VP Debate Live-Blog

In case you missed the vice-presidential debate, here’s a blow-by-blow live-blog. That’s right folks, I typed non-stop for 90 minutes. That’s how much I care. What can I say? I’m a giver.

Wow! Sarah Palin looks pretty good!

Good opening response by Biden. He sounds very friendly. So far so good. Just maintain, Joe. No foot in mouth!

Sarah Palin’s going now. Playing the mom card: did she just say “betcha.” Golly gee! But she hits on the fear factor, which is legitimate. She agrees that the economy is hurting and the federal government’s not done a good job of policing the economy. Gotta call BS on McCain’s role in policing the economy.

Joe Biden worked on violence against women? Good one. I had no idea. Ooohhh! Called McCain out on saying the economy was strong, and then flip-flopping on the economy. John McCain’s out of touch!! Zing!

Sarah Palin says the American workforce is the strongest in the world? In theory, sure. But with jobs being shipped abroad, I’m not sure how strong that workforce is now. Ah! She threw in “maverick.” Less than ten minutes in? Americans are craving something new and different . . . oh maverick again! Twice in two minutes? Damn!

Sarah Palin just said “darn right.” She’s more folksy than Rachel Rae. I think I’m going to keep a tally of “Palinisms.” Oh, there she goes with soccer moms and joe sixpack. A “heck” of a lot of good lessons. She should write a thesaurus of folkisms. Her answers aren’t so deep.

Biden calls McCain out on the deregulation thing again. Cha-ching!! McCain called for deregulation 20 times in the last however many years? Had no idea. OK Joe, you made your point. McCain’s for deregulations. Oh! Biden pulls out the folkism. Talks about guy who doesn’t have enough money to fill up his gas tank!

Palin said “darn right” again. Wassup with that. Just noticed Palin’s gigantic flag brooch. People need to learn to live with less? OK. What about the corporations, Sarah? Are they going to have to learn to live with less? Palin says Obama voted to raise taxes on middle-class families.

Biden comes back saying McCain voted the same way to raise taxes. Calls Palin out for not answering the deregulation question.

Oh, Palin says she’s going to talk straight, admits she’s not going to answer the questions the way Biden or the moderator would like. New tactic. Apparently Palin lowered taxes in Alaska. Got cut off by moderator.

On taxes.

Biden says it’s only fairness to raise taxes on people making over $200 thousand. McCain wants to cut taxes for very wealthy. The super-wealthy don’t deserve any new tax cut.

Palin challenges “redistribution of wealth.” Brings up small businesses. Raising taxes will create unemployment? Paying taxes is not patriotic. Government is not the solution, too often the problem. Oh, she and Todd are firmly middle class. Good one. McCain’s health care plan is good, offers a $5000 tax credit so people can buy their own coverage? Hmmm . . . with families being bankrupted by healthcare costs, I’m not sure five grand would make much of a difference to a family.

Biden scoffs at Palin’s “redistribution” argument. Calls BS on tax breaks to ExxonMobile. So Biden’s bringing out facts, Palin’s waxing eloquent with her folkism. McCain’s $5000 credit goes straight to the insurance companies. The ultimate bridge to nowhere!!?? Dag! Zing!!

Promises parties won’t be able to keep.

Biden admits party won’t be able to double foreign assistance. But stands firm on opposing tax breaks for corporations, commitment to education, job creation, affordable healthcare. Biden slips on “characterize” but recovers nicely. Offshore tax dodges are unpatriotic.

Palin says McCain doesn’t say one thing to one group and another to another group. Except for when he flip-flops on the status of the economy twice in one morning? Hmmm . . .. Palin took on the oil companies in Alaska? She knows the names of all the oil companies . . . “bless their hearts” . . . WTF? So Obama’s energy plan gave tax breaks to oil companies and Palin had to undo those policies in her area of expertise (energy)? Palin’s determined to stop the greed and corruption on Wall St.

Biden’s getting sidetracked refuting Palin’s statements. Good comeback . . . no . . . the audio just went out . . . phew! . . . it’s back. Praises Palin’s windfall profit tax. McCain wants to give another $4 billion tax cut to the oil corporations.

Debt, credit, and bankruptcy.

Palin would have supported the bill that made it harder for debt-strapped homeowners to declare bankruptcy. McCain raised the alarm, brought people together. “A toxic mess?” Greed rears it’s ugly head? She’s all about heads being reared. First Putin in Russia, then greed on Wall Street. I feel something rearing its ugly head in my pants.

Damn Palin, answer the questions. Stop talking about your energy policy. We all know this country needs to be energy independent. East Coast politicians? Oh, here it comes: we gotta drill in ANWR. And it’s the fault of East Coast politicians who won’t allow energy-rich states like Alaska to tap into their reserves. “A heck of a lot more than that.”

Climate change.

Palin says climate change is real but she won’t admit that it’s all the result of man’s activities. So she agrees it’s real, won’t comment on the cause. We have to clean up this planet? We pollute far more than any other country. Energy independent again? What does energy independence have to do with climate change? Oh, I see, other countries are polluting more than the US would ever stand for? We’re the biggest polluter.

Biden says climate change is man-made. If you don’t understand what the cause of climate change is, it’s impossible to come up with a solution. Dayyyuuummm!!!! McCain has opposed clean alternative energy more than 20 times in the last 15 years. Obama supports clean coal? Not sure how I feel about that. I mean, clean coal is better than Chinese dirty coal, but still. Drill, drill, drill baby! But the oil won’t come for at least ten years. I had no idea.

Palin corrects Biden: the chant is “drill, baby, drill!!” Ka-pow!! Good comeback. Alaska’s providing natural gas for hungry markets. Drilling is not safe and it’s not environmentally sound. Stop lying! Glad to hear Palin supports capping carbon emission.

