I have been wanting to ask the folks here who believe that the NYTImes is primarily, even solely, motivated by greed/profit how they reconcile this with the Times' lousy financial performance? Are they just terrible at being greedy money-grubbers? Is there a vast right-wing conspiracy in the financial press to cover up their incompetence?
My perception-- which could be wrong-- on the NYT is that they are obsessed with short-term profits at the expense of a long-term business strategy, constantly jumping on today's Brilliant Idea rather than figuring out how to make money in the long term.
P, that seems reasonable to the degree that anyone has a long term plan for newspapers. My question was more towards those here who see some kind of editorial/financial angle that slants their coverage, tho maybe you did to and I've missed it.
Without judging whether or not the Times as an institution is simply concerned with profit, they're doing poorly because they have a business model that has thrived for over a few hundred years, and took far too long to recognize it was unsustainable.
In that way, it's not all that different from any other failed corporation that had been previously successful for a sustained period.
Who says the NY Times is primarily motivated by greed or profit? If they wanted to make more money, they'd clearly demarcate their editorial opinions from their reporting, which, notoriously, they don't do. The WSJ, for example, has a right-leaning editorial page, but they tend to play their news articles straight; the NY Times infuses much of its reporting with editorializing, which turns off a lot of affluent readers who happen to not share the Times editors' political views.
Another point, re the NY Times Magazine: it has gotten smaller in more ways than one recently. Did you see the feature article yesterday, about the Times's food critic's history of bulimia? WTF? We get it: NY Times writers have baggage (bulimia, depression, plagiarism, not paying their mortgages, etc.). Now how about you write about people who don't work at the Times? It's a big world out there, you self-absorbed f**ks.
oh no I'm not naming names here if you really want to dig back and check that's on you. there where no direct responses to my query so perhaps this is the end of such assertions.
this is bizarre to me given how many older people are now enjoying their govt retirement/health-care and that most young people aren't scared by the Red threat of communism (or get why Cobert fears bears). I guess they really are stuck in a time-loop.
Why are you blaming this on older people?
I live in Tucson and the leaders of the "Tucson Tea Party" are in their 30s and from what I can see of pictures of their events, the followers are pretty young.
what am I blaming on older people? my comment was in response to the post about the Reps choosing to attack public healthcare by labeling it "socialism" and I was/am puzzled about who this would appeal to since the folks who are old enough to remember, be scared by, these coldwar references are themselves on govt healthcare plans.
Shifting from political rhetoric/strategy to policy with DinH the question of price-fixing and innovation is an interesting one but remember how far we are from any single plan dominating insurance at this point (if you're a slippery-slope NRA type thinker pls save it for someone else) and there will always be private capital at work so we shall see. Remember that even in the UK and elsewhere you can always buy more healthcare than the state insurance covers. Either way just repeating the word socialism ad nauseum isn't doing much to advance the debate or solve the problem.
It's true that our health care system is semi-socialized today (e.g., via Medicare), but there's a difference between being semi-socialized and almost fully socialized. The difference is that if the government goes from covering ~50% of health care spending to ~95+%, it becomes a monopsony. That means it can effectively fix prices. Historically, price-fixing stifles innovation.
This isn't a problem for Canada, for example, as long as the free market aspects of our health care system are financing the discovery of new drugs, medical equipment, and techniques (the rest of the world is effectively free-riding on the innovation paid for by American consumers). Stuff gets invented here, and Canadians and others can copy it. But what happens when we move closer to a socialized system? Who's going to spend billions of dollars and a decade trying to develop the next breakthrough cancer drug when they can't be sure they'll be able to charge enough to recoup their investment?
I'm not saying there aren't problems with our current system. It's just that there are legitimate reasons to fear a more government-run system.
I was just driving behind someone with a bumper sticker that said, "Yes, He's a Socialist."
I probably shouldn't leave the house anymore without a can of spray paint (but I certainly don't recommend that for everyone.)
This "socialist" buzz word really makes me angry, but yes, very predictable. It's all about finding a word that scares people and making it stick through repetition. God, will we ever get past Karl Rove?
Angela's Ashes was such a tough read. I would shut the book involuntarily at some points, and then I would see Frank McCourt's gentle face on the back cover. Had me in tears.
Is it just me, or is there less blog crosstalk with TNC's blog than other bloggers out there? Seems like the Yglesias-Klein-etc. blog bloc doesn't chat with TNC much.
