“Racism Is Not A Product Of Ignorance”

Racism is not a product of "ignorance." https://t.co/Ih5KLOXdUk

— G. Willow Wilson (@GWillowWilson) May 26, 2020

This is a troubling blind spot of white liberalism: the idea that smart/educated people can't be racist+ that the solution to racism is individual absolution (*I* am not like that. *I* have never said the n-word in my life. *I* voted for Barack Obama) rather than systemic change.

— G. Willow Wilson (@GWillowWilson) May 26, 2020

****

I think it's tempting for us to believe we can just sort of delete the Confederacy app off our phone and be done. The idea that it's the whole operating system--that no part of our culture, even the good bits, is untouched by it--is too big to think about.

— G. Willow Wilson (@GWillowWilson) May 26, 2020

I would encourage any liberals popping in here with some variation of a No True Scotsman argument to maybe take a minute and reconsider. 🙂

— G. Willow Wilson (@GWillowWilson) May 26, 2020

****

"Who do you become when you panic?" is a pretty good measure of who you really are. That instinct she had--that she could rely on the cops *even when it was she who broke the rules*--isn't something you get over in 1 afternoon of sensitivity training. That is firmware.

— G. Willow Wilson (@GWillowWilson) May 26, 2020

Anyway, this is all to say that, even if you've got a master's degree and you've read Marx in the original German and you always recycle, if you are white, you are probably running some of that firmware. You, me, all of us. It's in the background. It doesn't care how you vote.

— G. Willow Wilson (@GWillowWilson) May 26, 2020

****

(As a PS, I realize none of this is new or noteworthy to people who aren't white--but the 'racism is ignorance/ignorant people are racist' was such a constant drumbeat in my childhood that it almost began to seem like you could defeat racism by maintaining a GPA of 3.6 or higher)

— G. Willow Wilson (@GWillowWilson) May 26, 2020

Elections Matter

****

Washington Post: Obama Judges Tip Appeals Court To Democrats

When President Bush II left the White House in 2009, the 13 U.S. courts of appeal were firmly under Republican appointees’ control. Ten appeals courts had majority GOP judges, two were evenly split and only one had a majority of Democrats. President Obama’s 49 appeals court appointees have dramatically altered the landscape. As of the Senate’s recess on May 23, nine of those courts had majority Democratic appointees and four had Republican majorities.

(There are 10 vacancies in the circuit courts. One Obama nominee is awaiting a Senate vote and three nominees pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee.) The change, much feared by Republicans, is not necessarily shocking. But the transformation, in just 5 1/2 years, said University of Pittsburgh law professor Arthur D. Hellman, an authority on the federal circuit courts, marks ”a huge shift in a very short period of time.” And it means that Democratic appointed judges “have the ability to control every important case if they wish to” in those nine circuits, he said.

More here

****

****

Timothy B. Lee: Obama Has Secured Democratic Majorities On Most Federal Appeals Courts

A president’s Supreme Court nominees get a lot of attention, but presidents shape less visible parts of the judiciary too. Barack Obama is no exception. The Washington Post has a chart showing how the president has changed the composition of the nation’s appeals courts over the last five and a half years: Now, it’s important to say that courts are not supposed to be partisan institutions.

Still, Democratic judicial nominees tend to be more liberal than Republican nominees. And so the growing number of Democrat-appointed judges in our appeals courts will push American jurisprudence to the left on a wide range of issues. And because Obama’s nominees will stay on the bench long after Obama leaves office, these nominations will be one of his most durable legacies.

More here

****

Nelson Mandela – A personal eulogy

As I’m sure you’ve all determined by now, I’m a bit odd. And that was true in my childhood as well.

I was probably the only freshman in high school who would stop off and buy copies of the New York Daily News and New York Times every morning. (Daily News for the sports and local news, NYT for the national and international news.) And Dan Rather’s broadcast was appointment viewing for me every night.

