Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

If you’re not reading “Yo, Is This Racist?“, you should be reading “Yo, Is This Racist?”. Hilarious, and surprisingly trenchant, answers to questions about whether certain things are racist.

This one caught my attention:

Anonymous asked: yo, some of my friends are having a 1950s themed party, so I told them I’d hang out outside to preserve historical accuracy. they said I was being a “wet blanket.” am I being whack or are they being racist?

DEAR RACISTS: PLEASE STOP BEING ALL SURPRISED WHEN PEOPLE GET OFFENDED WHEN YOU GLORIFY RACIST-ASS TIME PERIODS.

This takes me back instantly to Louis CK’s standup bit about white privilege – among other things, white people can use time machines, because there is no time in history they could visit and not still be privileged. “I could get in a time machine and go to any time and it would be fuckin’ awesome when I get there. That is exclusively a white privilege. Black people can’t fuck with time machines. A black guy in a time machine is like ‘Hey, anything before 1980, no thank you, I don’t want to go!’.”

One of the most pervasive aspects of white privilege is the way in which its effect on others is completely invisible to those wielding it. Whiteness is not just a position of dominance, but a default expectation for almost every social phenomenon or event: in the same way that the word “man” is used to include, but really exclude, women, there is an unspoken label “White” on almost everything that happens in our society that defines part of that society as invisible. All that takes place in society is seen from the perspective of, interpreted through, and built around the white experience, which whites assume means the only experience. That there are others is simply not imagined; that the default perspective excludes part of what it takes in is not comprehensible.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

A month ago, a deranged man stocked up on legally-purchased weapons and military gear, including an assault rifle with a 100-round magazine, and shot up a crowded theater showing the Batman movie; 13 people died, 58 were injured. Since then, at least two people have been arrested carrying guns into movie theaters showing the same film. Nineteen people were shot in one night in Chicago, three days ago; six died. The next morning, an ex-employee of a Manhattan company, feuding with the former boss who had fired him, killed the boss with a handgun on the sidewalk outside the Empire State Building during the morning rush hour; police officers on scene, extensively trained in firearms skills and tactical judgment, immediately killed the shooter, who never fired another shot, and wounded nine more bystanders in the process. Naturally, the gun-rights crowd insists, in every case, that the solution would have been more guns.

A couple of months ago  I received a review copy of  a recent book on US gun culture, and have finally gotten a chance to go through the volume and see what it had to say. American Shooter: A Personal History of Gun Culture in the United States, by Gerry Souter, is an interesting and highly informative book that conveys a vast range of historical and technical information about the development of firearms usage and attitudes toward guns in the US. It’s especially timely as the gun wars rage and another electoral season is on us. Its unique contribution arises from the perspective of its author – an outspoken liberal who is openly suspicious of the NRA and the fearful and fantastical paranoia of the “self-defense”/militia crowd, but who is also a lifelong shooter who has a great deal of experience with guns and not only supports responsible gun use but encourages it as a tool for social cohesion and self-development.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

So Condoleeza Rice has just been invited to become a member of the Augusta National Golf Club. She – along with a local business-woman also invited – will be the first-ever female members of a club that is infamous for its decades of aggressive and staunchly defended segregation. (They admitted their first-ever black member in 1990*, and fought for years to retain their ban on women in the face of protests centered around the annual PGA Masters tournament.)

Several years ago, Rice attended the Masters at Augusta and published a breathtakingly fatuous article about how much she loved the club, managing to completely avoid any mention of segregation (other than to note that “the faces at Augusta are changing”, without ever mentioning how, or why they hadn’t before, or the fact that she belonged to two categories of people whose presence at the club had been specifically banned for years). I wrote about that at the time:

Just as she did so often as Bush’s beard, Rice makes herself an apology for racist, sexist old white men’s anxieties, and determinedly forces herself not to notice either what’s going on around her or how she herself is contributing. She even goes out of her way to write about the fact that she spent an entire day at Augusta, knows it’s segregated, and hasn’t got anything to say about that.