It's regrettable that the policy wonks don't try to wrestle more with the greater society they're looking at; why shouldn't policy take into account sociology? I read them both as well, that's why I brought them up.
I just read that... not that you asked for my take. I would love to see a country in which affirmative action is not needed in 2028, but I don't think having a majority of non-whites in this country makes that automatic. Didn't a small minority of whites rule South Africa for quite some time? Didn't a minority of Sunnis rule Iraq? Demographic numbers don't put people in a better societal position.
The results of AA policies aren't always pretty, which is why policies require review and revision. But I don't think some errors, or some progress (of course, he cites Obama and Sotomayor as evidence that AA has worked and is no longer needed), means AA is, in my opinion, completely past its usefulness.
"But the senators are yesterday’s men. The America of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is swiftly giving way to the America of Sonia Maria Sotomayor and Barack Hussein Obama."
I don't really see that to be the case. Aren't these senators, also the subject Mr. Rich's current column, representatives of a significant electorate?
Am i missing something? I thought that Sotamayor's view on AA, that "as long as racial disparities persist, so too must racial preferences," is pretty reasonable.
If you're a senator--we only have 100--I don't think you can be dismissed as being of the past and no longer really relevant. If they were really perceived as yesterday's men someone would challenge their seat, and the voters would happily put in fresh, relevant blood.
I saw that somewhere on a bib, and have to admit they have a point--being sodomized by either Obama or his policies is constantly brought up in a way that Clinton or Kerry were not analogized.
Not that I want to think about what it means too deeply.
I have a total and irrational love for dogs and, consequently, a visceral hatred for people who abuse them. So I must disagree, but acknowledge that there's no real rhyme or reason to it.
I don't know. I really think Vick is gross, as well as incredibly stupid for doing something so dumb, so I won't be losing any sleep over his plight. nobody will be abusing Vick, like he abused the dogs. He just won't be able to play in a highly competitive, extremely well-paid job. Like, cry me river, ok?
His punishment has not fit the crime. Of course Vick is an idiot. No one that was smart would risk so much for something like watching dogs fight. It still doesn't mean that everything that has happened since then hasn't been complete overkill.
I have to say, I think as far as punishment, Vick has been punished adequately. As someone who grew up around the discusting underworld of pit bull fighting, there is alot that goes on that doesn't include dog fighting. That being said, Vick has certainly paid his due, and deserves a second chance. If a guy like Leornard Little can still play in the league after killing someone, then getting another dwi after that, Vick certainly should also.
Why does broadband suck in the cities? Don't get me wrong, at least we have some options, but I feel like we always get fucking gypped by the yuppie suburbs. My mom has faster broadband connections in her little house 20 miles from Providence than I ever had in Chicago or San Francisco.
And furthermore, it feels like they only offer broadband at lesser speeds to certain neighborhoods. I work in Tenderloin in SF, and the only broadband WiFi I've been able to pick up runs at about 512 kbps down, which shouldn't even exist (most peeps in the city get about 3 or 5 Mbps down). And with 512, everything feels slow these days (would have been fine maybe 3 or 4 years ago, but certainly not now). Travesty, man.
Reading the comments, I've got to give TNC's Friday estimate of casual racism props for being pretty accurate. Clearly there are numerous white professors arrested in their own homes after proving they live there every other day, and the posters' inability to point to any examples of such is part of the conspiracy against white people by the evil liberals.
I remember when Counter got pulled over. That had a lot of people shaking their heads and sighing. But this is going to get a lot of people hopping mad. Why was he arrested and taken into police custody?!
"...He showed his driver’s license and Harvard identification card, but was handcuffed and taken into police custody for several hours last Thursday..."
this makes me so ANGRY!!!
...but, but...he's a good kid...how many other mugshots of Harvard Profs have they collected at the station?
this is why black folk may think differently about the police
Andrew's subs linked to this collection of science tattoos a day or two ago and I have become enthralled. For a needlephobe to start thinking "oh, I could see that on my shoulder blade" is a weird sensation. For any science geek, art geek, or tattoo (geek?)--I'm two of the three.
I am too. But after this I didn't want to add anything:
The world would be a much easier place if racist were, as you put it, "the scum of the earth." They aren't. Like homophobes and sexists, they can be our best friends. That's why we're still fighting this fight. That's why it's so hard to root out. Because it tend to pop up in people we love.
