You Learn Racial Arts!

This exchange from PBS featured on Newsbusters regarding illegal immigration and the DREAM Act caught my attention:

[GORDON]PETERSON: Jimmy Tingle said if they all looked like Norwegians, there’d be no problem, Mark.

MARK SHIELDS: I think there, I think there’s a lot of truth in that …

It seems as if many commentators in the media are spellbound by an impulse possessing the power of Jacobim Mugatu… not into dusting the prime minister of a third world country, but rather into annihilating legitimate political discourse in this country.

"You learn racial arts! You call them bigots! Happy! Happy! Happy!"

Is this what it has come to … claiming that Americans who happen to be opposed to our southern border being illegally trampled over like Walmart greeters on Black Friday would approve of illegal Norwegian immigration … because Norwegians are the right race? Of course it has, but I still hate to consider that this sort of accepted intellectual laziness is from some of the same folks who regularly deride people like Bush, Palin etc. as idiots. Could it be some of the same people? If so, had Alanis Morissette used their actions as an example of irony, nobody would have laughed at her.

This sort of flippant “oh yeah, they’re racists” logic is so utterly played out that I could go see REO Speedwagon at a County Fair and I guarantee you it would be a fresher experience… after all, I’ve only heard “Keep Pushin’” and “Golden Country” 2000 times each. Plus, the guitar work on “Roll With the Changes”, while simple, is tasty and kicks ass (man that song rocks… hit the link; it makes for good reading music). Yes, I know Gary Richrath isn’t with the band any longer, but I’m sure the new guy can handle the part… then again, the solo may be arrogant because it relies on the Western twelve tone scale and may therefore be offensive to non-Westerners who possess micro-tone sensibilities.

It’s not unusual for old dogs to continue with what has proven to work. America has a painful past, one filled with discrimination and racism. Sadly, that history and the respect it deserves is being kicked in the ‘nads by asinine conclusions such as the one expressed here on PBS. A small part of me gives these men the benefit of the doubt since they saw a much uglier America regarding racial issues than we see today; moreover, I think that in some cases, such sentiments apply. However, a larger part of me feels compelled to say something when they are making indiscriminate accusations that do not elevate the dialogue. Some of these talking heads seem to really have no desire or the know-how to propel the conversation into fruitful areas, nor the self-awareness that their logic is more similar to racist reasoning than the thought processes it takes to know that securing the border is a reasonable idea to Americans of all ethnicities/races/cultures/hyphenated nationalities/genders/sexual identities/whatever.

In the sixties, you had true civil rights heroes like Diane Nash and John Lewis literally risking life and limb at Nashville lunch counters and on the Freedom Rides. Today, we have elder statesmen in our media blanketing a large portion of America with charges of racism because the people who consistently illegally cross our southern border are not Nordic in appearance. Is this progress?  Heck no… not even close.

The popular paradigm which establishes American conservatism/capitalism to be dependent on racism cannot seem to reconcile that a wide array of Americans think illegal immigration is out of control. To acknowledge this, however, would require painting not only whites, but blacks, Latinos, and Asians as racists as well. I wonder what would happen if the ACLU announced it wants the border closed. If closing the border first before doing anything else is the litmus test for proving racism, a fair application of the logic would have to brand Anthony Romero & Co. as racists also. Somehow, I doubt that would happen; we see this double standard in play often, especially when the offender has a “D” next to his name.

Years and years of erroneous “right = racist/bigoted/xenophobic, left = tolerant” groundwork leading up to the present has made these irresponsible remarks perfectly acceptable, unfortunately. For all the talk of how unenlightened and primitive the American right is, some of these lefty commentators sure don’t seem to mind dumbing things down for their own purposes. Their model just doesn’t fit like it once did, but it is how they were trained, and old habits die hard. They’ve lost hope in transcendence and resigned themselves to a partisan, trench war mindset. I hope they see their error before they lose more credibility because the pissing match mentality that defines our political discourse is in real danger of turning into full-blown scatological warfare… if it’s not there already.

