Too Sense

Unsung Heroes of Hip Hop: Roger Linn

2008-07-25T14:41:00.002-04:00

Every musical genre has its pioneers, and Hip Hop is no different. Some you've obviously heard of, like the Sugarhill Gang, Run-DMC, and L.L. Cool J. Others, maybe not so much. One pioneer you may never have heard of is Roger Linn.

Roger who, you say?

He's not a d.j., or an emcee, or a noted instrumentalist. What he is is a musical instrument designer. He created the Linn LM-1 Drum Computer, the first drum machine to use samples of real drums rather than trying to approximate drum sounds with an electrical circuit. Prince relied heavily on the LM-1 on such tracks as "Something In The Water (Does Not Compute)", "When Doves Cry", and "The Ballad of Dorothy Parker", among others. But the LM-1 isn't why I call Roger Linn a Hip Hop pioneer.

Roger Linn's rightful place in the Hip Hop stratosphere was secured by another drum machine he designed: the Akai MPC-60. The MPC was a drum machine, a sampler, and a sequencer all in one. True to its acronym, it was a complete Music Production Center, and it spawned an entire line of products that continues to this day. The MPCs have been used by...everyone in Hip Hop. Since the 1988 release of the MPC-60, these machines have been the hardware backbone of a huge percentage of all Hip Hop production. Think of any producer known for his prowess with samples, chopping beats, re-working loops, creating sonic collages, and there's a 99% chance he did at least some of his work using one of the MPCs. In fact, one could argue that the modern era of sample-based Hip Hop (as opposed to breakbeat-based Hip Hop, which is entirely different from a technical point of view) largely came about as a result of the MPC-60. There were other sampling drum machines, to be sure, such as the EMU SP-12, but the MPC series had a unique swing feel to the way they quantized rhythms, and the had a "note repeat" function that made it extremely easy to lay down repetitive elements like cymbal hits.

Yeah, I'm a history geek and an Otaku all rolled into one (plus a Down-Ass White Boy).

Amen, Brother

2008-07-25T11:55:00.002-04:00

Life is a strange affair sometimes; things have a tendency to work out in very unpredictable ways. The Winstons were a soul and funk act that came out of the D.C. scene in the late 60s. In 1969, they recorded a song titled "Color Him Father", which went on to sell 1.5 million copies and win the 1970 Grammy for Best R&B Song. If that was all that they ever achieved as professional musicians, it would be pretty good. Most musicians never have a hit or win a grammy.

But that wasn't all for the Winstons. You see, "Color Him Father" had a B-side track by the name of "Amen, Brother", an instrumental reworking of a traditional gospel song (traditional enough that even we white Baptists have been known to sing it from time to time). The drummer, G.C. Coleman, played a four-bar breakdown that would ultimately come to be known as "The Amen Break", among the most-sampled beats in history.

First, it showed up on one of the Ultimate Breaks and Beats compilations, but in edited form: the producer of the compilation had the break slowed down considerably from the rest of the song, making it stand out more. It was a jarring tempo switch, but the slower tempo made it clear just how funky and soulfoul the breakdown was. It really made an impact, though, when Dr. Dre sampled the break for "Straight Outta Compton" in 1988, and Mantronix used it in "King of the Beats" in 1990. In fact, Mantronix was the one who really showed the potential of the Amen Break, because he was the first one who "chopped" the beat by sampling individual drum hits or phrases and re-arranging them within his song.

This is a very, very partial list of the songs that have sampled the Amen Break:

2 Live Crew - "Feel Alright Yall"
3rd Bass - "Wordz of Wisdom"
4 Hero - "Escape That"
Amon Tobin - "Nightlife"
Aphex Twin - "Boy/Girl Song"
Atari Teenage Riot - "Burn Berlin Burn"
Brand Nubian - "The Godz Must Be Crazy"
Deee-Lite - "Come on In, the Dreams are Fine"
Dillinja - "The Angels Fell"
Eric B and Rakim - "Casualties of War"
Funky Technicians - "Airtight"
Goldie - "Chico: Death of a Rock Star"
Heavy D - "Flexin'"
Heavy D - "Let it Flow"
Heavy D - "MC Heavy D!"
Heavyweight - "Oh Gosh"
J. Majik - "Arabian Nights"
J. Majik - "Your Sound"
Lemon D - "This is Los Angeles"
Level Vibes - "Beauty & the Beast"
Lifer's Group - "Jack U. Back (So You Wanna Be a Gangsta)"
Ltj Bukem - "Music"
Maestro Fresh Wes - "Bring it On"
Mantronix - "King of the Beats"
Movement Ex - "KK Punani"
Nice & Smooth - "Dope Not Hype"
NWA - "Straight Outta Compton"
Oasis - "Do Y'Know What I Mean"
Roni Size - "Brown Paper Bag"
Salt-N-Pepa - "Desire"
Scarface - "Born Killer"
Schoolly D - "How a Black Man Feels"

But it goes much further than this. The entire genres of Drum and Bass and Jungle music were spawned based on that one breakbeat alone. All of their various subgenres also trace their roots back to the Amen Break. The theme to "Futurama" uses it, as do a ton of commercials. It is, quite literally, a ubiquitous part of the sonic loundscape of pop culture from the last 20 years. And it wasn't even the A-side of the single!

As was the case with Clyde Stubblefield, the original Funky Drummer himself, the drummer who created the ever-present Amen Break never saw any royalties from all of the sampling that took place. Session musicians, you see, don't get paid when a song is sampled, only when a copy of the song is sold, unless they also co-wrote the tune. Unlike "The Funky Drummer", however, which generated millions for James Brown from artists paying to legally sample the break, no one has ever made very much money from the Amen Break. Only in recent years have the owners of the recording rights started enforcing the copyright, and they have only been going after large-scale users like commercial makers and artists with high-selling tracks. Smaller artists generally aren't worth the expense of a lawsuit, which means that a huge portion of the people who have used the Amen Break are never going to pay a dime in royalties because DnB and Jungle are generally low-volume niche genres.

It's funny how a B-side that got ignored for years could pop up on the radar of the Hip Hop scene, spawn several musical genres outright, and ultimately wind up in commercials for Jeeps and other products. Just goes to show, you never can tell where things are going to wind up in the end...

Incidentally, this video has a good description of the history of the Amen Break. The narrator is almost as monotone as Ben Stein, but he knows his stuff.

What Does It Take To Make A Black Candidate Arrogant?

2008-07-24T19:21:00.003-04:00

Apparently, winning a Presidential nomination and not kissing the collective rumps of the political press will do the trick.

The press is mad that Obama isn't allowing them as much access as he used to. They're griping that his campaign isn't being "transparent." They're calling them arrogant.

Hey, at least they don't call him "uppity" on the record.

I guess these are the rules for Obama: 1) win, but not by too much; 2) don't be too pleased with your own victories; 3) don't think of yourself as making history, even if you are, you know, making history; 4) don't express any opinions about white people, even if they're your relatives; 5) don't express any opinions about lower-class black people, or Jesse will show up with a pair of pruning shears; 6) smile, but not too confidently; 7) shake hands, but not too firmly; 8) give good speeches, but don't make them too good, otherwise you'll be all style and rhetoric with no substance; and, most importantly 9) always remember the press made you and can't wait to un-make you at their first opportunity.

Hitler Is Rolling In His Grave Now...

2008-07-24T17:31:00.004-04:00

200,000 Berliners turned out to witness a speech by a biracial American politician:

You just know that right about now Hitler is rolling over in his grave...or at least he would be if they hadn't burned his body and dumped the ashes in the Elbe River.

Nazis: 0
Schwartzes: 3 (Joe Louis, Jesse Owens, Obama)

The Media Isn't Here To Tell You The News...

