How Media Enables Republican Extremism

Reed RichardsonSince 2008, it has become a biennial ritual in the political press. In the aftermath of every election — no matter the outcome — the media establishment carefully explains that the Republican Party will now have to move to the center, accept compromise and govern more responsibly. And each and every time — no matter the circumstances — the Republican Party ignores this counsel and instead becomes more extreme, more intransigent and more antagonistic toward governance.

You would think that, by now, the press would have learned this lesson. That after six years of getting it wrong, the press would have figured out that a relentless GOP campaign of unswerving opposition — launched mere hours into the Obama presidency — would never be so easily relinquished.

After its drubbing in the 2012 election, you’ll recall, the GOP commissioned a blue-ribbon panel to conduct a post-mortem on the party’s mistakes. When they were released to much fanfare in March of 2013, the final recommendations of the Growth and Opportunity Project were lauded by Beltway pundits as “bold” and “comprehensive” and received some egregiously positive and credulous coverage. The Republicans, so went the DC thinking, had finally woken up. To remain relevant, the party could no longer afford to substitute xenophobia, obstruction and anti-government nihilism for a policy agenda. And among the most notable and newsworthy of the GOP project’s priorities, it’s worth remembering, was [immigration reform]…

It didn’t take long, however, before this clarion call to solve one of our nation’s biggest challenges — implicitly by working with the recently re-elected President Obama — was drowned under a riptide of GOP nativism. In fact, in their progress “check-up” one year later, the GOP report’s authors omitted any mention of immigration reform — like the whole idea of supporting its passage had never even happened. On the GOP’s website, a series of congratulatory quotes from conservative leaders about the GOP’s progress in Hispanic outreach trotted a lot of vague marketing spin about better “engagement.” The phrase “comprehensive immigration reform” was, again, nowhere to be found.

Did the establishment media make a point of noticing the party’s huge feint toward the center on immigration reform over the past year-and-a-half? Not so much. Months after barely noticing that the Republican National Committee’s Director of Hispanic Outreach had quit in protest over the GOP’s “culture of intolerance,” major news organizations could still be found regurgitating party press releases and glossing over the growing anti-immigrant tenor of GOP rhetoric and its policies…

This is “objective” political journalism at its most insidious — projecting its can’t-we-all-get-along, centrist biases onto a increasingly hard-right party that has learned it can use the Beltway media’s “both sides do it” framing as political cover. Thanks to this false balance in the press’s political coverage, Republicans know they will rarely be held accountable for their unprecedented obstruction and reckless brinksmanship. Likewise, it works in their favor when the press overdoses on ambiguous complaints of “gridlock” and fuzzy talk of governmental dysfunction, by depressing voter turnout at the polls. Couple that smaller, more Republican midterm electorate with the GOP’s ruthless, state-level redistricting tactics, and you have a party that has managed to build an entrenched majority in the House and a stalemate in the Senate, all without having to compromise on a single piece of major legislation and without having had much of a policy agenda other than reflexively opposing the president at every turn.

In other words, with all of these factors working in their favor, why in the world would the Republicans ever bother to change? You might call the GOP crazy, but it’s not insane. No, that honor goes to a political press corps that keeps on enabling Republican extremism year after year and then can’t figure out why our broken democracy never gets any better.

—Reed Richardson
Post-Midterm Political Coverage of GOP Extremism Fits the Definition of Media Absurdity

Jonathan Swift

Jonathan SwiftOn this day in 1667, the great writer Jonathan Swift was born. He is best known for his satire in the novel Gulliver’s Travels and the essay A Modest Proposal. At less than 3,500 words, the latter makes the outrageous suggestion that the poor be able to sell their children as a food source to the wealthy — simultaneously reducing the parents’ burden and providing them with extra income. What particularly strikes me is that the proposal really isn’t that much different from what I hear from conservatives today. While it is certainly true that conservatives are hysterical in their commitment to protecting fetuses, most show little or no interest in offspring outside the womb. The bad condition of children is met with claims that the poor should not have had children they could not afford to keep. Today, a satirist would have to go to greater extremes, because conservatives today offer proposals that are too close to Swift’s.

