Behind the Curve

Partially because I deigned to watch football the last three weekends and partially because I have the annoying habit of taking on more stuff than I'm comfortable with, I'm behind in watching stuff on TV, reading the paper, etc.

That two-hour Haiti special, the album for which is the first #1 album that exists without an actual physical product? Haven't watched it.

The State of the Union - read the reviews, but not heard the actual address. The chat Obama had with Republicans that went so well for the President that FOX News stopped showing it 20 minutes in - plenty of places to read it or watch it, including here but hasn't happened yet. Still, I think Evanier's right when he notes: Once you tell your constituents that everything Obama does is evil, you can't meet him halfway on anything without appearing to be compromising with evil. You can't even support him when he does things you like. I think that's a lot of our problem right there.

Of course, being behind has its benefits. After Martha Coakley lost to Scott Brown in the Massachusetts race for US Senate, there's been this revisionist message that the Democrats only dumped on her because she lost. Watching the Sunday morning talk shows two and nine days before that election, it was clear that the Democrats, though muted in their criticism - she was still their candidate - suggested that she did not run the robust campaign she ought to have. Yes, in answer to her rhetorical question, you DO pass out fliers in front of Fenway Park.

Some stories I missed altogether, such as the death of Pernell Roberts, the eldest son on Bonanza who later became, in some bizarro world spinoff, Trapper John in the CBS drama Trapper John, MD. It was not a great show, though it was the jumping off point for now-Broadway legend Brian Stokes Mitchell.

I plowed through a couple weeks of the Wall Street Journal and came across this story of Scarlett Johansson's debut on Broadway as well as a very positive review of "Gregory Mosher's revival of 'A View From the Bridge, Arthur Miller's
1955 play about love and death on the Brooklyn waterfront." "Of course you'll be wondering about Ms. Johansson, whose Broadway debut this is, and I can tell you all you need to know in a sentence: She is so completely submerged in her role that you could easily fail to spot her when she makes her first entrance. You'd never guess that she hasn't acted on a stage since she was a little girl."

Other stories I just didn't know what to say. I noticed that Kate McGarrigle of the singing/songwriting McGarrigle Sisters, and also mother of Rufus and Martha Wainwright, died of cancer at the age of 62 back on January 18. The best I could come with is a link to an obituary for Kate written by her sister Anna. I was listening to Trio, an album by Dolly Parton, Linda Ronstadt and Emmylou Harris this week. There's a Kate song called I've Had Enough, about lost love, but feels right here.

Love it's not I who didn't try
Hard enough, hard enough
And this is why I'm saying goodbye
I've had enough, I've had enough
Love you don't see
The pain in me
That's plain enough, plain enough
You're never here to catch the tears
I cried for us, I cried for us

I'll take my share but I'll be fair
There's not much stuff
Easy enough
And if you choose I'll break the news
This part is tough, so very tough

I've tried and tried to put aside
The time to talk, but without luck
So I'll just pin this note within your coat
And leave the garden gate unlocked

And this is why I'm saying goodbye
I've had enough, I've had enough

Her funeral is today in Montreal.

Little Boxes theme from Weeds by the McGarrigle Sisters.

ROG

QUESTION: How's Obama Doing?

Since it's the anniversary of the inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama, the obvious question for you folks: how's he doing? When he gave an interview with Oprah Winfrey in December, he gave himself a B+; he must have been grading on a curve, because I'm thinking more like C+.

The good:
Pretty much his very first act was to sign an order extending the time women who had been systematically discriminated against in pay to seek redress.
He set a tone of more international cooperation rather than "America's way or the highway."
He promised to close Gitmo, though I think he could have waited on ANNOUNCING it until he had actually lined up the places the prisoners would be transferred to.
He ended torture. I know that there are those who think banning "enhanced interrogation methods" makes the US less safe; I so totally disagree.
He took responsibility for the failing in his administration, notably Christmas airline near-disaster (cf, his Homeland Security chief's tone-deaf pronouncement that everything had gone right).
And I shouldn't understate the impressive nature of his comportment.

The bad:
Yes, he was dealt a touch economic hand. But he always seems to side with the big bankers on deregulation when he should have been putting the screws to them. The dissatisfaction from people on the left and the right on this one topic may be the failed legacy of this Presidency.
The Afghanistan war; I'm willing to be proven wrong on this.

The ugly:
Health care. I support the ideas that Obama put forth in the campaign. And I agreed with the notion that hit had to be done early. Yet, apparently afraid of Clinton Health Care Disaster, Part 2, he instead left it to Congress to flounder around the topic, undercutting what I believed was the most important idea - single payer - making the bill weaker and mushier. And now, with the US Senate race in Massachusetts, Teddy Kennedy's seat, the health care guru's seat, falling to an obstructionist Republican, health care seems to be dead for the foreseeable future. It was bungled - badly. I'm talking Jay Leno at 10 p.m. badly.
Race. The one "teachable moment" became a "beer summit," a bit of a joke.

Now to be fair, there was a lot of poisonous lies (born in Kenya, a Muslim, a socialist/fascist/communist) that too many people were eager to believe. That doesn't help governing, though there was a point when I thought that since so many people were accusing him of being a socialist, he ought to act more like one, rather than the centralist he tends to be.

I'm sure there are other issues I'm forgetting. What say you re: BHO?

ROG

Two Sides to the Same Racial Rhetoric

There's a lot of noise that's been made this week about comments made about Barack Obama, by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid over a year ago, and by former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich. To my mind, they are just two sides of the same coin.

Reid, it is reported in a book, referred to Obama as a "light-skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." It's in the same category as Joe Biden's 2008 description of Obama as "clean and articulate." Whereas Blagojevich suggests that he is blacker than Obama in a recent interview.

What Reid (and Biden) were saying is is that they were comfortable with Obama because he is more like them than other black people they have known. They are more comfortable with someone like that. I think they were speaking the truth, but the truth is not politically comfortable. And I dare say that much of the United States felt the same way; Obama was not a "scary black man" who sounds like - heaven help us! - Jesse Jackson, so we can vote for him and pat ourselves on the back about just how enlightened and "colorblind" we are.

Blago was questioning the AUTHENTICITY of Obama's blackness, that there is a checklist of things that makes a "real" black man, from the way he talks to the beliefs he has. Hey, Obama plays basketball and likes jazz; shouldn't that count for something?

It was the Blago remarks that affected me more personally. There seemed to be this notion, at least when I was growing up, that certain features signified a real blackness. My father used to make a point of my sisters and me speaking "traditional" American English, not some sort of Ebonics. This worked well in surviving growing up in my predominantly white, Slavic neighborhood. It wasn't as successful in dealing with some of the black kids who would mock my bookish ways and my "white" way of talking. Heck, some of the white kids that hung out with the black kids would suggest that they were "blacker" than I was, because they talked "ghetto"; some of them would put their tanned arms next to mine to check THAT aspect as well.

I mean, I listened to Motown and Atlantic, but I was fans of the Beatles and folk music and classic music. There seemed to be these rules that "authentic" black people could only like certain kinds of of music. That lineage of blues, r&b, soul to hip hop and rap were OK. Classical was not. Neither was rock, which made NO sense to me, since rock and roll evolved from blues and R&B. The artists that performed the outre music like Dionne Warwick (pop), Charley Pride (country) and Jimi Hendrix (rock) weren't considered "black enough" by some folks, and this really ticked me off.

