The Boss

-- by Dave

Went to see Springsteen tonight at the Key. This was the third time I've seen him, but it was his best performance of the three -- he seemed to be working harder and having more fun.

Best for me personally was that I finally saw him do "Rosalita," which is one of my three favorite Springsteen songs, none of which I've seen him perform before (though I didn't get to see him the first time until 1989, which was probably part of the problem). It was great, particularly Clemons' sax work, which I think this song showcases better than any other Boss song except "Kitty's Back" -- which happens to be my co-favorite (along with "Candy's Room," which I'd heard he never performed live, but which I see he has resurrected for this tour.) Someday I hope to hear him sing, "Catlong sighs, holding Kitty's black tooth ..." But getting to sing along with on "But your papa says he knows that I don't have any money" was one of the highlights of my year.

So I can sleep tonight a happy man.

Breaking through on anthrax?

-- by Dave

Credit where it's due: Fox News (and evidently no one else) is reporting a significant breakthrough in the anthrax attacks of 2001:

WASHINGTON — The FBI has narrowed its focus to "about four" suspects in the 6 1/2-year investigation of the deadly anthrax attacks of 2001, and at least three of those suspects are linked to the Army’s bioweapons research facility at Fort Detrick in Maryland, FOX News has learned.

Among the pool of suspects are three scientists — a former deputy commander, a leading anthrax scientist and a microbiologist — linked to the research facility, known as USAMRIID.

The FBI has collected writing samples from the three scientists in an effort to match them to the writer of anthrax-laced letters that were mailed to two U.S. senators and at least two news outlets in the fall of 2001, a law enforcement source confirmed.

The story appears credible, particularly in the focus on Fort Detrick, which is indeed the most likely source of the lethal powder used in those attacks; this is something we've known since 2003, when it was clear that this, like Oklahoma City and 9/11, was another in the line of asymmetric terrorist attacks on American soil.

The fact that there was so little resolution of the matter probably had something to do with the political dimensions of the attacks. But it's also increasingly likely that there was some outright incompetence involved as well:

In December 2001, an Army commander tried to dispel the possibility of a connection to Fort Detrick by taking the media on a rare tour of the base. The commander said the Army used only liquid anthrax, not powder, for its experiments.

"I would say that it does not come from our stocks, because we do not use that dry material," Maj. Gen. John Parker said. The letters that were mailed to the media and Sens. Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy all contained powdered anthrax.

But in an e-mail obtained by FOX News, scientists at Fort Detrick openly discussed how the anthrax powder they were asked to analyze after the attacks was nearly identical to that made by one of their colleagues.

"Then he said he had to look at a lot of samples that the FBI had prepared ... to duplicate the letter material," the e-mail reads. "Then the bombshell. He said that the best duplication of the material was the stuff made by [name redacted]. He said that it was almost exactly the same … his knees got shaky and he sputtered, 'But I told the General we didn't make spore powder!'"

Gee, imagine that: A general with incomplete information misled the media in the process of covering his ass. Never heard of that in this administration.

Believing in the dream

-- by Dave

I think those of us who advocate comprehensive immigration reform recognize that getting there is going to be a long, slow row. But along the way, there are opportunities to help push reform forward in incremental steps.

One of these is the DREAM Act:

The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act (also called "The DREAM Act") is a piece of proposed federal legislation in the United States that would provide high school students who are long term undocumented immigrants with good moral character and who wish to attend college or serve in the armed forces to be able to gain legal status.

The bill, in various incarnations, has been introduced several times in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In the House it has never been brought to a floor vote as a stand-alone bill; in the Senate it was finally brought for debate on the floor on October 24, 2007, and though it was able to gain a majority vote it failed to gain cloture by a 52-44 vote, 8 votes short of overcoming a filibuster.[1] The text of the bill has also been included in various other immigration-related bills, including the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Acts of 2006 and 2007, though none so far has been successful.

It's an important first step in opening up a path to citizenship for immigrants and their children, which is a cornerstone of any larger progressive approach to immigration reform.