2008-07-24T10:45:00.003-04:00

...it's here to tell you a story. What I mean by that is that the media doesn't really see its job as recording and reporting new facts and circumstances, or updating its analysis of events as situations change. It has a story, or rather a collection of stories to tell. These stories have narrative structures, they have drama, they have conflict, they are "catchy" and "attention-grabbing." They are designed to keep you in front of the t.v., or keep you from putting down that dead-tree newspaper. Just like Hollywood blockbusters and hit t.v. shows, they are all about capturing eyeballs. Ratings drive ad revenues for t.v. and radio. Subscriptions and newsstand sales drive ad revenues for newspapers. Ad revenues are the end-all and be-all for the media. There's no higher purpose at stake, and anyone who claims differently is terminally full of shit (rather like those poor deluded slobs who refer to the practice of law as a higher calling...speaking from personal experience, give me a fucking break).

Consider the ongoing Presidential election. There is a narrative in place, one that "works" in the sense of getting people to watch the content attached to the ads, or read the articles that bracket the ads. And that narrative isn't about to get changed because of pesky little things like facts. Among the core elements of this narrative is the idea that John McCain is "seasoned" and "experienced" when it comes to foreign policy, while Obama is "inexperienced." McCain has the advantage, Obama has to play catch-up. That's the narrative, regardless of the fact that McCain talks about problems on the Iraq-Pakistan border; refers to the Czech Republic as Czechoslovakia; confuses Sunnis and Shiites; and seems to believe that the Surge predated the Anbar Awakening. As Fred Kaplan wrote so eloquently, if Obama had made similar gaffes and mis-statements, "the media and the McCain campaign would have been all over him like red ants on a wounded puppy.".

McCain has offered convincing demonstrations that he is either 1) woefully ignorant; 2) extremely sloppy with the statements he makes in public; 3) daft; or 4) senile. Don't worry, though. You can count on the media to continue telling you how much experience McCain has, how much "gravitas", how "serious" he is. Because that's the story that sells, that puts the proverbial butts in the proverbial seats. They've got soft drinks, razor blades, and Hondas to sell, people. Running stories about the dottering old fool who doesn't even know the basic geography of the area he wants to keep occupying militarily for 100 years isn't going to help the media sell Gogurt and Lucky Charms, even if those stories are, you know, true.

EDIT: I originally credited Will Saletan with the "red ants on a wounded puppy" quote, but as one of our commenters pointed out, it was Fred Kaplan who wrote that article (and provided the links that I included above).

Missing the Point Regarding FISA

2008-07-23T10:11:00.002-04:00

The problem with the FISA situation is not really that Obama changed his mind and voted for a compromise bill that did less than he wanted it to do. The problem is more fundamental than that, and can be summed up as follows:

Presidents do not relinquish power.

Throughout American history, the power of the Executive Branch has expanded, often in ways that likely would have surprised and dismayed the Framers. Jefferson arguably exceeded his Constitutional authority when he agreed to the Louisiana Purchase without consulting Congress. Jackson expanded Presidential power more subtly, in the way he used his "bully pulpit" to attack the National Bank. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, something that only Congress has the power to do under the Constitution (this limitation was confirmed by Ex parte Merryman, and Ex parte Milligan held that trying civillians before Presidentially-created military commissions is unconstitutional). Roosevelt created the modern administrative state, partly in cooperation with Congress and partly on his own, spawning a vast bureacracy that is neither wholly executive nor wholly legislative, partially but not fully responsible to both branches (and implicity answerable to the Judicial Branch through review of administrative actions by Article III courts, e.g. federal district courts). In all of this, we can see the power of the Executive Branch increasing.

What we do not see, in reviewing American history, is any instances of Presidents refusing to wield the powers that were asserted by their predecessors. An executive power, once claimed, is forever more in the arsenal of the President, unless explicitly stricken by the Supreme Court. The Executive Branch is like any living organism: job one is survival, job two is growth, job three is reproduction. Growth of the Executive Branch is seen in the constant process of pushing the boundaries of Article II powers, stretching things as far as possible. Reproduction is seen in the endless spawning of new federal agencies, new cabinet posts.

Even assuming that Obama is elected, there is nothing in the historical record to suggest that he is likely to repeal any of the powers claimed by President Bush. That has never happened before with any of the 42 Presidents that have succeeded George Washington. We can hope for greater discretion on Obama's part, more self-restraint, sounder judgment, but it is not realistic to believe that he will set out to purposely diminish the power of the office he holds.

I certainly hope that my assessment is wrong. Obama's rise to prominence, and his winning of the Democratic nomination, are already substantial breaks from historical patterns. Perhaps Obama will continue breaking such patterns. Perhaps he will be the first President to ever refuse a power that had been seized by his predecessors in office. But do not be surprised if he is not, and do not judge him too harshly for not doing what none of the last 42 Presidents have done.

Relationships with Super-Heroes

2008-07-22T11:04:00.003-04:00

Continuing in my brief detour into Geekitude, did you ever wonder what would happen if Super-Heroes had relationships?

Superman: Plus - Man of Steel; Minus - Faster Than a Speeding Bullet

Batman: Plus - big into leather and latex, if you like that kind of thing; Minus - never does anything without that twelve-year old boy in the green underwear being involved

The Flash: Plus - I'm thinking...; Minus - Fastest Man Alive

Spiderman: Plus - Very flexible, can hang from ceiling and support your weight at the same time; Minus - his fingertips and toes aren't the only appendages that stick to things

The Thing: Plus - always hard as a rock; Minus - ever try to fuck a boulder?

Mr. Fantastic: Plus - can stretch his body into impossible positions, can lengthen and change the shape of select body parts at will, is his own built-in prophylactic; Minus - skin has the texture of a rubber innertube, known to cause terrible chafing for his dates unless several tubes of lubricant are involved, when he gets too hot he just turns to soft rubber.

Where There Mythology Geeks in Ancient Greece?

2008-07-22T10:57:00.003-04:00

Modern-day comic books have a lot of the same characteristics as the stories of Greek mythology. Super-powerful beings, spectacular feats, et cetera. Culturally, there's a decent case to be made that our comic books serve much the same function that the ancient stories about Perseus and his ilk used to serve. Which makes me wonder:

Was there an ancient Greek version of the comic-book geek? Mouth-breathing Athenians obsessed with every detail of Hercules' mythological life? Were there arguments over whether Odysseus could whip Hercules, or who would win in a fight Zeus and Hephastus? Were there Spartan fanboys?

Obama and FISA

2008-07-21T11:58:00.003-04:00

Okay, in response to recurrent requests(demands?) by our readers, I'm going to try to set out my current thoughts on the FISA controversy. These opinions are not firm or final, as the questions related to FISA are complicated, the history is very involved, and the more information I have a chance to review the more my thoughts evolve. So consider this a preliminary assessment, a work-in-progress.

First, some background. Like so much of our current political landscape, FISA can be directly tied to the Watergate era. The Senate's "Church Committee" was convened to investigate the operations of U.S. intelligence activities after a series of revelations of possibly illegal domestic activities, including Christopher Pyle's 1970 revelation that the U.S. Army had been involved in domestic spying on the civillian population; and Seymour Hersh's 1974 New York Times article about the CIA's Family Jewels, a set of internal CIA reports detailing the agency's activities going back to the 1950s. The Family Jewels reports were commissioned in response to press reports of the CIA having been involved in the Watergate scandal. The Family Jewels reports stated that the CIA had been involved in wiretapping news reporters; domestic wiretapping and surveilance; assasination plots against foreign leaders; and building up intel dossiers on thousands of members of the anti-war movement, among other questionable (or clearly illegal) activities.

Both FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) and the FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) were created based upon the recommendations of the Church Committee. This was all part of a general trend of Congress asserting much more aggressive oversight powers over the Executive Branch than it had tried to wield before.

