"We are fuming - this person acted terribly wrong. We are sorry this happened to @oprah!."

So tweets the Swiss Tourism office after Oprah cries racism when a shopgirl deems a $38,000 handbag "too expensive" and steers her toward other merchandise. Racism has many manifestations, some terribly subtle. Who can tell the difference between a rich lady in don't-you-know-who-I-am mode crushing a humble retail employee and a woman imbued with racial memory vindicating centuries of suffering by perceiving the last nuance of insult?

Read More

FireDogLake calls out Kos: "Markos Moulitsas’ Ugly, Reverse-Racist Smear."

Kos: "NSA spying is bad! So is stop and frisk. So is splitting up families by deporting children to countries they’ve never been to and don’t speak the language. So is harassing American muslims. Government overreach is bad. But to act like having the government track who you call is the height of government abuse is a very white privileged view of the privacy issue. But as for Greenwald and Snowden? Seriously, I don’t give two shits."

FDL: "Please, Mr. Moulitsas, tell us, what is the proper, non-privileged, multi-cultural view of the 'privacy issue'? Is it one that stays within the confines of what’s allowed by the Democratic Party? Is it one that is relevant to the war on women, or voting rights, or immigration, but ignores the collapse of the rule of law and the justice system (which is far from a 'white privileged' issue)?"

FDL supplements its posting with a word from our leader, from the days when he was free of the burdens of leadership and leveraging our antagonism for the previous leader:




That video, from August 1, 2007, comes from this speech. Here's the text of the clip. "This Administration," of course, refers to the Bush Administration:

This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.

That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.

This Administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not. There are no short-cuts to protecting America....

I'm sure the Obama Administration can argue that it hasn't lost track of any of these fine abstractions,  and that the Obama who spoke all those words in 2007 simultaneously knew the leftist critique of what he was saying — that law protects those already in power and manipulates the electorate to support the continuation of that power. Rhetoric about reverence for law is the way to acquire power in America, and Obama was great at that.

Both FDL and Kos are doing political theater here. They are both on the left and both attacking Obama for not skewing further left. They seem to be diametrically opposed, but they are not. It looks like FDL is devoted to the rule of law, all the time, on every issue, but Kos is saying the rule of law is a con, and powerful people use it selectively, to protect what they want. But I think both want the rule of law to protect all the things they think matter and then to be applied consistently. FDL is trying to pressure Obama to do that, and Kos is expressing dismay that it is not being done.

The stuff about race is just to stir you up. As usual. Don't take the bait.

Read More

I ask Glenn Loury if he thinks it was a mistake to select the George Zimmerman case to be a racial cause célèbre?

It takes a while to get to the point here, but that's part of what makes it so fascinating. Take a look:



ADDED: Here's a pithy minute of response to the question:

Read More

$700,000 to $800,000 spent to erase a quote that was displayed out of context.

Martin Luther King said "I was a drum major for justice, peace and righteousness," which we will remember, even through it's now off the memorial. It's off the memorial because, in the "drum major" speech, there were some other words around it — as is always the case with snappy lines in speeches — and Maya Angelou and others felt some shades of subtlety were lost, making the man sound arrogant. Deeper grooves will be carved all over the memorial to disguise the wordlessness where there were once words, words that are etched more deeply into our memory as we read this news story and see, once again, "I was a drum major for justice, peace and righteousness."

Ironically, the news story doesn't include the context. So I'll tell you the context: The context is abysmal phony outrage, toadying obeisance to Angelou, and an atrocious waste of money.

Read More

"These guys are looking for a diversion from the horrendous laws that are separating people, I will not respond in kind."

Said Jesse Jackson. What he was refusing to respond to "in kind" was Florida Governor Rick Scott's demand that Jesse Jackson apologize. Apologize for what? For saying that Florida is the "Selma of our time" and calling for an economic boycott to "isolate Florida as a kind of apartheid state given this whole stand your ground laws."

Now, clearly, Jackson was engaging in over-the-top hyperbole,  seeking active and damaging discord, and stirring up anxieties about racism. This was his deliberate choice to go extreme, and yet he says, when asked for an apology, that he will not respond "in kind." But it was Rick Scott who refrained from responding "in kind" to Jackson.

