Uppity-Negro.com

Right, as the lovely and talented Hanne and George hinted with great subtlety and tact, I'm off to Minneapolis for a bit. Actually leaving tomorrow afternoon, but I'm not sure I'll have a chance to post again before then.

I trust you will all be on your very best behavior in my absence. Like the last time I left you all alone for a while. Only with the "best behavior" part instead.

Choosing an example at random, no one would make any snarky comments if I mentioned that I'm visiting Heather up there, right?

Of course not. No idea why I was worried.

Wait, that's right, because I know you people.

Posted by Aaron at 4:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (17) | TrackBacks (0)

Good Morning, Mr. Chips is an older (March, 2001) essay, but still a good read:

The general polarization of sexual, political and racial constituencies in this country, if not the world, are fueled by this curious, institutionalized system of self-delusion. Human beings are a summary of their own experiences. We hate mysteries and we are instant gratification junkies, looking to shade in all the answers on the SAT's, anxious to scratch off the window on the lottery tickets. Anxious to neatly categorize and file every human experience and becoming anxious when we cannot do so.

Racism, to me, is a set of misaligned algorithms, such as my hypothesis above, where anxious and uninformed people, threatened by the unknown, snap through a similar set of turns of logic, arriving at the conclusion that some humans are less human than they are, and the lack of respect and dignity the racist affords these people is therefore somehow justifiable in the eyes of God.

I'd toss in a quote from Trent Lott's BET appearance at this point, but kind'a doubt it would help much. Absolutely no bonus points for guessing which line. Not a one.

The liberal is, to my thinking, the most dangerous racist of all. The liberal is someone who has convinced himself he is an intellectual and above such things. The liberal denies the institutionalized nature of racism, that racism is genetically encoded into our social custom, and that we are all participants in the perpetuation of this diseased mentality.

Similarly, linking to an entry or two at TAPPED wouldn't be terribly productive either. Wouldn't have seen the things myself if Atrios hadn't mentioned them. I gave up on those folks even before the Ballenger thing.

If you don't know what the Ballenger thing is -- and I ain't going into it again -- I almost envy you.

Blacks and other minorities are often the most racist of all. Palestinians, often portrayed as cruel terrorists and evil men, are in reality some of the kindest and most gentle people on the planet. But, if you've been kicked around long enough, even the gentlest soul grows cold and hard and develops their own set of algorithms that can often justify even the most unthinkable acts.

That's the point when a lesser writer -- like me -- would ask, "Is there anybody out there I haven't offended?"

Priest just keeps on going.

The whole piece is good. Read it.

Funny thing is, that wasn't the piece I visited his site looking for, but I couldn't find the one I'd wanted. Maybe it was a USENET post, not an essay; it's been a while. Long enough that anything I dredge from my sievelike memory in an attempt to describe it would do terrible violence to the man's words, and quite possibly his point.

Luckily,

Renunciation is a state of nonattachment, acceptance of this going away. Impermanence is, in fact, just another name for perfection. Leaves fall; debris and garbage accumulate; out of the debris come flowers, greenery, things that we think are lovely. Destruction is necessary. A good forest fire is necessary. The way we interfere with forest fires may not be a good thing. Without destruction, there could be no new life; and the wonder of life, the constant change, could not be. We must live and die. And this process is perfection itself.

today's Daily Dharma comes close. Or close to what I took away from what he'd written, anyway.

Posted by Aaron at 12:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

While Jason is off galivanting around Omaha, George and I have to pick up the slack. Typical. See, this is why we never get nowhere as a people.

Of course, starting Saturday it'll just be George, but let's not worry about that now. Instead, have a look at the article he linked titled People of Color Who Never Felt They Were Black:

Brazilian slavery ended in 1889 by decree, with no civil war and no Jim Crow -- and mixing between light- and dark-complexioned Indians, Europeans, Africans and mulattoes was common and, in many areas, encouraged. Although discrimination against dark-complexioned Brazilians was clear, class played almost as important a role as race.

In Colombia, said Luis Murillo, a black politician in exile from that country, light-complexioned descendants of Spanish conquistadors and Indians created the "mestizo" race, an ideology that held that all mixed-race people were the same. But it was an illusion, Murillo said: A pecking order "where white people were considered superior and darker people were considered inferior" pervaded Colombia.

Murillo said the problem exists throughout Latin American and Spanish-speaking Caribbean countries with noticeable black populations. White Latinos control the governments even in nations with dark-complexioned majorities, he said. And in nations ruled by military juntas and dictators, there are few protests, Murillo said.

In Cuba, a protest by Afro-Cubans led to the arming of the island's white citizens and, ultimately, the massacre of 3,000 to 6,000 black men, women and children in 1912, according to University of Michigan historian Frank Guridy, author of "Race and Politics in Cuba, 1933-34."

American-influenced Cuba was also home to the Ku Klux Klan Kubano and other anti-black groups before Fidel Castro's revolution. Now, Cuban racism still exists, some say, but black, mulatto and white people mix much more freely. Lopez, the Afro-Venezuelan lawyer, said, "Race doesn't affect us there the way it does here," he said. "It's more of a class thing."

I may have added emphasis, for no particular reason.

Especially since the focus of the article is (ugh, hate this term) mixed-race people from elsewhere in this hemisphere dealing with the Icky Racial Issues here in the States, which are almost, but not totally unlike the Icky Racial Issues in their nation of origin.

Obsessing over the things ain't healthy, but ignoring them altogether isn't much better. . .

Posted by Aaron at 6:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0)

First off, here's Neil Gaiman explaining what the hell Boxing Day is:

(Basically it's the day you eat leftovers and sprawl a lot, named after the Victorian custom of servants getting their holiday "boxes" -- gifts of money -- the day after Christmas.)

Parentheses left in because it was a parenthetical remark.

Next up, Dr. Maulana Karenga explaining what the hell Kwanzaa is:

[Kwanzaa was created t]o introduce and reinforce the Nguzo Saba, the Seven Principles and through this, introduce and reaffirm communitarian values and practices which strengthen and celebrate family, community and culture. These seven communitarian African values are: Umoja (Unity), Kuji-chagulia (Self-determination), Ujima (Collective Work and Responsibility), Ujamaa (Cooperative Economics), Nia (Purpose), Kuumba (Creativity), and Imani (Faith).

Well, that's part of the response to the question, "Why was Kwanzaa created?" There's more at The Official Kwanzaa Web Site , if you wanted to know it.

And finally, Hanne Blank explaining what the hell Giggling Into the Pillow is:

Don't let any of your right-wing acquaintances see this book: they might get the idea that sex is supposed to be fun, and God only knows what would happen then. This book sucks! (And if you think that's an insult, you really need to read the book.)

Any questions? Comments?

Posted by Aaron at 2:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

From the film review Images - Hearts and Minds:

The title comes from the now infamous speech by Lyndon Johnson in which the president declared that "ultimate victory will depend on the hearts and minds of the people who actually live out there." Though Johnson was referring to the South Vietnamese, on whose behalf we fought Communist North Vietnam, Davis has taken Johnson's challenge as his own. His film appeals to our most primitive emotions as well as our highest intellect, linking these seemingly competing faculties through visual juxtaposition. Without the aid of a narrator, the movie alternates between eminent talking heads, stock footage, veteran testimony, and scarily, clips from corny Hollywood agitprop. It all forms a dense weave of sound and images that relies on us to connect the thematic dots.

I didn't realize it was out; I only looked for info on the film because David Horowitz uses the phrase in his brief polemic, A New Day for Republicans and America:

Everything that is wrong with the inner cities of America that policy can affect, Democrats are responsible for. Now the decks are cleared for Republicans to begin pointing this out, to begin the task of winning the necessary hearts and minds, and eventually to lead poor people in this country who are often minorities through the portals of the American dream.

He also tosses in "party of Lincoln," "bigotry of low expectations," and mentions that "[t]heDemocratic Party is the party of racial preferences and race-baiting."

I'll try this yet again, although it seems pointless: Politics and the English Language by George Orwell.

The Horowitz piece was linked up at BlackElectorate.com, but I really can't hold it against them. I'm the one who clicked the thing, after all.

Posted by Aaron at 12:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I couldn't resist. I just couldn't.

Glenn Reynolds writes:

KAUS IS TRYING TO INTRODUCE THE TERM "FRISTING" to describe hair-trigger unsubstantiated charges of racism.

It's looking like we might have a white Christmas here after all[.]

C'mon, say it with me: Dude, of course you're having a white Christmas.

This isn't one of them "hair-trigger unsubstantiated charges of racism."

I've been reading him for quite some time.

Also been reading Boondocks since it started. I wouldn't call the Kwanzaa gag in yesterday's strip a cheap shot, but probably would if it was made by someone with less familiarity with the Black community.

I'd explain the apparent double standard, but figure anyone who can't work it out on their own probably ain't worth talking to.

Now, if you'll excuse me, there is Emmylou Harrisy goodness with my name printed on it. Well, on the shipping label, anyway, along with a holiday message from Michelle, B & G.

Posted by Aaron at 9:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0)

Leftovers, that is. In the case of this Palm Beach Post article, Gulf War I leftovers:

The Pentagon continues with plans for another war with Iraq while more than 100,000 veterans still are trying to deal with the damage from the first one.

They suffer from the mysterious mix of neurological problems known as Gulf War syndrome. Symptoms include chronic fatigue, diarrhea, migraines, dizziness, memory problems and loss of muscle control. Researchers have been unable to explain how young, healthy soldiers returning home then developed life-altering afflictions.

[. . .] The government repeatedly has rejected suggestions of biological or chemical links. Most scientists have blamed stress, and on its Web site, the Pentagon tells Gulf War vets that "current medical evidence indicates that long-term health problems are not likely."

[. . .] Poor record-keeping has complicated research on the Gulf War problems. Before deployment, U.S. soldiers received several vaccinations -- including for anthrax and botulism -- but no one kept track of who got what. Scientists are left guessing about how vaccines interacted and performed in a highly toxic environment.

The Defense Department promises to do better in the next Iraq war[.]

Ok, everyone who trusts the Defense Department, raise your hand.

Keep your hand up if you've never been in the military, or otherwise worked with or for the Defense Department.

Yep, that's what I thought.

You warbloggers can put your hands down now.

I deleted a bit about a new study placing partial blame for all this on exposure to low levels of sarin nerve gas. Want to know more? There's a cluster of articles at Google News that'll let you read all about it.

Ok, mostly it's an AP story by Suzanne Gamboa appearing in various places. . .

Pass the lord and praise the ammunition, the Republicans finally seem to be putting the entire Lott fiasco behind them. From a story in today's Sun-Times, Lott confesses he had 'only myself to blame' :

Now that they have deposed one party leader and are to elect another today [ed. note - they already did], Senate Republicans are working to limit the damage that Lott's words had on GOP efforts to court minority voters.

''I think this will present no handicap whatsoever in our ongoing effort to convince the nonwhite citizens of our country that the Republican Party is the place to be,'' said Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the incoming No. 2 Republican leader.

''In the long sweep of American history, this is going to be a blip,'' he told ''Fox News Sunday.''

Yeah. Like, y'know, Reconstruction.

I added some emphasis in there, by the way. In case you couldn't tell.

There's also this bit, later in the article:

Lott's surprise endorsement of affirmative action will not change the GOP's opposition, senators said. Lott, in a late effort to salvage his job, declared his support on Black Entertainment Television last week.

''I don't believe that Republicans are going to start endorsing quotas and preferences,'' McConnell said.

Since affirmative action is synonymous with quotas and preferences.

Yep, things are right back to where they were before.

Utterly, hopelessly fucked.

Oh, and as for Lott's acceptance of responsibility?

''There are some people in Washington who have been trying to nail me for a long time,'' Lott told the Associated Press in an interview outside his home in Pascagoula, Miss. ''When you're from Mississippi and you're a conservative and you're a Christian, there are a lot of people that don't like that. I fell into their trap and so I have only myself to blame.''

Words fail me.

Posted by Aaron at 5:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (1)

By way of BlackElectorate.com, from the Guardian:

The controversial American black leader Louis Farrakhan yesterday tried to undermine the government's ban on him entering Britain by speaking live by satellite to a 1,700-strong audience in London.