After the September 11 attacks, several conservative commentators started talking about how the Congressional oversight heralded by the Church Commission had crippled the CIA. The creation of the CIA Inspector General's Office, with standing orders for the Inspector General to report to Congress has, according to critics, rendered the CIA too cautious, worried about controversy. The basic argument is that if CIA had been as unfettered in the 1990s as it was in the 1960s, September 11 would not have happened because the CIA would have had better HUMINT (Human Intel, gathered from actual spies and turncoats), which is more effective than SIGINT (Signals Intelligence) for detecting clandestine cell organizations like al Queda. Setting aside the relative merits of HUMINT and SIGINT, the most significant aspect of the post-9/11 security discussions is the now-recurrent meme that Congress impairs security when it impairs the Executive Branch's ability to act without oversight.

In 2007, after the Bush administration's warantless wiretapping program had been revealed by the N.Y Times, Congress passed the Protect America Act of 2007, which amended FISA by allowing the Executive Branch to intercept communications that begin or end in a foreign country, without the involvement of a FISA court. Prior to that, FISA required that requests for surveillance warrants against foreign intelligence agents be submitted to the FISC. The Protect America Act, then, reduced the amount of judicial oversight, and made it easier for the administration to intercept communications. Obama voted against the Senate version of the Protect America Act.

The Protect America Act had an automatic sunset provision which rendered it ineffective as of February 17, 2008. Congress had to draft a replacement bill, and that process began in late 2007. Obama made a number of statements during the debate period for the new FISA bill. In August 2007 he gave a speech at the Wilson Center, in which he addressed the overall strategy for the War on Terror, and, among other things, rejected the "false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand" and stated that the FISA courts work and the system of checks and balances between the co-equal branches of government works. In December 2007, he was one of 14 Senators who sent a letter to Majority Leader Reid asking that the full Senate consider a new draft FISA bill which would provide more oversight than the Protect America Act and would not grant immunity to telecoms that participated in the wiretapping program. Notably, the letter states "it would be appropriate to require the proponents of immunity to make their case on the floor." Obama and his co-writers were initially against immunity, but open to debate. In February 2008 Obama spoke in favor of an amendment stripping retroactive immunity for telecoms out of the FISA draft (he missed the vote on the amendment due to the primary campaign), and issued a public statement which read, in part, "There is no reason why telephone companies should be given blanket immunity to cover violations of the rights of the American people - we must reaffirm that no one in this country is above the law."

A number of different versions of the FISA amendment were offerred in the House and in the Senate. Some granted immunity to telecoms, others did not. The version that passed on July 9 provides retroactive immunity to the telecoms. Obama voted in favor of the new bill.

This is Obama's public statement on the FISA compromise:

"Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.

"That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

"After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.

"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

"It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."

Obviously, a lot of people are angry with Obama for changing his position on FISA. Prior to the July vote, his public statements had been against telecom immunity, and in favor of restoring the oversight of the FISC. The bill that he voted for contained only the restoration of FISC's power, and gave immunity to the telecoms. As shown above, Obama seems to have followed the general approach of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. The immunity provisions were included in the bill, which he wouldn't have preferred, but the bill returned power to the FISC. He chose not to vote against FISC oversight in order to make a point about telecom immunity.

Obama's course of action, and that of Congressional Democrats overall, has been referred to as "caving in" to the Bush administration, and I don't think that is entirely without merit. Certainly, the Democrats were not able to muster the support they needed to pass a bill that did not grant immunity to the telecoms, which is exactly what the Bush team was hoping would happen. It is easy to believe that the Democrats simply lost their spine when dealing with the GOP. On some levels, the statement is true.

However, we must consider the narrow margins by which the Democrats hold the House and Senate. While House rules allow bills to be passed by a simple majority, in the Senate the majority cannot force a bill to the floor unless there are 60 votes in support, because that is the number of votes required to break a fillibuster by invoking cloture (a procedural device to end debate on a bill). The Democrats only have 49 Senate seats, 51 if you include "independent" crypto-Republican Lieberman and independent Bernie Sanders. On their own, they cannot break a filibuster, so they need some degree of Republican support to get anything done.

Now look at the vote margin for new FISA amendment: 69 to 28, enough to invoke cloture and break any filibuster, such as the one mounted by Sens. Feingold and Dodd. Obama had indicated that he would join in with that fillibuster, but did not do so.

Was Obama being weak by voting with the majority and not joining the filibuster? One could make an argument that he was, but my take on it is that he was being pragmatic. For any given bill moving towards a floor vote, most if not all senators are going to be aware of the rough margin in favor before the vote ever happens. Obama would have known that a filibuster was going to fail, and it is very possible that he saw a filibuster under those circumstances as a waste of time. Further, the optics of being on the losing side of a filibuster aren't necessarily favorable.

All of this was taking place in the larger context of the presidential race. Republicans have been using security issues against Democrats for decades (basically since McGovern's 1972 campaign). The image of being too "soft" on defense issues has stuck to the Democrats, and it has cost them electorally. Congress has potential vulnerability in the sense that any terrorist attack that took place after Congress had moved to limit the Executive Branch's powers could be blamed on the "meddling" of Congress. I don't think the argument would hold water, but there are plenty of voters who might go along with it.

As an opponent of the Iraq war, and an advocate for withdrawal of U.S. troops, Obama has his own security vulnerabilities going into the election, separate from the Congressional Democrats generally. While I don't think it's valid, McCain has managed to sell his military service as foreign-policy experience, and Obama has nothing equivalent to offer. That doesn't matter to me, but there certainly are voters to whom it does matter. And those are the voters Obama is concerned about.

Obama is taking an unusually aggressive position regarding the number of states he is contesting. He is spending money in states long-considered safe bets for the GOP (like Montana and South Dakota) and challenging McCain in Southern states like North and South Carolina and Georgia. It's a risky play, one that I think is geared as much towards draining McCain's cash reserves as anything else. Obama may not even hope he's going to win these states, but allocating resources there forces McCain to do so, and those resources could otherwise have gone to true razor's-edge states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida. In order for this strategy to have any credibility, much less any chance of actually snagging some of these states for Obama, the security problem has to be addressed.

Obama isn't going to back down on Iraq. He's modulated his language, and some specifics, but his core plan is the same it has been throughout the campaign. He isn't walking back from his opinion that the war was a mistake. He isn't softening his language against Bush. So he has a limited range of things which can be adjusted to increase his viability with red-state voters, independents, and swing-staters. The FISA vote may well have been part of his overall strategy of shoring up his security bona-fides. Obama knew the bill was going to pass without him, knew a filibuster wouldn't work, and looks like he decided not to make any useless gestures that would ultimately enhance the GOP's ability to paint him as soft.

Who's On Welfare Now?

2008-07-18T17:16:00.002-04:00

It just occurred to me how weirdly ironic it is to have the Republican presidential candidate talking about receiving $83 million in public funds for his campaign. Isn't the GOP supposed to be all about doing things through the private market, instead of through government largesse? Isn't McCain supposed to be some kind of "budget hawk" who wants to cut entitlement spending? Hasn't the entire GOP been working to kill off as many social aid and welfare programs and strangle as many federal agencies as they can since at least 1980? Given all of that, shouldn't the GOP be running their campaign entirely with private funds? What are you supposed to call an $83 million payment from the government, other than WELFARE?

Here we have Obama refusing to accept funds from the public treasury, relying instead on private donations. Being self-sufficient. Going out there and making his appeal to the private markets. And he's supposed to represent tax-and-spend liberalism, supposed to stand for bloated budgets and pork-barrel politics. But the $83 million welfare check is being cashed by his opponent!

Welfare Queens, meet Welfare Gramps! Any day now, he's gonna start asking about his FEMA check...

Whoopi Goldberg On Who Gets to Use the "N" Word

2008-07-18T13:41:00.003-04:00

This may come as a surprise to all of you, but I am not what one would call a regular viewer of "The View", or of any other morning chat-type show. Generally, I don't give a damn what gets talked about on "The View." However, I came across several news stories about an incident during the July 17 show, in which Elizabeth Hasselbeck started crying while discussing the usage of The Dreaded "N" Word. The fact that Hasselbeck got emotional is neither here nor there for me. What I found interesting was Whoopi trying to explain why it is different for black people to use that word than it is for white people to do so.

