Ta-Nehisi Coates

UPDATE: Sorry if this post seemed out of the blue. There was a clamor for me to explain why I ranked Emmitt over Barry in my initial post. And yeah underrated is probably, like, overstated.

So, I'm sure that the folks over at Cold Hard Football Facts will do a stat analysis and prove much of this post wrong, but what the hell. Let me say right out the gate that Barry Sanders was an incredible back, and the most exciting player of his time (I actually rank Deion Sanders and Randall Cunningham right after Barry). I particularly love the move Barry put on a Patriot d-back where he spun the guy around in a circle. It took a while for me to write this post, in part because I was trying to find video of that move. No dice.

I'm going to make a very short critique of Barry, mostly because I don't want to nitpick. Furthermore, it is true that Barry played for a bad team with a mediocre coach. Having said that, I just want to enter into the record that Barry Sanders holds the NFL record for most yards lost, and that he was running on a home field (the Silverdome) that was simply butter for running backs. I think that accounts for some of his more lackluster playoff performances (only one touchdown in six playoff games), as the Lions were rarely playing at home. Like I said, I don't want to rip on Barry--I think he's either the fourth or fifth greatest back of all time (yeah, I'm hedging some on Dickerson).

Anyway, my case for Emmitt Smith relies on straight up consistency. Emmitt was less exciting than Barry, but constantly, constantly great. People love to note that Barry played for the marginal Wayne Fontes. But Emmitt--after a relatively short stint with Jimmy Johnson--played for the likes of Barry Switzer, Chan Gailey, and Dave Campo. I also hear a lot of people saying that Emmitt was running behind arguably the greatest o-line in history and virtually anyone could have been running in that situation. It should be noted that Emmitt Smith actually racked up most of his yards post-1995, after the Cowboys began to decline and after Jimmy Johnson was gone. In that period, Emmitt racked up six straight 1,000-yard seasons. It also should be noted that as good as the Cowboys line was, there probably is only a single Hall of Famer (Larry Allen) among them. That's the same number of HOFers as the Lions in the Barry Sanders era (Lomas Brown). Emmitt was great running behind the Cowboys line at its peak, but as they declined he stayed great and consistent. He was the constant, not the Cowboys O-Line--if anything, he made them look better than they were.

Still, the "any back could run behind that line" theory lingers. People forget about 1993, when Jerry Jones learned the folly of such reasoning. Jones refused to pay Emmit what he was worth and decided to start a rookie named Derrick Lassic. The Boys were promptly smashed off by two of their most hated rivals--the Bills and the Redskins. After Emmitt came back in the third game, the Cowboys only lost two more for the rest of the season en route to a second Super Bowl. And here is the reason why Emmitt Smith exceeds Barry Sanders. That year, the beat-up Cowboys desperately needed to beat the surging Giants to secure a first-round bye. Emmitt Smith willed the Cowboys to victory that game--and he did it with a separated shoulder.
 

More »

While I compose a lovely post to mash all you Emmitt-haters and Barry Sanders fanboys, take a moment and pay homage to one of the originators. 

You can't write this stuff. Dig Toby Keith waxing philosophically on Obama's blackness. Despite posting about his new song, I really have nothing against Toby Keith. I think Shock and Ya'll is kind of funny. Besides, there's no blacker name then "Toby." Still, one of the great spectacles of this campaign has been watching people who (as I've said before) likely can't remember the last time they've had dinner with a black family, holding forth on the intricacies and mores of black America. Thanks guys. We really need you to explain our culture for us.

In the Lieberman post below a commenter asks:

I have often wondered if opposition to the Iraq war is based on principle or based upon the fact that the Bush Administration's policy isn't working and hasn't really worked since the looting started in 2003. I don't know where the anti-war camp stands and I am curious.

Well, I'm kinda new to the blogesphere, so I really can't speak for anyone else. Furthermore, I had the luxury of being a relatively young writer when we went into Iraq, and thus no outlet worth its salt would let me hold forth. Thank god. I think I would have said something pretty stupid.

At the time I remember making fun of anti-war protesters, despite being vaguely anti-war myself. I think I believed that Saddam had weapons, and thus thought that it wasn't the worse idea in the world to take him out. Turns out I was wrong--and with many thousands now gone--the people I laughed at were right. I'm just being candid.