Mr Farrakhan, banned for 17 years by successive home secretaries, used his first live address to Britain to lambast his exclusion. The Nation of Islam leader said Britain's colonial history was satanic, and that the government had banned him because it feared his presence would set black people free from white oppression.

The audience, overwhelmingly black and young, watched the transmission beamed from a mosque in Phoenix, Arizona, on a giant screen at the Apollo Theatre in Hammersmith. Unfortunately for Mr Farrakhan, who forbids his followers from drinking, the theatre is sponsored by the Carling lager.

And in an piece titled The Other Trent Lotts:

The problem isn't going away because Republican leaders haven't rid themselves of the habit of playing to the closet racists and the Confederate flag-waving yahoos who mean so much to the G.O.P. For 40 years the party has gone out of its way to court the enemies of black people. It's an offense for which it should be begging forgiveness.

Americans have made tremendous progress on matters of racial and ethnic tolerance over the past three or four decades. But those gains were made in spite of the ugly, backward, divisive and destructive behavior of many, many politicians in the Republican Party, including those at the very top.

I really liked that lip balm.

Posted by Aaron at 7:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

Then again, I sometimes read comic books, so my taste is suspect. In today's New York Times, Nick Hornby writes that Graphic Novels Speak Louder Than Words:

The more exposure to graphic novels one has, the more one realizes that the relative youth of the medium, at least in its current adult form, presents its artists with problems of appropriateness that the more established arts don't have. Whereas most established writers know what constitutes a novel, and filmmakers understand what will sustain a film, even the best comic-book artists sometimes seem unsure of their material and their intended audience.

Which might be a perception of the reader, not a problem on the part of the artist, but eh.

Lynda Barry's One Hundred Demons is mentioned favorably. Read the article for that.

Update: Actually, I'd been at NYT looking for The Shifting Lexicon of Race, a link to which Giles sent me, proving once again the value of leaving mail on the server if you're going to be dual-booting.

Apart from older words like "anti-Semitism" and "xenophobia," "racism" was the earliest and most potent of those terms. The word had actually been coined in the 1930's as a variant of "racialism," to describe the racial doctrines of the fascists. By 1960, however, people were using the term to describe a personal or collective disposition that ran too deep to be accessible to cursory introspection. That was the Catch-22 of "racism": if you denied it you could be suspected of not really understanding what it was about.

All of a sudden you could be held responsible for feelings you didn't know you had. "I'm not a racist" came to sound a bit like "I don't have any homosexual anxiety."

It's by Geoffrey Nunberg, "a senior researcher at the Center for the Study of Language and Information at Stanford University [and] a Consulting Professor in the Stanford Department of Linguistics."

Just because he's in linguisitcs, you shouldn't bring any anti-Chomsky feelings to the piece. The East Coast-West Coast rivalry among linguists is way worse than the one between rappers back in the day. . .

Posted by Aaron at 3:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

Not only can I not take compliments, I'm utterly incapable of even feigning proper Holiday Spirit. At least, not without assistance .

And I have absolutely no clue as to where I stole that image from.

As Priest said many years ago, "Drunk and alone on Christmas... the way life *should* be."

He used that in his .sig for a while, I think. Coincidentally, first message I clicked at Google Groups when I searched for it said:

As we get to "know" characters, *they* start to control story direction as possibilities for conlfict present themselves. Shoehorning in characters of particular race or gender just to check items off a list is, IMO the wrong way to go about it. A more organic approach, following the logic of the premise, and writing the Truth as The Writer understands it, is my preference. This does not always lead to The United Colors of Benneton. It's not always fair. But I'd rather that than PC utopian well-wishing (my pet peeve: multi-cultural street gangs).

Also a pet peeve of mine, but that's not helping the Holiday Spirit thing either.

I'll spare you the explanation of how I got from Priest's site over to Greg Morrow's unfavorable review of The Truth:

I'll also mention that in Simon and Kirby's original, the doctor in charge of the Super-Soldier project was clearly a refugee German Jewish scientist-- he was even named "Dr. Reinstein". For him to now be portrayed as a racist of this sort is distasteful at best, particularly given that this is all happening in World War II. I don't particularly want to read some kind of moral equivalence, that we were as big a bunch of evil racist jerks as the Nazis we were fighting, because we weren't.

More impressions than review, actually. He mentions that he didn't actually buy the thing.

Won't argue about that last sentence, either. That's moving even further from the Holiday Spirit, after all. . .

Posted by Aaron at 12:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I really do suck at taking compliments, you know.

I also worry about being rude, though. Not appearing, I'm used to that by now, but actually being rude.

So, um, I'll just thank Lauren and Emira of Soapboxgirls for their kind words, and also VASpider for hers, suggest that all of the credit and compliments should truly go to Heather, and leave it at that.

Which is probably also rude. Maybe I should just stick with what I'm good at . . .

Posted by Aaron at 11:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Anyway, so. This morning, in the oddly advert-low Chicago Tribune | GOP to be watched closely on race:For all of Bush's appeals to minorities in the 2000 campaign and during his first two years of office, he has little to show for it. Though the president enjoys high approval ratings overall, his marks from African-Americans tell another story. A poll published by The Wall Street Journal last week found 62 percent of blacks said they disapproved of Bush's performance as president, compared with 65 percent of Americans overall who approve.

Since the Democrats' embrace of civil rights legislation in the 1960s, African-Americans have become the most reliable component of the Democratic coalition. In many ways, those gains were more than offset by whites aligning with Republicans, especially in the South. And despite many efforts at outreach, no Republican presidential candidate has made serious inroads in the African-American vote.

Race, more than even abortion or guns, divides American politics like no other issue, with Democrats consistently backing issues that favor African-Americans and Republicans consistently opposing them. Since 1964, Bill Clinton is the only Democratic presidential candidate to capture a majority of the white vote (46 percent to 45 percent over Bob Dole in 1996).

Bush, who often talks about how his compassionate conservatism is a more inclusive philosophy, won only 9 percent of the African-American vote. But Lott's flameout over such a volatile issue shapes a different kind of problem for the president, namely that suburban white women might now have misgivings about him and the GOP.

Registration is required at the Trib, if you wanted to see the rest of that articke, or this one, GOP sees Frist as wound healer:

Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, said: "Few senators have a worse voting record on civil rights than Trent Lott--but Bill Frist is one of them. Frist has voted against sex education, international family planning, emergency contraception [the morning-after pill], affirmative action, hate crimes legislation and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act."

Anyojne surprised -- or denying -- that the GOP has a few problems appealing to wimmenandminorities (as usual, non-black people of color are ignored in this commentary/article) probably hasn't been paying attention the last few decades.

Posted by Aaron at 9:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

This week's This American Life, "Why We Fight," mentions an article from the New Yorker, The War On What? by Nicholas Lemann.

To the extent that the supremely confident hawks take seriously anyone who disagrees with them, it wouldn't be the multilateralists, whom they regard as sentimental and naïve, but old-fashioned foreign-policy realists, people who think of themselves as being hardheaded enough to conduct their discussion of American foreign policy on the ground of practical matters like national interest and balance of power. Moral campaigns to remake the world don't cut it with the realists. To them it's the hawks who are sentimental and naïve, and also dangerously incautious, because they overestimate the extent to which the United States can impose its will abroad without suffering unforeseen consequences. For the past year, the realists have been the dog that hasn't barked. (There is a left-wing argument against the war on terror, which proceeds from a suspicion of American power; it counts as a loudly barking dog because commentators who object to it have given it so much publicity.) The realists are practically reverential toward American power, but, unlike just about everybody in Washington—Administration hawks and moderates, Democrats and Republicans in Congress—they don't think there should be a war on terror.

Which I'd figured was very old news I'd somehow missed-- it was posted September 9th -- but according to blogdex, it wasn't discussed that much at the time.

No reason to start now, I expect. What with gearing up for attacking Iraq and all.

Posted by Aaron at 3:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

From Malaysiakini (and only part of the story is available for non-subscribers like me), Nepal bleeds by the thousands:

But what is different this year is the sheer volume of displaced people, and the fact that they are not seasonal migrants-many are not going to return until Nepal returns to normal. It is obvious that added up, there is a massive humanitarian crisis brewing here.

The outflow of villagers from insurgency-hit mid-western districts has now reached a peak. Officials at the border police post at Nepalganj told us they counted more than 8,000 people passed through during the week Dec 4-11, the highest weekly figure that they have ever recorded.

And from The Independent, Nepal atrocities blamed on government and Maoists:

A grim picture of deaths in army custody, disappearances, torture and child guerrillas is painted in an Amnesty report on abuses during the civil war blighting the Himalayan kingdom of Nepal.

The human rights group said yesterday it believed nearly half of the 4,366 people to die in the conflict over the past year may have been killed unlawfully. It found "unprecedented levels" of human rights abuses since November 2001, when talks collapsed between the Nepalese government and the Maoist guerrillas seeking to overthrow the monarchy and establish a Communist state.

The vast majority of the victims were civilians targeted "for their real or perceived support" for the Maoists, said the report. Others were "Maoists deliberately killed after they were taken prisoner or killed instead of being arrested." Amnesty International has recorded 66 "disappearances" – including six children – in the nine months to the end of August. Some of those who disappeared recently may still be alive and in the hands of the Nepalese army; others are feared to have been killed in custody and their bodies disposed of, said the 21-page report, Nepal: A Deepening Human Rights Crisis.

[. . .] Amnesty found abuses on both sides. It says Maoist forces killed an estimated 800 civilians considered "enemies of the revolution", with politicians and teachers a particular target. Amnesty accuses the guerrillas of torturing and murdering captives and taking hostages for ransom. The report says the Maoists regularly recruit children into their ranks, operating a policy of "one family, one member" in areas under their control. It says children are used in combat to help provide ammunition or evacuate wounded. Amnesty says it spoke to one 14-year-old girl who described children receiving weapons training at night after studying at school in the daytime.

Added a link to the report at Amnesty International's site, if you wanted to know more.

There's also a write-up at Nepalnews.com, again summarizing the AI report.

I have several theories about why this particular humanitarian crisis is pretty much ignored in the States, but none of them are very flattering to anyone.

Posted by Aaron at 1:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0)

If you don't recognize the source for that quote, you're probably at the wrong. . . aw, skip it.

From the BBC:

US Senate leader to resign

The Republican Party leader in the United States Senate, Trent Lott, is to resign.

His departure follows a rebuke by President George W Bush for speaking approvingly of a presidential candidate in the 1940s who had favoured racial segregation.

[. . .] Mr Lott is scheduled to face a meeting of US Senate Republicans on 6 January on whether he should remain their leader.

And there's an overview, if you've not been paying attention to this, ending with a note that Lott was "strongly rebuked by black organisations, President Bush and just about the whole of the Republican party, our correspondent says."

I'm not sure what this accomplished, but am confident there will be much self-congratulatory rhetoric. I'd look for it, but, y'know, not caring.

Also, by way of Atrios by way of Political Pulpit:

N.C. Rep. Admits 'Segregationist Feelings'

Responding to Sen. Trent Lott's recent comments, Rep. Cass Ballenger told a newspaper he has had "segregationist feelings" himself after conflicts with a black colleague.

Ballenger, a North Carolina Republican, said former Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., so provoked him that "I must I admit I had segregationist feelings."

"If I had to listen to her, I probably would have developed a little bit of a segregationist feeling," Ballenger told The Charlotte Observer in Friday's editions. "But I think everybody can look at my life and what I've done and say that's not true. I mean, she was such a bitch."

I would have a look at his life and what he's done, but, again, see title.

Update: I am resisting the urge to check with Tapped and their ilk,to see if they weigh in on Ballenger's comments. My annoyance with liberals is currently almost, but not quite, as great as my annoyance with conservatives and libertarians.

I'm moving rapidly towards Jason's "I hate everybody" position.

Oh, and I saw the new Joe Boxer ad with Vaughn.

Don't fucking get me started.

Posted by Aaron at 11:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBacks (0)

Reading Clare Sainsbury's Martian in the Playground : Understanding the Schoolchild with Asperger's Syndrome (which you can, you know, look up if you're not familiar with the term), and at one point she writes:

Shying away from a label simply reinforces the perception that having a disability is shameful, embarrassing, something that must be "hushed up" if the person in question is to be treated as an equal (imagine the response if someone announced that the solution to racism in schools was to "avoid labelling children as black").

