The Nation: The Notion

Racism at the Pool

The Nation — 2009-07-09T12:34:20-04:00

For my daughter the moment came in kindergarten. Even though she was the only African American girl in her classroom, she made friends easily, adored her teacher, and was growing in confidence as a student. Then in May, just a few weeks from the year's end it happened. She and a little white boy were playing together at recess as they had done all year when he looked at her and said, "You know, I would like you better if you would take off your brown skin and put on some white skin."

It was 2008 and we live in a liberal enclave in the Northeast.

She was confused, hurt, and surprised when she told the story. She wasn't completely sure what it meant, but I could hear in her voice the creeping, sticky shame of inferiority. I sat listening with my stomach in my feet and a voice in my head screaming, "Not yet. It's only kindergarten. Not yet. Not yet."

Obama & Progressives (II)

The Nation — 2009-07-09T09:20:20-04:00

This comment appeared from a reader, responding to my post about how progressives view Obama and objecting to the notion that people who approve of his overall performance may not also harbor serious disappointment. As the reader put it:

If asked, I'd say that, overall, I approve of Obama's performance. However, the president has disappointed me on more than one issue since he was elected� So because I've been disappointed in some of the Obama administration's actions, I'm not supportive? If I express that disappointment and disagreement, I'm not supportive?

I'm really troubled by the trend of criticizing anyone who questions and disagrees with Obama. We are abdicating one of our fundamental rights as Americans if we offer unquestioning, blind allegiance to Obama or any other government leader.

Does Rachel Maddow Speak for the Left?

The Nation — 2009-07-08T14:43:45-04:00

A few weeks ago, Rachel Maddow appeared on Charlie Rose and announced that conservatives weren't the only ones disenchanted with Barack Obama. "The President has disappointed the left," she said. Rose asked her to be more specific � on what exactly? "I would say on the war, on healthcare, on economic [policy]� on civil liberties and on civil rights," Maddow said.

That's pretty deep disappointment. But if it's true, it begs the question of what, exactly, constitutes "the left." Certainly not most Democrats, 90 percent of whom approve of Obama's job performance (that's from the latest Quinnipiac survey; other polls have recorded even higher figures). Or most African-Americans, among whom Obama's approval rating is 94 percent. Or most Hispanics, 70 percent of whom think Obama is doing a fine job. Or most voters under thirty-five.

Maddow, presumably, was referring to a much smaller cohort of self-identified (white) progressives: people who favor a single-payer universal health-care system, have attended antiwar demonstrations, believe catastrophic global warming is imminent, support shutting down Guantanamo immediately, champion full equality for gays and lesbians, and perhaps supported John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic primary before finally coming around to Obama.

The Black Funeral of Michael Jackson

The Nation — 2009-07-08T11:16:54-04:00

Funerals tell us more about the living than the dead. It's why anthropologists often begin with rituals of death as an entry point for understanding societies and cultures.

I remember watching the funeral of Princess Diana. It was a perfectly British event: the poignant, silent march of her children, the bells tolling at Westminster Abbey, the red coat pallbearers. But I remember being taken aback as the car carrying Diana's casket drove through the streets of London. I was surprised because at that moment the mourners began to applaud.

They'd stood for hours lining the streets and as the casket passed they needed to grieve collectively and publicly. Stiff-upper lip British culture does not have a mechanism for such public grieving. There is no piercing death wail, no garment rending, no ceremonial dance, so instead the British applauded. Those applause revealed the missing place in English life for public mourning.

Obama Hushes Healthcare Advocates?

The Nation — 2009-07-07T09:00:37-04:00

Don't like the way the Wall Street bail-out turned out? It looks as if we're in for something similar regarding healthcare.

With popular fury at the status quo rising and hunger for a real, public option attracting over 70 percent approval in polls, the White House is urging public-option advocates to hush.

According to the Washington Post, in a pre-holiday call with half a dozen top House and Senate Democrats, Obama asked health care advocates to ratchet back their pressure for a public option. He's apparently concerned about advertisements and on-line campaigns targeting foot-dragging Democrats.