Swift was English, but born in Ireland. And he spent most of the first half of his life trying make a living in England, only to be forced back to Ireland again and again. He was very good at making enemies. It was Queen Anne’s great hatred for Swift that finally got him to embrace Ireland. A Modest Proposal is, of course, explicitly about Ireland. Another of his essays, A Proposal for the Universal Use of Irish Manufacture, got his publisher charged with sedition. The criminal idea was that the Irish should use their own natural resources to produce products rather than simply sending them to England. This is still an issue today where the United States hates countries that want to actually use their natural resources rather than just sending them to us to exploit.

In 1726 — at the age of 59 (roughly the same age as Cervantes when he wrote the first book of Don Quixote) — Swift published his masterpiece, Gulliver’s Travels. At the time, it was a biting satire of government and religion. Now, I think it comes off more as a satire of human foibles. And it is also a good adventure story — proto-science fiction, very much as Jules Verne would write a century and a half later. Like much of his work, Gulliver’s Travels was published anonymously, although it was eventually published under his name in his lifetime. And regardless, it was generally known what works were his. He had a distinct style.

Happy birthday Jonathan Swift!

Is Abetting as Bad as the Crime?

Relative GuiltI found this image on Facebook. For those who can’t see it, it reads, “You are just as guilty as the abuser if you know about animal abuse and do nothing.” The poster, Valerie VanOrden, added, “Ditto with child abuse or over-correction.” I assume “over-correction” is a reference to corporal punishment of children. I understand this sentiment, so it is not my intent to attack Ms VanOrden. But I think this is wrong and even dangerous.

It is easy to be so outraged at a crime that one latches onto “enablers.” When it comes to child abuse, the act seems so heinous that it is easy to define the abusers as not even human. Thus the humans who we can empathize with are those we focus our rage on. After all, each of us has the experience of being in a situation where someone misbehaved and we did nothing. So in a weird kind of way, attacking such people in different circumstances can feel like making amends for our own acts of cowardice. But that doesn’t actually make the current or past situations any better.

Doing nothing when a child or an animal is abused is wrong. But such signs (and arguments) don’t say that. They explicitly equate the acts. And that is preposterous. For one thing, what exactly does it mean to “do nothing”? If you see a man kick his dog, is giving him a dirty look enough? What about saying something like, “Don’t kick that dog!”? Or perhaps kicking the man? None of these things will necessarily end the man’s behavior? Even getting the man arrested, convicted, and jailed may not stop his behavior. So what level of engagement is required?

It is very possible that the best thing you could do in that case would be to tell everyone you know about the awful man who kicked his dog. It isn’t legal penalties that are primarily responsible for the much better treatment of animals today versus 200 years ago. In Henry Bergh’s time, horses were commonly flogged to death on the streets of New York. Now such behavior would be unthinkable. So I’m not at all certain that expecting every person to turn into informants for the police is necessary or even especially helpful.

There is also the problem that people who abuse animals and children are probably dangerous people. So encouraging little old ladies to confront such sociopaths is not necessarily a great idea. And confrontations can make things worse. I say this as a person with a long history thrusting myself into such situations. They usually do quiet the situation in the short-term, but at the expense of causing the anger to be focused on me. That’s fine, but I’m not sure if it helps the situation in the long-term.

What’s more, the people who are most likely to know about abuse are people who are being abused themselves. For example, if there is an abusing father who is beating the children, he is probably also beating the wife. I know of a couple of cases of truly heroic women who got their children out of these situations — cases in which the women were willing to accept being abused themselves but not when the situation degenerated to include the children. But these women are heroes, and the last thing we should do is lay shame upon all similarly placed women who are not capable of the heroism the situation demands.

When it comes to things like Catholic bishops covering up for priests who sexually abused children, the situation is different. Moving priests to new areas where they could continue to abuse children could very well be as bad as or even worse than what the priests were doing. In these cases, the bishop was acting as a kind of pimp for unwanted sexual encounters. But I’m certain that the bishops didn’t see themselves as pimps. They probably thought that the priests were just having difficulties that the bishops could finesse. There was just one boy that the priest couldn’t resist. Or there was too much pressure on the priest. Or thousands of other justifications that the bishop used to allow the priest to continue preying on the young. This is a special kind of villainy, but mostly one where the bishops managed to delude themselves into thinking they were doing something other than what they were actually doing. That doesn’t reduce their culpability, of course.