A revisiting of Roger Ebert’s original review of Zoolander, from September 2001, in which he points to the film as indicative of American arrogance, seems appropriate here; yes, Zoolander, the film that boasts such superlative cinematic achievements as scenes like this served as an adequate example for Ebert to make a critical geo-cultural statement on American bigotry/arrogance/xenophobia/whatever. However, as clumsy and contradictory as Ebert is here, at least he tries to make an argument. Too many media drones today don’t even bother; their inane quips pitifully masquerade as political analysis… and are left relatively unchecked.  Is it not obvious why the media has a credibility problem?

Memorandum to much of the media: your credibility problem is partially due to your regular broad brush accusations of racism which you unwittingly apply to most of the American electorate. It’s bush league. A myna bird can be trained to hurl insults. Alluding to, or even outright accusing someone of, racism when it is unsubstantiated is a slur, plain and simple.

This whole phenomenon reminds me of when Cliff Clavin thought he could be funny as a stand up comic by employing “What’s up with that?” as the punch line… for every single joke.

"My son the father... what's up with that?"

Cliff cleared out the room and his comedy career was over. Maybe some of the race hustling journalists out there could go work for the Postal Service… I’m sure they’d feel right at home; just as they repetitively stamp the right wing with “racism!” they could just as handily stamp letters and packages. Plus the USPS is tanking just like the dinosaur media. It seems like a natural fit.

I certainly hope the joke is on me. I hope these guys know what they’re doing, and I’m just the type of person who would partake in a gas pump fight and then light a cig with a Zippo… but it sure seems like there are way too many “oh yeah, it’s racist” punch lines taking place… in serious tones. Either way, it’s bogus and creates hostility. If that’s what these race hustlers are going for… MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

I can hear them now, comfortably resting at a daiye spa, jamming to Frankie Goes To Hollywood, somnolently stating their affinity for the “that’s racist!” strategy: “We really like race hustling.”

"Of course you do."

Thank you, Katinka.

I never thought an REO lyric would be so profound, but Kevin Cronin had it right: “If you’re tired of the same old story, turn some pages. I’ll be here when you are ready… to roll with the changes.”

This article also featured at Breitbart's Big Journalism

http://bigjournalism.com/mikemetroulas/2010/12/29/you-learn-racial-arts/

American Exceptionalism: Who Owns It?

In a recent LA Times Op-Ed, NYU’s Jonathan Zimmerman argues that the idea of American exceptionalism rests in the American Left’s fight for social justice. Straight away, Zimmerman draws his battle lines:

Left = exceptional social warriors, Right = arrogance.

“Is America ‘exceptional’?” Zimmerman asks. Why yes, he argues, but only because of the great left-wing social justice warriors who fought slavery, big business, and racism.

What Zimmerman fails to acknowledge in the first instance is that even though the U.S. did abolish slavery, almost every other country in the Western world did the exact same thing, most of them prior to the 13th Amendment. So, while laudable, there really was nothing exceptional about America ending slavery in the 19th century. In fact, America was relatively late to the party. The same applies to the American labor movement, which never made gains anywhere near those made by European labor. This example too misses the mark.  Finally, the modern Western world is rife with movements toward greater social equality and justice… the gains of the American civil rights movement, while honorable, were hardly exceptional. The definition of “American exceptionalism” cannot be effectively moved to where Zimmerman tries to take it; it just doesn’t add up.

Zimmerman maps out how today’s Democrats can appropriate the idea of American exceptionalism and use it to their advantage:

… the president should invoke America’s long tradition of left-wing exceptionalism. The great warriors for social justice in our history all insisted that America had a providential destiny. Unlike present-day conservatives, however, they also indicted the nation for abandoning this mission. They used American exceptionalism to critique America’s vices, not just to sing its virtues.

I can get aboard the general point here, that turning a critical eye on oneself and making improvements is a good thing. What should be questioned, as long as we’re playing the game of connecting people in the present with historical actors, is the idea that “present-day conservatives” are in no way ideologically connected to the historical figures cited by Zimmerman.

I maintain that many Americans, both left and right, did and do sing America’s virtues and critique its vices. A more straightforward analysis would not force such a partisan frame onto this historical exploration, as Zimmerman does here. Then again, this is politics.

Via this paradoxically dismissive and larcenous appropriation of “American exceptionalism,” Zimmerman denies to all non-lefties their own valid connections to American exceptionalism as they define it (it’s not true!) – even in the way he wants to define it (it’s not yours!). According to this schema, “Obama’s Republican critics” have it all wrong; they only think that American exceptionalism is “synonymous with American superiority.” Got that, you malevolent conservatives?