I'd swear the Republicans and Libertarians suggested exactly that here in the States, but prefer not to go looking for quotes to that effect.

Which leads me to mention WampumBlog, whose tagline is "Progressive Politics, Indian Issues, and Autism Advocacy."

I could try to explain how Asperger's relates to autism, but I'm fairly confident I'd not only get it wrong, but I'd misrepresent the positions of at least half a dozen people in the process.

And I'm guessing the tagline there is more accurate than the rotating series that appear here.

On a totally unrelated note, Powell and Jeb Bush Criticize Lott for Remarks:

With the furor over Senator Lott well into its second week, and his future remaining uncertain, Mr. Powell declared himself disappointed in Mr. Lott's laudatory comments about Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign, which was based on preserving racial segregation.

"I was disappointed in the senator's statement; I deplored the sentiments behind the statement," Mr. Powell said at a State Department briefing with the Danish foreign minister. "There was nothing about the 1948 election or the Dixiecrat agenda that should have been acceptable in any way to any American at that time or any American now."

Mr. Powell added, however, that he felt Mr. Lott was "speaking with sincerity" when he apologized.

Not interested in Jeb's opinion my own self, but you can read it at the NYT if you want.

There was this note further in the article:

Their comments are significant for several reasons. Mr. Powell, the most prominent black member of President Bush's administration, generally confines his comments to international affairs. Though he has spoken out on subjects like affirmative action, he has been reluctant to act as the administration's spokesman on racial issues. Mr. Powell's comments are also noteworthy because it is unusual for a cabinet official to speak out against a Senate leader.

If I was in a particularly bad mood, I'd mention how Powell (and to a lesser extent, Condoleezza Rice) are used for their symbolic value regarding Republican diversity/inclusivity/whatever, while both rarely speak directly to the issue.

Luckily, I'm not.

Apropos of nothing, the article linked to Condi's name up there contains an offhand reference to Paul Laurence Dunbar's "We Wear the Mask".

We wear the mask that grins and lies,
It hides our cheeks and shades our eyes,--
This debt we pay to human guile;
With torn and bleeding hearts we smile,
And mouth with myriad subtleties.

Can't imagine why.

Posted by Aaron at 3:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

Not that I should expect much from TownHall.com: Conservative Columnists: David Limbaugh

People point to a similar statement Lott made in the eighties to prove that he must have intended a racial slur, but I'm skeptical. Regardless of my numerous political disagreements with Lott, he strikes me as a decent person who wouldn't harbor such repugnant views. Plus, racism requires a degree of passion. I see no passion in Lott about anything, except, perhaps, retaining the leadership position. And as I survey his tenure in office I don't see a record of racism.

Addition of emphasis, as per usual.

Ginger, being all voice-of-reasony, mentioned in a comment that people seem to be using different definitions of racism in this discussion. I'd toss in Affirmative Action as well -- not sure that term means the same thing to everyone, either -- but who needs rational debate, anyway?

Those of us who fought the struggle for equal rights for all people regardless of skin color in the early 60's have come to realize that the party of race, the party of racism, is the modern liberal party (the Democratic Party) that glorifies skin color (and gender and social class) over all things including freedom, right and wrong, and equal protection under the law. These modern liberals, (these Democrats) mock the truth when they label conservatives and Republicans who decry reparations, quotas, and the racism of "lower expectations" as "racists" rather than "liberators."

They got David Horowitz.

Shame, really, given that recent oft-reprinted Reuters article detailing how Race not reflected in genes, study says:

The idea of race is not reflected in a person's genes, Brazilian researchers said, confirming what scientists have long said -- that race has no meaning genetically.

The Brazilian researchers looked at one of the most racially mixed populations in the world for their study, which found there is no way to look at someone's genes and determine his or her race. Brazilians include people of European, African and Indian, or Amerindian, descent.

"There is wide agreement among anthropologists and human geneticists that, from a biological standpoint, human races do not exist," Sergio Pena and colleagues at the Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais in Brazil and the University of Porto in Portugal wrote in their report, published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"Yet races do exist as social constructs," they said.

I'd be interested in what they have to say about that.

Wait, no I wouldn't.

Update: Why do I do this to myself?

TRENT LOTT'S ENDORSEMENT OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION wasn't an abandonment of his racist past, of course. It was just an endorsement of racism in a different guise. [. . .] Lott has sold out everyone -- from his own party to black schoolchildren who are ill-served by pork-obsessed interest groups -- to save his skin. And he hasn't abandoned racism, but has endorsed it out of opportunism and cowardice.

That's Glenn Reynolds, giving us the condescending het white boy 'net pundit perspective.

Sorry, giving us the One Objective Truth, from his position above the fray.

Posted by Aaron at 9:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (25) | TrackBacks (0)

Haven't noticed any op-eds from Glenn Loury recently, which I think is a shame.

Doubt I'd agree with everything he says, but at least it would probably be something new and original to disagree with. I swear, if I read one more glowing history of the Civil Rights record of the Republican party. . .

Any road up, did find an interview with Professor Loury from the distant year 2000, about some report from the even more distant year 1965. Hardly anything of interest to contemporary readers.

Question: How does the Moynihan Report stand today in the year 2000? 

Glenn Loury: I have to say it looks pretty good. A fairly prescient piece of social forecasting would, I think, have to be a fair-minded person's judgment. I wish I could produce a document that would look as good 35 years from now as that one did. 

I mean, what Moynihan saw in 1965 was a quarter of African American children born out of wedlock. What we have today is going-on 70 percent of African American children born out of wedlock. What Moynihan hinted at in 1965 was that there could be a substantial number of blacks who, despite the extension of equal opportunity, would still languish in ghettos and continue to live in poverty. What we see today in the year 2000 is that a substantial number of African Americans, despite the expansion of opportunity, still live in ghettos, languish in poverty, and are outside the orbit of American opportunity. Moynihan suggested that the task of bringing blacks fully into the American society would require more than simply stopping employers from discriminating and changing welfare policy, or whatever it might be. What everybody, I think, understands today is that that is, indeed the case. So, I don't think it's close. The report looks pretty good in retrospect. 

Question: Some people have said that we are now experiencing a new economy. Do you think that the old pattern of big booms, big busts are behind us, and we're in what some might call a "Goldilocks economy" - not too hot, not too cold, but moving along at a good pace? 

Glenn Loury: Well, I have to say as an economist I'm a little skeptical about all this talk about the new economy. I don't think, frankly, anybody knows what is happening just now. We don't have yet enough distance from events to be able to really analyze deeper causes. There are changes going on, with information technology and the rest, that will, I think, no doubt show themselves in terms of the structure of American economic relations, and behavior. But, to conclude that the business cycle has been repealed, that we don't have to worry about recessions anymore, that all bets are off, and we're in a whole new world, I think is premature. 

We've been, thankfully, enjoying the benefits of a long economic expansion during the 1990s. But, I think we would be very unwise, indeed, if we did not count on the expansion coming to an end, and our having to deal with a period of recession and a rise of unemployment, as has been the case throughout economic history of the United states, going back to the late eighteenth century. 

I left that second question and answer in out of spite.

Posted by Aaron at 5:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I started reading my way through the Human Sexuality section for the basics. The mechanics of a woman’s orgasm (predictably complicated), the mechanics of a man’s orgasm (predictably simplistic), the impact a tilted uterus has on fertility, the specific hormone released during nipple stimulation, and, of course, the symptoms (with pictures!) of every sexually transmitted infection ever known to man.

That's from Sexual Mechanics, by Jessa Crispin, over at The Morning News, which link I followed from Michelle's place.

I'm taping Buffy for her tonight, so you can all relax.

As for the Crispin piece,

I categorized the callers into two groups: the crying girls and the stupid boys. The crying girls had the same basic storylines. They were either late, pregnant, raped, just had a condom break, or had a sudden, mysterious rash, you know, ‘down there.’ I tried to be a good listener, letting them get through their stories before gently pushing for testing or a police report. I gave out numbers to abortion clinics much too often. [. . .] The stupid boys elicited a completely different response. They didn’t want someone to listen, they wanted someone to tell them they weren’t idiots. The problem was, they were idiots. I couldn’t believe anyone would ever have sex with them.

It reminds me that I didn't mention adding that link to Scarleteen a few days back.

No idea why.

jhames has a (fairly) new piece there, by the bye.

And I really should add e-schwa to the link list at some point.

Not sure the link there to Monique's works -- d'you also have hideouskinky.com? -- but I'm not sure how to bring that up.

Not sure how to mention that Heather updated today, either.

Really should pick up the weblog handbook one day. . .

Posted by Aaron at 10:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBacks (0)

From Reuters:

UNITED NATIONS, Dec 16 (Reuters) - Despite global treaties, children are being recruited as soldiers by governments in the Congo, Burundi and Liberia and are prevalent among rebel groups in Colombia, the Philippines, Uganda and Sri Lanka, a new United Nations report said on Monday.

Olara Otunnu, the U.N. special representative for children and armed conflict, said the report for the first time named governments and groups recruiting youths younger than 18 for military combat.

Emphasis added, for no particular reason.

One of the groups mentioned in the report is in Nepal, which is what I was searching Google News for. Another story that came up was Donors alarmed at Nepal violence from the BBC:

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has called for an early resolution to Nepal's long-running Maoist insurgency to revive the country's battered economy.

Its representative in Kathmandu blamed the poor security situation for the country's present economic crisis.

The move follows news of Nepal's worst economic performance in 20 years.

[. . .] A number of aid projects have come under rebel attack since the rebels launched an armed struggle to replace the monarchy with a communist republic.

[. . .] The rebels recently renewed their long-standing offer to hold peace talks, and announced that attacks on the kingdom's civilian infrastructure would be stopped.

The government has also said that the "doors of dialogue" are open.

And a third, 10 Maoists killed in west Nepal from The Hindu:

Security forces today gunned down at least 10 Maoist rebels in anti-terror operations in western Nepal, the Defence Ministry said here.

The rebels were killed in operations in Bardia and Kailali districts, a Defence Ministry statement said, adding guns, socket bombs, medicines, explosives and country made weapons were recovered by the security forces.

Meanwhile, Minister for Information and Communication Ramesh Nath Pandey said Maoist rebels had targeted telephone towers and exchanges in 276 places in 45 districts in the past one year leaving at least 19 districts without telephone connection.

It would take about three years to restore the communication facilities, the Minister informed the Remote Region Committee of the Upper House yesterday.

However, the Government has set up V-SAT telephones in some districts to establish link with the district headquarters, Pandey said.

Saw something a while ago about developing countries using cell phones instead of building/maintaining a landline infrastructure, and the economic impact of that on exporters of raw materials like copper (does anyone still use copper in phone lines?).

No ages or genders were given for the rebels killed by the Nepali security forces.

Oh, and from that first, Reuters article:

The standards being violated include a number of human rights pacts as well as an amendment to the 1990 Convention on the Rights of the Child that prohibits the use of children younger than 18 in combat.

I don't think the US ever ratified that.

The BBC links to Info-Nepal, which in turn links to an interview in the Washington Times, of all places, with Baburam Bhattarai, "the No. 2 leader of the Maoist insurgents now battling the 234-year-old monarchy in Nepal[.]":

As per your query about my individual background, you can take me as a typical representative of a Third World educated youth of peasant background, who finds the gross inequality, oppression, poverty, underdevelopment and exploitation of the overwhelming majority of the population in a class-divided and imperialism-dominated world just intolerable, and grasps Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as the best scientific tool to change it positively.

I'm quoting here. There's a <blockquote> tag and everything.

There's also a link to NepalNews.com, if you wanted to know more. I don't know enough about the place to vouch for the accuracy of any of the information, I'm afraid.

I know, I know, a real pundit wouldn't let a little thing like that stop him. . .

Posted by Aaron at 9:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (17) | TrackBacks (0)

It was the spelling sent me off looking for info about the band. This is how my mind works. It frightens me, too.