So it’s impossible not to have mixed feelings about this. Augusta – finally – has agreed to stop their falling-behind-the-times clock at about negative-100 years and maybe try to keep pace from now on. Rice, who earned her groundbreaking membership with a world-class sucking-up job (“the people are very kind”), gets a sweet golfer’s perk and opens the door, presumably, to a few – a carefully-regulated few – more women who don’t happen to be former Secretaries of State. Augusta gets to congratulate itself on its progressivism and also claim that they never backed down: fully 10 years after mass protests at the Masters drew attention to their gender segregation, they’ve chosen to de-segregate “voluntarily”, and even went and got themselves a two-fer – a woman who is also black! So it’s not like those feminists had a point or anything.**

But it’s a welcome change, and more significantly, an inevitable one. So much of conservatism is simply a dedication to being wrong for as long as possible. Eventually they can’t help coming around – on slavery, segregation, voting rights, women’s rights, now gay rights, right-wingers have been forced into acceptance of progress against which they had once declared war (and in every case then claim that defeat as evidence of their own moral superiority). Augusta was founded by a man who blustered that “As long as I’m alive, all the golfers will be white and all the caddies will be black.” Hootie Johnson, the absurd blowhard who staked his life’s reputation on keeping women out, declared that he would defend segregation “at the point of a bayonet” while simultaneously claiming himself to have been a major supporter of the Civil Rights Movement. Johnson was so wedded to segregation and his own sense of entitlement that he rescinded $10 million in advertising fees in 2002 so he could say the advertisers hadn’t technically honored the boycott of his tournament. His replacement, Bill Payne, brought the Olympics to Atlanta but they rejected allowing an Olympic competition in golf specifically because he wanted to hold it at the segregated club – in his role as Olympics organizing chair, he abandoned golf rather than abandon segregation. On becoming the new club chair, just three years after the segregation protests under Johnson, he announced “Hootie did a wonderful job as chairman, and I will endeavor to maintain the customs and traditions of our club”. Being chair of a club that practices sex segregation doesn’t stand in the way of sexual judgmentalism, however: two years ago, Payne held a press conference to criticize black Masters champion Tiger Woods for having sex that he (Payne) didn’t approve of; two years after that, he was still refusing to publicly discuss the segregation issue.

Now the club has finally done what the club was often asked to do and said it never would, thus establishing a timeline for how long those particular conservatives chose to be wrong (for the club, 79 years; for Billy Payne, 6 years in office; Hootie Johnson, by all accounts, remains an asshole). The club can claim it won by dictating the terms of its own surrender, but there’s no question this is Martha Burke’s day: she pointed out a wrong and started a conversation that never ended until, today, they did what she asked, while all the club managed to do was continue to be wrong for 10 more years. Condoleeza Rice can now claim to be a pioneer for de-segregating a club she didn’t think needed it, but she’s no Jackie Robinson; given how much water she carried for Augusta while it defended discrimination, she ought to be considered its last black caddy.

And so another conservative institution comes unwillingly forward from its place in the past, and demands praise for agreeing not to be wrong after fighting to be so for more than a lifetime. It’s tedious, but it’s the only way they learn, so I guess we should be glad.

 

UPDATE: Rice has now been quoted, on the occasion of her breaking the 79-year ban on women at Augusta, as saying, I swear to God: ““I have long admired the important role Augusta National has played in the traditions and history of golf.” And the club, predictably, is taking a victory lap: the Chair who, just 4 months ago, refused to extend the traditional invitation to the CEO of IBM (a woman this year, for the first time), and refused to discuss it as well, now declares, on admitting two women after years of agitation, “This is a joyous occasion”. Man, they really don’t listen to themselves, do they?

 

UPDATE: David Zirin at The Nation goes upside Condi’s head today, refusing to let her role in this segregation farce obscure her history of both war crimes and abandonment of women’s interests. (“In a sane world, Rice would be awaiting trial at the Hague.”) He also digs up this jaw-dropper: the other woman named to the golf club along with Rice, local billionaire Darla Moore, lives on an honest-to-God antebellum plantation, and when her name was raised as a potential member of the club during the first round of segregation protests years ago she stated “I’m as progressive as they come. But some things ought not to be messed with.” She has a reputation as a fierce business negotiator, and claims “I’ve harassed guys all my life” – but she was “too much of a friend” of Hootie Johnson to actually ask him to let women into his guy sanctum. Man, they sure know how to pick ‘em.

