The world is yours.
The world is yours.
One reason why I reject the hamfisted argument that marriage is the best option for everyone, everywhere, at all times, as well as its oft-invoked corollary that none of this applies to gays, is that it's an argument that overstates our knowledge of other people's lives. In its worst form, its invoked by characters so sanctimonious that you smell the bad faith on their breath before they utter a word.
Far be it from me to say that Newt Gingrich's 1981 decision to ask his first wife for a divorce while she was in the hospital recuperating from cancer should bar him from commenting on the value of traditional marriage. But six months after the divorce was finalized, he married a new woman, Marianne Ginther, which suggests there was some infidelity involved. Then in 2000 he divorced Ginther and married a third woman with whom it turns out he'd been having an affair. That, I think, is a bit much. Then after that, he became a Catholic!
As for Guliani, I don't know how much his postion is going to help him. He's in favor of "civil unions."
Nice piece in the Times outlining the current debate around torture. I think people will find this interesting:
On Sunday, Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said on the ABC News program "This Week" that "those who devised policy" also "should not be prosecuted." But administration officials said Monday that Mr. Emanuel had meant the officials who ordered the policies carried out, not the lawyers who provided the legal rationale.
Three Bush administration lawyers who signed memos, John C. Yoo, Jay S. Bybee and Steven G. Bradbury, are the subjects of a coming report by the Justice Department's ethics office that officials say is sharply critical of their work. The ethics office has the power to recommend disbarment or other professional penalties or, less likely, to refer cases for criminal prosecution.The administration has also not ruled out prosecuting anyone who exceeded the legal guidelines, and officials have discussed appointing a special prosecutor. One option might be giving the job to John H. Durham, a federal prosecutor who has spent 15 months investigating the C.I.A.'s destruction of videotapes of harsh interrogations.
Do you know I couldn't laugh? I think Peggy Noonan's argument for not releasing the documents was so absurd ("some of life has to be mysterious") that it's hard to satirize. Anyway, judge for yourself.
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||M - Th 11p / 10c|
|We Don't Torture|
Commenter KCN writes:
I would really love to hear TNC's thoughts on the NYT article on "downward assimilation" among second-generation Latinos. I agree with Storm that the article really made me squirm. I am married to an African immigrant and the article basically described my husband's worst nightmare--that our kids would grow up to act "ghetto."
Every African immigrant familiy knows a family whose kids (usually US born although this also happens to kids who immigrated at a young age) ended up doing poorly in school, abusing substances or otherwise acting "ghetto" like the girl in the NYT article. My husband has made it clear to our kids that "ghetto" speech, dress and attitudes are not welcome in our home and that anyone who has a problem with this policy is welcome to go back to Africa to live with relatives (usually this comes with a reminder like, "did you know that 5 gallons of water weighs 40 pounds? Forty pounds is a lot to carry on your head....."I think a lot of Black Americans interpret African immigrants as being snobbish (or dare I say uppity?) but the root is a deep fear that our kids will grow up to be entitled and lazy.
I'm flattered by the eagerness for a response, but I really don't know what there is to say. I think if you truly believe that "African immigrants are snobbish" you should avoid "African immigrants" at all costs. I'm sure said immigrants would appreciate it. Greatly.
Likewise, if you really believe that the negative potency of native black kids is such that mere socializing will cause your "kids to grow up and act ghetto" then you should avoid native black kids. As the father of a "native black kid" and, as the partner of a native born black woman, as someone who has grown up and regularly acts ghetto, I can tell you that we would, likewise, appreciate it. Greatly.
I generally avoid talking to people who insist on thinking in broad generalities. I imagine a lot of Africans, immigrants or not, could understand why. I'm a fan of people's right to be as prejudice as they wish. But I think those who truly believe in their prejudice shouldn't talk our ears off--they should get to stepping.
The prejudiced mind has made its judgment--that's what it means to be prejudiced. Life is too short to spend it washing other people's laundry. These are my personal limitations. Better men than me can spend their hours disabusing people of their notions. I have my own issues to wrestle with.
As to the article, I didn't get the sense that the Latinos were blaming their own issues on black culture. Nevertheless, if you want to credit us with MS-13, we'll take that. Whatever you need to get through the day. That's what we're here for.
Brendan does the knowledge on Frans Boas, who, amongst other things helped give us Zora Neal Hurston. Still, he was not immune from the taint.