Biden asks how to deal with global warming if we only look to oil. Good question.

Granting same-sex benefits (gay marriage).

Biden supports benefits for same-sex couples. Yay!! Equal rights for everyone: hospital visitation, health insurance, etc. Good one, Joe Biden. I had no idea you were so progressive.

Palin is afraid we are redefining the definition of relations between a man and a woman, but she’s tolerant with a diverse family and groups of friends. Some friends don’t agree with her. Does that mean her friends are less “tolerant” than she is? I thought when people say “diverse” they mean different ethnicities and lifestyles? She opposes redefining marriage as something other than a between a man and a woman.

Biden caves on the marriage question.

Palin does not support gay marriage.

Foreign policy.

Palin thinks we have a good plan (the surge) that is working in Eye-rack. Good one. Lots of great Americans. Oh . . . no she didn’t . . . Obama opposed funding for the troops! How can you end an illegal and unjust war while continuing to unquestioningly fund it? I’m just saying . . .. Grow our military, send troops to Afghanistan. Oh, we’re getting closer and closer to victory in Iraq? Yeah.

Biden didn’t hear a plan for Iraq: neither did I. Even the Iraqis want us to get out. McCain’s the only one who doesn’t. McCain also voted to not fund the troops if the funding came with a timeline. McCain wants us to be there indefinitely. Very strong response: we will end this war. For John McCain, there’s no end in sight.

Palin stumbles! Then comes back saying Biden’s plan is a white flag of surrender. Damn!!! Tough cookies! Commanders on the ground will tell us when the Iraqi people can govern themselves. She’s on the attack (Biden laughs). Palin’s got a lot of good facts at her fingertips. Very impressive. Now she’s praising Biden . . ..

Biden says McCain voted to cut off funding for the troops, voted against life-saving equipment. Calls McCain (and Cheney) out for saying Sunnis and Shia got along well and that we will be welcomed as liberators. McCain was dead wrong.

Nuclear Iran vs. Unstable Pakistan

Biden says Pakistan is bigger threat. Pakistan can hit Israel with nukes (boo!). Next attack will come from Al Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan. OK. Pakistan should be stabilized. Schools are better than madrasas. No disagreement. But attacking Pakistan? Crazy talk.

Palin says both are equally dangerous. Great non-answer. Then she talks about . . . wait . . . did she just say “new-killar?” Israel is in jeopardy? Eye-ran? I’m having trouble keeping up . . . but somehow she can correctly pronounce “Ahmedinejad.” Oh brother. Here we go again about Obama meeting without preconditions. Yet she agrees with Kissinger that engagement is crucial. These dictators who hate America, hate our freedoms, hate our tolerance of women’s rights (like abortion, gay marriage, visitation rights for lesbians?). Did she just say diplomacy is hard work by serious people? Guess Obama doesn’t count as a serious diplomatic person because he can’t see Russia from his living room.

Biden’s comeback is good. Good point about McCain not understanding that Ahmedinejad is not really in charge in Iran. Biden, stay cool, brother. Stay cool. Your voice is rising. Uh-oh! Is he gonna blow? OK, last point. McCain won’t sit down with the government of Spain? Incredible!

Israel

Palin supports two-state solution. Secretary [of State Condoleezza] Rice met with leaders on one side or other? Which side, I wonder? Yeah, yeah . . . Israel is our greatest ally . . . we’d never allow another holocaust. Israel is a peace-seeking nation? Track record of forging peace? Somebody hasn’t read a lot about the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Biden’s the greatest friend of Israel. Great. We know, Joe. We know. Bush policies might have failed in Israel but I don’t know if AIPAC’s been succeeding at bringing peace either.

Palin says Bush hasn’t failed in the Middle East. Admits huge blunders. Putting the people first? Yeah, ’cause that’s what the Republicans are known for. Like when they put New Orleans first.

Biden says he’s hearing nothing new from McCain, nothing different from Bush. “The past is prologue.”

Interventionism/nuclear weapons

Palin answers about new-killar weaponry. Apparently, she’s answering a different question. The moderator asked about nuclear weapons. Is it a requirement for being a member of the Republican Party, that you can’t pronounce nuclear? Oh well. She likes to name the leaders of countries. Impressive. I’m going to call BS in advance on her talk about Afghanistan. Accuses Obama of making reckless comment about killing civilians. I wonder why the Taliban is resurgent if the US is making such great progress on the ground.

Biden points out that commanding general in Afghanistan says surge would not work in Afghanistan. Said we need more infrastructure, non-military spending. Nation-building versus combat.

What is it about Palin’s voice that makes me yearn for cookies and milf? Then she makes up a name for a non-existing commanding general in Afghanistan. McClellan? I think McClellan was Bush’s press secretary. He was never a general in Afghanistan (further research has revealed there was a civil-war era General McClellan, though).

Biden says the American people have the stomach for success. Yeah. And for swallowing whatever war the government sells them, if you ask me. Our stomachs are actually pretty tough when it comes to war. Not so tough when it comes to helping people in a flooded city, though.

Palin says “Oh man” she’s not a Washington insider. Doesn’t answer the question. Answer the question please. Supports no-fly zone in Darfur, all options on the table. Which options, I wonder? Urged divestment of Alaska investments in Sudan. Hmm . . . they’re atrocities in Sudan but not in Iraq or Afghanistan?

OK, so Biden supports invading Sudan or other countries that commit genocide or harbor terrorists. Ho-hum . . ..

This debate is boring now. They’re not really talking about anything real. What’s happened to politics in this country?