What would Scott have said if he had decided to use rhetoric at the level of "Selma of our time" and "a kind of apartheid state"? Jackson's "respond in kind" is, I think, a giveaway that he'd hoped people would respond in kind. He is seeking discord and hot discourse. He's disappointed that his fighting words aren't provoking a fight.

If you watch the video at the link, at 0:57, you'll see Jackson, instantly upon making the Selma/apartheid remark, display a classic tell: He puts a finger to his lower eyelid and pulls it down. I'd say he knows he's way over the top, but there it is, it's said, and he's not backing down. As they say in Florida: Stand Your Ground.

Read More

"Seriously? The mere image of eight women and one man puts you in mind of '... a high-class escort service and an ad for Charlie’s Angels LLP'?"

"Then how about this caption: 'Staci Zaretsky — get a sex-change operation already. You're embarrassing the rest of us!'"

Wow! What a sexist screwup at Above the Law.

I noticed that today, as Zaretsky had to deem somebody the winner of what was an embarrassing-from-the-start caption contest. Here's the photo that was supposed to inspire hilarity:



This reminds me of the blind judging I did back in 2008, when Above the Law had a contest to determine who would replace David Lat as the chief writer at the blog. I criticized one contestant for racism, and the contestant — Elie Mystal, who won — turned out to be black. He thought I'd be embarrassed to have said that, because ha ha he's black:

I’m male. I’m liberal. I’m Catholic (of the “a la carte” variety). I believe in evolution and global warming. I’m happily married. I’m African-American (Althouse. “Racism alert.” What does that even mean? Go jump in a Great Lake)....

Note the similar defense made by Staci Zaretsky, in her apology here:

Old stereotypes persist within the legal profession, and as Above the Law’s sole female editor, even I am guilty of propagating them, for which I sincerely apologize (some of the resulting entries in our recent caption contest were despicable)....

Read More

Obama says "racial tensions won’t get better."

And "they may get worse, because people will feel as if they’ve got to compete with some other group to get scraps from a shrinking pot. If the economy is growing, everybody feels invested."

How to understand that statement? Possible interpretations:

1. He wants all focus on the the economy, so any other topics are portrayed as subtopics to the economy: Worries about race should not distract us, because the best way to improve racial matters is to improve the economy.

2. Obama wants more economic policies that redistribute wealth: The threat of worsening "racial tensions" is meant to drive people accept those policies.

3. Obama realizes there isn't much he can do about racial problems, at least not without annoying some of his base: Stop expecting him to do something about race.

Read More

I could tell she was a lefty from the way she wrote the ampersand.

Here's a woman at a pro-Zimmerman rally, giving the pro-Zimms bad PR:



Was anyone fooled by that? I hope not, but Renee Vaughan — an Austin activist — is getting reamed for her evil prank. Instapundit says:

Her name is Renee Vaughan. Her employer, the Texas Campaign For The Environment, has also apologized. Nonetheless, I hope the picture of her standing with a sign reading "We’re Racist And Proud" winds up being tagged to both....

It's a harsh consequence to become — for all time, on the web — Renee "Racist and Proud" Vaughan. She's apologized — sorry she got busted. You know how apologies are. But I doubt that she'd be sorry if her trick had worked and amplified the legend of the racism of Zimmerman and his defenders.

It's entirely fitting that her name should be forever linked to the motto "Racist and Proud," because that isn't a lie. It's true. It is racist to press the racism template onto the Zimmerman story, and it is done with full intent to stimulate feelings of race-based anxiety in vulnerable minds. That is heartless and evil.

Remedial reading: "How to write ampersands by hand." Images here. Most useful comparison:



Left and right. Learn your American shibboleths.

Read More

"The family rescued by George Zimmerman after a rollover crash in Florida are terrified they will become targets for hate mobs."

"Mark and Dana Michelle Gerstle told friends they do not want to talk publicly about Zimmerman for fear they will be accused of portraying him as a hero — and face a backlash from those who consider he got away with murder. 'They are very grateful to Zimmerman for what he did, but they do not want to get involved,' said a friend, who asked not to be named."

This is a great origin story for a superhero. This is why he needs a costume... with a mask... if he wants to roam around finding people who need help and rushing to the rescue.

Who was that masked man? people will ask.

The answer will be: He was that man that all the important people called a racist, and they wanted to see him put away for a long, long time, but the jury — following the judge's instructions to adhere to truth, justice, and the American way — acquitted. He left the courthouse a free man, and determined to continue in the guardian role that led to branding him as a racist and knowing that anyone he ever helped would simultaneously be hurt by the linkage to the man known as racist, he put on that mask.