Robert Greenwald, whose Brave New Films outfit has done such great work exposing Fox News and Wal-Mart, among other targets, has turned his focus on getting the DREAM act. He's set up a Web site where you can sign a petition urging the remaining presidential candidates to support the bill:

All three presidential hopefuls co-sponsored the federal DREAM Act, yet it has never been made law. The DREAM Act would enable states to grant in-state tuition to these hardworking immigrant students, making higher education (and eventually citizenship) a real possibility.

It's a worthy cause, and well worth your signature.

A Change of Season

-- by Sara

Faithful Orcinus readers may have been wondering over the past couple months just where Sara went. The answer is: a lot is changing for me these days, and the particulars of when, where, and for whom I blog are changing, too.

Much of my mindshare since mid-January has gone to my guest-blogging gig at the Campaign for America's Future blog. The original plan was that I'd be doing one piece a week for 12 weeks, ending in the second week of April. Dave and I knew going in that this meant y'all would necessarily see quite a bit less of me here.

But it turns out that that temporary distraction isn't. At Take Back America last week, Bob Borosage called me into his K Street office and asked me if I'd be willing to make the arrangement permanent. Since it's a hugely visible site (my co-bloggers there include David Sirota, Bill Scher, Rick Perlstein, and Digby, and our own Dave has been known to pop up occasionally) and there are actual paychecks involved -- well, of course, I said yes.

Making room in my life for this new gig (and working on my thesis, which is also now fully underway) has meant I've had to get serious about re-arranging my priorities. The new schedule has me putting up a major article at ourfuture.org on Mondays or Tuesdays. (Most weeks, I'll throw up a link to it here as well, so you can hop right over and take a look.) I'll be back here at Orcinus regularly on Fridays, and perhaps a second time whenever events compel me to speak up. And since something had to give, I've cut way back on my commitment to Group News Blog, and will appear there only very occasionally when something appropriate catches my fancy.

So that's what's happening with me.

This week's piece at ourfuture.org is a contemplation on the past, present, and future of the American civil religion, and what it has to do with the persistent insanity over the candidates and their religious advisors we're seeing in this election cycle. I'll also be doing a live interview on "The Solution Zone" with Christiane Brown on KJFK, northern Nevada's Air America affiliate, this coming Monday afternoon at 3:00 pm. You can tune in online here.

Update: The radio show was pre-empted for Monday, so I've been re-booked for Wednesday at 3:00. See you there.

The McCain of the Moment and Immigration

-- by Dave

A lot of wags have been chortling about "the McCain Moment," myself included, because it encapsulates so neatly much of what's wrong with John McCain. But not everything.

We also need to deal with the McCain Of The Moment. The guy who said one thing six months ago and says nearly its opposite now. Who knows what he'll say in another six months?

As disturbing as his obvious mental lapses might be, McCain's bizarre policy flip-flops make Daffy Duck look positively stolid in comparison, especially because they have come in many cases in which he has made himself a national reputation. Things like torture and campaign finance ethics.

And this is especially the case with immigration. The co-author of the Kennedy-McCain Immigration Act -- which, comparatively speaking, took a moderate approach to immigration reform -- McCain is now saying that he wouldn't even vote for it now, let alone co-author it:

In a March 24 New York Times online piece, reporter Adam Nagourney stated that aides to Sen. John McCain "are beginning to see a general election upside ... to the problems that Mr. McCain's support of immigration legislation caused him in the primaries." But Nagourney did not report that McCain in fact reacted to those perceived "problems" by abandoning his own comprehensive immigration reform proposal during his campaign for the Republican nomination, saying that he would no longer support it if it came up for a vote in the Senate. McCain now says that "we've got to secure the borders first" -- a position at odds with his prior assertion that border security could not be disaggregated from other aspects of comprehensive immigration reform without being rendered ineffective. The Times itself reported on McCain's reversal on immigration in a March 3 article by reporter Elisabeth Bumiller, which stated that McCain has "meandered over the years from position to position on some topics, particularly as he has tried to court the conservatives who have long distrusted him." The article noted in particular that McCain "moved from his original position on immigration" and "went so far at a debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in January to say that if his original proposal came to a vote on the Senate floor, he would not vote for it."

