PDA

View Full Version : Racism Without Racists


Bloggingheads
03-26-2008, 02:29 PM

garbagecowboy
03-26-2008, 02:50 PM
Ford was a law professor in 1994? Jeez, he has aged well. I would have guessed he was about 35.

BTW... This was perhaps the worst metaphor I've ever heard. (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9716?in=00:13:00&13:12)

threep
03-26-2008, 03:51 PM
Back in that controversial Bob and Mickey diavlog, "beve83" got very miffed about the whole idea of being nervous about young black men in alleys and I didn't have the heart to point out the way in which that can exist without what we normally call "racism." Now I'm feeling guilty that Richard Ford had to do it for me, hah.

Remember: the world is incredibly complex, so full of varying stimuli that without abstraction and pattern recognition and prediction it would be utterly incomprehensible. Prejudice, in a way, is what we do every moment of every day--it's our greatest talent.

Glaurunge
03-26-2008, 05:00 PM
Remember: the world is incredibly complex, so full of varying stimuli that without abstraction and pattern recognition and prediction it would be utterly incomprehensible. Prejudice, in a way, is what we do every moment of every day--it's our greatest talent.

Agreed. But does that kind of casual reasoning always point to the right conclusion? Also, don't forget about all the subconscious mental processing, such as confirmation bias, that can often lead our thinking astray.

threep
03-26-2008, 05:32 PM
Well, as for the alley and the black youth, if it's not the "right" conclusion, it involves some philosophy and the overestimation of percentages. In other words, the chance of being mugged actually isn't that much higher when compared to the total chance of NOT being mugged, and in any case, in the great scheme of things the background risk of being assaulted on any given day/month/year is the sum/average of many factors, and just because one is only very slightly dominant or (more likely in this case) more noticeable at the moment doesn't change the fact that being mugged is just a risk you run being alive (and in alleys, apparently). Run-on sentence.

Really it's a salience issue--the "bump" in the risk of being mugged represented by the blackness of that youth suddenly brings the possibility of a mugging into the picture and makes willful disregard seem like tempting fate.

Wonderment
03-26-2008, 05:37 PM
This letter by Dr. Wright was posted in the comments section of today's NYT article on Obama and religion. I thought it shed some light on the controversy:

March 11, 2007
Jodi Kantor
The New York Times
9 West 43rd Street
New York,
New York 10036-3959
Dear Jodi:
Thank you for engaging in one of the biggest misrepresentations of the truth I have ever seen in sixty-five years. You sat and shared with me for two hours. You told me you were doing a “Spiritual Biography” of Senator Barack Obama. For two hours, I shared with you how I thought he was the most principled individual in public service that I have ever met.
For two hours, I talked with you about how idealistic he was. For two hours I shared with you what a genuine human being he was. I told you how incredible he was as a man who was an African American in public service, and as a man who refused to announce his candidacy for President until Carol Moseley Braun indicated one way or the other whether or not she was going to run.
I told you what a dreamer he was. I told you how idealistic he was. We talked about how refreshing it would be for someone who knew about Islam to be in the Oval Office. Your own question to me was, Didn’t I think it would be incredible to have somebody in the Oval Office who not only knew about Muslims, but had living and breathing Muslims in his own family? I told you how important it would be to have a man who not only knew the difference between Shiites and Sunnis prior to 9/11/01 in the Oval Office, but also how important it would be to have a man who knew what Sufism was; a man who understood that there were different branches of Judaism; a man who knew the difference between Hasidic Jews, Orthodox Jews, Conservative Jews and Reformed Jews; and a man who was a devout Christian, but who did not prejudge others because they believed something other than what he believed.
I talked about how rare it was to meet a man whose Christianity was not just “in word only.” I talked about Barack being a person who lived his faith and did not argue his faith. I talked about Barack as a person who did not draw doctrinal lines in the sand nor consign other people to hell if they did not believe what he believed.
Out of a two-hour conversation with you about Barack’s spiritual journey and my protesting to you that I had not shaped him nor formed him, that I had not mentored him or made him the man he was, even though I would love to take that credit, you did not print any of that. When I told you, using one of your own Jewish stories from the Hebrew Bible as to how God asked Moses, “What is that in your hand?,” that Barack was like that when I met him. Barack had it “in his hand.” Barack had in his grasp a uniqueness in terms of his spiritual development that one is hard put to find in the 21st century, and you did not print that.
As I was just starting to say a moment ago, Jodi, out of two hours of conversation I spent approximately five to seven minutes on Barack’s taking advice from one of his trusted campaign people and deeming it unwise to make me the media spotlight on the day of his announcing his candidacy for the Presidency and what do you print? You and your editor proceeded to present to the general public a snippet, a printed “sound byte” and a titillating and tantalizing article about his disinviting me to the Invocation on the day of his announcing his candidacy.
I have never been exposed to that kind of duplicitous behavior before, and I want to write you publicly to let you know that I do not approve of it and will not be party to any further smearing of the name, the reputation, the integrity or the character of perhaps this nation’s first (and maybe even only) honest candidate offering himself for public service as the person to occupy the Oval Office.
Your editor is a sensationalist. For you to even mention that makes me doubt your credibility, and I am looking forward to see how you are going to butcher what else I had to say concerning Senator Obama’s “Spiritual Biography.” Our Conference Minister, the Reverend Jane Fisler Hoffman, a white woman who belongs to a Black church that Hannity of “Hannity and Colmes” is trying to trash, set the record straight for you in terms of who I am and in terms of who we are as the church to which Barack has belonged for over twenty years.
The president of our denomination, the Reverend John Thomas, has offered to try to help you clarify in your confused head what Trinity Church is even though you spent the entire weekend with us setting me up to interview me for what turned out to be a smear of the Senator; and yet The New York Times continues to roll on making the truth what it wants to be the truth. I do not remember reading in your article that Barack had apologized for listening to that bad information and bad advice. Did I miss it? Or did your editor cut it out? Either way, you do not have to worry about hearing anything else from me for you to edit or “spin” because you are more interested in journalism than in truth.
Forgive me for having a momentary lapse. I forgot that The New York Times was leading the bandwagon in trumpeting why it is we should have gone into an illegal war. The New York Times became George Bush and the Republican Party’s national “blog.” The New York Times played a role in the outing of Valerie Plame. I do not know why I thought The New York Times had actually repented and was going to exhibit a different kind of behavior.
Maybe it was my faith in the Jewish Holy Day of Roshashana. Maybe it was my being caught up in the euphoria of the Season of Lent; but whatever it is or was, I was sadly mistaken. There is no repentance on the part of The New York Times. There is no integrity when it comes to The Times. You should do well with that paper, Jodi. You looked me straight in my face and told me a lie!
Sincerely and respectfully yours,
Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., Senior Pastor
Trinity United Church of Christ

Thus Spoke Elvis
03-26-2008, 06:04 PM
Ford was a law professor in 1994? Jeez, he has aged well. I would have guessed he was about 35.

BTW... This was perhaps the worst metaphor I've ever heard. (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9716?in=00:13:00&13:12)

When I heard that, I had flashbacks of this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=AhbOLHXjyOM) scene from The Office. The only difference is that Dahlia didn't intend for her metaphor to be so terrible, which makes it even funnier.

Brianimator
03-26-2008, 06:06 PM
Surprisingly, I thought both diavloggers missed the real intent of Obama's reference to his grandmother.

He was NOT saying she is/was a racist. He was simply suggesting she holds certain ingrained and stereotypical views based on race - that we ALL do. He was pointing out the universality of these biases, both black and white. He was broadening the context for a discussion about the preconceptions we harbor about one another, not singling out his grandmother as some easily caricatured examplar of "typical white" racism (and not trying to draw an oversimplified or direct comparison with Rev. Wright either. Nice try Sean Hannity!)

He wasn't throwing her under the bus - as so many rabid right wing commentators have attempted to claim - he was suggesting we're all standing at the same bus stop together.

uncle ebeneezer
03-26-2008, 06:09 PM
I almost spit up my Coke when I thought of the idea of Hillary trying to give a grand unifying speech on an important and nuanced topic. Aside from her speaking style which is less-than-eloquent, to say the least, and her need to always string together "talking points", she would never take such a gamble. After all, what if she "mis-spoke". Not to mention, sadly, given Hillary's history, the GOP and media would probably crucify her even if she DID say something for the ages.

bjkeefe
03-26-2008, 06:21 PM
Ya think? (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/9716?in=03:23&out=03:30)

Hard to believe anyone could be that insulated. Maybe he was going for the extra subtle dig?