In answer to the very specific question, I don't think it's possible to object to all wars, and I don't think most of us on the left do.

Nothing's changed since the days of E. Franklin Frazier. G.D. over a Postbourgie goes after Veronica Miller's musings over Stuff Educated Black People Like:

The site resonates with me and most of--okay, all of my friends. To the point where now, Lynnette and I decide which gatherings to attend based on whether they'll be "EBP events" or not. (Howard alumni happy hour? Of course. A club where sagging jeans and waist-long weaves are the fashion of choice? Not so much.) Yes, the site is funny, and yes, it teases us for some of our most pretentious habits (i.e. No. 20, "Correcting Others"), but really, we like the site because it lets us know it's okay to be...well... bourgie.

G.D. retorts:

What grates about these bourgie treatises is that they always seem to be zealous celebrations of normativity. And as the kicker illustrates, there's often an awkward elevation of certain consumerist choices to the level of bold and necessary political statement -- even equating those choices with personal integrity. It's like some goofy world full of class markers where no affinity is organic (sans the food in the fridge!); what really matters is what those affinities Say About You.

Basically. In much the same way as brothers on the corner confuse street knowledge with all knowledge, some of us confuse credentials with education. But you can be bourgie in the projects, and stuck on stupid in the 'burbs. Knocking someone for pronouncing asked as "axed" is no better than knocking a kid for "talking white."

The hood and the bourgeoisie have more in common than they'd like to admit. Miller approvingly cites a modern twist on an old black aphorism--"Conversate is not a word." Heh, except that it kinda is. And it's a beautiful one at that. Which is why I've always enjoyed Stuff Educated Black People Like. From the very title itself, the site mocks the pretensions of those of us who think ignorance is confined to the projects, and that a bachelor's degree and a plate of baked chicken is some sort of vaccine.

So, not to rudely wipe my muddy boots on the welcome rug here at my new digs, but I meant to note this a couple days ago, when Andrew said of Joe Lieberman:

Lieberman, from his scripted talking points on drilling for oil to his endorsement of the Hilton-Spears ads, is now a Republican party hack. In the end, the netroots drove him over the cliff, didn't they?

Probably not. Lieberman as "Republican party hack" is a new role, but Lieberman as acquisitive opportunist isn't. As Rick Hertzberg wrote, (now that I'm a blogger at the Atlantic, do I get to call that dude Rick? Hmm. Probably better that I play my position.) Ahem. As Hendrik Hertzberg wrote in 2006, lots of senators looked just like Joe Lieberman on paper, but only Joe was facing an insurrection:

If what we have here is an inquisition (not the mot juste, perhaps, to describe a primary), then the only heretic who has anything to worry about is named Joe. Lieberman's views are broadly similar to those of such colleagues as Diane Feinstein and Ben Nelson, and nobody's trying to burn them at the stake. As for Lieberman's party credentials, they seem to be in reasonably good order. He is a three-term Democratic senator from a state, Connecticut, that's as blue as a state can be while still being the spawning ground of the Bush dynasty; six years ago, he was the Democratic Party's nominee for Vice-President, an unusual honor for a fake Democrat; he has the support of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., naral, and the League of Conservation Voters.

What really exposed Lieberman to the brunt of liberal outrage was the sense that Joe was, first and foremost, out to get his. Hertzberg recalls Lieberman's "pompous performance" at the height of impeachment mania, his unwillingness to give up his Senate seat while running with Al Gore and, of course, his rhetoric on Iraq:

"Lieberman's problem is not that he supported the Iraq invasion, nor that he thinks we need to stay in and finish the job," Suzanne Nossel, a young ex-State Department official and a fellow at a think tank called the Security and Peace Initiative, wrote the other day. "He has lots of mainstream Democratic company in both those positions. The crux of Lieberman's problem is his unwillingness to acknowledge the severity of what's happened in Iraq, and to demand accountability for it."

Joe Lieberman isn't anyone's victim. He was caught in a political trap when the Iraq War didn't go the way of Desert Storm. He made it worse by pretending that Iraq War actually was Desert Storm. Now he's doing what he can to salvage some semblance of a political future. Therein we have one more reason to support Obama: the start of an Obama administration would likely mean the end of Joe Lieberman.

