Breaking Down.

I got my cable turned back on. I've been without it since February, simply because I found I just didn't watch much TV. I hate television, frankly. It's a time waster, and it makes you dumb. When I did have super-basic cable, the only channels that didn't enrage me were The CW, Disney Channel, and C-Span. And in the time since I've stopped watching it, I've found that the few occasions I'm with people who have it on, I get angry. I generally have to restrain myself from shouting "WHY ARE YOU WATCHING THIS GARBAGE?!" And pulsating rage, as I'm sure you can tell, is not a good look for me. I've even been known to throw things at the television (soft things, of course). This generally only happens when there's a pundit on TV, though. Unfortunately, even the morning news shows I used to love watching have begun to get on my nerves. I mean, everyone loves Al Roker, but how many times can he say "and SLOWLY I turned" before it stops being funny? So I'm sure you're wondering why I got my cable turned on. Well, since you asked, here are my three Very Important Reasons. 1) Barack Obama. I know, I know. But I really wanted to watch his speech tonight, and I really want to watch the debates when they start up. I need to see him and Joey Biden (with Mama Biden looking on lovingly) crush McCain and his veep. And once he's elected, I'll have to watch the inauguration, so that means I might as well bite the bullet until January. 2) Serena and Blair. Gossip Girl is the Greatest Show of Our Time. And I missed it so hard when I gave up TV, but then I discovered they started streaming full episodes online. And then they stopped. But now they're gonna start doing it again, but dangit, I can't watch GG while I'm at work (or can I?) so cable it is. I miss Serena's ability to screw everything up without lifting a finger. I miss Blair's sheer awesomeness. And I need to see what freakishly long-legged Jenny Humphrey is wearing this season. 3) Simpsons reruns. There's nothing like coming home from work and watching The Simpsons for an hour. I miss Marge's disapproving grumble. Of course, all of my current goodwill toward cable television will be shattered if I have to see any of the following: Wolf Blitzer; One Tree Hill; Matt Lauer; and anything with "Cashmere," "Love," "Hell," or "Desperate," in the title. Cross your fingers for me!

Tim Russert, 1950-2008

From MSNBC.com:

WASHINGTON - Tim Russert, NBC News’ Washington bureau chief and the moderator of “Meet the Press,” died Friday after collapsing in the bureau, NBC News said Friday. He was 58.

Russert was recording voiceovers for Sunday’s “Meet the Press” program when he collapsed, the network said. No details were immediately available.

Russert, the recipient of 48 honorary doctorates, took over the helm of “Meet the Press” in December 1991. Now in its 60th year, “Meet the Press” is the longest-running program in the history of television.

In 2008, Time Magazine named him one of the 100 most influential people in the world.

Timothy John Russert Jr. was born in Buffalo, N.Y., on May 7, 1950. He was a graduate of Canisius High School, John Carroll University and the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. He was a member of the bar in New York and the District of Columbia.

This can go one of two ways.

Way One: I can respond to Fox's use of the term 'baby mama' in reference to Michelle Obama calmly. Way Two: I can get really, really angry. I'm leaning toward Way Two.

Virginity is for lovers

"Human Nature" is one of my favorite parts of Slate (beaten only by "Dear Prudence" and sometimes, "Explainer"). In it, William Saletan tackles some truly touchy issues with patience and logic. In the essays, he does an excellent job of explaining why some things we consider to be "natural" are quite the opposite, and vice versa. What those of us who've descended from a judeo-christian tradition take as irrefutable human truths are often just constructs which were developed out of biblical misogyny — and seriously, the misogyny in the Bible is quite breathtaking in both scope and influence. Saletan has written essays on homosexuality and incest, oral sex, and most notably — and controversially — the effect of genetics on intelligence. He took a lot of heat for this last one, and later even wrote an apology of sorts. More recently, Saletan brought up the issue of "virginity restoration." A piece in the Times discussed the growing popularity of hymenoplasty among young Muslim women. The interest is spurred by a court case in France in which a marriage was annulled by a Muslim man who discovered that his wife wasn't a virgin (and he announced this to the still-partying guests before taking the woman back to her parents' home). The uproar is over the fact that French court allowed a marriage to be annulled based on something that's so clearly misogynistic. However, I'm not going to argue that the marriage shouldn't have been annulled. While the man's behavior was despicable, it wasn't totally unexpected. The emphasis placed on virginity in Islam (and even Christianity) is strong, and women more often than not know what they're getting into. But they shouldn't be punished for having sex outside of marriage, and if the structure they reside in won't allow for pre-marital sex, then I think hymenoplasty is a reasonable answer. Saletan:

You and I can sit here all day rehearsing these complaints. And some day, God willing, the twisted culture of virginity hypocrisy will wither away. But until it does, hypocrisy is its own best remedy. Help these women deceive their husbands and parents. If they want artificial hymen restoration, let them have it.

Clint Eastwood vs. Spike Lee: Is it 1993?

"A guy like him should shut his face," said Clint Eastwood, aging badass, referring to Spike Lee's criticism of the director's lack of black soldiers in Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima. According to Lee, who is beginning promotion for his own WWII outing, Miracle at St. Anna, "Many veterans, African-Americans, who survived that war are upset at Clint Eastwood. In his vision of Iwo Jima, Negro soldiers did not exist. Simple as that. I have a different version." Eastwood dismissed Lee's comment in a recent interview with the Guardian (which misquoted Lee's original statement), saying "The story is Flags of Our Fathers, the famous flag-raising picture, and they didn't do that. If I go ahead and put an African-American actor in there, people'd go, 'This guy's lost his mind.' I mean, it's not accurate." Because putting blacks in a historical film amounts to little more than affirmative action, apparently. Another Eastwood gem: "[Should I] make it look like a commercial for an equal opportunity player? I'm not in that game. I'm playing it the way I read it historically, and that's the way it is." He might as well have said Spike was pulling the race card. Oddly enough, two years ago, the Guardian ran an article detailing the 900 black soldiers who were at Iwo Jima, and made a direct correlation to the lack of blacks in Flags. 900 is a little bit more than the 'small detachment' mentioned in the Eastwood interview. From that article, Yvonne Latty (author of We Were There: Voices of African American Veterans):

"No one's asking for them to be the stars of the movies, but at least show that they were there. This is the way a new generation will think about Iwo Jima. Once again it will be that African-American people did not serve, that we were absent. It's a lie."

While blacks were mostly carrying ammunition in Japan, they were there, and to completely ignore the existence is totally irresponsible. My own grandfather fought in Europe during WWII, and if that weren't common knowledge in my family, I probably would have thought all soldiers ever (except for Bubba in Forrest Gump) were white. Update: A white woman on MSNBC's Morning Joe said Spike Lee was "really uppity." Either the person who wrote her lines hates her and wants her fired, or she's an idiot. Or both. Because, who even uses the word "uppity" anymore?

Forget Hillary, What Does Bob Johnson Want?

Bob Johnson is mounting a one-man offensive to get Hillary Clinton on the bottom of the Democratic ticket. (Do watch the video. Although he can put sentences together in what appears to be a sensible structure, close listening shows his inability to say things that actually make sense. It's like word Jenga.) Johnson, founder of BET, one of the two black American billionaires (you know who the other is), sent a letter asking that the Congressional Black Caucus put some pressure on Obama to select Hillary as his running mate. Since his billionaire status came at the price of black dignity, I can't imagine that he has much juice with the CBC, and he's pretty much reviled amongst thinking negroes. So what is he angling for?

CNN Ruins Everything

Remember how I said I don't like CNN? This is why. In one of their annoying Jeannie Moos videos (which are supposed to be funny, and possibly are, to white people over the age of 50), they tackle the 'fist bump' shared by Barack and Michelle in St. Paul on Tuesday. First off, it's not called a fist bump. That's lame. It's a pound, which falls under the category of dap. And the one thing CNN's cute little video fails to mention, is the black origins of said dap. You'd think they would, considering it was two black people sharing a pound who got all this started. The video hinted that baseball was involved in the evolution of the pound, but... come on. As Ta-Nehisi writes, something can be both black, and mainstream.