The bishop situation is different because they were actively facilitating child rape committed by priests. The situations that people face in their everyday lives are quite different. If you think that a neighborhood child is being brutalized by his parents, you should do something about it. There is a moral imperative. But not doing so is not equal to brutalizing the child yourself. And claiming that it is minimizes the initial act of brutality.

The Future of Darren Wilson and Police Abuse

Darren WilsonDarren Wilson has resigned from the Ferguson Police Department. In a statement, he claimed that he did not want to put the “residents and police officers of the City of Ferguson at risk.” And I suppose that is a better way to put it than, “I will be too busy with my ghostwriter and video acting courses.” And who can blame him? One needs to take advantage of these opportunities. I mean, how likely is it that he is going to get another opportunity to kill an unarmed teenager and walk away from even an indictment? I’ve predicted a six-figure book deal, but it is entirely possible that he could get over a million dollars. There are a lot of conservatives for whom he is now a hero.

I was surprised, however, to have a conversation with my father Thanksgiving night. Despite his hour per day of Fox News, he completely sided with Michael Brown. He didn’t find Wilson’s story credible. And interestingly, what he had a problem with was a minor statement. According to Wilson, the first thing he said to Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson was, “Hey guys, why don’t you walk on the sidewalk?” My conservative father just couldn’t get past that. Despite the fact that my father has never been in any trouble (he’s never spent a moment in jail), his interactions with the police have generally been very negative. And one thing is for certain: officers never ask people to do something, they tell them what to do. And Dorian Johnson’s quote sounds right, “Get the f*** on the sidewalk!”

Michael BrownWhat bothered me at Thanksgiving was that there was a lot of mention of the size of Michael Brown — by mostly non-political people. Michael Brown was 6'-4" and 290 pounds. No one was aware that Darren Wilson was also 6'-4", although lighter: only 220 pounds. The information that seems to have made it into the minds of the casual news consumer is, “I felt like a five-year-old holding on to Hulk Hogan.” It is poetic, but as such, it should be taken lightly. (There is the other way of looking at it: Darren Wilson is so used to manhandling smaller people, that dealing with someone larger really did frighten him.)

Despite my experience with my father, my takeaway from Thanksgiving is that the whole Michael Brown shooting will be remembered inaccurately and badly in the public sphere. It will be that Brown was a thug who maybe didn’t deserve to die, but who brought it on himself. And even worse, it will be seen as a case where the police officer acted appropriately. It will be yet another instance that separates the white and black communities. The white community will continue to think that cops are generally okay guys doing a hard and dangerous jobs. And the black community will continue to think that cops have chips on their shoulders and treat people of color as though they are guilty until proven otherwise. No one who reads this site can be confused about who I think is right.

There was always a problem with the Michael Brown case. The problems with policing and the criminal justice system are not about any particular person, police force, city, or region. People tend to overestimate the age of black children and to assume they are more dangerous than white children. This is not a problem with bad people. It is a systemic problem — dating back hundreds of years. It requires systemic solutions, and they start with economics. If we don’t look broadly at the problem, we will continue on with the white majority continuing to learn the wrong lessons from these pointless deaths.

Afterword

I think that dealing with our economic problems is the most important thing to do because it has the broadest effect. But there are more specific things that we should do that would have greater immediate effects. In particular, I think that the police officers and prosecutors should be held accountable for what they do on the job. For example, Ricky Jackson and Wiley Bridgeman were shown to be innocent and released from prison 39 years after the crime. Regardless of what happens to them, nothing will happen to the police and the prosecutors who railroaded them. People claim to be for the death penalty because it disincentivizes murder, but no such concern exists when it is government officials using the system to kill innocent people. But the big problem is that the white community by and large thinks such things are just unfortunate errors in the system rather than what they are: explicit designs of the system.

Slavery as Fatal Design Flaw of the Constitution

The Counter-Revolution of 1776It is also worth reiterating that the potent concept that is racism is necessary but insufficient in explaining the past and present plight of those who are now designated as “African-American.” …

It is also the case that it is much too generous to conclude that the former slaveholding republic has suffered from a tragic flaw: it is more accurate to aver that this polity has suffered from a design flaw, that is, that it was not accidental that the fabled founders somehow “forgot” to include all of the former colonies’ denizens in its bounty. Unavoidably, this design flaw led to blazing conflagration that concluded formally in 1865.