Forget that William Lloyd Garrison was a pious Christian, supported free trade, flirted with anarchism, and burned the Constitution; any conservatives who hold Christian values, support free markets, favor smaller government, and do not support federal power could not possibly have anything in common with Garrison or the abolitionist movement in general, because they’re on the right wing, of course.

Garrison was not a “left winger” by any current sense of the term; he was an American Christian moralist, exceptional in his passion for an ideal, which in no way is the exclusive domain of the American Left at any point in U.S. history. If anything, Garrison would be politically aligned with current Conservative Libertarians, not today’s Democratic Party, which possesses a destructive fetish for state power. American Christians can lay a much more substantial claim to Garrison than any other group.

In a larger historical context, yes, the fight against bondage and inequality is exceptional; yes, the individuals who risked life and limb were indeed exceptional, but emancipation and equality were certainly not rarities in the modern world, which is the context America simply must be placed in. America’s rise as the greatest economic, military, and scientific power over the last two centuries, however, is exceptional… again, in the modern world. I’ve yet to read a convincing argument to the contrary. Being aware of and stating the obvious does not equal arrogance.

Finally, Obama :

… should reply with a full-throated defense of a different kind of exceptionalism, one that underscores America’s historic struggle to realize its proclaimed values.

That doesn’t make us better than anyone else. But it does give us a special duty to fight injustice, wherever we find it. Especially in ourselves.

Therefore, according to Zimmerman, America is not exceptional, but some Americans were, and we now have a duty to fight injustice. I think most Americans agree, on both sides of the aisle, that fighting injustice is desirable. However, considering how the current left-wing social justice warriors have not been speaking much truth to power lately, one can assume this principle applies only if the person in the White House has an R next to his name… see, Anti-War Movement, 2003-2009, Abrupt Disappearance Of.” Unfortunately, the establishment of a “special” left-wing group of Americans as exclusive heirs to a morally superior history employs a similar logic which fueled the very discrimination that was fought against by exceptional Americans like Garrison, Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King Jr. and Alice Paul in the first place.

In Zimmerman’s analysis, we are left with the American Right’s illegitimate competitive/national character exceptionalism versus the American Left’s genuine moral/social justice exceptionalism. I’d promote a more balanced approach: I’d argue that what is widely seen today as the mainstream American right is perfectly in line with all of the examples of alleged “left-wing exceptionalism” Zimmerman presents. Mining history in order to make partisan points can be effective, as long as your readers don’t know the history too well.

Many people in the 19th century believed America to be exceptional, notably Frederick Jackson Turner and Alexis de Tocqueville, to name but a few. I’d say a perusal of primary sources by thinkers such as these, works that are closer to the nation’s founding, provide a fruitful place to begin an examination of why people thought America was unique. I think Dr. Zimmerman would agree.

I maintain that America is exceptional for its competitive accomplishments and its unique founding; this, coupled with both a unique physical and political environment, led to an exceptional society. America is also honorable yet ordinary for its social justice accomplishments, which were perfectly in line with the emancipatory impulses of the modern world. America eventually did the right thing regarding inequality and discrimination and concurrently helped create, in a profound way, a standard of living of which kings in centuries past would have been envious. We are all heirs to that legacy. No side of the political spectrum has exclusive right to it, no matter how much the “Left = good, Right = bad” binary is promoted in the media, academia, and popular culture.

I don’t think it’s the responsibility of anyone to point out that “It doesn’t mean we’re better”, especially while adding, “… but we are better than you.” This approach is indeed exceptional… in its arrogance.

This article also featured at Breitbart's Big Journalism

http://bigjournalism.com/mikemetroulas/2010/12/15/american-exceptionalism-who-owns-it/ 

What Exactly Are the Qualifications for Being President?

This story on the Huffington Post recently caught my attention:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/10/oprah-palin-president_n_794859.html

Barbara Walters asks Oprah if Sarah Palin is qualified to be president and Oprah declines to answer.  Walters takes this as a “no” from Oprah.  The Oprah has spoken.

