race

Maybe it's just how the NewsHour is selling the news, but here's what we see:

First we get John McCain, opponent of the King holiday, proponent of the Confederate flag over South Carolina, pretending to be a McCain admirer.

Then we get Hillary Clinton, talking about steps backwards and how it is just as hard for her as it was for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

And we want to just vomit. What dreck. (What's worse is that we know that somehow, in some way, Clinton really has a progressive racial conciousness, but she simply has a serious problem with expressing any sort of authenticity.)

And then we get a snippet of Barack Obama, who's talking not about how Dr. King was such a remarkable America (which he was), but about Dr. King's message -- and how we are or are not living up to it.

Two panderers eager to kiss a dead man's ass, and one leader who takes up the dead man's message and challenges us.

So which candidate is the most presidential here?

[No transcript or audio here, save for the discussion after.]

Barack Obama spoke today. This simply is one of the most profound and brave speeches in politics I've seen in a long long time.

Maybe I'm just not enough of a Super Bowl watcher, but here I hear all this about the first time an African American head coach leads an NFL team into the Super Bowl -- not once, but two times over -- and yet as I watch this game, I wonder where the camera shots of the coaches are.

You'd think these players were just going on their own.

I can remember games of yore, seeing Landry and Ditka and Parcells and all those other coaches running teams at Super Bowls.

So where are Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith?

Is CBS afraid of showing America the coaches of this game? What's up, CBS?

2nd Quarter Update: Okay, so they finally mentioned Dungy and Smith. They even gave them each about a second of screen time. No talk about game plans, though. Or game strategy.

I haven't watched the Super Bowl in a few years, except for occasional check-ins on the commercials. But has the game changed so much that coaches just don't matter any more?

Still watching....

4th Quarter update: The coaches have arrived. Or at least Tony Dungy has arrived.

Wow, even a little bio close-up!

Can an African American be "articulate" (as a good thing)?:

When whites use the word in reference to blacks, it often carries a subtext of amazement, even bewilderment. It is similar to praising a female executive or politician by calling her “tough” or “a rational decision-maker.”

“When people say it, what they are really saying is that someone is articulate ... for a black person,” Ms. Perez said.

Such a subtext is inherently offensive because it suggests that the recipient of the “compliment” is notably different from other black people.

“Historically, it was meant to signal the exceptional Negro,” Mr. Dyson said. “The implication is that most black people do not have the capacity to engage in articulate speech, when white people are automatically assumed to be articulate.”

This column by Lynette Clemetson in the New York Times is very eye opening for me -- I had not even thought about "articulate" as being patronizing in and of itself. For instance, when Joseph Biden offered his faint praise for Barack Obama (which is perhaps starting to look like a sad pattern of casual prejudice), I immediately focused on his use of "clean."

Clean? (That's the word Biden and Jon Stewart joked about on the Daily Show, too.)

I had not considered that "articulate" would be the most loaded word in Biden's lame utterance -- especially since Obama is the most eloquent of the Democratic presidential candidates in the race so far -- but there it is.

The first thing I did after reading the article was search media girl for the word. There were four hits for "articulate":

Can't see the forest for all the leaves, let alone the trees contains a quote by a gilas girl I still agree with:

Of course in the tactics of particular political struggles, compromises are necessary, but refusing to articulate the progressive position properly is not a compromise, its capitulation to the rightward downslide of our political system. That's the one immediate fallacy, I'd like to see the so-called liberal blogosphere learn to correct immediately and work to reverse long term.

What's wrong with the Democrats? uses the word as a verb:

The thing is, most of the people who voted against Bush were indeed voting on values -- values of peace, diversity, equality for all citizens, privacy, protecting the environment, reducing abortion, keeping women's bodies free from government seizure, and not running the country into a fiscal ditch our grandkids are going to have to dig out of. But the Dems couldn't really articulate that. They haven't been able to for quite some time.

And it seems like they still don't get it. Representative Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) said on the News Hour yesterday that Democrats needed to bargain their way back into the ballgame. Huh? This approach didn't quite work for John Kerry, who tried to bargain his way around gay marriage and could not or would not articulate the moral reasons why he supported a woman's right to choose.

Truth or Consequences also uses the verb form of "articulate":

So what unites progressives? Values. Morality. Justice. Many of us cannot really articulate it, we just know. We know it's wrong for the powerful to screw over the powerless. We know it's wrong to treat people struggling to make ends meet as problems to be dispensed with. We know it's wrong to use people's misfortunes in health, work and home against them. But it seems like we cannot find ways to say these things. We don't have the vocabulary. We're out of practice.

And to my post from 2005 about That fragile male ego, we find the word in a comment:

As it is, I still carry the idea that I am supposed to be listened to and that being articulate and connected are more important than hard work.