UPDATE: I have one request guys. Please, please, do not respond to any trolls. You will only make it worse. Frankly, there's little that can be said to offend me--I grew up around people who would snap on your dead grandmother. But what I really hate is to see a conversation get eaten by two or three people who are attempting to argue with a guy who's basically just baiting them, and not really arguing in good faith. Have some sense, and don't fall for the con.

And now for your regularly scheduled post.

Excuse the headline, but any day I can make reference to Kool G Rap, is a good day. Anyway, here's a new one: In the wake of the shooting of Amadou Diallo back in the late 90s, the NYPD implemented an ingenious defense against the charge that they were disproportionately shooting black people--they simply stopped keeping stats on the race of victims:

The New York Police Department recently released 11 years of statistics on every bullet fired by its officers, including the reason for each shooting, the number of shots fired and how many bullets hit their target. But the reports stopped mentioning the race of the people shot after 1997 without saying why.

Testimony by a former police chief now offers an explanation. The former chief, Louis R. Anemone, said that while the data on people killed by officers were being compiled in 1998, the police commissioner, Howard Safir, ordered the department not to include the race of those killed by officers.

I know this is being pinned on Safir, but man it reeks of Giulianism. Let me be more specific. People think that black folks hated Giuliani out of some irrational antipathy for the police and a love affair with high crime. But as I believe my man Lester Spence once noted (hope I'm gettng this right Lester) black folks are especially sensitive to police shootings of innocents, in part, because they--more than anyone--need the police to do their jobs right. Most black folks want the criminals off their streets as much as--if not more than--the politicos of yore who once railed about law and order. Indeed in 1997, Giuliani got 20 percent of the black vote--pretty good for a Republican, who'd gotten only five percent in the previous election.

More »

First of all you throwin too many big words at me. Because I don't understand em, I'ma take em as disrespect...
--Random Smart-tech customer

A commenter below noted that the makers of Honest Tea had piped up to defend themselves against being slurred by McCain:

I know there are always people looking for opportunities to throw the "E" word around, but there are few words I find more contrary to what Honest Tea stands for. In fact, I would argue it's elitist to suggest that only rich or highly educated people should have an interest in healthy beverages. From our beginnings ten years ago, we have always strived to offer affordable organic and healthier choices for everyone. In fact, our original $1.19 price point was too low for our own good, especially when most of the competition was out there at $1.69 per bottle for non-organic tea. We lost lots of money in the early years, but we stuck to our lower price because we sold more tea, and we knew we were reaching more people. I know there are stores and restaurants that sell our tea for as much as $6.00 per bottle, but I can assure you that we don't make any more money on those sales than the stores that carry it at $1.49!

I'm glad these guys stepped up, but I think they're missing the point. The elitism slur is just that--a slur. The logic of it is, of course, laughable, but that's not what's at work here. Indeed the charge is deployed to go right past our logic centers, into our darkest reaches, and appeal to our sense of envy. There really isn't much more to it. I'm not slamming these guys--they've got a right to defend their product. That said, I think a lot of us spend too much time attempting to grapple logically with the slur--"McCain's a millionaire how dare he charge Obama with elitism!"

How dare he, indeed. What the elitism slur banks on is the idea that people don't resent those who have more than them, they resent those who know more than them. Or at least seem to. I don't think liberals can make an argument against what is, at its roots, just an appeal to the virtues of thuggism and stupidity. Price-point is irrelevant. The salient factor is (this is what the McCain people are banking on) that "Honest" tea sounds foreign and weird. Prejudice isn't logical. The very act of arguing may reinforce the stereotype. This doesn't mean you don't respond--and I don't think I favor responding in kind--but likely some humor is called for here, something Obama's always excelled at.

I don't think anyone during the primary accused Bill Clinton of being a "racist"--as in "I don't think black people are equal to whites." He was accused of race-baiting. Some of it was, from my perspective, dubious. Deriding Obama's identity as a guy who consistently opposed the Iraq War as a "fairy tale" is not only fair, but actually kind of true. But I thought the infamous South Carolina/Jesse Jackson comparison was race-bating--either that or it was just foolishly dismissive.