Read More

The verb "opt."

I like it... and used it in the previous post. ("[O]bviously if you have a single-parent household, you'll need some kind of income stream to opt to say at home." I liked the "obv... opt" combo.) But Meade sniffed at this usage. Is it as off as using "impact" as a verb? (Which I don't do.)

The (unlinkable) OED has the earliest usage of "opt" as a verb coming in 1853 — which is relatively recent — and written by Frederick Douglass:

1853   Frederick Douglass Paper (Rochester, N.Y.) (Electronic text) 16 Sept.,   This course will not suit a discriminating public. They must opt for something more than long winded and rapid declamations.

There are 3 other 19th century examples, and both put "opt" in quotes. ("1899... The two boys 'opted'  for the Navy.") By contrast, the word "option" goes back to the 1500s. So I guess it's like "enthuse," which the OED comes right out and calls "an ignorant back-formation" (from "enthusiasm"). But why isn't "opt" called "an ignorant back-formation"? What makes a new usage "ignorant"? Or does it make more sense to say: There's one thing that makes it not ignorant: when the first use appears in the writings of the revered former slave Frederick Douglass.
Speaking of earlier posts and things Meade has said about my writing, he recently chided me for aiming the word "ignorant" at a black person. He maintained that there is great sensitivity about that word. WaPo columnist Eugene Robinson had made an assumption about the George Zimmerman case that I called "either ignorant or shamefully deceptive." At the time, I said I had thought carefully about word choice, and I thought "ignorant" was the right word because it focuses on the lack of information, not intelligence, and anyway, in my 2 alternatives — ignorant/deceptive — the hurtful accusation is deceit, and ignorance was a gracious offer of an out. And why should I coddle Eugene Robinson? He's one of the elite. It would be patronizing.

So, now, googling, I did find this: "Is the word 'ignorant' a racial slur?" I think the answer is no, but I do see some evidence of sensitivity around the word, depending on the way you attach it to a noun, notably when you call someone "an ignorant [blank]," especially when the blank is a nasty word, as in "Jane, you ignorant slut."

Read More

"I can food."

Did that look like something a LOLcat would say? If so, I guess you haven't arrived at "The New Domesticity."

I knit. I can food. I garden. I cook, and when I’m not actively cooking, I’m thinking about what I’m going to cook next... I didn’t grow up doing these things.... So you can see why Emily Matchar’s new book, “Homeward Bound,” sounded as if it could be a mirror into my soul.

This is the pithiest part of the review (at WaPo, by Becky Krystal):

Some of the new domestics think feminism isn’t just about being in the workplace; it’s also being able to choose to not be in it. 

Feminists have been saying that all along, but kind of only because they have to, and there always seems to be this qualification that if you choose the home life option, you've got to do it the right way, which is not because of tradition and not in subordination to a husband. By contrast, if you choose the moneymaker option, the conventional and/or servile aspects of what you're doing are more likely to go unnoticed (or so it may seem to the go-along-to-get-along subordinates to feminism in its most banal form).

Back to Krystal:

Or, Matchar says, it’s about reclaiming for the hipster set what used to be symbols of drudgery, such as the apron. 

Circa 1970, hippies did this. I remember seeing the women's movement of that time as a dreary and very square challenge to the hippie philosophy, which aimed at transcending commerce. But the women's movement soundly trounced hippies. Can hipsters succeed where hippies failed?

Others rebuff [feminism] entirely, blaming feminism for eating away at family life and demeaning the home arts and those who stay home to practice them....

It's appealing to stay home, but women do feel guilty and in need of justifications when they do it. (And how about men? It's even more challenging, even as one might imagine feminists smiling upon the male homemaker.)

Matchar’s dissection of new domesticity raises other, larger issues of race, class and gender. White women who stay home are praised more often than their black counterparts, who risk being called “welfare queens.”

Doesn't that more depend on whether you're collecting welfare? Who can expect praise for that? And I see no trend in America to praise white women but not black women who are doing the same thing. (The racial problem I see in the Disparate Praise category is patronizing black people with praise when they do things that are otherwise viewed as ordinary.)

Impoverished women with less disposable income and time can’t cook every meal from scratch or stay home with their children....

