Jalen Rose and "Uncle Toms"

You may have not heard about the tempest in a teacup surrounding the "Fab Five" documentary about the 1991 University of Michigan B-ball team. The controversy centers around the seemingly gratuitous statement in the movie by Jalen Rose that Duke recruited “black players that were ‘Uncle Toms.’" Rose is trying to spin his comment as something he thought "when [he] was 17 years old" or as meaning something other than what-every-other-American-knows-it-means, but the sad thing is that he is blatantly not backing off of the comment.

Bottom line, those sentiments are racist. It's the whole "acting white" issue, and it's sad that a marvelously fortunate and exceptional black person like Jalen Rose can't grasp that, more often than not, success in life is the result of things like working hard, making wise decisions, and acknowledging time-tested social norms.

Grant Hill, a former player at Duke U. summed it up when he wrote on the NYTimes blog,

To hint that those who grew up in a household with a mother and father are somehow less black than those who did not is beyond ridiculous.

America's in trouble race-relations-wise and in general as long as "being black" means what Jalen Rose seemingly thinks it does.

Take time to watch MLK's "I Have a Dream" Speech

About Bush v. Gore . . . and those wacist wepublicans . . .

In an interesting profile of likely soon-to-depart SCOTUS Justice John Paul Stevens is this Liberal reconstruction of what happened in the Court's 2000 Bush v. Gore decision. What will the Supreme Court be like without Justice John Paul Stevens? : The New Yorker:

In Bush v. Gore, Stevens framed his colleagues’ decision as an insult to the judicial role, one that could, he wrote, “only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land.” In words that became better known than anything in the collectively written majority decision, he continued:


Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

Uh, it's probably the very essence of "rule of law" is not to change the rules in the middle of a controversy. The Left really struggles with that concept.

And another point needs correcting in the article:

After his clerkship, Stevens returned to Chicago and took a job at one of the city’s first religiously integrated law firms. Abner Mikva clerked on the Supreme Court the year after Stevens, then returned to Chicago to start a career in public life. “Those were the days when there was such a thing as a moderate Republican, and that’s what he was,” Mikva said of Stevens. “He was a pretty conservative Republican on economic issues, but he was always a great progressive on civil rights and social rights.”

Republicans as a party were certifiably more in favor of "civil rights" than Democrats.

And, near the end of the profile, my beef with Stevens comes to light:

Stevens, throughout his years on the Court, has drawn not just on history and precedent but on contemporary values and even on his own experience as a judge. According to Stevens, that approach has its origins in his brief stint as a lawyer on the staff of the House Judiciary Committee. “That was probably one of the most important parts of my education,” Stevens told me. He recalled an incident involving an antitrust law: “I remember explaining one of the tricky problems in the statute to one of the members of the committee. I got all through it, and he said, ‘Well, you know, let’s let the judges figure that one out.’ ”

What that told him was that “the legislature really works with the judges—contrary to the suggestion that the statute is a statute all by itself,” Stevens said. “There is an understanding that there are areas of interpretation that are going to have to be filled in later on, and the legislators rely on that. It’s part of the whole process. And you realize that they’re not totally separate branches of government—they’re working together.”

Whatever happened to judicial restraint (read: a proper, limited role of the judiciary) and separation of powers, not to mention textualism?

Damned if we're post racial, damned if we're not . . .

This article is intriguing in light of Harold Ford, Jr.'s yankee-patronizing comments about how Tennesseans would frown on his inter-racial marriage. The Woman Behind Harold Ford - The Daily Beast:

There were a number of reasons for wanting to keep [Ford, Jr.'s relationship with his then caucasian and now wife] quiet. For one, it was relatively new. For another, a month before his defeat, the RNC put out a now-infamous commercial featuring an actress who claimed to have met Ford at a party at the Playboy Mansion. “Call me,” she mouths at the end. The ad smacked of racism—implying that he was somehow unfit for office because he was a womanizer who liked white girls. (In point of fact, the ad was also deceptive; Ford is said to have been fairly indifferent to race where the women in his life are concerned. He was formerly engaged to a black woman.) Even though the ad was vilified, it did its damage.

The point was that he was a playboy (playa?), not that he dated white women.*

BTW, here's the humorous (and effective) ad:








*Incidentally, there's some interesting dirt in the article about Ford, Jr.'s level of playboy-ness:

About five years ago, [Ford's wife] met Ford at a wedding in New Orleans. At the time, he was known in political circles as something of a player. Says one woman who dated him briefly: “He pursued women vigorously and passionately, there’d be a week or 10 days of him being totally obsessive and then it was over. With me he just didn’t show up for a date.

