Holy Rollers: Dems Do Selma
We had to spend six hours on the highways Sunday evening driving back from a weekend getaway and we burned the time by listening to both Barack Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s speeches in Selma on XM radio.
Pretty remarkable stuff — and none of it very encouraging. Indeed, the rank political opportunism shown by all was a little off-putting.
I’ll let you do the Googling to find the transcripts. If you take a look, you’ll be struck by the eerie similarity of both speeches held three blocks apart from each other in two different Baptist churches. Indeed, they’re near indentical and anyone scouring them to glean any major policy differences between the two candidates will be stumped.
Obama was originally slated to be the featured speaker at Sunday’s commemoration of the Selma march. But once he was skedded, Hillary accepted a competing invitation. Two days ago hubby Bill also decided to join the gang bang and wound up commanding his own chunk of camera and air time.
Slick Willie was also flexing some of his political muscle. Read this report on how he strong-armed civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis out of endorsing his wife’s presidential rival.
Between Hillary and Obama, the latter is clearly the more gifted as a public speaker, injecting his whole address with some added gravitas. But Hillary offered up her own version of a barn-burner and had her crowd quite riled up.
Here’s are a few other observations that jumped out at me while I was driving down I-15.
– Both candidates desperately tried to bathe themselves in the glory of the great Selma civil rights march of 1965 and both came up a bit muddy. Hillary claimed that her political rise was a direct result of the principles cemented in Selma. She failed to mention that at the time some of the civil rights leaders gathered in front of her were risking their lives on the Edmund Pettus Bridge 42 years ago, the young Hillary was, in fact, a Goldwater Republican living in an upper middle class and racially segregated Chicago suburb.
Obama one-upped her, however, and pretty much claimed that his very existence, his conception by his mixed-race parents, was made possible by the battles waged in Selma. But Obama’s math is a bit off. He was born in 1961, a full four years before Selma entered into the civil rights theater of battle.
Bill Clinton, for his part, was still a scheming teenager in the mid 60′s, trying to figure out how to avoid the draft but still remaining “politically viable.” There’s no record of him volunteering for Freedom Summer of ’64.
– At the beginning and end of her speech, Hillary most definitetly shifted into a marked southern mode of pronunciation. Shameless.
– Perhaps the most interesting part of Obama’s speech was his denunciation of a culture of victimology, urging African-Americans to assume more indivdual responsibility for their political fate and that of their children. He didn’t use the dreaded I.R. words, but his meaning was crystal clear. Because he’s the star of the Obama-rama his controversial words will go unchallenged. Bill Cosby, who said pretty much the same thing but less elegantly, got battered and baked.
– They both made exceedingly kind references to each other. They must figure in that in one configuration or the other, they are the two people most likely (at this point) to wind up together on the Democratic ticket.
– Both candidates talked way, way, way too much about God. At least for my taste. My wife and I had spent Sunday morning at the Gospel Brunch at the Las Vegas House of Blues and, while I loved the show (and the food), that pretty much took care of my annual Praise Jesus Quota. We’re pretty much church-a-phobic and had decided that the buffet of greens, grits, bacon, ham, eggs, mashed potatoes, catfish, chicken and chocolate-dipped strawberries would effectively counter-balance any pro-God message in the otherwise stage-rocking live music. We were right, but afterward I wasn’t in the mood to hear — only a few hours later– these two Democratic candidates so blatantly wrap themselves in the cloth. I’m all for reaching out to the believers, but better to meet them halfway than to jump so deep into the tank. Then again, when one is actually campaigning in churches, this is what should be expected. Let’s just note that the Republicans don’t have a monopoly on blurring the line between politics and the pulpit.
P.S. The best verbal performance I heard all weekend was delivered onstage at the Las Vegas Hilton by the wonderful George Lopez. His new material had us literally crying from laughter. And who else knows what ‘FTP’ means?
March 5th, 2007 at 3:02 am
One of my increasing concerns is that neither Hillary nor Obama will be willing enough to break with conventional thinking to handle the challenges the next president is going to face. Even if we manage to get American troops out of Iraq by then, the Middle East will still be a serious mess. And there is an elephant in the room, as I suggested yesterday, the situation in Afghanistan. The Rory Stewart oped piece I posted yesterday questioned the US strategy there, and as if to provide an example of what he is talking about, we now have a serious example of what is going wrong in the killing of numerous civilians after the bombing of an American convoy. The statements by the US military that these civilians were caught in a crossfire are flatly contradicted by hospitalized witnesses interviewed by journalists, and it is not difficult to predict which version of events is going to turn out to be correct (the military is already saying it is “investigating” the incident, a sure sign of trouble.)
My point is that the increasingly opportunistic and pandering rhetoric from these two leading Democratic candidates leaves them unequipped to deal with the challenges of the real world.
March 5th, 2007 at 4:03 am
With apologies for the long post, but not sure how accessible LA Times links are:
How to stop genocide in Iraq
Offering the carrot of U.S. withdrawal may be the best way to end ethnic cleansing in Iraq.
By Samantha Power, SAMANTHA POWER, a professor at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, is the author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning ” ‘A Problem From Hell’: America and the Age of Genocide.”
March 5, 2007
THOSE WHO SUPPORT remaining in Iraq increasingly can be heard invoking the specter of genocide as grounds for staying. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) warned that, if U.S. troops leave, “You’ll see a bloodletting in Baghdad that makes Srebrenica look like a Sunday school picnic.”
Some defenders of President Bush’s approach, having backed the Iraq war from the start, have now settled on genocide warnings after each of their original justifications for being in Iraq — weapons of mass destruction, terrorism prevention, energy diversification, regional stabilization and democracy promotion — has crumbled one by one.
Other proponents of remaining in Iraq are not, in fact, looking to redeem their own faulty judgment. They are genuinely frightened that, as ferocious as the civil war there has become, a U.S. withdrawal could unleash an all-out slaughter. With increasing numbers of civilian corpses piling up every day, they have reason to worry.
Although critics of withdrawal do a masterful job of painting a grim picture of the apocalypse that awaits, they offer no account of how U.S. forces in Iraq will do more than preserve a status quo that is already deteriorating into wholesale ethnic cleansing. Although more than 115,000 U.S. troops have been in Iraq for the last four years, about 3.8 million Iraqis have fled their homes and at least 50,000 Iraqis are fleeing each month. It would be nice to think the surge of troops to Baghdad would help to staunch the flow. But with only one-third of the new troops on duty at any given time in a city of 6 million people, they will have no more success deterring the militias intent on carving out homogeneous Shiite or Sunni neighborhoods than U.S. forces have had to date. About 74% of Shiites polled and 91% of Sunnis — the people who have the most to fear from genocide — would like to see U.S. forces gone by the end of the year.
Unfortunately, many of those who favor a U.S. exit have recklessly waved off atrocity warnings or taken to blaming Iraqis for their plight. What is needed to stave off even greater carnage than we see today is neither assuming massacres won’t happen nor suspending thought until the surge has demonstrably failed in six months — at which point other options may no longer be viable. Rather, we must announce our intention to depart and use the intervening months to prioritize civilian protection by pursuing a bold set of measures combining political pressure, humanitarian relocation and judicial deterrence.
First, although it has a familiar and thus unsatisfying ring to it, the most viable long-term route to preventing mass atrocities is to use remaining U.S. leverage to bring about a political compromise that makes Iraqi Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds feel economically stable, physically secure and adequately represented in political structures. This is consistent with the position of leading U.S. generals and the members of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, who have stressed that there is no military solution to Iraq’s meltdown and urged the administration, the Iraqis and regional players to reopen broad-ranging political negotiations.
Instead of simply lining up behind Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki’s government in the hopes that it will one day decide to stop ethnic cleansing, recent withdrawal proposals in Congress use the leverage of the proposed redeployment to press Iraqis to reach a political solution. A plan put forth by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has come under neoconservative fire for setting a target departure date, but it provides for flexibility to suspend the U.S. drawdown if Iraqis meet the key economic, political and security benchmarks they have committed to achieve this year. The plan would also retain some U.S. forces in Iraq and the region to help deter atrocities by sectarian militias and aggression from Iraq’s neighbors.
