Ta-Nehisi Coates

This cat is always so sharp. As always, Glenn is just, no pun intended, right:

Neither Jerry Falwell nor Pat Robertson ever retracted or denounced their view that America provoked the 9/11 attacks by doing things to anger God. John Hagee continues to believe that the City of New Orleans got what it deserved when Katrina drowned its residents and devastated the lives of thousands of Americans. And James Inhofe -- who happens to still be a Republican U.S. Senator -- blamed America for the 9/11 attacks by arguing in a 2002 Senate floor speech that "the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America" because we pressured Israel to give away parts of the West Bank.

The phrases "anti-American" and "America-haters" are among the most barren and manipulative in our entire political lexicon, but whatever they happen to mean on any given day, they easily encompass people who believe that the U.S. deserved the 9/11 attacks, devastating hurricanes and the like. Yet when are people like Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, Inhofe and other white Christian radicals ever described as anti-American or America-hating extremists? Never -- because white Christian evangelicals who tie themselves to the political Right are intrinsically patriotic.

This is a great point and furthermore, saying that American foreign policy caused 9/11--as crude as that claim is--is at least a claim, and can be argued. Unlike, say, arguing that gays caused Katrina and 9/11.

Allow me to sweat myself for a minute. Kirkus reviewed TBS last week. While it's inaccessible to non-subscribers, the review is on the B&N website here.

"The world was filled with great causes-Mandela, Nicaragua, and the battle against Reagan," Coates writes. "But we died for sneakers stitched by serfs, coats that gave props to teams we didn't own, hats embroidered with the names of Confederate states." It's one of the saddest descriptions of the crack epidemic ever put to page. Given the tragic number of African-Americans who didn't survive that epidemic, it's a pleasure to read the author's awed appraisal of a fatherwho never stopped striving for the best in his family and community, no matter how hopeless the view outside his window. A rare, lyrical family memoir that rises above banal domesticity.

Heh yeah. We were a lot of things. Banal domestics ain't one of em...

From theroot:

I am a Hillary Clinton supporter.

There, I said it.          

And I'm tired of the dirty looks I get when I out myself. Why is it so surprising that someone like me – a black, educated, progressive chick – would put my support behind Hillary Clinton?

Oh, I know. I'm black, so, of course, I should support Barack Obama for the number one position in the country.

Wait but wasn't it only a year ago that people were running around claiming that Obama had little support in the black community? It's amazing how quickly the narrative switches.  Anyway, obviously I'm fine with black folks voting for Hillary, but please do not invoke the following reasoning;

It's never okay to be racist in our world, but, unfortunately, it's still 'normal' to be sexist.

This is good to know. From now on I'll tell my son that he has been born into a magnificent age in which racism is dead. The foolish Gloria Steinem argument is one of those backwards statements that people just repeat without even attempting to prove. They just say it. And of course, if you see the "Gloria Steinem" card, you know the "Questioning My Blackness" card isn't far behind:

Now, in case you're questioning, I do have race pride. No question about it. I am absolutely connected to the beautiful, soulful energy of African-American culture. But I hate that I just had to say that. I hate that all black Clinton supporters are somehow expected to qualify their blackness, as if we are naïve at best and traitors to the race at worst. Hillary's national co-chair, Sheila Jackson Lee, had to do it, too. She said on the Tavis Smiley Show, "I did not leave my blackness at the door. I am still a sister. I shout in the church. I love the Lord. And I love my people."

Who cares.  No one's talking about your people, stop changing the subject. I'd give her the Strawmanship Of The Year award, if I hadn't already given it to Ferraro. I accuse you of supporting an oppurtunistic, morally bankrupt candidate and the respons is, "How dare you question my blackness?!?!" I mean, really. Get a grip. Drop the whining and woe-is-me-ism. Make the case for your candidate and then keep it moving.

Folks I think this is a big deal. While I expect Obama to put some distance between him and Rev. Wright, he can't do his standard shtick of attacking black people, and call that a speech on race. That's not a dis. I like him dealing with black homophobia. I less like him dealing with black antisemitism, not because I think there are no black antisemites, but because I think it's a trumped up issue which people overstate and then exploit. People attack Farrakhan--like he somehow is demonstrative of the mind-state of black folks--while ignoring these rabid right-wingers who "support" Israel, because they believe it will beckon the Apocalypse...

Oh sorry, was I ranting? Anyway, my point is he needs to stand up for Trinity and he needs to stand up for black people--if only just a little bit. Even if he doesn't share Rev. Wright's views, he can't act like they come out nowhere. Most white people in this country simply have not a clue what it's like--not so much for us young'uns--but for folks who actually saw segregation. I'm thinking about people like Rev. Wright and my Pops, folks who actually went into the service and found that a substantial portion of this country still didn't see them as any more American. Barack can be candid. I expect him to make a case for us letting bygones be bygones---and I'm with him on that. I'm so tired of fighting over Affirmative Action, but I'm just getting warmed up on an Earned Income Tax credit for men, and a case for a different prison policy hinged on fiscal responsibility. But he can't act like these views come out of nowhere. He just can't.