There was this Red Cross training event at Manlius, NY near Syracuse. I went as my high school's representative. On the penultimate evening, there was a talent show. I got on stage with a pick-up band, and everyone thought I was going to sing. Instead, I got out a comb and a piece of paper and played a couple minutes of blues riffs. I got a standing ovation; it was one of my favorite moments in my life. The next day, everyone was signing photos and booklets. This one young woman signed my booklet,m on the back, "You're a nice guy, but you're no soul brother." You could have taken a baseball bat and hit me in the solar plexus, then hit me again, and again, and I doubt it would have hurt as much as that one sentence did. I probably looked at that piece of paper periodically for the next couple years, and if it has left my possession, it's because I lost it, not thrown it away. The ultimate lesson, I suppose, was that I couldn't worry myself with being "black enough".

My (condescending, black) godmother died about a decade ago. A year or two before that, I saw her for the first time in many years at the (black) church in which I grew up. She asked me what church I was going to in Albany, and I told her. "That's a WHITE church, isn't it? " I said, "predominately." There was a point when her disapproval could, and did, really wound me, but not by thast point, fortunately.

There seems to be these periodic calls for "racial dialogue in America". Yet the Reid comment, which seems to me like a pretty good opportunity, was was largely quashed with an apology and "let's move on." I found it particularly interesting to hear conservatives like Lynn Cheney trying to make the most hay about this, and me ending up largely agreeing with George Will. Premise: almost certainly, the color of his skin and the way he speaks made some people more comfortable with Obama. Discuss.

That said, I've become increasingly convinced that what's made Obama "not scary" has also made him possibly less effective as President. I've heard those on the left say he should be cracking heads to get the Democrats in line on health care, and those on the right say he should be taking names over the Christmas near-airline disaster. I think it's not affectation but self-training that has made Obama preturnaturally calm. He HAS the office; maybe it's time, if he can, to get just a little bit scarier.

ROG

The Shape of Things To Come

Happened to be a shop while, by chance, Obama's Nobel Prize acceptance speech was on the radio. Understandably criticized, it was generally compared to George Orwell's 1984. It made me think about a song that borrows from Orwell, Tracy Chapman's Why?, which you can (I hope) hear here.
Love is hate
War is peace
No is yes
And we're all free

But somebody's gonna have to answer
The time is coming soon
When the blind remove their blinders
And the speechless speak the truth
***
So what should upon my wandering eyes should appear but ABC-TV's schedule for Tuesday night, Dec 15: A Charlie Brown Christmas. From 8 to 9 pm - 1 hour. When they last broadcast it, LAST Tuesday, as noted here, squeezed into a half hour slot:

Gone was Sally’s materialistic letter to Santa, which finally sends Charlie screaming from the room when she says she will settle for 10s and 20s.

Gone was Schroeder’s miraculous multiple renditions of “Jingle Bells” from a toy piano, including the one that sounds distinctly like a church organ.

Gone was Linus using his blanket as an improvised slingshot to knock a can off the fence no one else can hit, complete with ricochet sound effect.

Gone were the kids catching snowflakes on their tongues and commenting on their flavor.

Gone even was poor Shermy’s only line. He thought he had it bad because he was always tasked to play a shepherd. He had no idea.

And why were all these classic scenes cut? To plug more ads into the show, of course. To sell burgers and greeting cards — and to relentlessly plug the insipid-looking new Disney “soon to be a classic” show immediately following.

So did ABC relent to some sort of pressure? Inquiring minds want to know. But THIS seems to be the viewing of A Charlie Brown Christmas to watch - or record, even if it's filled with even MORE ads. And - it is hoped - an apology.
***
Still catching up, after two sick days this week. One of the truths I've long known is that when you're sick or injured, but don't act particularly sick or injured, people forget. I experienced that Wednesday, and I admit it: it made me rather cranky.
My wife and daughter both had a snow day, but they seemed to think it was MY snow day too; no, I'm home because ...ever look at a computer screen and see it as doubled, only slightly out of sync? That's what was happening to me. Yet the daughter wanted to play a game while the wife took a nap - a nap; *I* needed a nap. And when the wife announced that since we had this found opportunity, we could (oh, boy!) work on the household budget. No, no, no, it's YOUR found time; it's my SICK time. I almost escaped to the local library except I didn't want to infect strangers.

It's odd, but I hate taking off sick time. And I have LOTS of it. At the beginning of December, I had 145 days. If I use three in December, I still get 1.5, so I'll still have 143.5 days left. And it's not as though I get paid it out when I retire, or can apply the time to my health benefits; when I leave, I lose them. The only way I'll use them is if I have a catastrophic illness or injury. But it takes so little to fall behind at work - 180 e-mails and 14 phone messages to look at on Thursday.
***
Two children's birthday parties this weekend - goody.
***
I was looking at my face in the mirror recently and noticed that my cheeks are slightly darker than the rest of my face, as though the pigmentation after its loss in the vitiligo had returned. More recently, a small circle near my left temple and a larger circle around my right has also gotten darker. I find it odd that I really don't know what I look like from month to month of late.
***
When I was growing up, there were two songs, with similar titles, which appealed to me. One was The Yardbirds' Shapes of Things, which got up to #11 in the US pop charts in the spring of 1966. The other is Shape of Things to Come by Max Frost & The Troopers, which reached #22 in the fall of 1968. Seems to be my message du jour.


ROG

Politicking

Here are some issues I've been musing about,. some happened a couple weeks ago but are still in my head.

New York State passed a no texting while driving law that became effective November 1. While I'm very much in favor of people not multitasking in that fashion, I'm not all that excited by the passage of more legislation that can be routinely ignored. Perhaps those who always follow the law will abide, and maybe those who've decided even before the law that texting while driving is unsafe. But, based on the (non-)enforcement of the no cellphone law, the only benefit will be something to charge a driver with ifwhen an accident occurs, the authorities will be able to charge the driver with additional violations.

Racialicious had an interesting article I’m for gay rights, but...; the topic was also discussed on the podcast Addicted to Race, episode 125, which describes the "oppression Olympics": essentially who is more oppressed, blacks or gays, and why that whole mindset is so wrong. In the episode, the panel discussed Martin Luther King Jr's daughter's recent declaration that her father "didn’t take a bullet for same-sex unions." Meanwhile the late Coretta Scott King had shown support for the rights of all, including gays. As the show notes ask: "Why is it that marginalized people fight each other over scraps, instead of uniting to work toward justice for all?" Sounds like a reasonable strategy to me.
***
Only recently did I get to watch the Sunday morning talk shows from two days before Election Day. It is very instructive to listen to most of the predictions in the House race in NY-23, which "everybody knows" was going to the Conservative. Except, of course, it didn't. One Republican operative in particular was complaining how 11 Republican county chairpersons could pick a candidate, suggesting that it's undemocratic. Well, it is, but it's also the way the Democratic candidate was picked. When Kirsten Gillibrand replaced Hillary Clinton in the US Senate, the county chairs in her district picked the candidates, but the winner stands only until the next election, in 2010. (For that matter, Gillibrand also has to run in 2010, and if she wins, in 2012, when the seat would normally be up.)

That race was a perfect example of why Instant Runoff Voting would have been helpful, as I noted here. For that matter, IRV would have clarified the New Jersey governor's race. One pundit noted that the third party candidate faded, "as they always do." But the reason isn't their qualifications, it's their perceived win-ability.