Wow.


Hat tip, The Agenda.

Pause, reflect and dream today . . .

Al of Freddy's Fashion Mart fame speaks out on Limbaugh and NFL

From the master of division and incendiary-ness ("Group Cuts Ties With Limbaugh to Buy NFL Team" - FOXNews.com):

[Al] Sharpton added in a telephone interview that major sports leagues shouldn't welcome owners who are "divisive and incendiary."

Racism behind every tree (UPDATE)

I was disturbed by the headline on Drudge that mentioned the race of a victim in a "beat[ing]": "WHITE STUDENT BEATEN ON SCHOOL BUS; CROWD CHEERS." I am bothered by racism, wishing that we could somehow move beyond or through our country's (and our world's) troubled history on the subject. Indeed, a flippant accusation of racism by Mike Lupica today gave me a similar feeling (criticizing Conservative protestors thusly: "Or maybe this all just comes out of a fury that there weren't enough screamers to keep the black guy from getting elected.") Accordingly, I am always concerned that race be injected into--or hastily raised as a factor in, a given situation.

So I followed Drudge's link ("Tape shows beating on bus of Belleville West student" - STLtoday.com), and from reading the story, it appears that this is an example of a bully or bullies (or in a more modern articulation, "thugs") who perpetrated on a harmless victim--a guy who had the audacity to sit where a thug told him he couldn't.

I don't know anything about Belleville, Illinois, but a police spokesman seemed to jump to a racist conclusion:

"In my estimation, it's racially motivated," said Capt. Don Sax of the Belleville Police Department. He said one reason he had formed this opinion was that many of the students, most of whom were black, yelled their support for the beating.

"There was absolutely no justification for the beating either time," Sax said.

The still picture of the incident seems to reflect that a majority of the kids close to the incident were non-caucasians, yet the article says that, "students intervened to help the victim both times" (though "the crowd's" reactions generally reflect a disturbing moral poverty, too).

I won't deny that our society is coarsening, in general, but it is counter-productive in a variety of ways to summarily categorize such problems as motivated by race.

UPDATE: Ex-President (yes, picture the "Ex" who could never get the message) Jimmy Carter weighs in on the racial aspects of socializing healthcare . . . maybe Carter reads Mike Lupica.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

UPDATE II: It gets worse . . . from RealClearPolitics.com:RealClearPolitics - Why Can't We All Just Get Along?:

"'Surrounded by middle-aged white guys -- a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men's club -- Joe Wilson yelled 'You lie!' at a president who didn't,' declared Maureen Dowd in her Saturday New York Times column. 'But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!'

Of course, it's fair. If inserting a racial epithet into a quote is wrong, I don't wanna know what's right. It is, moreover, common knowledge that middle-aged white men are bigots. If there's a problem with Dowd's premise, it's that Wilson likely lacks the intellect to string together more than two words per sentence. He is from South Carolina, after all."

Yelling at cops and stuff

I hate to keep revisiting the Gates arrest story, because it will lead some people to assert or conclude that I'm piling on or that I'm a racist, but I think--like Gates purports to believe, that this is a teachable moment on this issue of race in America.

Here's the best op/ed I've read on the subject; it's by Barry Saunders. It has a bit of a surreal feel to it because it's hard to believe that Saunders--who claims to have been stopped "a hundred or so times" by police, is able to have such an easygoing attitude about the subject. However, I think Saunders strikes the perfect balance between objectivity and empathy on the subject. For the record, I am very concerned that officers not prejudicially make traffic stops, but that isn't what's at issue here, in my opinion. Apparently, this black Boston police officer agrees with me.

And one other comment-worthy thing that I've heard of late (from a handful of Conservative talk-show people, as best I can recall) is, "it's not illegal to yell at a police officer." That's not true. Police are involved in very dangerous work. I'd say at least once per week it crosses my mind that I would not want to walk up to a vehicle in a traffic stop on a dark, deserted highway (or during broad daylight). And they are often in the minority under very tense circumstances that can readily escalate or spin out of control; thus, officers have a legitimate basis for expecting citizens to not be disorderly in such a situation. Those conditions may or may not have been present in the Gates arrest, but it is not correct to flatly say, "it's not against the law to yell at a cop."

Not so fast, Professor Gates

In the wake of reports (here) that Cambridge police were contemplating the release of audio surrounding his arrest for disorderly conduct, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. says he's "ready to move on . . ." From the AP:

In an e-mail to the Boston Globe late Friday, [Gates] said: "It is time for all of us to move on, and to assess what we can learn from this experience."