We've been here before. Back in the fall and spring, when popular fury at private bankers was soaring, Washington urged liberal lobbying groups to focus more on backing the White House plan and less on attacking bankers and banks.

What happened? Washington allowed Wall Street insiders, many of whom had overseen the breaking apart of the economy, to manage the so called recovery, putting most of what was rotten back in place. The re-distributions of wealth to the top continued, while civilian unemployment headed through the roof.

As Barney Frank told bankers back in February, "People really hate you, and they're starting to hate us because we're hanging out with you."

The health care debate is suffering from the same dynamic.

Specifically, on July 4, Obama said he is hoping left-leaning organizations will rally support for "advancing legislation" that fulfills his goal of expanding coverage. But the words public option were left out.

Pro-reform activists are pushing a public plan because it's popular, it's doable -- and it's at least a step closer to the only thing most actually think will work -- which is a totally public system.

Why are they pushing so hard?� Well, consider what they're up against. Pulling against anything remotely public, is the biggest lobbying blitz Washington's ever seen. The Washington Post reports that private insurers, drug companies and their representatives spent more than $126 million on lobbying in the first quarter�of this year. That's over $1.4 million a day.�

And they've�hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress to do all that lobbying work.

When Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, sat down with health-care lobbyists on June 10, two were his former chiefs of staff.� Their aim: to minimize the "damage" in profits to insurers, hospitals and drug makers from any change in approach from government. Specifically, they oppose any even remotely public option, the details of which are right now up for debate.

Want to hush the activists? The real scandal, it seems to me, shouldn't be the thousands of dollars that on-line organizers are spending on advertising to the public and Congress. The real scandal should be the millions that private insurers and pharmaceutical firms are spending infiltrating the government.�

If the public option lobbyists had the access Big Pharma's got, they might not need to buy all those ads. Besides -- $1.4 million a day. Imagine what real-life nurses could do with that!

The F Word�is a regular commentary by Laura Flanders�the host of GRITtv, which broadcasts weekdays on satellite TV (Dish Network Ch. 9415 Free Speech TV) on cable, public television and online at�GRITtv.org�and TheNation.com. Follow GRITtv or GritLaura on Twitter.com.

Celebrating the Fourth by Remembering the Fifth

The Nation — 2009-07-03T11:35:12-04:00

Other than consuming copious amounts of beer and barbecue food, what can Americans do on the Fourth of July to celebrate their freedom? Erwin Knoll, the late editor of 'The Progressive', used to pin a copy of the Bill of Rights to a tree at the parties he hosted. I'm not hosting any parties, and I'll spare you a virtual posting of the entire Bill of Rights, save for the Fifth Amendment, which merits special attention because Democrats and Republicans seem to have forgotten what it says. Here, then, is the forgotten fifth:

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Destroying America to Save It

The Nation — 2009-07-02T16:09:17-04:00

It's not only neocons who desperately need enemies, like Ahmadinejad, to succeed so that they'll have an excuse to bomb bomb bomb Iran, or any place they damn well please. It's also the paleocons and the concons (conspiracy conservatives), or whatever Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit, could be called these days.

Hard to categorize and hard to completely dismiss, Scheuer is the thickly bearded guy who's been all over the media the last few years calling his cable hosts "Sir," speaking out against the Iraq war, and making the sensible case that one reason "they hate us" is because of our support of Israel--not unlike paleo Pat Buchanan. But Scheuer's getting so wigged-out lately (writing in his most recent book, 'Marching Toward Hell', that Americans are now in "a place worse than hell"), that he's been finding common ground with Fox News' brightest conspiracy star, Glenn Beck. On Beck's show the other night, the two got themselves into such a froth over lax security on the Mexican border that Scheuer let loose with this:

"The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States."

Michael Jackson: Trans Man.

The Nation — 2009-07-01T08:25:38-04:00

Michael Jackson. Dead at 50, with over 750 million albums sold. A genius, a freak, a trail blazer, a victim. Jackson's been called all that and more� � sometimes� in a single piece of prose.