However, if this political pressure fails and U.S. forces remain unable to stave off an ever-widening civil war, the U.S. should go further and announce its willingness to assist in the voluntary transport and relocation of Iraqi civilians in peril. If Iraqis tell us that they would feel safer in religiously homogenous neighborhoods, and we lack the means to protect them where they are, we should support and protect them in their voluntary, peaceful evacuation — a means, one might say, to preempt genocide in advance of our departure.
The administration must help secure asylum for those Iraqis — and there are millions who fit this bill — who have a “well-founded fear of persecution.” At the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees’ conference scheduled for April, which will be attended by Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Syria and the United States, the overburdened countries of first asylum (Syria is sheltering 1 million Iraqis; Jordan has taken in 700,000) must be persuaded to reopen their gates to fleeing Iraqis. And Western countries must dramatically expand the number of resettlement slots for Iraqis. Astoundingly, the U.S. took in just 202 Iraqis last year and, although the maximum for this year was recently raised to 7,000, this is still not sufficient.
Finally, if we are serious about preventing further sectarian horrors, the U.S. must send a clear signal to the militias and political leaders who order or carry out atrocities that they will be brought to justice for their crimes. That means offering belated U.S. support to the International Criminal Court, the only credible, independent body with the jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against humanity and genocide.
Many of those who say U.S. troops should stay in Iraq to prevent genocide are the same people who for political reasons refuse to acknowledge the gravity of the calamity unfolding on our watch. The same people who modeled a war on best-case scenarios are now resisting ending a war by invoking worst-case scenarios. But after years of using the alleged needs of the Iraqi people to justify U.S. political postures, it is long past time to use the leverage we still have to actually advance Iraqi welfare.
March 5th, 2007 at 4:44 am
Nope, the Dems don’t have a monopoly. I’d give them Baltic and maybe one Railroad. The rest of this sillyness is pretty hard to take seriously. The fact that the woman’s movement in many ways followed the civil rights movement is concept most of us have been able to grasp; and has nothing to do with where Hillary was when the first Beatles album came out. I find Obama bland, but saying some of the same things Bill Cosby said in a mannor less corse (and self rightous) doesn’t sound too bad to me. But by now Coop is little desperate, trying to (over) work every anti-Dem angle, condescension be damned.
The effort shows. Oh, those silly black people, thinking Bill Clinton is actually their friend. Great food though, if one is inclinded to toerate the primative religion.
I see Hillary has Alex Cockburn back in full Rona Barrett mode as well. To any reader on the fence… please remember what this got you last time….
March 5th, 2007 at 5:23 am
oh yes, I guess some of those quirky republicans (and brothers in Clinton Impeachment, ah, THAT was a noble movement) this blog is fond of did some talking this weekend as well….
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-march/lindsay-grahams-failed-_b_42629.html
Hmmm…they don’t seem too interested in ending the war yet, does that come later?
March 5th, 2007 at 6:18 am
Marc Cooper:
Marc, I think Obama was refering to his “conception” as his “chance” to run for the presidency. Thus, his existence as a candidate as it were.
Possible?
March 5th, 2007 at 6:34 am
What did you expect? Feathers?
Now that Obama has paid his obeisances to AIPAC in Chicago and signed on to Iran-bashing, it’s clear that the main differences between the Dems and the GOP on foreign policy are that the Dems have more illusions about the UN aka the tyrants’ cartel, and are willing to criticize this particular war, but not to analyze the underlying policies and mindset. That would entail repudiating Woodrow Wilson and his legacy.
Meanwhile, they compete in pandering to a senile civil rights movement while ignoring the disastrous effect of uncontrolled illegal immigration on black Americans. For starters, read the LA Times story on the gang killings in Harbor City.
As for Hillary’s oratorical style, if she wins, we are in for eight years of listening to Leonid Brezhnev. (Loud and stormy applause).
March 5th, 2007 at 7:39 am
Samantha Powers, courtesy of Michael Balter writes: “…. we must announce our intention to depart and use the intervening months to prioritize civilian protection by pursuing a bold set of measures combining political pressure, humanitarian relocation and judicial deterrence.”
Her heart is in the right place, but I wonder where she left her head?
“Political pressure”? All the political pressure in the world applied to a plate of congealed linguini like the Iraqi government is just going yield mashed linguini. There are already under considerable political pressure. And yet, here we are.
“Humanitarian relocation”? Oh boy. Does she understand what it means to relocate millions of people? Over a period of only a few months? And look at it from the point of view of a death squad or militia on ethnic-cleansing shift: “Hey, if we keep it up, the Americans will eventually take all these people elsewhere, solving our problem! Well, gentlemen, what are we waiting for? Let’s redouble our efforts!”
Ah, but these murderers are to be “deterred” by the threat of the ICC, in her fantasy land. Look, nobody has ever landed in the dock of the ICC except with the help of a military to arrest them and deliver them. In Slobo’s case, it was his own army that scooped him up (after a siege at his villa) and turned him in. Yeah, maybe one of these years, some Shi’ite majority leader in Iraq (or some Kurdish leader) will get ratted on by one of his own people, by providing clues that slaughters were, as universally suspected but never proved, unleashed by a wink and a nod to freelancing militiamen. But you still gotta go get the guys who winked and nodded. Hauling them before the ICC might be rather less likely than Saddam getting haulted before the ICC in the mid-90s. By then, the damage Samantha Powers wants to avoid will have long been done. And I note that the ICC recently declared Serbia guilty only of letting Bosnia slaughters happen, not of authorizing or abetting them.
To be fair, I can see how her ideas might work. But, ironically, only with a dramatically higher troop commitment — a “surge”, if you will.
As for where to put all those hapless refugees, well, they might amount to the total current population of Jordan, which has closed its doors to more Iraqi refugees, and maybe a third of the population of Syria, which despite a longstanding “Arab right of residence” policy has closed its doors as well. Relocate them to the U.S.? Heh. Since they will be composed largely of Sunni Arabs, this would be rather as if we recieved a lot of former Viet Cong in the U.S. after Vietnam being notionally overrun by the Chinese in 1979. Well then, “we fight them over there so we won’t have to fight them over here” would take on a rather interesting new interpretation in that event, wouldn’t it? It’s a non-starter, in other words.
March 5th, 2007 at 7:52 am
Hillary, you noted, definitely shifted to a southern accent. I think you’ll find that Obama did the same thing. Gore does this as well. Let’s call this Magnolia Mouth, and let’s also call it patronizing.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:18 am
GOM: Now that Obama has paid his obeisances to AIPAC in Chicago and signed on to Iran-bashing, it’s clear that the main differences between the Dems and the GOP on foreign policy are that the Dems have more illusions about the UN aka the tyrants’ cartel, and are willing to criticize this particular war, but not to analyze the underlying policies and mindset. That would entail repudiating Woodrow Wilson and his legacy.
Myself:
Thats the best point i’ve ever seen made here.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:27 am
This is worse than I thought. Here’s Thelma Lou Rodham!
March 5th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Some may also remember Hilarity’s discovery of tenuous Jewish roots during her campaign for Senator from NY. You heard it here first-as soon as Obama stumbles, Hillary will be black.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Hah. Where I come from, “FTP” is the protestant version of “FTQ” (the second definition). Which one you use, like the foot you kick with, marks you for a Billy or a Dan.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:21 am
jcummings:
Strange bedfellows!
March 5th, 2007 at 9:23 am
“Perhaps the most interesting part of Obama’s speech was his denunciation of a culture of victimology, urging African-Americans to assume more indivdual responsibility for their political fate and that of their children. He didn’t use the dreaded I.R. words, but his meaning was crystal clear. Because he’s the star of the Obama-rama his controversial words will go unchallenged. Bill Cosby, who said pretty much the same thing but less elegantly, got battered and baked.”
