Last week, the morning after President Obama's speech which we're not supposed to call a State of the Union though I'm really not sure why, CSPAN did not have its usual "Washington Journal" on at 7 am but instead Bill Bennett's morning radio show. I don't know why they did this other than perhaps to innoculate themselves for the fact that for some reason CSPAN did not run the Bobby Jindal Republican response to the speech the night before. Bennett, the guardian of American "moral values" - i.e., the chain-smoker while he was the Drug Czar and the one who might not have to parrot GOP talking points on the airwaves today were it not for a gambling addiction - was his usual tiresome though not altogether offensive self. What did stand my remaining two hairs up was some guest he had on (name escapes me), who is one of those people who claims he used to be a "liberal" but had an epiphany. I really hate those folks - and it really doesn't matter whether they say they've gone from left to right or vice versa (I knew plenty of the latter type in college). And the reason why is that when they say their views have changed, they are usually lying...but somehow by saying that they've "evolved" we're supposed to believe that they are somehow more thoughtful and credible. And it this instance, it's not hard to conclude the Bennett guest was lying.
The trigger of his "conversion" wasn't the fall of the Berlin Wall, the random Ayn Rand read, or a mugging at gunpoint by a black lesbian transgender illegal alien. He claimed it was the Clarence Thomas hearings. And his failure to accurately record the history speaks volumes as to his deceit.
First, he claimed that going into the hearings, all of the left wing including its usual media "pawns" were "lining up to exploit (Thomas) as a serial sexual harasser." Now lets throw some fresh spring water on the Wicked Witch: What were supposed to be the full Thomas hearings were OVER AND DONE WITH when the existence of Anita Hill came out. There was no discussion of sexual harassment either at the time Thomas was nominated or throughout the substantive hearings (as I have long argued, I thought he did not warrant confirmation for reasons completely unrelated to sex and entirely due to his command of the law or lack thereof - to say that an adult college graduate has never had a conversation on the subject of Roe v. Wade is imo perjurious, as much as anything). If Thomas' alleged misconduct were in any way on the table prior to the original hearings concluding, his nomination probably would have failed - if it had come out before the original hearings, it may have been pulled. But there was no orchestrated "drumbeat" to nail Thomas on his sexual conduct until way past 11 pm on the nomination's 24 hour clock.
Then the person through out the name of "Ted Kennedy" as "leader" of the "lynch mob." How convenient it is for someone who claims to have been a reasoned convert to one side of the fence from another by invoking the particular name of all those on Senate Judiciary which is most the scourge. Of course, Kennedy hardly participated at all in the Anita Hill portion of the hearings - a fact not at all subtly picked up by people like Arlen Specter. I recall Howard Metzenbaum being somewhat vigorous, and it was Paul Simon's office (not Kennedy's) most consistently linked to the leak of the Hill story to the press - which again, came after the hearings were presumed to be concluded with nary a mention of sex. Indeed, Kennedy's, er..."impotence" at the hearings (which wound up saving the nomination) helped create a groundswell of disdain for the fact that the Judiciary Committee considering these allegations was, without exception, all male.
Really, Mr. Bennett guest - stick to Ayn Rand or the Berlin Wall if you want to make the embodiment of your "seeing the light" somehow more solid than the Laffer Curve.
I saw "Medea Goes to Jail" last night. I had thought it would be more one of the those mindless "Big Momma" gag-promoters than a rather strange hybrid of inanity and (not lightly Christian-seasoned) morality. Of the latter (and those who know me are aware that, perhaps to a fault, I take religious-based lectures with more than a grain of salt), I nevertheless liked the point being driven home by the supporting role Minister-heroine type: "Forgiveness isn't for the person who wronged you. Forgiveness is for yourself." And I don't need a Biblical annotation to stand for that.
The Brahmin
Monday, March 2, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Yes, I can
My, my...it has really been that long since I posted.
What better today than to return to something (intended as being) thoughtful and world-oriented as opposed to selfish and introverted than today.
If anybody has read this with any sort of regularity they will no doubt snicker at the irony of my prognostication of the electoral prospects of he who is now the President. Aside from offering a cheery, "Touche", to the reader, let me just briefly offer my own explanation (which you can freely call, "spin") before moving on to other rantings:
1. I don't think anyone can seriously question that the sudden and total economic collapse of last fall seriously contributed to Obama's win...at a minimum, no way he wins that sort of electoral landslide (Indiana? North Carolina?) without it.
2. The grim prognosis I gave Obama was firmly premised in that somewhere, somehow, some way, the John McCain of 2000 would show up. Instead, we got Joe the Plumber. Instead, we got a nursing home patient wandering off the grounds after hours. Instead, we got "That One." My analysis was grounded in the premise that the Republicans would nominate a candidate both weaker in ideological appeal than Barry Goldwater and weaker in charismatic appeal than Alfred Landon...in other words, a GOP nominee as weak as, well, whoever it was who ran against Woodrow Wilson in 1916. Given the fact that my now-deceased father (briefly a Republican) wasn't even born then, I thought the odds were fairly certain that they wouldn't hand the election to us. And I don't think too many fair-minded Obamaistas had such a confidence.