Palin says McCain knows how to win a war? The only thing he knows about war is how to get shot down. The US lost the only war McCain was in.

Biden/Palin as President

[I'm fading now] Biden’s not saying anything new. Oh, brought up the Bush Doctrine. Wonder if Palin knows what that is now.

Palin brings up mavericks again. Great. Putting government back on the side of the people? McCain’s entire campaign was run by lobbyists! What’s Palin banging on about?! Putting Wasila Main Street in Washington? Sorry, no moose here. And you can’t carry guns. For now anyway.

Thanks for reminding us how the Republicans have screwed the working class, Biden. Good response.

Palin says “say it ain’t so” and “doggone it.” Is this woman for real? Is this 1950? And “God bless her.” What the hell is she talking about now? Schoolteachers. A family of schoolteachers. How is that an answer to any kind of question? Clearly she didn’t get much from the schoolteachers in her family because she can’t pronounce nuclear.

Views on Vice Presidency

Palin’s being very charming and personable. But she’s dodging the question. Answer the question. What does the Vice President do and how do you see your role in that position. John McCain has already “tapped” Palin? Ha ha ha . . . I bet he wished he’d tapped her . . . if you know what I mean . . . nudge . . . nudge . . . wink . . . wink . . ..

Biden’s got a very clear idea of what he’d do as VP.

Palin agrees with Cheney that the Vice President should have a lot of power. Surprise. She’s stumbling now. She answered the previous question this time around.

Biden says Cheney’s the most dangerous Vice President ever. Damn right!

Wisdom vs. Discipline (Achilles heel)

Palin’s experience comes from being a mayor and governor, being connected to the heartland, being a mom with a kid in the war and a special-needs kid. The question was about your weaknesses, not your strength. Now she’s quoting McCain and Reagan in one breath? She’s talking about democracy, and tolerance, and freedom and equal rights? Yet she opposes abortion and gay marriage. And books she disapproves of. Is this for real? Are people that stupid?

Biden says he is who he is. He’s very confident. Damn! McCain voted against both violence against women acts? Biden reached deep down for the heartstrings talking about his wife’s death. Oh! Here come the tears . . .. The people around the kitchen table are looking for help, not more of the same. Bravo!!

If Palin says maverick one more time, I’m going to rip out my hair! Maverick again, in the same answer? Sarah Palin, stop putting yourself into the same category as real mavericks. Way to hit those talking points: war, economy, greed and corruption, entrenched partisanship in Washington.

Biden attacks on the maverick question! Yay!!! McCain voted against healthcare spending for kids, in education, for sending kids to college.

Have you ever had to change your views?

Biden changed view on what is required of presidential nominees. Changed sides when he figured out that the ideology of the judicial appointee is important too.

Palin talks about caving on not passing vetoes as mayor and governor. Yawn! She’s never had to compromise on anything major. Nice. Way to show you’re capable of changing your mind.

How do you change the tone in Washington?

Biden and Obama will question people’s judgement, not motivation.

Palin will hire people from different parties and political opinions. Working for the greater good is what’s important. Right. Working with other people. I get it. Like when she tried to ban books from the library because she was offended by them, or when she tried to have her ex–brother-in-law fired from the state police. Silly me. I guess she’s very open-minded and tolerant of differing opinions after all.

Final statements

Palin wants to talk directly to the American people without the media filtering what she says. ‘Cause if you say something dumb, gosh-darn it, don’t you know, those awful media people will show it to the world. Another Reagan quote? We have to fight for freedom and protect it and hand it to our children. What does this have to do with anything? Only John McCain has fought for us? I think Senators fight for us too. I don’t think soldiers are the only people capable of defending American democracy.

Biden talks about economics and politics and war, health care and education.

Read Full Post »

The Douche-tastic Duo Has Done it Again.

So . . . I normally wouldn’t blog about celebrities but, thanks to Spencer Pratt’s total and utter douchebaggery on the Tyra Banks Show, I’ve decided to say ”eff it!” and take the plunge.

Apparently, the topic of adoption came up while Spencer and the other half of the douche-tastic duo were on Tyra’s show. Naturally she asked what they would name their adopted kids and—true to form—Heidi and Spencer opened their mouths and spewed forth a tidal wave of douchery unseen since the time Tom Cruise jumped up and down on Oprah’s sofa.

Here’s the transcript:

Tyra: So what would you name your children . . . like Speidi or Hencer . . . or something?
Heidi: He wants to name one Dunk.
Tyra: Dunk?!
Spencer: No, ’cause I mean, this is when I was saying I wanna go to Africa and I wanna adopt an African and . . . he’s gonna be very tall and he’s gonna be Dunk . . . you know . . ..
Tyra: Like to dunk the ball? I thought you meant ba-dunk-a-dunk, like have a big booty.
Spencer: Yeah, I mean . . . that’ll work . . . if it’s a girl . . ..
Heidi: [giggling moronically].

There’s also a clip from The Soup on Youtube. Spencer and Heidi’s supreme demonstration of douchiness doesn’t come until six-and-a-half minutes into the clip, so jump ahead if you can’t wait to see douchery at its finest (the video will make you wish Tyra had shoved her mic into a part of Spencer’s anatomy where the sun traditionally don’t shine, but she doesn’t—proving once again that there is no God).

Now we know that when Spencer thinks African, he thinks basketball and big butts. That’s OK though, ’cause when I think douche, I think Spencer Pratt. In fact, I think I’ll go to LA and adopt him. Then I’ll name him Douche . . . ’cause I mean . . . you know . . . I want to give my kid a name he’ll live up to . . . and . . . well . . . I can’t think of anyone who better lives up to that name than Spencer Pratt.