Speaking of Election Day, Jason at 2political, among others, noted this peculiar trend in Virginia gubernatorial races. In the last three decades, when there is one party elected President, the very next year, the Virginia governor is elected from the other party:
CARTER 1976 (D); John N. Dalton 1977 Republican
REAGAN 1980 (R); Chuck Robb 1981 Democratic
REAGAN 1984 (R); Gerald L. Baliles 1985 Democratic
BUSH 41 1988 (R); Douglas Wilder 1989 Democratic
CLINTON 1992 (D); George Allen 1993 Republican
CLINTON 1996 (D); Jim Gilmore 1997 Republican
BUSH 43 2000 (R); Mark Warner 2001 Democratic
BUSH 43 2004 (R); Tim Kaine 2005 Democratic
OBAMA 2008 (D); Bob McDonnell 2009 Republican
So it's difficult to see any repudiation of Obama in the Virginia race. Not to mention that the Democrats picked a lousy candidate.

Speaking of repudiating Obama, I was baffled that Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos of ABC News were baffled by two recent polls. One showed about a 57% support for the public option; the other showed that the majority of Americans oppose Obama's handling of the health care issue. They seemed to assume that opposition to Obama on the issue would only come from the right. In fact, if I had been asked, I would have said the same thing: that I oppose Obama's handling of health care, not because it contains a public option but because single payer got taken off the table much too easily. And, absent single payer, I support the public option.

As for the bill that DID get passed by the House, what SamuraiFrog said, particularly with regards to abortion, applies to me too. And there's no guarantee that the wuss of a House bill will even make it through the Senate in any meaningful way.

I got an important e-mail this week:

Become a Charter Member of the Bush Presidential Center
Dear ROGER,
I don't have to remind you how America was tested time and again-at home and abroad-during the eight defining years of the George W. Bush presidency.
The difficult decisions President Bush made in the face of each challenge were rooted in the core principles he held throughout his years of public service—the fundamental values that have guided America since her founding: Freedom . . . Opportunity . . . Responsibility . . . Compassion.
Now President and Mrs. Bush—with the support of many patriotic Americans like you—are taking on a new challenge. They are continuing their personal commitment to advancing these enduring principles through the George W. Bush Presidential Center.
The Center will uniquely integrate the records of a national archive, the thematic exhibits of a presidential museum, and the intellectual capital of a research-based policy institute to transform ideas into action.
The George W. Bush Presidential Center will continue to advance the ideals and core principles that shaped his presidency during a defining period in America's history.
Please accept this invitation to stand with President and Mrs. Bush by becoming a Charter Member of this vibrant, multi-disciplinary Center.
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Hon. Mark Langdale
President
George W. Bush Foundation

"Principles"? Er, thanks, but no thanks.
***
A lot more pictures like the ones above can be found here.

ROG

Half Breed

I have developed a premise about some of those folks who instinctively dislike and especially distrust Barack Obama; while some of it may be because he's black, I think there are just as many who react that way because he is of mixed race. Allow me to explain.

That bayou yahoo who refused to give a marriage license to a mixed race couple - doesn't he know about Loving vs. Virginia? - was probably seen as an aberrant reactionary; well, maybe.

When people say that someone is "half" something, that "something" is generally something other than white, e.g., "she is half Chinese", with the white assumed. (Read this Racialicious article to see why the whole fractionalization nomenclature is problematic.)

In fact, the only person I've EVER heard described as "half-white" by a white person is Barack Obama. Usually the context is this: "Why does he identify himself as black when he's half-white?"

Well, that's the great thing about the United States now, though not always in the past, is that people generally decide how they are identified. What the Census has allowed as of the last decennial count is that people can choose if they consider themselves as of one race or two races or multiple races. It's THEIR choice. Michelle Obama gets to identify as black even with her mixed heritage. Henry Louis Gates Jr gets to identify as black, even though his DNA test revealed in a PBS documentary that he was as much of European stock as African.

But when Barack Obama identifies as black when he had a white mother: is this seen as some sort of "rejection of his whiteness"? Thus the Glenn Becks of the world can say, apparently without irony, that the President "hates white people" and have some coterie of folks actually believe it.

I've not been talking policy disagreements here, so if you think that the enmity is totally based on deficits, health care. et al., that's fine. I'm just not convinced.
***
The title comes from the sometimes-angry Indian/white "half breed" named Quint on Gunsmoke, played by Burt Reynolds in 1962-66, who had difficulty fitting in with either culture.
Or maybe some song by Cher.

ROG

Roger Finally Answers Your Question, Gordon

Gordon, the near twin, asks:

Here's a question that might lead to some, well, potentially awkward and uncomfortable conversation:

With all of the "criticism" around President Obama winning the Peace Prize, how much of it do you feel is legitimate (i.e., it's too soon to tell) and how much may be racially motivated.

Part of the reason why I ask is that several of my friends, after being moderate/liberal for years, are now suddenly becoming hard-core conservatives, and claiming that they "never trusted" Obama. Although the record's still out for me, to be fair - he's only been in office ten months, and he has some extremely formidable tasks ahead of him...

(I'm still annoyingly moderate, leaning towards liberal)

I'm willing to suggest that lots of people are legitimately in the "too soon to tell" camp, including myself. That said, I too have been fascinated about quickly people have turned with racial vitriol on Obama in general. I may have used the example of a close relative of my buddy Steve Bissette who had voted for Obama less than a year ago and now thinks that we need to "get the n****** out of there."

I think that the black President may have more goodwill with, say blacks - polls suggest that - but perhaps less with others. I'm not saying he didn't waste some of his political capital here and there, but that doesn't explain the racial ugliness that seems to underlie much of it.

Part of it is the VRWC. Even if you've never watched Glenn Beck - I never have - one inevitably has heard that "Obama hates white people" on someone's blog, and that he's "playing the race card", when most of the time, he studiously avoids even talking about it. (And when he does, you end up with a "beer summit.") Add to that the birthers and the like, and suddenly a talk the POTUS wants to give to schoolkids is Communist socialist Nazi propaganda.

You know the old saying, "Where there's smoke, there's fire." Surely SOME of it must be true, right, RIGHT? And if that guy with the funny name hates white people (like his mother and grandparents) and we don't REALLY know anything about him (his TWO autobiographies notwithstanding), then maybe if one thinks he DOES hate white people, I can only imagine that they would not be so kindly disposed toward him.

Take the Chicago Olympics bid. You know I'm with you on not thinking a Chicago Olympics was such a swell idea for reasons you talked about. Still, I believe he HAD to go to Copenhagen to try. Imagine the narrative otherwise. Leaders from Brazil, Japan, and Spain go, but he doesn't. The Games are awarded elsewhere. Obama is blamed; "If he had only gone to the IOC, the Olympics would have come to America. Obama must hate America." It's your basic damned if you do...scenario.

As for the Nobel Prize itself: if he were nominated two weeks after becoming President, he was in the running based on a then-pervasive sense that by electing - dare I say the cliche again? - a "historic" candidate for President, that his Nobel nomination and selection was based on a hope that the United States was taking an important step in becoming a post-racial society. Which it ain't reached yet.

Now, you've gotten me to wondering: if Hillary Clinton, or for that matter, Bill Richardson, had been elected President, might one of them been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize based on THAT historic breakthrough?
ROG

Climate Change

I agreed to do this bloggers unite to save the world thing today on climate change, but my heart's not in it. I mean, there are still people who deny that we are slowly, or not so slowly killing ourselves and our planet. No wonder they called a movie about the topic The Age of Stupid.

President Obama gave a nice speech on climate change at the United Nations last month. Of course, Jon Stewart on the Daily Show rightly mocked the amount of fuel used by the leaders getting to New York City.