Clemetson's article points out that "articulate" is applied for only certain African Americans:

“Al Sharpton is incredibly articulate,” said Tricia Rose, professor of Africana Studies at Brown University. “But because he speaks with a cadence and style that is firmly rooted in black rhetorical tradition you will rarely hear white people refer to him as articulate.”

My lack of respect for Al Sharpton dates back 20 years, and is not based on "black rhetorical tradition" but rather on things like the whole Tawana Brawley hoax, which you couldn't miss if you lived in New York at the time.

Nevertheless, I don't doubt that "white" people who are not steeped in "black" culture are not going to connect with someone who speaks in the "black rhetorical tradition." I take this lesson to heart, though. The seemingly benign racism of lowered expectations can be much more pernicious than the simple bungling by a clueless Senator.

By any standard, I do find Barack Obama to be very eloquent, especially compared with the other candidates in the field. I find myself liking him and even rooting for him, but I don't quite know where he stands for. "Hope" is a nice message, but I hope he starts to articulate more concrete positions soon.

Meanwhile, Biden should probably think more before he talks. We're just out of this very early starting gate on the presidential race, and he's already imploding. It could be that his problem is that he is articulate. When most politicians talk, I tend to just tune them out -- blah blah blah blah. Biden speaks all to clearly, and what he says can be all too revealing for his own good.

It all started, apparently, with this photo of several "a-list" liberal bloggers. It seems that conservative Ann Althouse took issue with Feministing Jessica Valenti's breasts ... and that nutter Reynolds and other buttheads and beavises got off on how Jessica gets off having breasts.

Says Althouse from a very high horse:

Making this colloquy into this new blog post, I actually click over to Jessica's blog, and what the hell? The banner displays silhouettes of women with big breasts (the kind that Thelma and Louise get pissed off at when they're seen on truck mudflaps). She's got an ad in the sidebar for one of her own products, which is a tank top with the same breasty silhouette, stretched over the breasts of a model. And one of the top posts is a big closeup on breasts.

Lovely insight there, Ann. Did they ban the concept of irony from your university?

Sooooo... apparently, Jessica writes one of those blogs that are all about using breasts for extra attention. Then, when she goes to meet Clinton, she wears a tight knit top that draws attention to her breasts and stands right in front of him and positions herself to make her breasts as obvious as possible?

The sexual hang-ups apparent in right-wing Clinton obsession are well known by now, so this boob-phobic bombast should be expected, I suppose. Even the juvenile Beavis and Butthead-worthy sentiments in the comments threads trod the well-worn ground of little green-with-envy right-wing bloggers.

But really, Ann, Glenn and you other dittoheads seemingly driven by nether puckering over other people's bodies and sexuality, this is 2006. It's been 23 years since Madonna danced around in lace singing "Lucky Star" on MTV. It should not be a big shocker to consider that women are entitled to their sexuality.

But of course, that's the "problem," isn't it? Women claiming independence from patriarchal claims on their sexuality? That's why all this fuss over Plan B, sex education, the cervical cancer vaccine, reproductive rights and the ERA, right? Women (and our breasts) should know our place, right?

Guys love breasts. I think Jessica knows that quite well. And I think for all her gasping outrage, she's thoroughly pleased to get this attention.

And that somehow seems to be wrong, according to Althouse. Women must not be sexual. That is wrong. That is dangerous. That threatens the self-control of men. It threatens men's control of women.

Women can only be free of they self-abnegate their sexuality, according to our good professor. The straw-feminist must be pilloried! Break out the burqas!

Jessica responds:

You know, I was psyched to be invited to this lunch and was feeling pretty honored. But then things like this remind me that no matter what I do or accomplish, because I'm a young woman all I'm good for is fodder for tacky intern jokes and comments that I don't "represent feminist values" because of the way I posed in a picture.

What's worse is that this comes from other women, other progressives, and other supposed feminists. How are we supposed to move forward as a movement if we're busy bashing each other with this ridiculousness?

For more on Althouse's boob obsession:

Echidne:

Anyway, about breasts. My feminist view on them is a very simple one: they are the property of the person who has them on her chest, having breasts does not preclude having brains and having breasts is perfectly acceptable in the public sphere. And women are not responsible for controlling the reactions of some men to the presence of breasts, women don't have to don burqas for the sake of these men or to bind their breasts, either....

...Sadly, the pragmatic approach often boils down to choosing the least unpleasant of the available options and the Democratic party is still the better choice for feminists, especially now that the Republicans have handed over all posts having to do with women's rights to their Taliban section.

zuzu at Feministe:

Althouse wasn’t the only one trying to put Jessica in her place; as I also mentioned, there were any number of commenters across the progressive blogosphere that made comments about Jessica’s fuckability. They didn’t know who she was, or why she was there, but they sure as hell felt free to speculate that it had something to do with sex.

