operative who was working, in 2004, to help Bush get re-elected. He despised the GOP's stance on gays, but was, in his heart, a conservative. He was outed because the GOP disseminated anti-gay fliers, and the belief was that he could have (or should have) stopped them. I think it's fuzzy enough to make me uncomfortable. Who draws the line on this stuff? It's not enough to feel like it's justice. You have to be able to live with all the implications.
2.) Which brings me to this: How do you know you're right? Seriously. What if you're wrong? UPDATE: Here's a response from Dan Savage to the earlier post. He concludes:
And here's the funny thing, Ta-Nehisi: these outed politicians--the Craigs, Haggards, Crists, et al--they never off themselves.
Everyone talks about the potential of suicide when a high-profile
hypocrite like Charlie Crist is outed. But they never kill themselves,
do they? That cocksucker Crist just announced his run for US Senate.
Outing "victims" either come out or they burrow deeper into their
closets. You know who kills themselves when they're outed? The nobodies
rounded up when the police departments conduct stings on cruising
areas. Small town newspapers typically print names and mug shots after
raids on rest stops and cruisy parks, a practice that has lead to
suicides.
But no one gives a shit about these guys--they're nobodies, just
small-town closet cases looking for a little cock, not powerful
politicians doing violence on a daily basis to gay people and our
families while scarfing down cock in toilets and bedding their aides.
It seems to me that your sympathies are misplaced, Ta-Nehisi.
It's true that the suicide thing is a hypothetical, and an unlikely one. Fair enough. But I think the "sympathies" critique misses the point. Being against the death penalty isn't the same as having sympathy for ax-murderers, or a lack of sympathy for the victims.
UPDATE #2: Meh, so much for legs to stand on. I just re-read my post. I actually did strongly imply sypathy for people like Craig and Haggard
That's Postracial!
Great commercial. And the story behind the commercial.
Open Thread At Noon
Retire your mics. Get your chains and your bats...
While Our Hearts Were Young...
I was reading Brendan's entry on Manimal (Dude it's Manimal!!!) and it got me thinking about the era when I actually had a TV in the house, and my life revolved around this fact. Long story short--Crime Story and cool-ass Dennis Farina (Peep the 'stache, son.) owned face. I've always loved Chicago--even before I knew it.
Outing Gay Politicians
It's worth listening to this interview with Kirby Dick, about his new film Outrage, which investigates closeted politicians, who presumably are supporting an anti-gay agenda. I think I get the impetus--there's certainly a kind of cowardice at work in being in the closet and supporting homophobes.
That said, I'm deeply skeptical. When white gays compare their experience to African-Americans, the response is often to note that blacks have no closet, and thus no choice about how to live. They're going to experience racism, no matter what. It's a fair distinction and an important difference. But I suspect (though I'm not sure) that it undervalues the way blackness in this country forces you face yourself, while overvalue the virtues of concealing yourself.
I'm in the realm of theory and imagination here--being black is elemental to me, almost in the way that religion is elemental to the devout. I can't imagine myself without it, and more to the point, I think I'd be deeply unhappy if I had to conceal anything that important from my family, friends and colleagues. And it's not just concealing, it's accepting a presumed inferiority, an assumed deviance, and in that acceptance, a spiritual corruption. The closet may be choice--but it isn't one I'd want, anymore than someone who's white wants to afraid of the police.
I find these discussions of who has it worse ("black male/black female" "white woman/poor white man" "gay asian" "straight native American") to be reductive. They smell of my conversations hatched at midnight in Howard's dorms, when I should have been out chasing girls. Who can know what is worse? I'm black and straight and thus would never want to be white and straight, or white and gay. Were I white and gay, I think I'd never want to black and straight. You take life as it comes.
My point is one of basic human compassion--I have no idea what was going through Larry Craig's head. I have no understanding of his own private hell. What I know is I watched a "reformed" Ted Haggard and thought he was being torn apart by vultures on the inside.
I'm skeptical of man's ability to bring justice to these people, in this fashion. It smells of divine retribution dispensed by childish mortals. What if the guy you outed kills himself? Can you wash your hands of that? Would you truly feel no guilt?
As I said, I'm out of my lane. I'd love to hear from more experienced hands.
"I think there are a lot of topics that are better left for serious
reflection rather than comedy," White House press secretary Robert
Gibbs said Monday. "I think there's no doubt that 9/11 is part of that."
I think respectable comedians should keep their distance from politicians, and specifically from Obama. This is the second time he's willing attended a comedian's performance and either feigned shock (shock!), or had his henchmen feign shock. Here's Bernie Mac during the campaign:
"Being a president is tough 'cause you're not just running the
county. You got to run your family too," Mac said. "Having a black
first lady is different. You're still going have to do the dishes and
the laundry and all that ...you got to pick up the kids. You didn't pick
up the kids? I just came from Korea, talking about nuclear weapons. You
were on Air Force One and you couldn't stop to pick up the kids?"
Mac also told Obama to be cautious of the rumor mill. "People like
rumors. They are going to say things like, you know, you was in the
club with Lil' Kim and you and Kanye West got in a fist fight."
Here's Barack Obama trying to be cool and straight all at once:
"We can't afford to be divided by religion, or by region or class.
Or by gender," Obama said and joked, "That means, by the way, Bernie
you got to clean up your act. This is a family affair. I'm just messing
with you!"
Shortly after the fundraiser ended, the campaign issued a statement
denouncing Mac's comments. "Senator Obama told Bernie Mac that he
doesn't condone these statements and believes what was said was
inappropriate," spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.