In some ways, 1776 was an outgrowth of 1688: the result of “free trade in Africans” and resultant restiveness of overwhelming slave majorities in the Caribbean that drove the Crown to retrench on the mainland and the concomitant growth of the productive forces there, allowing North American colonies to strain at the leash held by the colonizer. Likewise, 1861 was an extension of 1776: the failure to resolve the nettlesome matter of slavery — indeed, augmenting this atrocious institution — culminated in bloody civil war. Strikingly, the supposed trailblazing republic and its allegedly wondrous Constitution had a fatal design flaw in the form of enhanced slavery, which caused it to crash and burn by 1861.

—Gerald Horne
The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America

The Moon Does Not Go Around the Earth

Moon RiseOn Thanksgiving night, I was looking at the moon. I find it endlessly fascinating, but probably not in the way that most people do. Everyone knows that the earth goes around the sun and the moon goes around the earth. But they are really screwed up about this. People watch the sun as it rises in the east and sets in the west and they know that what is really happening is that the earth is rotating on its axis and so it just appears that the sun is rising and setting. And that is more or less correct.

But then they look at the moon and they see that it rises in the west and sets in the east and know what is really happening is that the moon is rising in the east and setting in the west. And that is more or less complete wrong. The moon orbits the earth in the same direction that the earth rotates. So if the earth stopped rotating, the moon would rise in the west and set in the east — very slowly.

This is why watching a lunar eclipse can be a freaky experience. You are watching the moon go across the sky toward the west. And then the shadow of the earth begins happening on the east edge! It is counter intuitive. And if you continue to watch the eclipse, you will see it gets more weird. An eclipse can last almost two hours during which time, the moon will appear to move across the sky quite a distance.

Wittgenstein famously noted that the sun going around the earth and earth turning on its axis create the same observational evidence. And I think it is interesting that people may know that the earth goes around the sun, but they don’t really. It is just a little factoid that has been drummed into their heads. And we know this because of the way that they confuse what is going on with the moon. I know this because I used to teach planetary astronomy. Most students thought that the phases of the moon were due to the earth’s shadow and so were confused about how the moon could stay full all the way from moon rise to moon set.

My trick for teaching this subject was for my students to start thinking about the moon the way they do the sun. Forget what you’ve been told: the moon does not go around the earth. At least, the moon doesn’t go around the earth in any given night. It moves about 6° in that time, so it isn’t a big enough effect to worry about. The effect of the rotating earth totally swamps the effect the moon’s orbit.

We modern humans tend to greatly overestimate how much we know. We are told simple facts such as the moon going around the earth, but it confuses us more than anything. This might bee a good definition of a factoid. It is something people know, which is true. But it is not only useless to them, it actually confuses them by causing them to think that the moon travels across the sky because it orbits the earth.

And look at the kind of questions you can answer if you assume that the moon does not orbit the earth! What is the phase of the moon during a solar eclipse? (New.) Can you see a lunar eclipse at dawn? (Yes.) And most of all, you won’t go your whole life thinking that the phases of the moon are caused by the earth’s shadow.

Afterword

Orbits are actually more complicated than this. Both the earth and the moon revolve around their shared center of gravity. That’s also true of the sun and the rest of the solar system, but the sun is so large that it doesn’t move much. Of course, that’s only true from our perspective. Our solar system is moving roughly 500,000 mph around the center of our galaxy. There is no such thing as absolute speed, which is what Einstein was talking about a century ago.

Billy Strayhorn

Billy StrayhornOn this day in 1915, the great jazz composer and arranger Billy Strayhorn was born. He is best remembered for his work with Duke Ellington. Of course, he largely isn’t remembered at all. Even people who don’t like jazz at all know who Ellington was. But Strayhorn worked in the shadows, and he seemed to have liked it that way.