"The most interesting, and quite common, response has been "well I'm white as hell and I do the fist-bump with my wife, so it can't be that black." To me that response says more about the speaker--and race in this country--than about any measure of "blackness." It has as its unspoken premise that black is something that's stagnant, mutually exclusive to itself, and incapable of existing alongside other qualities. [...] The fact that you're in Wisconsin somewhere performing an ritual that was perfected on the South Side of Chicago probably means that it's mainstream. But that doesn't mean it didn't come from the South Side. Both are true at the same time."

It's amazing that even a little presidential nominee pound can open up discussions about race. I suspect CNN avoided the black thing purposely, because there's still some desire to paint Barack as post-racial.

The Only Way Donna Brazile Knows How To Rock

I don't like CNN. But I've gotta hand it to them. Selling shirts is brilliant. Last night, there was a rather amusing exchange between serial pundit (and smackdown layer) Donna Brazile and closeted cutie Anderson Cooper. To wit:

"I'm looking for something [Obama] hasn't told anyone else, just you." "Anderson, you're not my boo."

After which, Andy giggled insanely. And now, CNN is selling shirts to that effect on their 'CNN Shirt (beta)' site.

Fondish Farewell To HRC

Hillary doesn't need to concede; everyone else has done it for her. Bomani Armah lists 10 Moments in Hillaryland that we'd sooner forget, on The Root. Of note is # 8: "From 1+1 to advanced quantum physics, the ever-changing electoral math," or, as I like to call it, her magical math.

"You can take a look at my SAT math scores or my checkbook ledger from last year to realize that I am only adequate in math, but the Hillary campaign changed the x's and y's so much that I think I'm going to stick with my times tables up to 10 from now on. From now on the election equation is calculated by:

big states — small states X Democratic stronghold states — 2/3 of fly-over states — pi of caucus states x 250% of rust belt primary states — states with up to 40% of the Negro population + number of superdelegates who owe you political favors + Puerto Rico and Guam."

(Note, I searched high and low for a truly flattering photo, and eventually gave up and went with her official headshot, available on her website. I will say, she looks quite lovely in it.)

Black People : Interracial Marriage :: Black People : Gay Marriage

I wrote about The Root when it debuted back in February. I don't visit it regularly, and really only check it out when there's a link from the Slate home page (like this excellent and enlightening piece on fistula). When I saw one of the little home page article boxes on Slate, that read "If Anyone Should Support Gay Marriage, It's Black People," I should have known it would be problematic. The crux of the article was that because of anti-miscegenation laws (black people couldn't marry white people) that were ultimately overturned, blacks should support the gays' right to marry whomever they want. The author, Casey Lartigue Jr, wrote:

"Given this history, it might be reasonable to conclude that black people in particular would be opposed to laws limiting marital choices among adults. Unfortunately, there are many black people who are not only critical of interracial marriage, but also support banning gay or same-sex marriage today. According to a Pew Research Poll taken after the Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld same-sex marriage, far more blacks than whites disagreed with the court's decision. And that doesn't even include what is said at black barbershops."

He goes on to call blacks bristling at the comparison "a case of a former slave putting on his former master's clothing and wanting others to be treated as slaves." And that's where he lost me. In fact, that's where arguments of this kind always lose me, even though I'm not against gay marriage (full disclosure: I used to be, but denying marriage rights to homosexuals is illogical, and I respond well to logic). It seems that these days, pointing out the flaws in the black community is all the rage. I'm down with it, too, because we are not simply a noble people, we're not magical negroes, we're not perfect. That's fine. There is sexism, racism, and sexual prejudice (which encompasses anti-gay sentiment) within the black community. But this blacks are racist! blacks are sexist! blacks are homophobic! hysteria bothers me because it appears to be backlash and overcorrection from the days when it wasn't acceptable to criticize black people, as a group, at all in the mainstream media (say, late 80s to late 90s). Like I said, black people aren't perfect. But. Neither are gays. Neither are women. And in the race to the finish line of the Martyrdom Relays at these-here Oppression Olympics, we're tripping each other up. To be a martyr, you can't be flawed. Acknowledging the flaws in the other two groups who loudly vie for equality (while comparing their struggle to those of blacks during the Civil Rights Movement) is not done nearly enough. There is both racism and sexism in the gay community. There is both homophobia and racism amongst the feminists (and that, that is another post). But do we hear about it? No. Blacks get chided for turning into oppressors, meanwhile some of these so-called oppressed would just as soon see black men in jail as in the boardroom. The problem is one of painting a group with a broad brush. Just as Robinson wrote, there is no such thing as a monolithic black community, and I'm willing to bet there's no such thing as a monolithic gay, or feminist community, either. Not all blacks are anti-gay. Not all gays are colorblind. Not all women are for gay marriage. I'm pretty sure there's a Venn Diagram in there somewhere. I thought I could go one post without talking about Barack Obama, but can I help that he's actually intelligent and makes salient points? In an interview with The Advocate, he's asked to discuss parallels between the gay rights movement and the Civil Rights Movement, and the homophobia in the black community. He says:

"I don’t think [homophobia in the black community is] worse than in the white community. I think that the difference has to do with the fact that the African-American community is more churched and most African-American churches are still fairly traditional in their interpretations of Scripture. And so from the pulpit or in sermons you still hear homophobic attitudes expressed. And since African-American ministers are often the most prominent figures in the African-American community those attitudes get magnified or amplified a little bit more than in other communities."

That's one of the things Lartigue gets wrong. He doesn't acknowledge the religious tradition in the black community. He also doesn't acknowledge the flaws in the gay community, while all too easily decrying the flaws of the black community. I skimmed the comments section, and buried in the pile of ignorance ("interracial marriage isn't a sin, but sodomy is!" and "Gays just want to validate their lifestyle choice!"), someone actually said something that made sense, which is really what inspired me to write this somewhat bloated piece. Commenter rjmacadaeg:

"The idea that black people shouldn't be homophobic is as sadly mistaken as the assertion that gay people shouldn't be racist. Where we would hope to see a greater understanding based on empathy and wisdom gained through suffering, we instead find the same old prejudices."

There is truth in that statement. The concept that black people are fundamentally flawed, and that we're living some modern-day version of Animal Farm where all of a sudden we're the pigs wearing human clothes and sleeping in human beds while the rest of the equality-seeking beasts stay outside is laughable. Or, it would be, if it weren't so damaging.

Misspake?

"Misspeak" is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as: To speak mistakenly, inappropriately, or rashly. Now, let's compare two recent political misspeakings. If you'll recall, back in March, Senator Clinton said: "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base." The then-U.S. troop commander in Bosnia reiterated what everyone else (including Sinbad) said at the time. "She never had her head down. There was no sniper threat that I know of." Her camp responded quickly, and creatively, saying she 'misspoke.' However, as I cited above, misspoke doesn't mean 'lied.' Misspoke means, 'spoke mistakenly.' I think it would be hard to speak mistakenly about what should have been a memorable experience, unless it didn't happen. In which case, she's just a liar. Moving on. Recently, Senator Obama said his uncle helped liberate concentration camp prisoners at Auschwitz. As anyone who paid attention in history class would know, the Commies did the liberating at Auschwitz. And, as it stands to reason that Obama's uncle wasn't a Red, some critically thinking people pointed that out. As it turns out, he misspoke. His great-uncle didn't help liberate prisoners at Auschwitz, oh no! He... wait, what? He helped liberate prisoners at one of the concentration camps in Buchenwald? Well, that's completely different! Shame on you, Barack Obama! In my opinion, 'misspeaking' is making a mistake when you make a speech. Like, for example, saying the wrong name of a concentration camp. Or, saying 'uncle' when you mean 'great-uncle.' Misspeaking is not saying you landed in a warzone under sniper fire, when in actuality, you meandered down the tarmac with your only child by your side, stopping to chat with soldiers and small children. But, that's just my opinion.

Atomic Dogged Out.