Emily Bazelon offers the following:
That footnote also demonstrates why if we're going to investigate or prosecute anyone, it shouldn't be the agents on the scene. In the wake of Obama's carefully crafted statement fending off prosecution for anyone who relied in good-faith on the DoJ memos, some commentators have called for looking into whether CIA agents could go down for torturing before the memos were written in August 2002. This seems wrong to me. If we went that route, we'd get around version of Abu Ghraib: a few low-level scapegoats standing in for their far more culpable superiors. Much more interesting is another possibility Obama left open: going after the lawyers who wrote the memos and the officials who demanded and approved them--David Addington, Alberto Gonzales, Jim Haynes. Rahm Emanuel told George Stephanopoulos on Sunday that Obama believes that "those who devised policy... should not be prosecuted either." But what about disbarment? And impeachment for Jay Bybee, the torture memo author who got life tenure on the 9th Circuit? It would be a start. If you think these memos are good lawyering, then you don't deserve to be a lawyer. That's a lesson the bar should desperately want to impart.
On thing that I've wondered for some time is why we expect the Attorney General, appointed by the president, to actually be independent of the president. I don't have a good answer there. But it seems like the very nature of the appointment process lends itself to corruption.
Seeing KRS-ONE used to a rite of passage--like going to Mecca. I saw him circa 95 at The Ritz in D.C. Kool G Rap was supposed to open up, but didn't show. Kris existed in our minds as a kind of myth, so much so that when he came out on stage, and they played the baseline to The Bridge Is Over he didn't even have to say anything. He just kind of stood there and looked at the crowd which was going nuts. Something about the first few bars. They just take you to another place. Needless to say he gave a great show.
Many years later I saw Bjork, and was convinced that hip-hop, live, just couldn't compete. I mean this chick was out on Coney Island, the ocean at her back, fireworks going off in the distance, jets of flame shooting up whenever she bellowed "state of emregency" from "Joga." Meanwhile some dude was cutting on the turntables, and she had a string section doing work. Was amazing. Still a KRS show holds a special place in my heart. Maybe we shouldn't compare. But what the hell. I'm no fucking Bhuddist.
In a blog post entitled "Africans Still Trumping American Blacks," Keith Josef Adkins observes:
In 2004 Dr. Henry Louis Gates insisted that African and Caribbean immigrants as well as bi-racial students were trumping American Blacks in numbers at top-ranked universities. In 2008 I blogged extensively about my experience within the Afropolitan culture, the social/intellectual circle where Africans [from abroad and second-generation] mingle and organic global consciousness is commonplace. My 2008 assessment? Africans and Caribbeans were trumping American blacks on the corporate climb as well as the artistic.
I couldn't decide whether I should address this or not. I think this was written with the intent of garnering more heat than light--or without regard to either. I can't know a man's heart, but I suspect that when you use a phrase like "trumping American blacks" you aren't exactly interested in reflection or conversation. I think anyone with any serious knowledge of how immigration works, understands the problem with comparing self-selecting group to a native mass. Indeed, if you follow through to the original article you'll note that immigrant blacks aren't just doing better in these areas than native-born blacks, they're doing better than whites also:
The data showed that 75 percent of first- or second-generation immigrant blacks enrolled in college after high school. For whites, the figure was 72 percent. For blacks whose families had been in this country for more than two generations, only 60 percent of high school graduates went on to college.
Slightly more than 9 percent of immigrant black high school graduates enrolled at the nation's most selective colleges. Only 2.4 percent of native-born blacks and 7 percent of whites enrolled at these schools.
I'm not really surprised by any of this, and I'm not sure why anyone else with a cursory knowledge of immigration history would be. And yet we keep hearing this whisper. In the context which Gates raised the issue--around Affirmative Action, not who's trumping who--I think it does, indeed, point of the problem with race-based AA. But beyond that, I don't know what else to say.
And now allow me to digress to a broader, more existential dilemma. Every time I read something like "Africans Still Trumping American Blacks" I'm struck by the fundamental limitations of argument and dialouge and consequently the limits of blogging. One of my great qualms about this whole enterprise is that settled debates are rehashed, not because of new evidence, but because of the nature of punditry, because of a profession (??) that boils down to a kind of vulgar exhibitionism.
Punditry is often disparaged as a sport or theater--but this is demeaning to sports and actual theater. It's more like wrestling--it cloaks itself in the veneer of truth-seeking, but beneath the surface is all the bombast and overstatement that can be mustered. Except wrestling bills itself as entertainment and punditry is self-regarding. Thus even this comparison may be demeaning to wrestling.
I don't mean to come down on Adkins--anyone who's watched Sunday talk shows knows this is the form argument has taken. Nor do I mean to absolve myself. I have, in my time, allowed outrage to get the best of me. But it's something to turn that outrage into a mode of argument, into a business model.