Media Matters further notes that McCain's transigence on the issue included "conceding" at one of the presidential debates that he would vote against the bill today, when only three days earlier he had said he would sign it into law as president.

In fact, we were witness to this flip-flop on immigration as far back as last November:

John McCain spent months earlier this year arguing that the United States must combine border security efforts with a temporary worker program and an eventual path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants.

Now, the Republican presidential candidate emphasizes securing the borders first. The rest, he says, is still needed but will have to come later.

"I understand why you would call it a, quote, shift," McCain told reporters Saturday after voters questioned him on his position during back-to-back appearances in this early voting state. "I say it is a lesson learned about what the American people's priorities are. And their priority is to secure the borders."

That's right: John McCain was for humane, comprehensive immigration reform before he was against it.

When we begin talking about McCain's positions on issues, we're going to need to ask: Which McCain are you talking about? The one who was talking a few months or weeks ago? Or the one who's running for president as a Republican? Or the one who plans to be president next year? Which McCain, which moment?

Unfortunately, I suspect that very few folks in the media will be explaining the difference to us.

The McCain of the Moment and Immigration

[Cross-posted at Firedoglake.]

A lot of wags have been chortling about "the McCain Moment," myself included, because it encapsulates so neatly much of what’s wrong with John McCain. But not everything.

We also need to deal with the McCain Of The Moment. The guy who said one thing six months ago and says nearly its opposite now. Who knows what he’ll say in another six months?

As disturbing as his obvious mental lapses might be, McCain’s bizarre policy flip-flops make Daffy Duck look positively stolid in comparison, especially because they have come in many cases in which he has made himself a national reputation. Things like torture and campaign finance ethics.

And this is especially the case with immigration. The co-author of the Kennedy-McCain Immigration Act — which, comparatively speaking, took a moderate approach to immigration reform — McCain is now saying that he wouldn’t even vote for it today, let alone co-author it:

In a March 24 New York Times online piece, reporter Adam Nagourney stated that aides to Sen. John McCain "are beginning to see a general election upside … to the problems that Mr. McCain’s support of immigration legislation caused him in the primaries." But Nagourney did not report that McCain in fact reacted to those perceived "problems" by abandoning his own comprehensive immigration reform proposal during his campaign for the Republican nomination, saying that he would no longer support it if it came up for a vote in the Senate. McCain now says that "we’ve got to secure the borders first" — a position at odds with his prior assertion that border security could not be disaggregated from other aspects of comprehensive immigration reform without being rendered ineffective. The Times itself reported on McCain’s reversal on immigration in a March 3 article by reporter Elisabeth Bumiller, which stated that McCain has "meandered over the years from position to position on some topics, particularly as he has tried to court the conservatives who have long distrusted him." The article noted in particular that McCain "moved from his original position on immigration" and "went so far at a debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in January to say that if his original proposal came to a vote on the Senate floor, he would not vote for it."

Media Matters further notes that McCain’s utter transience on the issue included "conceding" at one of the presidential debates that he would vote against the bill today (see the video above), when only three days earlier he had said he would sign it into law as president.

In fact, we were witness to this flip-flop on immigration as far back as last November:

John McCain spent months earlier this year arguing that the United States must combine border security efforts with a temporary worker program and an eventual path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants.

Now, the Republican presidential candidate emphasizes securing the borders first. The rest, he says, is still needed but will have to come later.

"I understand why you would call it a, quote, shift," McCain told reporters Saturday after voters questioned him on his position during back-to-back appearances in this early voting state. "I say it is a lesson learned about what the American people’s priorities are. And their priority is to secure the borders."

That’s right: John McCain was for humane, comprehensive immigration reform before he was against it.

When we begin talking about McCain’s positions on issues, we’re going to need to ask: Which McCain are you talking about? The one who was talking a few months or weeks ago? Or the one who’s running for president as a Republican? Or the one who plans to be president next year? Which McCain, which moment?