In a statement to The Associated Press, Gates promised to do all he could so others could learn from his arrest.

"This could and should be a profound teaching moment in the history of race relations in America," Gates said. "I sincerely hope that the Cambridge police department will choose to work with me toward that goal."

Based on reading these statements, Gates appears eager to move on as well as intent on maintaining his victim status. I suspect Gates is not eager for the facts behind this incident to come out, but this will not truly advance the debate about "racial profiling" if it incorrectly continues as race-merchant fodder.

No license to rant

I am committed to racial reconciliation, and I'm always hesitant to touch the true third rail of politics--race, but a couple of stories of late have motivated me to point out that the color of your skin does not give you a license to rant (more than anyone else, at least).

You have no doubt heard about the man (Harry Alford) who confronted Sen. Barbara Boxer because she was lumping him in with other racially-designated organizations during a recent hearing. While I have to admit it was somewhat gratifying to see someone treating Mrs. Boxer ((grin) rudely, I have to admit that I never quite sympathized with Mr. Alford's indignation. After all, he is the head of an organization (the National Black Chamber of Commerce) that exists--ostensibly, to represent a group of people based on race (we have a purely "business" Chamber of Commerce). As a person is opposed to just about every policy preference of Barbara Boxer, it is difficult to care about what Mrs. Boxer is/was feeling, but I did sympathize with her predicament . . . Mr. Alford shouldn't lead with race and expect not to be categorized on that basis. That being said, maybe Mr. Alford and Boxer are now appreciating the sharp-edged nature of racial politics.

And on that note, the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr., a Harvard professor, should not be a news story (or not as it is being spun by the MSM (""Black scholar's arrest raises profiling questions"). I would bet that Gates (or at least Race Merchants) would have been up in arms if he had ended up dead or otherwise victimized because the police had ignored a report that two men with backpacks had seen forcing entry into an apartment. The facts as reported, even slanted in favor of Gates and even characterized as an example of possible racial profiling, do not justify Gates' actions.

Update: Charges Dropped Against Gates

Making hay out of straw men

Give me a break, Forrester.

Goforth's email was definitely racist. I don't condone that kind of stuff, and it is doubly offensive that she used state property (and likely state time) to send the email.

But this was not racist.

And the "Magic Negro" bit was satire, making fun of LIBERALS' view of Obama.

Stereotyping Republicans as racists conveniently stokes the racial division in our state and country. Grow up Chip.

Reconsidering class and race grievances

The WaPo has an article about how Obama will handle demands from "the Black community" going forward. I hadn't really focused on this issue prior to now, but it is interesting to consider the implications on America's fundamental governing values presented by blacks demanding something for their community. All of their demands--I perceive, revolve around ensuring equal outcomes from living life in the U.S. Unfortunately, ensuring equal economic outcomes rather than equal equal economic opportunity equals socialism.

Choosing School Unions over children in the area of Education policy. Aiding and abetting The "Community Reinvestment Act" shakedown in the area of Economic policy. Replacing fathers with public assistance in the area of social policy. These have been [arguably] well-intended policies, but we can see their fruit. Indeed, any intellectually honest person can observe the sour fruit of socialist policies.

Obama was heralded by many as a transformational post-racial politician. I hope that he represents the dawn of post-racial policies.

African American gentleman explains why he's voting Republican

Here's an entertaining and enlightening video explaining why at least one black voter is not backing Barack Obama.






hat tip: Dan Cleary.

the Bradley Effect: shame on who?

A post over at Dan Cleary's blog expresses a concern I've heard expressed by some Republicans/Conservatives that a McCain victory might be diminished if there is evidence of the so-called "Bradley Effect."

I'm not sure that it being a factor would necessarily diminish a McCain victory, unless "being truthful to pollsters" is the moral standard. Though racial prejudice MAY be one motivation for being a "Bradley Effect" voter, it is inarguable that concern about appearing racially prejudiced for not voting for Obama is really the motivation . . . and who's (here, here) to blame for that? Indeed, I think trumpeting this issue is simply another way to influence uncommitted voters toward Obama.

Aw gee, I hate the white guy, too

A WSJ article from today provides a glimpse of what we Republicans face if we criticize the Obama. "Hate" (in the title) isn't really accurate, I don't hate Obama or Biden, I just think they're wrong. From the article:

Over the weekend Sarah Palin accused Barack Obama of "palling around" with terrorists--a reference to his longstanding friendship and professional association with Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, husband-and-wife Chicago college professors who are unrepentant about their activities in the Weather Underground gang.

