I think there are a few remarkable things about Obama's takedown of Wright today that I have not seen the MSM get at all.
1) He took down a veteran preacher. This is no small deal. Pastors, usually, occupy a place of social importance in black communities for which there is no comparable example in white communities. I will be curious to see if many black people, especially ones more of Wright's generation, see Obama's move to break with him as an uppity, irreverent betrayal.
2) Obama specifically derided beliefs and feelings which are not exactly rare in black communities. I saw recently where a poll had found that 27% of blacks surveyed found it credulous that the US government had created HIV in a lab, and 16% thought such a thing was done to control the black population.
3) Obama seemed (both rightly and smartly so) broadly dismissive of Wright's views. Will this be seen by many black people as unfairly ignoring many other points and grievances which Wright aired that many blacks think are legitimate?
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
Seriously, Fuck You Jeremiah Wright
I watched much of the Bill Moyers interview, and almost all of the NAACP conference speech. I thought both were for the most part fine, though he can be a bit crude with his racial characterizations at times (and, yes, I realize some of them were meant to be humorous). Oh well. But the thing this morning was just a disaster. He gave a speech which was on par with his speech at the NAACP, but then the questions started and it all went downhill. I personally thought it was awful, but more so I just know that it is going to feed the right wing noise machine against Obama. Sound bytes abounded. Wright didn't seem to internalize that he wasn't in church anymore, that he was instead in front of a skeptical audience and is right in the middle of one of the most important campaigns not only in the history of our country, but of the whole planet. My take on it was that, for what I'm sure are a number of reasons -- including a strange combination self-aggrandizement along with a response to perceived humiliation -- he basically said a Christian "fuck you" to Obama and his campaign (I read that they've only spoken once since all this shit started, and that it was not a pleasant conversation). I don't doubt that Wright has some solid points to make -- however they may grate on racially uncomfortable white people's ears -- but when one stands in front of the country and say it's highly likely that HIV was created by the government to annihilate black people, one's more sane points recede into a static of paranoid hysteria. I mean, he could have made a lot of solid, reasonable points about health care disparities and the history of medicine's crimes against black people and perhaps even cite modern paranoia as an example of these problems. But he instead propagated a belief -- however widely held -- that is based on no scientific or historical fact whatsoever. I get, as best I can, that there are very different faith and cultural experiences and traditions at work here, but at some point people have to share a common bond of evidence and reason. Being a pastor is no excuse.
I've read that the Obama camp is fucking furious about this tour Wright is going on, but that there's nothing they could do to stop him. I'll be curious to see what Obama's response to this is, if there is any at all. It just makes me really sad, because although I think none of this SHOULD matter, it unfortunately DOES.
I spent the first 18 years of my life in the Deep South; I am well aware of the bullshit that black people still deal with daily. They have a reason to be paranoid in many respects. But to abandon reason and civility for shrill, manic lunacy is not the answer. It will be beyond a shame if the first competitive black (as we define "black" anyway) candidate for the presidency -- also the best candidate for this election -- is derailed by hysteria brought on by a black liberation theologian.
Obama needs to take this chance to step up and speak plainly about just how destructive rhetoric of the sort that Wright spews is to our country and to the black community specifically. Wright has served himself up to be a sacrificial counter-example to the unity and progress which Obama believes is our future as a country. If Obama doesn't take this chance -- possibly his last -- to leave Wright and his mindset in his personal and our collective past, he will have done a disservice to the vision he professes. If he cannot show decisive leadership in making a clean and principled cut, maybe he isn't the leader we thought he was.
Update: Slate's Trailhead has background on the AIDS nuttery.
I've read that the Obama camp is fucking furious about this tour Wright is going on, but that there's nothing they could do to stop him. I'll be curious to see what Obama's response to this is, if there is any at all. It just makes me really sad, because although I think none of this SHOULD matter, it unfortunately DOES.
I spent the first 18 years of my life in the Deep South; I am well aware of the bullshit that black people still deal with daily. They have a reason to be paranoid in many respects. But to abandon reason and civility for shrill, manic lunacy is not the answer. It will be beyond a shame if the first competitive black (as we define "black" anyway) candidate for the presidency -- also the best candidate for this election -- is derailed by hysteria brought on by a black liberation theologian.