Again with the BlackElectorate.com links, this time to Being judged by colour is starting to get under my skin, by Sharon Verghis in The Sydney Morning Herald:

In this brave new Sydney I'm suddenly paranoid about my pigment. Last week my paranoia was fuelled after a fairly surreal encounter in a taxi. Driver checks me out speculatively. "Where you from?" he demands suddenly.

"Sydney," I say automatically.

"No, where you really from?"

I sigh and answer: "Malaysia."

He checks me out. A pause. "So you Muslim?" - "Er, no."

A few uncomfortable moments of silence, punctuated only by Alan Jones on the radio - and then I crack. "I'm Indian," I say finally. "You know, Gandhi, butter chicken, Bollywood."

He grins. I'm not going to put a scimitar to his throat after all. So now we can chat about the weather and Indian restaurants for the rest of the trip.

[. . .] I found myself uttering a silent thank you - that I was Indian, not Lebanese Muslim. Sure, we may bomb a few Sikh temples and there's Kashmir and the nuclear weapons program, but Australians, bless their hearts, tend to think of us as a benign, head-wobbling bunch - Apu in The Simpsons crossed with that nice, funny-sounding doctor down the road. Rapists? Terrorists? Not us, mate.

Well, that's the one advantage to being Black, I suppose. People don't demand to know where you're from, where you're really from. Yay us.

Found the mention of Living Colour's Thursday, 1/16/03 show in San Francisco, CA at the Great American Music Hall at LivingColourNet.com. If you were wondering about the title.

Posted by Aaron at 12:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Giles, who's supposedly on hiatus, manages to find an editorial in the Detroit Free Press that sums up my thoughts on the entire Lott episode better'n I've managed to express them in a number of entries:

Then there were the far right-wingers and their reaction to Lott. This was really a hoot. Their approach -- sadly practiced by radio and TV hosts who spout the same position -- was not to admit the mistake, but to immediately point to similar mistakes by the other side.

"What about Robert Byrd? What about Jesse Jackson?"

This is so childish, it barely merits response. What about them? They made stupid statements, too. Does that somehow forgive what Lott said?

I even heard one conservative host say Democrats should be ashamed because "the Democratic party is the party of segregation."

Another cynical trick. Find some historical fact, then yank it into the present as a defense shield. Yes, Thurmond was originally a Democrat. But 54 years ago, he broke from his party because it moved too far toward integration. And the 1964 Civil Rights Act was under a Democratic administration. And on and on. . . .

This is why he's the Good Twin.

Other thing that's been bothering me, and which I've mentioned a few times, is the Republican acceptance that the Democrats pretty much hold a monopoly on the Black vote.

They offer no explanation for this.

Other than offhand comments about how it's "crazy for [us] to be voting for anyone but the GOP," or dark hints like those expressed by John McWhorter:

Most black Americans sense pulling the lever for Republicans is a "disloyal" act, and playing a large part in this is a sense that the Republican Party is riddled with bigots. Few myths exert as powerful an influence over blacks of all education levels as the idea that there is a racist "backlash" eternally on the horizon.

Since he's talking about them other black Americans, he offers no explanation for this "sense," or why this "myth" is so pervasive.

Anyone seen anything vaguely resembling introspection from them? Some suggestion that maybe the problem isn't us, it's them?

Had a look, but found nothing but stuff similar to the above, along with attacks on Jackson, Sharpton, the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP. . .

For that matter, does it look like any of them have ever, you know, asked a black person why they didn't vote Republican?

Wacky idea, I know.

Update: While we're waiting for Lott's appearance on BET (8 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. Eastern, check your local cable listings), there's an article at BET.com (linked at BlackElectorate.com about how "Black Republicans Appalled, Want Lott to Step Aside":

Shannon Reeves, president of the NAACP in Oakland, Calif, a Republican since her college days, came close to calling for Lott to step aside from the Senate position, telling BET.com "...when public officials make mistakes they give them an opportunity to stand aside gracefully. The Republican Party wants to continue to make the case that there is room for African Americans. So anything that impedes that is something that will be moved aside."

Um, that's he. Giles was just telling me about the guy the other day. But you get the gist.

Staff in the offices of the Bush administration's highest ranking African Americans, Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, told BET.com Powell and Rice had no comment.

Heh.

Posted by Aaron at 9:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (17) | TrackBacks (0)

From The Corner on National Review Online:

LOTT: THE OTHER SIDE [John Derbyshire]
I've had a number of e-mails along the following lines, and I assume every other NRO staffer has, too. The following quote isn't one of those e-mails, it's a compound I've put together by distilling the essence of several. I don't say you have to like it; but it's a strong vein of opinion out there among NRO readers. Here you go: "I am sick and disgusted with all this hammering on Lott. What do we have to do to appease these race lobbies? How long shall we be expected to keep apologizing? We de-segregated--fair enough. Then we had to swallow Affirmative Action, MLK day, Rodney King, O.J. Simpson, and all the posturing, hypocrisy, and fake anger about 'racial profiling.' Still it goes on, and we are still supposed to be cringing, apologizing, beating our breasts and moaning: 'Guilty! Guilty! We are all guilty!' Black politicians can say anything they like about us--the most hateful, ignorant things--and nobody turns a hair. Yet when some white guy makes an ambiguous, incidental remark like Lott's, he's torn to pieces by a howling mob of white media liberals--every one of whom, if he had been living in the South in 1948, would have been a segregationist. Heck, every white Southerner was."

Emphasis added. No, really. I would have added more, but it seemed like overkill.

And remember, that's the ones with enough brainpower and disposable income to have access to e-mail.

That's the sort of person I associate with the Republicans.

And possibly -- I can really only speak for myself, you know -- possibly, other Black people do as well, and this is the reason we avoid the fuckers like the plague. Not because of any great love of the Democrats, but because the Republicans are more openly, blatantly racist.

Ah well, in for a penny. . .

I'm not a politician, not even a student of politics; in fact, I'm not a student of much of anything. I'm not a Democrat, I'm not a Republican, and I don't even consider myself an American. If you and I were Americans, there'd be no problem.

. . . in for a pound. That's from Malcolm X's The Ballot or the Bullet, if you didn't recognize the quote.

Because Texas is a lynch state. It is in the same breath as Mississippi, no different; only they lynch you in Texas with a Texas accent and lynch you in Mississippi with a Mississippi accent.

I should point out that this is from 1964.

He's not talking about Lott and Bush.

There is mention of a filibuster, in the context of civil rights legislation. Three guesses who he's talking about.

If a Negro in 1964 has to sit around and wait for some cracker senator to filibuster when it comes to the rights of black people, why, you and I should hang our heads in shame.

No, really, take a guess.

Posted by Aaron at 7:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (1)

Which is slightly more accurate than the previous entry; haven't been by there in ages.

So, there's this entry:

Plastic: What's In A Name? Well, It Might Be Your Next Job...

"Two professors at the University of Chicago and MIT conducted an experiment:

Nine names were selected to represent each category: black women, white women, black men and white men. Last names common to the racial group were also assigned. Four résumés were typically submitted for each job opening, drawn from a reservoir of 160. Nearly 5,000 applications were submitted from mid-2001 to mid-2002. [The professors] kept track of which candidates were invited for job interviews.

"So what happened?:

Applicants with white-sounding names were 50 percent more likely to be called for interviews than were those with black-sounding names.

"Surprising? Maybe not, but certainly something to think about when it comes to naming Junior or Juniorette." And what the hell is a 'black-sounding name' anyway? 'Ebony'? 'Charcoal'?

It's that last sentence drives home the point that I'm not supposed to be there.

Yes, what do those people name their children? Surprised they didn't toss in 'Buckwheat' or something.

Reading the actual article -- does anyone do that these days? -- there's an answer, right at the top:

To test whether employers discriminate against black job applicants, Marianne Bertrand of the University of Chicago and Sendhil Mullainathan of M.I.T. conducted an unusual experiment. They selected 1,300 help-wanted ads from newspapers in Boston and Chicago and submitted multiple résumés from phantom job seekers. The researchers randomly assigned the first names on the résumés, choosing from one set that is particularly common among blacks and from another that is common among whites.

So Kristen and Tamika, and Brad and Tyrone, applied for jobs from the same pool of want ads and had equivalent résumés. Nine names were selected to represent each category: black women, white women, black men and white men. Last names common to the racial group were also assigned.

[. . .] Apart from their names, applicants had the same experience, education and skills, so employers had no reason to distinguish among them.

The results are disturbing. Applicants with white-sounding names were 50 percent more likely to be called for interviews than were those with black-sounding names. Interviews were requested for 10.1 percent of applicants with white-sounding names and only 6.7 percent of those with black-sounding names.

[. . .] At the low end, the interview-request rate was 2.2 percent for Aisha, 3.8 percent for Keisha and 5.4 percent for Tamika, compared with 9.1 percent for Kenya and Latonya and 10.5 percent for Ebony.

Hey, what do you know? That is a black-sounding name. Oh, the hilarity.

There might be something intelligent in the comments at Plastic, but I'd rather not risk losing even more of my will to live.

From another write-up, this one at HR Daily News > Study Finds Influence of Name Discrimination:

Applicants with “white-sounding” names, such as Kristen or Brad, were 50 percent more likely to be called for an interview than were those with “black-sounding” names, such as Tamika and Tyrone, according to the study.

[. . .] The results were even more striking for the nine names used that are common among black folks. For example, Aisha had an interview-request rate of 2.2 percent, compared with 9.1 percent for Kenya and Latonya, the Times reports.

Another issue raises serious concern among the authors of the study. For names common among white people, the researchers found when an applicant’s credentials increased, so did the prospective employee’s chances of getting called in for an interview. However, this is much less so for applicants with names common among black people.

I suppose if there's zero chance you or anyone you know might possibly be affected by this -- you're a white guy named Brad Majors or something, and either have no black friends, or none with "black-sounding names" -- this is all quite amusing.

Asshole.

Update: Decided to have a look for the actual research paper. The authors, according to the Times article, are Sendhil Mullainathan and Marianne Bertrand. No joy.

And I heard a bit about this study -- or rather, the article about the study -- on The Tavis Smiley Show a few days back.

Didn't seem worth commenting on at the time, because I can't say I was surprised at the findings. . .

Update: Well, I suck. There is a PDF of the paper, "Are Emily and Brendan More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination," linked at Yale's Department of Economics Applied Microeconomics Workshop. As was mentioned in a comment from Anarchus, in the thread at Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal about all this.

Which link I only saw at Kieran Healy's Weblog because of Drapetomaniac's comment here.

I should get out more often.

Posted by Aaron at 3:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBacks (0)

Except, y'know, I do, obviously.

Back on December 12th (Happy belated Birthday, by the bye), he wrote/linked:

An article from South Africa's Independent Online reports that 60 percent of South Africans feel that the country was better run under apartheid compared to the current government.

Horrifying stat, that. Checking the article, it states:

Most South Africans, both black and white, believe the country was better run under apartheid and say unemployment and crime are the government's top challenges, according to two new polls released this week.

[. . .] But they also revealed a growing sense of "apartheid nostalgia" as South Africa grapples with high crime rates, increasing corruption and rising joblessness following the end of white rule in 1994.

Quite horrifying. That's the first and third paragraphs, by the way.

The second is:

The polls, part of the "Afrobarometer" series of public opinion surveys, found South Africans had generally positive assessments of how their country was governed, and were growing increasingly optimistic about the future.

Emphasis added. The article, "Things were better in the bad old days" by Andrew Quinn, goes on to say:

"It's not that they want to return to apartheid, but in retrospect it was a time when trains ran on time," said poll director Robert Mattes on Wednesday.

"It was a harsh, repressive, but seemingly efficient government."

[. . .] Whites had the highest levels of nostalgia, with 65 percent now identifying positive elements to whites-only rule compared with 59 percent in 2000 and 39 percent in 1995.

But black respondents were also beginning to wax nostalgic, with 20 percent now giving a positive rating to certain aspects of life under the apartheid regime, compared with 17 percent in 2000 and eight percent in 1995.

[. . .] Despite growing nostalgia for the past, the poll found South Africans becoming more positive about their government and its direction for the future - although they rate unemployment, poverty, crime and Aids as serious challenges.

A total of 54 percent gave positive marks to the country's current system of government, up 18 points from 1995.