Unfortunately, I suspect that very few folks in the media will be explaining the difference to us.

Confronting the radical right

-- by Dave

One of the stranger aspects of the Nazi rally in Olympia a couple of years ago was the fact that the 12 or so neo-Nazis who gathered on the state Capitol steps to demand, among other things, an end to Latino immigration, were being protected by a phalanx of the Washington State Patrol some 275 strong.

Of course, they were there to protect these Nazis from the more than 300 people who showed up to protest them. Mind you, it was clear that the protesters were mostly intent on making fun of the swastika set, and violence was far from anyone's intent that day. But besides wasting a large chunk of government dough, the event also created the disturbing impression that the law-enforcement officers were far more interested in protecting the Nazis' free-speech rights than the anti-Nazis. I'm sure that wasn't the intent, but the impression was there, in any event.

Certainly, the role of law enforcement in being too lax created scenes the year before in Toledo that no one wanted to see reproduced. And in that instance, the laxity had raised real questions about police sympathies, too.

Mostly, law enforcement is caught between a rock and a hard spot in these situations. And there's no doubt the neo-Nazi types love to exploit that fact.

Lasty Friday a neo-Nazi demonstration in Calgary turned ugly when they began getting violent with the anti-Nazi protestors who showed up:

A group of white supremacists named the Aryan Guard staged a march from the Mewata Armoury down 8th Avenue to city hall, prompting anti-racism activists to stage their own demonstration.

The activists, plus union leaders, anarchists, minority groups, passersby and gay activists held their own rally as a counter-demonstration to the white supremacists, said Anti-Racist Action Calgary's Jason Devine.

"Our message is that there's strength in numbers ... that the community is united, that racism will not be tolerated, that it shouldn't be tolerated and that we shouldn't just turn from it," he said.

Approximately 25 Aryan Guard members gathered at the Franklin LRT station, rode the C-Train to downtown and started making their way down to the Mewata Armoury, when they were blocked by counter-demonstrators along 7th Avenue, in front of a seniors' centre.

Calgary Sun columnist Pablo Fernandez voiced some of the strong emotions that watching Nazis march under police escort can raise, especially in a community where they have taken not merely to marching but to their usual acts of street thuggery:

But since they started posting pictures of themselves on the Internet with guns and baseball bats -- and after two recent Molotov cocktail attacks in the city were tied to possible white supremacist activity -- it's the counter-protesters who have to hide their faces. One person who knows the danger of standing up against the neo-Nazis is Bonnie Collins.

She, her four children -- aged three to nine -- and her husband, Jason, were all home when their house was fire bombed on Feb. 12.

That moment was painfully relived Friday, when Bonnie -- as part of a counter-demonstration -- confronted the neo-Nazis, who asked her, "How's your house, Bonnie?" while standing behind a cordon of police officers on the front steps of city hall.

"Is it nice and toasty in there? How's Jason and the kids?"

Apart from gaining ground in their intimidation campaign, the neo-Nazis showed they have absolute freedom of movement in Calgary.

They marched, under police escort, from one end of downtown to the other, and although Calgary Police Service members faced the counter-demonstrators the entire time, the white supremacists made it clear to their opponents police were there to protect them, not the neo-Nazis.

In reality, it might have been more of a problem for the police to be protecting the Nazis had the group of protesters not been so clearly intent on confrontation and ultimately violence. That was in distinct contrast to the crowd in Olympia -- though under the circumstances, certainly foreseeable.

Fernandez starts to get the right idea later in the column:

Members of the Aryan Guard also have rights.

But the fact they can intimidate, threaten, recruit and feel comfortable enough to do as they please in full public view is something Calgarians cannot ignore.

Citizens, of course, should feel free to do as they please in public view so long as it's not criminal behavior -- including threatening and intimidation, things at which the Nazis excel. And it's that point which Calgarians have the right to demand police action.