Sgt Schultz
03-26-2008, 08:29 PM
I missed the nuance in the original white-people-created-a-black-only-killing AIDS remark. A little help?
Oh and which part of the (to quote a prominent African-American cleric) long-legged mac-daddy's speech addressed the AIDS charge?
I heard it. I read it. I missed the portion of the speech which targeted the virus-creating/deploying racist ScienceCrime of white Amerikkka.

Gravy
03-26-2008, 10:45 PM
The Senator didn't throw his grandmother under a bus, but what was he thinking? Even if he had gotten her consent, there was no reason at all to expose a beloved family member to this unwanted attention. This was a political speech and no one ever suggested that his relationship with his grandmother was a political problem for him. A man this obviously intelligent cannot, in good faith, claim that the resulting public discussion of his grandmother's character is an unexpected result of misunderstanding his speech. He didn't throw her under a bus, but he did shove her reputation out of the car into the middle of partisan politics. I think we should expect a potential President to exhibit better judgement.

TwinSwords
03-26-2008, 11:42 PM
I missed the nuance in the original white-people-created-a-black-only-killing AIDS remark. A little help?
Oh and which part of the (to quote a prominent African-American cleric) long-legged mac-daddy's speech addressed the AIDS charge?
I heard it. I read it. I missed the portion of the speech which targeted the virus-creating/deploying racist ScienceCrime of white Amerikkka.

You're just making all that crap up about a "black-only-killing AIDs," aren't you? I mean, Rev. Wright never actually said that AIDS only targeted black people, did he?

As absurd as the claim made by Wright was, why do you need to distort it and make it even more absurd?

beve83
03-26-2008, 11:46 PM
Thank you for your intended service, but I think I understood this already. That is if you mean, being nervous about young black men on the street because..they have known gang attire, are visibly hostile towards you, are carrying a weapon, etc. Otherwise, you are reacting to their skin color = racism. Its happened too many times, to too many of my friends/relatives, thus me being, "miffed". Like the time me and my friends were taking graduation pictures, outside in a parking lot by our cars, fully decked out in graduation robe and cap regalia, when someone apparently called the police on us. No we were not loud and no we were not brandishing weapons, just cameras. There's a general rule in America, if you see more than 5 black people gathered together: be nervous, especially if they are dark skinned. Yes so, this anger "is real", mates, my apologies.

sharkdog
03-27-2008, 05:28 AM
Gosh, Ms.Lithwick is sure in a snit about FOX news. What is it with liberals and competition. They have all the other networks following the DNC party line at all times. One network leans a little to the other side and they start screaming about how bias that network is. They only want thier view of the world being expressed. This is a common symptom of one who is very insecure of their own beliefs.

bjkeefe
03-27-2008, 09:18 AM
Gosh, Ms.Lithwick is sure in a snit about FOX news. What is it with liberals and competition. They have all the other networks following the DNC party line at all times. One network leans a little to the other side and they start screaming about how bias that network is. They only want thier view of the world being expressed. This is a common symptom of one who is very insecure of their own beliefs.

Even leaving aside the misspellings, improper punctuation, and inability to make pronouns agree in number, the density of stupidity in sharkdog's comment still beats a neutron star.

thouartgob
03-27-2008, 10:11 AM
You're just making all that crap up about a "black-only-killing AIDs," aren't you? I mean, Rev. Wright never actually said that AIDS only targeted black people, did he?

As absurd as the claim made by Wright was, why do you need to distort it and make it even more absurd?

How could things get more absurd ? The Earth being 6000 years old seems to get bandied about churches all the time. A govt. conspiracy seems more plausible than that. If you take Wright dramatic prose and hyperbole with the same grain of salt most bible verses are usually taken with then what do you have ? A strawman to keep peoples mind off of inconvenient issues (real racism, the war, the economy you know stupid things. )

PaulL
03-27-2008, 10:22 AM
It is nice to be right (http://brainwaveweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=71987#post71987).
I predict that the Rev. Wright videos have damaged Obama and when this become apparent, his supporters will scream "swift boating" and that it was a Rovian plot.
Nice of you to address sharkdog's comment headon.
Even leaving aside the misspellings, improper punctuation, and inability to make pronouns agree in number, the density of stupidity in sharkdog's comment still beats a neutron star.
Why do progressives dislike the News that dissents from their narrative as is provided by Fox News?
I thought Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism.
(http://volokh.com/posts/1146554363.shtml)

Of course when you are asked to backup your allegations you will claim it is old news and the questioner should "move on".
Just like Obama addressing Rev. Wright with the "race" speech and your Jena 6 response (http://brainwaveweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=72009&#post).