I'll resist saying things I've said before about the economics of the single-earner family, but obviously if you have a single-parent household, you'll need some kind of income stream to opt to say at home.

Also jarring is the notion, articulated by some of Matchar’s subjects, that it’s only “natural” for women to be in the home, that they are biologically suited for nurturing. That belief is unsettlingly close to the perverse use of “nature” that justifies discrimination, and not just against women.

I love the way the "nature" theme comes and goes in the discourse of discrimination. Nature makes a great argument — e.g., homosexuality is inborn — until it doesn't. But Krystal doesn't really try to figure out what's happening with the nature "notion." She merely calls it "jarring" and "unsettling."

Hell, yeah, nature is jarring. It will jar you one way or the other in the end.

Read More

The 5 believers and the 5 "cons" — the background to Obama's spontaneous remarks about race.

Talk about context — and he did — look where we find ourselves. After the verdict in the George Zimmerman case — otherwise known as the Trayvon Martin case — Obama may have wanted not to speak, but our nation casts its weary eyes toward the face that we (once) imagined would emanate rays of racial healing. Come on, Obama, you've got to do it. He got profiled all the way into office, and now we expect him to perform in accordance with our stereotype.

He resisted for a number of days. Who knows what he was thinking? Was he waiting to see if there would be riots? To hear what others might say (so he could enter the conversation late and seem, perhaps without really saying anything, like the voice of reason)?

Then, on Friday, he made his way out to the lectern in the White House briefing room — "no advance warning and little of the orchestration that usually accompanies presidential speeches" — and spoke without a teleprompter, extemporaneously. As the NYT has it:

After days of angry protests and mounting public pressure, President Obama summoned five of his closest advisers to the Oval Office on Thursday evening. It was time, he told them, for him to speak to the nation about the Trayvon Martin verdict, and he had a pretty good idea what he wanted to say.

Summoned! So commanding. He talked to 5 advisers. We're not told who, but one of them talked to summoned the NYT — I'm sure that was okay with Obama — and painted this picture:

For the next 15 minutes, according to a senior aide, Mr. Obama spoke without interruption, laying out his message of why the not-guilty ruling had caused such pain among African-Americans, particularly young black men....

So the man is capable of speaking spontaneously for 15 minutes straight, and his 5 companions — obviously 5 believers — refrained from interrupting him. It's not really that amazing to go on for 15 minutes, and we sayw him do that at the lectern on Friday, presumably because he convinced himself — with the support of the 5 — that talking, just like that, would take us to that higher level that was promised by those Hope posters.



We don't know what he said Thursday night, but we do have the full video and transcript of what that became on Friday.  Listening to the remarks again, I imagine what talking points he had in his head, and my guess is 5 "CONs": CONDOLE, CONTEXT, CONVENE, CONVERSE, CONFIDENCE. Let me show you this in the transcript:

[CONDOLE]  ... First of all... I send my thoughts and prayers... to the family of Trayvon Martin....

[CONTEXT] The second thing... a lot of arguments about the legal issues... But I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling... in the African American community... a lot of pain... recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away.... those sets of experiences inform how the African American community interprets what happened one night in Florida.... black folks do interpret the reasons... in a historical context.... So folks understand the challenges that exist for African American boys.... they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no context for it and that context is being denied....

[CONVENE] Now... How do we learn some lessons from this and move in a positive direction?.. I'm not naïve about the prospects of some grand, new federal program.  I'm not sure that that’s what we're talking about here. But I do recognize that as President, I've got some convening power, and there are a lot of good programs that are being done across the country on this front.  And for us to be able to gather together business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities and athletes, and figure out how are we doing a better job helping young African American men feel that they're a full part of this society and that they've got pathways and avenues to succeed....

[CONVERSE] And then, finally... There has been talk about should we convene a conversation on race. I haven't seen that be particularly productive when politicians try to organize conversations.  They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have.  On the other hand...  That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise...

[CONFIDENCE] And let me just leave you with a final thought... Each successive generation seems to be making progress...  we should... have confidence that kids these days... have more sense...

That's it: the 5 "cons." Don't even have to write it on your hand. Maybe in his head, he pictured one "con" superimposed on the face of each of the 5 believers he practiced with. Michelle was "confidence," all about the children and the hope, and so forth. That's just my sense of how he got through the 15 minutes, and he did it pretty well if you think about everything he had to pull together, all the people he needed to appease and inspire, and the theater of seeming to speak from the heart and the mind.