 

* Caddies at August had all been black, by specific club rule, until 1983. They allowed white caddies 7 years before they allowed black players. Here’s an interesting article noting that blacks started to get cut out of caddying when golf purses got so large that caddying became a lucrative job (the caddy gets a percentage of the golfer’s winnings); the field is almost entirely white now. In the same way, most of the female coaches of women’s college basketball teams lost their jobs to men when the NCAA began promoting women’s sports. So for the most segregated sports in the world, de-segregation was just another way to keep blacks and women down.

** “Ever kicked down stairs? Decidedly not; once received a kick at the top of a staircase, and fell down stairs of his own accord.” (Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities)

Read Full Post »

I picked up Penn Jillette’s new book God, No!, yesterday, and am already most of the way through it. It’s pitched as an atheist’s version of the “Ten Commandments”. (This apparently was prompted by an exchange Penn had with Glenn Beck that resulted in Penn dashing off his own version of the Ten Commandments and Beck distributing them at his right-wing rallies. I’m still not entirely clear how that makes any sense.)

In fact, the book – like most of Penn’s stuff – just turns out to be a loose collection of breezy anecdotes and rants, dubiously organized thematically around his “Ten Atheist Suggestions”. It’s basically a compilation of Penn’s show-biz stories and video-blog ramblings, apparently intended to illustrate how his “Suggestions” work in his daily life – the connections are thin in most cases. The first chapter is a lengthy and utterly pointless, but fascinating, profile of Vegas performers Siegfried and Roy; it has about one paragraph of material that even mentions religion, and ends with Penn paying several thousand dollars for a pair of tight leather pants as a kind of tribute to Roy after he was injured in his tiger-taming act. That also makes no sense, and sets the tone for the rest of the book. Many of the chapters are hilarious (his story about being one of the first to ride the civilian “vomit comet” zero-g plane, while doing a striptease with a member of ZZ Top and a woman with huge breast implants, is indescribably bizarre; his visit to one of San Francisco’s infamous gay bathhouses at the height of the gay-bar scene – in which he couldn’t get a single gay guy to hit on him in a place that exists only for men to have sex with each other – is equally whacky). Many are touching, especially when he talks about his family. But many have virtually nothing to do with religion, or even with the moral principles that open each section of the book. (He includes a long story about his $100 bet with radio host Alex Bennet – that he couldn’t have sex while SCUBA diving with a fashion model – that is clearly in there only for the purpose of bragging. He even includes the text of his unpublished letter to Penthouse magazine about it.)

On only partial familiarity, my reaction is that the book is vintage Penn – funny and irreverent and not too rigorous. I am enjoying reading it, but I don’t think it contributes anything to the “New Atheism” or to any understanding of atheism or religion. Fans of Penn & Teller – and I am one – will find it a lot of fun, but I don’t think it rises above that level. And that’s what really gets me – not so much about the book, but about Penn himself.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Children flinging poo to get attention: dipshit College Republicans (there is no other kind) at UC Berkeley have been loudly touting their “Increase Diversity Bake Sale” – a racist provocation that has been standard fare for campus right-wing groups for 10 years or more. The gag is simple: they offer cupcakes for sale with prices set by race, with whites paying more and people of color getting lower prices as a form of “affirmative action”. This seems stupid, and so they figure they have scored some kind of point against affirmative action for things that really matter.

The real point, of course, is to anger people who actually care about race issues, and to get attention for themselves. It usually works. This week, there’s a lot of media attention, and both the UC campus student organization and the university administration have issued condemnations. But as student-activism scholar, and sometime Lean Left commenter, Angus Johnston points out, even these reactions have generally missed the mark.

On Sunday night ASUC — Berkeley’s student government — unanimously passed a resolution that, after a page of careful laying out of the various jurisdictional issues and imperatives involved, “condemn[ed] the use of discrimination whether it is in satire or seriousness by any student group.”

