“Psycho Killer” by the Talking Heads
[youtubevid id="l5zFsy9VIdM"]
Have a good weekend folks.
Archive for June, 2010
America’s last racist has returned.
…Because there are no racists in America, other than those who drive by a mural depicting multi-racial children, and are compelled to yell “nigger” and “spic” (via Wonkette):
R.E. Wall, director of Prescott’s Downtown Mural Project, said he and other artists were subjected to slurs from motorists as they worked on the painting at one of the town’s most prominent intersections.
“We consistently, for two months, had people shouting racial slander from their cars,” Wall said. “We had children painting with us, and here come these yells of (epithet for Blacks) and (epithet for Hispanics).”
As a result, the artists have been asked to “lighten the faces” of the children in the mural, to avoid further controversy. In case you missed that, the artists have been asked to whitewash a mural for children, because some Arizonans are completely and utterly enraged by the presence of brown faces.
It’s worth noting too that Zombie Bull Connor was seen recently in South Carolina, where he took some time to comment on the gubernatorial race:
Knotts says he believed Haley has been set up by a network of Sikhs and was programmed to run for governor of South Carolina by outside influences in foreign countries. He claims she is hiding her religion and he wants the voters to know about it.
“We got a raghead in Washington; we don’t need one in South Carolina,” Knotts said more than once. “She’s a raghead that’s ashamed of her religion trying to hide it behind being Methodist for political reasons.”
Zombie Bull Connor is a dangerous menace to this nation’s racial harmony, and if you see him, please don’t hesitate to use the race card. It’s our only weapon against his undead ravings.
And as an aside, I’m really looking forward to the inevitable conservative who will stumble across this blog post, and tell me — angrily — that the real problem isn’t racism, it’s those nasty liberals and minorities who insist on pointing out racism. It would all go away, if they could just stop “obsessing” over it.
The New York Times’ Sam Roberts joins the growing list of people and publications who are strangely concerned with the marital prospects of black women:
It is a familiar lament of single African-American women: where are the “good” black men to marry?
A new study shows that more and more black men are marrying women of other races. In fact, more than 1 in 5 black men who wed (22 percent) married a nonblack woman in 2008. This compares with about 9 percent of black women, and represents a significant increase for black men — from 15.7 percent in 2000 and 7.9 percent in 1980
Thankfully, the times doesn’t go into the psychoanalyzing and concern-trolling that have become hallmarks of the genre. And of course, it’s worth mentioning that the vast majority of black men are married to, and will marry, black women. Still, I am really irritated by this article for the same reason I am really irritated by all of these “investigations” into the dating plight of African-American women. Namely, they each seem like an attempt to turn common problems into some kind of dating pathology, unique only to black people.
To steal a bit from a post I wrote a while back, it’s not just that these pieces rest on two, horribly flawed assumptions — all black women are heterosexual and want to get married — but that they ignore the often painful fact that dating is hard for everyone. Meeting people is hard for everyone. And it’s not an easy thing to turn a casual relationship into something lasting and meaningful. Black women are in the same boat as everyone else, and it’s deeply unfair to single them out for problems that are common to women of all colors.”
That said, if there’s anything redeeming about Roberts’ write-up, it’s that he nods to the fact that interracial marriage and the “blending” of America is often overstated:
“Children of white-Asian and white-Hispanic parents will have no problems calling themselves white, if that’s their choice,” said Andrew Hacker, a political scientist at Queens College of the City University of New York and the author of a book about race.
“But offspring of black and another ethnic parent won’t have that option,” Professor Hacker said. “They’ll be black because that’s the way they’re seen. Barack Obama, Tiger Woods, Halle Berry, have all known that. Will that change? Don’t hold your breath.”
When it comes to race relations, we tend to view “white/black” as the key divide, when in truth, “non-black/black” is a far more useful and accurate way of approaching it. Whiteness is an expansive category with more than enough room for Asians, Hispanics, and the children of non-black interracial unions. In essence, everyone who isn’t black eventually becomes white, and as America becomes more diverse, the notion of who is “white” and who isn’t will adjust, with black people on the outside as foils to whiteness. Things will improve, definitely, but the stigma of blackness will remain and linger, even as we become a nation with more Rashida Jones’ than Reese Witherspoons.
*If you want to hear an interesting conversation on this very topic (involving me, no less!), check out episode 4 of PostBourgie: The Podcast.
04
Jun
10
Aziz Ansari (is my favorite)
I am posting this link to the New York Times’ profile of Aziz Ansari for the simple reason that he is hilarious, and one of my favorite comedians. His Fresh Air interview with Terry Gross is worth a listen too. In the meantime, here is one of my favorite skits from his old sketch show, Human Giant:
[youtubevid id="ZqazVa9RoZs"]
04
Jun
10
Unemployment: Obama's Katrina?