Obama’s words aren’t controversial. The “controversy” over Cosby’s speech was mostly driven by one of those tenured morons who also wrote a book comparing Martin Luther King to Tupac and has made a career of pandering to the mentality of teenagers and pop music. You have to scrape pretty low to find people who disagreed with Cosby or who would disagree with Obama. Jesse Jackson, who’s sort of a poster child in people’s minds for opportunistic “victimology” – fairly or unfairly – hosted Cosby’s rant and vigorously defended this, frankly, rather commonplace perspective as did the lefty “pop intellectual” Cornel West. Check out iconic younger black figures like Chris Rock and Spike Lee for exactly the same points stated openly and repeatedly. For that matter check out Dave Chappelle’s criticisms of his own show. Cosby hardly came out battered, unless you consider that he won’t be doing any guest spots on “Flavor of Love” some kind of career crisis.
(Also Obama had framed his remarks about his parents, accurately, in the events of the more general civil right movement which was well on its way by 1961, and in the efforts of the civil rights “elders” who were present. And Hillary’s transformation from Goldwater Girl was in fact inspired by her admiration for Martin Luther King. So I think that parsing their sentences for chronological errors as regards the particular events in Selma misses the point. I don’t see any “mud” here other than some slightly muddled rhetorical flourishes.)
As for Samantha Powers’ article, MB might be interested to know that Obama has hired her as his chief foreign policy advisor.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:34 am
I also have to say, with all due respect for Marc’s extreme distaste for religious faith, that Obama (and presumably Hillary) would be totally phony if he “met believers half-way.” He IS a believer. Obama has for most of his adult life been deeply rooted in the black church.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Reading Powers’ piece, the clever lady probably wrote the “Obama plan” she refers to, as one of his top advisors for about a year-and-a-half. It is, incidentally, the fact that an Obama administration would have people like Samantha Power helping shape foreign policy, as opposed to the crew of misfits and crackpots who have been driving Bush’s agenda that makes certain of the arguments that get recycled here seem completely puerile IMHO.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:00 am
reg, that’s very interesting and helpful info that Power is advising Obama, that is encouraging. His kissing up to Israel, on the other hand, is disturbing to me, because that conflict has to be solved if there are to be any hopes for the better in the Middle East. So perhaps he needs some better advisors on that issue.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Michael – I’m having trouble getting links through, but go to “richardsilverstein.com” – “March 2, 2007 at 3:06 pm” post – for some useful commentary on Obama’s AIPAC speech. Also there’s a note on his current advisor on the political aspect of this issue – “before joining the Obama campaign, Dan Shapiro served as Jewish outreach coordinator for Senator Bill Nelson. Nelson was one of the first U.S. senators to visit Bashar Assad in Syria and take home the message that Syria wants peace and negotiation with Israel. I don’t know what role, if any, Shapiro played on that trip. But I admired the guts it took for Nelson to buck our country’s declared policy of isolating Syria.” I think Obama knows what he’s doing over the long term and I’m not despairing over this particular speech to the hardest of hard-core.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:39 am
For Michael Turner, this article by Power’s coworker might serve as something of a companion peice: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301741.html
If Power is working for Obama, didn’t the LA Times commit something of a journalist no no by printing her article without identifying her loyalties?
March 5th, 2007 at 10:41 am
I also found this personal look at soldiering pretty moving: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-carlson4mar04,0,7716120.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
March 5th, 2007 at 10:44 am
“didn’t the LA Times commit something of a journalist no no”
Hard to imagine such a thing happening at such an esteemed institution…
March 5th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Marc hit it on the head as usual. Imagine the nerve of the Clintons and Obama mentioning God in an AME Church! Why didn’t they go to Vegas last weekend and hang out with the virtuous Mr Cooper. No old time religion for him. No Sir! And those stupid, er, “negroes” thinking Bill Clintion was the first “Black” President and all. Didn’t they listen to Pat Caddell and Marc on Cooper’s radio show back in the 90′s explain why Bill had to go over a blow job he lied about (oh the shame!)
And am I the only one here who finds it somewhat offensive that Marc thinks that someone like John Lewis can be strong armed by Bill into not endorsing Obama? I don’t know Marc but since neither you nor I were at the Edmond Pettis bridge that day in 1965 and he was and got his head bashed in for his troubles I think he knows a thing or two about withstanding pressure. He also fought the “Welfare Reform” bill and gave one of the better denuniations of it on the floor so he seems able to resist the blandishments of Bill when he feels the need.
(And Please, please, let us not get another report of your 35 years of activism and your support of Allende and the narrow escape you had. I honor that. But you don’t get to make Ex Cathedra judgements on other’s commitment to social justice as a result.)
Of course I suppose Hillary should have renounced Goldwater immediately. What were your views in 1964 Marc? Let’s see she was a HS Junior and any 16 year old should be tried as an adult in the Court of Public Opinion. As for Obama, why didn’t he throw tantrums until his parents pushed his pram at the front of the March! Insufficient zeal, I’d say!
I’m also interested in seeing Marc now stand foresquare with Michael Eric Dyson (the “tenured moron” Reg spoke of) and Cornell West (yes he was dissed by Larry Summers but, really, Harvard – and Henry Louis Gates – didn’t invite him to the Yard to make Rap records!) against Bill Cosby, who did get a very good reception to his remarks at that meeting and on Tavis Smiley’s “State of Black America” meeting). I await Cooper’s discovery that Ward Churchill was right after all!
But if you want to compare and contrast last weekend then I think the candidate that came out best and demonstrated the best modern committment to the ideals of Martin Luther King and the others who were at Selma that day was John Edwards who celebrated the anniversary by showing solidarity with the striking workers at UC Berkeley who are demanding better wages and working conditions. We forget that, at the end of his life, King was an ardent champion of the poor of all races as well as an opponent of the Vietnam War and I think Berkeley is where he would have been.
Of course I don’t know what John was doing in 1965. Probably slacking off. He is a Democrat after all.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:47 am
That Petraeus piece is interesting – Gordon Smith, the GOP senator from Oregon and a war critic, recently stated that Petraeus himself told him there’s only a one-in-four chance the surge can work.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:51 am
RLC – you’re wrong on Cornell West in that “controversy”. West stood with Cosby against Dyson on that one – as did most sentient adults.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:55 am
I’ll add that West mildly criticized Cosby’s tone, but not the content of his remarks.
March 5th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Glad to be corrected Reg but I stand by my understanding Harvard’s reluctance to hire a Rap singer when they thought they were getting a distinguished scholar. West is very bright and very eloquent but he says some pretty stupid things.
March 5th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
I believe Power has left the Obama campaign and is back at the Carr Center.
March 5th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
What reg sd about Hillary is the essential point — that she eventually shed her family’s political views bc of MLK and his movement. The fact that she hadn’t broken with her family by age 14 isn’t a particularly earth-shaking indictment.
March 5th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
I was for Goldwater in 1964, when I was a dumb high school junior, so that is indeed irrelevant. Look how well I turned out!
March 5th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
“West is very bright and very eloquent but he says some pretty stupid things.”
Agreed !
March 5th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Powers took a year sabbatical in ’05 to work fulltime with Obama. It’s over, but I believe she’s still an advisor.
March 5th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Either Reg hasn’t read Dyson book or simply cant get past his bone headed bias against cultural studies. Dyson was one of the few people to point out the irony of Cosby’s remarks about the black poor. For instance, he demonstrates how Cosby’s career as one of America’s most successful entertainers, with the exception of his role as the Tanto-esque straight man on I Spy, was built on his use of “Black English†in comedy routines and in his other television shows. As Dyson indicates, such vernacular forms have grown out of “the insistence of blacks… carving a speech of their own from the remnants of African languages and piercing… those remnants together in the New World with extant patterns of English for the purpose of communication and survival.†And yet, Cosby’s belittling of Black English in his diatribe against poor blacks seems to belie his own comic genius used even in his speech to the NAACP last summer which was, as Dyson indicates, “loaded with Ebonics.†The difference between Jesse Jackson and Cosby si that Jesse has always spoke out about institutional racism that continues to affect the majority of black Americans today in areas of education, employment, and criminal justice. Cosby politics, on the other hand, fit into the color-blind discourse espoused by many since the end of the civil rights era – and in recent years, have served as coded language for conservative pundits who oppose affirmative action and the major social policy gains of the civil rights era. His diatribe accusing poor blacks of “not parenting”; decrying youth for wearing their clothes backwards and calling their children “Muhammad, Shaniqua, Taliqua andf that crap” was not only mean spirited and classit but int also fit perfectly into the world view of conservatives demagogues who blame the poor without an adequate understadning of the gorss institutional injustices which reproduce inequality n this country. Michael Eric Dyson was one fo the few voices who took on cosby, provoking a much needed debate in this country.
