Feeds:
Posts
Comments

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)

Good rant here from otherwise-unidentified John Goodman look-alike.

“Hey, White Guys! . . . It’s true, we don’t get a pass from despair and hard luck. Nobody is exempt from a crap bath. It’s just that we start at third base when everyone else is still lining up for an at-bat.”

The Stadium Collection

UPDATED 29 Jul 2012: Added New Yankee Stadium

I’m a sports fan, and I “collect” stadiums (stadia?). Especially major league baseball, NFL football, and NHL hockey. My goal, before I die, is to see a baseball game in the home stadium of every MLB team. It would be an added bonus if I could do the NHL and NFL venues, but right now, I’m focusing primarily on baseball.

Problem is, I keep forgetting where I’ve been, and losing count. Therefore, mostly for my own reference (and because I expect few others to be interested), I’m posting a list of venues attended below the fold. I’ve ordered them in roughly the order in which I first visited them, to the best of my ability to recall.

However, if you have comments concerning favorite (or least favorite) venues, feel free to leave them.

Continue Reading »

Wisconsin

Quoth SayUncle:

So, you can take on a major union and win. Good. Turns out, people favor job growth, balanced budgets and not paying for other peoples’ stuff. Who knew?

[Emphasis mine]

I’m not going to bother with the rest of it (it’s his right to cheer for the accelerated decline of the middle class, after all), but it seems a lot of people are giving Gov. Walker credit for the job growth in Wisconsin. This inspired me to put together this handy graphic a few days ago:

H/T: Sebastian the Blogless.

A group called “Project Prevention” is in the news for its tactic of offering $300 payments to “drug addicts” to submit to sterilization or long-term birth control because . . . um, it’s not clear except, you know, “those people” obviously ought to be sterilized. According to the woman who dreamed up this charming scheme, it’s just a coincidence that most of them tend to be black or Hispanic, and almost all are poor. The program isn’t intended to sterilize people who are black, Hispanic, and/or poor . . . it just does.

But you can kind of see the logic behind it. Such people are a drain on society. They could be dangerous. They’ll transmit their drug-using, welfare-depending, no-home-owning ways to the next generation. We need to stop that.

The problem, of course, is that this is just a rationalization for . . . sterilizing people who are black, Hispanic, and poor. Given the pitifully meager and ill-spirited pittance we actually provide for programs aimed at poor, homeless, or drug-addicted people, and the lengths we go to to keep them out of our neighborhoods and public facilities, providing a Final Solution to the problem they represent won’t actually change anything for the rest of us. The program can’t be justified by the benefits it supposedly provides. But the problem is not the tactics, just the focus.

We ought to be pushing birth control for the true parasite class, the ones who actually do take up vast amounts of public resources, drag down the economy, and destroy standards of living for decent and productive citizens. We need a “Project Prevention” for the over-breeding scum who have drained our paychecks and our dignity as a society generation after generation. It’s time.

Sterilize the Rich

Break the Cycle!

Sterilize the Rich

We could have a better America in just one generation.

Think about it.

The Wall Street Journal and Jonathan Adler are all het up about the unprecedented, nefarious tactic suddenly invented by liberals: secondary boycotts. WSJ waxes teary-eyed over all those poor corporations missing out on some tiny fraction of potential profits simply because they’re funding anti-democratic legislation, reactionary politicians, environmental disaster, slaveringly vicious fascist radio freaks, or the maintenance of their own oligopolies. Nasty liberals have been boycotting the people who are funding the destruction of America, and it’s just not fair. Adler is not only shocked, but unbelieving; this is a “new” tactic to which nobody has ever before sunk.

Nobody except conservatives since the dawn of time. Secondary boycotts – boycotting the supporters or enablers of those who are the primary source of some disapproved act – have been ubiquitous on the right wing. Eight years ago (aaaaggh!) I wrote about the insatiable penchant of wingnuts for boycotts on ideological grounds – follow the link and you’ll see that most of those listed are secondary boycotts, aimed not whoever did whatever it is they hate so much, but those who advertise with them, employ them, or even allow them into their places of business. It’s a much older story than that; threats of boycotts have routinely been used against those who in any way do business with abortion providers, including those who provide their cleaning services, pick up their trash, or even do construction to build the clinics. Secondary boycotts are a specific tactic recommended in the anti-abortion harassment manual Closed: 99 Ways to Stop Abortion, which has been in circulation for 20 years. Then there was the threatened boycott of CBS by the entire Republican Congressional caucus when Dan Rather included a forged document in his otherwise accurate reporting on George Bush’s military desertion, specifically to force that private business to fire one specific employee they had targeted (Rather). One might include the orchestrated, nationwide assault on Planned Parenthood, supposedly to prevent funding of abortion services from funding sources that don’t pay for abortions, but which have the (intended?) effect of destroying healthcare access for hundreds of thousands of women. Or the time during the GW Bush administration that the RNC informed all the K Street lobbying firms in Washington that they would have no access to Congress or the White House if they employed any former Democratic staff as lobbyists.