I missed the conversation, too, but I actually thought that TNC misrepresented what that commenter said in your example. The woman wasn't claiming that racists are treated like the scum of the earth, or that society ostracizes them like we should. She was claiming that she was raised to think racists are the scum of the earth. TNC's point is a good one, but was a different conversation than that woman was having, IMO.
I don't think TNC's estimate of 35-40% was offensive in the least. I do, however, think that it is very wrong. White people acted shocked because I think they were very genuinely surprised that TNC felt that way. I know I was. I certainly never would have guessed that he assumed up to 40%(conservatively) of white people really, really disliked black people. It's interesting to me, because I think it will change the way I read this blog. But it's also helpful because I know how much farther we have to go.
I didn't really get that from the exchange, but I see how you did Stacy. I don't think she was making that claim, nor was TNC responding to it. But what TNC was addressing was the moral stance that she grew up with, to show simply that being "scum" in one way, does not mean you're really considered scum. He was tying it to the fact that racists are just as likely to be respected/educated/monied/surprising kind of people as not.
When it's a racist that fits a bad stereotype, it's all well and good for everybody else, but when they're a productive or wealthy or respected or widely-known member of society, people are a lot more likely to do the "disappearing racist" commentary - the "oh snap, he's not really one of us, that can't be real." But it is real. Yes, it's shitty, as she said. It makes a person feel like shit, but looking to TNC's comment about Robert E. Lee, it points to something a lot more troubling than merely racism. When men great in most other respects can carry such an insidious prejudice against their fellow men.
There's a GREAT quote from an equally GREAT book, The Power of One, and it has informed my approach to racism and racists alike. Peekay here is talking about the South African Nationalist government:
"Have you seen the educational qualifications the Nationalist government has for its cabinet? It's probably the best-educated cabinet in the world. Racism does not diminish with brains. It's a disease, a sickness. It may incubate in ignorance, but it doesn't necessarily disappear with the gaining of wisdom!"
What I ultimately got from that comment exchange were two things. 1) a morally reductive approach like "all racists are scum" is tantamount to the approach of racism itself (it's a lot harder to object to though, for sure) - but both are vast generalizations that mask the truth and can make reality hard to deal with (for sure, it makes racists a lot harder to deal with). And 2), quite stupidly, to have hope. My best friend is white: a bright, vivacious, high-achieving and insanely talented young woman, and she also has NO FILTER between her brain and her mouth, and sometimes says things that can be construed as prejudiced or bigoted or just plain nuts. There have been so many times I've been like DAMNSHUTUPWHATISWRONGWITHYOUWHYAREWEFRIENDS?! But she does have a conscience, and she is a willing learner. Daily she grows in her understanding of other's sensitivities, and it's that awareness in her that humbles me too, as much as it humbles her (like seriously, all the time).
As for his figure, I don't think he meant it seriously, but damn if it didn't cause a kerfluffle.
I think you make a lot of great points, and I don't necessarily disagree with anything you said. And honestly, outside of TNC's figure, I didn't really disagree with most of what TNC said. I actually think waiting to comment about it has led to a bit more self-reflection. I kind of wish everyone that typed on that thread had a 48 hour waiting period, because the discussion definitely lacked a little of the typical thougtfulness that makes these conversations great.
It's still an important conversation to have, but that thread really shows how difficult those types of discussions can be. Some people were much too defensive about the figure. Others were much to eager to mock those acting defensive, which, in turn, led them to be more defensive.
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 
I have been wanting to ask the folks here who believe that the NYTImes is primarily, even solely, motivated by greed/profit how they reconcile this with the Times' lousy financial performance? Are they just terrible at being greedy money-grubbers? Is there a vast right-wing conspiracy in the financial press to cover up their incompetence?
My perception-- which could be wrong-- on the NYT is that they are obsessed with short-term profits at the expense of a long-term business strategy, constantly jumping on today's Brilliant Idea rather than figuring out how to make money in the long term.
P, that seems reasonable to the degree that anyone has a long term plan for newspapers. My question was more towards those here who see some kind of editorial/financial angle that slants their coverage, tho maybe you did to and I've missed it.
Oh, I didn't realize you were talking about their coverage-- I thought you were just talking about their business strategy.
Without judging whether or not the Times as an institution is simply concerned with profit, they're doing poorly because they have a business model that has thrived for over a few hundred years, and took far too long to recognize it was unsustainable.