People will be talking about Jackson, his music, performance style, but most of all perhaps his persona, for decades. But ironically, one of the most perceptive reflections on Jackson was penned not since he died on June 25, but years before. Circulating around the internet over these past few days, has been an essay by James Baldwin which originally appeared in Playboy in 1985.

It's not about Jackson, James Baldwin, wrote in the essay, originally titled "Freaks and the American Ideal of Manhood" (and later renamed "Here be Monsters.")� Our culture's discomfort with those we consider "freaks" actually reveals something about ourselves.�

"The Michael Jackson cacophony is fascinating in that it is not about Jackson at all," Baldwin wrote. "All that noise is about America, as the dishonest custodian of black life and wealth....the burning, buried American guilt; and sex and sexual roles and sexual panic; money, success and despair�"

Baldwin put his finger on it:�we're provoked -- and call "unstable" those who actually destabilize us. While Jackson may have been struggling with his own demons, he powerfully stirred up ours.

"Freaks are called freaks and are treated as they are treated�in the main, abominably"�continued Baldwin, "Because they are human beings who cause to echo, deep within us, our most profound terrors and desires."

Freaks, so-called, destablize notions we're more comfortable keeping fixed, and mess about with ideas we prefer to box in -- like ideas about identity, sexuality, race, and control. "Freaks"� destabilize. They also release something, if we let them.

So thanks to Michael, and to freaks and transformers everywhere.� On a good day, loosening up that previously fixed-space opens up room for change.

The F Word is a regular commentary by Laura Flanders, the host of GRITtv which broadcasts weekdays on satellite TV (Dish Network Ch. 9415 Free Speech TV) on cable, and online at GRITtv.org and TheNation.com. Follow "GritLaura" on Twitter.

Sanford's Telltale Heart Exposes GOP's Money/Honey Problem

The Nation — 2009-06-30T13:33:08-04:00

When Governor Mark Sanford was merely thought to be clearing his mind on the Appalachian Trial on Naked Hiking Day and all the nanny-state fuss-budgets and media finger-pointers were freaking out, Joe Scarborough knew better: His pal Sanford was the real tax-hating, stimulus-refusing, rugged individual deal, a John Wayne 2.0 who'd stroll back into South Carolina's capital without a care in the world.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Moment of Zen - Joe Scarborough Knows Mark Sanford

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Jason Jones in Iran

Yeah! That's what I'm talking about, wrote RedState.com editor Erick Erickson who called it "refreshing that Mark Sanford is secure enough in himself and the people of South Carolina that he does not view himself as an indispensable man." Government can go take a hike.

Sex, Hypocrisy & Governor Sanford

The Nation — 2009-06-29T17:17:11-04:00

Before we push the story about Governor Mark Sanford's "hiking the Appalachian Trail" (i.e. seeing his lover in Buenos Aires) entirely out of mind, I'd like to call attention to some statistics that appeared on yesterday's op-ed page of 'The New York Times'. There, courtesy of Charles M. Blow, we learned that the three states with the highest teenage birthrates in the country are Mississippi, Texas and Arizona. The three states with the highest number of online subscriptions to pornographic sites are Utah, Alaska and Mississippi. Eight of the ten states with the highest divorce rates are Arkansas, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Idaho, Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi and West Virginia.

What do all these states have in common? Yes, they are all "red states" that went for John McCain. The people preaching to us about what to do in our private lives and voting for politicians who espouse "traditional values" seem curiously incapable of applying these standards to themselves.

But, hypocrisy aside, my first thought when I heard the news about Sanford was the same thought I always have when a story breaks about a politician's personal life: namely, so what? Why is it our business to track who a politician is sleeping with so long as no laws have been broken? Why should press conferences be wasted on such matters? Sanford's case was an exception because he disappeared for five days, a matter of public significance, some would argue. Fair enough. But as a friend of mine pointed out a few hours after the story about his escapade to Argentina broke, the inevitable result of showering attention on such matters is to humiliate the individuals involved and to reinforce the puritanical strain in our culture. It's somehow newsworthy that (shock!) a public figure has been unfaithful to his or her partner, that a marriage may be unraveling, that lies have been told.