He was a phenomenon at an early age. While still in high school, he wrote a musical. He also formed his own trio that played on local radio every day. And he wrote a number of great songs, including “Lush Life.” Here he is in 1964, performing it live:

Strayhorn wanted to be a classical composer, but he had the wrong skin color. His introduction to Art Tatum — a classical composer in his own way — pushed Strayhorn into jazz. And at the age of 23, he met and began collaborating with Duke Ellington. It is hard to say where one starts and the other ends. Ellington said, “Billy Strayhorn was my right arm, my left arm, all the eyes in the back of my head, my brain waves in his head, and his in mine.” But being the established great man, Ellington took credit for much of Strayhorn’s work. Generally speaking, if you see a tune composed by Strayhorn and Ellington, it is Strayhorn’s. And Strayhorn is probably even more important as an arranger in creating what we now think of as the Duke Ellington sound.

That’s not to say that Ellington took advantage of the younger man. They had a symbiotic relationship. It is doubtful that Strayhorn would have accomplished so much without the protection and encouragement of Ellington. And Strayhorn got sole writing credit for the most famous song of the Duke Ellington orchestra, “Take the ‘A’ Train.” Here he is performing the song on piano with the orchestra. At the end, Ellington lists some of Strayhorn’s other compositions.

Sadly, in 1964 — at the same time he recorded “Lush Life” above, he was diagnosed with esophageal cancer, which seemed to ended his career. He died three years later.

Happy birthday Billy Strayhorn!

Stimulative Effects of Environmental Regulations

Paul KrugmanPaul Krugman wrote about the current partisan nature of environmental laws and how it wasn’t always this way, Pollution and Politics.

I think it is important to understand why doing something about pollution is good for the economy — at least when economic demand is low as it is now. As you have no doubt seen, since the economy crashed in 2008, corporate profits are at an all time high. Because there are so many more people looking for jobs than there are jobs, there is no pressure to raise wages, so the the owners of capital can keep more of the profits of productivity gains to themselves. It’s funny that conservatives think that in this environment, businesses need incentives in the form of lower taxes and fewer regulations in order to “create” jobs.

The problem with this situation is that the rich — the owners of capital — end up just sitting on the money. There is no incentive for them to invest the extra money, because demand is low in the economy and they are likely to lose on the investments — in the short term at least. But by requiring that the owners of capital invest to improve their infrastructure, this money that would be sitting around in the pockets of the rich doing nothing would be cycling in the economy. (Say’s Law is a myth!)

It is understandable why corporations would not want to be forced to upgrade their physical plant. But the effect on the macroeconomy is win-win: there is less pollution and the economy is stimulated. And given that the corporations are sitting around harming the economy with a kind of paradox of thrift, there is no reasonable political complaint against environmental regulations in a depressed economy.

Of course, what we hear from conservatives is that a depressed economy is a bad time to enact environmental regulations because it will kill jobs. To start with, this is a disingenuous argument because they would make the same argument in a booming economy: we can’t harm the good economy! This second claim actually has a theoretical basis. But environmental regulations in a depressed economy is a jobs program. It takes money that the rich are refusing to spend and makes them spend it to create jobs. And meanwhile, we get a better economy and become more competitive compared to other countries.

Marketplace Magic: And Then a Miracle OccursConservatives always argue for their policies of letting the business community do whatever it wants because this will somehow create jobs. It is similar to their healthcare logic, “High cost healthcare; then a miracle occurs; low cost healthcare.” But in this case it is: cut taxes and regulations on corporations; then a micacle occurs; jobs are created.

Krugman suggested that the issue is primarily rising income inequality. But I really think it is mostly ideology. Environmentalism poses a huge problem for conservatives and that is especially true when it comes to global issues. Conservatives cannot accept that collective action is sometimes needed. This is actually quite a typical conservative-liberal divide. Liberals have no problem with individual action. In fact, if we could have a good society without government, liberals would have no problem with it. As I note a lot around here: liberalism is a very practical ideology. But conservatives are not okay with collective action. To them, the need for any collective action other than getting together occasionally and killing hundreds of thousands of people would prove that the government isn’t always the problem. Ronald Reagan would be wrong about, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'”

This is why distinguishing between different economic situations is anathema to conservatives. Monetary stimulus is always inflationary. Deficit spending never creates jobs. And environmental regulations always kill jobs. My atheist friends rightly mock fundamentalist Christians who are immune to proof. But perhaps they should spend more time looking at political conservatives who seem to be no less immune to proof.

Afterword

Note that in practice, conservatives are not for a small government. But because they hate government, they simply turn it into a corrupt system that enriches their already rich friends. And the one area where they think the government absolutely much be small is in its role to help the weak.