I WILL plug the 350 event on October 24. That day, in almost every country of the world, ordinary citizens will come together in a series of events and rallies and demonstrations and glorious public art projects, all designed to do one thing: make the most important number in the world the most well-known.
That number is 350, as in parts per million carbon dioxide. In the last two years, the scientific community has made very clear that it's the maximum safe level for carbon in the atmosphere, at least if we want to have a planet "similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapated."

Perhaps huge participation numbers will light a fire under President Obama when he goes to Copenhagen in December for U.N.-sponsored climate talks.

Of course, we as individuals have to do more. I may use a reel mower, which I tend to arrogantly think of as a REAL mower. We compost. But surely our old house still needs more insulation. So it's not just the leaders; it's gotta be all of us as well.

I've mentioned this before, but someone should explain to me how cap and trade is NOT functionally like the (not so) old church tradition of selling indulgences, where the the "sinners" pay for redemption.

As the President said: "Unease is no excuse for inaction. And we must not allow the perfect to become the enemy of progress."


ROG

Information QUESTION

I was reading the Wall Street Journal a couple weeks ago, and they reported that betting line and most of the "experts" predicted that Chicago would get the 2016 Olympics; you know how THAT worked out.

My question, then, is: What are your sources of information that you most trust? It might well be different sources for different info.

For instance, I find Advertising Age to be a remarkably good gauge of the fall television season, not so much what will be good as much as what the advertisers will be likely to buy into, which may have to quality. the shows they picked to click (Glee, Modern Family, The Good Wife) showed up on many lists as did their losers (Brothers, the already canceled The Beautiful Life). The point is that, year in and year out, they've been reliable.

Bill Flanagan of MTV has an occasional segment on CBS Sunday Morning where he recommends albums. There hasn't been one I have purchased that I did not enjoy. This includes albums by Lizz Wright, Randy Newman, Mudcrutch, and Levon Helm, plus an album of Nashville blues.

I used to love to watch Roger Ebert with Richard Roeper or the late Gene Siskel, and he, interacting with his cohort, always gave me a good gauge as to whether I would like a movie. I didn't always like what he liked - he had his blind spots - but I always knew WHY he liked it and it informed my viewing. Actually, now I am more affected by Ebert's pronouncements on non-movie topics such as alcoholism, death and racism.

When Chicago was up for the Olympics, I had had my doubts about it. So I was happy that Gordon confirmed my feelings; all things Chicago, I tend to listen to Gordon. Likewise, the American expat Arthur's insights, especially on New Zealand politics, are generally my gauge. And there are a bunch more: Johnny Bacardi on Elton John music, Jaquandor on movie music, etc., etc.

Who are your guides?
***
My reaction to Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize was epitomized in the title of something on saw at Common Dreams: now earn it!
ROG

The Pirate Life QUESTIONS

Well, it's another Talk Like A Pirate Day. Frankly, I always thought I had an "in" in this pirate game. After all, my original name is Jolly Roger, though I have taken on the pirate name of Cap'n Jim Poopdeck for the nonce.

So, matey, I've got me some questions for you lubbers:

1. How many of the pirate laws do you follow? To be honest, I only got about one-fifth of them, but one of them is definitely #65.

2. Who are your favorite pirates? Here are some suggestions. If none of these are suitable, you may consider Pittsburgh Pirates, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and I suppose, Oakland Raiders (but no L.A. Raiders; that was just WRONG). I've always been fond of Jean Laffite, Roberto Clemente, Willie "Pops" Stargell and Daryle Lamonica. In fact, the last two times I ever wagered on a baseball game involved Pirates; 1979, "pop's team. Down 3-1 in the World Series to Baltimore, I picked them to win, in turn, Games 5 and 6. but I wasn't brave enough to pick them for game 7, which they also won. Arrrr!

3. You've no doubt heard about how Kayne West pirated the VMAs from Taylor Swift and how President Obama called him a jackass. There was a Twitter poll and 90% thought Obama was justified. The question: who are the other 10%?
a. people who don't think Obama should use the word "jackass"
b. people who don't think Obama should comment on popular culture issues
c. people who don't think Obama should talk at all
d. people who support the actions of Kayne West

4. I think the Muppet folks pirated Janice Muppet's name from Janis Joplin, but pirated the look from Mary Travers of Peter, Paul and Mary, who died this week. Anyone else see the resemblance?





Jaquandor posted some PPM music videos though not including the one I REALLY wanted and in fact can't find anywhere, Big Blue Frog. Ironically, I CAN find that song being performed by...you guessed it, the Muppets.
I saw the trio numerous times on TV, probably including this one, plus live at a number of rallies for one cause or another.
***
Mark Evanier had a nice obit of Henry Gibson, who also died this week. His last Twitter post was an R.I.P. for Larry Gelbart. My favorite of his roles may have been one of his last ones, as the most peculiar judge, Clark Brown, on Boston Legal, where he'd purloin the scene from the other actors.

AUDIO BOOK REVIEW: The Breakthrough by Gwen Ifill

Annoyed that I've started so many books without actually finishing them, when I saw Gwen Ifill's book The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama in audio form at the library, read by the author, I decided that this would be a more productive way to read a book. Then I got a whole bunch of new CDs and didn't listen to it at all for the first four weeks and had to renew it.

In her introduction, she addressed "the controversy" over her moderating the debate between Vice-Presidential candidates Joe Biden and Sarah Palin. As you may recall, there was a considerable amount of flak suggesting that she should disqualify herself as moderator because writing this book would have made her biased towards the Democrat, Biden. As it turned out, she did moderate the debate; I thought her effectiveness in cutting off the rambling and non-answers to her questions - Palin famously said she was not going to answer question A but would instead answer with stump speech response B - was compromised. Ifill in the book and also on Meet the Press expressed her discomfort of being the subject, rather than the reporter, of the story.

It's almost too bad she couldn't have shared her notes of the book, because this is no love story about Obama. It's about how the various factors, not the least of which is race, played in the campaign. And the campaign's outcome, whether he won or he lost, was largely irrelevant; if he had lost, she might have to change some conclusions but little else.

The early chapters served as a rehash, an instant history of the campaign, with issues of, e.g., how some black female politicians were split as to which "first" they should be supporting, a first black president or a first woman President. Likewise, black men supporting Clinton or white women supporting Obama were seen in some circles as traitors to their race or gender, an issue white men did not have to deal with.

But the bulk of this book is not about Barack Obama at all, or only peripherally. It's covering an array of young black leaders who came to the fore in this century. Some are sons of black leaders, such as Harold Ford and Jesse Jackson, Jr. Others are mayors or other local politicians. Whole chapters are dedicated to Corey Booker, mayor of Newark, NJ; Artur Davis, congressman from Alabama who wants to be governor; and Deval Patrick, who became Massachusetts governor, as Ifill points out, not even having been elected dogcatcher in the state.

The common thread for almost all these politicians is this: they are relatively young, they are impatient and don't feel they have to "wait their turn". They respect the old guard civil rights leaders but aren't beholden to them. And their strategy of getting elected generally involves appealing to white voters and hoping black voters will understand and eventually follow.

This happened with Barack Obama. Despite a revisionist culture that suggested that the black population was always going to go with the black candidate, polls in South Carolina in December 2007 had Obama losing the South Carolina black vote by two to one, in large part because the Clintons had paid their dues to the black community nationally and Barack had not. It was not until the Iowa primary, when Obama won a 98% white state, "transformative" as Ifill quotes Obama aide David Axelrod, that black people flocked to Obama in SC, and he won the primary handily. The reason Bill Clinton's remark about Jesse Jackson winning the state twenty years earlier was seen as racially insensitive, Ifill suggests, is that something very different took place. Jackson may have won because he was black; Obama won, almost in spite of that fact.