Unfortunately, threatening and intimidation from their opponents simply negates that point. If these would-be enemies of fascism wanted to be effective, they'd also be a lot smarter.

The Moonies and McCain's Main Man

Online Videos by Veoh.com

-- by Dave

I guess we all know now that the media get all worked up about some presidential candidates who have dealings with religious figures deemed "anti-American" and "hateful" -- but not all of them. If it's a black pastor at a church attended by a Democrat, well, they're on that like stink on shit. If, on the other hand, it's a Republican candidate who embraces apocalyptic nutcases and gay-bashing extremists, well, the very scent seems to make them faint.

The same principle is at work regarding the media's allergy to reporting on the way Republicans and the Moonies have their hands so deeply into each others' pockets that they're making their coins jingle. Of course, as John Gorenfeld explores in detail in his new book, Bad Moon Rising: How Reverend Moon Created the Washington Times, Seduced the Religious Right, and Built an American Kingdom, this has been going on a long time. There was a brief exception back in 2004 -- when Moon held his coronation as the "King of America" in the Senate Dirksen Building.

So we can only assume that they'll likely ignore the revelations in Gorenfeld's book that none other than uber-lobbyist Charlie Black -- not just McCain's "chief political adviser" but a right-hand man for the Bush clan as well -- played a role in making that coronation happen.

According to Gorenfeld, Black admitted to helping invite people to attend the coronation. And he's listed as a sponsor in the coronation's printed program.

The Moonies and McCain’s Main Man

[Cross-posted at Firedoglake.]

Speaking of Charlie Black …

I guess we all know now that the media get all worked up about some presidential candidates who have dealings with religious figures deemed "anti-American" and "hateful" — but not all of them. If it’s a black pastor at a church attended by a Democrat, well, they’re on that like stink on shit. If, on the other hand, it’s a Republican candidate who embraces apocalyptic nutcases and gay-bashing extremists, well, the very scent seems to make them faint.

The same principle is at work regarding the media’s allergy to reporting on the way Republicans and the Moonies have their hands so deeply into each others’ pockets that they’re making their coins jingle. Of course, as John Gorenfeld explores in detail in his new book, Bad Moon Rising: How Reverend Moon Created the Washington Times, Seduced the Religious Right, and Built an American Kingdom, this has been going on a long time. There was a brief exception back in 2004 — when Moon held his coronation as the "King of America" in the Senate Dirksen Building.

So we can only assume that they’ll likely ignore the revelations in Gorenfeld’s book that none other than uber-lobbyist Charlie Black — not just McCain’s "chief political adviser" but a right-hand man for the Bush clan as well — played a role in making that coronation happen.

According to Gorenfeld, Black admitted to helping invite people to attend the coronation. And he’s listed as a sponsor in the coronation’s printed program.

You recall what happened at that event: A number of congressional figures, including at least one Democrat, Danny Davis of Illinois, participated in a ceremony in which Moon was crowned "King of America" and his place as the new Messiah rather officiously confirmed. The ceremony declared "the era of the Eternal Peace Kingdom, one global family under God." Immediately afterward, Moon confirmed to the participants that he was consulting with great leaders of the past in the spirit world: "The five great saints [Jesus, Confucius, Buddha, Mohammad, and Shankara] and many other leaders of the spirit world, including even Communist leaders such as Marx and Lenin, who committed all manner of barbarity and murder on earth, and dictators such as Hitler and Stalin, have found strength in my teachings, mended their ways and been reborn as new persons."

Gorenfeld had an e-mail exchange with Black about his role in the affair:

Before the crowning became a scandal, I e-mailed Black questions about his role. "I lent my name and sent invitations to a few friends," he replied. "Unfortunately, I had a conflict and couldn’t go to the event." Was it a common kind of "event"? Black said, "I don’t know if it is annaul, but they have done similar events. I don’t know Reverend Moon, but work with the management of the Washington Times and their foundation occasionally on conservative causes. I think the dinner committee list included a number of us ‘secular’ conservatives."