I re-watched Sykes show yesterday and I thought the Limbaugh/20th hijacker was the least funniest part. But not because 9/11 shouldn't ever be joked about, but because it felt forced. ("I hope his kidneys fail" didn't by the way.) But so what? Some jokes work, others don't. This idea that there are certain topics that can only be talked about in serious, solemn ways, by all people at all times, is ridiculous. I don't want Wanda Sykes near the launch codes. Conversely, I think artistic advice from the president is, with all due respect, an oxymoron.
Bleh. Anyway here's Chris Rock joking the Iraq War, Anthrax in the mail, and James Byrd's death. I laughed all the way through. I'm still laughing. And let me keep laughing until they put my dick in the dirt. Otherwise, what the fuck is the point? Run the damn country. And if comic's jokes make that too hard, save it for retirement.
May 11, 2009
How Bad Is It For Newspapers?
Even the politicians are feeling bad. Still, I'm with David Carr on this one--I'm not sure government funding is the answer:
I'm all for journalists swarming the Hill, especially now that about
half of the reporters who used to work there are gone, potentially
leaving much of government to its own devices. But to leave our industry tin-cupping its way around a government it covers seems desperate and ill-advised: a cure that might be worse than the disease.
No one is arguing that the situation is not dire. Though Marissa Mayer, a Google
vice president, calmly told the senators on the panel led by Senator
Kerry that "it's still very early," we all know better. In the past six
months, five major American publishers have filed for bankruptcy.
Given
that monopolies that drove the business are falling apart, some
antitrust relief that would allow the industry to collectively hit the
reset button seems reasonable. But how exactly is the rest of it an
agenda item for an elected government? Besides all the esteem we seem
to hold ourselves in, it is difficult to make a rational economic
argument for granting special favors to a relatively minor part of the
American economy. Alan D. Mutter, who blogs at Reflections of a Newsosaur,
said that newspapers "collectively employ a mere 0.2 percent of the
nation's labor force and generate only 0.36 percent of the gross national product." In other words, we are not, like the bankers and the auto industry we have covered so ferociously, too big to fail.
Wasn't
it up to publishers when things were fat and happy to invest for this
foreseeable crisis? And wasn't it the publishers themselves who leapt
into the arms of online aggregators and now want government
intervention for what seems to be a business negotiation gone bad?
The Deeper Meaning Of Star Trek\Wolverine\Terminator
Alyssa Rosenberg's take on fanboyism and the summer blockbuster is pretty damned good, and a welcome counter to those of us (me included) who like to inveigh against the horror of Hollywood's marketing of geekdom. Forgive me for quoting at length:
Despite that financial success,
the critics are growing restless. The New York Times'
A.O. Scott declared that X-Men Origins: Wolverine
is "the latest evidence that the superhero movie is suffering
from serious imaginative fatigue." Slate's Dana Stevens announced
that "I'll be holding comic-book-based
blockbusters to a more robust standard" this summer. And
Anthony Lane, a film critic for The New Yorker, took a nasty
shot at comic book enthusiasts in his review of Watchmen earlier
in the year, saying the film "should meet the needs of any leering
nineteen-year-old who believes that America is ruled by the military-industrial
complex."
It's easy to dismiss sci
fi flicks as clumsy and loud, but the critiques miss a key virtue. Unlike
other genres, fanboy blockbusters are a constantly innovating form,
with an important message about the present even as they outline visions
of our future. In romantic comedies, the scene can shift from the Civil
War to the Los Angeles real estate market as long as boy meets girl
amidst the bayonets or billboards. Horror movies can switch weapons
with no fall-off in audience long as there are coeds to dice.
Come Oscar season, World War II films are such a reliable source of
nominations that Kate Winslet's turn as a sexy Nazi became a simultaneous
joke on the genre and a lock for the Academy Award.
Science fiction and superhero
movies don't have the luxury of simply finding the latest neighborhood
where attractive singles are settling or the flashiest car on the market
and plugging those accessories into a formula. By nature, those
films have to imagine the future, to put something on screen that audiences
would never see in their everyday lives. Sometimes, those visions
are farfetched, unrealistic, paranoid, immature, or deeply cheesy.
Of the four major sci-fi movies being released this spring and summer,
two feature vengeful giant robots. Another centers on a guy who
metalizes his skeleton, and the fourth plants spaceships in Iowa cornfields.
They'll vary in quality, and plausibility, but at least they have
something to say about the perils and opportunities of the future.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine,
the first of these movies, is a perfect example of the power of a bad
fanboy movie. The film is far too full of cheap-looking special
effects and dialogue that seems ludicrous outside a cartoon bubble to
be really absorbing. But Wolverine has far more to say
about its chosen subject, the scientific manipulation of the human body,
than, for example, the romantic comedy Ghosts of Girlfriends Past
has to say about relationships between men and women.
I think Anthony Lane has constructed three or four of my all time favorite sentences. (Of Yoda's tripe ramblings in the Star Wars prequels, he once quipped, "Break me a fucking give.") But I think Rosenberg makes a great point here. At some point critics (once again, including me) will have to start judging these flicks on their own terms.
And with that, I guess I now have to go see Star Trek. Damn. I thought I'd be able to worm out of that one.
A Bit Of Good News
Roxana Saberi is free. Good for her, and for her family.
Here is a former vice-president, who enjoyed unprecedented power for
eight long, long years. No veep ever wielded power like he did in the
long history of American government. In the months after 9/11, he swept
all Congressional resistance away, exerted total executive power,
wielded a military and paramilitary apparatus far mightier than all its
rivals combined and mightier than any power in history, tapped any
phone he wanted, claimed the right to torture any suspect he wanted
(and followed through with thousands, from Bagram to Abu Ghraib) and
was able to print and borrow money with impunity to finance all of it
without a worry in the world. But even after all that, he cannot
tolerate a few months of someone else, duly elected, having a chance to
govern the country with a decent interval of grace.