Among whites, 46 percent gave the current government positive ratings, compared with just 12 percent in 1995.

So, y'know, it's complicated. What I jokingly call the real world is like that. But nothing in the article lends itself to this bit from Darmon:

I personally do not want to see South Africa go back to the bad old days. If I were Thabo Mbeki, I'd heed the poll results as a warning sign to get it in gear lest history repeats itself.

The first sentence pretty much defines 'net punditry. A forceful statement of an utterly predictable sentiment -- Christ, despite the title the copyeditor stuck on that article, who does want a return to the bad old days?

That was a rhetorical question. If you have an answer, you really needn't share it.

Posted by Aaron at 2:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I'd show much more enthusiasm for this John McWhorter editorial

It's not that Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott has "hurt" anyone by crowing that if Strom Thurmond had become president in 1948, "we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years." If we African-Americans claim to be a strong people, then one man embracing a segregationist campaign 54 years in the past cannot send us into therapy.

which I noticed over at PejmanPundit, if I hadn't just spent entirely too much time wandering around the right-wing blogs.

First off, John Hawkins asked for, and promptly received, "race related quotes made by left-wingers." You see,

Many people have pointed out -- correctly I might add -- that there is a double standard when it comes to race. Conservatives get pounded on the issue while left-wingers largely get a pass.

Perhaps if I hadn't read this after seeing a comment at Oliver's mentioning "the Tawana Brawley incident" and Al Sharpton. Oh, and Oliver calls Sharpton "camera hungry buffoon." This may not be the first time he's done so, but checking would mean spending more time reading his prose. Can't do that to myself, not even in the interests of research.

Oh, and the leftist/liberal/whateverthefucktheyare at Tapped say:

DISCARDED POLITICIANS OF THE PAST. Forget Trent Lott. You want divisive racial politics? Just wait until the Rev. Al Sharpton makes a formal announcement that he's a Democratic presidential contender.

Because, you know, the camera-hungry buffon has done as much damage as legal segregation ever did.

Not that I'm all that fond of the guy, but a wee bit of perspective might be in order, I think.

Anyway, Tapped links to a George Will column about this, and a few other articles. Reading those would do wonders to improve my mood, I'm sure, so I'm saving them for a special occasion.

Let's see, what else. . . guess I could check the browser history to find out what order I hit these in.

Nah. Hardly matters. Here's Jerry Lawson:

I wouldn't know Trent Lott from any other joe on the street. He supposedly tried to keep Blacks out of his fraternity in the early 60's. God, the HORROR!

HELLO! In Mississippi in '60s, segregation was the custom AND the law.

In case any of you had forgotten this.

Diane at Letter from Gotham:

THE SILENCE OF THE DEMS. The weirdest thing about this Trent Lott brouhaha is that he is saying that the country should have voted for a Democrat in 1948. Maybe they don't want anyone to revisit the "Dixiecrats" love of Jim Crow and so are observing radio silence.

In case you thought this had to do with the Republicans.

Speaking of radio, I heard a bit of Jesse Jackson Jr.'s comments on the broadcast from Rainbow/PUSH yesterday (but found the link to his site at Eschaton ):

Finally, there is institutional racism. We've actually made significant progress as a country on the first four levels of racism as I've defined them. The most insidious level of racism, however, is institutional racism. When the unemployment rate for Blacks is more than twice that of Whites, that's institutional racism. When the infant morality rate for Black babies is several times that of White babies, that's institutional racism. When they want to tear down and rebuild an airport and put 195,000 new jobs and $20 billion of economic activity in a predominately White area that already has an over-abundance of both, and then put most of the Section 8 housing in an area where we live with few jobs, few services and high taxes, then you know you're looking at institutional _ _ _ _ _ _ - well, unbalanced economic growth.

Now how does this apply to Senator Lott? Let me suggest that Senator Lott's words have to be put in an historical context and prioritized.

There's much historical context in the piece. And that's the (and actually, my) Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. (D-IL-2). He should not be confused with his father,

(CHICAGO, IL) Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, Sr., founder and President of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition issued the following statement calling for Senator Trent Lott’s resignation.

“Trent Lott must step down. A bipartisan majority of U.S. Senators must demand his resignation. He is supposed to be the Senate Majority Leader for all Americans, but he has once again shown he is interested only in Confederates."

Not sure I agree with that sentiment, but again there's some of that historical context thing.

You know. The stuff that was entirely absent from the initial right-wing pile-on.

The comments from Lott going back decades that he, as John Hawkins would put it, got a pass on.

Funny, that. For an expansive definition of "funny."

Last word from McWhorter, since I can't really come up with a response to all this:

Claims that Mr. Lott would prefer a segregated America are overheated and unprovable. But what his comment shows is that in the end, the civil-rights victories are not very important in his scheme of things. And his speeches for the antediluvian racists of the Council of Conservative Citizens group only make this clearer. And in that, our sense of offense goes beyond the paranoid.

When the balance of power in our government is tipped so sharply in Republicans' favor, the Senate majority leader will be one of our nation's half-dozen most influential people in the lawmaking process. A black person is not being melodramatic to wonder how high his concerns will rank for a man who finds Mr. Thurmond's obscure views on defense a more resonant memory than his ardent espousal of a racist caste system.

Posted by Aaron at 11:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

They're gathered in circles
the lamps light their faces
The crescent moon rocks in the sky
The poets of drumming
keep heartbeats suspended
The smoke swirls up and then dies

Would you like my mask?
would you like my mirror?
cries the man in the shadowing hood
You can look at yourself
you can look at each other
or you can look at the face, the face of your god

The stories are woven
and fortunes are told
The truth is measured by the weight of your gold
The magic lies scattered
on rugs on the ground
Faith is conjured in the night market's sound

Would you like my mask?
would you like my mirror?
cries the man in the shadowing hood
You can look at yourself
you can look at each other
or you can look at the face, the face of your god

The lessons are written
on parchments of paper
They're carried by horse from the river Nile
says the shadowy voice
In the firelight, the cobra
is casting the flame a winsome smile

Would you like my mask?
would you like my mirror?
cries the man in the shadowing hood
You can look at yourself
you can look at each other
or you can look at the face, the face of your god

Marrakesh night market, by Loreena McKennitt. Yes, again with The Mask and Mirror. I rather like that cd, thank you very much.

Posted by Aaron at 7:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

All Lott's abdication would do is stigmatize racism in a way that just makes racists better at covering their tracks.

Brief and to the point, that is. It's the pull quote from an article at Africana, Give Racists Enough Rope — They'll Hang Themselves:

But why should Trent Lott step down just because he said something that appeared to back segregation? He shouldn't. Here's why:

If Lott steps down, his racist comment becomes something that starts and ends with only Lott. It will be just like when Gingrich was swept out of the picture in the '90s to help Republicans convince America that they weren't all rich white racist men looking for tax breaks and the end of public social services like education and healthcare. Such apparent victories are only one move in an ongoing shell game of apathy and bigotry.

[. . .] If blacks and Democrats make this mistake all about Lott, they miss the larger picture. This is not about Lott. This is about white boys who miss Stepin Fetchit. This is about how the Party of Lincoln hates the fact that he not only defeated the Confederacy, but freed the slaves as well.

Let Lott stay. It's obvious that the confidence Republicans should rightly be feeling after the midterm election victories has been perverted into arrogance. But what's worse is that there's an innocence to this arrogance. Lott has apologized by saying he didn't realize that endorsing the presidency of a segregationist could have been interpreted as racially offensive. Think about what that means if we believe him.

Piece is by Richard Morgan. I want to be him when I grow up.

Found the link at BlackElectorate.com, another site I really should visit more often. . .

Posted by Aaron at 6:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Reported yesterday, at the invaluable Indianz.com (which, admittedly, I've been visitng far less often than I should lately):

Appeals court denies latest Peltier appeal

A federal appeals court on Thursday rejected an attempt by American Indian Movement activist Leonard Peltier to reduce his prison sentence for the 1975 murder of two FBI agents.

In a unanimous decision, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals said Peltier missed a 120-day deadline to file his claim. Despite acknowledging that the government "wrongly withheld" critical evidence, a three-judge panel refused to reconsider the ailing prisoner's two consecutive life terms.

[. . .] Former assistant U.S. attorney Lynn Crooks, who argued against Peltier at a 1985 hearing to discuss the withheld evidence, came out of retirement to appear at the hearing. He told the court there was nothing to reconsider.

"The basic problem with their theory is that this matter was decided by this court in 1986," he said.

Yes, and the Central Park 5 matter was decided a few years later.

On the other hand, at least Peltier is still around to make appeals. Have a look at VASpider's latest contribution to wimmenandminorities: :

"No constitutional questions are raised here," asserted National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, stretching credulity more than usual. Officials claim that a loophole in Bush's order authorizing the CIA to "covertly attack Al Qaeda all over the world" validates Derwish's murder. Since this sneaky directive makes exception neither for Americans nor American soil, these guys say, you and I have no more rights than the now-deceased, not-presumed-innocent Kamal Derwish.

Kamal Derwish, if you've not read either the entry at WAM or the Yahoo! News article it quotes, was the American citizen killed by the CIA in Yemen a month or so back.

Y'know, Yemen. The guys buying weapons from an Axis of Evil member.

I know, I know, I need a scorecard to keep up with all this too.

Posted by Aaron at 6:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Interview with Justine Shaw, writer/artist of the online graphic novel Nowhere Girl, in Warren Ellis' latest Brainpowered column at Artbomb.net.

Never did get the hang of possessive apostrophes on proper names ending in s. Is that right? Doesn't look right. . .

Posted by Aaron at 4:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Aaron at 9:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (41) | TrackBacks (0)

First paragraph, A whole Lott of trouble, by Kathleen Parker, over at TownHall.com:

Just as I always suspected. Senate Republican leader Trent Lott isn't a Republican at all, but is really a Democrat. How else to explain his remarks at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party that have made the Republican Party look like what it swears it isn't - racist?

Okay, I lied. It doesn't.

Whatever he meant - and no one is rushing forth to explain - it was, er, spellbinding. Sort of like Yasser Arafat saying: "If only Hitler had survived, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years."

It gets worse.

No, no, I stick by my original theory. He's a Democrat, a plant programmed to say extraordinarily stupid things in order to burst the Republican Party's post-election bubble and provide the reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton a full deck of race cards to play until kingdom come. There can't be any other explanation.

Again with the Jackson and Sharpton. Again with the increasingly-annoying-to-me phrase "race card."

It's like watching paint dry, watching the right try to spin their way out of this..

Only, you know, without the entertaiment or educational value.

Is the Arafat comment close enough for Godwin's Law to take effect? Please?

Posted by Aaron at 3:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (1)

URGENT UPDATE

Ok, way too many folks are ending up here looking for r*c*st j*k*s. Ain't none to be found. Management would apologize for the inconvenience, but has no respect for motherfuckers looking for the damned things. So.

End update.

So says Virginia Postrel, anyway.

Which reminds me, in a roundabout way, that I was going to (finally) post something at wimmenandminorities about the series NPR is doing on Comedy and Race in America.

Like I said, in a roundabout way.

Any road up, wossername links Glenn Reynolds, who links all over creation.

Senate Republicans are missing a golden opportunity here. If they act quickly and forthrightly to remove Lott from a leadership position, they not only eliminate this as a future campaign issue, but they actually look better than the Democrats. Removing Lott after Daschle tried to sanitize the situation sends a clear signal about which party has principles.

I constitute one of his biggest defenders simply because I don't think he should be dumped from the GOP leadership because he's allegedly racist. I think he should be dumped because he's politically stupid. . . . [. . .] One has only two choices here: Either, you take Lott at his word or you don't. If you don't believe him, then, well, he's a racist and a foolish one for being so obvious about it. But if you take him at his word, that he made a mistake, that's even worse. I mean, he's been smeared with the racist label enough times to have learned his lesson, especially considering the fact he's supposed to lead the Republican Party.

The lack of genuine concern for people of color generally (no clue why everyone acts like Black folks are/were the only ones affected by racism. . .) is overwhelming. If I didn't know better, I'd say them folks were more interested in assuring other white people they're not racist than in actually, you know, confronting racism.