According to an "analysis" by Douglass Daniel of the Associated Press, "[Palin's] attack was unsubstantiated." Palin said she got her information from the New York Times, and we suppose it says something that this isn't good enough for the AP. Odder still is Daniel's claim that Palin's statement "carried a racially tinged subtext that John McCain himself may come to regret."

Reader, Mr. and Mrs. Ayers are persons of pallor. What could possibly be racist about Palin's criticizing Obama for associating with a couple of despicable characters who are white? This question brings us into the weird world of Douglass Daniel's imagination:

Palin's words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee "palling around" with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn't see their America?

In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers' day 40 years ago. With Obama a relative unknown when he began his campaign, the Internet hummed with false e-mails about ties to radical Islam of a foreign-born candidate.

Daniel does no reporting to back this up. He accuses Palin of racism because in his mind, terrorist implies Muslim, Muslim implies dark-skinned, and dark-skinned implies black.

This exercise in free association scarcely qualifies as analysis. Nonetheless, let us consider it step by step:

Terrorist implies Muslim. It is certainly true that America's terrorist enemies today are Muslims who justify their actions in Islamic terms. The terrorist fringe of the 1960s far left, by contrast, has withered away (or "sold out," in the parlance of the times). But there is nothing distinctively Islamic about tactics like bombing and kidnapping, which were used by outfits like the Weather Underground in their time and are employed by al Qaeda and its ilk today.

Moreover, as we have noted, the AP is sometimes at pains to avoid drawing a connection between terrorism and Islam when reporting stories about Islamic terrorism. Why does Daniel make the connection so casually here, when it is not even relevant?

Muslim implies dark-skinned. In fact, "Muslim" is a religious identifier, not a racial or ethnic one. Muslims are of all races and ethnicities. Daniel must be conflating Muslims with Arabs, the ethnic group to which the Sept. 11 terrorists belonged. Arabs do generally have darker complexions than people of Northern European origin.

Dark-skinned implies black. The racial identity of Arabs was a matter of some legal controversy in the U.S. early in the last century, but the courts generally concluded that they were white and thus eligible for naturalization under the racially discriminatory immigration laws in effect at the time. Arabs also are classified as white under the Census Bureau's racial taxonomy.

So Daniel seems to be saying that it is racist of Palin to note a nonracial commonality between Obama's white pals and the white men who attacked America seven years ago. Can you make any sense at all of this?

Neither can Daniel, so he changes the subject:

Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as "not like us" is another potential appeal to racism. It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American.

Most troubling, however, is how allowing racism to creep into the discussion serves McCain's purpose so well. As the fallout from [Jeremiah] Wright's sermons showed earlier this year, forcing Obama to abandon issues to talk about race leads to unresolved arguments about America's promise to treat all people equally.

Wait, didn't the Jeremiah Wright controversy prompt Obama to give the most magnificently brilliant speech on the subject of race since Martin Luther King, or at least Abraham Lincoln? That's what it said in the papers, anyway.

Getting back to Daniel and Palin, it seems his claim is that her speech was racist because it somehow called attention to Obama's race. To be sure, there are people who are prejudiced against Obama because he is black. Shame on them. People like them used to have a lot more influence on elections than they do now, both because they were more numerous and because in many parts of the country they disfranchised blacks (including through terrorism!).

Yet we'd venture that there are voters who are troubled by Obama's palling around with terrorists irrespective of his, or anyone else's race. Does the public not have a right to know because some part of the public may be racist?

Furthermore, let's assume for the sake of argument that an actual racist has the brainpower to puzzle through the complex twists and turns that led Douglass Daniel from the information that Obama pals around with terrorists to the conclusion that Obama is black.

Isn't it a good bet that he already knew?

Ouch; this'll probably leave a mark

Stanley Kurtz (of National Review Online) has a meticulous op/ed ("No Liberation") matching up Obama's (at-least-previously-expressed) views with the radical views of Trinity United Church of Christ. Some will claim it is old news, because it is based on a 1995 Chicago Reader piece, but I'd say this information that has gotten almost no attention from the MSM to date. Wow, that's a shocker ("Media Shilling you can believe in!!").

Brendan Loy charts Obama's post-candidate "calling"

I just read a post from Brendan Loy ("Obama rejects, denounces & disowns Wright"-- via ACK at "Post Politics") that raises several issues. Loy writes:

"Right now, at this very moment, we have an African-American candidate for president who commands overwhelming support within the black community, who has just explicitly and firmly denounced the radical and hateful nonsense that is all too often accepted and repeated without question within that selfsame black community. That's a very good thing. Wright will undoubtedly dismiss Obama's comments as, in Al Sharpton's words, 'grandstanding in front of white people,' but the truth is that Obama is speaking to black people, too -- he's speaking to everyone -- and he is sending a very clear message: enough with the bulls**t. Haven't conservatives been waiting for a black leader to do that for, like, forever?