Read Full Post »

For Dr. Watson and Other Racists, Racism’s Beauty Lies In Its Simplicity: Part I

I never expected blogging would pay off but on Monday, Oct. 22, it did. Because of a post I had written last week about Dr. James Watson’s statements (see this posting and the associated comments), I was invited to be a guest on the BBC’s “World Have Your Say” program. Unfortunately, rather than adress the substance and merit of Dr. Watson’s words, the show’s presenters chose to focus on his right to free speech; I tried, during my 60 or so seconds of airtime, to argue that the issue was not one of free speech. However, because we had been allowed to speak only in the last five minutes of the show, I and another African blogger (both based in the US) couldn’t go into any detail or address the real substance of what Dr. Watson had said. That’s why I’ve decided to use this space to say what I would have said, had I been given more time and had the show been more focused on racism, which I believe lies at the heart of Dr. Watson’s words.

But first, a recap. Last week the renowned scientist and Nobel Prize winner brought down a firestorm of criticism on his own head after he told the Sunday Times that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really.” He also said that although he hoped everyone was equal, “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.” Since then, the good doctor has been suspended by his employer, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, and removed from its board of directors. The London Science Museum, which had invited Dr. Watson to give a talk on his latest book canceled his appearance, and the mayor of London, Ken Livingston, issued a statement condemning Dr. Watson’s remarks as “racist propaganda masquerading as scientific fact.” All this negative press forced the famous geneticist to hastily recant and issue a statement of apology in which he says “there is no scientific basis” for anyone to infer from his words that Africans are genetically inferior.

Despite the backtracking, I think the mayor of London is absolutely right to say that Dr. Watson’s words were nothing more than a pathetic attempt to use modern science to justify old racism, a clear case of trying to put new wine into an old wineskin. Why do I say Watson’s words were racist? Ask yourself this question: How many people who didn’t already believe that Black people are less intelligent actually read those words and thought, “Hmmm . . . I guess I was wrong about this! Now that I’m hearing it from a scientist, I believe that Black people are, in fact, less intelligent”? Not many, I would assume, and of the ones who might have, how many would have been Black? Conversely, many people did try to use those same words to justify what they already thought about Black people’s intellectual inferiority—some of them even posted comments on this blog. It seems Dr. Watson’s words had only two consequences, depending on the person reading them:

1. They failed to change the mind of someone who didn’t already believe Black people are not as intelligent or

2. They were unquestioningly accepted by someone who already thought Black people were less intelligent and then used to justify pre-existing beliefs.

Without any scientific backing for those remarks, Dr. Watson was simply and simplistically alluding to a widely held belief that Black people are lazy and less intelligence than White people. The simplicity of thinking behind those statements leaves me feeling that they were nothing more than the expression of a racist opinion.

After all, simplicity is at the heart of racism, an ideology which maintains that the greatest determiner of a person’s character is ”race” (i.e., skin color, hair texture, physical stature, etc.). This simple and simplistic—yet disappointingly widesperead—mindset maintains that if a person is intelligent, hard-working, or kind, it must be because of his/her “race.” In other words, “race” is all there is to a person. To the racist, the essence of the “nigger” shown in the caricature above lies in his physical attributes. A “nigger” has black skin, bulging eyes, buck teeth, big, red lips, etc. To become a “nigger,” simply change your appearance by blackening your face and reddening your lips or, better yet, buy Nigger Make-Up and hey presto! Instant “nigger!” (Go here or here for an intelligent and academic look at the origins, uses, and meanings of the word “nigger.”) To the racist, the “nigger” has no personality, no emotions, and no history. In fact, the “nigger” has nothing but his physical appearance.

Herein lies the beauty of racism and racist thinking. Once the physical attributes have been identified and deemed to be the “nigger’s” defining characteristics, the next step is simply to attach social meaning to them.

For the racist, skin color is infused with all of a person’s qualities—always negative if the person is not White. Once this social meaning has been “encoded” into a person’s “race,” the next step is to lump everyone who belongs to that “race” into the predefined categories. Pretty soon, everyone who looks like a “nigger” (i.e., has black skin, curly hair, etc.) is a “nigger.” Even worse, everyone who fits that physical description must, by definition be everything that a “nigger” is: lazy, violent, unintelligent, dishonest (or any number of other negative qualities). The human being is thus robbed of individuality—even worse, humanity—and denied the chance to prove her/his own merit as an individual person. Rather, by being stripped of identity, of ”personhood,” the “nigger” is lumped into an undifferentiated mass of people all of whom have the same qualities forced onto them. Here’s a simple formula I devised to illustrate my point. Follow it and soon, you too will be thinking like a racist:

1. Identify the “defining” physical characteristics of the object of your hatred (in the case of the “nigger” above, they’re black skin, curly hair, buck teeth, and bulging eyes)

2. Attach social meaning to those physical characteristics (e.g., the “nigger” is lazy, violent, dishonest, unintelligent, or any number of other negatives)

3. Broadly apply that social meaning to every person who shares the same physical characteristics as the person in Step 1 (e.g., anybody who has black skin, curly hair, buck  teeth, or bulging eyes is lazy, violent, dishonest, unintelligent, or any number of other negatives)

Such racist thinking recognizes no geographical or national boundary and ignores environmental, cultural, religious, and other differences, choosing instead to see “race” (skin color/hair texture) as the defining and unifying attribute of the “other.” This is why British racists use “wog” for Black Americans, Africans, Black people from the Caribbean, Australian Aborigines, and even dark-skinned Indians. And, although “race” in the American context has no biological basis, skin color and hair texture have been infused with so much social meaning that ”nigger” is equally used against Black Africans, Black Americans, and Black people from the Caribbean, despite DNA studies showing that  ”30 percent of African-American males [who participated in a Howard University study] have a white male ancestor.” But more on genetics later.