For Obama's campaign, quite consciously avoided talking about race, which may comforted whites ("post-racial!") but became a concern in some blacks that he didn't address their specific concerns during his campaign. In fact, if it weren't for the Jeremiah Wright controversy, Ifill notes, he probably would not have talked about race at all.

The chapter that most resonated with me was the one on Deval Patrick. He attended the Milton Academy in Massachusetts, and when he was home back in Illinois on a break, his sister taunted him with "you talk like a white boy!" Ifill reports how, decades later, that really stung him, and maybe still does a little. (All I'll say on this point is: boy, can I relate.)

I should note that she reads her own prose well, although one can sometimes tell when the recording breaks occur because the new text is slightly louder or softer. And I don't know if this is intentional, but occasionally, when quoting certain speakers, she seems to be taking on their vocal patterns and accents as well.

I'm glad I "read" this book. While the early chapters retold what this political junkie already knew but might have forgotten, the non-Obama chapters, particularly the ones on Booker, Davis and Patrick, were especially interesting. An Amazon review the last chapter as reading "a little like a baseball scouting report from the minor leagues, listing the hottest young prospects for future seasons"; I agree with that assessment.
***
From Salon: What role does race play in who likes the president? His BLACK support is higher now than on Inauguration Day. The Blackening of the president by Joan Walsh.
***
Barack Obama's coming to Troy, NY on Monday.

ROG

You say you'll change the constitution

I happened to be flicking through the channels this past weekend. C-SPAN 3 was showing a 1958 interview of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas for the ABC show Mike Wallace Interviews. Wallace asked Douglas, who was very strong on First Amendment rights, where he stood on the classic case of a man yelling fire in a crowded theater. Douglas didn't take the interviewer's bait. He stated that it would be an incitement to riot, that it was illegal and should be illegal. That example is one often used to show that there are restrictions, even on things as fundamental to the American experience as the Bill of Rights.

As a recipient of a lot of right-wing material, you would think that the Second Amendment was imperiled. This is just a taste:

Dear Concerned American,

The great pay-back has begun, and it's going to be ugly.

Liberals in Congress are paying back the anti-gun extremists who put them in office, and Barack Obama's H.R. 45 is the first step...

...and it's a big step....

I'm sure I don't have to tell you that gun registration is the first step on the road toward totalitarian confiscation of all firearms by a federal power.

In fact, the most brutal dictators of the last century were famous for their gun registration and confiscation schemes.

It was easy work for Hitler's brown-shirt Gestapo to confiscate the firearms of German citizens because years earlier, well-meaning liberals had forced all guns to be registered with the government ... all in the name of safety.

When Hitler came to take their guns, he had a list of who owned every gun and where they lived!

Ah, the Hitler comparison. Again.

If a two-day waiting period, a written exam and a gun tax aren't infringing our rights, I don't know what is!

This harangue despite a major victory in the Supreme Court last session.

Here's the thing: the Second Amendment rights aren't without limits either. We restrict guns to minors, to convicted felons (boy, I wish that actually worked better) and certain other groups of people.

Which brings me to those folks who somehow believe that packing heat when the President comes to town should be protected. Here's, of all people, "Morning Joe" Scarborough on the August 23, 2009 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:

And, and it seems to me that leaders on both parties, Democrats and Republicans alike, have a--have an affirmative responsibility to step forward and speak out against this hate speech and speak out against people carrying guns to rallies...As a guy with a 100 percent lifetime rating with the NRA, I can tell you that not only hurts those of us who believe in Second Amendment rights, it makes the job of the Secret Service so much harder and our law enforcement personnel so much harder.

Joe is, of course, right. I think it's insane for antagonistic people to be packing heat around the President. Think of the history of this country: four Presidents assassinated, all by the gun; at least five attempts on Presidents using firearms. Not to mention two prominent candidates in my lifetime shot four years apart: Bobby Kennedy in 1968 (assassinated) and George Wallace in 1972 (paralyzed).

My great fear ids that either the President will get shot at (or worse), or the Secret Service will end up shooting a guy with a gun when he makes what they perceive to be a threatening move; the brouhaha after THAT debacle would make the summer town meetings look like a picnic.

I'd rather the Secret Service restrict the use of firearms around POTUS rather than have him risk his life trying to prove that he isn't going to take away their guns; they already believe he's stripping them of their weapons regardless.

ROG

Vote for Your Favorite Advertising Icon and Slogan

USA Today and Advertising Age are sponsoring this year's Advertising week Walk of Fame. In the inaugural year of 2004, five icons five slogans were selected; in subsequent years, it's been two and two. Last year's icons were the Geico Caveman - disappointing to me, given the more established choices available - and the Serta (mattress) Sheep. the slogans were "We deliver for you" (US Postal Service) and, in an interesting pairing, UPS' "What can brown do for you?"

Here are this year's icon nominees (with year first used, if noted):

AOL Running Man (2003) - seems unlikely; a now-marginal player
Big Boy (restaurants) (1936) - now that's an icon, though I always thought of it as a regional chain
Budweiser Clydesdales - I only see them in Super Bowl ads; doesn't quite seem right
Burger King (2004) - not only do I find that plastic "the King" character creepy, it makes me LESS likely to buy the product. Whereas the nominated slogan, "Have it your way", is quite appealing.
California Raisins (1986) - seems like a short-lived fad
Captain Morgan (rum) (1944) - I'd consider this one
Crash Test Dummies (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) (1985) - would have thought Vince and Larry had been around longer
Doublemint Twins (Wrigley gum)(1939) - seems more like a concept than actual icon with a specific look
Fruit of the Loom Guys (underwear) (1975) - maybe some day
Jolly Green Giant (1928) - actually was my second choice; after all, he is, you know, GREEN
Keebler Elves (1968) - another one that needs to wait its turn
Little Debbie (snack cakes) (1960) - someday
Maytag Repaiirman (1967) - I think I have a bias against humans as icons
McGruff the Crime Dog (1979). AND the National Crime Prevention Council's "Take a bite out of crime" is up for best slogan; I think I'd be more inclined to vote for the slogan. Maybe someday.
Michelin Man (1898) - should win on seniority alone
Mr. Clean (1958) - iconic; my third choice.
Mr. Mucus (Mucinex) (2005) - WAY too new, and I didn't even know 1) that he had a name or 2) the name of the product, though I've seen the commercial dozens of times
MSN Butterfly (2002) - I happen to think it's boring and unmemorable
Roaming Gnome (Travelocity) (2004) - too new, and mildly irritating
Ronald McDonald (some restaurant chain) (1963) - if I were to pick a human, this is who I'd pick. Wouldn't pick the slogan "I'm lovin' it," though; never liked it.
Smokey Bear (U.S. Forest Service) (1944) - another Top 5 choice; too bad I can only vote once. And the slogan, "Only you can prevent forest fires", is also top five.
Subway Jared (sandwiches) - if picking a human like the Maytag guy was problematic for me, picking an actual person like Jared just won't fly with me. But the slogan, "Eat fresh", I'd consider.
Test Man (Verizon Wireless) (2002) - "Can you hear me now?" Yes, practically in my sleep. Too new, too human.
Toucan Sam (Froot Loops cereal) (1963) - I actually have a stuffed Toucan Sam. But there are characters more identified with their specific product.
Vlasic Stork (pickles) (1974) - they really used the real Groucho Marx in the early commercials! I did not know that. Top 10 choice.