Whoopi is right, the word only has meaning because we collectively give it meaning. And, like any other word, its meaning can change dramatically depending upon the context of its usage. By way of personal example, I never, ever, say that word around other white people, because of what it signifies between white people. And I never, ever, say it in a mixed setting, be it a mix of black and white people or a mix of black people that know me extremely well and black people who do not. But, I must admit, I do sometimes use the word with black friends that I've known for a very long time, as in, like, fifteen-twenty years. People who have indicated that they are comfortable with me saying it. Because in that specific context, with those specific people, it carries the same multitude of meanings that it has when used in a purely black setting. Term of endearment, statement of exasperation, derisive retort, all of that and more.

I understand the confusion that Hasselbeck is expressing in the clip above. She sees the issue as a binary one of either it being okay for everyone to use the term or it not being okay for anyone to use the term. To give her credit, she did not strike me as expressing that weird frustration that some white people show, which amounts to "How come I don't get to use it if Ice Cube gets to use it!" She seemed genuinely concerned about how she is supposed to teach her children not to use the word when black people can be seen on the news and in the media using it.

Were I to have a conversation with her, I might try to explain that the first simple step is just to forbid her kids from saying it. When things get complicated, as in when some black person is seen using it, she should tell her kids that that is not a word for white people. In a way, the discussion shouldn't be too difficult. Just as there are grown-up words, e.g. swear words, that children are not allowed to use, there are certain words that white people are not allowed to use.

If the child were to demand more of a reason (not something a lot of children would do), the more involved answer is that white people have a history of using that word in very hateful, vile ways. In our hands, the word was and is a weapon, a way to strip status or reinforce lack of status, an expression of ultimate, brutal contempt. Any time a white person uses that word, all of that history is invoked. It is simply the context of our lives, the common framework by which we understand the meaning of things. White people have to avoid the word because there are very, very few instances in which the term will not convey a deeply racist message, even if no racism is intended.

Do I hold myself exempt from that basic rule? Not at all. The infrequent ocassions in which I use it are very, very specific to my personal history, and to my relationships with the people to whom I am speaking. Without that personal context, the word retains all of the same poisonous effects.

Perhaps the hardest thing to explain to people like Hasselbeck is the way in which many in the black community have taken ownership of the "N" word specifically to strip it of its original power. Once you claim the ability to re-contextualize a word, to redefine its meaning, you dominate that word. It does not dominate you. It is a tool, firmly in your control. That control is further enhanced once you claim the power to deny that word to someone else, saying in effect "this is ours and ours alone, you cannot have it any longer."

Other groups have taken similar ownership of their own negative labels. Geeks, for example. When I was in school, "geek" was an insult that applied to weird, brainy kids like me. It was a way to remind us of our lack of social status, a way to assert the superiority of the majority. But something happened in the wider culture, probably starting with the ascendance of Bill Gates, uber-geek, as the richest man on Earth (for a while) and gathering steam with the Dot Com Boom. Being a geek was no longer a badge of shame. It was a title of honor, a signifier of technical ability or the possession of unusual but valuable knowledge. We geeks began to use the term in public to refer to ourselves, not out of self-loathing, but as a way of changing its meaning and impact from one that demeaned us to one that enhanced us.

To a much lesser extent, some Cajuns have done the same thing with "coonass." Depending upon the social class of the Cajun in question, coonass can now be used as a term of endearment, even cultural pride. In my grandfather's day, it was every bit the insult that the "N" word was. For many Cajuns it remains just as insulting, but some have reclaimed it and made it theirs.

Gays have begun to own the terms that used to insult them as well. The marching cry of "We're here! We're queer! Get used to it!" is yet another case of stripping a slur of its power by making it into a badge of pride. I know lesbians who refer to themselves as "dykes" without the slightest bit of self-loathing or self-deprecation.

What has to be understood is that in each of these cases the person who stood to be assaulted by the term was the person deciding how and when it could be used. Anyone not subject to the same harm, when using the word, would most likely be conveying an insult, because they would not be discussing their own identity, they would be labeling someone else's.

For now, I would hope for Hasselbeck's sake that the simple version is enough for her kids. Some day she's probably going to need the complicated version. By then, she might have come to understand it herself. Who knows?

What Was That About a Slowdown in Fundraising?

2008-07-17T12:40:00.003-04:00

Despite the dire predictions of the Fox News Journal, erm, the Wall Street Journal, which claimed that Obama was only going to raise slightly over $30 million for June; and contrary to the worried musings of Josh Marshall, who I'm sure is glad to be proven wrong in his estimation that Obama's fundraising might be slowing down, the Obama campaign raised $52 million in June. More impressively, they reached that figure with an average donation of only $68.

Some numbers for comparison:

January:$32 million;

February:$55 million;

March: $41 million;

April:$31.3 million;

May:$21.8 million;

Think about it: his "dip" was to $21.8 million, but McCain's best monthly take was the $22 million he raised in June!

The DNC still lags pretty far behind the RNC, which will matter in the fall because the RNC is going to campaign directly for McCain. But on an individual basis, Obama is miles ahead of McCain in fundraising.

Obama's Speech to the NAACP: Yep, Still Talking Responsibility

2008-07-16T13:47:00.003-04:00

Obama addressed the NAACP's 88th Annual Convention in Cincinnati on Monday, July 14th. All in all, a fairly standard campaign stump speech. In light of recent mini-controversies, however, the following passage did stand out for me when I read it:

So yes, we have to demand more responsibility from Washington. And yes we have to demand more responsibility from Wall Street. But we also have to demand more from ourselves. Now, I know some say I've been too tough on folks about this responsibility stuff. But I'm not going to stop talking about it. Because I believe that in the end, it doesn't matter how much money we invest in our communities, or how many 10-point plans we propose, or how many government programs we launch - none of it will make any difference if we don't seize more responsibility in our own lives.

That's how we'll truly honor those who came before us. Because I know that Thurgood Marshall did not argue Brown versus Board of Education so that some of us could stop doing our jobs as parents. And I know that nine little children did not walk through a schoolhouse door in Little Rock so that we could stand by and let our children drop out of school and turn to gangs for the support they are not getting elsewhere. That's not the freedom they fought so hard to achieve. That's not the America they gave so much to build. That's not the dream they had for our children.

That's why if we're serious about reclaiming that dream, we have to do more in our own lives, our own families, and our own communities. That starts with providing the guidance our children need, turning off the TV, and putting away the video games; attending those parent-teacher conferences, helping our children with their homework, and setting a good example. It starts with teaching our daughters to never allow images on television to tell them what they are worth; and teaching our sons to treat women with respect, and to realize that responsibility does not end at conception; that what makes them men is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise one. It starts by being good neighbors and good citizens who are willing to volunteer in our communities - and to help our synagogues and churches and community centers feed the hungry and care for the elderly. We all have to do our part to lift up this country.

That's where change begins. And that, after all, is the true genius of America - not that America is, but that America will be; not that we are perfect, but that we can make ourselves more perfect; that brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand, people who love this country can change it. And that's our most enduring responsibility - the responsibility to future
generations. We have to change this country for them. We have to leave them a planet that's cleaner, a nation that's safer, and a world that's more equal and more just.

Here we see Obama returning to the talk about personal responsibility, again standing in front of a black audience (or at least majority black). He's using a more positive approach, I think, talking about what the community needs to do, but not issuing the kind of sharp rebuke that was included in his Father's Day speech. I don't think he's changing the message in any meaningful way, but he does seem to have modulated his delivery a bit, in terms of the language being used.