McCain’s "chief political adviser" is deeply connected inside the Beltway powerhouse. [More here.] A Washington Post piece on the lobbyists inside McCain’s campaign notes:

His chief political adviser, Charles R. Black Jr., is chairman of one of Washington’s lobbying powerhouses, BKSH and Associates, which has represented AT&T, Alcoa, JPMorgan and U.S. Airways.

[More on BKSH here.]

And of course, it’s helpful to recall the kinds of things that Moon has said which seem not to bother conservatives in the least:

The whole world is in my hand, and I will conquer and subjugate the world. I will go beyond the boundary of the U.S., opening up the toll gate, reaching out to the end of the world. I will go forward, piercing through everything …

When we are in our battle against the whole nation of the U.S. — if you are truly in love with this nation, and if you love this nation more than anyone else, this nation will come into God’s possession, and Satan will have nothing to do with it. … With that as the bullet, we can smash the whole world.

Individualism is what God hates most, and Satan likes best.

God likes the idea of a monarchy, because it removes the cycles of election after election which can obscure the focus and direction of the nation.

The whole world is in my hand, and I will conquer and subjugate the whole world.

The time will come when, without my seeking it, that my words must serve as law.

We will be able to amend laws, articles of constitution, if we wish to do so.

Telling a lie becomes a sin if you tell it to take advantage of a person, but if you tell a lie to do a good thing … that is not a sin … Even God tells lies very often.

I have met many famous, so-called famous, Senators and Congressmen; but to my eyes they are nothing. They are weak and helpless. We will win the battle. This is our dream, our project. But shut your mouth tight.

After the demise of communism and the destruction of democracy, all that will remain will be the True Family and True Children system, centered upon True Parents [Moon's title for himself and his wife]. That is what is happening now.

America may boast of its virtues to the world, but look, democracy is now reaching the end of its rope. People thought democracy is the final anchor of the free world, but it is reaching its end. So what is left? America has been telling the weaker nations that they have to accept democracy, forcing them to receive so-called democracy. But look at America. It is rotten, top to bottom. There is nothing to be proud of, not their way of walking or talking or thinking.

When you hear me putting America down, your ears are not pleased. But if we continue living in this hub of the satanic world, this New York-DC area, we are in the darkness.

When Clinton and his policies come into being, the first opposition must come from Christianity. But Christianity has lost its center and its hope. For that reason, they have lost their power, and that is why Clinton was allowed to win the election. It was the failure of Christianity. This nation which is supposed to be Christian has been turned into almost a model nation for Satan, losing everything precious. People are losing their own identity, losing brotherhood, losing their own parents, and losing God. This nation has really become a playground for Satan.

Apparently, you’re only anti-American if you’re a liberal Democrat.

That dialogue on race

-- by Dave

OK, just in the interest of honesty, here are some things usually associated over the years with white people that, well, I as a white person find kinda embarrassing:

Bell-bottom pants.

Mullets.

"Country living" decor.

Bad country music.

Bad heavy metal.

Bad dancing.

This is just a short sampling of a much longer list, but you kind of get the idea. There are a lot of dumb things associated with white folks that I, as a very melanin-challenged person myself, would hate being associated with. And for the most part, I'm fairly comfortable knowing that since I generally don't indulge these vices myself (except that I am a truly awful dancer), I don't need to worry much about being in fact associated with them.

I'm rather more concerned about certain other behaviors associated with certain white people -- things like swastika and "white power" tatoos and shaved heads; hate crimes; and the increasingly common rhetoric demonizing nonwhites for supposed characteristics like their criminality or their laziness or their lack of intelligence.

Now, I like to think that people like myself who work to expose these haters for what they are -- and there are many of us, though probably not enough -- stand as testimony to the fact that not all white folks are like them. Certainly, a broad spectrum of whites would object strenuously if others were to make that association -- why, they assure us, they don't have a racist bone in their bodies. Their best friend at work [or their Secretary of State] is black! Mind you, the right-wing component of this contingent seems to want to constantly undermine the work of people like myself, as well as nonwhites, at healing that racial divide, but that's perhaps beside the point: It's considered broadly unacceptable, in fact, to blame all white folks for the existence of neo-Nazis, skinheads, neo-Confederates, and nativists. And heaven forfend that any suggest that the "white community" is responsible for them.