There's obviously part of me that wants to see a guy like Dick Cheney brought to justice. But there's another part that sees a justice in his post-VP life. Cheney was once asked about public opinion and polls. Cheney responded that he didn't care. He was lying. I haven't meant a single human being who didn't care what other people thought of him. I don't think Cheney's a sociopath--I think he's a megalomaniac.
Moreover, Dick Cheney is/was a politician--a hard job, at any level, for someone who doesn't care about polls to occupy. He is now one of the most hated political figures in Washington. His personal poll numbers are shockingly low--only 19 percent of all Americans, and only 50 percent of Republicans view him favorably. Think about that. Even among his own party, Cheney--hardcore conservative--isn't exactly a unifying figure.
Were one to accept Cheney's notion that he really doesn't care about polls, perhaps this wouldn't matter. In fact, since the nadir of the Bush-era, Cheney has repeatedly tried to re-inject himself into the public dialogue. The last thing John McCain, running in a general election, needed was a Cheney endorsement. And yet there it was unprompted. And since Obama's entered into the White House, the ex-VP has been going to the public via the press. People who don't care, don't spend their days making their case to the very people who they don't care about.
Something deeper is at work--a need to matter, a need to be understood, a need to cleansed, a need for the people to know that he did it all for them. He's not going to get that. Barack Obama barely acknowledges the guy. And every time Cheney steps in front of camera to wash his laundry, it seems like the opposite happens.
Limbaugh As The 20th Hijacker
Meh, I think Wanda Sykes Limbaugh bit was so/so. The treason part was weak, but the "I hope his kidneys fail" was pretty hilarious. Anyway, hand-wringing over Wanda Sykes is pretty useless. She's a comedian. She's not there to respect the line.
Moreover, I think people need to remember the context. Sykes belongs to three groups which Rush has made a career maligning--blacks, gays and women. I don't have time to dig up the Rush-file. But I'm willing to bet that if take together all the abhorrent things Limbaugh has ever said about those three groups and measured them against Sykes few minutes, it wouldn't be a contest.
I think Arlen Specter is going to have a fight on his hands. I've been thinking that all week. Sorry I'm just getting around to saying it.
The Wimmins Factor
One other thing that should be said about Rosen's piece is the extent to which gender played a role in how Sotomayor came across. I'm out my league on this one. But some people who I trust are right at home. Here's Emily Bazelon over at Slate:
Rosen quotes a bunch of negative comments from
attorneys-"overly aggressive," "abuses lawyers"--followed by a brief
acknowledgment of a couple of tepidly positive ones--"good legal ability." She
sounds like a bitch. Who'd want her on the Supreme Court?
Or many other women judges for that matter. Because this is how
lawyers often talk about women on the bench. It's an old story. In
1994, in writing up the findings of the Ninth Circuit Gender Bias Task
Force, Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor noted that "attorney evaluations of judicial
performance revealed a
'pattern of bias;' 'female judges were rated lower consistently than
their male
counterparts on every attribute measured.'" O'Connor was quoting a 1993
study
by law professor Joyce S. Sterling.
Some Interesting Advice
Just got this note over the intertubes-maily doodad:
Dear TNC,
I meant to write this a while back so it's not as
topical now, but I just wanted to offer you a very quick piece of
advice. You have a beautiful (writing) voice and and interesting mind;
don't get dragged in every time somebody writes you saying, "some hick
say XYZ about black people, please respond." Your commentary on race
issues is, of course, interesting and always well thought out. But some
of the shit you respond to deserves neither your attention nor that of
your readers. Just my two cents.
This is always such a tough one, and I highlight this note because it mirrors some things I've been turning over in my head. A solid half of my e-mail consists of links from my readers cataloging the dumb shit people say about black people--often by "serious" people. Do you respond? Or do you ignore?
First, the groundwork. I think that many people (I won't say most) who make money doing opinion journalism aren't very curious. Their interest isn't in expanding their view of the world, or refining their analysis. Their interested in scoring points, and the only relevant information is the kind that helps them score more points. It's understandable--nuance won't get you on Hannity, or turn you into Keith Olbermann for that matter. You get paid to score points, and rev up your side.
This is a temptation of the trade--and it's one I struggle with mightily. I try not to take TV and radio gigs if I don't know what I'm talking about. I try not to blog too much about areas where my understanding is thin. But I get caught out there sometimes. And I'm sure some missive I've authored, at some point, has been sent to some other blogger as an example of liberal "dumb shit."
Second, the perils of race-related opinion-journalism--particularly the sort that features no original reporting--are compounded by the demographics of this country. Black people are the most segregated minority in America. The people who interpret black people for the world are, in the main, white, and thus not likely to have spent much time in the company of their charges.
More than that, even if you're black, the nature of race in America is so complicated and so twisting, that being black isn't really enough. Writing about race requires walking and chewing gum, and yet often it's left in the hands of people who aren't particularly interested in either--be they black or white.
And then there's one final problem--people aren't convinced that black people are human. That's a pretty blanket accusation, but I think it bears out pretty well. I think it explains why the pathologies of poverty are so easily transformed into pathologies of blackness. I think it's why people actually believed that a handsome, Ivy-educated lawyer from the South Side of Chicago, whose married to a black woman, wouldn't be "black enough" for African-Americans. I think it's why people think Bill Cosby is saying something that's never heard in black communities. I think it explains why George Will believes that a guy who wrote a book subtitled "Why We Are Excited By Obama And Why He Can't Win," is nonetheless "America's foremost black intellectual." [MORE]
Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and officer in the Army National Guard
who is fluent in Arabic and who returned recently from Iraq, received
notice today that the military is about to fire him. Why? Because he
came out of the closet as a gay man on national television.
Ignorance begets ignorance. Ignorance of homosexuality will now make us more ignorant about the Arab world.