Personally, I don't disagree with any of what Obama is saying. I also don't feel that these comments are any less relevant to and applicable to the white community. All of these social problems impact the white community, even if it's to a lesser degree. Obama is directing the comments at the black community, because he is speaking in front of a black social organization. But I don't read his comments as implicitly arguing that black people are doing worse than their white counterparts on these issues. I don't see him singling out the black community for special criticism.

As for why Obama doesn't direct those same comments at the white community, think back on the reactions he's generated on the few occasions when he even implicitly criticized the white community, such as when he called his grandmother a "typical white person". He was not, shall we say, well received. Issuing a direct criticism to the white community would be suicidal for his presidential campaign. I am not saying that it is right or fair that that's what would happen, I am merely recognizing the nature of the American body politic. Obama has to appeal to a fairly large number of white voters who are on the fence about whether or not they can really support a Democrat, much less a black Democrat. He can't do that by openly telling white people to clean up their act.

I criticize white people all the time on this blog. But I'm also a) white, thus more acceptable as a critic of white people (sad but true); and b) NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

If I ever tried it, y'all just know this blog would nuke things right quick in a hurry.

Obama's entire speech is worth a read. Click the link above to access the full transcript (or at least the prepared script).

Bill Clinton Wants Obama to Pay For His Bon Bons and JuJu Bees

2008-07-15T10:56:00.002-04:00

At present, it does not appear that Hillary's most rabid supporters are going to get the party meltdown they're seeking. Obama is polling 19 points ahead of McCain with female voters, a margin that wouldn't happen if significant numbers of Hillary's female supporters were planning to vote for McCain in the fall. But Obama still has lingering problems with certain factions of Hillary's support base, notably large-dollar fundraisers.

Seth Colter Walls has an article on HuffPo discussing what these major fundraisers want from Obama in exchange for their active support. Some of the requests (or demands, really) are familiar by now: make Hillary the VP nominee, don't try substituting some other woman (Sibelius, for example) for Hillary, because "women aren't fungible." I disagree with those requests, and I doubt Obama will acede to them, but I'm not surprised. What I did find surprising, or perhaps shocking, is the following demand:

...even if Clinton is not Obama's running mate, the three former Hillraisers all said the presumptive nominee should make an effort to prop up the Clintons' reputation, particularly that of the former president, which emerged from primary season tarred not only by accusations of racism, but by the sense that his political legacy could easily be discarded on the way to a "new" politics.

It was a total outrage that the leadership of the party allowed Bill Clinton to be cast as a racist. It was such an injustice -- so stupid and so wrong and so offensive," Forester said. "If he wants to unite the party and bring the true centrists back ... Obama better worry about Bill Clinton's legacy. ... There's a lot he can do at the convention to prove his respect for both Clintons. That would be very, very welcome. If that were done, it would be inevitable that millions of people would support Obama with time, money and votes."

So now it's Obama's job to repair Bill Clinton's reputation? Seriously? Did Obama cause Clinton to say the things that he said throughout the last several months of the campaign? Who made the Jesse Jackson statement, Bill Clinton or Obama? Did Obama cause Clinton to essentially lose his temper (if not his entire mind) because primary voters had the gall not to vote for Hillary? Did Obama tell Clinton to spend the bulk of his time courting rural white voters in the last few months? Did Obama tell Clinton not to make any appearances in front of majority-black crowds after South Carolina?

Demanding that Obama step in and restore the shine to Bill Clinton's tarnished reputation takes unmitigated gall. It takes a stratospheric level of presumption, and arrogance. It takes...someone with a personality very much like Bill Clinton's. Leave it to Bill to shove both of his feet into his own mouth, and then demand that Obama reach in and polish his shoes. Part of me can't help remembering the joke from Eddie Murphy's "Raw" where the Italian guy, after seeing "Rocky", demands that a black man pay for his bon bons and JuJu Bees (very Not Safe For Work, guys):

Clinton's supporters are essentially demanding that Obama clean up the mess that Bill Clinton made. They are demanding that Obama pay for their JuJu Bees, so to speak. While they do have more leverage than a 5'2" Italian talking smack to a 6'5" brother, given Obama's need for the support of high-value donors, they still don't have enough stroke to go around ordering people to pay for their JuJu Bees.

If Bill Clinton wants to repair his good name, he has to be the one to do it. The damage was self-inflicted, the restoration should be self-directed. It's as simple as that, really.

The New Yorker Cover as Rorschach Test

2008-07-14T16:46:00.003-04:00

When I first saw the most recent cover of the New Yorker, I was somewhat taken aback. Surely they hadn't gone that far on the cover of a prominent national magazine? Turns out, they had:

After browsing around for a bit, what I find most striking isn't the image itself, it's the ways in which different people see it in fundamentally different terms.

Trey Ellis, writing at HuffPo, is offended , as is Jason Zengerle over at TNR.

Ezra Klein thinks that the fact that this is a cartoon image, not some photograph manipulated to look like a realistic Obama burning a flag, means that people will recognize the satire. Per Klein, the cartoon medium itself "mocks and dismisses the content of the picture. Anyone who didn't get the joke would be left looking at a caricatured illustration, not a believable image of Obama gripping bin-Laden's portrait."

Meanwhile, 59% of the respondents to a World Net Daily Poll believe that the image "isn't too far from the dangerous truth about the Obama family."

The New Yorker attempts to mock dumbass right-wing smears about Obama, and the dumbass wingers in question take it as a portrayal of Obama's true nature. The New Yorker cartoon itself doesn't really bring anything new to the table. Observing different reactions to it, though, is instructive. Sometimes what you see in a work of art is your own reflection, even though you do not realize it.

The Racial Double Standard in a Nutshell:

2008-07-14T13:06:00.002-04:00

White people are never asked to apologize for or distance ourselves from Archie Bunker.

But you know, you just know, that at some point someone is going to ask Obama if he approves of George Jefferson, and Obama will have to explain why he hasn't rejected and denounced George and Weezy.

After all, they do have taped footage of Jefferson using the word "whitey"...about 3,000 times over the years.

On January 20, 2009, Whom Should Obama Thank Most Profusely?

2008-07-14T11:10:00.003-04:00

George W. Bush.

Seriously. He needs to thank W.

Why?

Because without Bush having wreaked havoc for the last 8 years, the overall electoral mood could not possibly be this favorable to the Democrats. And only in a year this favorable would the Democrats have ever considered a risky proposition like nominating a black man with a Muslim-sounding name. I mean, really. Think about it. The Democrats are willing to bet that a sufficient number of voters are going to walk into that booth and say to themselves something along the lines of "Well, yeah, his middle name is Hussein, and he's...black...but after Bush, what have we got to lose?"

The Bush disaster is truly epic in its proportions. There isn't an area of Presidential responsibility or influence that Bush hasn't gotten wrong. Seriously wrong. The economy? Four-dollar-a-gallon for gas, the stock market just had its worst June since the Great Depression, and the last eight years have seen the lowest net job growth since the Hoover administration. Foreign policy? We're reduced to, what, two major allies (England and Canada) with a handful of increasingly reluctant "partners" (France and Germany) and one former foe on the brink of being an open foe once again (Russia). We've created the single most effective terrorist-recruitment campaign since 1967, basically proving 90% of the points that bin Laden has made in his various nut-job statements. And we have resorted to tactics that were literally, not figuratively, used by the Nazi SS. The crimes that got people prosecuted and hanged at Nuremberg are now part of our own acceptable toolset.

When W. was running back in 1999-2000, I knew he would be a terrible President. That was partly because he has a record almost entirely free of real accomplishment prior to becoming Governor of Texas, but it had more to do with the fact that, coming from an oil state myself, I knew just how bad the decision-making gets when it is done with an eye towards the interests of the oil companies. And it was always obvious that Bush was going to be entirely beholden to the oil industry.