Uh... hahahaha! God loves the Ques. (Click for a larger view.) In order to preserve it for posterity, I made a screen cap of the NY Post's homepage — the link to which an anonymous reader left in the comments under my last post about Jeremiah Wright. In case there was any doubt, he is a Que. All laughter aside (seriously, though... HA!), out of context, he looks like a straight fool. At the National Press Club, really, Pastor? I might coulda understood if you'd thrown up the hooks at, say, the NAACP meeting. But, um, there's a time and a place for everything. Although, maybe we should just be grateful you didn't start hopping. Meanwhile, Sen. Obama is "outraged" by Wright's Magical Media Tour. I think he's really mad because the following facts— A) Reverend Wright stays saying he's not Obama's mouthpiece (and scoffs at the term "spiritual adviser") B) Obama stays saying he disagrees with some of Wright's statements C) This hasn't really affected his ratings in the polls — are not preventing the media from continually linking two men, who, though they're both light-skinned, are not the same person. Obama looks tired and frustrated, and I can understand why; the liberal media members who were fellating him just a few weeks ago have suddenly turned on him. I think they're ashamed of how they fell for the post-racial foolishness, and those scary Jeremiah Wright clips reminded them that hey, Obama is black. Obama is mad, but I think he's purposely misdirecting his anger to Wright, when really it's the press who should (but won't) get cussed out. But I know Barack's going to come through this. (And I still respect Wright for doing his thing.) Links to C-Span coverage of the National Press Club speech: Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four Part Five Part Six

Bill Moyers' Jeremiah Wright Interview

Before I finish up my modern black conservative series, I just had to share these links to the interview with Howard alum (and member of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc.) Pastor Jeremiah Wright. He's been on what I like to call a "Magical Media Tour," making a very difficult (perhaps impossible) point with alacrity, and I appreciate it. I've said it before, I'm not religious, but I think he is coming from the position of a ideal man of God — he realizes this isn't about him, but he is using the interest in him to defend, promote and exalt the traditions and wisdom of the Black Church. As I told my coworker: he's a true scholar, not some crank screeching from the pulpit. How could you expect anything less from Barack's pastor? Part One Part Two

Do you love it? I love it.

I love the audacity of this ad. Not because of the sentiment expressed... but because Absolut is being so blatantly manipulative. Too bad some in the U.S. aren't too happy about the (im)possibility of Mexico reconquering California and Texas. Viva Absolut!

Tell 'Em Why You're (Not) Mad, Son!

I had a friend instant message me today, asking if I'd seen the Vogue cover with Lebron James and Gisele Bundchen. Of course I have. Stevie Wonder has seen it. Anyway, this friend happens to be a black man who is deeply offended by the cover. I saw the following alternate on Jezebel, and sent it to him. Nope, that's not better, he said. Less blatant, but just as bad. As I told him, I'm the first person to be on the lookout for racism. It's ALWAYS racism. But... this isn't as problematic to me as the fact that Lebron James is the first black man to cover US Vogue (and the first black man to cover French Vogue was a leggy crossdresser - meanwhile Men's Vogue has covered Will Smith, Denzel Washington, and Obama). More problematic is that J.Hud was only the third black woman to cover US Vogue. Vogue is not the most diverse or racially sensitive crayon in the box. But the James-Bundchen cover? It just doesn't scream 'King Kong' to me. They both look like they're having fun. (Oh, and why isn't LeBron in a suit, as my friend and others have asked indignantly? All of the sports figures in the mag are dressed in uniform, while the models, uh, model.) Ta-Nehisi Coates makes a good point about racism debates about magazine covers versus, you know, actual racism. And The Assimilated Negro agrees that this is all a bit much. But what's your take on it?

Michelle Obama on LKL

Larry King asks dumb questions. It's a fact. But that's probably why he's so popular. Last night, he interviewed Michelle Obama, and she was, as usual, matter-of-fact, down-to-earth, and straight forward. I don't know if I mentioned this on here, but she's the one who got me to back Barack. Months ago, when people were still asking that stupid question, but is he Black enough? she was interviewed by some talking head (I forget who). The numbers were showing blacks in favor of Clinton (pre-Bill's South Carolina meltdown) and the reporter asked Michelle about the lack of support in the black community. She said: "First of all, I think that that's not going to hold. I'm completely confident: black America will wake up, and get it. But what we're dealing with in the black community is just the natural fear of possibility. You know, when I look at my life, the stuff that we're seeing in these polls has played out my whole life. You know, always been told by somebody that I'm not ready, that I can't do something, my scores weren't high enough. You know, there's always that doubt in the back of the minds of people of color. People who've been oppressed and haven't been given real opportunities. That you never really believe. That you believe that somehow, someone is better than you. You know, deep down inside, you doubt whether you can do it, because that's all you've been told, is "no, wait." That's all you hear, and you hear it from people who love you. Not because they don't care about you, but because they're afraid. They're afraid that something might happen." There was a lot of backlash because of this answer. Anger from blacks who don't want to admit that blackness is a thing that lives, and breathes, and comes with its own set of insecurities; anger from whites who hate being reminded that racism has had lasting repercussions; and anger from women who think gender trumps race. But her words were exactly what I needed to hear. My favorite quote from last night's interview: LK: So you're ready for it. Ready to be the first black, the first female... MO: I am who I am. I'm ready for it. That's who I am. People want to make it about being the first this, or being the first that. Why can't it be about... being who you are?