Growing up I was, while not consumed, very mindful of the struggles of black South Africans to secure freedom from apartheid. For most of the 1980s, their struggles dominated the evening news and newspapers. I remember curling my lip in disgust when the Reagan administration pursued “quiet diplomacy” with the racist regime. That told me all I needed to know about Reagan, as if I didn’t know enough already.

Growing up, Nelson Mandela was a mythic figure, the Once and Future King, kept on the isle of Avalon (Robben), awaiting to return to a nation in desperate need of him. And it finally happened in 1990.

Repeat After Me: There Is No Liberal Media

The previous President, after the attacks of 9/11, engineered a war with a state which, though abysmal to its own people, had had no direct or indirect link with any terror attack on the United States. It was, if anything, a mortal enemy of the group which carried out the attacks, as that group saw the ruling regime as corrupt and un-Islamic. As the history of that war is being written, the regime sought to stave off war, willing to give the previous President anything he wanted, save for the regime’s destruction. Of course, the regime as it existed stood in the way of the grand plan to remake the Middle East; its destruction, not its containment, was the goal. Anything short of political—and literal—suicide would not suit the ultimate purpose. So the country and the world were lied into a war, which cost nearly 5,000 American lives, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths; a war which was supposed to last a few weeks and pay for itself instead dragged on for nearly a decade, costing over $1 trillion. And the Middle East, far from being remade into a collection of benevolent American satrapies, teetered on the edge of all-out war for the eight years of the George W. Bush administration.

That President, however, was never asked to apologize for the disaster he had wrought. And if ever he had been asked to apologize in a face-to-face interview, he never offered one: no apology for the countless dead, for the treasure wasted, for the lives destroyed. It’s just not the done thing.

Well, it used to not be the done thing.

How the GOP became bad pantomime

Because any article that has “pantomime” in its title needs an appropriate overture, a bit of Monty Python to start things off:

And really, that’s what the GOP has devolved to: a Monty Python skit, but not as humorous, and with much more dire consequences for the country.

Let’s take a short trip down memory lane and dissect the GOP’s behavior since 2009.

Comedy chat – The genius of “HISHE”

When it seems like the world is whirling too much in a maelstrom, one needs to stand back, take a breath, and laugh.

“HISHE” is the Youtube sensation “How It Should Have Ended”. They’re short animation clips which present alternate—and more logical—endings for Hollywood blockbusters.

So, without further ado, it’s time for the funny.

(FYI, there are spoilers in these clips, so if you haven’t seen the movies and still want to see them, don’t play the clips.)

“Oblivion”

More adventures in our failed media experiment: Part 1,382

Esteemed NBC White House correspondent and political director Chuck Todd caused quite a furor this morning.

Speaking on Morning Joe, he said quite openly what many of us have just assumed to be the truth by virtue of careful observation: that it’s not the media’s job to correct misinformation and falsehoods. He made this comment in relation to the Obamacare debate, saying that the GOP has been better at “messaging”—i.e. getting the media to repeat its lies ad nauseam—while the Obama administration and Democrats have failed to make their case.

Confronted with significant pushback on Twitter, he had this to say:

Somebody decided to troll w/mislding headline: point I actually made was folks shouldn't expect media to do job WH has FAILED to do re: ACA

— Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) September 18, 2013

Oh no! He was “trolled”, because someone—actually, several someones—called into question why he even has the job of “journalist” if he’s saying that it isn’t his job to fulfill a journalist’s prime responsibility, which is to give his readers/viewers/listeners accurate information about the world around them.

When will it be enough

Columbine came and went. We mourned, we vowed never again, we resolved to be a better nation. But it wasn’t enough.

Ft. Hood came and went. We mourned, we vowed “Terror won’t win”, we resolved to learn the lessons imparted. But it wasn’t enough.

Gabby Giffords will never be the same, and members from both sides of the aisle heaped praise on her. It wasn’t enough.

Newtown scarred us as nothing had before. Twenty innocent children mowed down in a mix of easy access to weapons of war, mental illness, and a society at war with itself. We wept, we beat our chests, we vowed to honor their memories. It, too, wasn’t enough, the words of resolve as evaporating steam.