Anarchist: Brown Family Shoulda Hired Prosecutor

Center for a Stateless SocietyI came upon an article by Chad Nelson, The Inherent Flaw of the Criminal Justice System. It is from the Center for a Stateless Society. Their slogan is, “A left market anarchist think tank & media center.” I just want to give them a big wet kiss and pat them on the head. They are so adorable! They are also deeply pernicious. These are the kind of guys that I was when I was a libertarian. And just as I was then, they are now fooling themselves. Who thinks that if you get rid of government all will be well? It takes studied ignorance to think that absence of government wouldn’t create a power vacuum filled by organized business interests that would be totally unaccountable. Neo-feudalism, here we come!

The article at hand is about how there is a conflict of interest when police officers are being prosecuted because the prosecutor’s office works so closely with the police. This is true. It is hardly the biggest problem with prosecutors in this country, but it is definitely a troubling issue that we should give serious thought to. But according to Nelson, this is just a sign that the government is out of control. The different branches of government don’t keep each other honest because they are all dedicated to the same government. Did you catch that?

Because there is a problem inside one branch of government, the different branches of government can’t work to limit power grabs. That’s kind of like saying, “My home network is down; the internet doesn’t work!” But what Nelson is really saying is that he hates the government and any part of the government will understandably support the idea of government and so this is bad. But he doesn’t come right out and say it because it sounds stupid. Because it is. Basically: the government is bad because I think the government is bad.

What Nelson thinks should have happened is that Michael Brown’s parents should have hired their own attorney to prosecute Darren Wilson. But where exactly the court for such a case would come from is not clear. Would the Brown family have to purchase a legal system on the free market? And if that was the case, why would Darren Wilson feel that he was bound by its findings? So that can’t be what Nelson thinks. Instead, it must be that like most libertarians, he thinks that the legal system is one proper governmental function. But given that he thinks that the government is completely useless in all other ways, why should we accept that collective action would work in terms of the courts?

As with all things libertarian, it only takes the slightest scratching to find gaping holes. If we can work with a government court system, we can certainly make the different parts of the larger court system work. In this case, it is hardly necessary for the Brown family to have their own lawyer (especially since in Nelson’s utopia, they would have to pay for it). What the Brown family actually asked for would have been far better: a special prosecutor. The problem in this case was that democracy didn’t work. It wasn’t that government didn’t work.

The problem here is that Chad Nelson, and I’m sure everyone at the Center for a Stateless Society, thinks that government is always the problem. Like voters in a general election, he really ought to grow up. The question is not between government and his utopia. It is between this government and the other that we would necessarily get. And history shows us that we are a whole lot more free than we would be under the rule of Walmart.


See also: There Are No Libertarian Republicans

Don’t Mistake “Friends” for Friends

Facebook SucksJenée Desmond-Harris writes a kind of advice column at The Root, Race Matters. And this week, she wrote an interesting article, How to Deal With Friends’ Racist Reactions to Ferguson. It is about people on Facebook, who find that many of their “friends” are, in fact, bigots. The whole thing is kind of new to me because I don’t use Facebook. I use Twitter and there I “follow” people. And on Google+, I also “follow,” but the people can be subdivided into friends. On Facebook I guess you “like,” which implies friendship.

Desmond-Harris gives the advice to just block such people. There are a few reasons for this including the fact that the stress is just not good for you and that life is too short to deal with awful people. I agree with that. It’s not to say that I require that all my friends agree with me. In fact, I would have no friends if that were the case because they seem to disagree with me far more than they agree with me. But they don’t disagree with me about the most basic humanity. For example, I can’t imagine being friends with someone who did not value empathy. (Of course, I would empathize with the fact that they are basically psychopaths, but I wouldn’t want them in my life.)

This whole thing is a reminder that friendship is truly a dying art in our culture. In fact, it is so bad that most people don’t even realize that friendship is an art. Most friendships exist only because they are convenient. “Out of sight, out of mind.” That’s the status of most friendships. And this kind of facile friendship is made all the easier with Facebook. Even e-mail seems to be too much of a hassle for most people. Instead, they just puts their trivial thoughts out into the ether and maybe someone will respond. Maybe someone will “like” the fact that you had a burrito for lunch!