I’m not exactly sure that Oprah is the person to ask regarding anyone’s qualifications to be president. She broke out of her apolitical shell to endorse Barack Obama, a man with very few qualifications. The one thing he is supposed to be is something really special… “the One” as Oprah called him. That may or may not be true, but does being “special” qualify one to be president?

He was awarded a law degree from Harvard. I respect that accomplishment. Not many people do that. What is the percentage of Americans who earn a law degree from an Ivy League school?  I’d ballpark it around 0.0001%. Does that make somebody qualified to be president? It doesn’t disqualify a person, but it certainly doesn’t automatically confer upon someone the status of Grade A presidential timber. However, he’s in there, operating as president… because the American people elected him.

I applauded the election of Barack Obama as a historic moment in America’s history. As much as I was and am opposed to his worldview and policy positions, I was happy to see a black American get elected to the highest political position in the land and most prestigious executive position in the world. That is heavy stuff and not something to be taken lightly. I still like the fact that the man took office. I would be equally as titillated if Sarah Palin or even Hillary Clinton became president.  In the America of identity politics—a natural, if unfortunate, outgrowth of America’s history—I have grown up learning to root for the little guy and women who operate in historically male fields. Heck, I even respect Barbara Walters and Oprah Winfrey for what they have accomplished. Who wouldn’t? It’s a little distressing that the same sentiment isn’t extended to all women who excel in America, especially somebody as accomplished as Sarah Palin.

The general feeling on the street right now seems to be fiscal restraint and individual liberty. That’s libertarianism, and libertarianism doesn't necessarily support the idea of applauding women merely because they are women and anybody merely due to their ethnicity. This abandoning of identity politics will have to be the future mindset of America or we are doomed. It's not easy for the older academics who actually lived through the civil rights movement, or those educated by them, to accept that identity politics have outlived their usefulness.  Diligence is now needed to maintain the juridical victories of the movement toward greater equality for all Americans, but running up the score by stealing bases and running deep posts when the game is well in hand is bound to ruffle feathers among those people who respect and support you. The victim card is now played much too often, belittling real instances of discrimination. The time has come to jettison our fixation on victimhood.

The libertarian philosophy cuts across identity politics in a more consistent way no other party in America does. This is largely illuminated by the party’s utter irrelevance in national elections. The Libertarian candidate in the 2008 presidential race, Bob Barr, garnered less than one half of 1% of the popular vote. Ralph Nader got more votes. To be a libertarian often means you are operating on a pure political principle, one that is inclusive and not obsessed with identity politics. In fact, it doesn't even enter the equation. Government spends too much and is generally in the way. It can be helpful in the short term, but damaging in the long term. Reduce the size of the behemoth and let us live our lives, please. Thus is the libertarian mantra. We're all equal under the law. Case closed.

I’ll go one step further: most people who are not very politically aware in this country, those who only pay attention a little bit here and there and who identify themselves as “liberal” really, in fact, are often times more aligned with libertarian philosophy than American liberalism. When told they are really libertarians, self-professed liberals will often nitpick on the irrelevance of labels, thereby missing an important distinction. Most people will not consider voting for a candidate who literally has no chance of winning. People want to win. If they are apathetic, they merely stay home.

The larger point here is that it is up to the American voters to decide who they want to be president based upon an educated, reasoned assessment of circumstances. Of course anyone is welcome to speak as they wish, but I find the question posed to Winfrey by Walters to be absurd in the first place. The only person qualified to opine on who is qualified to be president would be a former or current president or perhaps a veep or Chief of Staff... and even then you just don't know until the person gets in there. Walters asking Winfrey the question is indicative of a troubling phenomenon, which is the exalted status we give to celebrities and their opinions. I'd gladly take a trip to Australia on Winfrey's dime, but I couldn't care less who she thinks would make a good president. I'm sure she'd reciprocate in that sentiment. I'd respect Winfrey more if she had replied, "I don't want Palin to be president." 

Winfrey apparently believed Obama was qualified, yet I don't know who could make a convincing case that Palin is less qualified now than Obama was then. I'd argue the exact opposite, based on the outsider criteria that we outsiders employ. Certainly I could not predict how Palin would operate once in the office. Palin's chances of success are just as high as anybody else's, in my estimation. Predicting presidential success is about as sure a proposition as hitting 10 roulette numbers in a row, cashing in your chips, saying "How does this place stay in business?" and then retiring to the Caribbean. Jimmy Carter was considered sharp as a tack and Reagan was called a dolt. Look how that turned out.