But my pick is:

Snap, Crackle, Pop (Rice Krispies Cereal) (1941) - not only are these readily identifiable with their brand, they come with a nifty song (LOVE that counterpoint) with interesting lyrics.

Besides, I'm a cereal eater and I consumed a lot of Rice Krispies over the years, although almost none since I discovered that it is pretty much nutritionally void.

I'm not going to go through all the slogans, but I will give you my top three:
3. "Priceless" - MasterCard and 2. "Got milk?" - California Milk Processor Board; both of these have been so widely parodied as to become almost generic. But I'm picking the newspaper I've often read, "All the news that's fit to print" from the maybe-not-as-venerable-as-it-used-to-be New York Times, a motto that's also been spoofed ("All the news that fits," e.g.).

I do feel slightly guilty, though. As a business librarian, I probably should have voted for "I Love New York", if only to keep the award from going to "Virginia is for lovers" or Las Vegas' "What happens here, stays here". Here's one downstate ad, plus a whole slew of commercials linked here.

Also at the site: the WOF game

Voting ends at 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Friday, September 18. Only one vote per computer.

***
And speaking of voting:
Corey Ellis, a local coordinator for Barack Obama last year, is running for mayor of Albany, among many races here and across the state; the primary in New York State is today from noon to 9 pm upstate and from 6 am to 9 pm in New York City. Here's a Metroland story about Corey Ellis. Also, the Times Union endorsement of Jerry Jennings while noting that Mr. Ellis is right on many of the issues; most curious.
***
And speaking of curious:
Kayne West. Oy!
***
I'm sorry that Patrick Swayze died - somehow I ended up seeing this Barbara Walters special, with him and his wife talking about fighting his cancer - but actually I've managed to miss every movie that he made, even the ones I had planned to see such as To Woo Fong and Dirty Dancing. Well, except Ghost, which is feeling just a bit too on the nose right now.

ROG

Let's Talk About Race. Again?

A few things I've seen have brought me back to the topic of race, not the least of which is Greg Burgas' declaration that he is not racist. A bold statement, that. Certainly, I don't recall anything he's written - I only "know" him electronically - that would suggest that he is. I wouldn't be bold enough, though, to say that I am without prejudice. I WOULD say that I work very hard to know what my biases are in order to counteract them.

I think the problem with race and racism generally is that we get caught up in these simplistic myths. Though the Civil War supposedly ended slavery in 1865 - as I noted in the talk I plugged here - there were vestiges of neo-slavery in the US that lasted up until World War II.

Or the notion that South was terribly racist, which it was, but that the North was just the epitome of racial tolerance. I'm thinking of Phil Ochs' songs such as Here's to the State of Mississippi or Neil Young's Alabama or Southern Man. By pointing out the sins of the South, it seems to have given the rest of the country a self-congratulatory free pass. Yet, it is the South, which has had to face its racism more directly, that now has more black mayors, black city council members than the rest of the country.

And the source of that attention to the South was not limited to the US. Mark Evanier posted this episode of Great Britain's That Was The Week That Was, a satirical review that ran in the early sixties, hosted by David Frost. Check out the piece starting about five-and-a-half minutes in that runs for three minutes or so; a warning - liberal use of blackface and the N-word.

The conclusion that a threshold has been met really never comes when the first person gets there. When Obama was elected, people - lots of people - seem to think that "We HAVE Overcome." It's NEVER that simple.

Jackie Robinson is the classic example; when he joined the Dodgers in 1947, did racism disappear from baseball? Of course not. It took a decade before every team had at least one player; if memory serves, the Yankees and the Red Sox were the last, a full decade after Jackie had broken the barrier, and indeed after Jackie had retired.

There are a lot of folks including Howard Stern, in his occasionally salty language, that believe that racism is what's at the bottom of the rampant hatred for President Obama. Probably, but I'm thinking about how prejudice has tread in the past eight years. After 9/11, there were lots of bigotry and even attacks on Arabs and Muslims, and people who some yahoos THOUGHT were Arabs or Muslims. Some black comedian said, in a widely-understood comment, "Now black people AREN'T the most hated people in America!"

Then we have Obama who is black, but it would be politically incorrect to attack him on that. So they can attack him on being Muslim! They're still fair game, aren't they? Throw in that he's a socialist, communist AND a Nazi - he REALLY needs to hone in on one philosophy and stick with it - and all vestiges that it's his race that is the problem are washed away. Except that, when you strip away all of the lies, the only truth left is his race.

I'm going to revisit this soon in the context of a book review.

ROG

The Unhealthy Health Care Debate

I just don't understand it.

All this talk about rationing health care under "Obamacare". We already ration health care. from patients bounced from insurance coverage for unrelated pre-existing conditions to serves denied until patients actually die. WE RATION health care. Perhaps that's even necessary in a world of finite resources, but to dump it on the current plan(s) is most disingenuous.

Rationing. Why else does Remote Area Medical®, founded by Stan Brock in 1985, provide "free health care, dental care, eye care, veterinary services and technical and educational assistance to people in remote areas of the U.S. and the world"? The "remote" area of the United States this week? Los Angeles, California. For his efforts, Brock was picked as ABC News' Person of the Week.

I know, from personal experience, that people without insurance wait as long as they can before seeking medical assistance. I know that, until I got dental insurance, my trips to the dentist were few and far between, going only when I was in extreme pain, instead of going regularly to maintain my dental health.

I may have told this story before but can't find it. Two days before I was going to college in 1979, I was at a friend's house and somehow got an infection under my toenail. It hurt mightily but I had no insurance. But I WOULD have insurance in a couple days. So I hobbled through college registration; if I had had a walker or wheelchair, I would have used it. Then I went to the infirmary. By this point, the infection was going up my leg; if it had reached my heart, I most likely would have DIED. As it was, I spent the next six days - the first six days of the semester - in bed.

Yes, I believe in universal coverage. Heck, I believe in "socialized medicine", though I know THAT'S not gonna happen. But why can't we just debate the reasonable differences, such as its effect on the deficit, a legit question.

Take Sarah Palin, who is repeating her "death panel" claims. Someone please explain why she would say this, yet again. If there is a third option, PLEASE let me know, but I have to think that the only reasons would be that 1) she is stupid or 2) she is lying. I tend to think she's not stupid, but I could be wrong about that. Of course, the White House's reality check page won't be believed, or listened to, by those who've been listening to the Sarah Palins.

Joe Baker, President of the Medicare Rights Center, was recently on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer on PBS to discuss some aspects of Medicare in national health reform. The specific topics related to Medicare discussed during the segment include the much-discussed reimbursement for end-of-life counseling, as well as other provider reimbursement rates. Here is a link to the transcript and video of the segment. It seems that a good libertarian position would be for individuals to control their own end=-of-life decisions, rather than have others do it for them. Expect that this provision NOT to show up in the final bill.

The cost of health care reform is $1 trillion over 10 years; that's real money. But what is the cost of NOT doing reform? Current estimates based on the recent rise health care costs is $70 trillion or more in ten years.

Did you happen to see Jon Stewart this week when FOX News was "monitoring" some town hall debate and promised to go to the event if it got heated? Evidently, people screaming at elected officials is some sort of infotainment, but a reasoned conversation must be too boring to cover.