In that way, it's not all that different from any other failed corporation that had been previously successful for a sustained period.
Who says the NY Times is primarily motivated by greed or profit? If they wanted to make more money, they'd clearly demarcate their editorial opinions from their reporting, which, notoriously, they don't do. The WSJ, for example, has a right-leaning editorial page, but they tend to play their news articles straight; the NY Times infuses much of its reporting with editorializing, which turns off a lot of affluent readers who happen to not share the Times editors' political views.
Another point, re the NY Times Magazine: it has gotten smaller in more ways than one recently. Did you see the feature article yesterday, about the Times's food critic's history of bulimia? WTF? We get it: NY Times writers have baggage (bulimia, depression, plagiarism, not paying their mortgages, etc.). Now how about you write about people who don't work at the Times? It's a big world out there, you self-absorbed f**ks.
oh no I'm not naming names here if you really want to dig back and check that's on you. there where no direct responses to my query so perhaps this is the end of such assertions.
The Republicans finally pulled out the Socialism word on the health care plan. So predictable.
this is bizarre to me given how many older people are now enjoying their govt retirement/health-care and that most young people aren't scared by the Red threat of communism (or get why Cobert fears bears). I guess they really are stuck in a time-loop.
Why are you blaming this on older people?
I live in Tucson and the leaders of the "Tucson Tea Party" are in their 30s and from what I can see of pictures of their events, the followers are pretty young.
what am I blaming on older people? my comment was in response to the post about the Reps choosing to attack public healthcare by labeling it "socialism" and I was/am puzzled about who this would appeal to since the folks who are old enough to remember, be scared by, these coldwar references are themselves on govt healthcare plans.
Shifting from political rhetoric/strategy to policy with DinH the question of price-fixing and innovation is an interesting one but remember how far we are from any single plan dominating insurance at this point (if you're a slippery-slope NRA type thinker pls save it for someone else) and there will always be private capital at work so we shall see. Remember that even in the UK and elsewhere you can always buy more healthcare than the state insurance covers. Either way just repeating the word socialism ad nauseum isn't doing much to advance the debate or solve the problem.
It's true that our health care system is semi-socialized today (e.g., via Medicare), but there's a difference between being semi-socialized and almost fully socialized. The difference is that if the government goes from covering ~50% of health care spending to ~95+%, it becomes a monopsony. That means it can effectively fix prices. Historically, price-fixing stifles innovation.
This isn't a problem for Canada, for example, as long as the free market aspects of our health care system are financing the discovery of new drugs, medical equipment, and techniques (the rest of the world is effectively free-riding on the innovation paid for by American consumers). Stuff gets invented here, and Canadians and others can copy it. But what happens when we move closer to a socialized system? Who's going to spend billions of dollars and a decade trying to develop the next breakthrough cancer drug when they can't be sure they'll be able to charge enough to recoup their investment?
I'm not saying there aren't problems with our current system. It's just that there are legitimate reasons to fear a more government-run system.
Oh. michael Steele said it was socialism. Well, we all know what a silver-tongued smoothie he is.
I was just driving behind someone with a bumper sticker that said, "Yes, He's a Socialist."
I probably shouldn't leave the house anymore without a can of spray paint (but I certainly don't recommend that for everyone.)
This "socialist" buzz word really makes me angry, but yes, very predictable. It's all about finding a word that scares people and making it stick through repetition. God, will we ever get past Karl Rove?
Frank McCourt is dead.
May he rest in peace.
Dammit.
Angela's Ashes was such a tough read. I would shut the book involuntarily at some points, and then I would see Frank McCourt's gentle face on the back cover. Had me in tears.
Is it just me, or is there less blog crosstalk with TNC's blog than other bloggers out there? Seems like the Yglesias-Klein-etc. blog bloc doesn't chat with TNC much.
I've noticed that too; I think part of it has to do with this blog tending more towards sociology than politics.
They're mostly policy. I'm not. It makes sense. I've had virtually nothing to say about health-care reform, for instance.
That said, I am quite the fan of both of them. I got here, in part, because Yglesias let me guest-post here about a year ago.
It's regrettable that the policy wonks don't try to wrestle more with the greater society they're looking at; why shouldn't policy take into account sociology? I read them both as well, that's why I brought them up.
Or, I could wrestle more with policy...It's tough. You don't want to say anything stupid.