Perhaps I just need more coffee.

Update: Yep. Coffee. I forgot the punchline.

Racist jokes can be funny. That's why I read Daily Pundit.

Bill is joking, right?

Well. . . he's a joke, anyway.

Update 12/14: Much-linked on blogdex, and appearing in the Washington Post, so there's hardly much point in my mentioning how Lott Has Moved Little On Civil Rights Issues:

The controversy over incoming Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott's praise last week for Strom Thurmond's segregationist 1948 presidential campaign has focused attention on the Mississippi Republican's record on racial issues. An examination of his record shows that over the past 40 years, he has consistently taken positions at odds with those of the traditional civil rights community.

Since, you know, this thread exists solely for the purpose of allowing visitors from Tacitus to offer profound insights into the psyches of the Black people posting here.

And who cares what "the traditional civil rights community" has to say anyway? What do they know about racism?

And just noticed, I added a few italics to the quotes in the original entry, to demonstrate how the right wing sees this more as a tactical issue than anything else. Which point is rather driven home by the article on Lott's voting record, as well as some reports on Salon I've no intention of paying for the privilege of reading.

Not buying your anti-racist stance, kids.

Posted by Aaron at 8:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (70) | TrackBacks (0)

Over at Daily Pundit, Billy Quick wrote:

I'll take these people seriously when they show evidence of similar ire against former KKK member and nigger-shouter Robert Byrd in their own party. Until then, they are nothing more than a slavering mob of Donk hypocrites.

I'm assuming that by "these people," he means the Congressional Black Caucus, who are no doubt as desperate for his approval as I am.

Senator Trent Lott's remarks at the 100th birthday party for Senator Strom Thurmond continued to haunt him today as the Congressional Black Caucus rejected his apology.

"His remarks require minimally a much larger apology," said Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, Democrat of Texas.

"We are not finished," said Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, also a Texas Democrat.

Mr. Lott's remarks, uttered last Thursday and little noticed for a day or so, concerned the 1948 presidential campaign of Mr. Thurmond, who ran as a "Dixiecrat" on a pro-segregation policy.

Quote, with emphasis added, from the New York Times article linked in Bill's quote. Maybe he meant tthe NYT instead, you think?

Could someone who hasn't been banned from posting at his site ask for me? The man is already on my list, but I'd like to make sure before adding the little Gold Star for Achievement. . .

Update: after a cup of coffee, I rather needlessly italicized Bill's reference to "a slavering mob." Because I already know what he is, and hardly need further proof.

Making this entire entry pointless, really.

Over in the sane part of the Universe, Jesse at Pandagon.net (which would be linked here if I was remotely intelligent) has a nice entry about Lott's apology and one about the African American Republican Leadership Council, which organization must be seen

The mission and purpose of the African American Republican Leadership Council (AARLC) is to break the liberal democrat stranglehold over Black America.

to be believed.

Actually, seeing doesn't help much.

Update 2: Hang on. Visited AARLC's issues page:

• AARLC advocates proven tested - oriented means result programs with full utilization of multi-delivery systems in the education of our youth.
• AARLC pontificates that Black America, small business individuals and the poor, all on average receive a negative rate of return on their investment with no inheritance transfer provisions in today's Social Security. Further, Black Americans receive even fewer payments due to current life's mortality rate, and subsidizes the rest of America with a net lifetime transfer of wealth from blacks to non-blacks nearly $10,000 per person because of life expectancy.
• *AARLC advocates individual rights as the surest way to protect free markets and equal access of opportunity™. To combat this denigration of American liberties, AARLC opposes all forms of involuntary group categories.

Jesse, are you sure they aren't a hoax? That second point is something from a Chris Rock routine, and some of the phrasing. . . they have to be a hoax.

The alternative is too frightening to contemplate.

Fucking comedy gold, yes, but also frightening.

Posted by Aaron at 6:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

As the cliché goes, there are a number of valid criticisms which can be leveled at this site (the design, for a start) and at the person who maintains it (the writing style, spelling and grammar, for a start).

I'm thinking a little constructive criticism might be just what I need right now, since, to be honest, I'm just not that interested in the thing these days.

And (complaint the second: starts too many sentences with "And.") I'm headed to the VA Chicago Health Care System - Lakeside Division tomorrow for walk-in registration/eligibility determination. Depending on how that goes, there may be a dearth of updates again. And what better to keep yourselves amused with than slamming me?

Do that whenever I leave you alone anyway, so I might as well request it.

Meaning you'll probably say nothing. Reverse psychology never works.

Posted by Aaron at 4:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBacks (0)

I'd worried for a minute that the whole Trent Lott imbroglio would cause some soul-serching on the part of the right wing. Silly me.

Over at die puny humans, Warren Ellis links to CNN.com's article on Lott's "apology":

Incoming Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott issued a written apology Monday evening over his comment that the United States would have avoided "all these problems" if then-segregationist Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948.

"A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embraced the discarded policies of the past," Lott said. "Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement."

"Nothing could be further from the truth" is my most favoritist weasely phrase in the English language. It's followed closely by "shocked and appalled," if you're curious.

I hesitate to link Right Wing News, as that tends to provoke uninvited visits from John Hawkins, but he wrote:

However, it's absolutely inexcusable for the Senate Majority Leader to say that sort of thing -- especially since it plays right into the false racist stereotype [sic] that Democrats continually try to pin on Republicans. [. . .] Worse yet, Lott's remakrs were so idiotic that I'm finding myself inclined to agree with Al Sharpton (Let the ice skating tournament in hell begin)...

Yes, damn that Sharpton.

In the comments, Mike writes:

Jesse Jackson thinks Lott should be ousted. Man, that didn't take very long. http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/4697608.htm

Yes, damn that Jesse Jackson.

There's also a bit about Robert Byrd, another example of the "Hey, look over there!" school of debate.

So, no worries. They've learned nothing. Go on about your business, citizen.

Want to know more? Brief quotes from Al Gore and the Rev.s Jackson and Sharpton in this here Palm Beach Post article.

Whatever.

Posted by Aaron at 11:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (1)

Boy, that W32.Klez.H@mm is a nasty little bugger, ennit?

Remind me never to use anyone else's computer again. At least, not someone without a real operating system installed. Or not to use Earthlink's handy-dandy-frontend-for-Outlook email software instead of their Webmail.

First link takes you to Symantec's page for ridding yourself of the thing.

Good thing everyone knows I'm too damned antisocial to go around sending email with cute little attachments. Or email generally. I should work on that. Folks don't hear from me for weeks, and when they do, it's not only a virus, but a fairly old, Windows-based virus at that. . .

Posted by Aaron at 11:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

My pesky faith in humanity, that is.

Somehow, I didn't think anyone could possibly be angry about Bono's attempts to raise awareness about AIDS in Africa. Bored, sure, tune it out completely, I could see that. But making like Andrea Harris and telling him to shut up?

African culture itself is a major roadblock. Apparently several areas on that continent have been ravaged not just by AIDS but by a superstitious belief that sex with a virgin cures AIDS. Therefore there have been many rapes of very young children... who thereafter have the disease. Also, female genital mutilation is a custom in many parts of Africa. Most AIDS in Africa is spread among the heterosexual population. Do you see the connection?

Meanwhile, Bill Quick writes at the not-dead-yet Daily Pundit:

What an asshole Bono has become. Does he mention that a primary cause of AIDS in Africa is a result of corrupt, ignorant, stupid governments who pretend that AIDS is "different" there, that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, and who refuse to use drugs already available to them to fight the effects of the disease?

Well, let's check. Clicking through to the Cincinnati Enquirer article that triggered this little spasm of cracka-ass-crackaness from Andrea and Billy, there's this quote from another favored punching bag of the right:

That makes AIDS nothing less than what U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell described in 2001 as a "clear and present danger" to the world.

. "No war on the face of the earth is more destructive than the AIDS pandemic," Mr. Powell said in a speech to the United Nations.

Yeah, right, what does Colin Powell know about wars? He seems so desperate to keep us out of one, after all. Or at least to keep it from being a unilateral action.

There's a link at the bottom of the page to http://www.datadata.org./. Hit the About link, and up comes:

DATA is a new organization which aims to raise awareness about the crisis swamping Africa: unpayable DEBTS, uncontrolled spread of AIDS, and unfair TRADE rules which keep AFRICANS poor. We are asking that the governments of the world's wealthy nations - the United States, Europe, Canada and Japan - respond quickly and generously to this emergency.

We also ask Africa's leaders to practice DEMOCRACY, ACCOUNTABILITY and TRANSPARENCY - to make sure that help for African people goes where it's intended and makes a real difference.

Yeah, I put that last paragraph in bold for the hell of it.

There's much more information on the site, if you're into that whole informed debate thing.

If not, there's comments up at Spleenville and Daily Pundit to amuse yourself with.

Posted by Aaron at 1:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

It's old paperwork day at UppityNegroPundit.com. I know this thrills you as much as it does me.

Like anyone dealing with a huge bureaucracy (like the U.S. military), I have a huge amount of paperwork. Like most people, I tossed it in a pile and never looked at most of it. Bit surprised I haven't needed a letter opener, to be honest.

Did find a lovely certificate announcing my Honorable Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States of America, dated the 29th day of September 1995. They also included a pin as a parting gift, a coupon for Rice-A-Roni, and it looks like really soon now I'll be able to play the home game. Woo fucking hoo.

There were also a couple of health surveys I never bothered filling out, and a letter letting me know that several people I served with were suffering from "several ailments, including chronic skin rashes and sores, headaches, fatigue, and pain in bone joints."

Well, I don't have rashes, anyway.

There was also an Al Jubayl Fact Sheet, dated September 1997, from the Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses.

A second occurrence of loud noise was reported on 20-21 January 1991. As on the previous day, units in the Al Jubayl area sounded General Quarters and went to MOPP level 4. NBC teams checked for the presence of chemical agents with negative results. These explosions were probably caused by a SCUD missile. The time of this incident corresponds approximately to the time that a SCUD missile was launched towards Dhahran and was most likely intercepted by a Patriot air defense missile at very high altitude. Although there is no record of a reported impact site, this event is confirmed by numerous command log entries and the SCUD launch database. A missile launched from Iraq with Dhahran as its target would have overflown Al Jubayl. For both these loud noises, our assessment is that it is unlikely any chemical warfare agents were present.

I added emphasis. It's what I do.

The first incident alluded to was caused by "two coalition aircraft" apparently. The exact wording is "the most likely source for the loud noise." It's a very long letter, accompanied by a very long report, saying, "We gots no clue, really, but here's the version that covers our asses. Have a nice day."

Ain't nothing claiming any of this is Not For Public Consumption, so there's no reason I shouldn't mention it. I think. And I shouldn't be thinking, since I was enlisted.

There's a listing of Where to Get Help on the GulfLINK site. I'm really enthusiastic about contacting them, as you can tell by the fact that I'm typing up this entry instead.

Most of the organizations listed unsurprisingly have offices in DC and Virginia, so I anticipate lots of time on hold the rest of the day.

Did I already say woo fucking hoo?

Well, it bears repeating.

Want to know more? Me neither, but I have less choice in the matter. The final report has a slightly different version of the paragraph above. It's still governmentspeak rather than English, naturally.

Update: Good thing I can't work up the energy to link No Child Left Alone By Military Recruiters in this entry.

The No Child Left Behind Act which went into effect last week has some surprising implications for high school students. Buried deep within the funding benefits is Section 9528 which grants the Pentagon access to directories with students names, addresses and phone numbers so that they may be more easily contacted and recruited for military service. Prior to this provision, one-third of the nation’s high schools refused recruiters’ requests for students’ names or access to campus because they believed it was inappropriate for educational institutions to promote military service.

This portion of the Department of Education’s initiative to create better readers, testers and homework-doers is a departure from the previously federally guaranteed privacy protections students have traditionally known. Until now, schools have been explicitly instructed to protect the integrity of students’ information - even to guard students’ private information from college recruiters. Students must consent to releasing their personal data when they take college entrance exams.

However, since September 11th , educational institutions have slid down the slippery slope in doling out student information when solicited by the FBI and now the Pentagon. Only one university - Earlham in Indiana - declined to release student data when approached after the terrorist attacks last fall.