As If I needed any more reasons to feel good about the impending end of my cable TV service...

Not exactly shocked McCain doesn't take Hannity's bait. It's a good move for him, as TPM has said--he either lets the 527s do the dirty work, or maybe he just knows that he's got even worse people who are--still--backing him...

Yeah, hackery is one thing. But fake hackery is just over-board. RIght wing fool, Bill Kristol relies on that vaunted source of info NEWSMAX and thus reproduces a major error in the pages of the Grey Lady in which he accuses Obama of being at particularly ferocious Rev. Wright Sermon in Chi-town. One problem--Obama was in Miami. Seriously, what does it take for this idiot to loose his job? Isn't this like his third error?

So after some input from a few other people (Hey Pops! Hey Chris!) I think I may have gone a little too hard on the Wright Rev. I still don't know what I think--I imagine that part of my distaste stems from a visceral dislike of people using religion to further politics. I know that everyone in the country does this, and among black folks it's been especially powerful. I don't have a strong argument here against it, accept a very personal one, and that being that I was essentially raised agnostic, and thus just don't "get" religion. But that's about me, not Rev. Wright,

That said, one of the big things that's made me reconsider all this is the fact right-wing political folks are some much worse and utterly and unapologetically bigoted. My Pops sent me the following off of HuffPo and I think you might see what I'm talking about within:

Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father's footsteps) rail against America's sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the "murder of the unborn," has become "Sodom" by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, "under the judgment of God." They call America evil and warn of immanent destruction. By comparison Obama's minister's shouted "controversial" comments were mild. All he said was that God should damn America for our racism and violence and that no one had ever used the N-word about Hillary Clinton.

More later, once I know how I feel. One thing that's clearly at work here though, is something present in all of black life--we always get penalized more. Clearly Wright's statements aren't even in the same ballpark as some these wing-nuts. Furthermore, while it's simplistic to say it this way, isn't it basically true that 9/11 results from American foreign policy? Did we or did we not empower the Mujahideen in Afghanistan?

His take on Obama

Haha. An oldie but goodie...

Sullivan basically sums up my feeling:

It's nutty, offensive and paranoid stuff. And it is perfectly legitimate for reporters and voters to ask questions. It is not much nuttier than Falwell and Robertson, however. And I don't think it's racist to understand that the black church has a different cultural style in its preaching and activism style that helps add some dimension to Wright's record.

Also here's a video of Trinity's incoming pastor which makes me really hopeful

So this is me on Ferraro in Slate:

The racist card is textbook strawmanship. As opposed to having to address whether her comments were, as Obama said, "wrongheaded" and "absurd," Ferraro gets to debate something that only she can truly judge—the contents of her heart.

It's a clever and unassailable move: How would you actually prove that Ferraro is definitively a racist? Furthermore, it appeals to our national distaste for whiners. It's irrelevant that the Obama campaign never called Ferraro a racist. It's also irrelevant that Ferraro said the same thing of Jesse Jackson in 1988. And it's especially irrelevant that Ferraro apparently believes that Obama's Ivy League education, his experience as an elected official, and his time of service on the South Side of Chicago pale in comparison with the leg-up he's been given as a black male in America. By positioning herself as a victim of political correctness run amok, Ferraro stakes out the high ground of truth telling.

A couple commenters pointed out that I never explicitly said why I thought Ferraro's comments were racist. Fair enough. Basically anytime you reduce someone success or failure strictly to their race, the comment is racist, no? The most potent aspect of racism, to me, is that it simplifies people, it dehumanizes them, and strips them of all complexity. Ferraro argued that the most essential factor in Obama's success was that he was lucky to be black--not his skills as a politician, not his intelligence, not his education, not his speech-making. He's black, and thus is getting a pass from hypnotized blacks and, more importantly, sympathetic whites.

When you discount all of someone's attributes, and essentially say that, but for the sympathy of white people, you would not be in this race, I don't know what else that is, besides racism. It's dehumanizing, belittling, and false. Again, if I said that the only reason Hillary was in contention is because she's a woman, that would be patently sexist. There'd be no debate at all. So why are all complicated about race?

Man I tried to avoid this dude. At first I thought it was that his personal life was being dragged out into the open. But now, Kilpatrick has gone off the deep-end--taking his critics with him, as Jack and Jill demonstrates. They're a little kinder to him then I would be, still it's a good post

Most of this video is pretty inoffensive stuff, but casting the crucifixion of Jesus as a racist crime committed by Italians seems silly. I mean, I don't believe in the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact or as an article of faith, but if I did, this would come off as bigoted to me. I don't think Barack can stand with  his pastor on this one, and I'd think no less of him for denouncing this. Citing the also-bigoted Pastor Hagee doesn't cut it. Either we're setting a new tone here, or we aren't. But that's just me. See for yourself.