Meanwhile, as Matt points out, repealing DADT won't ever be convenient. There won't be any politically expedient about it. It's the sort of move you may well lose some votes over. At some point, Obama is going to have to honor liberal tradition, swallow hard, and throw the long ball. It's not suppose to be easy to do the right thing. That's why so many don't do it.
Rosen-Gate Wrapup
It's worth reading Reihan's response here. I think he thinks he went a little too hard. He offers a worthwhile explanation why. And here's Darren Hutchinson, who offered some of the more substantive critique of Rosen's legal reading. Lastly, we have Glenn one more time. In the words of Method Man, flying guillotines here they come.
As for me, don't expect me to push this much further. I've said my piece, and stand by it. It's there for all to read. I'm not in this for blood. At least not most of the time.
On the humility point, I have to say: I don't think humility is, as TNC
suggests, a floor at all. Given the extremely high levels of
self-satisfaction I encounter in the universe of opinion journalism all
the time, I actually think humility is pretty rare. But that's an
honest disagreement.
Well, not really. Reihan is obviously right. Humility is pretty rare--in the practical observable sense. I guess I meant in a more abstract sense, as in, "humility is the floor for anyone I'd want to read." In the context of opinion journalism, I guess it makes a certain sense to give writers credit for humility. But that's a kind of sick statement on opinion journalism. Perhaps the old "I take care of my kids!" black male battle-cry is a better analogy.
What Are You On, Crack?
Jon Stewart airs Marion Barry out. Two things struck me about that video. The utter and complete hatred in the eyes of "community leaders" protesting the council's vote. It's like that Nietzsche quote about battling monsters. Second, the spectacle of a dude who put a city at risk so he could get high and get some ass, railing against the immortality of gay marriage.
These are last days of a certain type of black leader who glories in crowds, placards, sanctimony and indignation. They're getting their kicks in while they can. Nothing else awaits.
A reader sent this note to me. It offers a portrait of the sort dialogue that's going unreported in the city:
I was at a meeting of the Ward 4 Dem's last night in
Washington, D.C., where residents had a passionate but respectful
conversation about marriage equality (with both sides voicing their
views) and two of DC's Council Members (Ward 4's Councilmember Muriel
Bowser and at-large Councilmember Phil Mendelson) discussing their
votes, before the room passed a resolution advocating support for FULL
marriage quality (not just the "out-of-state" provision passed this
week) by a vote of 36 to 6.
Ward 4 is one of the most diverse wards in the city, and it is very
representative demographically (racially, ethnically and
socio-economically) of the city as a whole. I think that the tenor of
the room last night suggests that the apocalyptic threats of
Councilmember Barry and his cadre of suburban Maryland ministers may be
exaggerated. (After living in D.C. for more than 20 years, I have seen
the many faces of Marion Barry, so nothing he does really is
surprising.) Even if he thinks that he is representing the views of the
voters of Ward 8 (who I will concede generally are different from those
in other wards in the city), I think that Council Member Barry is
getting it wrong.
I will agree with other writers to your BLOG that D.C. is in many ways
a Southern city, and its politics are impacted by the fact that it
remains a majority-African American city. But D.C. residents are some
of the most politically educated and progressive in the United States.
Certainly we saw last night that Barry does NOT speak for African
Americans city-wide. Councilmember Bowser succinctly and eloquently
described her support of marriage equality is a simple matter of
justice. And Ward 4 Dem Chairperson Deborah Royster shared a rather
poignant story from her childhood about her family being refused
lodging in a Virginia hotel because of racial segregation, saying that
that experience of discrimination was etched into her memory and that
she cannot stand by and condone other forms of discrimination.
I am more optimistic than I was prior to meeting with my Ward 4
neighbors. I think - with some good grassroots outreach throughout the
city - we can win this fight, even in Barry's backyard. The question is
whether outside forces will allow DC residents to have this dialogue
without their interference. I am less optimistic about that.
That last sentence is key. The history of bigots meddling in D.C.'s affairs is extensive and stretches back nearly 100 years. Then it was white supremacy. Now it's anti-gay bigotry. Anyone interested in reading up on the story of how Southern racists lorded over D.C. for years should check out Dream City by Harry Jaffe and Tom Sherwood. It's indispensable to understanding why a city would re-elect a man caught on tape smoking crack.
Rosen Responds
Read it here. I think it backs off some of the more problematic aspects of the piece. I understand the issue with headlines--it's happened to me. But the fact is, you're still responsible. "My editor did it" doesn't work. Still, his response is reflective and he avoids getting defensive. I can't always say as much of myself.
In the 1960s, both parties were in flux. The Democrats had
traditionally been the racist party, while the Republicans had been far
supportive of civil rights. But then both parties made a fateful
choice. The Democratic Party - and its base - decided to support and
fight for civil rights. It also made a lasting, long-term commitment
to equality, and has actively embraced and promoted diversity for the
past 40 years.
The Republican Party - institutionally,
that is - went a different way. They adopted the Southern Strategy.
They demagogued welfare queens. More generally, the party was
institutionally hostile to laws and regulations and practices intended
to correct centuries of state-sanctioned discrimination. To people
like John Roberts, the world apparently began anew in 1964.
For
years, the Republicans benefited from this choice. Nixon won. Reagan
won. The South shifted to the GOP, giving it nearly 12 years of
Congressonal control. Times were good.
But the checks are now
coming due. The Democrats are beginning to see the benefits of the
choices they made in the 1960s - the choices they remained firmly
committed to over the years. Demographically, the country is getting
less white. Individually, the most promising young African-American
candidates and officials (people like Obama, Artur Davis, and Deval
Patrick) are all firmly within the Democratic Party. Indeed, an entire
generation of African-Americans have come of political age knowing nothing but hostility from Republicans and loyalty from Democrats.