As for Dahila Lithwick's intellect and being a disingenuous Liberal hack.
Dahlia Lithwick on the Heller argument (http://patterico.com/2008/03/19/lithwick-on-the-heller-argument/):

That’s five votes to create a fundamental right to bear arms, only eight minutes into the argument.

Excuse me? How do you “create” something that’s already in the Constitution?

Today we have four liberals rediscovering the beauty of local government and judicial restraint and five conservatives poised to identify a fundamental personal right that will have judges mucking about in gun cases for years to come. After all these years of deep conservative suspicion of turning over policy matters to the courts, the Roberts Court has fallen in love with a new constitutional right.

Excuse me? What is “new” about a right that has been in the Constitution since 1791?

If you can get past this type of Orwelllian bullshit, the piece is a fairly entertaining rundown of the argument — capturing most of the important nuances, all with Dahlia’s inimitable snarky, disingenuous style.

Bloggin' Noggin
03-27-2008, 10:25 AM
Ford was a law professor in 1994? Jeez, he has aged well. I would have guessed he was about 35.
url]

I was going to make the same point -- I'd have guessed 35 or under. Of course his picture (http://www.law.stanford.edu/directory/profile/20/Richard%20Thompson%20Ford/)on the Stanford Law website (probably from the time he was hired) makes him look about 18. Not sure if you noticed, but he's not only well preserved, he's also gorgeous.

Good discussion too (now that my id has had its say). I hope BHtv will have him back soon.
My only disappointment is that _The Race Card_ isn't available in a Kindle edition yet.
One of the first books I bought for my new Kindle was Jacob Heilbrunn's _They Knew They Were Right_, which I must say I am enjoying. I wish BHtv got a share of the profits on all the books I've bought as a result of watching diavlogs.

thouartgob
03-27-2008, 10:43 AM
He was NOT saying she is/was a racist. He was simply suggesting she holds certain ingrained and stereotypical views based on race - that we ALL do. He was pointing out the universality of these biases, both black and white. He was broadening the context for a discussion about the preconceptions we harbor about one another, not singling out his grandmother as some easily caricatured examplar of "typical white" racism (and not trying to draw an oversimplified or direct comparison with Rev. Wright either. Nice try Sean Hannity!)

He wasn't throwing her under the bus - as so many rabid right wing commentators have attempted to claim - he was suggesting we're all standing at the same bus stop together.

Obama lets white folks of the hook in the speech so one wonders why cons/repubs/etc... want to spend all day railing about the grandmother phrase. Makes you wonder how nervous they are about the speech.

Seems to me the most uneventful part of the speech is that he loves his grandma even though she says things that make him cringe, is there some debate about that ? The more the Hannitys of the world try and distract you with some shiny nugget of moronic logic more the more you need to pay attention to they don't want you to look at.

bjkeefe
03-27-2008, 11:25 AM
PaulL:

Sorry. If you're going to start from the basis that Fox News has it right, and every other news organization in the country is in thrall to the DNC, that's not something I consider worthy of debate.

You might equally well get upset if I dismissed you and your little buddy as morons for insisting, "2+2=5, and only a conspiracy of LIEbrul academics thinks it's not!!!" So be it. There comes a point where it's not worth the effort to review basic arithmetic, and that point is when the class clowns show an interest only in throwing spitballs.

Thus Spoke Elvis
03-27-2008, 11:32 AM
If you take Wright dramatic prose and hyperbole with the same grain of salt most bible verses are usually taken with then what do you have ? A strawman to keep peoples mind off of inconvenient issues (real racism, the war, the economy you know stupid things. )

I don't think we should judge Obama's fitness for the presidency on the basis of the church he belongs to. But that doesn't mean people aren't justified labelling Wright as a fool.

Here's a man that not only believes that much of the Bible is literally true (I know he's not a full-fledged literalist, but it's clear from his sermons that he believes that many Bible verses are the literal Word of God), but also thinks that AIDS was created by the government to kill black people. I might give Wright's religious views a pass if he was reality-based in other aspects of his thinking, but that clearly isn't the case. The man is no different than the Jerry Falwells or Pat Robertsons of the world.

garbagecowboy
03-27-2008, 12:22 PM
That's a wonderful scene. "Does the Tiger transfer him to another branch? Pun." Classic.

garbagecowboy
03-27-2008, 12:24 PM
I wish BHtv got a share of the profits on all the books I've bought as a result of watching diavlogs.