It’s certainly true that secondary boycotts can be pernicious, and in some ways unfair. (Though why you are supposed to overlook the fact that a given entity actively supports people or practices you abhor is not clear.) I have blogged several different times about how destructive they can be – in each case in defense of right-wingers, even the most repulsive wingers of all, against other right-wingers, because they’re the ones who constantly employ this tactic. (I’ll admit, too, that I’m somewhat ambivalent on the issue. As noted above, there is a reason to object to those who support those you object to. But at least my objection to Adler and the WSJ is not intended only to benefit one side of the political spectrum.)

But whatever you think about that, the articles linked at the top of the post are offensive in their stupidity, unfairness, and historical ignorance. The left never invented secondary boycotts. The tactic is in no way “new” (for one thing, it was the subject of Constitutional labor-law litigation close to 100 years ago). And most of all, it has been a constant, ceaseless, and far-reaching tactic of the right wing for decades. The Wall Street Journal only noticed when it finally affected their 1%-er lackeys ALEC, Limbaugh, and Beck. I defy anyone to find a WSJ editorial defending women’s health clinics against secondary boycotts to make their services unusable, or public universities against legislative assaults on their budgets for sponsoring liberal student groups, or even major corporations like Disney or McDonald’s for treating gays and transgendered persons with dignity.

In the same way that right-wing delusionality and projection constantly ascribes their own behavior to the left, suddenly the few, recent secondary boycotts that have been aimed at the most vicious and destructive figures on the right become a “new” and supremely abhorrent tactic – one that has been practiced with abandon for decades by the right wing without objection from the same sources.  Why should we care about them now, when they never cared about anyone else before?

UPDATE: Fixed typos.

UPDATE: Here’s a new one: harassing the neighbors of the in-laws of the landlord of an abortion clinic. That’s because stalking the landlord’s children at their elementary school didn’t work. What do we call this? A tertiary boycott? Quaternary? How long would you be willing to hold your breath waiting for the Wall Street Journal to show any sympathy?

I don’t like to slag off (semi-)liberal writers, but what, exactly, keeps Timothy Noah employed?

He’s a typical mainstream journalist lifer, rotating between right-wing news outlets (US News & World Report, The Wall Street Journal) and center-left magazine-style venues (TNR, Slate). He managed to change sides on the Iraq war not once but twice, and recently won the Hillman Prize for advocacy journalism for his magazine series (and now book) on income inequality in the US. He’s everywhere on the commentary and opinion blogs. And he writes an opinion column for TNR in which he attempts to be profound. It’s the latter that catches my attention right now.

When have you ever thought to yourself, about any important issue, “Well, as Timothy Noah says . . .”? Apparently Timothy Noah thinks that to himself with some regularity, and it bugs me. Particularly, it bugs me not simply because he writes drivel but because he’s getting paid to write that drivel and I’m not. I mean, we’re used to the gratingly stupid shit that comes up on the wingnut welfare circuit – National Review, World Nut Daily, CNS News, Regnery, and their “think” tank sponsors – but if lefties (more or less) are getting paid to write obvious inanities, hell, I can do that.

Here’s Noah on three burning issues of the day:

Clinton on Caro on Johnson

“I think it’s pretty clear that [in his review of Robert Caro's biography of LBJ] Clinton is not addressing these remarks to you, or me, or Caro, or Times Book Review editor Sam Tanenhaus, or Times executive editor Jill Abramson, or any other Times reader save one (though the rest of us are welcome to listen in). He’s addressing them to the 44th president of the United States.”

Upper-Class Internships

“Opportunity should not be bought and sold, even (perhaps especially) to benefit causes that purport to be charitable.”

The Hunger Games

“I’ve been struggling to understand why it is that I found The Hunger Games, which I saw last week with my teenage daughter, morally repugnant.” [Seriously, Tim? This required a lot of thought for you?] “Nowhere in the film is it suggested that if 12 moral individuals were told to kill one another for no reason other than to amuse the masses, then the only choice consistent with any notion of ethics that I’m familiar with would be to refuse and be executed.”

This ceaseless stream of platitudinous superficialities gets you a paycheck from The New Republic (as Chloe Sevigny kept repeating every five minutes in the movie Shattered Glass, “the inflight magazine of Air Force One!”). Apparently all that is required is an marginal ability to read, and no ability to understand anything.