Finally, I HATE the phrasing of current poll questions about health care, one of those "How's he doing?" things. More people think he's not doing well than think he is. But saturated by coverage of the screamers, one could conclude that all the objectors think the plan's too radical. In fact, there are some people, and I number myself in their ranks, who would answer the question negatively as well because I don't think the plan's "radical" enough. Amazingly sloppy poll questions, which, I guarantee will be cited by the host of at least one Sunday morning talking heads program; David Gregory of NBC's Meet the Press is almost a lock.

ROG

Teachable moment QUESTION

I'm just not getting this notion that not talking about race will somehow fix the race issue, the position, it seems of George Will and Morgan Freeman. Just this month, I came across this Salon piece about a vendor sending the letter writer a racist cartoon. In Racialicious, The protagonist of Justine Larbalestier’s novel Liar is a young black woman with short, natural hair. So why is there a white girl with long, straight hair on the cover? A touching piece in Antiracist Parent notes it's never too late for racial unity in your family, about a mixed race couple, now married 40 years, who were rejected by his (white) family until fairly recently. Great moments in political race-baiting, which I will contend SHOULD include Bill Clinton.

Yet these "teachable moments" such as the Skip Gates arrest/President Obama's comment/the "beer summit" don't seem to teach much. Lots of arguing across each other. Most of these "moments" from Don Imus' comments to Michael Richards', seem to generate a lot of fury, but then we move to the next thing. There seems to be little common ground forged.

Or is there? I think most conservatives and most black people seem to be on the same page with regards to Henry Louis Gates, though they get there different ways.
Michele Malkin and her ilk wondered why he wasn't taught at one point to respecting the police, while black folk thought, "Is that man CRAZY? You don't shoot off your mouth to a cop; you can end up dead." in any case, Gates' Arrest Was Nothing Compared to Evan Howard's.

(Musical interlude: Pete Seeger - What Did You Learn In School?, with Words and Music by Tom Paxton
I learned that policemen are my friends.
I learned that justice never ends.
I learned that murderers die for their crimes.
Even if we make a mistake sometimes.)

So should we talk about race? HOW should we talk about race? I'm convinced there's more to be said but unclear about the methodology.




ROG

Know Thine Opposition

I often read the views of people whose positions I have a track record of disagreeing with. (Whereas actually WATCHING them on TV sometimes makes me apoplexic and I'm forced to shut them off, lest I scream at the TV; Bill O'Reilly I won't even try to view.)

So I'm reading the latest from Ann Coulter, Obama Birth Certificate Spotted In Bogus Moon Landing Footage, where she cleverly compares the birthers to a bunch of conspiracy theories from the left, both implausible -"Sarah Palin's infant child, Trig, was actually the child of her daughter" and possible - "the 2000 election was stolen". Just because I oppose her views most of the time doesn't mean I don't think she's not clever in constructing straw men to knock down.

Meanwhile, Chuck Norris notes in What Obama and My Wife Have in Common that Obama and Chuck's wife Gena have a birthday in the same week (Barack - August 4; Gena - August 9.) He then ties Obama's birthday to the birther movement. (Hey, *I* did that; I think like Chuck Norris!) But of course he took a different tactic: "Refusing to post your original birth certificate is an unwise political and leadership decision that is enabling the "birther" controversy. The nation you are called to lead is experiencing a growing swell of conspirators who are convinced that you are covering up something. So why not just prove them wrong and shut them up?" The particular fun stuff is in the letters of comment.

I was reading somewhere that while their parents grouse that liberals (Barbra Streisand, Sean Penn, Al Franken SENATOR Al Franken) should keep out of politics, it's OK for Chuck Norris or the late Charlton Heston (or, of course, Ronald Reagan). I never biought into that mindset, BTW. How does being an actor (or singer) somehow negate one's right to participate in the democratic process?

Anyway, I didn't get much sleep, so here's former sportscaster Keith Olbermann's recent rant on health care, which I agree with.
***
Peace Through Music Film Trailer
***
Friend Walter and his wife went to see the Lovin' Spoonful recently. The group (sans John Sebastian) performed a song, not an orginal, he'd heard before and wanted to know what it was. It has the lyrics:
Ah-ha-ha-ha (ha-ha-ha-ha)
Hey-oh (hey-oh)
Koo-ba, koo-ba, koo-ba, koo-ba
(Koo-ba, koo-ba, koo-ba, koo-ba)
Ah-ha-ha-ha (ah-ha-ha-ha)
Ah-ah-ah-ha (ah-ha-ha-ha)
Hey-oh (hey-oh)
It was Don't You Just Know It by Huey (Piano) Smith & The Clowns from 1958; went to #9 on the pop charts. (If link doesn't work, try this.) Here's a version by C.J. Chenier from 1996.


ROG

The "Obama Birthday Surprise"

It's Barack Obama's 48th birthday. While I do have some real policy issues with him (I fear a quagmire in Afghanistan, among other issues), those can wait. After all, it IS his natal day, wherever he was born.

OK, I jest, but that is my basic point. I think that too many people, including me, have gotten caught up with the various attacks on the President, from whether he's a natural-born citizen of the United States to whether he's a racist (Jeremiah Wright -I heard invoked by Glenn Beck just recently - to Skip Gates) to whether he's a socialist (single payer health care). Or merely the Antichrist who wants to euthanize old people. What we've been missing, what I've been missing, with all those trees, is the forest.

I've become convinced that the proponents of these theories don't need to PROVE the smears against Obama as unAmerican (by birth or by values). It's merely necessarily to repeat them over and over. And over and over and over again.

Take the birthers, please. Jon Stewart pretty much eviscerated their points a couple weeks ago. The very next day, I get an e-mail that goes on and on and on about how the group (I won't bother identifying them) will lead a campaign to "FAX All 50 State Attorneys General To Investigate Obama's Birthday FRAUD"
According to published reports,[WHAT published reports?] Barack Obama's legal team has been paid over one million dollars, so far, to STOP anyone from seeing ANY of his actual identification documents, or many other documents:
* Actual long-form birth certificate (NOT an easily-forged electronic copy of a short-form document that is not even officially accepted in Hawaii) except by legal authorities in Hawaii...
* Columbia University senior thesis, "Soviet Nuclear Disarmament" - writing about the USSR; maybe he's also a Communist? ...
* Obama's client list from during his time in private practice with the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Gallard Hey, yeah, and while you're at it, reveal why the clients were there. But wait, wouldn't that violate lawyer-client privilege?
* Baptism records
* Obama/Dunham marriage license
* Obama/Dunham divorce documents
* Soetoro/Dunham marriage license
* Soetero/Dunham Adoption records
But would even THAT be sufficient? Ask David Hernandez.
It's a longer list, but it's brilliant in its innuendo.

The point is that it does not matter what Obama does; he will be criticized. And not on legitimate grounds, such as the deficit, but over specious stuff.

Take the mundane example of the so-called "beer summit". Obama was criticized for his choice of beer - Bud Light. But think about it: don't you believe he'd be criticized for ANY pick he made? If he'd picked a German beer, he'd be criticized for not picking a domestic brew. (Is Anheuser-Busch still considered "domestic" now that InBev owns it?) Even a selection of Sam Adams would have been picked as blue state elitist, I'm willing to bet. There was never going to be a satisfactory choice.

So for the President's birthday, we should vow to vow not to get confounded by the - dare I say it? - vast right-wing conspiracy - designed to make sound and fury signifying absolutely nothing. Let us hold this President accountable for the substantive issues, but ignore the politics of distraction. And distraction it is, though it has the capacity of being believed. The repetition gives some the belief that "Where there's smoke, there's fire," except that it's the same cabal blowing smoke.