Eight thousand have died at the end of a bullet since Newtown. All of them loved by someone, all of them precious to someone’s heart. Their deaths weren’t enough.

And now, another shooting, this time on a military base. And I will say it right here: it won’t be enough.

How “Obama Derangement Syndrome” is unlike that of Bush

When we accuse some right-winger of having “Obama Derangement Syndrome”, he will just scoff and point out that the Left was consumed with “Bush Derangement Syndrome” from 2001-2009. And to a certain extent, they’d be somewhat correct. For myself, I could only grudgingly applaud Mr. Bush for such things as AIDS initiatives for Africa, and his support for immigration reform.

But here’s the difference: I could acknowledge his (few) successes. For a Republican, reaching out to Africa and immigrants were things which went against the base, and required a certain bravery. The thing is, however, that the rest of his policies were so disastrous for the country that his few successes were dwarfed by them. From squandering record surpluses to crashing the economy to getting us mired in two mismanaged wars, his administration was a catalog of failure. It was already heading toward failure before 9/11; there was no doubt that he’d be a one term president. When the attacks occurred, he was able to refashion himself as a “war president”—a war he proceeded to prosecute in the most incompetent manner, sullying the nation’s ideals and honor. There was “Bush Derangement Syndrome” because everything he touched turned to lead. He didn’t kill bin Laden; he trapped us in disastrous wars; he oversaw a mass transfer of wealth to the already wealthy. So, while I agree that in some things he did well, they were drowned by his cacophony of failure.

Now let us turn to President Obama’s record. It began by him being the first African American elected president. He was able to pass a stimulus package which stanched the bleeding of the Great Recession. The US economy runs on two pillars: real estate and automobile manufacturing; real estate was on its knees; he saved the auto industry, without which the whole world would have sunk into a depression. He then fulfilled the great Democratic dream, passing comprehensive health reform, which would bring affordable health care to nearly every American. That achievement led to the GOP takeover of the House in 2010 in backlash, because some on the Left had a snit (more on that later). With the GOP in control of one house, he brilliantly conducted actions which stymied their most cherished goals, and preserved his priorities in the budget. Then against all the caterwauling of the media, he won a second term, in a convincing fashion. Then just this weekend, rattling a saber which opponents know he will use, he achieved a diplomatic resolution to Syria’s chemical weapon use, making the Autocrat of All the Russias climb down from his recalcitrant stance. And, of course, we can’t forget his other great triumph, along with Obamacare: healing that great wound in the American psyche by finally bringing Osama bin Laden to justice.

War and peace in a democracy

Cross-posted at The People’s View

Even if you were stuffing yourself full of the first weekend of college football, by now you know that President Barack Obama conducted one of the most important Rose Garden addresses in the history of the modern Presidency.

Taking the baton from his Secretary of State John Kerry, he again laid out, in forceful, passionate language, the situation as it was in Syria. He explained that the intelligence community had concluded with great certainty that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical attacks in contested areas of Damascus the week before. He passionately argued that American values and national interest dictated that Assad’s regime be punished militarily for the use of those chemical weapons against civilians. He stated that the military had assets in place and was ready to go at any time.

And then he did something no modern president had done. Even though he believed he had the authority to act, he knew that this was a divisive issue, and that the people’s representatives had to join in the decision. He called for Congress to debate and vote on a resolution granting him specific authority to militarily strike Assad for violating international treaties banning the use of chemical weaponry, some of the oldest weapons conventions in international law. He had heard the rumblings from Congress saying that he had to seek approval before any strike, and agreed.

But why did he agree? This is where he pivots beyond what all the pundits and talking heads expected. Just before declaring that he would seek Congressional approval, he reiterated that he believed that he had the authority to conduct the attacks with or without Congressional approval. But such an action, in a region of the world where such action could quickly spiral out of control, needed more than just Barack Obama’s say-so as Commander in Chief. Syria is not Libya. In the Libyan crisis, the President had a UN resolution with which to work. As a signatory to the UN charter, all member nations had a duty to enforce Security Council resolutions. That was all the authorization he needed.