March 5th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
A couple things about Obama’s speech….The theme: the responsibilities of the Josue Generation (to which he belongs) to respect and extend the gains earned by the Moses Generation. It’s a good metaphor. He seems to like dealing with dualities, like the Red State/Blue State theme of his 2004 keynote speech. As for the political significance of his conception, I think he was referring broadly to the Moses Generation that included A Philip Randolph, Thurgood Marshall and all the NAACP lawyers that defeated miscegenation laws.
Obama’s analysis of the self-reliance and self-control that is required was rooted in the dignity shown by the young men and women at the soda counters in the early 60s, and the Ghandian notion of personal evolution presaging political revolution that enlightened ML King and the demonstrators.
There were, as Marc observed, notes of opportunism in both Obama’s and Rodham Clinton’s speeches, but I don’t think it was too awful in either case. Obama is no doubt fluent in the vernacular of the civil rights movement, which contains liberal doses of “ebonics’ [though he explicitly endorsed the conjugation of verbs, presumably in accordance with traditional American English grammar]. And Hillary Rodham Clinton lived in Arkansas for nearly 20 years…she earned the right to get country, if not black, in spots.
March 5th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Ahmed you obviously never really listened to any of Cosby’s monologues since if you did you’d have to know that, unlike Dick Gregory, Godfrey Cambridge, or Richard Pryor, he was never a “Black” comedian. His routines about growing up in Philadelphia and his friends (like the unforgettable “Fat Albert”) never featured anything like “Black English” or “Ebonics” and I’ve got the old albums to prove it.
Cosby has been a tireless worker for Civil Rights and a champion of educational opportunities for African Americans. And he has put his money where his mouth is. Plus getting a Doctorate in Education and encouraging his late son to pursue a career in Education. Maybe that is why he is infuriated by a “Hip Hop” culture that sees learning as “Acting White”. I don’t know what Dyson’s excuse is but I suspect that a tenured Prof at Penn calling a Temple (and UMass) grad “elitist” is too rich for words!
And I bet the minorites at Penn don’t leave campus sounding like “Public Enemy” when they interview for jobs.
March 5th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Glad to hear I wasn’t the only one creeped out by the holly rolling down in Selma.
Ever since the 04 election I’ve been worried the Dem’s might try their hand at it. I know Obama and HRC where playing to the crowd but t makes my skin crawl thinking there could be more to come.
March 5th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Ahmed, with all due respect, I don’t think you have a clue…
Cosby has nothing against black vernacular. What he detests, and justifiably, is the self-imposed, nauseating minstrel show that constitutes so much of the “hip hop” generation’s vaunted culture – packaged and re-sold to them by Time Warner, et. al. and rooted in turning ghettoized dysfunction into “style”. Cosby only said what most black people of the generation that actually endured the brunt of the injustice of which you speak say amongst themselves. I hear this from my wife and her family all the time. And they are not some creme-de-la-creme bourgeios blacks, but a family that came out of West Oakland and struggled for everything they’ve ever had. Even my wife went to segregated schools as a child. Dyson is a self-promoting fool. There are some chapters of his book on MLK that make important points, but there’s a lot in it that’s a total embarrassment. His fixation on Tupac is pathetic. As Chris Rock says, Tupac wasn’t “assassinated”. He was shot !
March 5th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Hey I grew up listening to Chuck D and Flava Flav (before the flava of love, idiocy) and still made it to grad school. Weren’t they what Gramsci referred to a organic intellectuals and bastions of radicalism and thought compared to what you’ll find coming out now on the hip hop scene. RLC and Reg dont have the honesty to present Dysons real arguments so i’ll post the npr interview
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4628960
March 5th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
It looks like Reg’s guy Cornel West has somewhat a different view of that fool Michale Eric Dyson
“Michael Eric Dyson is the most courageous and visionary public intellectual on the scene today. He exemplifies a profound commitment to social justice and a genuine love of black people, especially poor black people. In short, he is a rare kind of genius with organic links to our beloved street brothers and sisters!â€
—Cornel West, author of Race Matters and Democracy Matters
March 5th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
John Edwards isn’t about to let Hillary and O’Bama “out-Jesus” him.
Edwards: Jesus Would Be ‘Appalled’
Don’t you get tired of these religious right Democrats? Do you think that they’re fooling anyone>
March 5th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Dadburnit. Here’s the corrected link, if I don’t mess it up again.
Edwards: Jesus Would Be ‘Appalled’
March 5th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
There’s also a difference between valuing the tradition of black vernacular speech while also valuing the ability to transcend it for purposes of education and careers – which is normative among black people as W.E.B. Dubois and others noted in the concept of a cultural “duality” – and the degrading, retrograde presentations of self that are way too common among contemporary black youth culture. I don’t condemn all rap music, but there’s a current within hip-hop that often seems dominant which, to be blunt, tends to make young black people look like the most ignorant, self-absorbed motherfuckers on the planet. Unless you’re an even more ignorant, clueless white suburban teenager looking for some cheap, vicarious thrills. In which case you run out and buy the record.
March 5th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Cornel West isn’t “my guy”. I think he’s another pretentious academic – but he did dissociate himself from Dyson’s views on Cosby. I find him more likeable than Dyson, but I have trouble taking him seriously.
March 5th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Funny but I don’t see anything wrong with what Edwards said. Lets see now. Wasn’t Jesus the one who said it would be easier to get a camel thru the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven? And didn’t he chase the “Moneychagers” from the Temple? Boy if he really does come back I sure hope that he visits Pat and Jerry! Will they ever be surprised!
March 5th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
As to Chuck D and Flava Flav, I think it’s fair to call Chuck D and “organic intellectual”. He’s a decent guy who comes across pretty straight and has some serious insights (although obviously, we’d differ on various stuff.) As for Flava Flav, I find him so creepy and repulsive, frankly I wouldn’t consider it a loss the African-American community or the country at large were he “assassinated”. He’s much, much worse than Stepin Fetchit, whose options were far more limited at the time.
March 5th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
BTW the ineffiable Ann is still at it suggesting today that David Bonior – a key Edwards Supporter – actually raises money for the “Terrorists”
No wonder Cliff Kinkaid of “Accuracy in Media” -the Right-wing media “Watchdog” group – called her “The Britney Spears of the Right!”
March 5th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Matthew 21:12 – And Jesus went into the Temple and sent out all who were trading there, overturning the tables of the money-changers….
rlc, Do you think that the Democratic candidates using the House of God for political campaigns might be the same as the money changers?
March 5th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Do you really want to compare your religious hypocrites to our religious hypocrites, Woody ? You’re treading on dangerous territory here.
March 5th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
“We got too many daddies not acting like daddies” Barack Obama
March 5th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
reg, I don’t connect with any “religious hypocrites.” However, if you’re referring to those religious leaders who get involved in politics, be sure to include those at the Ebenzer Baptist Church in Atlanta. At least religious leaders go to church year-round rather than just at election time, like politicians. In Edwards case, he seems to do a lot of speaking for Jesus. Maybe he should start a church.
March 5th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Just one song:
http://www.publicenemy.com/index.php?page=page5&item=10&num=34
Flavor Flav has contributed more to political discourse in one song that wanker/crackpot Oakland honkie bigot ignoramus”reg” has in his interminably stultifying diatribes here.
So Flavor Flav drives a bit poorly.
http://music.guardian.co.uk/urban/story/0,,1927407,00.html
March 5th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
All things considered, my respect for Hillary (and Obama, to some plummeted even further after hearing their condescending attempts to sound like George and Weezie Jefferson in Selma.