Admittedly,
Obama is an once-in-a-generation political talent. And I'm not taking
anything away from him. But his rise must be seen in the larger
context of the institutional commitment that the United States (and the
Democratic Party specifically) made to diversity.
Some of my commenters will, rightfully, point out that the Dems civil rights roots go back even further than the 60s. But I think Publius's point holds up. LBJ was playing long ball--even if he didn't know it.
Anyway, most of the post is about Jeff Sessions, a man about whom I have nothing enlightening to say about. I don't know why, I just don't. I'm unsurprised by his past. I'm unsurprised that he's been a GOP senator for some time. Thus I'm unsurprised by his elevation. Again, as with Marion Barry yesterday, "GOP Senator Old Comments On Race Cause Controversy" doesn't scream headline. At least not for me.
This is your party of Reagan, with the Gipper's smile fallen away. This is your party of States' Rights in Philadelphia, Mississippi. In the words of Bill Parcells, You are what your record says you are. I don't what else there is to say.
I stand by what I said about the Ricci case. I think there's a horrid history of discrimination in the firefighting ranks. I also think that the city of New Haven's means of addressing that history was hamfisted, ill-thought and will ultimately retard the fight to remedy the wounds of history.
But it's sobering to wind up on the same side as Pat Buchanan, who thinks that the Ricci case is the equivalent of Jim Crow. For a reminder of who Pat Buchanan is, here is his racist assessment of black America:
First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It
was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships,
grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian
salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity
blacks have ever known.
Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than
white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the '60s on
welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants,
student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and
poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into
the mainstream.
Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination
against white folks -- with affirmative action, contract set-asides and
quotas -- to advance black applicants over white applicants.
Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all
over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens,
adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.
We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?
I always found this quote interesting because it originates from the same racist thinking that Byron York employed last week--that black people don't actually count. In this instance, the idea isn't about polling, it's about taxes. By Buchanan's lights, black people do not exist as tax-payers, but as social sponges. And the converse is true--no white people use government services, they simply pay taxes that are transferred to blacks
Andrew had this great quote from Orwell last week:
The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.
I think Buchanan's opinion on Ricci comes out of his own quasi-white nationalist impulses. He's one of a legion of people beating the drum on this case, who aren't so much concerned with discrimination--as they are concerned about discrimination against people like them.
The dishonesty of it all is bracing. I don't believe in argument for sport, and so I'm somewhat ill-equipped. Still, it's times like these when you wonder whether argument has any real point.
UPDATE: Edited this post for a few embarrassing errors. Among them, Pat Buchanan as a black nationalist.
Sympathetic Interpretations
I think Reihan is extending an undue helping of generosity here:
Jeff Rosen has been raked over the coals for his not-positive
assessment of Sonia Sotomayor. What I find remarkable is this -- Rosen
was being so cautious and careful that he acknowledged his limitations in passing judgment, a good and responsible thing to do, and his humility is being used as a lacerating strike against him.
Maybe. As I've said, the headline was "The Case Against Sonia Sotomayer." The subhed was "Indictments Of Obama's Frontrunner To Replace Souter."
Reihan continues:
Rosen explicitly invited readers to take a different view, and to
discount his assessment. Some of Rosen's detractors say, "Well in that
case, why did you write anything at all?" Rest assured, most people who
weigh in on public controversies of this kind know far less about the
subjects of these controversies than Rosen knows about Sotomayor.
Right. But, in the age of blogging and 24-hour commentary, that's an appallingly low standard. If all it takes to occupy the "respectable intellectual center" is to know more than your average commenter, than there isn't much respectable or intellectual about the center. Perhaps that's the point.
Having recognized that he was relaying strongly negative assessment,
Rosen checked himself before he wrecked himself, which is the best one
can do. Should Rosen not draw on the knowledge of legal insiders to
sketch out potential criticisms?
Reihan is a colleague and one of my favorite writers from across the ideological way. But I don't find this very credible. I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that Rosen should "not draw on the knowledge of legal insiders." It's helpful to read the damning graph again:
I haven't read enough of Sotomayor's opinions to have a confident sense
of them, nor have I talked to enough of Sotomayor's detractors and
supporters, to get a fully balanced picture of her strengths.
The very process of journalism is exactly what Rosen said he didn't do. I'm fairly confident that if you turned in a piece with a graph like that to any competent J-school professor, you would fail. I'm not sure why Rosen should be held to a lower standard.
Reihan wants us to lay off on Rosen because he exercised "humility." But "humility" is the floor for a decent writer--not the ceiling. You don't get credit for not beating your wife. You don't get credit for admitting that you didn't do your job.
One Last Bit Of Rosen-Gate
It's worth reading Reihan's response to me, Glenn's response to Rosen. I don't know that I have any more to say,except this: I know a number of commenters are P\Oed by this whole affair, as they should be. But, for me, at some point, I need to stop swinging and get back to studying.
My views on all of this here and for all to see--I change nothing. But I can't repeatedly restate those points.I'm not built like that.
Ancient Jigga
It's amazing how things shift. I think Nas summed it up best, "A thug changes and love changes and best friends become strangers." For the record, looking back on this, though it's benign, I'm not convinced it's better. I'm more Hawaiian Sophie.
May 6, 2009
Another Point On Barry And Gays
I meant to bang on this more, but I got so pissed off when I was writing. Anyway, this point was made in comments:
Focusing on Barry's opposition to
recognizing gay marriage causes us to miss the forest for the trees; in
a majority black city with a majority black political leadership, the
City Council voted overwhelmingly (12 to 1) IN SUPPORT of recognizing
gay marriage (albeit ones performed outside of DC). This represents a
great political victory for the gay rights movements, and refutes the
meme which claims that the African-American community is
monolithically, implacably, and irresolutely opposed to recognizing gay
civil marriage.