For now, it’s enough to only point out that lumping people into an undifferentiated mass is a form of dehumanization. Such dehumanization through undifferentiation was the reason Nazis shaved their victims’ heads, dressed them in the same clothes, and took away their names and replaced them with numbers. Members of an undifferentiated mass of people lack individuality, lack identity, lack personhood, and consequently, lack humanity. This practice serves the primary functions of simplifying and justifying the exploitation, brutalization, and general dehumanization of an entire population in order to put that population’s land, labor, wealth, and natural or other resources at the disposal of someone else. This was as true of colonialism in Africa as it was of North American slavery and the Jewish Holocaust.

Secondly, racism is inherently a simplistic and apolitical ideology, laying the responsibility for an individual’s success or failure in life squarely at the feet of that individual. By looking only at skin color or other physical attributes, the racist need not look at that person’s interaction with other persons through, say, colonialism or enslavement, and how that interaction might also impact who, and where in life, that person is today. Rather, racism enables the racist to bypass the hard work of thinking, allows the racist to look solely at a person’s “race,” and to attribute that person’s situation in life to his/her skin color and/or hair texture. Racism and racist thought, in sum, are artificially and deliberately created ideologies that serve  the social, economic, or political purpose of devaluing and dehumanizing people in order to marginalize and disenfranchise them. Once that has been done, the victims of racism cannot fully or equally participate in their societies, which in turn makes them vulnerable to exploitation and further marginalization.

Read Part II here.

Read Full Post »

For Dr. Watson and Other Racists, Racism’s Beauty Lies In Its Simplicity: Part II

Read Part I here. 

So, back to Dr. Watson’s racist statements. The racism lies not just in what he said but why he said it. Dr. Watson ignored social, environmental, political, and cultural factors, instead trying to to use “race” to explain why Africa was doing so poorly, and why he was not optimistic about the continent’s future. He also argued that the races were not equal (presumably he also meant other “races” besides Black and White). But in reality, he was not proposing anything new. Rather, he fell back on simplistic racist assumptions—Africans are not intelligent and the races are not equal—and later, after he had come under fire, tried to use his position as a scientist to couch his original remark in scientific terms. The jury is still out on whether intelligence is or isn’t genetically predetermined but what we do know indicates that genetic difference, or similarity, is not so neatly tied to “race.”

More importantly, Dr. Watson’s statements rested on a common and essential element of racist thinking, the belief that people who share the same physical characteristics (skin color, hair texture, etc.) also share personality traits (intelligence, industriousness, etc.) regardless of environment, culture, religion, or any of the other factors that may affect a person’s personality. In the interview, Dr. Watson says that Africans are less intelligent, according to ”studies” he had seen (he does not elaborate on how these were conducted or who the subjects were, but that’s a lesser point). He then goes on to add that anyone who has ever had Black employees knows that people of different races are not equal. In other words, Dr. Watson—who ought to know better—is conflating Africans with Black Americans (I assume Dr. Watson has had only Black American, not African, employees), completely overlooking differences in culture, environment, language, religion, etc. In a classic racist display, he observes that Black Africans and Black Americans face similar economic and social challenges, but he concludes this must be because they have similar skin color and/or hair texture.

Dr. Watson should know that because of the widespread rape of slaves in North America, very few Black Americans would be genetically identical to Black Africans, but he ignores this obvious fact in favor of making a blanket statement based on skin color and hair texture. Of course, I’m not implying that Africans are all genetically identical. Quite the opposite. Dr. Sarah Tishkoff, now an assistant professor in the Biology department at the University of Maryland, wrote as far back as 1999 that genetic studies have revealed

an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations. Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians.”

Put simply, there is more genetic diversity among the human populations on the African continent than there is in all the rest of the non-African populations combined. Someone with Dr. Watson’s background in DNA research should know that this diversity would mean that, even if Black Americans and Africans were really less intelligent, it would be very unlikely that their “lack of intelligence” came from the same genetic source. To clarify, Black Americans share a genetic predisposition to Sickle Cell Anemia with their West African ancestors because most of them are descended from slaves taken from West Africa. However, the large genetic diversity among African peoples means that Black Americans cannot be genetically identical to East or South Africans because even their West African ancestors are not genetically identical to those other African peoples. Dr. Watson, in making his inference about Africans’ and Black Americans’ intelligence cannot, then, have been basing his statement on genetics because that would have precluded a common genetic root. Rather, he was—in true racist fashion—ignoring the social, political, and economic realities of Black Americans’ and Africans’ lives, focusing instead on the most superficial things both peoples share: dark skin and curly hair.

The other thing that struck me as racist was his focus on the question of lower intelligence while talking about Africans and Black Americans. Why did he pick that particular issue? To me, that would be like a modern scientist being interested in proving “scientifically” whether or not Black men have a gene for large penises, or whether brown-skinned people have higher sex drives (an argument Dr. Watson himself has made before). How ridiculous would Dr. Watson have sounded if he had suggested that Jews possess a gene that predisposes them towards avarice?! But because he chose to discuss Africans’ intelligence, people actually defended him, arguing that, as a scientist, he should be allowed to propose new scientific possibilities!

I’m not a geneticist and I generally oppose attempts to explain individuals’ behavior through racial or genetic arguments but, where there’s scientific evidence, let it speak for itself. But Dr. Watson’s statements were not based on scientific evidence, which makes me strongly suspect his motives. Nor was he proposing a new direction for genetic science. He was absolutely not talking about using modern science to break new ground? I mean, there are many differences among individuals of different “races” that could be studied at the genetic level, but why did he have to start from an old racist “truism” (Africans are less intelligent/the races are not equal)? The fact that he then tried to back it up with unscientific anecdotal evidence (if you’ve ever had Black employees, you know the races are not equal) makes me even more suspicious. After all, the question of difference in intelligence between the races is as old as racism itself. It predates genetics. Why would he be so concerned about using genetic science to prove or disprove a viewpoint that has existed and even thrived in the total absence of the science that could have proved or disproved it?

