From the Traverse City [Michigan] Record-Eagle:
Traverse City High School students Spencer Perrin and Mike Harper, both 17, survey the damage to their car's wheel after it slid off the road and hit the curb at the corner of Pine and West State streets.Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, went through the therapy.
. . . . . well, like trying to get white people to talk about Racism.
I was going to go for a cute metaphor -- herding cats, pulling teeth, getting blood from a stone -- but nope -- those all seem way easier to me than trying to get white people to talk about Racism.
I mention this because I read a wide variety of blogs, and I notice that while a number of my favorite bloggers do write posts on race and racism, there is this interesting thing that happens in comment threads to these posts -- if the blog is not frequented mostly by people of color, the comment threads very often stray from anything remotely touching on race or racism, and quickly become about "oppression in general", or a particular commenter's "Me Too!" pointing toward their own particular oppression.
The comments that I read are almost without exception from liberals/progressives. I assume that they are well-meaning, and I believe that most of them truly want to be supportive of the author's viewpoint -- but I'm consistently amazed at how quickly these threads can turn from the main point of the post if it's about race and/or racism.
Personally, I think this may be due to three things:
First: Many (if not most) white people, have very little awareness of their privilege as white people.
I have straight friends who have been harrassed on the street with screams of "faggot" or "lesbo", so they may have gotten a small taste of what it's like to be on the receiving end of homophobia -- male friends of mine have been called "pussy" or "mangina", and hence, may have experienced a minute sampling of misogyny -- but I don't know a single white person who has ever had another white person yell "nigger" at them on the street. (I sure it has happened to someone, somewhere, but it hasn't entered my direct reality.)
In fact, now that I think of it, most of the white people I know who seem to have the greatest understanding and awareness of their privilege are those who have been called "nigger-lover" at some point in their lives, because they stood up for the rights of people of color -- but that's not really the same as being the direct recipient of a racial slur -- it's an indictment of how you are "betraying" the racist culture -- as a white person.
(*Before you start going on about how you think you've been on the receiving end of racism because someone called you "whitey" or "honky" or "gringo" while you were walking through a predominantly colorful neighborhood, please do read to the end of this post, as I have a special note for you.)
Second: I think white people are often afraid to talk about race. If they're liberal/progressive, they're afraid they'll say something ignorant and offensive. If they're conservative/regressive, they tend to want to ignore the issue altogether, or turn it on its head and talk about shit like "reverse-racism" or "quotas" or some other ridiculous crap.
I think white people are a little scared that someday, somehow, all the racist crap that's been perpetrated on people of color over the centuries is going to crash down on them karmically, and I think that they'd often just rather keep those worms in the can, thank you very much -- after all, only 8% of the world's population is white.
(FWIW, I think this is also true of the can-of-worms that is real conversation about misogyny/sexism, as women comprise half of the population, and that it is less true of the homo-/trans-phobia conversation, because homos/trannies are a much smaller minority in terms of total population, and therefore less threatening, even though we're supposed to be this big fucking threat -- but that's not what I'm talking about in this post -- I want to talk about race, dammit! See how easy it is to get diverted?)
Third: I think that there is a subliminal message (in our country, at least) that racism is no longer a problem -- and I believe that that message is dangerous, and factually incorrect (and you all know how I feel about shit that is factually incorrect).
I know that racism is still an issue, because there are white people -- white people who think of themselves as liberal/progressive -- who will say racist things to me when people of color are not around -- even after I have confronted them in the past about racist remarks that they have made.
I know that racism is still an issue because white people seem so fucking uncomfortable about discussing it -- so uncomfortable, in fact, that they avoid discussing it, even when it is clearly brought to the table by someone that they consider an ally.
I know that racism is still an issue because people of color can disappear and nobody seems to notice.
Yes, I think that racism, misogyny, and homophobia (and whole bunch of other hatred-based "isms") are interconnected. Yes, I think that it's important for me to "connect-the-dots" between these forms of oppression, and understand how they intertwine.