The Root

Recently, logging on to Slate as I do every day, I saw an interesting graphic in the middle of the page where there's usually a "clever" illustration or headline. "Welcome to the Root," it read. It's an African American e-zine (do people still use the term "e-zine?" No? Ok, I'll refrain.). The first thing that caught my eye was a piece by Melissa Harris-Lacewell, Princeton's own rising star in politics and African American studies (the intersection of two of my major interests). It seems like she's everywhere these days, or at least here on campus and around town. Poking around a bit more on the site, I noticed that Skip Gates was the editor. Hmm. Further exploration revealed myriad prominent African American writers (many of whom are affiliated with the WaPo, The Root's major sponsor) from both sides of the fence. Conservatives, moderates, liberals. In fact, I'd go so far as to say The Root covers every facet of African Americanism. Except one. Afrocentrism/black nationalism are sorely lacking here. I suspect this is due to the following: it's perfectly fine to be proud of being African American, because you're still acknowledging your American-ness. But being afrocentric, being black doesn't leave room for the bit of whiteness (large or small) we share. But hey, it's a Washington Post endeavor, so I wouldn't expect any less. (Note: is it bad that just looking at Stanley Crouch makes me shudder? And this reaction is not based entirely on his appearance.) With that said, this will definitely be on my list of sites to visit on the regular. We'll see. ____ Listening to: Judy Garland, "Stormy Weather."

Amy Amy Amy

"Masculine, you spin a spell / I think you'd wear me well / Amy, Amy, Amy / Where's my moral parallel..."

Amy Winehouse is a prophet. She's also deeply screwed up and rocketing quickly toward an untimely demise.

I've probably listened to Frank and Back to Black more than any other albums in the last year-and-half. Her voice, the soulful, jazz-soaked music, and her tough-as-nails-yet-secretly-vulnerable lyrics all combine to create perfection.

I hate to see her the way she is now. Especially when you compare her to the Amy of four years ago: bright-eyed, curvaceous, with a sweet (if mischievous) smile. She's become almost skeletal, washed out, drugged up, covered in ink, and addicted to a man who is obviously no good. And I hate the names. "Amy Wino," "Amy Crackhouse." It's obvious to me why celebs go off the deep end. They're surrounded by people who don't care about them (only what they can provide), and either totally idolized or demonized by the public. Since most people see themselves through the eyes of others, it's no wonder they lose control. There's no balance in that world.

And when you layer that on top of the fact that most brilliant artists are deeply troubled/insecure/eager to please, it becomes this cake of destruction, with money as the frosting.

I saw a shallow piece on Jezebel.com which asked if some of the responsibility of stars' demises (specifically Winehouse) lay upon the shoulders of paparazzi and rabid fans. I think that if a person is already troubled, it certainly doesn't help.

But I'm curious as to why some people, mostly white women - Amy, Britney, Lindsay - succumb to the pressures of fame and the false idolatry of celebrity. If you look at black female stars - Gabby, Beyonce, Halle - the same doesn't hold true. Perhaps the implicit racism of the entertainment industry offers some protection. Despite the advent of black celeb gossip sites - YBF, Media Takeout, Bossip - stars of color are (thankfully?) STILL being ignored by gossip powerhouses People, TMZ, and Us Weekly. Without that pressure, maybe it's easier to live your life.

But this piece is about Amy. To write and perform the songs that have meant so much to so many, well, you'd have to be more than a little screwed up. But the line between being screwed up and utter destruction is... well, it's not thin, but it isn't thick either.

I guess all of this is to say, I just want her to get better. ____

Watching: Veronica Mars, Season One