And yesterday Berkeley’s chancellor sent out an open letter on the sale. The event, he said, was “hurtful or offensive to many” at Berkeley, though he didn’t say why. It was not the politics of the sale, he implied, that were problematic, but the form of their expression: “Regardless what policies or practices one advocates, careful consideration is needed on how to express those opinions.”

Absent from each of these formal statements was any explicit statement of what exactly was wrong with the Republicans’ sale. (ASUC indicated that actually selling treats to certain students at reduced prices might violate anti-discrimination regulations, but of course actually selling stuff was never the point of the event.) . . .

[Chancellor] Birgenau wants to make the debate about the bake sale a debate about how polite the Berkeley community should be. But that’s not what it’s about, on either side. It’s about who should be allowed to enroll in the university, and on what terms.

Maintaining a professorial neutrality, Angus also doesn’t offer a detailed critique of the bake sale. It is obviously mean-spirited, and obviously fails to engage its nominal subject in any intelligent or substantive way. But what exactly is wrong with it, and why exactly is it a bad thing for them to be doing? Here’s how I understand the issues:

First, start with the fact that it’s deliberately provocative. It’s a parody of affirmative action policies such as scholarships for the underprivileged, and an expression of the right’s generally parodic understanding of affirmative action in general as being “special benefits for minorities and women”. (I’m not aware of any affirmative action program that consists of explicitly race-based price discounts for retail items, but I’m willing to bet these CR morons don’t actually know that their price list isn’t a real form of affirmative action.) It trivializes the issue of racial privilege and affirmative action by applying it at a trivial level, to frivolous items, and creates a parody instance of the right’s characterization of affirmative action as “reverse discrimination” with whites as victims. By moving the entire issue onto a silly and false footing, they mock the issue and the people it addresses.

Second, it makes no sense. There’s no way a bake sale “increases diversity”, and “diversity” and “affirmative action” aren’t the same thing. Again, the whole thing is just an expression of the right wing’s stupid and willfully ignorant understanding not only of race issues but affirmative action in general. In the same way that the right approaches every political and social issue by simply pushing buttons to generate canned responses from their followers, and mouthing code words and slogans that don’t actually mean anything – “family values”, “protect our children”, “traditional marriage”, “pro-life”, “fair tax”, “socialism”, “death panels” – they regard race as just another issue to demagogue with its particular set of meaningless and interchangeable code words: “diversity”, “affirmative action”, “reverse discrimination”. As an approach to its actual topic, the bake sale is not just provocative, but consists only in provocation. It claims to be more than just a demonstration or protest – the pricing scheme is apparently intended as a symbolic commentary on race-based aid programs, and as such substantive and meaningful – but it is in fact grounded in stupidity all the way down to the level of vocabulary. Yet for the right, being incoherent and dishonest is just a tactic, not an embarrassment.

But there is more than just that involved.

As a provocation, the stunt is crude and self-centered. It’s a childish act of mockery mostly intended to gain attention for its perpetrators – to make themselves interesting and relevant in a way that avoids taking an articulate position against helping people hurt by racism and racial history, and taking responsibility for that indifference. By treating their own chosen issue as a joke, they treat the concerns of those who take the issue seriously, and the harms that affirmative action seeks to address, as a joke. Just as right-wingers can’t see the history and reality of racism as real, and so see no problem elevating “reverse racism” as a response to affirmative action – because racism in America is all about white people’s problems – these clowns can’t see a difference between their own stupid joke and a serious social issue that affects other people’s lives. For Republicans, complaining about the inconvenience to white people of helping under-represented groups is a civil rights issue fully equivalent to, and more important than, doing something about the social consequences of hundreds of years of slavery, segregation, and racism.

So the stunt is wrong not just because it’s cruel and childish, and not just because it’s stupid and ignorant. It’s wrong because it’s a selfish and self-centered display of moral blindness – a false equivalency between racism and the attempt to make up for racism, a deep inability and unwillingness to see the difference between privilege and lack of privilege. It’s a fundamental, and to a large degree deliberate and gleeful, act of moral perversion – a self-centered demand for more privilege by the privileged out of a sense of entitlement so pervasive it is impervious to fact, feeling, or a sense of decency.