Nevertheless, it amazes me that Clinton is actually still pissed-off about this idea that he's a racist. Of course it's telling that he's turned the very specific charge of race-baiting, into a much larger, much easier to attack charge of racism. I have no doubt that Obama's surrogates worked behind the scenes to push the Clinton race-baiting angle, while Obama angelically smiled and claimed to take no offense. But that's what people do when they're running for office. The whole Clinton appeal was based on this idea that they would fight dirty, that they could counter the Republican attack machine, that politics was basically dirty, and to win you had to be willing to fight that way. How then can you be mad that you lost to someone who fought dirty? Wouldn't you have done the same thing?

I'm sure you guys know what I think of this. Nevertheless, here's a good primer for those of us who haven't been reading beyond the headlines.

Some environmental tips from my buddy Brendan Koerner, making his debut on the Colbert Report. Brendan is the author of a great new book about a black WWII G.I who kills his superior officer and flees into the jungle to do drugs with Naga headhunters. Brendan is one of the hardest working men in magazines. But most of us on the web know him as The Green Lantern.

Evidently so. Oh well, hello all. Not sure how many of you guys are new and how many are old-timers. For the new-comers, I'm Ta-Nehisi (that's pronounced Tah-Nah-Hah-See). I'm a 32-year old father of a bright-eyed, big-headed boy. Me and his mother have been together for ten years. Indeed, in October, we'll be throwing a huge tenth anniversary "Living In Sin" party to celebrate the accomplishment. I'll be writing more on the whole marriage thing, but for those who can't wait, dig this essay. 

But I digress. I came up as West Baltimore's only black nationalist nerd. Which is to say I consumed everything from Robotech, to The Manual of the Planes, to Black Folk Here and There. To this day I don't know who influenced me more--Gary Gygax or James Baldwin. I wrote a whole book attempting to grapple with that very question--along with a few others. I started blogging mostly to promote said book, but it turned out that I actually liked the form. More surprising it turned out people actually wanted to read these random musings.

I've written for the Atlantic once before, and I think I'll be doing more. What you should know about me, as a blogger, is that I try to know my limits. I know some folks have noted that I'm an awkward replacement for Matt, arguing that Matt  is more of a traditional lefty. I'm not sure what that means, but I do know that Matt has a fairly amazing ability to comment, from a left perspective, on a wide-range of issues. As I said, knowing my own limits, I'll take a different tack. On things I'm not so sure on, I'll state my opinion rather gingerly and then hope my commenters can fill in the gaps.

A little more on me. I think Emmit Smith is the fourth greatest running back in history--after Jim Brown, Walter Payton, and probably Eric Dickerson. I think Breaking All The Rules is an underrated romantic comedy. I think Boomerang is Eddie Murphey's best movie. I think Yusef Komunyakaa is a great poet. I think the creation of the Wu-Tang Clan, the release of Illmatic and Illadelph Halflife hold untold significance for the history of American literature. Give it some time. You'll see. I think noncustodial fathers should get the EITC. I think the Justice League cartoon was great And I think Black History Month should probably be abolished--when  McNasty's starts serving free chicken for BHM, it's probably time to go.

So that's all, that's me, the definitive summary. My only rule, really, is simple--don't be a jerk to people you disagree with. I'll try to do my part to keep things at once civil and unrestrained. I know you guys will do the same.

So, I'm signing off guys--for a couple hours, at least. As you guys know, I've had a crush on the Atlantic peeps for awhile. In a bout of insanity, they've decided that I'm not so bad myself. This blog will be moving at some point today. Any comments made here after 12 noon, may not make it over. See you guys on the other side. Thanks so much for your support these past few months. If you guys didn't read, this wouldn't be happening. I am not afraid to say it--I love you all.

T.

Heh, Obama is beating John McCain by ten points among white working class workers. You can bet if the numbers were reversed we'd see a big blaring headline that says "Obama Can't Win Working Class Whites." The bias toward narrative in campaign coverage is sort of revolting.

Ezra smartly advises us nervous Obama supporters to calm the eff down:

I've long worried that Obama over-learned Iowa, where he was somewhat aided by John Edwards' willingness to attack on his behalf. But as the primary stretched on, Obama seemed pretty comfortable lacing up his own gloves. Either way, the campaign, for now, seems to be pursuing a pretty similar strategy to what they used in the early primaries: Hold back, focus on fundamentals, let your opponent sully their own image by attacking you, and ready yourself to engage on your own terms when it suits your strategy. That McCain has gone so negative, so early, is a sign of his campaign's glaring weaknesses. That doesn't mean it won't work. But if it does show up in the polls, it's pretty likely that the Obama campaign will respond. And they're going to have quite a bit of money with which to do it.