Furthermore, if Dr. Watson were so intent on using genetics to explain certain qualities in Black American or African people, he could easily have started out with something positive. For instance, statistics show that elderly White men have the highest suicide rates in the US. Dr. Watson could have expressed his interest in finding a gene to explain this (we know there is one because suicidal tendencies seem to run in families). Better yet, he could have talked about an “optimism” or “resilience” gene that might explain why, despite their widespread social, political, and economic marginalization, Black Americans tend to have much lower suicide rates than White Americans. Instead, he chose to focus on something negative, the racist idea that Black people are less intelligent than White people. 

At the end of the day, the beauty of racism lies in its simplicity and Dr. Watson’s remarks demonstrate this simplistic thinking. For people who can’t be bothered to study social sciences, economics, and politics, race “theory,” racist thinking, and outright racism are ideal. Everything about an individual or group can be explained simply by looking at skin color, hair texture, or any of the other signifiers of “race.” The underlying social, political, and economic order is never examined and challenged, so power relations remain intact. The racist in turn remains assured of his or her own superiority, itself the product of nothing more than an accident of birth that resulted in his or her having been born with the “correct” skin color. The racist never needs to compose a concerto, write a great novel, or even read one for that matter. She or he is more than content to know that other people who share his or her skin color have done so. This also absolves the racist of the need to prove his or her own intelligence, because that burden of proof is shifted onto people who were not fortunate enough to have been born with the right skin color or hair texture. Dr. Watson—in lending his voice to the question of Black and African people’s intelligence and industriousness—has joined a long and disgraceful line of pseudo-scientists who have, for centuries, attempted to argue that non-White people, be they from Africa, Australia, Asia, North America, the Caribbean, or the Middle East share one unifying characteristic: Their dark skin means they are not equal to Europeans. Even worse, Dr. Watson has thrown a bone to modern racists who—without considering science, economics, or politics—have always believed Black people are less intelligent than White people.

In making those utterly prejudiced and unscientific statements, Dr. Watson has shown the world that, despite his cutting-edge research, when it comes to social and political issues, he is living two centuries in the past. I am very sorry that the “World Have Your Say” team allowed him to escape the scrutiny, analysis, and eventual denunciation that his words so richly deserve.

Read Full Post »

“Unreservedly” Apologetic Dr. Watson Takes His Words Back.

I know there were certainly people out there who jumped up and down in glee when Dr. James Watson said Africans are less intelligent than Europeans. Well, I hope you got all your celebrating out because Dr. Watson has now recanted, issuing the following statement:

I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways they have. To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief.”

I guess the reknowned geneticist realizes how ignorant his own statements were. It’s a pity that he gave momentary vindication to all those racists out there who really believe that a person’s skin color has any effect on his/her intelligence.

I wonder if his suspension by both his lab and its board of trustees motivated him to recant.

Read Full Post »

Black People are Less Intelligent, Says Dr. James Watson, Nobel Prize Winner and DNA Pioneer.

Well, there you have it folks, irrefutable scientific proof of what we’ve secretly known all along. Black people are less intelligent than White people. This latest confirmation comes from no less an intellectual giant than Dr. James Watson, winner of the Nobel Prize in 1962 for his role in discovering the molecular structure of DNA. It looks like the guy who said stupidity is a genetic disease that should be cured should be his own first guinea pig.

Apparently, Dr. Watson said in an interview with the Sunday Times that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really.” CNN online also reports:

In the newspaper interview, he said there was no reason to think that races which had grown up in separate geographical locations should have evolved identically. He went on to say that although he hoped everyone was equal, “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.”

Dr. Watson, it seems, has a history of making insensitive and inflammatory comments. The online edition of Scientific American has compiled a list of Watson’s other foot-in-mouth utterances.

• After showing images of women in bikinis and veiled muslim women, he suggested that there is a link between exposure to sunlight and libido. Then he said, “That’s why you have Latin lovers. You’ve never heard of an English lover. Only an English patient.”
• After showing a picture of Kate Moss, he asserted that thin people are unhappy and therefore ambitious. “Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad, because you know you’re not going to hire them.”
• Fat people may also be more sexual, Watson asserted, because their bloodstreams contain higher levels of leptin.
• “If you are really stupid, I would call that a disease. The lower 10 percent who really have difficulty, even in elementary school, what’s the cause of it? A lot of people would like to say, ‘Well, poverty, things like that.’ It probably isn’t. So I’d like to get rid of that, to help the lower 10 per cent.”

Like all prejudiced people, Dr. Watson tends to be well-rounded in his bigotry, as shown by a trail of sexist remarks. According to Charlotte Hunt-Grubbe, who worked for Watson in the late ’90s, he often found himself the target of feminists’ ire for insensitive statements he made about women’s appearance and personality. Hunt-Grubbe also writes that Watson was accused of using data gathered by Rosalind Frankin, a colleague and fellow researcher, without her knowledge and without sufficiently acknowledging the contribution of her data to his own discovery. By the time Watson and his male colleagues won the Nobel Prize, Franklin had already passed away from ovarian cancer. Lest this be passed off as a one-off incident, New Scientist publishes this Watson gem on their website: ”People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great.”