However, I think that if I'm really going to understand that tapestry of hate, and learn how to untangle it -- there will be times when I must look carefully, and talk long into the night, about the specific threads which don't touch me in the same way that they touch others who are on the Magical Oppression Carpet-Ride[tm] with me. (Wheee! Are we fucking having fun yet? No. I thought not.)
*Now, just to be perfectly clear about that whole "whitey/honky" thing? When I'm talking about Racism, I'm talking about the cultural oppression of racial minorities by racial majorities. If you're white and American, you are part of a 75% racial majority, and regardless of what anyone has told you, Racism is not an Equal Opportunity Oppressor.
I welcome discussion on the substance of my post, or on race/racism in comments to this post. If you derail it, I'm going to be kicking ass and taking names.
What book have you always meant to read, but just somehow have never gotten around to reading? For me, it's Lord of the Flies. I know everything about the book; I know the plot, I know the characters, I know all about the pig's skull, and it's one of those books that every well-read person should have read, but I'm almost not certain what the point is since I feel like I know everything about it.
I know you don't need me to give you one more reason to hold Chuck Norris in contempt, but here's one anyway. This is what he said when asked why he hasn't pursued a career in politics: "Let's say I run for a position in politics and I am debating my opponent and my opponent starts attacking my character and I leap over the bench and choke him unconscious, it's not going to help my campaign."
Excellent point. It's a possibility that's increasingly likely, what with the wide availability of Action Jeans these days.
* Modify the means test to ensure families have sufficient resources to live onI particularly like the idea of medical debts being dischargeable. This would be helpful during the transition period between our current and post-reform health care system. The rest of the plan is certainly worth a read, so check it out.
* Protect children, not creditors
* Ensure all medical debts are dischargeable
* Permit bankruptcy courts to restructure mortgages so families can stay in their homes
* Allow private student loans to be dischargeable
I'm too lazy to write a post about this shitastic story about a pregnant woman getting tased, so here's an IM conversation Space Cowboy and I just had:
[16:40] sc: and I guess you heard about the pregnant woman in Ohio
[16:41] shakes: no
[16:41] sc: http://winnipegsun.com/News/World/2007/11/29/4695217.html
[16:43] shakes: omg, the police are out of control with the tasers.
[16:43] sc: not only are they out of control, but with each case they're showing how inept they truly are
[16:44] shakes: totally. and every time i read about one of them now, i think to myself, "summer of the shark!"
[16:44] shakes: remember, 2001, before "9/11," when the media was going haywire because there had been like 6 shark bites in THE ENTIRE WORLD, so every fucking cable station was running constant stories about sharks, and calling it the summer of the shark!
[16:45] sc: oh yea
[16:45] shakes: and for some reason, all these stories about tasers are reminding me of that, except that they amount to a REAL NEWS STORY, but the media isn't going on about TEH AUTUMN OF TEH TASER!!!!!11!!!eleventy-one!!!!!!11!!!
[16:46] sc: state sponsored torture is an acceptable reality, while shark bites is a national terror that must be dealt with (and would make a great movie)
[16:47] shakes: lol sob
"Even if you've never heard of the 'Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007,' you'll be delighted to learn that the legislation has, at least, the virtue of fighting imaginary problems with pretend solutions. After seven long years of government solutions far worse than the problems they purport to cure, perhaps that's a step in the right direction."—Dahlia Lithwick, on Democratic California Rep. Jane Harman's new salvo in the war on terror. Meet the new boss; same as the old boss. Sigh. [H/T Oddjob.]
ZOMG. My beloved Dolly Parton + my huge girlcrush Amy Sedaris? In one video? About being eternally optimistic and fierce even in the face of mountains of horseshit?
If you remember my (and Space Cowboy's) fervent adoration for Tay Zonday and his megahit "Chocolate Rain," you'll understand implicitly why I am totally ready to go out and purchase no fewer than 10 cases of Cherry Chocolate Dr. Pepper. I reward advertising genius when I see it, bitchez.