I'm sure there will always be some black people who presume that all white folks are that way. But they're in a distinct minority.

I'm not sure the same thing could be said of white folks when it comes to certain blocs of the black community and how readily those translate into broad stereotypes. In fact, I'm pretty sure it can't.

I was thinking about this because Pam Spaulding wrote an interesting post (also at Pandagon) that started off talking about Pat Buchanan's latest column -- and I couldn't agree more that Buchanan, and the many people like him, are probably the foremost example of why we have a racial divide in the first damned place -- but it's morphed, in the updates, into something perhaps even more interesting.

Pam cites one of her readers, who relates the tale of his ride upon a bus, driven by a black man, in which some unpleasant black women boarded his bus and failed to pay their full fare, leading to a running verbal conflict with the driver. The line that caught my attention was this:

The driver turned to the Asian woman seated next to me in the front of the bus and informed her that in the City there were Black people and there were niggers. Those three were nothing but niggers and gave all black people a bad name.

Pam responds by pointing to Chris Rock's classic "Blacks vs. Niggaz" sketch (in the video atop this post} and noting:

What the driver (and Chris Rock) are conveying are class distinctions. Not all black folks are poor, under-educated criminals. Now the above comments by Rock and the bus driver conveniently skirt the issue of the underclass and the cycle of poverty that foments the pathologies of gang culture, disdain for educational achievement and other negative stereotypes that are a reality in those segments of the minority community. But Chris Rock speaks for a number of blacks who shake their heads every time they see a thug perp walk that inevitably will be seen by whites as representative of all black people.

And that really is the problem, isn't it: That whites will take a narrow spectrum of behaviors by black people and assume that they come to reflect the entire black community -- and black people hate that shit. As well they should.

A recent example of how this happens came in the Instapunk post discussed at length by Glenn Greenwald this week. Instapunk writes:

On the other hand, I am sick to death of black people as a group. The truth. That is part of the conversation Obama is asking for, isn't it? I live in an eastern state almost exactly on the fabled Mason-Dixon line. Every day I see young black males wearing tee shirts down to their knees -- and jeans belted just above their knees. I'm an old guy. I want to smack them. All of them. They are egregious stereotypes. It's impossible not to think the unthinkable N-Word when they roll up beside you at a stoplight in their trashed old Hondas with 19-inch spinner wheels and rap recordings that shake the foundations of the buildings. . . .

Here's the dirty secret all of us know and no one will admit to. There ARE niggers. Black people know it. White people know it. And only black people are allowed to notice and pronounce the truth of it.

Yep, it's those damned Niggaz again. And somehow, it's black people who are responsible for them.

It couldn't possibly be the responsibility of the white employers who somehow manage to overlook young black men when it comes time to hire; the white real-estate agents who won't show certain homes in certain neighborhoods or certain suburbs to blacks because, well, "blacks just don't want to live there"; it couldn't possibly be the suburban civic leaders who oppose public services and low-income housing in their towns because they might "drive down property values."

In other words, any part of the responsibility for the fact that many young, ambitious black men adopt a "gangsta" lifestyle because they know they'll never make it in the white world and don't particularly want to anyway -- that responsibility couldn't possibly lie with the people whose every step in fact closes young black people off from the very means of success that whites take for granted, could it?

Nah.

When white people insist on making every other black person bear some kind of responsibility for the behavior of a small segment of their community, people who only share with them their racial identity -- the kind of responsibility that whites repudiate on their own behalf for white miscreants -- that is nothing if not "identity politics" incarnate. And as long as it persists, there's going to be a racial divide in America that will not be bridged.