I don't think that can be said loudly enough. There are 12 members of the City Council. Seven of them are black. One is Marion Barry. To anyone who's followed Barry's career, I'm not sure why "Marion Barry Is A Demagogue" is breaking news. It's really wrong to erase the other six votes on that measure, and make Barry the face of blacks on the Council, and blacks in the City.
Here's something else--consider the fact that D.C. is in the South. Not the deep South, but the South all the same. It's bordered by two slave states, and one Confederate state. I can't think of any other southern jurisdiction that's gone this far on gay marriage. To the contrary, most Southern states have set about the business of a constitutional ban.
That leaves with a very uncomfortable fact--the most progressive place for gays in the South, is also the blackest. I wouldn't draw too much causality from that statement. Much like I wouldn't draw too much causality from black and Prop 8. But that didn't stop anyone then, did it? Why should it stop them now?
1.) Andrew is vulnerable on this in a way, that I am not. This is serious business for gay people. I think it's a mistake to totally disregard Barry and to disregard Ward 8. I suspect that if you did, indeed, poll Ward 8 you'd find a lot of opposition to gay marriage.
2.) I have some deadlines looming over me, and if I didn't, I'd expend a little shoe-leather myself and try to get a picture of what's actually happening in my old home. I feel like the Post's coverage has been pretty one-dimensional and wanting. Maybe that's a sign of the times.
3.) I think having said all that, that is another case of the worst of us repping for all of us. Barry represents one Ward, in a majority black city. It is true that it's a heavily black Ward--but Southeast, and by extension Marion Barry, can't speak for all of D.C., any more than Harlem can speak for Jamaica, Queens. Eleanor Holmes Norton is just a black as Marion Barry.
I've argued strongly against white gay people expecting automatic sympathy from blacks, on the basis of shared victimhood. There was no shared sympathy extended to blacks from the Irish, or the Italians. There likely will be none in the future from Mexican-Americans.
That said, as a black person, it is painful and infuriating to watch this unfold. There is something utterly unreflective about people who can only use their pain to advance their own narrowly-defined interests, who can't use it to see the humanity of others. I think people who argue that gay marriage is going to "destroying our youth" are a fucking joke, and I will treat them as such.
Nothing threatens "our youth" more than credentialed ignorance--especially when the credentials are claimed from up high. Somewhere on the internet there is a place where reasonable people are interested in high tea with bigots, and converting those who are on the fence. I don't want any part of it. Compassion is a resource too. My stores are limited. There will be no quarter here.
Brett Favre May Come Back
But you already knew that. I could see this working--if Favre keeps his attempts below 25 a game. I still think the Vikes should have went hard at Chad Pennington.
Open Thread At Noon
Go for yours...
OK, This Is Just Creepy
I don't get with the Mormon-hating. Didn't get with it when Romney was running. I won't get with it now. But dig this:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints confirmed Tuesday
afternoon that someone improperly, posthumously baptized the late
mother of President Obama into the Mormon faith.
Last June 4 -- the day after then-Sen. Obama secured enough
delegates to win the Democratic presidential nominee -- someone had the
president's mother Stanley Ann Dunham, who died in 1995 of cancer,
baptized.
On June 11, she received the endowment.
I think the arrogance of "baptizing" someone posthumously says a lot. I think the arrogance of baptizing someone who's child, only 30 years ago, would have been scorned in your church says even more.
Conservative talk radio hosts have begun impugning
Sotomayor's credibility. And the respectable intellectual center -- see
Jeffrey Rosen's case against her temperament and inherent intellectual abilities -- is beginning to have doubts.
The case against Sonia Sotomayer is, at the moment, built on a haphazard reading of her opinions, anonymous quotes, and this amazing admission by Rosen:
I haven't read enough of Sotomayor's opinions to have a confident sense
of them, nor have I talked to enough of Sotomayor's detractors and
supporters, to get a fully balanced picture of her strengths.
I can't get past that line--mostly because, as Greenwald said yesterday, it drips with unintentional irony--Rosen is attacking Sotomayor's ability to do the necessary intellectual heavy-lifting, while explicitly neglecting to do any of his own. In this instance, His piece reads like a burglar's brief against rampant criminality. Authored mid-robbery, no less.
I mean him no disrespect. I'm sure he is a hard-working, talented writer. Journalism is difficult, and in this age, the urge to immediately have an opinion on everything is quite strong. But this is exactly why that urge has to be resisted. Opinions matter--even ill-informed ones. You don't get to be the "respectable intellectual center" and then practice your craft in the gossip-laden, ignorant muck. Not for long anyway. You know what this is--Great power. Great responsibility.
Mike Pence On Evolution
I really don't have to say any more. Again, stoopid is contagious.
Judge Sotomayor may indeed be dumb and obnoxious; but she's also female and Hispanic, and those are the things that count nowadays.
Adam airs Derbyshire out, along with his compadres. None of them are serious.
A Beautiful Use Of Negative Space
I think Matt gets at the biggest problem with Wolverines "Orgins" be it in comics or in the film:
Wolverine isn't a character whose origins we're curious about.
Wolverine is a character whose origin is that he has no memories and we
don't know where he's from other than that at some point he was mixed
up with a shady covert ops program that bonded adamantium to his
skeleton. That's the origin. That's the character.
I think we actually are curious about his orgins, but that's the appeal--it's in what you don't know. How, exactly, does Wolverine know Sabretooth? How did he get admantium bones? Why is he so prone to rage? That negative space is where you put your imagination. This could be generational--I read comics mostly in the 80s, and these were still questions. But I think in story-telling, period, there something be said for letting the consumer wander.