The Clinton review is obviously political exhortation. Do you think Bill Clinton sits around doing literary criticism just for the hell of it? When he writes “power ultimately reveals character. For L.B.J., becoming president freed him to embrace parts of his past that, for political or other reasons, had remained under wraps”, he couldn’t be clearer what he’s talking about. And since there’s only one person in the entire world who is in a position to use the lessons from a Democratic president’s efforts to pass landmark progressive legislation, it’s not like identifying this person requires some kind of blinding insight. The suggestion that LBJ was a master interpersonal politician, and that Clinton emulates him and Obama does not, is hardly any more original. Noah offers absolutely nothing to this discussion. He’s like that annoying guy in the movie theater who insists on saying what’s happening on the screen, because he thinks you won’t understand it if he doesn’t explain. Shut up, Noah – you’re in the way.

On the fact that unpaid internships at powerful and prestigious institutions are actually being auctioned off – that’s right, it’s gone beyond rich kids working for free to get access and privilege; they’re now paying to work for free so they can get access and privilege – Noah’s only observation is that this undermines “meritocracy”. (That he uses that word, and apparently believes in what it means, ought to be proof enough of his establishment hack status.) The unfairness of the “internship” game in itself, or the nexus of class and political power or business opportunity, get no recognition in his two-paragraph piece. The fact that such institutions care so little about “merit” that they’re willing to guarantee positions without knowing who will buy them apparently implies nothing to Noah. Nothing about this situation moves him to criticize, or analyze, or even seemingly notice, the bankrupt system it feeds and arises from; he just thinks it’s bad to actually sell access outright – why restricting access only to those who can afford to pay to work for free is worse than giving access away only to those who can afford to work for free is an exercise for a much subtler thinker.

It’s the Hunger Games bushwa that really prompted this. Noah states outright that – while sitting next to his teenage daughter – he couldn’t figure out what bothered him about a film featuring teenage girls (and boys) being hunted and killed for sport. After putting a lot of thought into it, and consulting better writers, he finally comes up with this thin gruel: because the audience empathizes with the kids, but also enjoys the movie, “The Hunger Games wants to have it both ways”. See, the film fails to have a strong message. Well, honestly, since I haven’t seen the film I don’t know if that’s true or not, but neither does Timothy Noah. For one thing, he seems to think the film’s message is something about the draft. (“Perhaps there’s an intended parallel with the forced recruitment of child soldiers, or, more provocatively, with any government’s drafting of young adults . . . . But the first is an obscene form of savagery . . . . And the second has been necessary in the past” . . . what was that about trying to have it both ways, Tim?) From the reviews I’ve read of the books and the film, it seems obvious to me that the film is about power politics, not combat taken literally. A ruling class lives in luxurious self-indulgence while exacting tribute from a much larger population enslaved in a desperate struggle for subsistence, occasionally dragging some of them off for reality-TV blood sports: sound familiar at all? Taking the plot literally, focusing only on the violence, misses the actual conflict it portrays. For another, he works in an awkward reference to Rodin’s sculpture of the Burghers of Calais as his personal moral cry from the heart, appealing to the author and producers to throw in some refusal-to-participate-in-evil as a moral touchstone. Except that Burghers of Calais isn’t about the refusal to participate in evil; the Burghers sacrificed themselves, but they were never asked to do anything bad, so the choice being made there is completely different. Noah understands Rodin just as well as he understands this movie, which is to say not at all. Which, again, raises the question whether, in thinking that the problem with a movie about forcing teenagers to hunt on another to their deaths for the amusement of the upper class is that it might be too much fun to watch, Noah has put his finger precisely on the crux of the matter. I’m tempted to think it’s the hunting-each-other-to-the-death thing, and the upper-class-kills-lower-class-for-fun thing. Either way, though, it’s obvious that Noah has a painfully literal comprehension of everything he sees on the screen, and we have to believe either that this movie is really that dumb, or he’s not really seeing all there is to it.

That last point is pretty much what we have to believe about everything he writes. In just the last week he’s produced three short pieces in which he persists in saying that everything he sees really is just what it looks like. Sometimes he’s right (yes, Clinton was throwing a hint to Obama!); sometimes he’s wrong (no, The Hunger Games really isn’t just about the military draft). But when he’s right he has nothing to add (if it’s what it looks like, we can just look at it; nobody in the world needed Noah to point out the Obama parallel in Clinton’s book review), and when he’s wrong . . . sheesh.

But I don’t really mind. I just want The New Republic to know that, if it’s blindingly obvious literalism and a complete lack of critical insight they want, well, I’ll do my best.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 29 other followers