Still, while I expected bad things from Bush, he has consistently met and exceeded those expectations. I started off vaguely missing Clinton when W. first took office, even though I had long since grown tired of Bill's Perpetual Bullshit Machine (I muted the news when he came on, because I just knew he was bullshitting, and effective, charismatic bullshit is even more annoying than inept bullshit). I gradually came to miss Bush the Elder, which was odd considering I had voted to put him out of office. Eventually, Nixon started looking pretty good, because whatever one says about the paranoid narcissism that drove Nixon to do things like compile his Enemies List and authorize the Watergate break-in, at least his government was, on a day-to-day basis, largely competent. He did create OSHA and the EPA, both very good things. Bush the Lesser has never done anything nearly so useful.

I have now reached a point where I honestly believe that Bush the Lesser is second only to James Buchanan on the list of Worst Presidents Ever. That's right, worse than Herbert Hoover; worse than Ulysses Grant; and virtually tied with Andrew Johnson. In fact, the only reason that Buchanan remains first on my list of bad Presidents is because he did nothing to stop the coming Civil War, a war in which we ultimately lost more fighting men than in any conflict before or after.

In terms of truly dreadful Presidents, Bush the Lesser is exemplary, certainly the worst we've had since the 1870s. As such, he presents a marvelous opportunity for the party that opposes him. Given that he has the second-lowest approval rating of any President in the history of the Gallup poll (only Truman was lower, having hit 22% at one point), Bush has the kind of political legacy that allies run from and enemies use as the springboard to victory. Indeed, if you look at the other Presidents who have hit 28% or lower (Nixon, Carter, Truman), their parties have lost the White House after each of their terms (Carter even going so far as to lose re-election, a Presidential rarity).

All of the bad news concerning Bush is good news for Obama, and bad for McCain. Obama is fortunate in the sense that he is not running to succeed his party's most significant recent disaster, and is likewise fortunate in that the last President his party elected is now viewed as having had a relatively successful 8-year run.

So, if Obama does ascend the podium on January 20, 2009, it won't be solely because he is a supremely gifted orator (which he is), an intelligent and accomplished man, and a shrewd political operator; nor will it be attributable the efforts of the Civil Rights Movement (though it would have been impossible without those efforts). No, in addition to those very relevant factors, Obama will be taking the oath of office in large part because his predecessor has been so wrong, so often, for so long.

After Bush, even the black guy looks like a pretty good bet.

Obama as Disruptive Technology

2008-07-11T10:09:00.002-04:00

Some of you may recall that during the early part of the Dot-Com Boom (circa 1995 or so)there was a fair bit of discussion about the effect of disruptive technologies on established markets. In a nutshell, a disruptive technology is one which, once it gains a toehold in the market, renders other technologies entirely obsolete, or completely alters existing markets. A significant recent example is the combination of mpeg encoding of audio/video and digital file distribution which allowed large-scale peer-to-peer sharing of media content, e.g. Napster and Bittorrent, and fundamentally altered the market for that content, both by arguably driving down legitimate sales (offering free copies of content that would otherwise have to be paid for) and by allowing the emergence of legitimate digital distribution platforms such as iTunes. An earlier, obvious example is the personal computer, which virtually eradicated the market for mainframe computers (ironic, given that IBM introduced the PC on a wide scale, but also made the bulk of its profits from mainframe computer sales), and also exponentially broadened the accessibility of computing power, allowing home consumers and small businesses to use technology that had previously been restricted to large firms. Desktop publishing and electronic book-keeping were merely the first stages of what the PC made possible. If you're reading this, you have a pretty good idea of what happened next.

One of the more significant features of disruptive technologies is the sheer unpredictability of their longterm effects. Take the stirrup for example. The direct effect of the stirrup being introduced was to allow a mounted soldier to strike with his lance without falling off of his horse, making a mounted calvary possible. The indirect effect? Feudalism. Charles Martel (Charlemagne's grandfather) created a new class of landed gentry who had sufficient income from the land he gave them to provide men, horses, and expertise, and created a new social and political system in which farming peasants were answerable not only to the king but to the landlords, who became known as knights. Unintended consequences of a single technological change. (I've quoted and paraphrasing pretty extensively from "Unleashing the Killer App" by Larry Downes and Chunka Mui).

The Law of Disruption refers to the ways in which innovative technologies disrupt the social order or status quo. Those most threatened by the rise of new technology are the established players, who face what is known as the Entrenched Players Dilemma: in order to embrace new ideas fully, established companies must abandon their current revenue streams, posing a dilemma between what works today and what will work tomorrow.

While the metaphor is inexact, I think there are a number of ways in which Barack Obama's political emergence can be viewed as a similar phenomenon to the emergence of a disruptive technology. Obama's basic campaign model threatens the established power structures in this country, both inside the Democratic Party and beyond.

Regarding the Party itself, Hillary was seen as the inevitable nominee because she was so firmly entrenched with the existing Democratic apparatus: the major donors were lined up behind her, a good portion of the Democratic National Committee supported her (remember, her early lead in super-delegate endorsements came more from non-elected DNC members, not public officials), she had universal name recognition. She had more assets, in terms of funds and in terms of leverage within the party structure, than any of the candidates in 2004 had. She had more than Al Gore had, even though as sitting Vice President he was in a position to command significant loyalty from party insiders. Using the metrics of the existing, top-down nomination process, Hillary looked almost unbeatable on paper.

But Obama didn't run a top-down campaign. He ran bottom-up. Instead of relying on the large-donor network, which Hillary had already largely secured for herself, Obama created a new network of much greater numbers of small donors. Instead of the party machine, he relied on networks of local volunteers. Using the Internet, among other resources, he mobilized his forces across states that Hillary had never planned to fight for, because she was supposed to win big on Super Tuesday. The bottom-up structure gave Obama a huge fundraising advantage in the middle and late stages of the primaries, because Hillary's donor base was largely maxed out (no more than $2300 per individual, remember), while Obama's base could continue pouring money into his campaign, small increments that added up to enormous numbers. Virtually all of Obama's winning delegate margin came from the volunteer game he ran in those post-Super-Tuesday states...the 17 straight wins came from organization, and that organization came from the bottom up, bypassing the party apparatus in the process.

Like an entrenched corporation faced with sudden competition from new technology, Hillary had to decide whether to stick with what she knew, what had worked for her and Bill for the last 16 years, or adopt the new technology. Stay with a top-down, consultant-driven, large-donor-dependent model, or move to a more agile, Internet-based, bottom-up, small-donor-driven arrangement? For too long, Hillary chose to keep using her older, familiar methods. Towards the end, she started trying to adopt some of Obama's tactics, particularly the turn towards small donors on the web, but she did not make the correction soon enough. Many a large corporation has made a nearly identical mistake.

Obama didn't just disrupt Hillary, though. His small-donor model goes a long way towards rendering the established network of large donors obsolete. If he wins the White House without having relied upon the large donor base to a significant degree, he will be far less beholden to them than Hillary would have been. It appears that his refusal of donations from registered lobbyists may give him more independence from the corporate interests that speak through lobbyists. His refusal to use street money in Philadelphia, while potentially harmful to him in that primary, established that he is free from the urban Democratic machines. Obama has not adapted to any of those interest factions. They must adapt to him, instead. Disruptive technology.

Outside of the Democratic Party, Obama is a fundamental threat to the old left-right paradigm. He does not represent the liberalism of the 1970s, but he does not fall into the conservative mold, either. He appears to be making his policy decisions largely on an issue-by-issue basis. The conservatives/GOP are trying to use the old "tax and spend liberal" meme on him, but it does not appear to be gaining any traction. His endorsement of faith-based programs is nothing new for him, but it is a new threat to the GOP because it co-opts one of the ways in which they have played to the Evangelicals. Indeed, Obama seems more comfortable engaging the Evangelicals directly than the GOP's own nominee, John McCain. Obama opposed the Iraq war, not because he is a pacifist (which would fit right into the smears used against McGovern and his progeny) but because he thought it was a dumb idea. Again, not a comfortable fit with the old left-versus-right model.

Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, Obama represents a disruption of both sides of the existing racial paradigm. No, he does not "transcend race". He represents the potential of a complete objective refutation of a huge number of the arguments that white supremacists have made for years: that when whites lose power, all hell will break lose; that black people are lazy, or stupid, or incompetent to lead. And he threatens the existing leadership of the black community. To the extent that we even have "black leaders" anymore, people like Jesse Jackson, Obama may render them obsolete and irrelevant, not because racism is defeated, but because Obama is looking to move past the current way of seeing things, to take steps beyond today's set of problems. Jesse Jackson has done a lot of good things in his career, but he has also made for himself a career that depends in large part on the perpetual existence of certain large-scale problems in the black community. Not that Jackson wants these problems to continue, or that he takes advantage of them, but his public persona, his purpose on the national stage, is tied directly to those problems. Take them away, or even re-contextualize them significantly, and Jackson loses his role. There are plenty of public figures who will endure a similar fate to Jackson's if Obama succeeds.

Jesse Jackson: Sometimes You Feel Like a Nut

2008-07-10T14:42:00.004-04:00

Y'all just knew I was gonna have to write about this one, didn't you? For all twelve remaining readers who did not hear about this yesterday, while in the Fox News Chicago studio, Jackson, sitting with another guest in front of a bank of t.v. cameras and microphones, said "See, Barack been, uh, talking down to black people on this faith-based [thing], I wanna cut his nuts off." The clip is below:

One of Jackson's several tap-dancing apologies comes at the end of the segment above. Here's another one:

This is the real gem in the statement above: "When he [Obama] does hear them [Jackson's words] they will be hurtful, not helpful."

Um...understate much, Jesse? Saying you want to chop someone's 'nads off is a tad bit more than hurtful, wouldn't you say? It's downright...violent. A comment like that could suggest the existence of an actual beef, some serious 50-Cent Versus The Game type ish:

Jesse's excuse that he didn't know the mic was hot is just...dumb. Seriously, man, you're in a television studio, with the bright lights on and the cameras and microphones pointed at you! You're wearing a wireless mic clipped to your clothing! What in the hell would make you assume that your conversation wasn't been put on tape? Particularly since you were sitting in the Fox News studio, a place where they would love, just love, to have some footage showing animosity between major black public figures? Obviously, they had camera men on set, they had techs working in the control booth. Even if the cameras weren't on at the start of the conversation (which the editing makes it appear was the case), how hard is it for someone to have their ears perk up at the sound of a possible swipe against Obama, and then hit the "record" button right quick to catch as much of it as they can? Come on, Jesse. You're supposed to be smarter than that!

This is the formal written apology issued by Jackson's camp:

“For any harm or hurt that this hot mic private conversation may have caused, I apologize,” Jackson said in a statement. “My support for Senator Obama’s campaign is wide, deep and unequivocal. I cherish this redemptive and historical moment.

“My appeal was for the moral content of his message to not only deal with the personal and moral responsibility of black males, but to deal with the collective moral responsibility of government and the public policy which would be a corrective action for the lack of good choices that often led to their irresponsibility.”

Those are valid points, ones which have been raised by many people discussing Obama's "Father's Day" speech. But, none of those issues has anything to do with Obama's reproductive organs. Intact or severed, testicles don't make public policy, or at least they don't if your name isn't George W. Bush. To even imply, as the above statement does, that talking about cutting off someone's testicles is in any way related to an appeal for the moral content of said person's message is way, way beyond wrong. So, repeat after me, Jesse: "Balls and politics are not the same thing."

My personal favorite aspect of this entire surreal situation is the written response issued by Jesse's own son, who is part of the Obama campaign:

“I’m deeply outraged and disappointed in Reverend Jackson’s reckless statements about Senator Barack Obama. His divisive and demeaning comments about the presumptive Democratic nominee — and I believe the next president of the United States — contradict his inspiring and courageous career,”

“Revered Jackson is my dad and I’ll always love him. He should know how hard that I’ve worked for the last year and a half as a national co-chair of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. So, I thoroughly reject and repudiate his ugly rhetoric. He should keep hope alive and any personal attacks and insults to himself.”

As for Obama, his campaign accepted Jackson's apology with the following statement:

“As someone who grew up without a father in the home, Sen. Obama has spoken and written for many years about the issue of parental responsibility, including the importance of fathers participating in their children’s lives. He also discusses our responsibility as a society to provide jobs, justice, and opportunity for all. He will continue to speak out about our responsibilities to ourselves and each other, and he of course accepts Rev. Jackson’s apology.”

Translation: Yeah, I'll accept your apology, but I'm going to keep on saying what I'm saying, regardless of whether you like it or not.

Get Your Clinton "Debt Reduction" T-Shirt!

2008-07-10T13:50:00.005-04:00

Hillary Clinton's campaign has started offering the t-shirt below to people who donate $50 or more towards her debt-retirement efforts.

On the black shirts, a white profile of Hillary appears along with words taken from her primary victory speech in Ohio:

"For everyone who's ever been counted out but refused to be knocked out and for everyone who works hard and never gives up, this one is for you!"

You know, I just cannot muster up any sympathy for the debt problem facing the Clinton campaign. The vast majority of that debt was incurred after it was mathematically impossible for her to win more delegates than Obama, meaning 99% impossible for her to win the nomination. The writing was on the wall once Obama racked up those 11 straight victories (which gave him the winning margin). Hillary did not have to accumulate that debt. She had a choice. She could have...conceded. You know, gracefully, before she started re-kindling racial fires that hadn't burned within the party since about 1972 or so (when Helms switched from Dixiecrat/Nazicrat to Republican). This was a choice that she made.

The victimhood that Clinton asserted once people started calling for her to step aside was simply amazing. Here we had a candidate with depleted campaign funds, with no way to actually secure the nomination. In normal circumstances, that equation (no money + no chance) adds up to "withdrawal". But Clinton couldn't bear to do things according to the usual standards.

She claimed that people wanted her out because she was a woman, which may be true of some of her detractors, but is not true of all of them. A good many people wanted her to step aside simply because she had a clear losing hand and she was wasting time and money staying at the table and trying to up the ante. Others wanted her out because of the increasingly negative, racially-polarized campaign tactics she was using. Point being, the argument that Hillary was only asked to concede because of her gender does not withstand scrutiny. There are too many other reasons, independent of her gender, why it was a good idea for Hillary to leave the race after, say, Texas and Ohio (large-state victories that did nothing to change the fundamental delegate balance).

Of course, nothing says that Hillary had to withdraw. There was no way to force her to do so, even if all of the uncommitted super-delegates had simultaneously endorsed Obama, because nothing binds a super-delegate until the actual floor vote at the convention. So Hillary was within her rights to keep going. But the ways in which we exercise our rights matter; they have consequences. Hillary chose to continue down a path that clearly was not going to end with her as the Democratic nominee, a path that would require her campaign to go deeper and deeper into debt. Having made that independent choice, it strikes me as disingenuous for Hillary to ask the voting public to bail her out of her self-created financial predicament.

Personally, if I was asked to write a truth-in-advertising type slogan for a Clinton debt-retirement t-shirt, it would have to read along the following lines:

"For everyone too stubborn to recognize an impossible situation, and too fiscally irresponsible to stop spending money they don't have, this one is for you."

Or maybe:

"For everyone willing to destroy their own political party in a fit of pique, burning money left and right while doing so, this one is for you.".

Or perhaps:

"For everyone who has ever stayed married to a cheating sonofabitch in order to secure a shot at the Presidency, only to be denied their entitled position by some cocky upstart, this one is for you."

H/T: The Swamp, via TPM.

McCain: Obama is a Dirty Hippie

2008-07-09T16:31:00.004-04:00

Take a look at McCain's new ad:

It starts of talking about the "Summer of Love", showing footage of a bunch of hippies doing hippy-type things. Then it shows McCain "a world away" acting out of "love for his country." On through the obligatory reference to McCain's experience as a POW (an oddly recurrent theme coming from someone who "doesn't like to talk about" that stuff), then a quick spiel about McCain's independent mavaerickyness, then a new tag line: "Don't hope for a better life. Vote for one."