I never wanted to see a Gwen Stacy clone--the reach she evinced from the grave, the way she altered the Spiderman character was so profound. But the financial upside of filling in the space, of bringing back characters, of revealing orgins is simply to much for some editors, I think. It's certainly too much for Hollywood.
On another note, sometimes I feel like Yglesias never left this space. All my links are belonging to Matt.
Open Thread At Noon
The world is yours...
Be Serious
John Judis makes the argument for a Latino judge. I'm mostly cool with his points about democracy and ethnicity, but then he says this:
Is Sonia Sotomayer qualified to be on Supreme
Court? I'm agnostic on that subject--I don't know enough about her--and
if you read Jeff's piece carefully, so is he.
No he isn't. The headline was The Case Against Sonia Sotamayer. It was subtitled Indictments Of Obama's Frontrunner To Replace Souter. He concludes the piece by calling Sotomayer "a gamble." Judis continues..
If she has the requisite
abilities, and if her opinions are broadly those of Obama himself, then
the President should certainly consider her. What if she is very good,
but that there are more brilliant jurists around on the faculties of
law schools? When Wilson chose Brandeis, he did choose the leading
progressive jurist in America. But when Johnson picked Marshall or when
Reagan chose O'Connor, there probably were other lawyers around who
were more brilliant. Still, these were good choices and good for our
country.
Unlike all those conservative white guys who were clearly most qualified jurists in the land. It's amazing how assumptions that Sotomayer may not be the most qualified candidate (as though there's a such thing) has seeped into TNR's water supply. Funny how that happens. More amazing than that is the fact that the two writers weighing in on this know virtually nothing about Sotomayer's jurisprudence.
It's The Racism, Stupid
Matt had a series of posts a few weeks back about racism and the tea parties. I thought about commenting but, frankly, I wasn't sure what to say. I couldn't tell whether the signs were indicative of the movement, or indicative of a few oddballs. I think it says something that people feel comfortable toting that sort of message to a rally. But my instincts led me to allow for a "charitable interpretation," as one commenter put it last week.
All of that said, I think Matt was on to something.
One common refrain of black Southeners from Robert Smalls to Booker T. Washington to Martin Luther King is the notion that white Supremacy has actually corrupted the white South, that while it is a blight on the physical conditions of blacks, it is a greater blight on the spiritual, moral, and mental conditions of whites.
I never understood how that could be true until relatively recently. But when you think about the embrace of white supremacy by political leaders, you understand that it was not simply an embrace of evil and bigotry, but an embrace of superstition, ghost stories and, ultimately, utter ignorance. At times this has been literally true. There's a short portion in Capitol Men that discusses a late 19th century effort by the federal government to upgrade public schools in the South. For fear that black schools might benefit, South Carolina declines all federal help thus fucking over its white children in the name of white supremacy.
Racism, like all bigotry is, at its root, lazy thinking. Thus the demagouge who employs racism is engaged in a kind of mental corruption, aimed not at the victims of racism, but its alleged benefactors. Thus when George Wallace asserts the following...
In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.
...he is, for sure, defaming black people. But he's also engaging his followers in a seductive flight of delusional stupidity. The "segregation" part of that quote isn't the worst part. It's the white nationalist hoodoo, the unreflective vanity of "greatest people that have ever trod this earth" that's the killer.
Because I have no television, I'm late on everything. So I have no idea how long ago this Spike Jonz\Karen O collabo came out. But it's pretty awesome. Kinda like an anti-Super Bowl ad.
May 4, 2009
Judicial Malpractice
Like Matt, I don't understand how in the world a journalist writes a critical piece on a possible Supreme Court nominee and includes this graff:
I haven't read enough of Sotomayor's opinions to have a confident sense
of them, nor have I talked to enough of Sotomayor's detractors and
supporters, to get a fully balanced picture of her strengths.
I should add that the thrust of the piece is that Sotomayor isn't that sharp. That may well be true, but how do you asses that without thoroughly reading her opinions, and talking to broad range of supporters and detractors? I know. You use anonymous quotes!
Sarcasm aside, minorities and women are particularly sensitive to being told they're stupid--as they should be. It doesn't mean that there aren't any stupid minorities and women. But if you're going to make that case, you really should cover your ass.
Blogger Down
I'm sick, folks. Blogging will be very light. My apologies. Scrimmage amongst yourselves. No hands to the face.
This comment is bubbling below, and its a question I have myself, so I thought I'd pull it out:
I have to confess that I'm a bit
meh about hate crimes legislation. Matthew Shepard was murdered, after
being kidnapped and beaten, etc. So, many crimes were committed. And
absolutely, they were committed because he was gay. We punish the
crimes of murder, kidnap, and battery. I'm sure that in Montana, the
punishments are quite severe. Why isn't that enough?
I'm not engaging in rhetoric, I'd like a real answer.
The thing that made me leery of Hate Crime Law was the infamous Fat Nick case, in which a kid got 15 years for what really sounded like beef--with a quasi-ethnic twist. The victim had literally come to the neighborhood to steal a car. Read about the whole story here:
It is true that Fat Nick chased Moore through the streets that
night, and after finding him hiding behind a porch set upon him with
the softball bat, saying, "What up, nigga? This is what you get when
you try to rob white boys." But it was also true that Glenn Moore and
his two friends had come from East New York (one of Moore's
friends, Richard Pope, lived there), on a failed excursion to steal a
car in Lindenwood. Moreover, there had been a spat of robberies in Howard Beach in the weeks preceding Nick's attack, documented by letters to the editor of the Queens Chronicle.
"Where were the press, Mayor Bloomberg, or Police Commissioner Kelley
when they held my family hostage?" said Edward Benedetto, the author of
such a letter, as he described being robbed at gunpoint by three black
men to a Chronicle reporter after the media descended on Howard Beach.