At least, that’s Felix Salmon’s judgment*:
The really recalcitrant number here is the unemployment rate, which is staying stubbornly near 10% no matter what payrolls do: when they’re healthy, more people start looking for work. But if you want a hint of a glimmer of hope, at least the broad U6 underemployment rate is heading in the right direction: it was 16.6% in May, down from a whopping 17.1% in April. (But it’s still higher than it was at the beginning of the year.) And more generally, of course, this degree of labor-market weakness is yet more reason to believe that inflation simply isn’t an issue for the foreseeable future, especially given the strength of the dollar. So the Fed is going to be happy keeping rates at zero for the time being: remember it has a dual mandate, and that Ben Bernanke should care just as much about bringing the unemployment rate down as Barack Obama does.
My feeling, however, is that both of them are going to be disappointed. Expect unemployment to remain over 9% through the midterm elections — compared to a rate of just 6.9% in November 2008, when Obama was elected. It’s that number, rather than anything going on right now in the Gulf of Mexico, which is really “Obama’s Katrina”. [Emphasis mine]
For most people, Katrina stands for casual indifference, incompetence and neglect, and I can see how you could apply it to Obama and persistent unemployment. It’s not that Barack Obama was responsible for the financial crisis, and you can’t you blame him for the federal government’s slow response in the final months of 2008. But you could fault him for his overly cautious approach to the initial stimulus, as well as his current unwillingness to press for further stimulus. More than anything else — including the Gulf oil spill — high and persistent unemployment could be the profound failure of his administration.
Still, as powerful as the analogy is, I’m not sure if it fits. FEMA’s disastrously poor response to Katrina was an unambiguous failure of President Bush; he staffed his administration with people both openly hostile to government and eager to degrade its capacities. When disaster eventually struck, FEMA was ultimately hobbled by explicit design of the president. Bush’s indifference, while infuriating, was mostly just icing on the (shit-flavored) cake.
By contrast, President Obama is only partly responsible for the government’s failure to address the employment situation. Yes, the stimulus package was inadequate, but politics is the art of the possible, and in a world where Ben Nelson, Olympia Snow and Susan Collins are your decisive votes, $787 billion is at the upper limit of what you can do. My hunch is that Obama and his advisors are well aware of the necessity of further stimulus, but with an intransigent Republican Party and 60-vote Senate, further spending is all but impossible.
In other words, the difference between Katrina qua Katrina and “Obama’s Katrina,” is that for all the criticism Obama deserves, he’s really only part of the problem. The remaining blame, as it often does, lies with Congress.
*Of course, there’s the real possibility that I’m taking this analogy too seriously.
I know Andrew Romano had a story to write, but can you really call these “talking points” when they’re a pretty accurate reflection of the landscape:
The Democrats, meanwhile, have made it their duty to match the GOP’s grandiosity with an equal measure of glumness. Reached separately this week in Washington, officials from the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee repeated the same robotic talking points. Historically, the president almost always loses seats in the first midterm elections after he enters office, they said. Add in the sagging economy and the anti-incumbent sentiment out there, and it’s going to be an extremely tough year for Democrats. [Emphasis mine]
Granted, they are “talking points” in the sense that they come from Democratic Party operatives and serve to provide a certain context for the election, “GOP gains are inevitable, and are particularly special.” Still, these “talking points” also have the benefit of being true. Base mobilization and Tea Party spoilers might make the difference in some races, but generally, the Democratic Party’s fate will hinge on the joblessness rate, anti-incumbent sentiment, and historical pattern.
That said, I don’t want to downplay strategy and candidate quality, which is the focus of Romano’s piece. Systemic factors, like voter enthusiasm, will determine 90 percent of the contested elections in November. But for those marginal districts, a great candidate and a smart strategy can make all the difference. Moreover, there’s the real danger — for Republicans — that the Tea Party will act as a spoiler in some districts (like the VA-5, where I’m situated), and either siphon votes away from the mainstream candidate, or present and nominate a candidate too conservative for the district.
Democrats shouldn’t despair; the landscape is tilted against them, but the November isn’t here yet, and the odds are still good that they’ll maintain their majorities.
As I’m sure you’ve heard, there’s mixed news on the jobs front. Total employment grew by 431,000 jobs, but 411,000 of those jobs were temporary census jobs — private sector employment hardly budged, with a scant increased of 41,000. The unemployment fell to 9.7 percent (from 9.9 percent in May), but that drops owes itself to the 286,000 people who left the labor force. If you use the alternate U6 measure — which includes part-time workers and those not looking for work — the jobless rate bumps up to 16.6 percent.
Unfortunately, the picture is especially bleak for African-Americans. Unemployment for blacks dropped from last months’ 16.5 percent to 15.5 percent, which while lower, is nearly seven points higher than the rate for whites. And the difference is even starker for men and teenagers. For black men 20 years and over, the jobless rate is 17.1 percent (almost double that of similarly-aged white men), and for black teens aged 16 to 19 (men and women), the jobless rate is 38 percent, 14 points above the rate for white teens. And this is to say nothing of the black prison population; to count them as jobless would be catastrophic for African-American employment numbers.