For a guy who is so critical of others, Dr. Watson sure has a lot of work to do on his own personality and attitudes. I would write more but being from Africa, I’m clearly not intelligent enough to do so. Instead, I’ll just agree with my man Scooter when he says, “Less work on the DNA double helix and more work on the common sense gene.”

Read Full Post »

New Radio Show: September 24, 2007.

Got a brand new show for y’all’s listening pleasure.

The first segment features some Roma (Gypsy), French, and Arabic tracks. Then we move on to Disco, Reggae, and Hip-Hop: one track by Sierra Leonean rapper Problem M (rapping in Krio, a Sierra Leonean dialect) and the other by NY/DC poet/rapper/all-around-entertainer KOMplex, Mr. Keep On Moving. I met him a couple of times at open mic events in DC and he was impressive enough for me to buy his CD both times. I also put in one of my favorite tracks by the Spanish group Macaco who, for those of you who live in the DC area, will be performing at Lisner Auditorium on October 26. The last segment’s pretty much a random mix of everything I couldn’t get into the first two segments.

As usual, you can listen to the show online or download it to an mp3 player and listen later.

Click here to see the playlist. Feel free to click on any of the links to learn more about the artists. You will also find a couple of the featured artists’ videos in “T’ings ‘n Times Videos.”

Feel free to comment and/or request music for the next show.

Listen to the previous show here.

Read Full Post »

Jena 6 Redux: Free Mychal Bell!!!!!!!!!

A Louisiana appeals court has vacated the second conviction that sent Mychal Bell, one of the Jena 6, to jail. Earlier this month, a district judge threw out Bell’s conviction for conspiracy to commit second-degree battery, agreeing with Bell’s supporters that the case should have been heard in juvenile court. On Friday, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Lake Charles vacated Bell’s battery conviction, but he remains in jail, where he has been since December, 2006.

This has been a classic case of discriminatory sentencing in which six Black teenagers are charged as adults and sentenced to long prison terms for a schoolyard fight. Certainly, it’s despicable that these six boys ganged up to beat up one student, and they should definitely have been punished for that. But they should have been treated as juvenile offenders and punished as juveniles.

There should also be equality in how the entire case is reported. The story starts back in September, 2006 after Justin Purvis, a Black student at Jena High School, got permission from his principal to sit under the “white tree” in the schoolyard. The tree got its name from the fact that it was a popular hangout for the school’s White students, a custom sufficiently entrenched to make a Black student feel the need to ask permission to sit under it. A day later, three nooses were hanging from the branches of the tree. Everyone who lives in the United States knows that nooses were used to lynch (publicly hang) Black men. Most often, the people who organized the lynchings were not even arrested. After the passage of civil and equal rights legislation, lynchings became rarer but the noose still remains—for Black people—a painful reminder of a very dark and violent time in US history. It has also become a symbol of hate that has been adopted by racist groups.

Jena High School’s Black students gathered under the tree to protest the nooses. Afterwards, District Attorney Reed Walters came to the school and told the demonstrating Black students that he “could end their lives with the stroke of a pen.” Three White students were suspended for hanging the nooses but the incident was generally written of as a prank. Tensions continued to escalate, eventually leading to a number of violent encounters. In one instance, a group of Black students was accosted outside a convenicence store by a White man who pulled a gun on them. The boys tussled with their assailant and eventually disarmed him before running away. The incident concluded with the Black boys being arrested and charged with the theft of a firearm. The White man who drew the gun on them was not prosecuted.

In another incident, a Black student was beaten up by White students at a party. Back at Jena High, a White student allegedly taunted this Black student with racial insults and references to the beating he had recieved at the party. This led a group of Black students, including the one who had been taunted, to gang up on the White student, who was punched, kicked, and stomped after he was knocked out. He was taken to hospital—for injuries sustained to his eyes, ears, and face. He was treated and discharged the same day. The Black students who beat him up were charged as adults and Mychal Bell—the only one incarcerated so far—was convicted of attempted second-degree murder and conspiracy. He was a star football player who was looking at college scholarships and a possible professional football career, but his conviction left him facing the prospect of coming out of prison at the age of 40.

Popular outrage against the convictions and support from diverse groups—including most recently music legend David Bowie—led to the charges gradually being reduced from attempted second degree murder to simple assault and battery. Mychal Bell, however, remains behind bars despite all his convictions being vacated. Yesterday, a three-judge panel decided that Bell would not be released from jail pending his November trial.

Thankfully, it seems that people are waking up and calling a spade a spade and hopefully, Mychal Bell will be out of jail soon and back on track to rebuilding his life.

Read Full Post »

Let the Spin Begin: ABC Downplays Torture of UF Student.

Now that everyone and their mother has seen how free speech is “protected” on college campuses, the mainstream media is lining up to mitigate, apologize, and justify.

Anyone watching ABC 7 (the local Washington, DC affiliate) this morning would have thought the anchors were commenting on a comedy sketch and not a video depicting a student’s free-speech and human rights being violated. I’m referring, of course, to the manhandling and eventual tasering of University of Florida student Andrew Meyer, who dared to take more than his allotted two minutes to ask Senator John Kerry some tough questions. Although the video ended with a handcuffed Meyer screaming each time he is shocked with the taser gun, the most fitting comment one of the female newscasters could come up with was something to the effect of, “One sure way to get yourself tasered is to use the word ‘bro.’” Ha ha ha, ABC 7, you kill me! I almost forgot that I was watching police brutality and the suppression of free speech.