In Our "Post-Racial" America

ITEM: I got this e-mail from one of my sisters about an incident at a Philadelphia-area swimming pool. Narrative courtesy of ColorOfChange.org:

[Three] weeks ago outside Philadelphia, 65 children from a summer camp tried to go swimming at a club that their camp had a contract to use. Apparently, the people at the club didn't know that the group of kids was predominantly Black.

When the campers entered the pool, White parents allegedly took their kids out of the water, and the swimming club's staff asked the campers to leave. The next day, the club told the summer camp that their membership would be canceled and that their payment would be refunded. When asked why, the club's manager said that a lot of kids "would change the complexion ... and the atmosphere of the club."

A "Whites only" pool in 2009 should not be tolerated. The club's actions appear to be a violation of section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act. Whether or not any laws were violated, a "Whites only" pool should be something every American condemns.

I get behind in my news reading, but I receive bulletins the local paper plus the New York Times. Yet I missed it. Was this merely a chain letter with the facts askew? Apparently not:
"60 Black Kids Booted from Philly Pool For Being Black -- Speak Out," Jill Tubman at Jack and Jill Politics, 07-08-09

VIDEO: "Please Don't Change the Complexion of our Pool," This Week in Blackness, 07-08-09

"Swim Club Accused of Discrimination," FOX 29 Philadelphia, 07-08-09

"Valley Swim Club: Day Two," Adam B at Daily Kos, 07-08-09

I did subsequently see a mention in SamauraiFrog's blog, but I believe this story was underreported.

ITEM: A review of the new Michael Bay movie, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. From Clay Cane of BET.com

The hip-hop talking robots were borderline offensive. Is this the movie's way of appealing to the African-American audience? I never knew that robots could shuck n' jive.

This was not the only critic who made this point. The defense of the movie - and this box office hits has plenty of defenders despite critical panning (or perhaps because of critical panning: "Roger Ebert is a moron!") - were 1) the robots weren't specifically African-American and 2) it's only a movie; lighten up.

Now, I didn't see the movie. Heck, didn't see its predecessor and wasn't planning to. On point 1, a character can be offensive without being specifically black; some character named Jar Jar comes immediately to mind. As for point 2, that's just rubbish. (I could expand about how movies reflect society and blah, blah, blah, but "rubbish" will do.)

ITEM: Sonia Sotomayor being grilled over, among other things, Ricci vs. DeStefano, the New Haven firefighters case, and her appellate court's position holding in favor of the city. I believe her defense is in the Supreme Court dissent - uncharacteristically READ ALOUD from the bench - by Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Here's just a section:

The Court’s recitation of the facts leaves out important parts of the story. Firefighting is a profession in which the legacy of racial discrimination casts an especially long shadow. In extending Title VII to state and local government employers in 1972, Congress took note of a U. S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) report finding racial discrimination in municipal employment even "more pervasive than in the private sector."...According to the report, overt racism was partly to blame, but so too was a failure on the part of municipal employers to apply merit-based employment principles. In making hiring and promotion decisions, public employers often "rel[ied] on criteria unrelated to job performance," including nepotism or political patronage...Such flawed selection methods served to entrench preexisting racial hierarchies. The USCCR report singled out police and fire departments for having "[b]arriers to equal employment . . . greater . . .than in any other area of State or local government," with African-Americans "hold[ing] almost no positions in the officer ranks." Ibid. See also National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control, America Burning 5 (1973) ("Racial minorities are under-represented in the fire departments in nearly every community in which they
live.").
The city of New Haven (City) was no exception.

And in each of these disparate items, one thing is in common; Barack Obama is evoked in the commentary. "How could the swimming pool situation take place now that we have a black President?" "We should be past worrying about silly stereotypes anymore; Barack's President." "The Obama Presidency proves that issues of racial inequality are a thing of the past." Meh.

Arthur and Jason noted an article by Eugene Robinson re: identity politics and Sotomayor. Arthur read this paragraph on their 2political podcast: Republicans' outrage, both real and feigned, at Sotomayor's musings about how her identity as a "wise Latina" might affect her judicial decisions is based on a flawed assumption: that whiteness and maleness are not themselves facets of a distinct identity. Being white and male is seen instead as a neutral condition, the natural order of things. Any "identity" -- black, brown, female, gay, whatever -- has to be judged against this supposedly "objective" standard. Well stated.

Keep the champagne on ice. The post-racial America celebration will just have to wait a little bit longer.

ROG

Obama, the Gay President?

I'm working on a theory, not yet totally formulated, that goes like this:

John F. Kennedy, the first Catholic President of the United States, nibbled around the edges in dealing with the civil rights of black people. His heart I believe was always in the right place, but he needed to be pushed by the civil rights community, notably Martin Luther King Jr, culminating in the March on Washington, August 28, 1963, to really get on board.

Barack H. Obama, the first black President of the United States, has nibbled around the edges in dealing with the civil rights of gay people. His heart I believe was always in the right place, but he needs to be pushed by the civil rights community, notably ????, fulfilling the promise of his Democratic nomination acceptance speech on August 28, 2008, to really get on board.

Both as a civil rights supporter and as a data person, I was pleased that the Obama Administration is "determining the best way to ensure that gay and lesbian couples are accurately counted" in the 2010 census. "The Administration had directed the Census Bureau to explore ways to tabulate responses to the census relationship question, to produce data showing responses from married couples of the same sex." One does not need to "believe in" same-sex marriage to want a reporting of what is actually taking place.

There have been other positives such as the extension of benefits to gay federal employees.

These do not make up for my disappointment with Obama's foot dragging on the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy and his Justice Department's defense of the deplorable Defense of Marriage Act. But as he reiterated to some GLBT leaders Monday, the day after the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, he says he's working on it.

As I pondered all of this, I came across a piece by Robert Reich called, What can I do to help Obama? The crux of the issue is in the subtitle: "The public has to force him to do the right thing." Reiterating, we need to bug him AND Congress to, as the title of the best Spike Lee movie, celebrating its 20th anniversary this year, Do the Right Thing.
***
As I've mentioned, I only recently discovered that an old friend of mine moved to Canada because same-sex unions were untenable in the U.S. and her now spouse already lived there. This bugs me tremendously. Still, since yesterday was Canada Day, props to the U.S.'s neighbors to the north.
***
I came across an interesting survey: Spiritual Profile of Homosexual Adults Provides Surprising Insights. "People who portray gay adults as godless, hedonistic, Christian bashers are not working with the facts...The data indicate that millions of gay people are interested in faith but not in the local church and do not appear to be focused on the traditional tools and traditions that represent the comfort zone of most churched Christians...It is interesting to see that most homosexuals, who have some history within the Christian Church, have rejected orthodox biblical teachings and principles – but, in many cases, to nearly the same degree that the heterosexual Christian population has rejected those same teachings and principles." As someone noted, some of their margins of error are ENORMOUS. And identifying sexuality on a phone survey, when some people are terrified of answering Census questions about when they go to work, raises an eyebrow. Still, it is is an interesting repudiation of a stereotype, which is always good.
***
Here's a peculiar story briefly referenced in my local paper: Could gay marriage reduce HIV/AIDS? A study by two Emory University economists suggests the answer is yes. They "calculated that a rise in tolerance from the 1970s to the 1990s reduced HIV cases by one per 100,000 people, and that laws against same-sex marriage boosted cases by 4 per 100,000." Not sure I buy the entire premise of their study, but I accept this sentence: "Intolerance is deadly."

ROG