Ta-Nehisi Coates

A selective libertarianism

Via Matt: I think everyone agrees that the South-Central ban on fast-food joints will be a failure. But Ezra wonders why Will Saletan is getting so excised about this, given that municipalities across the country create zoning laws all the time:

...the city council is doing something incredibly ordinary: Deciding what sort of establishment it will allow to open within its jurisdiction. This is called zoning, and not to scare anyone, but it happens all the time. Try and open a new bar in DC sometime and see how far you get. Try to bring some live music to Mt. Pleasant street and tell me if you get approval from the proper authorities. City governments have long used the preferences of residents or the perceived needs of the community to discriminate when licensing businesses for construction. It happens all over the country, every day, with every type of establishment.

I think I agree that is weird that this law--dumb as it is--is generating such fury. More to the point, locals have the right to pass as many dumb laws as they want. It's called democracy. It's not like this happened via judicial fiat. That said, I'm still thinking on whether banning, say, McNasty's is different than banning bars. I'm not clear that it's the same. But after waffling a few time, I think I'm going with John Cole on this one--of all the impositions that government puts on people, keeping them from buying a second Big Mac ranks kind of low:

There are far more serious and dangerous violations of your civil liberties happening every day done in the name of safety and the war on drugs and the war on terror, all committed by nameless, faceless, and unaccountable folks, and there is really nothing you can do about it. Fight back and you will be shot or tasered to death, or jailed for resisting arrest if you are lucky. And no one, that I can tell, other than Russ Feingold, the corpse of William kunstler, a few folks at Reason magazine, and some DFH’s, seems to give a shit.

At least with the LA City Council decision, you can address the issue. If it is unpopular, elect council members who will do your bidding. There is a course of action available.

Who do you turn to when the DEA shoots your dogs? Where do you go when Customs Agents steal your laptop? Who do you turn to when federal agents commit home invasion. That, to me, seems far more troubling than having to go to one of the already existing 200 McDonalds in LA for a burger.

Billy Dee Williams says, "There can only be one black spokesman"

I think the worse part of people claiming that Barack Obama isn't addressing "Black Issues" is the presumption that they know--and can define--what actually constitutes "Black Issues." So if you don't think the Michael Bell and the Jena 6 are somehow civil rights icons than somehow you aren't interested in "black issues." I'm thinking about this as I watch this video of these fools disrupting an Obama event because he isn't addressing "the numerous attacks that are made against the African community or the black community."

Hmm, maybe. I don't so much have a problem with these cats calling Obama out--I have a problem with them noit coming correct. Almost every charge they lodged is patently false. If you want to hit him on something ask him what is he plans to do about the justice system and the wanton jailing of black men on BS drug charges. I'm not sure if that's a "Black Issue." I think there are plenty of "Black People" who are tough on crime, and would disagree with my position. I stand on it because I--as an individual thinker--believe that it's best. Not because I claim to be a stand in for all "Black People."

UPDATE: Here's video of Obama and the hecklers. I like the old guy who snatched down the sign

Things I don't understand

Yeah, that covers a lot, I know. But I'd love to hear more about what, exactly, goes through someone's head and makes them decide to become a long distance serial killer. It does make me feel good that the feds hadn't dropped this case. Still, given what happened with their first suspect, I wonder whether they got this one right.

Now they tell us

The new McCain line--Bill Clinton was a racial unifier, tossed under the bus:

Schmidt sees a sort of political soul mate in Bill Clinton. "Say whatever you want about Bill Clinton," Schmidt said, "but it's deeply unfair to suggest his criticism of Obama was race-based. President Clinton was a force for unity in this country on this subject. Every American should be proud of his record as both a governor and president. But we knew it was coming in our direction because they did it against a President of the United State of their own party."

Right. The same guy who gave us the Sista Souljah moment--the term that we can't bury--was a "force for unity" on race. I actually don't think he was a force for disunity. I just don't think Clinton helped or hurt the cause much. For every advance he made for "racial unity," there's a black woman who he tossed over the bridge. But what do I know, I'm just a black guy in Harlem. Schmidt, meanwhile, has real credentials--he's a Republican trying to win a campaign. As we all know, nobody can speak with more authority on unifying the races than Republicans trying to win.

From the department of pot calling the kettle

Heh, lemme get this straight. Toby Keith makes a song calling for lynching and mob violence, as a solution to individual violence--which I guess is so much worse:

Grandpappy told my pappy back in my day, son
A man had to answer for the wicked that he'd done
Take all the rope in Texas
Find a tall oak tree, round up all of them bad boys
Hang them high in the street
For all the people to see

That Justice is the one thing you should always find
You got to saddle up your boys
You got to draw a hard line
When the gun smoke settles we'll sing a victory tune
And we'll all meet back at the local saloon
And we'll raise up our glasses against evil forces singing
whiskey for my men, beer for my horses

We got too many gangsters doing dirty deeds
too much corruption and crime in the streets

Mostly on the racism joint, I give people the benefit of the doubt. I think a tin-ear is more common than straight bigotry. But that said, the more things change the more they stay the same. Keith may not be a racist, but he shares the racist's need to make Lex Luthor out of lilliputans. The white lynch mobs of old desperately needed to believe in the narrative of villanous black men obsessed with a collective deflowering the South's virginal white womenhood. Baloney of course--as is Keith's theory that we live in an era of rampant crime. But I'll give Keith this--his "Gangsters doing dirty deeds" is a more sophisticated strawman than the whole "Packs of crazed black men roaming the countryside hungry for the flesh virginal white women" number. I actually prefer the older version. What can I say. I like a little crazy. As long as there isn't too much burning. Or hanging. And the castration angle has to go.