Because I have a very small amount of fame (infamy is probably more accurate), I get e-mail from people I once knew. But I’ve learned to be extremely short with these people. Such e-mail is almost always a kind of emotional drive-by shooting. I’m not at all interested in having a superficial relationship with these people, much less acting as a kind of circus freak to spice up their sad, paint-by-numbers lives. The other side of this is that I’ve developed some fairly deep relationships with people I’ve never met that have involved tens of thousands of words in correspondence. The internet really can act as a way to facilitate true friendships. It is just that it rarely is used that way.

So if I were on Facebook, I have little doubt that the majority of the people I went to high school would be sending out the most vile of comments about the death of Michael Brown now that all conservatives “know” that what Darren Wilson said is The Truth™: officer friendly was brutally attacked and got vewy vewy scawed. But such people show their true colors long before an event like this occurs to make it obvious. But I’m trained. I know what to look for. And regardless, I never mistake someone giving me a +1 on Google+ with friendship.

What Black People Know Cannot Be Said

Ta-Nehisi CoatesBlack people know what cannot be said. What clearly cannot be said is that the events of Ferguson do not begin with Michael Brown lying dead in the street, but with policies set forth by government at every level. What clearly cannot be said is that the people of Ferguson are regularly plundered, as their grandparents were plundered, and generally regarded as a slush-fund for the government that has pledged to protect them. What clearly cannot be said is the idea of superhuman black men who “bulk up” to run through bullets is not an invention of Darren Wilson, but a staple of American racism.

What clearly cannot be said is that American society’s affection for nonviolence is notional. What can not be said is that American society’s admiration for Martin Luther King Jr increases with distance, that the movement he led was bugged, smeared, harassed, and attacked by the same country that now celebrates him. King had the courage to condemn not merely the violence of blacks, nor the violence of the Klan, but the violence of the American state itself.

What clearly cannot be said is that violence and nonviolence are tools, and that violence — like nonviolence — sometimes works. “Property damage and looting impede social progress,” Jonathan Chait wrote Tuesday. He delivered this sentence with unearned authority. Taken together, property damage and looting have been the most effective tools of social progress for white people in America. It describes everything from enslavement to Jim Crow laws to lynching to red-lining…

What cannot be said is that America does not really believe in nonviolence — Barack Obama has said as much — so much as it believes in order. What cannot be said is that there are very convincing reasons for black people in Ferguson to be nonviolent. But those reasons emanate from an intelligent fear of the law, not a benevolent respect for the law.

—Ta-Nehisi Coates
Barack Obama, Ferguson, and the Evidence of Things Unsaid

Randy Newman

Randy Newman

The great singer-songwriter Randy Newman is 71 today. He’s also an acceptable film composer. But let’s say no more about that. And to be honest, I’m not terribly fond of his more recent songwriting. He’s become something of a hack — a really successful and wealthy hack — but a hack nonetheless.

So instead of talking about his work, I’m just going to present some of my favorite of his songs. Let’s start with one of his trademark offensive songs, “Yellow Man.” Yes, it is about what you think it is about:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEOvm1wfqm0

Next up is probably my favorite of his songs, “Political Science.” It is such a perfect rendering of a very common conservative outlook when I was growing up in the 1960s and 1970s. Now it is a bit out of date because people don’t talk so much about the bomb. Although you still hear the same reasoning, “The only reason we lost the Vietnam War was that we didn’t use nukes!” But more than that, there is the naive idea that our foreign policy is just about helping everyone. The first lyrics are perfect, “No one likes us; I don’t know why.” American conservatives still don’t know why. It reminds me of those great bumper stickers, “Be nice to America, or we’ll bring democracy to your country.”

Actually, there are a lot of songs during this period that I really like. He supposedly wrote this song for Frank Sinatra, “Lonely at the Top.” It is sad that Sinatra did not have enough of a sense of humor to do it. It would have been fantastic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cna4LHtW5ng

Wow, I’ve only made it to 1972, and I’ve passed by a whole bunch of songs that I love. So let’s finish up with a later song (1983!), “My Life Is Good.” When I saw Newman live around that time, he introduced it by noting, “I’m sorry to say that this song is autobiographical.” I believe him. He does not seem like a very nice guy.

Happy birthday Randy Newman!