The ad makes no sense, on at least a couple of levels. First off, since it is obviously supposed to be a contrast ad, telling voters to "vote for" a better life (by voting McCain) instead of "hoping for" one (by supporting Obama), it seems to me that it ought to be drawing contrasts that actually have something to do with Obama. McCain focuses on the summer of 1968, the height of hippiedom and the height of resistance to the Vietnam war, and shows how he was busy serving his country. Well, what was Obama busy doing? Probably playing in his back yard, or collecting bugs, or playing with his Hot Wheels cars. The guy was seven years old during the summer of 1968. He had no involvement, none, with any of the political disputes of the day.

Second, I would suggest, as a general rule, that political ads ought not include phrases like "don't hope for a better life", even if they are offering a contrasting suggestion. That's...bleak. Last I checked, bleak didn't win elections. Ask Jimmy Carter, or Bob Dole. McCain would have been much better off saying "Don't just hope for a better life...go out and vote for one."

Third, for a candidate whose major political liabilities include being older than, well, just about everyone, it doesn't make a lot of sense to run an ad reminding voters how much older he is than Obama. Having experience and seasoning is one thing, being old enough to have called George Burns a "punk kid" is another thing altogether. Much as McCain might like to highlight the former, I don't see very many ways for him to do without drawing more attention to the latter.

H/T:Ambinder.

Generally Speaking, I Don't Believe in Hell...

2008-07-09T10:44:00.003-04:00

...But in the case of Jesse Helms, I'm willing to be an optimist.

Where, oh where, does one begin when discussing a man as vile and hateful as Jesse Helms? Writing in strictly chronological order would normally be my preference, an old habit born of my years spent studying history. But I lack the time to go into such depth. Instead, I will select a few of Jesse's "greatest hits" as examples of what kind of bigot we are discussing (H/T to Hilzoy, who collected much of what I will cite below).

Here are excerpts from the comments that Helms made during the Senate debate concerning the creation of a federal holiday for Martin Luther King, Jr. (these comments came after Helms staged a 16-day fillibuster against the holiday, and Helms was the only senator to speak out against the holiday):

Mr. President, in light of the comments by the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), it is important that there be such an examination of the political activities and associations of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., principally from the beginning of his work in the civil rights movement in the mid 1950s until his death in 1968. Throughout this period, but especially toward the beginning and end of his career, King associated with identified members of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA), with persons who were former members of or close to the CPUSA, and with CPUSA front organizations. In some important respects King's civil rights activities and later his opposition to the Vietnam war were strongly influenced by and dependent on these associations.
...
King included himself as one of those who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation's self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy, for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.

Apart from the arrogance and ingratitude displayed by these remarks, it is a logical implication of this self-proclaimed universal humanism that King should have denounced Communist atrocities and tyranny at least as strongly as those he attributed to his own country. Yet throughout King's speech there is not a single word of criticism, let alone of condemnation, for North Vietnam or for Ho Chi Minh, for Ho's internal and external policies by which a totalitarian state was created and its institutions were imposed on adjacent states, for the use of terrorism by the Viet Cong or for the terrorism and systematic repression perpetrated by the Communists in North Vietnam.

King portrayed American policy in Vietnam and U.S. foreign policy in general as motivated by a "need to maintain social stability for our investments" and formulated by men who refuse "to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investment." He saw "individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries."

King, in other words, did not dissent from U.S. policy in Vietnam because he was concerned for the best interests of the United States or because of moral and humanitarian beliefs. His opposition to the war was drawn from an ideological (and false) view of American foreign policy as motivated by capitalist and imperialist forces that sought only their own material satisfaction and which were responsible for "the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism."

H/T: Sully.

From the L.A. Times obit:

Helms' demagoguery was a lightning rod for liberals. He called homosexuals "weak, morally sick wretches." During debate on a 1988 AIDS bill sponsored by Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), Helms said, "There is not one single case of AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy."
...
From the beginning, Helms was schooled in the political device of using race to propel white conservatives to the polls. As news director for WRAL radio, Helms supported Willis Smith in his 1950 Senate campaign against Frank Porter Graham, the former president of the University of North Carolina. The campaign theme was that Graham favored interracial marriages. "White people, wake up before it is too late," said one ad. "Do you want Negroes working beside you, your wife and your daughters, in your mills and factories? Frank Graham favors mingling of the races."The campaign's further contribution to political notoriety was a handbill that showed Graham's wife dancing with a black man.
...
Perhaps the most infamous Helms race was in 1990, when he ran against Harvey Gantt, a black architect and former mayor of Charlotte. The campaign became notorious among strategists for a television ad showing a white man's hands crumpling a rejected job application as a voice intoned: "You needed that job. And you were the best qualified. But they had to give it to a minority because of a racial quota. Is that really fair? Harvey Gantt said it is."

Here's the "Hands" advertisement:

Consider the following passage from John Nichols article on The Nation's website:

He dismissed the civil rights movement as a cabal of communists and "moral degenerates." As the movement gathered strength -- and as murderous violence against activists in particular and African-Americans in general increased -- Helms menacingly suggested to non-violent civil rights activists that, "The Negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that's thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men's rights."
...
When Carol Moseley-Braun of Illinois became the first African-American woman to sit in the Senate, Helms followed Moseley-Braun into an elevator, announcing to Utah Senator Orrin Hatch: "Watch me make her cry. I'm going to make her cry. I'm going to sing 'Dixie' until she cries."

Then, emphasizing the lines about how "good" things were before the Civil war ended slavery, Helms sang "Dixie."

Another gem, a Helms quote from the height of the Civil Rights Movement:

“No intelligent Negro citizen should be insulted by a reference to this very plain fact of life. It is time to face honestly and sincerely the purely scientific statistical evidence of natural racial distinction in group intellect. ... There is no bigotry either implicit or intended in such a realistic confrontation with the facts of life. ... Those who would undertake to solve the problem by merely spending more money, and by massive forced integration, may be doing the greatest injustice of all to the Negro.”

For all of the conservatives who whine and fret about being portrayed as racist, I would suggest that lionizing a man like Jesse Helms is no way to disprove the point. David Broder described Helms quite accurately, writing about his retirement from the Senate, in a piece titled Jess Helms, White Racist. Hence, statements like the following from President Bush, which confirm that Helms was part and parcel of the modern conservative movement, only help support the idea that movement conservatism and racism are vipers from the same brood:

Throughout his long public career, Senator Jesse Helms was a tireless advocate for the people of North Carolina, a stalwart defender of limited government and free enterprise, a fearless defender of a culture of life, and an unwavering champion of those struggling for liberty.

Well, sure, as long as those struggling for liberty weren't, you know, black or gay.

After the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Republicans had a choice: they could either stand opposed to the Dixiecrats who were splitting off from the Democratic party, or they could welcome those Dixiecrats into the GOP with open arms. Having chosen the latter, the GOP lost all claim to being the "Party of Lincoln." Instead, the Republicans intertwined themselves with the forces of segregation, with the KKK, with the men who blew up four little girls who were preparing for Sunday school. A party that was born from the sectional split over the slavery issue became united with the same political faction that started the Civil War in the first place. This was no accident of fate, it was a conscious decision on the part of the Republicans.

Every time one of the Conserveratti offers up warm and glowing praise for a Jesse Helms or somone else of his ilk, they show the rest of us exactly what they believe. You cannot support a man like Helms, cannot revere him, without supporting the racism that was his most potent animating force. There is no dividing his career from his bigotry, because the one grew out of the other.

So, please, conservatives, go right on weeping at the tomb of Jesse Helms, and pouring out your digital libations. But do not be surprised, and do not complain, when the rest of us call you out as the racists that you clearly are.