Even those defending Jessica have often focused on the appropriateness of her posture, her pose, her clothing and her smile, as if those were really the issues. They’re not. The issue is that Jessica was invited to that lunch because of her accomplishments and her intelligence, but people like the commenters discussing her fuckability and Althouse criticizing her for having breasts are reminding her that no matter how much she’s accomplished in her life, no matter how smart she is, she doesn’t really belong in that group.

In other words, they smacked her down for being so uppity as to think that she had the right to be there.

(She also calls out some pertinent questions about the (lack of) racial diversity at this lunch in Harlem. Liza Sabater wonders, too. So does Elayne Riggs. Pam Spaulding has a thoughtful post on the dynamics and demands of blogging politics, and how that can shake out in the A, "B, C, D lists of Blogistan.")

Jill at Feministe:

Ann then accuses Jessica of not being a “real” feminist (compared, apparently, to… Ann…), and tells her that she’s misappropriated the word feminism and has done nothing for the movement....

I know [Jessica]'s inspired many more than just me. And talking about her breasts all the live-long day won’t change the fact that she is an amazing, brilliant, good human being who I’m sure will shape the world in more positive ways than Ann Althouse could ever aspire to.

What Jessica did wrong was show up at a political event in a female body. End of story. Ann, you should be ashamed.

Stone Court's Fred Vincy:

Who Killed Feminism?
Ann Althouse solves the mystery.

Last week, it was Ann Bartow and Belle Lettre, for not joining in the hilarity of David Lat's "hottest ERISA lawyer contest" and pointing out that being featured against one's will on a prominent website as a "hottie" might not be the best thing for a lawyer's career or psyche. ("I wonder if Belle has considered whether this grim, censorious, humorless -- nay, humor-phobic -- attitude helps women. I know you want to be taken seriously, but being so intent on being taken seriously is one of the main things that make people want to mock you. And not just you, but feminism.")

This week, it's Jessica Valenti for daring to stand up straight when she met with President Clinton.

Althouse seems to think feminism would be thriving, if only we didn't have all those feminists....

egalia at Tennessee Guerilla Women wonders:

Would Althouse really be happy if Jessica were to bind her breasts, don a mumu, and cast her humbled gaze toward the floor?

PS - Irony of ironies, Althouse is running a Blogads ad for a Barry Goldwater documentary. Considering the guy couldn't get nominated for dog catcher in today's fascist-phillic GOP, it's a wonder wingnuts still invoke his name. Amanda notes, John Dean wonders, too.

The Reclusive Leftist points to yet another example of how sexist chauvinism is accepted in ways that would never be tolerated by decent folks when it comes to racism.

Imagine if the host of a popular TV show on dog training had made the following remarks:

“Black people are the only species that is wired different from the rest. They always apply affection before discipline. White people apply discipline then affection, so we’re more psychological than emotional. All animals follow dominant leaders; they don’t follow lovable leaders.”

Of course, if we were to ask sometimes-funny but always-self-important culture critic Bill Maher about this, Diane Dees points out that he'd dismiss us for not focusing on the important shit.

Tonight on Real Time, Maher said something about what the Bush administration had done to "the working man." Mary Frances Berry, one of the panelists, said "The working woman, too. You said just 'the working man.'"

Then he said it: "There are so many more important issues. Don't hang me up here."

No wonder we're seeing self-labeled "progressives" willing to advocate forced pregnancy pragmatism in pursuit of power. Self-autonomy and equal rights don't pass the hill-of-beans test.

Just shut up, girls, and go make us some sandwiches. You know we're on your side, right?

Uh huh.

Now isn't this fall's election just so full of promise?

There's so much to say about Katrina, King George's posing, DHS & FEMA, politically-flavored pork-barrel post-Katrina contracts, the incompetent government run by a bunch of folks who don't believe in government (unless it controls us peasants, you know)....

...but I think that during this week of remembrance, this quote of Barbara Bush seems to capture the essence of the cold heart of the right-wing. (Less Christian, more Roman in sentiment, wouldn't you say? I find it rather easy to imagine Barbara's words coming from Pontius Pilate. Traditional values indeed.)

Who's "elite"? The Hollywood actor who gets in a rowboat and tries to help people when FEMA, the New Orleans police, and the rest of the "homeland security" crowd are nowhere to be found? Or the silver-spoon crowd who claim privilege to dismiss the suffering of others?

Some brilliant man of proud ignorance has opened a restaurant in Mumbai, India, called Hitler's Cross.

The owner insisted then — and still does — that the name and theme of his new eatery is only meant to attract attention, even if it has outraged Bombay's Jewish community.

"It's really made people very upset that a person responsible for the massacre of 6 million Jews can be glorified," Elijah Jacob, one of the community's leaders, told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

But owner Puneet Sablok has refused to back down, and apart from Bombay's 4,500 Jews, there's been little controversy in India, where Holocaust awareness is limited, Hitler is regarded as just another historical figure and swastikas are an ancient Hindu symbol, displayed all over to bring luck. There are just 5,500 Jews in all of India.