What’s more, while college graduates are generally better off than their non-degree holding counterparts, there remains a substantial employment gap between white and black college graduates. In April, the nationwide joblessness rate for white college graduates 25 and older was 4 percent, for black graduates, it was 7.4 percent. Still, if you are black — and if you’re white, for that matter — having a college degree is a significant advantage in the current economy.
On the whole though, these numbers underscore the need for more stimulus spending, and ideally, that would include spending targeted at lowering the stubbornly high unemployment rate among African-Americans. Unfortunately, given Washington’s obsession with deficit reduction — and its indifference to high unemployment — further stimulus is a political non-starter, despite the many dangers of persistent, long-term unemployment.
Photo credit: AP/Ric Francis
Shorter John Judis: “There are no racists in America”:
It’s possible, as Damon Linker has suggested, that Rand Paul’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not based on racial resentment, but on a radical libertarianism. (Although, recalling Jamie Kirchick’s study of Ron Paul’s racist newsletters, if his father shaped Rand Paul’s view on civil rights, it might be more accurate to say that his opinions reflect both libertarianism and racial resentment.) Equally, it may be that some Tea Party members’ rage against “moochers” looking for government handouts to pay for houses they couldn’t afford is an expression of American individualism rather than racism. Racial resentment is one impulse among many. It is not necessarily an overpowering Id that defines conservative politics, and the opposition to Obama.
I’ve heard this argument before, and I find it oddly disconnected from the actual history of the conservative movement and it’s cousins in the hard-right. Racial resentment was an integral part of the conservative movement from the very beginning; it animated some of its earliest crusaders – William F. Buckley — and provided it with its first firm electoral footing (there’s a reason Goldwater did very well in the former Confederacy). As Amanda Marcotte has repeatedly and convincingly noted, this Tea Party flavor of libertarianism — defined largely by rabid opposition to any kind of social spending — has its roots in the backlash against civil rights gains. Indeed, it’s incredibly naive of Judis to argue that the Tea Party’s rage against “moochers” doesn’t have racial roots, especially since it’s long been the case that those inveighing against “moochers” (or “welfare queens”) are mostly just railing against black people. The Tea Party might not be about racism, but as Bruce Bartlett observed a few days ago, there’s no denying that racial animus fuels the movement’s momentum.
That said, if there’s anything particularly annoying about Judis’ piece, it’s his shallow and restrictive definition of racism:
What I am suggesting is that it’s very possible to believe that the Tea Party is not the latest manifestation of the Ku Klux Klan or White Citizens’ Councils—while still believing that it is a terrible menace, nonetheless.
You see this a lot in mainstream discussions of racism; accusations of racism are the worst things imaginable, and outside of Zombie Bull Connor and the Klan, there are no actual racists in America. If you accuse someone of racist acts, they’ll respond with chagrin, deny the charge, and then have friends and relatives defend their character, “He’s such a kind person,” “He loves black people,” “He has no hate in his heart.” Likewise, the Tea Party can’t possibly be racist! After all, these are just kindly old right-wing extremists, not skinheads or neo-Confederates!
Listen, no one is arguing that the Tea Party is the latest heir to the White Citizens’ Councils, but given everything we know about the movement, as well as what we know about the relationship between ethnocentrism and policy beliefs, racial resentment seems like the best way of explaining the Tea Party’s rapid rise and intensity. Or put another way, when the Tea Party’s national leader calls President Obama an “Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug,” you can safely assume that race might have something to do with their grievances.
03
Jun
10
Don't Regulate 'Hate' Speech
I find Glenn Beck and his right-wing allies as odious as the next liberal, but I think this is a mistake:
A coalition of more than 30 groups requested this week that the FCC monitor hate speech on cable news and talk radio programs, The Hill reported this week.
The request comes as the FCC prepares to tackle net neutrality, and supports a petition filed last year by the National Hispanic Media Coalition asking the commission to look into the relationship between hate speech and the rising number of hate crimes against Latinos.
This latest request was sent as a letter by groups including Free Press, the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, and the Center for Media Justice, arguing that the Internet has made it harder for the public to separate facts from “bigotry masquerading as news.”
I agree that Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Michael Savage (to only name a few) say nasty, terrible and offensive things, and contribute to the increasingly poisonous atmosphere towards illegal immigrants. But bigotry isn’t illegal, and treating their (admittedly objectionable) speech as potentially criminal sets a dangerous precedent for us all. The best way to oppose hate speech is to fight it in the public arena by revealing it for what it is. Admittedly, these men have large followings, but relative to the rest of the country, the fall far outside the mainstream, and we should treat them as such.
Recent Comments