Memo to Bob: this would be quite easy to do... all they would need to do is set up an Amazon affiliate account and when they link to people's books include the affiliate code in the link. This seems like it would be a very subtle way to monetize the site if they were looking for one, and I'm sure people would be more than happy for bh.tv to get a slice of the pie when the site turns them onto a good book. I know I personally have bought several books from Amazon after them being mentioned in the diavlogs and/or in the comments.

thouartgob
03-27-2008, 12:51 PM
I don't think we should judge Obama's fitness for the presidency on the basis of the church he belongs to. But that doesn't mean people aren't justified labelling Wright as a fool.

Here's a man that not only believes that much of the Bible is literally true (I know he's not a full-fledged literalist, but it's clear from his sermons that he believes that many Bible verses are the literal Word of God), but also thinks that AIDS was created by the government to kill black people. I might give Wright's religious views a pass if he was reality-based in other aspects of his thinking, but that clearly isn't the case. The man is no different than the Jerry Falwells or Pat Robertsons of the world.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverend_Wright

"The African-centered point of view does not assume superiority, nor does it assume separatism. It assumes Africans speaking for themselves as subjects in history, not objects in history." [15]Wright ended one sermon with a blessing on all people, saying "All of God's children white, black, red, yellow, male, female, all together".

Along with that here is "chicken coming home to roost comment" where he was paraphrasing someone else when he speaks for himself here:

Wright went on to state: "Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y’all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people that we have wounded don’t have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that."

Is my emphasized statement completely off the mark ( we didn't wound Osama bin Laden of course we financed him) ?? How different would a "mainstream" priest (especially one of the many liberation theology priests ) say these words ??

He is nothing like Falwell et al. He reaches out to homosexuals and people with HIV unlike the Falwells of the world. Bob Jones University was against interracial relations, Rev. Wright certainly is not.

Passing on the lamentable urban legend of the govt. spreading aids is indeed foolish but Tuskegee did happen and I said it would be more likely to happen then to find out that the age of the earth is less than 4 billion years old. I don't think Rev. Wright believes that the world is 6k years old as I believe he sees, along with the catholic church and many other religious institutions that there are more metaphorical interpretations of the bible. I could easily be wrong and he may be a literalist or he may pick and choose what he presents as literal or metaphorical.

But he is no Robertson he is not in the same league with that cadre of hate filled bible thumpers, who have way more power and money than the reverend of a single church in Chicago. He does not scare me. A president saying God told him to invade a country that never attacked us, that scares me.

I am not religious so appealing to people from only that position doesn't float my boat but the vast majority of wright's screeds would find home in almost any non-white or liberally white church.

bjkeefe
03-27-2008, 01:30 PM
thouartgob:

... the lamentable urban legend of the govt. spreading aids ...

Good way of putting it. It's probably also worth noting that such a belief is hardly unique to certain church-going African-Americans.

Illustration: Back in the early '90s, when I was helping to care for a friend who was dying of HIV/AIDS, two of his other friends called me aside one day and went on a long tirade about the CIA having invented AIDS as a way to reduce the gay population, how it was an experiment that got out of control, and how they knew for sure that the government had drugs (maybe even a vaccine), but they were suppressing the release of these drugs because it was still mostly gays and drug addicts that were afflicted. They were absolutely serious, and I'd be willing to bet that they could have passed a lie detector test.

As it happened, all parties involved were straight and white.

It is natural to look for an easy explanation when facing a terrible problem, unfortunately. Witness the 9/11 Truthers, to name but one other example. It is also not completely out of the realm of momentary plausibility, in light of the Tuskegee Airmen, as you mention, and various other well-documented secret experiments conducted by the government on unwitting participants, like those concerning LSD and radiation exposure.

To seriously believe in the gummint-gave-us-AIDS idea is of course crazy. But to give voice to such an idea, on one occasion? Understandable. Pretty much all of us do it, from time to time.