In
his confession, Fat Nick seemed accepting of the presence of black
people in East New York, whereas detective D'Angelo seemed coercive, as
though he had a bigger arsenal of generalizations about race at his
disposal than Nick did, albeit for different purposes. In other words,
it seemed possible that Nick had selected Glenn Moore because
he was black, but it seemed uncertain as ever that Nick was a racist,
as opposed, say, to a street punk with an anger problem who acted with
the instincts of a racial profiler, and who should only have been
charged with aggravated assault.
The law isn't my area, and I'd love to hear a solid defense of hate crime laws. It strikes me as weird that the mere utterance of a racial slur during a violent act automatically makes it worse.
Matthew Shepard Was A Hoax
This is just amazing. I'm tempted to say "Keep digging." But this is who these people are. They built a party on some of the ugliest impulses of humanity and now they are paying for it. I can not feel sorry for them. I can not be "charitable" to anyone who applauded while this thing was in motion.
But you already knew that. John Nichols argues that this is why Arlen matters:
No matter who Obama picks, the chances that his nominee will be
confirmed with relative ease have risen significantly in recent days.
Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter's switch from the Republican caucus
to the Democratic caucus moves a key member of the Judiciary Committee
into the majority-party camp. If and when Minnesota Democratic Farmer
Labor Party candidate Al Franken is finally seated, Democrats will have
the 60 votes they need to advance a nomination without having to
contend with a Republican filibuster.
A few commentators on the left are calling me a racist for my post,
"The black-white divide in Obama's popularity." I suppose if you
haven't been called a racist by the usual suspects on the left, you
haven't been writing for very long...
I wrote that citing Obama's "sky-high ratings among African-Americans
make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they
actually are." I thought the word "overall" conveyed the idea that
there was a difference between the total job-approval number and the
complexities of opinion of Obama on various issues. Maybe
"across-the-board" would have been better than "overall," but I doubt
that would have kept a left-wing activist like Matthew Yglesias, or
Andrew Sullivan, who has himself been accused of racism and, quite
recently, anti-Semitism, from branding me a racist. The numbers inside
the Times poll are newsworthy, if the critics would take the time to
read and analyze them.
The fact that York, at no point, quotes a single "left-wing activist" calling him a racist should tell you something about the honesty of his rebuttal. For employers of the "not a racist" form letter, the unsubstantiated charge is the heading.
One reason I spent so much time yesterday talking about people who play the "not a racist" card is because I was fairly sure this would be York's response. I can't tell you how comical it is to see that he actually followed the script. (Meekly defend your position and feign victimhood for having been called racist--whether you were called one or not.)
In fact neither Matt nor "left-wing activist" Andrew called York a racist. But "you're a racist" is the easiest argument to respond to, so York just pretends that they did. It's an incredibly dishonest and intellectually cowardly move, but it's the stock and trade of your average pundit looking to "score points." Instead of evaluating your adversary's critique, you simply stick your fingers in your ear and exclaim "not a racist" and "left-wing activist" and hope no one's the wiser.
Meanwhile, York never responds to the fundamental critique of his column summed up here by noted lefty, flagrant race-card dealer, and former aide to Newt Gingrich, (and self-professed friend of Byron York!) Robert George:
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.
Ironically,
this Schneider segment -- as pernicious as it was in itself -- actually
undermines York's even-worse piece: Simply put, because blacks tend to
vote overwhelmingly blackDemocrat at the presidential level,
there is actually very little difference between black support for
Barack Obama and that of any "generic" Democratic president.
A.O. Scott says the new Wolverine flick kinda blows:
"Wolverine"
is shorter and less pretentious than "Watchmen," but almost
programmatically unmemorable, a hodge-podge of loose ends, wild
inconsistencies and stale genre conventions. Vengeance is the default
motive for most of the mayhem that is perpetrated, and for good measure
there is a military-scientific government conspiracy overseen by a
reptilian bad guy (the excellent Danny Huston).
A flotilla of secondary characters parades through the
scenery, mostly mutants with various powers and questionable
franchise-enhancing capabilities. Ryan Reynolds, Taylor Kitsch and Will.i.am show up and do what they can, but prove hopelessly unable to compensate for the absence of, say, Halle Berry, Anna Paquin or Ian McKellen.
"X-Men Origins: Wolverine" will most likely manage to cash in
on the popularity of the earlier episodes, but it is the latest
evidence that the superhero movie is suffering from serious imaginative
fatigue.
I'll catch it on DVD. Not because of its merits or lack therof, but because the theater's are just too damn loud these days.
Here's a piece no one cared about. Meh, whatever, probably the most enjoyable article I did during my stint at TIME. Premiered a month before I got laid-off. The nail in the coffin? Ya think?
Here's me going after Al. I didn't so much have a problem with him, as I had a problem with media acting like this dude was the go-to guy for everything black.
This was my first real story at time. I was writing for the Business section, a real change of direction for me. At any rate, it's about Wal-Mart's attempts to colonize the inner-city. As much as I enjoyed this piece, I mostly enjoyed going out to Chicago, which is a beautiful, beautiful city.
This a piece I did about the cops just outside our nation capitol, in Prince George's County, a few years back. I wanted to offer a counter to the dumb, conventional wisdom that if you paint your police force black, you could eradicate police brutality. In fact, Prince George's--one of the richest, blackest counties in the country--also had one of the most brutal police force's in the country.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
The thing that made me leery of Hate Crime Law was the infamous Fat Nick case, in which a kid got 15 years for what really sounded like beef--with a quasi-ethnic twist. The victim had literally come to the neighborhood to steal a car. Read about the whole story here:
The law isn't my area, and I'd love to hear a solid defense of hate crime laws. It strikes me as weird that the mere utterance of a racial slur during a violent act automatically makes it worse.