I'd love to hear Ta-Nehisi's take on Ross Douthat's Times column today.
I just read that... not that you asked for my take. I would love to see a country in which affirmative action is not needed in 2028, but I don't think having a majority of non-whites in this country makes that automatic. Didn't a small minority of whites rule South Africa for quite some time? Didn't a minority of Sunnis rule Iraq? Demographic numbers don't put people in a better societal position.
The results of AA policies aren't always pretty, which is why policies require review and revision. But I don't think some errors, or some progress (of course, he cites Obama and Sotomayor as evidence that AA has worked and is no longer needed), means AA is, in my opinion, completely past its usefulness.
I'm really tired of smart people like Ross either buying into or defending racism and stupidity on their side of the aisle.
"But the senators are yesterday’s men. The America of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is swiftly giving way to the America of Sonia Maria Sotomayor and Barack Hussein Obama."
I don't really see that to be the case. Aren't these senators, also the subject Mr. Rich's current column, representatives of a significant electorate?
Am i missing something? I thought that Sotamayor's view on AA, that "as long as racial disparities persist, so too must racial preferences," is pretty reasonable.
If you're a senator--we only have 100--I don't think you can be dismissed as being of the past and no longer really relevant. If they were really perceived as yesterday's men someone would challenge their seat, and the voters would happily put in fresh, relevant blood.
You want crosstalk? Over at The
Dish, there's a link to a Steve Chapman post saying Obama's most vocal critics are fixated on being sodomized by him.
As long as gay marriage is banned, straight men shouldn't be allowed to use any sodomy metaphors.
I saw that somewhere on a bib, and have to admit they have a point--being sodomized by either Obama or his policies is constantly brought up in a way that Clinton or Kerry were not analogized.
Not that I want to think about what it means too deeply.
Michael Vick gets out today. Here's too hoping he can get a second chance.
I have a total and irrational love for dogs and, consequently, a visceral hatred for people who abuse them. So I must disagree, but acknowledge that there's no real rhyme or reason to it.
a second chance at what?
If Goodell doesn't allow Vick to play as soon as a team signs him, this whole episode will continue to be a gross miscarriage of justice.
I don't know. I really think Vick is gross, as well as incredibly stupid for doing something so dumb, so I won't be losing any sleep over his plight. nobody will be abusing Vick, like he abused the dogs. He just won't be able to play in a highly competitive, extremely well-paid job. Like, cry me river, ok?
His punishment has not fit the crime. Of course Vick is an idiot. No one that was smart would risk so much for something like watching dogs fight. It still doesn't mean that everything that has happened since then hasn't been complete overkill.
I have to say, I think as far as punishment, Vick has been punished adequately. As someone who grew up around the discusting underworld of pit bull fighting, there is alot that goes on that doesn't include dog fighting. That being said, Vick has certainly paid his due, and deserves a second chance. If a guy like Leornard Little can still play in the league after killing someone, then getting another dwi after that, Vick certainly should also.
Why does broadband suck in the cities? Don't get me wrong, at least we have some options, but I feel like we always get fucking gypped by the yuppie suburbs. My mom has faster broadband connections in her little house 20 miles from Providence than I ever had in Chicago or San Francisco.
And furthermore, it feels like they only offer broadband at lesser speeds to certain neighborhoods. I work in Tenderloin in SF, and the only broadband WiFi I've been able to pick up runs at about 512 kbps down, which shouldn't even exist (most peeps in the city get about 3 or 5 Mbps down). And with 512, everything feels slow these days (would have been fine maybe 3 or 4 years ago, but certainly not now). Travesty, man.
Skip Gates was arrested. In his home. After showing identification. The incredible article is linked:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/07/harvard.html
Apparently he got uppity...
Holy cow. I wish this stuff surprised me.
Reading the comments, I've got to give TNC's Friday estimate of casual racism props for being pretty accurate. Clearly there are numerous white professors arrested in their own homes after proving they live there every other day, and the posters' inability to point to any examples of such is part of the conspiracy against white people by the evil liberals.
I've been hearing a lot of stories about Harvard/Cambridge police and racism, this pretty much tops it though.
Sounds like that Dave Chappelle routine:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/473532/dave_chappelle_stand_up_scared_of_the_police/
Henry Louis Gates Jr? THE Henry Louis Gates Jr? In his home?
Wow.
whiskey, tango, foxtrott america?