Thus Spoke Elvis
03-27-2008, 03:09 PM
I've only criticized Wright for unquestionably asinine comments concerning religion and AIDS. I think one can make a reasonable argument, for instance, that the United States fomented the rage that resulted in the terrorist attacks on 9/11 (though I personally find this argument to be both hyperbolic and irrelevant), so I haven't discussed those comments except to say that they don't do Obama any favors.

I'm not "scared" of Wright, but I do think we should view him like we view other religious nuts; that is, with contempt. You suggest that Wright shouldn't be compared to Robertson or Falwell, because he's more tolerant of gays and people with AIDS. Well, one could just as easily say that Robertson and Falwell shouldn't be compared to Wright because they've done more (http://www.cbn.com/worldreach/worldreach_projects.aspx) to help Third World children than he has. And one could just as easily make an argument that the controversial comments those two have made should be balanced against the less inflammatory things they've said about helping the less fortunate, etc. But we don't do that for the Robertsons and Falwells of the world, and neither should we do it for a guy like Wright.

thouartgob
03-27-2008, 05:30 PM
I've only criticized Wright for unquestionably asinine comments concerning religion and AIDS...

If critics stuck to that comment, which doesn't get better with context, then that would be fine.

I'm not "scared" of Wright, but I do think we should view him like we view other religious nuts; that is, with contempt. You suggest that Wright shouldn't be compared to Robertson or Falwell, because he's more tolerant of gays and people with AIDS. Well, one could just as easily say that Robertson and Falwell shouldn't be compared to Wright because they've done more (http://www.cbn.com/worldreach/worldreach_projects.aspx) to help Third World children than he has. And one could just as easily make an argument that the controversial comments those two have made should be balanced against the less inflammatory things they've said about helping the less fortunate, etc. But we don't do that for the Robertsons and Falwells of the world, and neither should we do it for a guy like Wright.

Well I didn't say YOU were scared but of course the whole point of the controversy or more accurately is that here is this black preacher saying these things and since Obama is involved with the guy ... you another one of those angry black guys ...

I don't know how much or what Robertson etc. really should get credit for since I am too jaded :-) but I will say that they lots of money and influence and pay no taxes. I applaud them whatever they are doing but how much is it PR synergy plus what strings are attached. Should Bush get credit for foreign aid budget ?? If you are saying that anybody that are into religion so thoroughly is a putz then a pox on all of their houses. I don't share that sentiment even though I don't believe in Gob er God. I think that Wright is a different animal than these other hucksters.

deecue
03-27-2008, 06:53 PM
Excuse me? How do you “create” something that’s already in the Constitution?


While your enthusiasm to protect the Constitution is understandable, your attack on Mz. Lifthwick's comments seem somewhat unfounded. To me, what made the Supreme Court case about the D.C. gun restriction law interesting was exactly how unsettled the question was, and how murky interpretations have been.

On purely a legal level, being distinct from the practical matters of gun regulation, discussion of the case shed light on the fact that the Second Amendment as written is stilted relative to modern cadences. As a result, perhaps most clear from the text is that the right or even duty of a lone individual to own "arms" when not belonging to said "well regulated militia" is in fact not clear--ergo it qualifies as a Supreme Court case, right?

Your attitude per this particular issue seems not to allow for such murkiness, either out of disregard or lack of knowledge, which I thought warranted reply; if it is due to a lack of knowledge, then you might like to better inform yourself, and if it is due to disregard perhaps you could argue your point or otherwise better inform me and the rest of us passers-by.

Regarding Mz. Lifthwick's comments: they do qualify as particularly terse, and insofar as they are terse, also do not allow for murkiness. Nonetheless, to me they appear neither uniformed nor hack-like as you believe.

dq

Bloggin' Noggin
04-05-2008, 11:18 PM
I just wanted to mention that I've been reading _The Race Card_. (It wasn't available in Kindle edition, so I'm afraid I got it from the library.)
It's really a thoroughly entertaining book -- not only pretty substantive, but well-written and often witty. Ford revisits old sensational news stories -- everything from Tawana Brawley to Oprah and Hermes to Ebonics to OJ and manages to mine their (unsuspected) philosophical depths). The discussion of Affirmative Action is particularly helpful.
I recommend everyone go out and buy the book -- or at least read it.

I hope Professor Ford will return. He'd be really interesting with McWhorter or Loury -- or maybe with Mickey for that matter.

(Speaking of McWhorter, did anybody else see him on Friday's News Hour?)