It might worry the parents reading this.

Posted by Aaron at 11:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Short entry, to make up for that previous monster. So, I needed an easy target. So, I chose Lileks:

A caller to the radio show insisted that the Islamic world was justified in hating America, just as Blacks were justified in hating the Klan.

"Blacks." Christ.

In the Western view, [Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is] a sociopath - but I’m not sure that applies to the culture from which he sprang. He’s a product of a nasty clannish culture in which conscience and empathy are anomalies, and when that’s the case you’re guaranteed that the head man will be an SOB non pariel. It’s not that Saddam is abnormal - he’s entirely normal by the standards of his culture.

I could question the notion that there's a single, "Western" view.

Or harp needlessly on the anti-whateverthefuck prejudice. Arab? Muslim? Non-Western?

Non-smug-het-white-male-Minnesotan?

Waste of time, though. I have been given to understand that the man is a brilliant writer, if you can get past his politics.

I've also been told that Birth of a Nation revolutionized the art of cinema, if you can get past the whole Klan as heroes thing.

Turns out "Blacks" can hate the Klan, though, so it's ok to not like the movie either, right?

Posted by Aaron at 6:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

. . . and I ain't in it .

I think I'm missing something again. From an oft-(Blogdex)-linked Washington Post article:

Senate Republican leader Trent Lott of Mississippi has provoked criticism by saying the United States would have been better off if then-segregationist candidate Strom Thurmond had won the presidency in 1948.

Speaking Thursday at a 100th birthday party and retirement celebration for Sen. Thurmond (R-S.C.) in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Lott said, "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

Ok. Conservative Republican reveals himself as racist asshole. And now, more on that breaking Wynona Ryder sentencing hearing.

But the right-leaning talking keyboards are taking serious umbrage. Folks like Glenn Reynolds at InstaPundit:

But to say, as Lott did, that the country would be better off if Thurmond had won in 1948 is, well, it's proof that Lott shouldn't be Majority Leader for the Republicans, to begin with. And that's just to begin with. It's a sentiment as evil and loony as wishing that Gus Hall had been elected.

Funny. I'd think revealing himself as a racist asshole would make him more qualified to be Majority leader for the Republicans.

Maybe they prefer to keep this sort of thing hidden. I mean, asking him to step down certainly isn't going to change his mind -- or anyone else's -- about the lesser races.

If you're looking for outrage, there's a comment at ABC's The Note:

Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights told ABCNEWS' Douglass: "This was an offensive and blatant attempt to rewrite the history of the last 50 years" … "Thurmond ran for president as a Dixiecrat, a segregationist. He gave the longest filibuster in history to try to stop passage of the Civil Rights Act. In his statement today, Lott also embraced those dubious achievements." ..'Lott betrayed his role as the Majority Leader of all Americans."

And Oliver Willis weighs in, with an entry creatively titled, "Racist Trent Lott Must Go."

It is quite plain and simple that Trent Lott's unabashed support of the racist policies of Jesse Helms Strom Thurmond and his Dixiecrat movement has no place in the Congress of the United States. The Republican party needs to take a good look at themselves and realize that someone who portends these sort of policies cannot and should not represent the people of Mississippi or America.

Um.

The guy was elected, you know.

The people voting for him must have known how he felt about this.

Is the problem that he (apparently) believes these things, or that he came out and (apparently) said what he did?

Qualifiers tossed in, because:

Lott's office played down the significance of the senator's remarks. Spokesman Ron Bonjean issued a two-sentence statement: "Senator Lott's remarks were intended to pay tribute to a remarkable man who led a remarkable life. To read anything more into these comments is wrong."

Bonjean declined to explain what Lott meant when he said the country would not have had "all these problems" if the rest of the nation had followed Mississippi's lead and elected Thurmond in 1948.

I don't know. Maybe tossing him out is meant to have symbolic value of some sort. It's not going to convince me of anything, and most likely it'll just mean the rest of the racist assholes are even more careful about coding their statements to conceal their biases. I'd rather they were more open about them at this point, to be honest.

Which reminds me, been meaning to link this for a while. Not sure I agree with all the assertions in the (fairly lengthy) article, "Why We Should All Give Up on the Democrats: A Polemical Essay":

The DLC, if you don't make a habit of following such things, is the Democratic Leadership Council, a creature hatched in the mid-1980s and promoted mainly by conservative Southern and Western Democrats--people like Bruce Babbitt, Charles Robb, Al Gore, Sam Nunn, and the winsome young governor from Arkansas. To anyone paying attention, it was immediately clear what they were up to. In 1986 Thomas Ferguson and Joel Rogers published a little-noted book called Right Turn: The Decline of the Democrats and the Future of American Politics that traced the rise of the business Democrats who would eventually constitute the heart of party leadership. It began with the strategic ministrations of men like Nathan Landow, a Maryland real estate developer who emerged as a force in the wake of the 1984 Mondale campaign.

The coterie of big Democratic fundraisers eventually coalesced behind the banner of the DLC, whose control of the party was ratified by the successes of Bill Clinton. DLC chieftains defined the game of politics entirely in terms of money and set out to raise as much as possible, amending the party platform as necessary and taking care to distance themselves from all their old constituencies--most conspicuously, black people, but more broadly the whole American working class. Their few gestures toward the white working class lay mainly in the realm of race-baiting (it was Al Gore who first dug up Willie Horton to use against Michael Dukakis, in the 1988 New York primary) and no-new-tax pledges.

The rise of the pro-business Democrats was less a coup than a summation of moves the party had been making since the unruly events of 1968 and 1972, a period marked by a "crisis of democracy" in the infamous phrase of Samuel P. Huntington, meaning there was too damn much of the stuff and it was proving unwieldy. After those tumultuous years the party promoted a number of changes designed to ensure that no upstart could sway the party from the will of its national machine. Thus we got super-delegates at the national convention, a battalion of party regulars who could be counted on to back the right horse in the event of a close race, and electoral tricks like Super Tuesday, a carefully juggled slate of early primaries that skewed heavily toward conservative southern states--both of them steps designed to prevent any left-liberal insurgent from building a prohibitive lead in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. This is why the people who protested that Jesse Jackson had no legitimate shot in 1988 were ultimately right.

With the country's spurious right turn as their warrant, the business Democrats spent most of the 1980s and all of the 1990s crafting themselves into the party of tough love--young, freshly galvanized "centrists" who would cut away the cumbersome old entanglements and put fiscal responsibility at the top of the Democratic agenda. Think JFK and his New Frontiersmen, except that where Kennedy's boys were hot to fight the Cold War abroad, Clinton's people were out to facilitate one at home.

What they practiced wasn't centrism at all by any recognizable standard. It always leaned carefully but emphatically to the right. Bill Clinton set the tone for his first administration by provoking a public fight with a relatively obscure female rapper in order to distance himself and the party from the great mass of black America, a gesture he spent the next eight years underscoring with all the right kinds of coded talk about poverty, pathology, and responsibility. (This was a winning proposition on more than one level: A lot of upwardly mobile blacks loved him for it.)

I failed to understand the uproar over Sister Souljah's comments at the time, either. Again, it seemed more symbolic than substantive. Clearly, I wasn't the target audience, then or now.

There's a discussion on MetaFilter about Lott's statements. Nothing terribly interesting, other than an attempted defense from something calling itself MidasMulligan. I expect Plastic has something as well (Update: yep), but really haven't really visited there or MePhiMe for a while.

That whole target audience thing again.

Update: Today's weird coincidence, Giles mentioning Sister Souljah over at wimmenandminorities, although the reference originates with Thomas Friedman in the NYTimes.

Or there are no coincidences. I'm leaning towards that lately.

Posted by Aaron at 3:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Pulled up National Geographic's Remembering Pearl Harbor site, and realized I'd totally forgotten about the movie. Which link, if you're neither following them nor checking the status line in your browser, is www.pearlharbor.com. Think this shows some slight lack of taste myself, but I'm hardly one to talk. . .

Indirectly related, if like me you're in the early stages of sleep deprivation, Giles joins the Negro Society of America (as opposed to the Negro Leagues) with the new URL www.negrophile.com. And yes, I just linked that twice in one sentence. Sleep deprivation. And also, degenerative brain disease.

Which gag I ripped off shamelessly from Warren Ellis, whose blog has been added to the list of links over yonder. Worth it for Bára's photos alone, really.

Also added thebrotherlove.com finally, with a needless snarky comment linked to an, um, comment over at VASpider's, in her contribution to Jessica Morgan's Sex Fantasy Camp meme. Jason/Gunn (don't use his nick nearly as often, for some reason. . .) also joins in the fun, as does j. brotherlove and, obviously, VASpider.

I expect I should write something, too.

Yep.

Uh-huh.

Might even add to Michelle's Top 10 thread while I'm all industrious. Dru did, after all, and she actually has real demands on her time. . .

Following the bouncing ball of illogic, Neogrammarian gave me a heads-up on The Sex Workers' Art Show while I was still in Minneapolis. Their tour schedule brought them there last night (where someone who shall remain nameless missed it), while I missed the Chicago stop because I was kind'a not here that day.

Any readers in or around Spokane, he asked rhetorically? Tomorrow night, final show of the tour.

And that's it. I'm going to bed.

Update: After adding a link to Giles' entry about the new domain, which I suppose I could edit the above to include, but this would mean probably removing the Ellis/Transmetropolitan tie-in. . . it's all too complicated.

Update 2: Wait, even more complications. Added the Scarleteen promotion graphic after seeing a comment from VASpider in Heather's comments about how valuable she found the site to be, then saw j. brotherlove's comment about Buffy when I hit the link to her blog. . . you know what? Bed. Me. Now.

Posted by Aaron at 9:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBacks (0)

I still haven't seen the movie, mind you. Um, I did manage to see Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets in Minneapolis, if that counts for anything.

No, didn't think it would. . .

From Bowling for Columbine: Race, the NRA And Gun Control:

Then I remembered that the Virginia Colony in 1639 enacted a law providing that "all persons except negroes to be provided with arms and ammunition or be fined." Thus, one of the earliest laws in English colonial America that distinguishes blacks from non-blacks regulated gun possession. A year later a second law clarified that "all persons" included any "capable" unfree non-negro person (i.e., indentured servant). This mandate to arm grew out of a well-founded fear by colonialists that local hostile indigenous groups would massacre them. Understandably, these Indians were hostile because the colonialists were taking their land

Moore tries to convey the historical connection between whites' fear of non-whites and the protection of gun ownership using an eight minute cartoon. The cartoon starts with the Mayflower, focuses on the colonists' fear of indigenous people, and only links this fear to blacks as we approach the civil rights era. Yet the Virginia colonial law illustrates how these two fears combined from the beginning, suggesting that European settlers feared armed black slaves or servants as much as or more than attacking Indians.

There's a bit about sweeps of Chicago Housing Authority projects and inner-city gun amnesty programs, with a reference to the work of Robert Cottrol and Raymond Diamond.

There's also the obligatory reference to Canada and gun ownership, which program, as uppity-shinob pointed out in a comment is running seriously overbudget.

Auditor General Sheila Fraser says the national firearms program represents the worst example of government overspending that anyone in her office has ever encountered.

When the program was unveiled, Justice Department officials said the net cost to taxpayers would be $2 million: the $119 million cost of implementing the program over five years would be, they said, offset by $117 million in fees.

Instead, by the end of the year, the program will have consumed at least $800 million, 400 times more than originally projected. And development of the firearms registry is still unfinished.

On the other hand, fewer corpses.

You could argue the same thing about their health care system, I suppose.

Posted by Aaron at 11:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Still can't see the php frame on Dwayne McDuffie's site in Mozilla, but maybe it's a configuration problem on my end. Remind me to check that some time.

Recently he posted some introductions he'd written, including the one for the Static Shock trade paperback:

I have a good friend who is fond of repeating the aphorism, “moral victories don’t count.” I couldn’t disagree more, not only do they count but in the long run, they’re the only kind that matter.

He's talking about the Milestone comics company, but the sentiment applies equally well -- or equally poorly -- to other situations.

Case in point, as Ronn mentioned yesterday:

Newsday: DA Drops All Convictions in Jogger Case

Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau today asked a judge to toss out all the convictions against the five men in the Central Park jogger case.