Some would reject wholly that the president needs to be “special”.  There can be “special” presidents, yes, but that status is only earned after actually achieving something special in office, not beforehand based upon trendy sentiment.  Palin is considered “special” also, and this does not qualify her to be president. However, Palin is “special” mainly because she is not part of the American political elite. Palin the outsider understands that in America, politicians should be servants of the people, not “special”, like kings and queens, or in present-day America, vapid celebrities better known for their brand than their accomplishments. 

Obama can light up a room with his smile and rhetoric. So can Palin. Palin will also dust a caribou from 150 yards. Obama boasts a J.D. from Harvard Law. Palin has a Bachelor's degree and can skin a caribou. Inspiration, adventure, education, and practical knowledge are very essential things for human beings. These accomplishments all qualify for our attention. The media's general disdain for the organic Palin and fawning over the academic Obama has really created quite a backlash. We pedestrian Americans with everyday state university educations and experience start suspecting they don't feel too highly of us. Vocationally-trained people might feel the same way. . . and it just gets worse from there. The thing about Palin is that she is college educated and she does all those primitive activities scorned by the elite. Palin represents an ideal that all Americans, not just women, should aspire to: self-sufficiency based partly on education but mostly on plain old pragmatism. We can and should be both. They are both worthy.

For the benefit of America, the presidency of the early 21^st century America should be dominated by people who most express the ideals of American libertarianism, no matter with which of the two major parties they are aligned. The person right now who best fits that description and is poised to ride that wave is Sarah Palin.

Martina Hingis Gets Married

It looks like the Swiss Miss, Martina Hingis, got married last Friday to French horseman Thibault Hutin.

Martina looks like a million bucks. I sure do miss her out on the WTA Tour.

Martina Hingis was such a pleasure to watch on the court. I used to tape her matches and just watch her footwork. Nobody had better fundamentals than she did. Her lack of a big weapon to counter the likes of the Williams sisters, Lindsay Davenport, and Jennifer Capriati led to her relative lack of success after her stellar year of 1997. Were it not for Iva Majoli playing the match of her career that year at Roland Garros, Martina would have won the Grand Slam. Of course, Majoli was never heard from again, and Martina kept plugging away.

The argument that "Hingis wasn't that good; the Williams sisters and the other power chicks just hadn't fully developed yet" is bogus. Were it not for the Swiss Miss out there every single week as a stubborn and consistent foe, those gals would never have reached their full potential. Martina forced them to be more cerebral about their games, and it helped them tremendously. Besides, sports don't work that way; try arguing that Magic Johnson wasn't that good because Michael Jordan wasn't around yet and see how many funny looks you get.

Hingis ranks 4th all time for weeks as the #1 ranked player in the world, at 209 weeks, behind Steffi Graf, Martina Navratilova, and Chris Evert. Her period of dominance was a 4 1/2 year span from 1997 to 2000.  She won 5 Grand Slam singles titles and nine Grand Slam doubles titles. In her career she won 43 WTA Tour singles titles, currently tied for 10th all time with Justine Henin and Venus Williams.

Hingis was the catalyst in what is perhaps the most infamous Grand Slam singles match of all time, when she lost to Steffi Graf in the finals at Roland Garros in 1999. While that match did not mean an end to her relevance on the WTA Tour, she never won a Grand Slam singles title again. Knowing Martina, you can bet she is just glad to be part of such a famous match. In fact, I think she is quoted as saying as much. That attitude is another thing that made Martina special: "Ah who cares?... life goes on"... words to live by.

After 1999, Martina would consistently face two or three of the big hitters in a row at the Grand Slams and it became too much for her to handle. Injuries began to plague her and her old cockiness on the court gave way to tentativeness and self-doubt. However, I still rooted for her during every single tournament. She was the ultimate underdog after 1999 and while she never delivered another Slam title, there were plenty of great matches along the way where Martina used her smarts and consistency to defeat opponents who were often 5-7 inches taller than her and significantly more powerful. Her matches were virtual clinics in sound tennis fundamentals. However, by that point, it just wasn't enough.