UPDATE: Several posters make the imminently sensible point that the culture of the West isn't the culture of the South. I maintain mob justice is never good--but neither is conflating two groups of people. As always, I'll try to be sharper going forward

Rappers as Republicans

On the topic of the day, this is pretty cool. Plus it's an excuse to pump the old Nas and Jay joint, "Black Republican."

Obama pulls a Sista Souljah. Again.

Because denouncing a rapper who calls your colleague a "bitch" after a primary charged with gender and race, clearly is an attempt to garner white voters by showing that your not in the pocket of Teh Blacks:

Likewise, the Obama campaign immediately denounced "Politics" and suggested that "while Ludacris is a talented individual, he should be ashamed of these lyrics."

So very Sister Souljah, with echoes of the 1992 presidential campaign, when Bill Clinton put that militant rapper on blast for her controversial remarks about racial violence. Clinton's public chiding was widely viewed as a successful play for centrist hearts and votes.

Are these guys even trying? The whole piece--premised on this idea that Obama has a consistently problematic relationship with hip-hop--is thin. But it's really the Sista Souljah thing that rankles. The term has become utterly meaningless. Apparently, it now includes everything from saying, in a black church, the same thing that black people say in barbershops to accepting an apology from one of your supporters who says something stupid.

I think my whole blog is a Sista Souljah move. How else can you explain me getting to the Atlantic?

Of presumption and racism

I don't really know if the presumption meme that people keep affixing to Obama is racist. Frankly I don't think it much matters. More importantly, I think Dana Milbank should own up to getting his facts wrong. I also don't get Harold Ford's angle. Why is he giving Obama advice? Didn't he lose? I kind of see the point about Obama needing to lose "the suit" and roll up his sleeves--but then not really. It sounds like the sort of warmed-over consultant-speak we see in the media all the time.

A rambling statement on Dungeons & Dragons, Michael Strahan and black fathers

 

The geeks among us--and there are many--will recall that I am an old-school D&D fan. The alive among us will recall that I'm also a father. A few weeks back I wondered about the possibilities of teaching my son D&D. He will turn eight next week, and along with a giant Lego set, I plan to begin teaching him all about orcs, elves and halberds. Today three books I ordered arrived, two of which you see above. I've been flipping through them all day, and man I tell you, I had forgotten exactly how much in love I really was. A few months ago me and Kenyatta decided to cut off our cable, then our TV blew and we decided to not buy another one. I think D&D may work well to supplement the gap and offer an active chance for us to really build some family. To that end, Kenyatta's actually volunteered to learn the game--so we'll have three of us playing.

We tried this before with football and it really worked out well. When me and Kenyatta first hooked up, she thought football was just a bunch of men falling on top of each other. Now she's got a favorite team (the Colts) a favorite player (Peyton) as does my son (the Giants, and the now retired Strahan) who also plays little league. Some of our best memories revolve around football--last year we had a ball watching Devin Hester  return two touchdowns against the Broncos (I'll never forget him hurdling Todd Sauerbrun). I may even start taking the boy to the sports bar on Sunday. We'll see.

There's a greater point to all this rambling. I'm consistently amazed at the coolness of building family. The first two years are drudgery, no doubt. But then it just becomes awesome. I really wish we'd been able to have a second kid shortly after Samori was born, but money and health made it prohibiitive. Still, even with the one I'm often surprised by the sheer fun of the whole project. My Dad once told me something that has stuck with me for years. The saddest thing about so many black fathers--and fathers in general--quitting on their kids is that, invaribly, they cheat themselves more than they actually cheat the kid. I've seen a lot of folks turn out fine without knowing their second parent. But the absent parent, permenantly loses that link, that ability to share the things that once excited them, that chance to relive their own childhood with their flesh and blood. That goes for D&D and for Devin Hester.

More on the "Obama is a celebrity" line of attack

I was reading Jim Rutenberg's story on this, and I was trying to work out why this new strategy by McCain rankles me. I think it's because the "Obama is Britney" line is too clever for its own good. The "John Kerry is an effete windsurfer" pitch made sense mostly because the country was at war. It directly attacked the idea that Kerry claim to the commander in chief mantle. The idea was that Kerry wasn't tough enough to deal with Al'Qaeda. Whatever you may think of that charge, it's clear and direct.

But the McCain attack is much more passive-aggressive, and isn't really as clear. First, I know that there is a substantial portion of Americans who don't like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, but it's not clear to me that there is a significant portion of Americans who don't like celebrities in general. To the country, there is a large group of people who reliably drop millions of dollars to see the latest Will Smith feature. Implicit in the McCain attack is this idea that most celebrities are famous for being famous. I guess. But Tiger Woods is demonstrably a great golfer. Michael Jordan really did have a killer turn-around jumper. John Kennedy really did create the Peace Corps. Clint Eastwood really is a great actor and director.

In other words, it doesn't directly follow that celebrity equals bad president in the way that effete equals bad commander in chief. Being effete is considered the opposite of being a commander in chief. I'm not sure that being a celebrity is considered the opposite of being president. Indeed, it's kind of hard to be president and not be a celebrity--that comes with the job. So then what is the attack? Obama already is a celebrity--just like all our past presidents? Maybe I'm slow. I'm just not getting it.