So why is Trent Lott really resigning from the Senate so suddenly? So far the rumors of the liaison with the rent boy have proved to be unfounded (and on behalf of self-respecting gay men everywhere, may I say "Whew!"). The conventional wisdom is that he's leaving early to take advantage of the change in the ethics rules that would forbid him from lobbying for two years if he retired after December 31, 2007, and another story has it that he's going to team up with John Breaux, the former senator from Louisiana. So it's all about the money, right? Bob Novak shakes his head in dismay that such an "extraordinary" career is coming to an end.
But could there be another, more pressing reason?
Perhaps he's getting out in order to dodge the fallout that might get all over him from the indictment of Dick Scruggs, his brother-in-law, for bribery.Richard F. Scruggs, a prominent trial lawyer who has been fighting insurance companies over payments for damage from Hurricane Katrina, was indicted yesterday by federal authorities on charges of offering a bribe of $50,000 to a Mississippi state judge in a dispute over fees with another lawyer.
So far no one has said that Mr. Lott is in any way connected to his brother-in-law and nephew's doings. But then again, Mr. Scruggs represented Mr. Lott in a lawsuit against State Farm for unpaid damages from Hurricane Katrina, so if there's an investigation of Mr. Scruggs, it might skate a little too close to Mr. Lott for comfort.
The indictment, filed in federal court in Oxford, Miss., Mr. Scruggs’s hometown, said that on behalf of Mr. Scruggs, a colleague met several times this year with State Judge Henry L. Lackey in his chambers in Calhoun County to propose and deliver the bribe in installments.
Mr. Scruggs’s son Zachary, who is a partner in the Scruggs Law Firm in Oxford, and Sidney A. Backstrom, another partner, were also indicted, as were Mr. Scruggs’s colleague, Timothy R. Balducci, a partner in the firm of Patterson & Balducci, and Steven A. Patterson, a staff member in the firm. Mr. Scruggs, his son and the others were all accused of conspiracy.
[...]
Mr. Scruggs, who has negotiated settlements worth more than $100 million this year with State Farm and other insurers, is a brother-in-law of Senator Trent Lott and a close friend of Mike Moore, former Mississippi attorney. He first gained national attention in the late 1990s for helping win a settlement of $248 billion from the tobacco industry.
And if this was Hillary Clinton's brother-in-law that was under indictment, you can be sure that the GOP -- lead by Mr. Lott -- would go after her with a full-throated vengence. Just sayin'...
Great cartoon by Kevin Moore, via Amp, which was "inspired by a discussion of challenges women face in male-dominated workplaces on the NPR show 'Here and Now' in which it is noted Hooters is a favorite choice for office parties among male coworkers, despite female coworker objections."
Glenn Greenwald and other liberals in the blogosphere have been criticizing respected Time reporter Joe Klein for writing a piece about attempts to reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that had a few minor factual errors and accused the Democrats of giving "terrorists the same legal protections as Americans." Time's Managing Editor Rick Stengel eventually responded to the criticism by appending a "correction" to the piece that said, "In the original version of this story, Joe Klein wrote that the House Democratic version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) would allow a court review of individual foreign surveillance targets. Republicans believe the bill can be interpreted that way, but Democrats don't." That should have ended the controversy right there, but Greenwald persisted, writing, "All Time can say about this matter is that Republicans say one thing and Democrats claim another. Who is right? Is one side lying? What does the bill actually say, in reality? That's not for Time to say. After all, they're journalists, not partisans." Now, like Joe Klein, I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who's right, but I do know a little something about journalism since I once saw All the President's Men and I worked on my high school newspaper, so I think it would be helpful if bloggers knew the 20 basic "Rules of Journalism" so that they won't pester Joe Klein and other professional journalists too much about journalistic ethics in the future. If any real journalists think I've written something that is inaccurate, let me know and I'll just append a correction way down at the end of the post or delete the inaccuracy altogether and hopefully no one will notice.