It's worth noting that it's only August. I'll be interested in how this all goes down post-convention.

If the Packers give Favre the starting job back they will be getting exactly what they deserve. Sorry for the link--I've been with the Dallas Cowboys longer than I've been with anything else in my life, save my family.

I still think that the celeb ad will ultimately be ineffective, but I did some more thinking on why this spot--more than any released this election season--really bugs me. I watched the ad again, and saw the McCain camp's response to the debate proposal. A lot of folks claim that this strategy is a continuation of the Republican efforts to turn John Kerry into an effete flip-flopper. I guess--but it also seems to be of a lower order. At least calling someone a flip-flopper--no matter how dubious the charge--has some reference to policy and issues. Passive-aggressively describing Obama as a "worldwide celeb" is just an attempt to appeal to a sort of base sense of jealousy and xenophobia. It makes absolutely no comment on what an Obama presidency might look like. It simply says "don't vote for these guys because the rest of the world likes him." It really would be no different than Obama releasing an ad that said "John McCain fought in one failed war, no wonder he's backing another."

The new McCain strategy is a fascinating alloy of elitism and anti-intellectualism, and in that sense, perhaps no alloy at all. Still, the tactic derides celebrity--presumably because celebrity is achieved through popularity, not through doing anything "real," and then it asks people to vote on base prejudice toward people who aren't like them, not on issues. Consider this incredible quote from McCain henchman Rick Davis:

"Only celebrities like Barack Obama go to the gym three times a day, demand ‘MET-RX chocolate roasted-peanut protein bars and bottles of a hard-to-find organic brew—Black Forest Berry Honest Tea’ and worry about the price of arugula."

I read those words, and thought only of generic gangsta rappers ranting about "Keeping it real." All cultures have their essentialist brutes, and if anything radiates from Davis's statement, it's rank thuggism. It's contempt for "The Other" is only outweighed by its complete embrace of ignorance--"This guy shouldn't be president because he eats power-bars." The housing market is collapsing, Iran is pursuing the bomb, climate change is peeking over the horizon--and we are discussing power-bars and Honest Tea. Look, all campaigns do their share of unfair attacks. And at the end of the day, it's Obama's job to come back with a devastating counter. He's excelled at that all year. I expect him to do no less here. But--and I this will sound totally syrupy and naive--I really thought John McCain was a little better than this.

Here's a good one--Obama's campaign is too disciplined. This is the sort of story in which the reporter ends up saying more about their profession, than about the alleged subject. Anne Kornblut claims that Dems are pissed that Obama's Chicago operation is tight, leak-free, and doesn't defer to Washington. Kornblut does not offer a single quote to back up this contention--not even an anonymous one. Instead we are treated to the following:

Some Democrats on Capitol Hill have complained that he is not inclusive enough. They gripe that he is running his own campaign in some states, rather than the traditional coordinated effort; that he is not focusing on working-class white voters as he had promised at the end of the primaries; and that he has taken sides in some House primaries.

Amazing. I'd love to know what you guys think, but what I'm getting is that reporters are pissed that Obama--or his surrogates--won't write their stories for them. These guys ought to be ashamed of themsleves. I have no pity for them.

Sorry to overdo it with the D&D posts, but this is the sort of comment that makes me fume whenever people talk about the anti-intellectualism of the black community:

"If the shareholders of The New York Times ever wonder why the paper's ad revenue is plummeting and its share price tanking, they need look no further than the hysterical reaction of the paper's editors to any slight, real or imagined, against their preferred candidate," said McCain campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb.

Goldfarb compared the editors to a blogger "sitting at home in his mother's basement and ranting into the ether between games of Dungeons & Dragons."

I resemble that remark. Once again John McCain reveals his unfitness for the presidency. Any credible candidate knows that us nerds don't sit at home in our mother's basement "ranting into the ether between games of Dungeons & Dragons." We rant into the ether between games of World of Warcraft. Just...one...more...crit...

Barack Obama opposes reparations. This is news because black leadership--also known as the NAACP--supports reparations. Obama isn't like most black people. Get it? At this rate, he will cede his share of the black vote to Cynthia McKinney--the true black candidate. Everyone knows that African-Americans think that reparations is the most critical issue facing the black community. Critical, I said.