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.