Complaining that you’re being harmed by other people objecting to your privilege is pretty much what the GOP is for. “’In order to move society forward, we’ve got to look past race’ said Derek Zhou, vice president of [College Republicans]. Yep. The same people who think the Confederate flag is “a symbol of heritage” also think it’s imperative to “look past race”.

PS: Live-blog of the event at UCB here.

Read Full Post »

Okay, so I commented once previously on the Washington Post‘s editorial standards, vis a’ vis whiney upper-class white guys and their entitlement to attention. The occasion was that a guy in one of the most affluent sections of Washington, DC  (in the Northwest quadrant) got his tires slashed. The Post did 20 column inches on that story.

The result was to garner me scores of angry comments, virtually all of them fixated on the fact that I wasn’t properly admiring of this self-absorbed dickhead and his self-absorbed life. Almost nobody noticed the actual point: that the incident was trivial and only got the attention it did because of the distorted values of our society and our media.

As I noted:

The idea of the Washington Post devoting 20 paragraphs and an anguished photo to the story of a single car vandalism in the NE would be gut-splittingly ludicrous. Murders go unreported there, by the dozens. Every lesser crime, every imaginable urban misery, occurs there in handfuls, or scores, or hundreds of repetitions on a daily basis.

Nobody seemed to care that this was true, or even question whether it was. (Tgirsch later posted a revised version of the story, further insulating the dickhead from any negative attention so as to cajole people into noticing the real issue. His theory was that any failure to coddle people like him distracts readers. My theory was, and is, that whiney, self-absorbed, wealthy white dickheads get too much attention.)

But as it happens, we have a similar incident for comparison. Here’s how the Washington Post handled a story about a car-related incident in the Northeast quadrant this week:

Two people on bicycles fired shots as they pursued a car late Saturday in a Northeast Washington neighborhood on the edge of Capitol Hill, authorities said.

D.C. police said they received no reports of injuries or damage in connection with the incident, which occurred about 11:30 p.m. near 10th and F Streets NE.

Police said they had not yet learned of a motive in the incident, but said it did not appear to be a random attack.

Officers will patrol the area and will give special attention to people on bicycles as well as to enforcing traffic regulations, police said.

The area involved is a residential rowhouse neighborhood a bit more than a mile from the Capitol, and two blocks south of H Street NE.

That was it: 5 sentences. An attempted murder in the open street, shots fired in a residential neighborhood – the police have nothing and don’t even know where the bullets ended up; the Post gives it a couple inches of mostly whitespace.

Admittedly, nobody was actually hurt, but then, nobody was in the tire-slashing incident, either. The “shooters-on-bicycles” angle may seem kind of amusing (actually, it’s a telling clue to the social status of the shooters, if you know anything about DC), but I thought the mother’s-basement Hummer-loving dickhead was pretty chuckleicious, too. So why does that clown get 20 inches and a photo for some minor property damage, and the people affected by this incident get almost no attention for an attempted murder and life-threatening gunfire?

Here it is: “10th and F Streets NE“. Just to make that clearer, Wikipedia notes “The more affluent neighborhoods of Northwest Washington are typically safe, but reports of violent crime increase in poorer neighborhoods generally concentrated in the eastern portion of the city.”

This might help:

Crime in DC
Still confused? Oh:

DC Population
Okay, then.

But please, feel free to call Hummer Boy again and tell him how bad you feel for him.

Read Full Post »

An observation: I was startled to notice how often I qualify factual statements with the word “literally” (see my previous post). I don’t use it the mindless way many people do (my recent favorite: a co-worker who arrived at the office complaining about being delayed by a subway slowdown that “literally took forever!” – but . . . you got here . . .?). But I find I keep needing to make it clear that the things I’m saying are actually true.