I’m not a Republican, but can you imagine the crud that would be thrown the GOP’s way if any of their candidates tried to come in and sound like that?
John Edwards plays it pretty much correct: you don’t need to go over the top and insult your audience’s intelligence to find some common ground.
March 5th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
(and Obama, to some extent)
March 5th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
That was a pretty good, Biblically-sound sermon Woody. Of course, the guy who gave it grew up in the Baptist church, studied for the ministry and professes a deep religious faith to this day, so I’m not surprised.
March 5th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Let me defend the “wanker/crackpot Oakland honkie bigot ignoramus” as you call him, by saying that the flava of love is a total disgrace. Every week it gives Americans unmediated access into Flav’s world of minstrels, misogyny, and malapropisms. In addition to helping to erase the powerful legacy of Public Enemy from the public memory, Flav’s antics reinscribed crippling representations of black men and women as unintelligent, immoral, and oversexed. Despite, or perhaps because of, the show’s ignorance, each season broke cable television viewing records. Sad, to say the least. As for calling for Flav’s assasination, homeboy from Oakland is known for going over the top (see his clueless dismissal of Eric Dyson, who is probably one of the sharpest minds in terms of understanding the intersections between race, culture and class)
March 5th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Sergio, when you can tell the difference between a black man and a clown in a minstrel show, come back and talk. Frankly, based on the general quality of your comments, I’m not surprised you consider Flava Flav some sort of oracle. Meanwhile, keep the imperialists trembling with those Woody Allen screenings.
March 5th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
And even though it is off topic, here is my two cents worth re the scary blonde pundant: What is up with this bimbo’s obsession with who is or isn’t gay? Ever since 2004 (maybe earlier), she has at various times talked about John Edwards’ hands, John Edwards’ nails, John Edwards’ hair, john Edwards’ clothes, etc. etc. Jealousy? Is she fretting about the fact that she is more masculine than John Edwards? The fact that no one has picked up on this is alarming.
I don’t blame Edwards at all for addressing this; if I were him I’d be getting a restraining order against the evil He-Woman Coulter. Talk about being, uh, obsessed.
March 5th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
“helping to erase the powerful legacy of Public Enemy from the public memory” – in fairness, I don’t thing Flava Flav’s blip on the Sleaze Meter could ever do that. Chuck D is the face and the soul of Public Enemy. I recently saw him in a hip-hop documentary on PBS and he was an excellent, insightful spokesman. Even in the day, Flava Flav was nothing but a hype man offering a silly side show anyway. If Public Enemy’s legacy could survive Professor Griff’s anti-semitic tirades and his bizarre theories about melanin, they’ll survive this putrid little exhibitionist. Be that as it may, I didn’t “call for” his “assassination”. Just said that if such a thing happened, he wouldn’t be missed.
March 5th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
“I recently saw him in a hip-hop documentary on PBS and he was an excellent, insightful spokesman.”
Unfortunately, he was less so as a longtime Fox News contributer and, later, as a softened down liberal talking head on Air America. It was sad, because in 1987 I was probably the only white guy in Kansas (and maybe the world) driving around in a pickup truck listening to “It takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back.”
March 5th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
reg, Gore now worships at the Church of Global Warming, and here’s the Church of John Edwards. Do you think that Jesus would approve? I didn’t know that so many Democrats were so religious.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Sadder still, though, is what the genre has produced in the last few years. Young Jeezy, and ten thousand other MC’s who claim to be the biggest coke dealer on the street. Looking at it that way, maybe Flav isn’t so bad, cornball show or not.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
David you might find the cooments of Bob Sommersby over at the DAILY HOWLER interesting. He naturally goes over Coulter’s”obsession” (you got that right) with Edwards and others but he also points out the similiar concerns of Maureen Dowd. She calls Edwards the “Breck Boy” and had withering comments about Al Gore’s mascuilainity as well. Its fascinating and sad as well and sure makes you wish Anna Quindlin were still writing that column.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Chuck D a regular on Fox News ? News to me, but then I never watch Fox or much of any cable news. Very interesting and very strange. Don’t know what to make of it. The “liberals” they keep in their stable, like Mara Liason and Juan Williams, are the most tepid minds available.
Anyway, there’s a hip-hop documentary currently making the rounds on PBS called Beyond Beats and Rhymes that’s quite good. Ahmed would like it a lot. Also, that was an exceptionally erudite analysis of Flava of Love. My impulse is to simply call it a nauseating piece of shit. And David’s bit on Coulter is also thought-provoking and probably hits the nail…somewhere.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Actually, Woody, that is a very nice house that Edwards has, but it is not as gaudy as I would have expected for someone who is reportedly worth 50 million dollars.
Anyway, I have a feeling that no matter who had made that statement (Ralph Nader, who lives in a tiny apartment with a black and white television; Michael Moore, who gives half of his annual pay to charity; Dennis Kucinich, who lives like a pauper as well) would have been met with the same kind of self-serving ridicule that we have come to expect from the jingoist right. FDR had a big estate, but I sure wish he were in office right now in the age we live in.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Reg, Chuck D was on Faux News for quite some time. I couldn’t believe it myself when I saw him a few years ago channel surfing. In fact, he hosted a regular segment on there for quite some time before he joined Air America. Links below, but you could search engine other sources for that.
http://www.rapstation.com/about/people/chuckd.html
http://www.globaltalentassoc.com/site/clients/ChuckD.html
March 5th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
By the way, Ann Coulter is a dead ringer for Robin Zander, male lead vocalist of Cheap Trick, and if you hold up the back sleeve of “Live at Budokan” to the current pic of Coulter on the Nation website…well, let’s just say the resemblance is quite striking.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Richard thanks for the Howler tip, just read it and I definitely agree, although that stuff about Dowd doesn’t surprise me, on a somewhat smaller level she is just as obnoxious as Coulter. And don’t even get me started on that Ana Marie Cox, who now writes for Time.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
“Do you think that the Democratic candidates using the House of God for political campaigns might be the same as the money changers?”
Woody — sometimes it’s cynical; sometimes it’s the appropriate combination of sincere religious belief and politics. Edwards seems to give a good % of his income to charity. His concern for the disadvantaged has been a consistent thread in his private and public life. It’s true he has a big house but so do a lot of the Republican pols you admire, no less willing to profess their faith in public.
Do you find the Republican use of religion in the public arena more authentic? Is George Bush closer to the Christian ideal than Edwards — if so, why?
I’m asking seriously, not just trying to bait you.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
He’s incapable of answering that with a straight face.
“If Water Vapor is the Number One greenouse gas (and it is, look it up) then wouldn’t a vehicle that emits Water Vapor do the opposate of what the environmentals want it to do: Stop Global Warming?”
No because water vapor is a feedback not a forcing, but to a wingnut the Jurassic seems appealing. It’s hot humid and crawling with dinosauers. Problem is the mammals are only small rodents at this point. They can handle heat, though including a meteor extinction event. I tell you, if ignorance deserved the death penalty Woody and Roper would be convicted and given the injection.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
“He’s incapable of answering that with a straight face.”
I have faith in Woody and I’d actually like to hear what he has to say on this without the attack points.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
David -
If you go through the Howler archives you’ll see that no-one has covered this subject as anywhere near exhaustively as Sommersby, — he’s on the money but his singlemindedness is kind of unnerving.
March 5th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Okay, Boyle. Watch your step. I’m the crazed maniac who’s handing out death sentences in this thread…
March 5th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Get up, get down 9-11 is a joke in yo town. Flav kicked it in this song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHpFfgCiagE
March 5th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Speaking of jokes who else thinks that Boyle is Mark York. I really don’t like the guy
March 6th, 2007 at 12:10 am
The Department of Defense has identified 3,163 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans yesterday:
EMCH, Lucas W. A., 21, Hospitalman, Navy; Kent, Ohio, First Marine Logistics Group, First Marine Expeditionary Force.