I searched and searched the Web for the ABC 7 segment but I couldn’t find it. Instead, I found a segment from Good Morning America which also shows ABC’s attempts to mitigate. Thirty-four seconds into the video, the ABC commentator clearly feels the need to make us understand that Meyer brought it all upon himself for asking John Kerry ”obnoxious” questions. The rest of the video goes on to make it seem as if Meyer somehow deserved to be “forcibly dragged from the campus forum” and get “much more than he bargained for.” Much more than he bargained for? That’s right. Apparently that’s the newscaster’s euphemism for the totally unnecessary close-range tasering of Meyer after he had already been subdued (he was face-down on the ground with his hands cuffed behind him). Lest we think this incident is the huge deal it actually is, ABC reminds us that this was not the first time campus police had used tasers on a student, referring to the tasering of a UCLA student who refused to show his identity card to campus security. Really? Silly me! It’s no big deal after all! This kind of thing happens all the time.

During his narration of the UCLA incident, however, the narrator rediscovers journalistic objectivity and decides to keep his opinions to himself, which is a pity otherwise we might have heard him use words like “excessive,” ”brutal,” or “uncalled-for.” Sadly, such adjectives are notably absent from his commentary. Instead, as the video nears its conclusion, he gloats that ”The taser may now be the least of Meyer’s worries,” since he has now been charged with resisting arrest and disturbing the peace. You can actually hear the humor in his voice as he shares this last tidbit! Finally, we discover that Meyer is famous for practical jokes and for posting short, funny videos of himself on the internet. Good Morning America ends the segment with the words “But his 15 minutes of fame are from a video that is no laughing matter.” I guess we are now supposed to think this was just a prank that backfired? I don’t think so!

ABC News Tasering Cops Put on Leave3.flv

Clearly, this ABC presenter and I live in opposite worlds. When I see the video of Andrew Meyer having his microphone cut, being surrounded and literally carried off by campus security, and finally being shocked with a taser, I don’t see anything trivial or humorous. I see a young American whose First Amendment rights to question a public servant—whatever happened to freedom of speech and the right to petition government?—are denied, who is then violently manhandled although he posed no physical threat to anyone, and finally tortured in plain view of fellow students and a United States senator, who by the way did nothing to intervene.

Accuse me of hyperbole if you will but what happened to Andrew Meyer is torture, pure and simple. Taser guns are designed for long-range use to electrically incapacitate an assailant from a safe distance. The guns shoot small darts that strike the target and deliver an electric shock through connected wires. The shock is usually enough to disrupt the target’s muscle control, rendering him/her temporarily paralyzed. Although taser use is controversial—elderly people and people with heart conditions have died after being tasered—and has been criticized by human rights and civil liberties groups, the argument could be made that they are an effective and non-lethal way to disable a violent or threatening person from a safe distance. Fair enough.

But in the case of Andrew Meyer, the taser was not used for self defense. Meyer was already under arrest and was already incapacitated. Sure, he was still mouthing off but he did not pose a physical threat to the security officers, who were armed and outnumbered him by a factor of about six to one. Even worse, the taser setting for close-range use—as pointed out by Machinist—does not deliver an electric shock powerful enough to incapacitate. Rather, it causes excruciating pain and is used to get the target to comply. In Meyer’s case, the taser was used not to incapacitate him for officers’ protection, but to get him to comply; in other words, to make him shut up and leave the auditorium.

Let’s revisit the scenario. A student asks a question, then he is arrested, cuffed, and tasered. The setting isn’t high enough to incapacitate him and in fact, he doesn’t need to be incapicated because he’s already handcuffed and face-down on the ground. This rules out self defense and leaves only compliance as a motive. Basically, campus security used an electrified weapon to cause excruciating pain to a student in order to get compliance from him. What do you call it when pain is used to make a human being do something? That’s right, torture.

So here we have a student tortured in front of fellow students and a senator who, in an extreme act of callousness and cowardice, continues to speak into the microphone as if nothing was going on. For its part, ABC also tries to spin this by reporting that Sen. Kerry later said he had no idea Meyer had been tasered until after he finished speaking. So what? He should have intervened, or at the very least spoken out, as soon as Meyer was approached by security. Some University of Florida students have redeemed themselves by speaking in defense of Andrew Meyer and free speech, and for organizing an anti-taser rally on their campus. All Sen. Kerry has done is plead ignorance. Shame on John Kerry for not speaking out against the violation of a student’s rights and shame on ABC for attempting to turn a clear case of undue force into a joke. We should all be very worried when newscasters try to use comedy to mitigate the suppression of free speech.

Come to think of it, maybe it’s only fitting that newscasters try their hand at comedy since comedians—like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher, and Al Franken—are doing a much better job of reporting and analyzing the news.

Read Full Post »

That’s just sick! I thought this was a free country!!!

Today, a new torture video started making the rounds on the internet. No, it wasn’t shot at Guantanamo or Baghram or Abu Ghraib. It was shot at the University of Florida. The victim, a journalism student, asked Senator John Kerry a series of tough questions during a question and answer session. For exercising his First Amendment rights, the unfortunate student is hauled off by security while he screams for help and asks why he was being arrested. He ends up face-down with his hands cuffed behind his back, while one of the security guards repeatedly shoots him at point-blank range with a taser gun. Taser guns were designed for long-range use to incapacitate, from a safe distance, someone who poses a physical threat. But in this case, the student was already subdued and handcuffed so the taser was used merely to cause pain, not for self-defense. Using an instrument to cause pain merely for its own sake is nothing more than torture.

When did asking tough questions of political figures become a criminal act? What’s even more disturbing is that everyone else just sits  there and lets this kid get dragged off by a mob of armed guards simply because he took too long to ask his question. For his part, Sen. Kerry keeps on talking as if violations of a human being’s fundamental rights—not to mention the US Constitution—were not being committed in his presence.

I hope this guy sues the pants off those security guards and the University of Florida. And I hope this incident haunts John Kerry for the rest of his career.

Read Full Post »