I finally realized what prompts this: public discourse today is so poisoned with both ignorance and simple deliberate bullshit that merely asserting something as fact is not taken to be an endorsement of its truth. You have to go further to declare which of your statements are to be taken at face value, if you care whether the audience will believe you are not lying when you say them.

In a world of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, where every single major Republican openly touts creationism and dismisses global warming, where endorsing noxious and proven-false religious, patriotic, and cultural nonsense is an actual requirement of office for candidates from both parties, simply saying things is completely outmoded as a means of asserting their truth. Nobody is expected to believe the things they say anymore; nobody does believe that others believe the things they say. And of course it is then impossible to accept the things other say as things that should be believed, even if those others are regarded as generally honest by the standards of the day (which is to say: consistently amoral liars). Public discourse in the United States has become an exercise of witless yammering between people who do not know the difference between truth and falsehood and people who do not care – a moronic flailing in which knowing the truth and holding to standards of honest discussion not only provide no advantage, but may be a weakness.

I am not a creationist, a science-denialist, or a progenitor of idiotic mythologies about magical beings, economics, or race. But I still can’t just say what I know, or even believe I know, in a simple declarative way, because today most conversation about science, health, religion, economics, race, culture, or politics consists largely of patently false posturing from lying ideologues; it’s assumed that anyone saying anything about any topic of contention is doing so ideologically, and without regard to truth. And in fact, truth is considered irrelevant to promoting one’s position on factual issues: the range of repeatedly-disproven falsehoods that constitute the entire substance of the right-wing position on almost any issue – abortion, climate, gay marriage, evolution, education, immigration, penology, economics . . . – is too vast to overcome, and is well-documented in every case, and that documentation has absolutely no impact on their willingness to keep saying false things, or their followers’ willingness to accept them. Even those who know better, and care about the truth, are forced into conducting the debate on that ground, because so many people have been led to believe that that is the ground of conversation.

It is to the point now that you have to declare when you are saying something you really believe before you can ask that it be taken as a factual assertion. Literally. And that sucks. Figuratively.

 

* Go ahead; look it up.

Read Full Post »

I’ve been reading an interesting book lately: On the Grid: A Plot of Land, An Average Neighborhood, and the Systems that Make Our World Work, by Scott Huler. It’s an extensive examination of every aspect of urban infrastructure in an ordinary US metropolitan area – where the water comes from, how it’s treated, how the supply is managed, where the sewage goes, how it’s treated, how the water and sewer lines are installed and maintained, how garbage is handled, how recycling and landfills work, how electricity is generated and distributed, how the lines are maintained, how local utilities tie into the national electric grid, how cable TV and broadcast services are set up, how landline and wireless telephone systems are set up and managed, how streets are paved and repaired, how traffic flow is managed, how local transit systems and airports operate, and on and on. Necessarily, it’s just an overview of each system, but it contains a surprising amount of detail; it has some flaws but it’s invaluable for anyone who is thinking about energy and resource issues (as we had all better be) and isn’t yet an expert (as most of us are not).

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Holy shit. The ludicrous Ben Stein goes completely off the rails with this loathsome commentary on the IMF rape case. Stein is a jackass of the first water, and given to weird conspiracy theories (global warming, evolution theory, and the welfare state are all secret movements designed to undermine freedom), but he likes to position himself as a simply a mild-mannered economic crank (“Beuller? Bueller? Buy mortgage-backed securities!”). It’s only a matter of time, though, for any conservative before classism and misogyny break through the surface (presumably nobody told him the woman in this case is an African Muslim – I guess he’ll need to post a followup).

The idiocy below starts out stupid and just gets gradually more offensive sentence by sentence. By the end it is almost the ugliest and nastiest thing I have yet seen posted about this case. My only hope is that this is the piece that finally takes Stein off the map as a supposed “reasonable conservative”. At his best he was a David Brooks dunderhead; today he exposes himself as an Ann Coulter psychotic, and he ought to be remembered as such. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Startlingly clear-headed, absolutely right-on interview at Salon with Ira Isaacs, the defendant in a long-running censorship trial, about the absurdity of the obscenity doctrine and the stupidity of the government’s prosecution.

Trigger Warning: censorship

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 29 other followers