"It's a great victory ... We're happy," said Roger Wareham, who represents three of the five men. He said "this is a case of historic importance" and he hopes it will trigger changes in the criminal justice system.

When the decision was released shortly after 1 p.m. a cheer went up among the protestors who had been marching in front of the Lower Manhattan courthouse since early this morning demanding justice.

Loudly chanting and carrying signs that read, "Justice For Central Park 5," and "Overturn Convictions," about 60 demonstrators braved a snowstorm to press their case today.

I see this as a moral victory. Doesn't give the Central Park 5 back the years they spent in prison, doesn't do a thing for the jogger, and Matias Reyes wasn't going anywhere anyway. Only thing it would be good for is provoking a discussion of the systemic flaws in the criminal justice system that allowed all this to take place, and since that ain't gonna happen. . . I'm really not in the mood to cheer.

That, and I'm convinced without even looking that some fool warblogger has described this as evidence that "the system works."

They're always saying stupid shit like that.

Update: Case in point regarding stupid shit: InstaPundit links to Ann Coulter's take:

The videotaped confessions of the animals convicted in the Central Park attack were not thrown out. [. . .] Consider that when the savages confessed, it was still possible that the jogger would emerge from her coma, remember everything, and identify her attackers with blinding clarity.

Charming woman, really.

Posted by Aaron at 9:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

No idea why I have the English-German Freedict dictionary installed. . .

The current (December 2002) issue of Curve (the best-selling Lesbian magazine, the Pam Grier-adorned cover claims) features an article descriptively titled Keeping the Faith: More Queer Women of Color Are Making Room for Themselves in the Religions of Their Ancestors:

In mainstream, or orthodox, Islam, “Same-sex acts are considered wrong and are forbidden,” [Faisal] Alam [of the Al Fatiha Foundation] says, adding that in some countries governed by Islamic law, same-sex acts are punishable by whip-lashing or even death. Islamic religious leaders typically use certain books of the Koran and declarations by the prophet Mohammad to support their beliefs about homosexuality, Alam says. Despite the fact that neither of these sources makes any mention of female sexuality, references to forbidden acts between two women were added long after the prophet died, Alam says.

Many contemporary Muslims believe that homophobia in Islam is a product not of the Koran but of colonization by England, Alam notes, arguing that anti-gay sentiment didn’t surface in Islamic states until after World War I. Before coming under English rule, Islamic states had an abundance of same-sex expression, including harems of both men and women and same-sex erotic art and poetry.

Currently, a movement among contemporary, progressive Muslim scholars is rediscovering the true meanings and intentions of the Koran within a feminist, pro-gay framework. “Our sexuality is a very small component of what makes us Muslim,” Alam says. “It’s about your relationship with God.”

“We view Islam as a very, very progressive faith,” he adds. “It is a faith that is evolving.”

The article also touches on various flavors of Christianity and mentions Buddhism in passing. More than worth a visit to their site, or getting the print version for $3.95 USA/$5.95 Canada/£3.50 UK.

My sister's already been paid, so she probably doesn't care one way or the other.

Karen, you did get paid for that, right?

Oh, and you maybe don't want to mention any of this to the warbloggers. I think the very notion of lesbian Muslims would make their heads go 'splody.

On second thought, please mention this to the warbloggers.

Want to know more? Visit the Al Fatiha Foundation:

An international organization dedicated to Muslims who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, those questioning their sexual orientation andor gender identity, as well as their families, friends, partners, and allies.

Update: Which organization, I just noticed, is linked on Laura's site, and probably has been for ages. I am dumb.

Posted by Aaron at 7:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Spent entirely too long living in Urbana after I graduated. I did/do know quite a few graduate students there, so this is heartening:

GEO elated by vote for union

Now that they have won union representation, graduate employees say they can turn their full attention to teaching their students.

Teaching and graduate assistants at the University of Illinois voted overwhelmingly to be represented by the Graduate Employees Organization for collective bargaining. The unofficial tally of votes Wednesday night had 1,188 voting in favor of GEO representation and 347 voting against. About 2,700 graduate employees were eligible to vote in the election.

“We're very, very happy with the results,” said GEO Co-president Rosemary Braun. “I'm incredibly proud of the history of this campaign, and so many grads giving to it even though they knew they wouldn't be around to enjoy the fruits of the campaign.”

If you're curious about the union, their About page states:

Graduate employees are vital to the University of Illinois. Graduate employees are responsible for one-third of all undergraduate teaching at the U of I, and 49% of 100-level teaching -- and these percentages grow every year. In addition to teaching so many undergraduate classes, graduate employees perform crucial tasks for faculty and carry out much of the research that helps make the U of I one of the top schools in the country. Despite working hard to provide these valuable services, graduate employees do not have a recognized voice in decisions that affect their work lives.

Or didn't, at least. They've not updated since the vote, obviously.

Their links page lists a few graduate employee unions in Canada and here in the States. Are these an issue in Europe? I like to compare the U.S. to the rest of the industrialized world sometimes. Y'know, regarding labor issues, health care, education. . . I'm wacky that way.

Posted by Aaron at 4:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's the Globe and Mail's take on the Central Park 5 case:

The five teenagers were convicted by two juries and put in prison, given sentences ranging from five to 15 years. The denizens of New York's Upper West and Upper East sides, who see Central Park as their backyard, began returning to the park for sunset strolls. Developer Donald Trump took out ads calling for the state to "bring back the death penalty," capturing the mood of a city that saw the near death of the jogger as proof that the NYPD needed to get tougher on criminals.

But today, New Yorkers are expected to be told that in its zeal to solve the crime, New York's finest actually rounded up the wrong people. That will be an embarrassing revelation likely to strain the delicate détente between the city's white, black and Hispanic communities. It will also re-ignite a debate over just how the NYPD, already tarnished by past abuses in dealing with black and Hispanic people in custody, extracted those remarkable confessions.

I know, I know, there are no problems between "the city's white, black and Hispanic communities," and only outsiders like Canadians, blacks or Hispanics would claim that there are.

There's also an article in the New York Times this morning:

Prosecutor Is Said to Back Dismissals in '89 Jogger Rape

The Manhattan district attorney has decided to call today for the dismissal of the convictions of five men in the 1989 Central Park jogger case, including all charges that they participated in a gang rape and a rampage of muggings, according to two law enforcement officials who have read the legal papers.

[. . .] For the last 11 months, the Police Department and Mr. Morgenthau's office have conducted a sweeping reinvestigation of the original charges, after a convicted murderer and serial rapist stepped forward to say that he alone had attacked and raped a woman jogger. A series of DNA tests proved that the man, Matias Reyes, not only had sexually assaulted the victim, but had been the only person to leave any biological evidence. He later told a defense investigator that he was remorseful after meeting Mr. Wise in prison and seeing him suffer.

Until the emergence of Mr. Reyes, there had been no serious challenge to the premise of the original case: that a young investment banker had been gang-raped and beaten by boys 14, 15 and 16 years old.

Indeed, a number of police officials and prosecutors involved in that case, while agreeing that the convictions must be overturned because of flaws in the evidence at trial, continue to maintain the youths were involved in the assault. Mr. Morgenthau's views on their involvement could not be learned yesterday, but his senior aides have said privately that they do not believe the boys played any part in the rape.

Mr. Morgenthau has made it clear in recent days that he does not see any prosecutorial misconduct or illegal police coercion in the original case, a point that is likely to remain in dispute.

Emphasis added here and there, as is my wont.

Nothing in that story about problems between communities. We're a color-blind society, you know.

Just a statement from one of the defense attorneys -- the ones who made "no serious challenge" to the prosecution before Reyes stepped forward -- that, "Their only crime was being black and Latino teenagers in Central Park."

Defense attorneys, like Canandians and people of color, have no idea what they're talking about, obviously.

Want to know more? Give Ronn a visit, he's still doing much better at keeping up with the case than I am.

Posted by Aaron at 11:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBacks (1)

Either I'm not paying attention -- always a possibility -- or we haven't heard much about this in the U.S. since the event.

Making sure 14 women are not forgotten

Some ancient peoples believed names have power and as long as someone\x{2019}s name is remembered their spirit lives.

Rose DeShaw hopes to bring a multitude of voices together Friday to strengthen the memory of 14 young women gunned down in Montreal\x{2019}s Ecole Polytechnique 13 years ago.

[. . .] The Montreal Massacre was a hate crime that stunned Canadians preparing for the 1989 holiday season. Yet, few people outside Quebec can name even a few of the young engineering students who were murdered.

“The thing that’s important,” DeShaw said, “is that we don’t remember Marc Lepine.”

“The sooner we get rid of the idea we have to remember these killers and these score cards [of kills], the better. I don’t want to remember him.” she said. “He’s not going to be remembered by me.”

Those who will be remembered are: Genevieve Bergeron, Helene Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Maryse Laganiere, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michele Richard, Annie St.- Arneault, Annie Turcotte and Barbara Klucznik Widajewicz.

Google News listed 16 stories about the Montreal Massacre yesterday, mostly from Canada, with one from France and two from African sources, namely Republic of Botswana and AllAfrica.com.

If it's any consolation to our Canadian readers, most people here probably don't remember Lepine either.

Posted by Aaron at 10:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (1)

It's the Car Talk edition of UppityNegroPundit.com, and we're not here to talk about cars, car repair, nor the latest release of AOL Instant Messenger for Linux, which features:

File Transfer

Typing Meter in IM window

Displays idle time

Supports all windows sounds

Drag & Drop support for File Transfer

Couldn't get Gaim to connect last night, so I tried the genuine article instead. The Debian version worked not at all, but the tarball ran fine. Except for crashing once. And I'm still not a very good conversationalist (apologies to them what became aware of this while trying to chat last night), but I suppose you can't blame the software for that.

The release page has a date of November 26th, so this is not only old news, it's very possibly been covered to death elsewhere. I'm still catching up on things, I'm afraid, mostly because I was very hesitant about trying anything on Heather's Mac last week. I've not really used one of the things since I left U of I, after all.

Speaking of which, anyone had any experience using MSN's DSL with a Mac? I managed to get the computer and modem/router talking to one another, but the status page insisted the DSL was up but the PPP was down. Since the unhelpful tech support personnel and pages insisted that OS X was a no-go, I'm guessing there's some little piece of access software they neglected to either include with the Windows cd and instructions that came along with the modem, or to mention on their site.

I could, of course, be entirely wrong about this, and just shouldn't have been messing with operating systems I don't understand.

Which would be all of them.

Closer to home, reverted to the Big Blue Bar MT style because I always liked it better, and removed a few IP bans that seem to have served their purpose.

Considered adding the show/hide inline comments code that Dru (among others) put in a while back, but figured this could seriously increase download times for the people who aren't reading the comments.

Their loss.

Very few of them are us laughing at our own jokes.

Update: Am also doing Terrible Things to the links in the sidebar. They're Terrible because World Wide Web Offline Explorer does not play well with Movable Type apparently.

Posted by Aaron at 9:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Ummmm. . .

You know, all the cool kids are linking jhames these days. Perhaps you should visit to see why.

And while you're wandering, stop by wimminandminoritiesdotcom and say hi.

Maybe by the time you get back, I'll have thought of something to say.

Take your time.

Found out Monday that Mud Pie Vegetarian Restaurant is closing, at some point in the near but not specific future. Guess I could write about that. And oh look, there'a a banner ad for pre-ordering The Garden of Vegan at that previous link.

I flipped through the previous book by those authors, How It All Vegan, last week. Nice, fairly simple-looking recipes from what I saw.

I also picked up City Pages. There was (last week's issue at this point, so I'm using the past tense for no particular reason) an article more-or-less about the web site Suicide Girls, but also the larger phenomenon of. . .

Right, posting this, having a quick cigarette, and then going to try either editing this into coherence or writing a proper update. Or just staying away from the computer for the rest of the day.

That last one sounds quite tempting, actually.

In the interests of accuracy, I should point before I go that a) an UnTurkey was served during Thanksfornothing dinner at Heather's, not a Tofurky and b) that closet door doesn't even have a lock on it.

Posted by Aaron at 10:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBacks (0)