"It's just to attract people. There is no intention to hurt anyone," said Sablok about his spacious restaurant, which serves pastries, pizza and salad in Navi Mumbai, a northern suburb of Bombay, which is also known as Mumbai.

I wonder if people go there seeking the final solution for hunger. Have some Star of David Curry, followed by a cup of coffee with Xyklon B? Or perhaps there's a buffet where they can get large helpings of Moscow Masala? With a side of Nan mehr Intellektual? (Millions more than the six-million Jews died in the Holocaust, and many millions more died in Hitler's wars.)

Here's the great irony:

But while India is ordinarily sensitive to causing religious offense — recently taking action to bar "The Da Vinci Code" movie and cartoon drawings of the prophet Muhammad — at least one local leader said the name Hitler didn't bother him.

Sensitivity indeed.

Update: Thanks to bruno below, who links to http://www.hitlerscross.com/, and to Nancy, who mentions that the Gypsies were one of the many ethnic and demographic groups that were systematically murdered by Hitler's death camps.

The Republicans have done it again. While they spend the nation into bankruptcy while neglecting the critical challenges that we face -- porous national security, politicizing intelligence, declining education, a broken healthcare system -- they rush into this election year whipping up fear over trivialities and appealing to depraved and reactionary emotionalism.

We're talking nativism.

Since they seem to have gotten away with treating the Mexican border as a crisis while ignoring the Canadian border -- which, by the way, we know terrorists have crossed -- they're pushing even further in their anti-Hispanic efforts by voting not once, but twice, to establish English as the national language.

As if that were going to achieve any meaningful improvement.

"We are trying to make an assimilation statement," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., one of two dozen senators who voted Thursday for both English proposals.

Given his past, Mr. Graham seem to intend for everyone to submit to his arch-conservative views.

"What the president has said all along is that he wants to make sure that people who become American citizens have a command of the English language," Snow said. "It's as simple as that."

Of course, the president demonstrates poor "command of the English language" himself. But we have to remember, he's above the law. He says so over and over again.

Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., disputed charges that making English the national language was racist or aimed at Spanish speakers.

Sure. It's just a coincidence that this measure is taken up at the same time they're working up other nativist laws and policies directed against Hispanics crossing the Mexican border. Mr. Inhofe's real beef is with waiters in Chinese restaurants.

The provision makes exceptions for any language assistance already guaranteed by law, such as bilingual ballots required under the Voting Rights Act or court interpreters. It also requires immigrants seeking citizenship to demonstrate a "sufficient understanding of the English language for usage in every day life."

Let's see if we can come up with a list of phrases....

"Where's the bathroom?"

"Glass of water, please."

"I vote for Republicans only."

"When the government spies on me, I feel patriotic."

That oughta do it.

When it comes to anything relating to international relations and security, nobody can accuse the president of playing a game of Risk. That would take nuance. No, Mr. Bush is a simpler man -- a "decider"!

And he likes to play with his army men.

Anyone who knows anyone in the military, whatever his or her political views, knows that our armed forces are what you might call over-extended. We have soldiers and Marines, young and old, serving multiple tours of duty in Iraq. We have people long retired who've been called back to help the United States follow a foreign policy with no real plan, no sense of strategy, and certainly no intelligence (except for, of course, what they glean from tapping your phone).

Now President Bush is facing criticism from the xenophobic wing (or is it the core?) of the Republican Party regarding immigration policy.

So what is the president thinking of deciding to do?

Send in the National Guard.

One defense official said military leaders believe the number of troops required could range from 3,500 to 10,000, depending on the final plan. Another administration official cautioned that the 10,000 figure was too high.

The officials insisted on anonymity since no decision has been announced.

The president was expected to reveal his plans in an address Monday at 8 p.m. EDT. It will be the first time he has used the Oval Office for a domestic policy speech — a gesture intended to underscore the importance he places on the divisive immigration issue.

The key questions Friday were exactly how many National Guard troops might be deployed, for how long and at what cost to taxpayers — as well as the problem of possible disruption of upcoming deployments to Iraq and elsewhere overseas.

Welcome home, soldier! You survived Baghdad! Congratulations! Now get your butt into that Hummer and report for duty on the Mexican border! There are more brown people there to keep in line!

So is this really about national security? Not likely:

Southern lawmakers met with White House strategist Karl Rove earlier in the week for a discussion that included making greater use of National Guard troops to shore up border control.

Ah! The Architect is hard at work! No wonder the GOP is busy trying to whip up fear and anger. Funny that, in the name of defense and national security, they aren't talking about sending armies to the Canadian border, where terrorists have been crossing. I wonder why that is....