Read More

"By the President comparing himself to Martin 35 years ago, is he saying he would have responded as Martin did, and physically attacked someone for following him?"

Asks TalkLeft.

I hope not because our laws do not allow such conduct. It is not illegal for a private citizen to follow someone. It is illegal to physically assault another person who has not threatened him with the imminent use of force.

I am very disappointed that the President has chosen to endorse those who have turned a case of assault and self-defense into a referendum on race and civil rights. And that he is using it to support those with an agenda of restricting gun rights.

Read More

Obama tries so hard to say something and nothing at the same time — about Trayvon Martin.

This halting, awkward performance had to have been carefully thought out, but you're supposed to absorb the anguish and agonizing as he walks back any expectation that the federal government will do anything:



From the NYT write-up:

“You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son... Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.”

These are memorable but empty statements. Fill them with whatever you want. This isn't a critique of the legal system and how it handled the case. It's a vague claim of authority to empathize.

“I don’t want to exaggerate this, but..."

But! Have it both ways. I don't want to exaggerate, but I've just got to say it anyway.

"... those sets of experiences inform how the African-American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And it’s inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear.”

That's utterly banal: People understand things within the context of their own experiences.

“I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if it — if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations”...

Useful to examine the laws... okay.... He's really not saying anything, and yet the New York Times must sum up by giving him credit:

Mr. Obama spoke in deeply personal terms — an extraordinary moment for a president who seemed, at least during first term, often to shy away from the issue of race.

What is deep and extraordinary? The case was already racialized, and he resonated with a bit of that without saying too much.

Read More

"I just feel bad because I don't like when race gets out in the media because I don't think the media has a pure heart, as I call it."

"There are very few people have a pure heart when it comes to race. Racism is wrong in any, shape, form.... I think sometimes when people talk about racism, they say only white people are racist. There are a lot of black people who are racist. I don't like when it gets out there in the media because I don't think the media has clean hands... [T]he main thing I feel bad for, it gives every black and white person who is racist a platform to vent their ignorance. That's the thing that bothers me the most..."

Said Charles Barkley.

Read More

"Detroit is going to be a huge test kitchen."

“If you end up with precedent that allows the restructuring of [public employee] retirement benefits in bankruptcy court, that will make it an attractive option for cities,” said Karol K. Denniston, a bankruptcy lawyer, commenting on Detroit's bankruptcy.

So, there are the labor interests. And then there's race:

All along, the state’s involvement — including [Gov. Rick] Snyder’s decision to send in an emergency manager — has carried racial implications, setting off a wave of concerns for some in Detroit that the mostly white Republican-led state government was trying to seize control of Detroit, a Democratic city where more than 80 percent of residents are black....

Labor, race... and the 2 parties starkly arrayed.

Read More

"Holder blasts 'stand your ground' after Zimmerman verdict."

What nonsense! Let me translate: Holder wants relief from the pressure to prosecute Zimmerman, so he's shifting to a topic that has nothing to do with Zimmerman but that low-information people think has to do with Zimmerman. (Zimmerman was pinned down before he decided his life was on the line, and he had no route of escape.)

And, yes, I know Holder is also talking about investigating the Zimmerman matter. But "investigating" is code. As we saw with Benghazi, it means: We're hoping that if enough time passes, you'll forget about it.

This is all so thoroughly lame. But at the same time: It's a very powerful person speaking dishonestly and threateningly about the exercise of power. What a disgusting combination.

Read More

"Why are black boys expendable?" is the heartwrenching question on the front page at the Washington Post.

But when I click through the link, I just find a column (by Eugene Robinson) that portrays the verdict in the George Zimmerman case to mean: "Our society considers young black men to be dangerous, interchangeable, expendable, guilty until proven innocent."

Legally, that makes no sense. If Trayvon Martin were on trial for beating up George Zimmerman and had argued that he acted in self-defense, the jury would have had to view Zimmerman as guilty until proven innocent. I'm sure Robinson knows that, which is why he said "Our society considers" instead of sticking to the confines of court procedure, even as he appropriated the legal lingo of burden of proof.