GOULD, Dustin M., 28, Staff Sgt., Marines; Longmont, Colo.; Seventh Engineer Support Battalion, First Marine Logistics Group, First Marine Expeditionary Force.
LATOURNEY, Paul M., 28, Staff Sgt., Marines; Roselle, Ill.; First Cavalry Division.
RODRIGUEZ-CONTRERA, Luis O., 22, Specialist, Army; Allentown, Pa.; First Cavalry Division.
TULANG, Morgan C., 36, Lt. Cmdr., Navy; Hilo, Hawaii; Central Command Deployment Distribution Operations Center.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:15 am
Thanks for the vid, Ahmed. When do you think the “erudite” Oakland PBS station will carry it?
March 6th, 2007 at 12:56 am
Off topic but here’s Cornel West theatrical take on Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXj3_pjTTwg&mode=related&search=
March 6th, 2007 at 4:44 am
On the supposed remark by Lt. Gen. David Petraeus about there being only a 1-in-4 chance of the surge succeeding, that traces back to an indirect quote in an Oregon newspaper of something said by Senator Gordon Smith, from a conversation with Petraeus that he didn’t directly quote himself. It’s possible that Petraeus said something like that, though crucial context might also have been omitted.
One important element of context is the domestic political risks to the surge. Petraeus is no dummy, so he must be aware of these risks. For instance, take a close look at Obama’s De-escalation Act:
http://www.barackobama.com/iraqact/
True to Obama’s bipartisan spirit (noted by Joe Klein in an interesting story last year), this piece of legislation is actually something that most GOP legislators could sign onto in good conscience, with little or no sense of disloyalty to Bush. After all, it doesn’t really differ much from Bush’s statements earlier this year about how the commitment is not open-ended, about how the Iraqi government has to improve in order to secure any longer-range commitment. All that Obama’s draft does is set some dates and put Congress into the co-pilot seat. Close inspection by anyone who’s for Obama on the basis of his “plan to get us out of Iraq” will yield disappointment. It’s riddled with loopholes. Under certain conditions, it could even permit troop commitments far beyond the supposed cap of the levels on Jan 10th of this year. (Not likely, but possible.)
Let’s say this legislation passes more or less as drafted, but then some major embarrassment erupts over administration fudging of the mandated measures of progress in Iraq. It would be quite in character for them to fudge, of course, but even if they engaged in good faith efforts, these could provide grist for heated accusations of cheating (from the Dems, accusing Bush & Co) and rueful expressions of doubt (from the GOP side, accusing the Iraqis). The measures would have to be plausibly accurate under conditions not conducive to accuracy, but it’s worse than that: they have to be maintained on a tight schedule. Obama’s legislation calls for more “gradual” redeployment whenever progress is not seen, starting May 1st (hardly seven weeks from now). At the same time, the De-escalation Act calls — at least implicitly — for measuring some things that are virtually unmeasurable, like degree of covert militia penetration in the Iraqi Army. Well, you know what they say: Good, Cheap, Fast: Pick Any Two. Has this administration even invested much in figuring out how much “collateral damage” there’s been in Iraq? Clearly not.
At some point, you might have Petraeus halfway through the surge plan and making what he would consider decent progress, hauled before Congress and grilled about the numbers. What would he be able to say in all honesty, except that a lot of the statistics gathering isn’t even under his control, and much of it is suspect, even *inherently* suspect?
There’s a very simple way to calculate a one-in-four chance of the surge succeeding. If you don’t know enough about a situation to estimate the chance of one of two outcomes, it’s fair (theoretically) to quote 50-50 odds. Call it a “shrug probability”. Petraeus’ attitude might be that he’s got a shrug probability of succeeding if he is not politically impeded by Congress, and a shrug probability of being impeded by Congress before his work is done. In saying “one in four” (if that’s what he said, and if that’s what he was talking about) he may have just been combining two unknowns.
Not coincidentally, this is quite in accord with a quote from Churchill used by Sen. Smith in a Dec 7th speech on the floor of the Senate:
“…let us learn our lessons. Never, never believe that any war will be smooth and easy or that anyone who embarks on this strange voyage can measure the tides and the hurricanes. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.”
And it’s hardly inconsistent with what Machiavelli said about “virtu” and “fortuna”: in both politics and that subspecies of politics we call war, having the Right Stuff still leaves you with a 50-50 chance of failure. 50% x 50% = 25%. If Petraeus is as smart as I suspect he is, he probably has reams of historical data about combat in Iraq, and reams of output from expensive conflict simulators at national labs for “predicting the future”, in case he ever has to wave a thick case at somebody, but also spends almost no time looking at any of that. He knows he is a “slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.” C’est la guerre.
March 6th, 2007 at 7:03 am
“Smith said he recently spoke with Gen. David Petraeus, the new top military commander in Iraq, who told him the troop surge has only a one in four chance of succeeding. ” The Oregonian
That’s the quote. Speculation about its context is…well, speculation. The context in the article was Smith’s observation that a full-on counterinsurgency surge in Iraq would require something like 250,000 troops and the only ones who could do that are the Iraqi army. You know, the one trained under Petraeus. I can’t read the mind of Petraeus or Gordon Smith. But it’s possible that the statement represents what it says it represents and that Petraeus is simply smart enough to understand the difficulties he’s up against. They were described by Sarah Sewell, who worked with Petraeus in developing his counterinsurgency manual and wrote the article Mavis linked for the Washington Post:
“Petraeus has never denied that the numbers didn’t add up to the ideal. Instead, he has said that he could accomplish the security mission by using these forces differently than they have been used in the past, aggressively pushing them out among the population that they are supposed to secure. Petraeus may conclude — consistent with the field manual — that he needs more U.S. forces for a longer period of time. But given current political calculations in Washington, neither the administration nor Congress is likely to provide them.
“Petraeus’s counterinsurgency doctrine also holds that 80 percent of any counterinsurgency effort should be political. Yet the military has always been the 800-pound gorilla in Iraq. Petraeus is politely urging other government departments to play larger roles, and in particular to increase economic assistance to support the security effort. But the State Department can’t even fill the civilian slots on the planned additional provincial reconstruction teams it is sending to Iraq; it has asked the Defense Department to provide military officers instead of foreign service officers. And no one has much confidence that State, Treasury or Justice Department support in Iraq will suddenly become effective — particularly if security continues to disintegrate.
“Finally, there is the field manual’s mantra: It’s the host government, stupid. Petraeus rightly points out that the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is still young — the fourth in 3 1/2 years. Bush’s strategy is to provide the government with enough confidence and breathing room to make tough decisions and take decisive action. All good, except that virtually none of the institutions comprising Iraq’s government function as advertised. Both the security apparatus and civilian agencies lack effective oversight or a meaningful national identity. The army, police and intelligence agencies are riddled with sectarian divisions and militia influence, while corruption and a lack of expertise erodes public trust in civilian bureaucracies that still cannot provide prewar levels of services.
“Breathing space for this Iraqi government may provide life support, but not a cure. Only a soup-to-nuts overhaul focused on carefully vetting and training personnel and holding them accountable — for years — could realistically stem the rot. Given limitations in U.S. capacity and will, this is not feasible.
“In addition to facing these jarring realities, an administration happy to return Petraeus to Baghdad should consider whether insurgency is even the right label for the sectarian bloodletting in Iraq. If it’s really a civil war or worse, as the recent National Intelligence Estimate concluded, how much can an under-resourced counterinsurgency effort accomplish? In civil conflict, security requirements become paramount, in part because the political space for compromise has all but vanished. Stopping a civil war requires still more of the very resources and time that Petraeus currently lacks.
“Placed in charge this late in the game, Petraeus should not have to carry the burden of Iraq’s probable failure. Yet there is a silver lining in his appointment. Petraeus has the expertise to identify shortfalls and the likelihood of failure, and he has the credibility to force a political response. Even the president would have to take his assessments seriously. Petraeus vowed to provide forthright, professional military advice regarding the mission in Iraq. He testified that, by late summer, he should know whether the strategy is working. He promised to alert not just his immediate military superior, but Congress as well, if the strategy cannot succeed.