Watching Martina dissect an opponent was truly a thing of beauty, even late in her career. There will never be another player like her. She was the ultimate counter-puncher and a true competitor.

Some of the best tennis I have ever watched was while listening to Martina Navratilova, Billie Jean King, and Mary Carrillo discuss Martina's game in the late 1990's while commentating a match of hers on HBO. Their wonderment of Martina's game was apparent and you could really feel their excitement. Martina was mopping up the court with a much lesser opponent and the commentary turned into a clinical discussion of Martina's skills. Their enthusiasm was infectious. After the long dominance of the superb but robotic Steffi Graf, Martina was a breath of fresh air.  She was different. She was animated, and she was charismatic... and the legends knew it. They all saw themselves in Martina, because Martina could do it all. I was already hooked, but that broadcast put Martina in my psyche even more deeply. She remains there as perhaps my favorite athlete of all-time. She was that special.

Swiss Miss, you are sorely missed on the WTA Tour.

Palin: Reductio Ad Absurdum

In her recent New York Times piece, Maureen Dowd conjures an interesting take from the latest episode of “Sarah Palin’s Alaska”, an episode which features Palin out caribou hunting with her father:

Sarah’s view of America is primitive. You’re either a pointy-headed graduate of Harvard Law School or you’re eviscerating animals for fun, which she presents as somehow more authentic.

I’m wondering why you can’t be both. I guarantee there are more than a few Harvard Law graduates for whom pumping a .30-06 slug into a caribou would be no problem whatsoever. What is a caribou to them anyway?  I’m pretty sure caribou can’t get a 165 on the LSAT so ef ‘em. Caribou aren’t partners in any prestigious law firms. They are largely unnecessary. I’m not afraid to say that, and I guarantee that Harvard Law grads aren’t either.

However, I’ll take an evening out drinking with an animal-eviscerating buddy over a night with Harvard Law grad any time. Sure, the Harvard Law grad could handle your public intoxication case, but could he or she apply a proper rear naked choke or kimura if you get into a fight?  I doubt it.

Back to Dowd’s absurd reduction of the ‘Cuda … Palin is out on a hunt with her father and she bags a caribou. After Dowd rails on Palin’s hunting skills and takes several token swipes at the ‘Cuda, we are led down an interesting allegory with President Obama as the caribou and Sarah and her father as the GOP. Not the Gray Lady’s finest moment. In fact, some might say it’s downright embarrassing. I was more impressed when I recently attended a “Schoolhouse Rock is Racist!” symposium at a local college.

Dowd mailing it in this way, the condescension toward Palin palpable, is the gift that keeps giving. Sarah Palin has fans for many reasons, one of them being that she elicits pure hatred from her detractors in the American media, which brings their not-so-awesome sides into full view. Not that Palin necessarily needs this to galvanize her base, but it certainly isn’t hurting things. I won’t lie; I get a kick out of it when I read the caterwauling. In the parlance of our times, she’s in their domes, big time … hella big time.

The hostility toward Sarah Palin seems to be reaching the “What is this, a center for ants?” Derek Zoolander level.

Many esteemed writers/pundits/whatever look at Palin and seem utterly confused. Unrecognized is the fact that Palin is a microcosm of much of this country: self-reliant and appreciative of America. Like it or not, Palin’s libertarian leanings are squarely on the pulse of mainstream America. Her appeal is natural… hard work, family, fishing, hunting… a wholesome, gorgeous environment such as Alaska? Come on… a gift for driveling circumlocutory rhetoric cannot compete with that, at least not for long. Sooner or later, you’re going to have to kick somebody’s ass, and no amount of academic experience is going to help you with that.

As much as we would like to think that the world is an ever-changing, meaningless experiment, some things never change.  Sarah Palin, along with many Americans, understands that. Dowd does hit one thing squarely on the head: Palin’s view of America is primitive. That’s a good thing for many, many Americans.

Sarah Palin probably doesn’t know how to apply a proper rear naked choke or kimura, but she’d learn how, no matter how long it took. Heck, who am I kidding… she probably knows how.


This article featured at Breitbart's Big Journalism:


http://bigjournalism.com/mikemetroulas/2010/12/11/palin-reductio-ad-absurdum/