If the legal doctrine that governed the jury's decision-making precludes the interpretation that the jury found Trayvon Martin to be dangerous, interchangeable, and expendable, what is the basis for the assertion that our society considers young black men to be dangerous, interchangeable, expendable? Robinson's next sentence is "This is the conversation about race that we desperately need to have — but probably, as in the past, will try our best to avoid."

Okay, let me attempt that conversation, Mr. Robinson.

Here's my response to what you just said. I think our society demonstrated great care toward Trayvon Martin, even to the point of putting Zimmerman through a trial that should not have happened. That is, it was an excess of care for Martin, a bending-over-backwards to show that we care about Martin and all the young men he was seen to represent. And now, after an extensive, careful trial, and a jury verdict that clearly hewed to well-honed instructions about evidence and burden of proof, you still want to use it to assert that we don't care. If that's the kind of conversation we get when we try to respond to the invitation to have a conversation, can you see why it's something we avoid?

Now, just there, I did not avoid. I tried to be game about conversation, and I said what I truly think, which is probably what other conversation-about-race avoiders think. If you really mean "conversation," then let's continue, with a fair response to that. If what you really mean by "conversation" is let me lecture you until you humbly accede, then could you please stop calling it a "conversation"?

Reading further into the article, I see I've got to take back my overly optimistic statement "I'm sure Robinson knows that." I'm not sure, because to say I believe that Robinson knows that — "If Trayvon Martin were on trial for beating up George Zimmerman and had argued that he acted in self-defense, the jury would have had to view Zimmerman as guilty until proven innocent" — is to say that Robinson is deliberately deceiving when he writes:

The assumption underlying [the jury's] ho-hum approach to the case was that Zimmerman had the right to self-defense but Martin — young, male, black — did not. The assumption was that Zimmerman would fear for his life in a hand-to-hand struggle but Martin — young, male, black — would not.

That assumption is either ignorant or shamefully deceptive. The accused is the one whose rights are systematically protected in the criminal process. Is that too boring? Ho-hum?! Ho-hum for all the rights of the criminally accused! Even if all Robinson cares about is how young black males are treated, young black males — the ones that still live — need these rights too. If the police — who had already been called — had arrived before Zimmerman saw fit to shoot his gun, if they had caught Trayvon Martin on top of Zimmerman, pinning him down, and knocking his head into concrete, they would have arrested Martin, and Martin would have benefited from those rights you think are ho-hum when they protect Zimmerman.

So there, I've now said 2 things in the "conversation" Robinson wants to have. And I'll say one more, and it's why I found the front-page teaser "Why are black boys expendable?" heart-wrenching. It's because so many young black males do end up shot dead or in prison. Can we talk about that? Or are must we fixate on the one young black male selected to be the conversation piece?

Read More

"Dr. Sweo admits to using the phrase 'ghetto booty,' but says he does not believe it was offensive."

"What I was trying to explain to that patient is that she has lumbar lordosis, which is a fancy name for the curve of the lower spine that makes the buttocks protrude more... In trying to explain that I said that she had ghetto booty, and she didn’t like that apparently. That was my attempt to explain why she had the back problem.... I think I do understand why her feelings were hurt but I don’t understand what’s offensive about it."

Reports The Daily News.

Read More

Parsing Obama's statement on the occasion of the Zimmerman verdict.

Here's the text:

The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities. We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin.

Comments:

1. This is a measured and fairly bland statement. Obama sounds like a mild-mannered pastor.

2.  The word "passion" — which appears in the 3rd and 4th sentences — takes the place of more violence-related words like "anger" or "outrage." He acknowledges and manages the emotion.

3. In sentences #5 and #6, he counters emotion with intellect. First, respect the rule of law and the legal system. And second, respect Martin's parents, who have called for calm reflection. Think, calmly and rationally.

4. There's advice about what we should do to move forward. It's not to brood over the past, but to do positive things for people who are still alive. (I thought of Lincoln's "It is for us the living...")

5. Looking toward the future, Obama draws our focus to "gun violence," which is a standard move for him (used after the Tucson massacre and the Sandy Hook massacre). That's the specific substantive issue he flags.

6. There is no mention of race. The closest he comes is in the idea of "widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities." There's a slight suggestion that some of us are insular, within "circles" or "communities," which could be understood as our racial groups, but you have to stretch to say that. (Similarly, there's "any one community" in sentence #2.)

Read More