Obama needs to take this chance to step up and speak plainly about just how destructive rhetoric of the sort that Wright spews is to our country and to the black community specifically. Wright has served himself up to be a sacrificial counter-example to the unity and progress which Obama believes is our future as a country. If Obama doesn't take this chance -- possibly his last -- to leave Wright and his mindset in his personal and our collective past, he will have done a disservice to the vision he professes. If he cannot show decisive leadership in making a clean and principled cut, maybe he isn't the leader we thought he was.
Update: Slate's Trailhead has background on the AIDS nuttery.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Speaking Plainly About a Changing Economy
The NY Times editorial board does a good job of calling out the Democratic candidates on their anti-trade pandering. It's amazing how these conversations -- where candidates merely speak to what they know are the preconceived beliefs of a particular constituency -- occur in the absence of any reference whatsoever to actual facts.
During the run-up to the Ohio primary, the fodder here turned overwhelmingly to anti-China and anti-NAFTA talking points. There are legitimate and critical discussions to have about both China and NAFTA's relationships to our changing economy, but the candidates basically eschewed any thoughtful nuance in exchange for shooting exotic fish in a barrel.
I won't claim to be a cultural expert on the working class in the rust belt, but it is my impression since moving here that people expect to inhabit a static economy where the jobs never change and they last the length of one's working life. It would be refreshing if a Democratic candidate would stop playing this Luddite game and instead speak plainly about tough but necessary changes. There were vague references of this sort, in the form of job retraining, etc., but they were always couched among a backdrop of essentially xenophobic economic rhetoric.
It's not the government's responsibility to keep our economy and workforce frozen in time, nor should we want it to do so. Imagine if we'd taken such an approach since the inception of this country; we'd still inhabit a largely agrarian economy. The people making these arguments expect to be taken seriously, but one can see by applying them to a different time period just how ridiculous such a mindset is.
I have no doubt that some of the changes in our economy over the last few decades have both economically and culturally jarred some segments of the public, but the answers to such anxieties do not lie in clamming up and refusing the acknowledge a changing world.
During the run-up to the Ohio primary, the fodder here turned overwhelmingly to anti-China and anti-NAFTA talking points. There are legitimate and critical discussions to have about both China and NAFTA's relationships to our changing economy, but the candidates basically eschewed any thoughtful nuance in exchange for shooting exotic fish in a barrel.
I won't claim to be a cultural expert on the working class in the rust belt, but it is my impression since moving here that people expect to inhabit a static economy where the jobs never change and they last the length of one's working life. It would be refreshing if a Democratic candidate would stop playing this Luddite game and instead speak plainly about tough but necessary changes. There were vague references of this sort, in the form of job retraining, etc., but they were always couched among a backdrop of essentially xenophobic economic rhetoric.
It's not the government's responsibility to keep our economy and workforce frozen in time, nor should we want it to do so. Imagine if we'd taken such an approach since the inception of this country; we'd still inhabit a largely agrarian economy. The people making these arguments expect to be taken seriously, but one can see by applying them to a different time period just how ridiculous such a mindset is.
I have no doubt that some of the changes in our economy over the last few decades have both economically and culturally jarred some segments of the public, but the answers to such anxieties do not lie in clamming up and refusing the acknowledge a changing world.
VA Lying About Veteran Mental Health?
In some shocking but not surprising news from last week, Senator Pat Murray (D-Washington), charges that the VA has been lying about the problem and prevalence of suicide and suicide attempts among our veterans. She cites an internal memo:
From my experience in medical school, I think much of this attitude starts in my own profession. I have repeatedly been shocked at the way both students and practicing doctors react toward mental illness -- ranging from fear to outright mocking. Until we find seriousness among our own outlooks and lead a deliberate, united effort to change public and institutional attitudes toward mental illness, I doubt much will change.
"Dr. Katz's message to Ev Chasen, the department's communications director, started with "Shh!" It continued, "Our suicide prevention coordinators are identifying about 1,000 suicide attempts per month among the veterans we see in our medical facilities. Is this something we should (carefully) address ourselves in some sort of release before someone stumbles on it?"Not really surprising, I suppose. We as a nation, and the armed forces in particular -- in all their machismo -- have long treated mental illness as something to hide, something not worth serious attention.
From my experience in medical school, I think much of this attitude starts in my own profession. I have repeatedly been shocked at the way both students and practicing doctors react toward mental illness -- ranging from fear to outright mocking. Until we find seriousness among our own outlooks and lead a deliberate, united effort to change public and institutional attitudes toward mental illness, I doubt much will change.