*jawdrop* This is unbelievable.
I remember when Counter got pulled over. That had a lot of people shaking their heads and sighing. But this is going to get a lot of people hopping mad. Why was he arrested and taken into police custody?!
"...He showed his driver’s license and Harvard identification card, but was handcuffed and taken into police custody for several hours last Thursday..."
this makes me so ANGRY!!!
...but, but...he's a good kid...how many other mugshots of Harvard Profs have they collected at the station?
this is why black folk may think differently about the police
*headdesk*...*facepalm*...*SHM*...**extreme annoyance**
Andrew's subs linked to this collection of science tattoos a day or two ago and I have become enthralled. For a needlephobe to start thinking "oh, I could see that on my shoulder blade" is a weird sensation. For any science geek, art geek, or tattoo (geek?)--I'm two of the three.
I'm sorry I missed out on the "I'm not a racist, but..." conversation.
I am too. But after this I didn't want to add anything:
I missed the conversation, too, but I actually thought that TNC misrepresented what that commenter said in your example. The woman wasn't claiming that racists are treated like the scum of the earth, or that society ostracizes them like we should. She was claiming that she was raised to think racists are the scum of the earth. TNC's point is a good one, but was a different conversation than that woman was having, IMO.
I don't think TNC's estimate of 35-40% was offensive in the least. I do, however, think that it is very wrong. White people acted shocked because I think they were very genuinely surprised that TNC felt that way. I know I was. I certainly never would have guessed that he assumed up to 40%(conservatively) of white people really, really disliked black people. It's interesting to me, because I think it will change the way I read this blog. But it's also helpful because I know how much farther we have to go.
I didn't really get that from the exchange, but I see how you did Stacy. I don't think she was making that claim, nor was TNC responding to it. But what TNC was addressing was the moral stance that she grew up with, to show simply that being "scum" in one way, does not mean you're really considered scum. He was tying it to the fact that racists are just as likely to be respected/educated/monied/surprising kind of people as not.
When it's a racist that fits a bad stereotype, it's all well and good for everybody else, but when they're a productive or wealthy or respected or widely-known member of society, people are a lot more likely to do the "disappearing racist" commentary - the "oh snap, he's not really one of us, that can't be real." But it is real. Yes, it's shitty, as she said. It makes a person feel like shit, but looking to TNC's comment about Robert E. Lee, it points to something a lot more troubling than merely racism. When men great in most other respects can carry such an insidious prejudice against their fellow men.
There's a GREAT quote from an equally GREAT book, The Power of One, and it has informed my approach to racism and racists alike. Peekay here is talking about the South African Nationalist government:
What I ultimately got from that comment exchange were two things. 1) a morally reductive approach like "all racists are scum" is tantamount to the approach of racism itself (it's a lot harder to object to though, for sure) - but both are vast generalizations that mask the truth and can make reality hard to deal with (for sure, it makes racists a lot harder to deal with). And 2), quite stupidly, to have hope. My best friend is white: a bright, vivacious, high-achieving and insanely talented young woman, and she also has NO FILTER between her brain and her mouth, and sometimes says things that can be construed as prejudiced or bigoted or just plain nuts. There have been so many times I've been like DAMNSHUTUPWHATISWRONGWITHYOUWHYAREWEFRIENDS?! But she does have a conscience, and she is a willing learner. Daily she grows in her understanding of other's sensitivities, and it's that awareness in her that humbles me too, as much as it humbles her (like seriously, all the time).
As for his figure, I don't think he meant it seriously, but damn if it didn't cause a kerfluffle.
kekemen,
I think you make a lot of great points, and I don't necessarily disagree with anything you said. And honestly, outside of TNC's figure, I didn't really disagree with most of what TNC said. I actually think waiting to comment about it has led to a bit more self-reflection. I kind of wish everyone that typed on that thread had a 48 hour waiting period, because the discussion definitely lacked a little of the typical thougtfulness that makes these conversations great.
It's still an important conversation to have, but that thread really shows how difficult those types of discussions can be. Some people were much too defensive about the figure. Others were much to eager to mock those acting defensive, which, in turn, led them to be more defensive.
I hope Michael Vick gets a second chance as well. He did his time. And he sure is one great football player.
Get better MCA. Gratitude, indeed.
Just found this blog via the East Bay Express (Oakland, CA) and thought it might be of interest: http://lightweightracist.blogspot.com/