The Rules of Journalism
1. Journalists must be completely objective. This is the most important rule of journalism. Objectivity means not having any opinion or feelings whatsoever no matter what the circumstances. This rule was best expressed in a line I recently quoted from Washington Post columnist David Broder, the dean of American journalism, about his response President Kennedy's assassination: "As an ordinary man, I wanted leave the scene, hide somewhere, and weep," Broder said. "But I managed to calm myself and to report the event in the most objective way." As I explained in my earlier piece, "Broder refused to take sides after the President was killed. Was he for the assassination or against it? It was impossible to tell from his reporting. No matter what his personal feelings might have been, as a reporter he had to be objective when it came to whether killing Kennedy was a good thing or a bad thing."
2. There are two sides to every story and a journalist must give both sides equal weight even if he or she knows one side is completely false. Weighing one side against the other violates a journalist's objectivity. (See Rule No. 1.)
3. The only exception to Rules 1 and 2 is that during wartime journalists must be patriotic and not write anything that might undermine the government or the war effort or lower morale. Wearing a flag pin on one's lapel is a good way to demonstrate you are adhering to this rule. Reporters should always remember that they are Americans first, journalists second and human beings third.
4. Because most journalists are liberals, they have to bend over backwards to consider the conservative viewpoint in their articles so that it all evens out in the end. (See Rule No. 1.)
5. If you criticize a Republican you must also criticize a Democrat. If you criticize President Bush, you must also criticize President Clinton.
6. If both liberals and conservatives criticize you, that must mean you are doing something right. If moderates criticize you, too, it probably means that they are leaning one way or the other and aren't really moderate at all. The more people who say you are wrong, the more objective, and hence right, you are. (See Rule No. 1.)
7. Journalists should avoid using anonymous sources unless those sources have a reasonable fear of retribution or have political agendas that would be compromised if their identities were revealed or if refusing to grant them anonymity would limit the journalist's access and give his or her competitors an unfair advantage, which could damage the journalist's career.
8. Journalists must always protect their anonymous sources no matter what those sources' agendas might be and even if those sources misled them or were using them to get back at a political opponent. As Richard Cohen has pointed out, using journalists to publish leaks to assassinate the character of an anonymous source's political opponents is a time-honored tradition and the life-blood of Washington journalism. A journalist's job is to facilitate what Cohen calls "the dark art of Washington politics" not pass judgment on it, which would compromise his or her objectivity. (See Rule No. 1.)
9. Rule No. 8 is so important that journalists should be willing to go to jail to protect anonymous sources, unless someone pressures those sources to sign a waiver or the reporter thinks going to jail would just be too much of a hardship to endure. Besides, you can't do any reporting when you are in jail.
10. Journalists should be as accurate as possible, but sometimes there is not enough time to dot every i and cross every t. Getting the story first is more important than getting it completely right because mistakes can always be fixed with "Corrections" in very small print in another edition, in online "updates" or buried in the "Letters to the Editor" section, which no one ever reads.
11. Journalists should not give money to any political campaigns, participate in any political activities or even vote. Former ABC political director Mark Halperin and Washington Post editor Len Downie don't vote, which is why they are so trustworthy and so respected by other journalists. Just as Catholic priests give up sex, journalists should give up their right to participate in the political process so that they will not have to think too much about whether one side or another is correct. Thinking too hard threatens their objectivity. (See Rule No. 1.)
12. Journalists should not censor a story unless the government or a big advertiser asks them to.
13. Because space in newspapers and magazines is limited there is no room for ideas that are too far out of the mainstream or that challenge the conventional wisdom unless the ensuing controversy would sell more papers or magazines.
14. Plagiarism is strongly discouraged and anyone caught plagiarizing should be fired immediately and never be allowed to work as a journalist again, unless they are prominent or distinguished or a close personal friend of the editor and have a really good explanation, in which case they should be given a second chance or even a third.
15. What someone says is not so important as how they said it, what they were wearing when they said it, or their body language. As long as the details are accurate, it makes no difference how trivial those details are. Journalists should just report the facts, especially facts that give their story "color," and not worry about how important those facts are. (See Rule No. 1.)