Why Obama Will Win States in the General Election Which He "Lost" in the Primaries
A theme frequently repeated, and always annoying, from the Clinton Camp is that Hillary will be the stronger general election candidate because she has "won the big states" or "the states that a Democrat must win." The weakness in this argument is obvious, but I have seen media outlets repeat it ad nauseum without questioning it.
How each Democratic nominee performs within his or her own party does not necessarily -- and in this case almost certainly does not -- tell us how he or she would perform in the general election. The reality is that most of the people voting for Clinton in the primaries are party diehards; many of these people are voting for Clinton out of party loyalty, and/or a combination of nostalgia and familiarity. These voters will vote Democratic in the general anyway (Yes, some current polling indicates that some people may switch sides, but it is far too early to take that seriously; they will come back once the general campaign gets going and candidate differences become more clearly defined).
Obama's huge advantage in the general arises from the excess voter capacity he can generate. Not only is his potential crossover appeal much greater than Clinton's, but he stands to -- especially as compared to Hillary -- expand voter participation in two key groups: young people and black people. The former group's increased participation is broadly beneficial. The latter could potentially rearrange the electoral map. It is no secret that black voters tend to go largely Democratic, but Obama's nomination will increase black voter participation to levels never seen before. This makes it possible for him to carry a number of Southern states, which have large black populations. This will have the direct effect of potentially adding votes to Obama's electoral column, but it will also have the indirect effect of forcing McCain's campaign to spread itself on its already weak budget. This will dilute McCain's efforts in traditionally solidly Democratic -- but now battleground -- states where, if the election ran similarly to 2000 and 2004, he might really have a chance to eke out a win.
This recent NY times article gets at these ideas a bit, the first mention I have seen of these dynamics.
How each Democratic nominee performs within his or her own party does not necessarily -- and in this case almost certainly does not -- tell us how he or she would perform in the general election. The reality is that most of the people voting for Clinton in the primaries are party diehards; many of these people are voting for Clinton out of party loyalty, and/or a combination of nostalgia and familiarity. These voters will vote Democratic in the general anyway (Yes, some current polling indicates that some people may switch sides, but it is far too early to take that seriously; they will come back once the general campaign gets going and candidate differences become more clearly defined).
Obama's huge advantage in the general arises from the excess voter capacity he can generate. Not only is his potential crossover appeal much greater than Clinton's, but he stands to -- especially as compared to Hillary -- expand voter participation in two key groups: young people and black people. The former group's increased participation is broadly beneficial. The latter could potentially rearrange the electoral map. It is no secret that black voters tend to go largely Democratic, but Obama's nomination will increase black voter participation to levels never seen before. This makes it possible for him to carry a number of Southern states, which have large black populations. This will have the direct effect of potentially adding votes to Obama's electoral column, but it will also have the indirect effect of forcing McCain's campaign to spread itself on its already weak budget. This will dilute McCain's efforts in traditionally solidly Democratic -- but now battleground -- states where, if the election ran similarly to 2000 and 2004, he might really have a chance to eke out a win.
This recent NY times article gets at these ideas a bit, the first mention I have seen of these dynamics.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Poison Plastics?
A couple of interesting entries on the growing concern about the developmental effects of plastics. The Discover Magazine article offers good depth. The question is this: how hard would a transition be? Can manufacturers easily shift to apparently safer alternatives? Or are we stuck with problems like this because of modern living?
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Why Amazon.com is the Future of Commerce
The New York Times reports on the continued success of Amazon. I think this will continue for the foreseeable future. Shopping on Amazon and similar sites just makes practical sense for consumers. You can find most anything from the comfort and convenience of your own home. It never closes. You don't have to make time to go there. The presence of many vendors almost ensures the lowest market price (check this out by comparing to other online vendors, it's true). The modest shipping charges are usually worth the savings in fuel and time. Also, for shoppers who live in places with fewer sellers of the same item and few items available period, it opens up equal consumer exposure and guarantees competitive prices. And it all fits into a pre-existing delivery structure in the form of USPS, UPS, DHL, etc. And when was the last time you were in a store that offered you an array of customer product reviews?
On the flip side, there is the seller's advantage. Businesses -- such as specialty vendors which might otherwise have not found a friendly marketplace -- are suddenly opened up to a global audience, where one can find a buyer for almost anything.
As the older generation is increasingly replaced by net savvy consumers, this model can't help but balloon.
On the flip side, there is the seller's advantage. Businesses -- such as specialty vendors which might otherwise have not found a friendly marketplace -- are suddenly opened up to a global audience, where one can find a buyer for almost anything.
As the older generation is increasingly replaced by net savvy consumers, this model can't help but balloon.