The new racism keeps bubbling

-- by Dave

Glenn Greenwald has a superb piece pointing out a Glenn Reynolds-endorsed post from post from the Reynolds-endorsed Instapunk that truly lays bare the ugly racism that has been rising, like all scum, to the top of the conservative movement these days:

Here's the dirty secret all of us know and no one will admit to. There ARE niggers. Black people know it. White people know it. And only black people are allowed to notice and pronounce the truth of it. Which would be fine. Except that black people are not a community but a political party. They can squabble with each other in caucus but they absolutely refuse to speak the truth in public. And this is the single biggest obstacle to healing the racial divide in this country.

I'm not proposing the generalized use of the term, just trying to be clear for once, in the wake of Obama's call for us to have a dialogue about race. However much they may scream and protest, black people will know what I mean when I demand they concede that the following people are niggers:

- Jeremiah Wright

- O.J. Simpson

- Marion Barry

- Alan Iverson

- William Jefferson

- Louis Farrakhan

- Mike Tyson . . .

You see, you've just given life to the suspicion that black people in America are, and have long been, a fifth column -- unanimously hating the very country that has afforded the highest standard of living ever achieved by black people in human history.

I've been calling this "the new racism", which really is just a slightly modified version of the truly vicious belief system that has been lying, like a cancer waiting to metastasize, from the body of movement conservatism for the many years since it was forced into semi-dormancy some 40 years ago. With folks like Rush Limbaugh leading the way, I describe it thus:

[It is] a trend in right-wing comentary, staking out positions that, if not overtly racist, at least seek to resurrect some of the hoary mythology of the era of white supremacy. As with most of right-wing race rhetoric of the past twenty years, it's all done with a certain level of plausible deniability, couched in "jokes" or abstrations that let the speakers feign indignation when the racism is pointed out; the current trend is only slightly more overt in its racism, but the underlying sentiments aren't hard to read.

It's a step beyond wink-and-nudge racism -- or, perhaps, more like that point in the winking and nudging when the winker begins nudging harder and harder.

Of course, it's not just Limbaugh, but rather something systemic within the body of conservatism generally:

[E]merging from behind a mask of genteel conservatism, it openly calls for a revival of ole-time white supremacism, having found that the "liberal social experiment" with racial equality has failed. Already, we've seen Patrick Buchanan drop all pretense and adopt a position that shifts from simple white nationalism to outright supremacism. Michael Savage airs denunciations of the Civil Rights movement. TV talkers like Glenn Beck pretend that blind bigotry toward Muslims is a "normal" perspective.

And as I noted then:

What's especially ironic is that all of this discussion is being raised by people with a record of attacking multiculturalism -- which, historically speaking, was the response to white supremacism and eugenics and became the worldview that replaced them. What we've been hearing, in a steady drumbeat from the right, is the notion that "multiculturalism is a failure" -- though notably, while unsparing in their critique, they have been discreet about what they would replace it with.

Now, evidently, we're finding out: a "new eugenics," to go right alongside a new kind of racism. It's all justified, you see, because multiculturalism has failed -- all it's done, they tell us, is make us more ethnically divided.

Nowhere in the discussion, of course, is even a glimmer of recognition that white people invented this ethnic balkanization over a century ago, instituted it for the better part of that century, and only recently have begun taking steps towards dismantling those institutions – many of which indeed persist well into this century. Nowhere is there a recognition of their own culpability, and responsibility to deal with minorities in good faith, instead of attempting to strip them of what few advances they have made in the intervening years.

More recently, we're seeing all kinds of white conservative pundits lay the blame for this turn in the discourse at the feet of black people.

As Greenwald puts it:

There is no better phrase to describe the animating feature of the modern Limbaugh/Kristol/Fox News conservative faction than "threatened tribalism." The belief that they are good and pure, yet subjected to unprecedented systematic unfairness and threatened by some lurking Evil Other against whom war must be waged (the Muslim, the Immigrant, the Terrorist, the Communist, the Liberal, the Welfare Queen) is the centerpiece of their ugly worldview.

Obama's campaign, as I've noted before, is going to be Ground Zero for this trend. And as the Jeremiah Wright controversy has made clear, the supposedly mainstream media are all too willing to play along.