For the record Kelly Goff was wrong--South Carolina is the first state with a sizable black population. What I think she's trying to say though is that Obama was behind in the polls amongst black voters for months, and they only came around once he actively solicited their votes.

Nevertheless, watch this clip and then afterward say it with me children--There is no racism...There is no racism...There is no racism...

From Ben Smith over at Politco. Man, oh man:

Placid of demeanor but pointed in his rhetoric, Jackson struck out repeatedly today against those who suggest his race has been an asset in the campaign. President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don't ask Jackson tough questions because of his race. And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his "radical" views, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."

Asked about this at a campaign stop in Buffalo, Jackson at first seemed ready to pounce fiercely on his critics. But then he stopped, took a breath, and said quietly, "Millions of Americans have a point of view different from" Ferraro's.

Discussing the same point in Washington, Jackson said, "We campaigned across the South . . . without a single catcall or boo. It was not until we got North to New York that we began to hear this from Koch, President Reagan and then Mrs. Ferraro . . . . Some people are making hysteria while I'm making history."

The fascinating thing to me in this, is not whether Ferraro is racist. But Jesse's public response. It's measured tone really reminds me of Obama. Sometimes I wonder how different Barack actually is from Jesse. Did the times just change and are the men basically the same? It's pretty clear that Barack could not have existed in 88, at least.

I just want to say, in the interest of fairness, that I think Orlando Patterson was tripping in the Times today:

I have spent my life studying the pictures and symbols of racism and slavery, and when I saw the Clinton ad’s central image — innocent sleeping children and a mother in the middle of the night at risk of mortal danger — it brought to my mind scenes from the past. I couldn’t help but think of D. W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation,” the racist movie epic that helped revive the Ku Klux Klan, with its portrayal of black men lurking in the bushes around white society. The danger implicit in the phone ad — as I see it — is that the person answering the phone might be a black man, someone who could not be trusted to protect us from this threat.

Dude sometimes a phone is just a phone.

Man, Somehow I don't think Barack is gonna be asking her for much...The "Arrogance of Whiteness" is strong in this one...

This is sad on so many levels. Here's Geraldine Ferraro, Walter Mondale's running mate in 1984 and Hillary supporter on Obama's campaign:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." Ferraro does not buy the notion of Obama as the great reconciler.

As we watch the Clinton campaign slowly break under the unrelenting pressure of the math, as it becomes apparent that they can't win this thing, I'm starting to get past anger at this sort of thing. I was  eight years old when Ferarro ran with Mondale. That was the year my pops voted for Jesse Jackson for the first time. My concerns were--in particular order--Transformers, the Dalls Cowboys, and weird insects. Still I was worldly enough to know--in some sort of vague way--that what Ferarro was doing was historic. Plus I was naive enough to think that her and Mondale might actually win. When they lost I knew, again vaguely, that it was bad news for kids like me. I had some sense, not just that a Mondale administration would be more favorable to my kind, but that a country that would elect a woman as VP, was likely to be a country that was open to whatever aspirations I held.

More »

I can't wait for Ed Park to get a hold of this one. Anyway, Slate does its usual contrarian number, this time applying it to D&D. The writer, Erik Sofge, basically argues that Gary Gygax was an overpraised hack who invented a game that revolved around killing imaginary creatures.

I'm just gonna say that I dismiss any article on fantasy, science fiction, comic books etc. that uses the word "nerd," or any cliches of "geek culture."" Sofge, of course, opens up with a few of those including eating too many nachos, and not having a sex-life. Again, this may just have to deal with being black, but that just wasn't my D&D experience. Beyond that it's just lazy and cliche. But I digress.

Here we have a case in which contrarianism becomes an ideology, and thus displays all of ideology's attendant problems--like ignoring contravening evidence. Sofge argues that D&D was amoral, but never mentions the alignment system which Gygax puts in place. Furthermore, D&D's rules were always supposed to be guidelines; following them in a rote, strict manner violates the whole idea of role-playing. Sofge attacks D&D because it birthed into World Of Warcraft, which Sofge sees as a game strictly built on hack and slash. Except WoW isn't just built on hack and slash and requires actual real-world social skills to build guilds and conduct raids--take it from someone who was an officer in a guild. In a way WoW breaks that fourth wall between the player and the matrix. Furthermore WoW has specific "role-playing" servers where players are encouraged to stay in character and interact with the relatively deep lore of their world. Even if we bought Sofge's argument about WoW, it'd be like someone saying that it's Biggie's fault that most hip-hop today sucks.

Sofge finishes up by dissing D&D because it's been surpassed by other gaming systems which were subsequently invented, which is a little like, as one commenter put it, dissing the Wright brothers for not inventing the jet engine. Sometimes writers have nothing to say. That's hard to believe in this world of constant up to the moment analysis. But sometimes, even when you have a notion, it's best to chill for a sec and let it marinate before spouting off.