Blaming Our Parents' Generation
A reader writes into Andrew Sullivan and expresses many of the visceral feelings of myself and many in my generation. But at the same time, I think casting this blame is just a bit too easy. While there have been catastrophic fiscal errors made, it's glib to pretend that there weren't a lot of people fighting them along the way. In the 1990's, a coalition of Democrats and Republicans committed to balancing the budget. It's hard to call what they accomplished, and the intent behind it, irresponsible. The trap door came along when Bush entered office and promised everyone a free lunch. Remember, we were oh so close to avoiding this fiscal catastrophe, but for the whole Florida debacle.
Also, there are a lot of economic time bombs which were not centrally determined. While regulation could have played a tempering role and incentives could have re-directed development plans, Americans have shown a preference for expansive lifestyles that gobble up energy. Also, the explosion in health care spending is largely tech driven. Expensive as they are, federal health programs are something most people want. This is not going to change. Nor is the cost. However we may centrally attack cost and quality control, the health care we want is expensive. It's time to own up to that and pay for it like the adults we should strive to be.
Also, there are a lot of economic time bombs which were not centrally determined. While regulation could have played a tempering role and incentives could have re-directed development plans, Americans have shown a preference for expansive lifestyles that gobble up energy. Also, the explosion in health care spending is largely tech driven. Expensive as they are, federal health programs are something most people want. This is not going to change. Nor is the cost. However we may centrally attack cost and quality control, the health care we want is expensive. It's time to own up to that and pay for it like the adults we should strive to be.
Shopping the Bean Aisle for the Recession
Maybe it's because I come from frugal Irish grandparents, but I've always felt this way.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Attention Barack and Hillary: Vaccines DO NOT Cause Autism
Props to Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings for calling out Barack and Hillary for stoking the vaccines and autism paranoia. It's clear that neither of them knows enough about the subject to speak on it, so why can't they just say "you know, I frankly haven't read up on it and have not discussed it with my science advisors, so it would be irresponsible of me to express say anything." Must our candidates and politicians have an opinion on everything? We don't need our leaders to be promoting anti-scientific paranoia and pseudoscience. What's next? Are they going to say they're not sure if the US government created HIV to destroy black communities?
For more on the topic, see Arthur Allen's series of entries in Slate here, here, and here. For a more general outlook on modern pseudo-skepticism, check out Daniel Engber's recent series.
For more on the topic, see Arthur Allen's series of entries in Slate here, here, and here. For a more general outlook on modern pseudo-skepticism, check out Daniel Engber's recent series.
Appealing to Our Tribalism
Andrew Sullivan has an insightful post (for a beltway guy, anyway) about the nefarious games being played with Obama's identity. During Clinton's first tour through the national spotlight, I was too young to form an independent impression of her. Entering this campaign season, I was willing to give Hillary a chance on her own terms, but her willingness to appeal -- sometimes subtly and sometimes not -- to the citizenry's most superficial biases and fears makes me want to vomit. I expected as much from some right-wing nutjobs, but to see a supposedly enlightened liberal do this to a promising member of her own party is simply disgusting. I am not filled with racial paranoia, but I grew up in a very racist environment in the Deep South seeing and hearing the ugly side of hatred against blacks, a hatred which is rarely aired on the national stage in a frank manner. I know that there are a lot of people out there who hated or mistrusted Obama before they ever heard him speak a word. And many others were just waiting for an excuse. Ask yourself this: If he were a 60 year-old white guy named Bill Smith, would this mud stick in the way that it has? Would it be slung in this way, with these overtones, at all?
The Inanity of Splitting Green Hairs
Slate runs another stupid article about greening up one's life. This sort of writing and focus misses the point entirely. The differences articles like this illuminate are usually so small that the changes they might incite in an individual's behavior are inconsequential, insofar as they affect nothing more than the preening person's sense of eco-virtue. The environmental problems we face are structural problems at a societal level, which will be solved only with broad regulation (read: sacrifice or prohibitive costliness that few will welcome when they realize what it would require of them) or technological leaps. So far few in the political arena have addressed these needed changes seriously. I've heard that Thomas Friedman's forthcoming book will explore these issues thoroughly. It's funny how it takes a purveyor of conventional wisdom to bring credibility to arguments which others on the "fringe" were making decades ago.
The Blog is Back
I am sufficiently bored with my life as a socially isolated 20-something that I've decided to start blogging again, at least through the election in November. If someone actually reads it, great.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