“Petraeus may provide the ultimate service to the troops and the nation — and seal his legacy — not by winning, but by speaking the truth about Iraq.”
March 6th, 2007 at 7:39 am
Evets, I have to run and don’t have time for a thoughtful answer to your question, but I would be crazy not to admit that the Republicans will use the church for political purposes. Republicans accept support from pro-life groups and get verbal support from the Jerry Falwell types–and, who wouldn’t take that. But, I believe that the Republicans tend to actually have religious beliefs that guide them while the Democrats let the likes of the ACLU guide them. And, the black churches that the Democrats use for their election pulpits seem even more out of line with IRS guidelines on charitable organizations with non-profit status.
Edwards made some very condeming remarks about the generosity of the people our nation. We give billions for hunger, AIDS, medical treatment, eduction, etc. to impoverished people, and the world always turns to us first in a major disaster. (Unfortunately, we didn’t get a lot of help from others when Katrina went through.) Also, I do know that Edwards stepped over the line on his IRS filings when he avoided Medicare taxes on something like $600,000 of his income by treating it as corporate distributions rather than salary.
If I had to put everything on a scale, both sides weigh it down, but the Democrats far outdo the Republicans on abusing the church for gain and for being hypocritical. My opinion.
March 6th, 2007 at 7:44 am
Ahmed – 911 Is a Joke was the little sleazeball’s high water mark. 17 years ago. It’s been a long slide down even from acting like a fool in Public Enemy. Frankly, I don’t think there’s any message left in hip-hop except for shit. Black music has taken a major fall in the last thirty years. It’s just another crappy commodity in the good old USofA. It was a great run of about fifty years – from the era of early blues, Armstrong, Ellington, etc. on up through Miles, Coltrane, soul and such. But I’m not hearing much of anything but shit these days, frankly. At least on the main stage. Rap, unfortunately, has mostly mirrored the worst that advanced capitalism has to offer. The “politics” of hip-hop have been mostly a mirage. Public Enemy – or a group like them – couldn’t sell a record if they charged a penney for it. And the “style” is a combination of self-imposed infantilization, pathological “prison-chic” and conspicuous consumption that must have Veblen rolling over in his grave…laughing. Plus all of the “nigger” shit turns my stomach. There’s nothing in American society that is as pervasively negative in spreading stereotyped and degrading images of black people as the pop commodity that Professor Dyson panders to in his pretentious, canned “Hip Hop Doc” polemics.
March 6th, 2007 at 7:46 am
That one line should have been “At this point, Public Enemy – or a group like them – couldn’t sell a record if they charged a penney for it.”
March 6th, 2007 at 8:17 am
Ahmed – I don’t know if you’re into jazz (and it’s been in a pretty sorry state of late itself) but the new Wynton Marsalis album, “From the Plantation to the Penitentiary” – coming out today – looks like it might be the real thing- compositions with very “political/critical” lyrics.
March 6th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Reg’s lack of knowledge of an American form of music that is listtened to the world over, in Palestine, in Iraq, in Israel, in Romania, etc. – shows his generation.
Public Enemy, The Coup,Company Flow, Talib Kweli, there is loads of political/militant hip-hop. Jay Z is as talented at his skill (though his recent album sucked) as say, Eric Clapton was on guitar. Wu Tang Clan, with its mythology are the Pink Floyd of hip hop. Sure, there aer a lot of misogynist homophobic garbage acts, but so is therei n any music (Prussian Blue anyone?)….I’m not as big into hip hop as I was in what I consider ot be its last golden age (95-99) – but its still vital.
March 6th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Also – “Bougie” Black folk said the same thing in the early fifties about Irma Thomas, Joe Turner and other “ribald” blues singers, that Regi s saying about hip hop now.
March 6th, 2007 at 8:54 am
“I’m not as big into hip hop as I was…”
Why’s that ? Oh, yeah. Because of the kind of crap I mentioned that’s pretty much taken it over.
Sure it’s vital – but the groups you mention can’t sell records. And it’s appropriation in Romania is a undoubtedly a hell of a lot more interesting than the shit that’s on the charts. Jay-Z is for sure a talent – and about as boring and redundant as Clapton has become. (Frankly, Clapton always had that capacity in him – most of Cream was just virtuosity run amok.) And my criticism isn’t just of rap. What passes for “R&B” these days is a joke. Jill Scott has a good voice but somebody needs to tell her we’re not interested in the contents of her journals passed off as song lyrics. Alicia Keyes is talented…and boring as hell. John Legend is as lame as any act I’ve ever seen in my life. Sure this shows my generation…but I don’t listen only to “my generations’ music. I listen to the whole range of American music, and from the ’20s on through to today. I hear hip-hop, incidentally, filtered through a kid who writes and performs. Of course it’s not the music of my generation and, frankly, the over-produced sonics and synthetic rhythms bore me (bastard child of disco) but I listened to Public Enemy when it first came out and was impressed. Now, not so much. And don’t tell me that this isn’t the Golden Era of Zip Coons and Minstrels via rap videos. You’re lying to yourself if you lionize this shit.
March 6th, 2007 at 9:00 am
Incidentally, Irma Thomas didn’t record in the fifties and isn’t particularly “ribald”. Sure there was some class distinction among black music, but you’re full of shit if you think that anyone was ever embarrassed by a Joe Turner – or Muddy Waters or T-Bone Walker – in the sense that people are degraded by the crap that’s in rap videos. Even Chuck D is embarrassed by this garbage.
March 6th, 2007 at 9:06 am
“lack of knowledge of an American form of music”
Frankly, jc, I know more about this crap than I wish I did.
March 6th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Incidentally, on the “generation” angle, Subterranean Homesick Blues is as good a rap lyric as any, ever.
March 6th, 2007 at 9:25 am
>I’m not a Republican, but can you imagine >the crud that would be thrown the GOP’s >way if any of their candidates tried to come >in and sound like that?
No, people live the same stuff coming from repugs. Do you think that GWB used the Yosemite Sam shtick to get through Andover, Yale, and Harvard Business School? More likely he picked it up when he started running for Governor of Texas.
March 6th, 2007 at 9:26 am
One more – the lame state of contemporary R&B was underscored in Chapelle’s Block Pary when Lauryn Hill totally smoked self-absorbed “divas” Jill Scott and Erykah Badu with…a 35-year old Roberta Flack song. Now THAT”S lame !
March 6th, 2007 at 9:52 am
I meant Rufus Thomas and (whats her name who did “work with me annie”)
March 6th, 2007 at 9:53 am
We don’t disagree about rap videos and mainstream hip hop. But I think you paint with too broad a brush and fail to realize how hip hop is an international means of communication among divese youth cultures
March 6th, 2007 at 9:55 am
And you’re right about what turned me off most modern hip-hop. Re RandB – De La Soul has always referred to the modern incarnation of this as “rap and bullshit”
March 6th, 2007 at 10:01 am
“I’m the crazed maniac who’s handing out death sentences in this thread…”
Sir, appeal to proper authority so ordered. If a reprieve is granted make sure there is a lot of rockbusting at Rock of Ages, and marathon reading of scientific journals.
March 6th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Reg and jc this music discussion is interesting but I haven’t got the slightest idea of who these guys are you’re talking about. These days I spend my listening to Jazz and mostly nothing newer than Miles’ “Kind of Blue” or Coltrane’s “My Favorite Things.” And Ellington? Now that’s music!
March 6th, 2007 at 10:47 am
I haven’t got the slightest idea of who these guys are…
You’re better off. (And even though Marsalis is more of a curator of jazz than an originator, that new album of his looks like it might be interesting…)
March 6th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Wynton or Bradford?
March 6th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
“There’s nothing in American society that is as pervasively negative in spreading stereotyped and degrading images of black people as the pop commodity that Professor Dyson panders to in his pretentious, canned “Hip Hop Doc†polemics.”