16. Reporting on people's personal lives should be avoided unless the Drudge Report or the National Enquirer has already written about it, in which case you can report that they reported on it, which is not the same as reporting on it yourself.
17. Every prominent person should be assumed to be not gay unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary or they are dead, and usually not even then.
18. Victims of sexual crimes should never be named, but those accused of sexual crimes should be named even if their reputations are ruined because they probably wouldn't have been arrested if they weren't guilty of something. Shaming people accused of sexual crimes on television is a good way to discourage other people from committing such crimes, even if it leads to unfortunate consequences.
19. Ruining people's lives is generally frowned upon and should be avoided if at all possible unless the public has a right to know. A journalist must be completely dispassionate and not worry too much about the impact of the story they are writing on the people they are writing about or on the world in general as that would compromise their objectivity. (See Rule No. 1.)
20. If someone criticizes a journalist's reporting, especially if it is a blogger, the best response is to dig in one's heels and deny there is a problem, attack the critic as biased, concede a minor point or claim the criticism itself is trivial. A journalist must defend his or her credibility at all costs because without credibility, a journalist is no journalist at all.
-30-
Crossposted at Jon Swift
Xenophobe: Warrior Princess and the Perpetual Outrage Brigade are apoplectic this morning, because some of the questioners during last night's debate are Democrats—which, naturally, makes them PLANTS!!! of the liberal media.
[Insert your own rhetorical about standing up to terrorists if you can't stand up to Democratic voters here.]
This was supposed to be a debate where the Republican candidates got asked questions by average people—not necessarily Republican average people. And just because a question exposes a profound ideological hypocrisy—e.g. "What punishment would you give to women who get abortions if abortion is criminalized?" or "Why don't you support gays serving in the military?" (despite all the support-the-troops rhetoric)—doesn't mean the question isn't fair.
What's hilariously disingenuous about their outrage is that there are plenty of conservative voters who want answers to those questions. They have to ignore the reality of the GOP base in order to be pissed off about these questions—which is why they're hiding behind indignation about the questioners instead.
The anti-choice crusader and original gangsta of "youthful indiscretions" has died at 83.
If there is a god, may s/he show Mr. Hyde precisely as much compassion as he showed others during his lifetime.
[H/T Oddjob.]
Add this one to the long list of people who prey on kids who trust them.
A Broward minister was charged with sexual battery after he impregnated a teen congregant of a small neighborhood church, authorities said Wednesday.On top of all the issues of a guardian having sex with a minor, note that he wanted her to have an abortion to save his reputation.
Plantation police charged the Rev. Cory Cortezis Lewis, 33, with sexual battery on a victim between 12 and 18 by a custodian.
He was booked into Broward County jail Nov. 20 and bailed out the next day.
The church, at 2889 NW Sixth Ct., is the Fort Lauderdale-area branch of the Church Of God By Faith, in Jacksonville.
Lewis knew the teen her entire life, acting as both her minister and godfather, Plantation police spokesman Detective Phil Toman said. In 2006, he brought her to an empty house and a vacant business in Plantation, where he had sex with her on multiple occasions, Toman said.
Eventually, she got pregnant. At the time, she was 15.
"He was her godfather," Toman said. 'She referred to him as 'Daddy.' He was her minister and neighbor and friend of the family. He was trusted."
Lewis wanted the girl to have an abortion, fearing the baby would damage his religious reputation.
As the victim's pregnancy became obvious, Lewis confessed to the teen's family he had had sex with her, but said the baby wasn't his, according to court records.
He later confessed to the entire church congregation.
Thank Maude there are good American patriots like Audrey Jeskey to write letters to the editor when they stumble across travesties like SPRINGTIME FOR HITLER!
[H/T Christina.]
If anyone cares. I don't really give a rat fart what the candidates have to say, although I'm interested to see what questions CNN chooses for them.
Ron Paul got a lot of applause. Holy Maude, these guys are white. Look at that stage. It's like a Klan rally. Not that the Dems are much better.
Anyway...here we go.