. . . .

You can parse his words and question his timing, and you'll find plenty to criticize. But ultimately -- again, big picture, people -- he's doing the right thing, and it's a very important 'right thing.' Either his heart's n the right place, or, if you want to be all cynical about it, he's pretending that it is, and his overall message demands that he continue to do so, which is almost as good. Either way, the Barack Obama who spoke today is the natural ally of anyone who has ever despaired over the blame-whitey victimhood culture within the black community. No, he's not quite channeling Bill Cosby. He wouldn't be in this position if he were. No, he didn't throw Jeremiah Wright under the bus last fall. It's a delicate and difficult tightrope he's walking. He's not perfect. But no one is, and Obama is trying harder than anyone else has, on this stage, ever before. Be reasonable!

I'm not saying how we got here is entirely unimportant, but I think recognizing where we are now is vastly more important. And I think it would be a shame if Obama is now effectively crucified by both sides: the political right (and its newfound ally, Hillary Clinton), for not saying this sooner; and radical elements of the liberal-black community, for saying it at all. Rightly or wrongly, the takeaway lesson, if such a two-front assault destroys him, would be that a black politician cannot succeed on the national stage, at least until the baby boomers die off. Conservatives ought not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. (That's liberals' job!) Obama is doing the right thing here, and if he's a little late to the party, slap him on the wrist and then defend him against the coming Wright/Sharpton/etc. onslaught. And then beat him in November on security issues or whatever. But he's on the right side of this issue, and if he loses because of it, it will be a shame for everyone -- principled conservatives included."

First, I see that he also is referring to this as Obama's "Reverend Wright Moment" (a term I'm also hearing from other, various quarters this a.m.), and I also noticed that he predicted folks like me would say "better late than never." I think he's right on both points.

That being said--here's point number two, I think that Loy is not fully appreciating the meaning behind the term "Sister Souljah Moment." It is the Clintonian, purely-political-posturing aspect of the SSM maneuver that saps it of credibility--not to mention honor. While I commend Loy for his novel proposition, as a Conservative, I'm not buying it. With me at least, this one press conference has not established Obama's "speaking truth to (black) power" bona fides. I'm more than willing to cheer him on in this new calling after he--like Al Gore, becomes the man who used to be the "next President of the United States."

Oh, that Reverend Wright!?! Updated

News today that U.S. Senator Barack Obama has denounced reiterations, er, statements made by Reverend Jeremiah Wright yesterday. (here) Obama is denouncing the (previous but persistent) statements as being "divisive and destructive" . . . tell us about it, Senator.

It seems that the final straw may have been the Reverend's "politician" swipe. Apparently Wright doesn't realize that Obama is a new kind of leader . . . not a politician.

As for Obama's stance today, better late than never, I guess.


Update: I'm sorry, but I'm incredulous. I just watched Obama's statement concerning his Reverend's Monday TV appearance. If Obama has "spent [his] entire adult life trying to bridge the gap between different types of people," then he must have been sleeping in church his entire adult life. As I said over at Music City Bloggers, this may go down in (political) history as Obama's Brother Wright* moment.

Somehow I missed that about Rev. Wright

In his Oprah appearance this week Obama asserted that,

"[Rev. Wright] . . . acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were (sic) inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the, the greatness of this country with all its flaws . . ."

What is the big deal with Reverend Wright?

Many folks (mainly Democrats supporting Barack Obama for president) are eager to see the Rev. Wright story in the rear-view mirror. I, on the other hand, don't care about guarding Obama's political image, so I think it is worthwhile to answer the question, What is the big deal with Reverend Wright?

First, it certainly matters what is being taught at the church that a candidate attends. Especially if the candidate has been attending the church for 20 years, and especially if the candidate has emphasized the impact that said church has had on his/her life.

Second, Wright was certainly the heart, soul and voice of the church he pastored. And I think it is pretty clear that Wright (as well as Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago) adheres to Black Liberation Theology. So it is worthwhile--heck, it is essential in considering this matter, to ascertain what BLT is.

Here is what seems to be a good article about Black Liberation Theology. To non-Christians a consideration of BLT may seem like inside baseball. To secularists taking any person's religious views too seriously--unless that person is a Religious Conservative, of course ;)--might seem like a waste of time. Oh well. I kind of believe that a person's worldview is very important--especially if a person claims to have carefully chosen his worldview.