To a certain extent I agree with what reg is saying. Cultural theorist who romanticize hip as “as everyday resistance” or “cultural politics” assume, falsely, that the music is a sort of substitute for political action. It isn’t. Also, hip hop right now is pretty mich dead as an art form. Its not going anywhere and is more devoid of creativity and originality than its ever been. Public Enemy was a bit before my time (yes im that young) but i grew up listening to de la soul, a tribe called quest, black star and others. Im just not sure that we should throw the baby out with the bath water. Take the figure of the gangter in rap, epitomized by Ice Cube in the 1990′s. If you take the long view of the gangsta genre, one is able to locate it within a very old expressive culture, and also place it within contemporary commercial culture and flows of global capital. The historic pimp and rap artist, in Cubes early work, are collapsed in interesting and contradictory ways, for the genre produces a critique of capitalism and white supremacy alongside a celebration of wealth and name-brand consumer items. Michael Eric Dyson’s scholarship, which can IMHO be annoying at times, tries to navigate these ideas and at ita best is able to connect with the post industrial generation, who grew up in inner cities bereft of jobs and had to hustle to get by. The people who were left out of the Civil Rights Revolution which mostly elevated the status of the black middle class. He writes about hip hop, culture and class without losing sight of the sexism and violence the genre too often celebrates. That’s why his intervention in the Cosby debate was neccesary. Dyson also provides a biting critique of black elites, whom he characterizes as members of the “Afristocracy,†composed of lawyers, physicians, intellectuals, civil rights leaders, entertainers, athletes, bankers who are often opposed to the mores of the “Ghettocracy,†the urban poor, and ironically, some nouveau riche figures such as hip-hop stars and basketball players, derided for their illicit behavior. While Dyson probably exaggerates the radicalism of the “Ghettocracy†when he suggests that “street fashion is once again at the heart of the war against the urban poor,†he is addressing an important issue about the role of cultural issues in African American politics and how it continues to have a bearing on contemporary debates about race and class.
Some other random thoughts…I really liked John legends first album. He can really sing and the first album was probably the most soulful cd to enter the mainstream in sometime. The nation also ran an excellent piece on Jay Z a while back
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070122/chang
This too
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QlBiKGJiPOM
March 6th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Wynton
March 6th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Good take, Ahmed…
March 6th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
“the Civil Rights Revolution which mostly elevated the status of the black middle class”
That really diminishes the Civil Rights movement. The issue of “post-industrialism” aside, it opened enormous opportunities for the historic black working class as well and expanded what’s perceived as the “middle class” enormously. Since in the U.S. the terms “middle class” and “working class” are generally conflated, I’d watch these generalizations.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Thanks Oakland honkie bigot ignoramus
March 6th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
You forgot “anti-semitic Islamophobe”
March 6th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
My intention wasn’t, at all, to diminish the Civil Rights Movement whicch as you’ve notd has greatly expanded not only the black middle class but also America’s conception of democracy. I was just making a rather obvious point. You and i both know that class is the most unspoken word is America. Here’s some facts to back up my claim. While its true that statistics which show that while there has been some economic progress (blacks who hold middle-class occupations numbered nearly 7 million in 1995 compared to under 400,000 in 1960), black median household incomes of $29,026 in 2003 lagged by $16,000 the white median household income of $46,900. Black unemployment rates (at 10 per cent) continue to be twice the average national rate of 5 per cent, while elderly blacks hold only half the access to health insurance and private pension plans that whites do. Between 1974 and 2001, the percentage of black males who had been imprisoned increased from 8.7 per cent to 16.6 per cent, while the same statistics for white males only increased from 1.4 to 2.6 per cent. I could go on to talk about school funding and other forms of structural inequality. Part of the problem is precisely that those on the bottom, have been left of the civil rights revolution. That comtempory liberalism, embodied in the lame democrats, have abandoned their role in the fight for greater economic equality.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Are you some kind of a professor ????
March 6th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Are you some sort of know it all? i’m quite amazed, actually, that you can talk about Jay Z, AIPAC or any topic really with the same sort of ease and confidence. I’m guessing that ypou’re often the crankist guy in the room, no offence.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
I understand your point, but I think you fall into the trap of being precise about class when you made that generalizatioin about the “black middle class”. Most of what people percieve as “the black middle class” are actually working class, just not the industrial workers of yore. Also, if you look at capital assets held by black people as opposed to relative wages from “middle class occupations”, the economic gap between black and white in this country is even more stark, even among those who are “making it”.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
I should have said “not being precise about class”
(On that other bit, my wife’s sister calls me “Mr Grumpy”.)
March 6th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
“have abandoned their role in the fight for greater economic equality.”
This sort of equality is unattainable. This place is essentially run like a game show where there are more losers than winners. Poor whites by far outnumber any other group. This tends to get lost in the oh-woe-is- me-sim. really the economic level has lowered for everyone but the top 1 percent. As kevin Phillips has said, “The only group on the Bush radar is the top one-percenters.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Ahmed
You got me.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Well you may have been speaking abotu Reg – it applies to me…I’m a premature curmudgeon…31 and I feel 90.
March 6th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
hmmm….what to post about? Flavor Flav or John Edwards?
Reg, totally knows what he’s talking about when it comes to poplar hip-hop today. (jeez, what don’t you have an opinion on? by the way, wouldn’t you say that the quality of Swiss yodlers today is appalling compared to what it was 30 years ago?) I’m with him that hip hop is crap today, and on top of that, Cosby was right! As promising as hip hop started out with the bands Ahmed mentioned, it is now crawling in the gutter. That said, I just wanted to point out one artist today who can still bring it old school like.. Mos Def. He’s not top of the charts by any means, but not obscure either. In terms of intellect and politics he’s right there with Public Enemy, but I think artistically he blows them away (Black on Both Sides, great album). To lesser degrees, I think same can be said of Wu Tang Clan as JC said, or even Kanye West. Though even with these shining lights, hip hop today and it’s effects on youth culure are a sad subject.
March 6th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
reg writes: “I can’t read the mind of Petraeus or Gordon Smith. But it’s possible that the statement [of a 1-in-4 chance of the surge succeeding] represents what it says it represents and that Petraeus is simply smart enough to understand the difficulties he’s up against.”
I’m sorry, but there’s just not enough of a statement there to say for sure what the statement represents. If Smith had quoted Petraeus as saying that, if he gets a chance to work unimpeded by shifting domestic political currents until late summer, he still only has a 1-in-4 chance, I’d accept it as a technical odds calculation. I don’t believe he meant that though, because I believe the surge was made politically possible *by* shifting domestic political currents — specifically, an trend in support for adding troops, over a period of a year, from single digits up to over a quarter of Americans polled. Surely Petraeus is aware that the surge is in part a product of domestic political calculations — and that could be nipped in the bud by changes in those calculations between now and late summer.
Anyway, I think I’ll leave this thread to the more consequential topics, like whether Snoop Doggy Dogg is a lumpenprole proto-fascist, and whether Digital Underground was merely a bourgeois reformist front group.
March 6th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
I still can’t read the mind of Petraeus or Gordon Smith. From reading other contextual articles on the surge by people knowledgable in military affairs, I’d be surprised if the odds of the surge, even assuming it’s unimpeded by any domestic political externals, has as much as a one-in-four chance of succeeding in any tangible sense. So I’d not be surprised if Petraeus is smart enough to know that the odds are against him. What I’m not sure about is why he would say this to Smith. But the Sewell article is suggestive that he’s a complex man with considerable integrity.
March 6th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Actually you interrupted my beginning to write an important comment on Hillary’s appropriation of black vernacular in the context of Michael Eric Dyson’s critique of Bill Cosby, but now I’m out of gas.
March 7th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
I think you will find that people adapt to their surroundings unintentionally. Up north, Obama’s accents are crisp. Down south, they’re a little longer, a little more drawn out. Hillary does the same. I believe that John Edwards pushes his Southern accent in the south, while trying to suppress it in the north. It’s just our way of blending in – I note that when I spend time with my Southern relatives, my Midwestern flatness takes on the drawl of the South. It just happens.
March 11th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
[...] post by Marc Cooper [...]
June 7th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Porno Tie…
Free Newest XXX Video…