To cut down on threadjacking, there will be more of these. I keep thinking this is my house. And it kinda is, and then not really.
CHFF looks at Madden's coaching years. Sorry guys. Gonna be a lot of Madden talk over the next few days.
What I like about this answer is the paucity of ideological abstractions ("tyranny' "communism" etc.) and the focus on specifics issues. I think being proud of the fact that all the summit leaders are democratically elected, despite the fact that you may not like all of them, is evidence of why I voted for Obama. The dude is the un-Bush. Nuance isn't weakness. Hopefully we've learned that.
I think we'll talk about torture quite a bit today--lotta thoughts swimming around after digesting it all this week. I think people should read this post by Andrew. It contains one of the ugliest statements I've heard made in relation to the War On Terror:
So we had Deroy Murdock in one of the most repulsive columns ever printed in that magazine declaring:
Waterboarding is something of which every American should be proud.
Not reluctantly forced to contemplate torture in the last act of desperation to save mass death. But proud. Nonetheless, Murdock was at pains to tell us:
But the bigger point that Andrew makes is that even after the Justice Department set parameters for torture, the CIA still violated them. Khalid Shiek Muhammad was waterboarded 183 times in one month--roughly six times a day, and more than double the number of times that a sympathetic Justice Department said was legal.
It would boggle the mind if it didn't make so much sense. This is what happens when you cross over to the "dark side." When you embrace the tactics of those you decry. The law exists to curb the worst instincts of men. Why would anyone think that once those boundaries are crossed, newly erected boundaries will be respected? You can't regulate "the dark side." That's why they call it the dark side.
Oh how it pains me to do this. But do it I must. Lots of folks wrote in about that Texas and wealth post below. I think this is the best illustration of what was wrong:
You fuckers are killing me today. I say that with love. Seriously. Fuckers is a term of endearment. Mostly.
Oh, wait. Not that one. This one:
I can't believe you picked this up.
Texas is like a poor man's Alaska, with the substantial natural resource wealth but with the wealth spread across a much greater population.
This is pretty ignorant. The GDP of Texas, in 2007, was 1.14 trillion dollars, close to nine percent of the national GDP (13.7 trillion). In this Texas stood just below California (1.8 trillion) and above New York (1.10 trillion). Taking the median income may say a lot about wealth distribution in Texas, but it's a stupid measure of how "wealthy" the state is. Tell me again how Texas is a "poor man's" Alaska (GDP 44 billion).
By the way -- this means Texas' economy would make it the fourteenth-largest in the world, larger than Australia, Ireland, Italy, etc.The central question, as I understand it, is how wealthy the state is, not what is the centerpoint value of the wealth distribution. Using the median confuses wealth with income equality. California's median income was $56,000 for 2006-7, Texas's $45,000 for the same period. But if you divide GDP by population, California's GDP per person was $49,000, Texas' 48,000 (rounded up from 47,581). What this suggests is that the *wealth* on a population basis for Texas is roughly equivalent, but distributed much less broadly than in California. If we're talking about just policy, then California looks a hell of a lot better. But in terms of whose policy is better at generating wealth, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. THAT's why the "flaws" of median income make its use in this context misleading (if not ignorant).
Note: I think the secession talk is stupid grandstanding (albeit, grandstanding drilled into us by the mandatory Texas history course we public schoolers take). But it shouldn't be dismissed as an operationally insignificant possibility.
I apologize to Tom Delay, and all the fine residents of Texas. Every so often, while licking shots, I hit the wrong target. By and by, I hope it happens less and less. To all the commenters who shot me full of holes, as I've often said to Kenyatta after she's deflated my burgeoning ego with some snide (yet perceptive) shot, "This is why I keep you around." Anyway Sgwhite, points us to this small addendum:
Just one minor issue: you really shouldn't use median income, which can be distorted to the extent that inequality differs across states. You should instead use income per capita. As it happens, the comparison is even more striking. Texas, with its glorious free market regime and deeply incentive-creating 25 percent rate of health uninsurance, has a per capita income of $37,187; nanny-state New Jersey, with its oppressive taxes and regulation of everything (what it takes to get permission to cut down a dying tree ... ), has a per capita income of $49,194.
Not that that makes the kid right.
Obama is boycotting. I don't have much of a reaction to this, since I don't have much faith in conferences on racism. I don't know why this rubs me the wrong way. Perhaps it extends out of my lack of faith in having a "conversation around race." I need to think more about it. For now, I find other things about Obama more troubling and we'll talk about that soon.