3. Here is where I missed something about Obama, although judging from his slogan-filled, telegenia-driven primary campaign, I don't know how, not knowing the guy, I could have picked it up: He more than matched his style with substance. Both by coolly addressing the economic Pompeii in progress while McCain behaved like any other extra in a 1970's airline crash disaster movie, and in doing a remarkable job of reaching to every wing of his party to form a cabinet that can truly be composed of the "best and the brightest" - I could say that the only flaw in his textbook campaign was perhaps not giving us a blueprint of just such an administration conceptualized, but I suppose one can't really argue with results.
Yes, you did. Job well done. VERY well done. Go to it, Mr. President.
I was a very lucky person in 2008, where lousy American political soothsaying aside, I did a lot better than a lot of others did.
I went abroad twice - paying for it every step of the way. I saw unchartered territory in the wee north of the Hebrides and rediscovered comfort food in a bistro in Montparnasse. I discovered the hauting beauty outside the run from Inverness to Kyle of Lochalsh and the simple, afterthought elegance of an intercity run between two world famous capitals, passing through an engineering marvel in the process. The first voyage was a nod to independence, the second helped wonderfully cement a very promising relationship.
What's more, Antioch may yet live. A letter of intent was signed which apparently sets in motion Antioch College being forever rid of the offspring that became its parasite - Antioch University.
During the summer, I took to drafting for this blog my experience of an e-mail exchange I had with someone who could only be described as a "wingnut" who wrote a "dance on the grave" piece about my alma mater for the American Thinker. When I challenged him on the notion that his vibrating the light fantastic for ideological purposes obscured the reality that people who had worked for years at this very private institution were losing their jobs, he quite conveniently chose to "invoke" (using only quotation marks, not in fact sharing any authentication, such as a copy of an email or a scanned document) an alleged "message" he had gotten from a "25-year tenured professor" which referred to the College's students as "degenerates," among other things. Needless to say, the professor was not identified by name. I sent him one reply, choosing my words carefully as to the quote's authenticity, which engendered a somewhat defensive response from the columnist, but again, no identification of this source.
I came to thinking that having a tenure of 25 years at Antioch would take one back to the very time I was a student there. And given the college's small size and the fact that, undeniably, not many had stayed, I forwarded my exchange to two of the four who met this biographical criteria (by my count, of the remaining two, one of them served on a Faculty committee determined to fight closure in Court; the other stayed in Yellow Springs to work on the "Non Stop Liberal Arts Institute" in town, which, I daresay, would rule these out as being people who would badmouth the institution to an obviously hostile voice). Of the two who I forwarded the exchange to (both of whom I had studied under), the revealing dichotomy is this: One of them had moved on to another institution, landing on his feet as Chair of the Department of International Relations at a college not far from here; the other (somewhat akin to being in steerage on the Titanic and surviving) remained associated with Antioch University - possibly the only one. The former Antiochian responded categorically that he had never met or known the right wing columnist. To my chagrin, the one associated with Antioch University never responded.
Thus, I cannot rule out the possibility that maybe someone really did harbor such a cynical attitude about Antioch. Was it this individual who wound up latching onto the University in order to keep his job? Only he knows. But I can also not rule out the possibility that the University was orchestrating such comments and leaking them to obviously hostile sources to advance its own agenda. I share that vignette to underscore that Antioch College never should have created Antioch University (and I can say that with all due objectivity, since technically it is the "university" which issued my bachelors' degree), and will never survive as a part of it.
The Mets blew it again...and for good measure, the Jets managed to do quite much the same thing. I suppose I can never stop being loyal to the colors and uniform. But the Wilpons are quite another thing. I have no plans to go crawling over others to Citi Field next year. If Jeff W. can say that after signing Santana, they "underachieved," I can give that statement about as much credit as one would give to so many of those uttered by our (ahhhhhh!) former President.
This was good. I missed doing this. Look forward to writing more.
Yes, I can. :}
The Brahmin
What better today than to return to something (intended as being) thoughtful and world-oriented as opposed to selfish and introverted than today.
If anybody has read this with any sort of regularity they will no doubt snicker at the irony of my prognostication of the electoral prospects of he who is now the President. Aside from offering a cheery, "Touche", to the reader, let me just briefly offer my own explanation (which you can freely call, "spin") before moving on to other rantings:
1. I don't think anyone can seriously question that the sudden and total economic collapse of last fall seriously contributed to Obama's win...at a minimum, no way he wins that sort of electoral landslide (Indiana? North Carolina?) without it.
2. The grim prognosis I gave Obama was firmly premised in that somewhere, somehow, some way, the John McCain of 2000 would show up. Instead, we got Joe the Plumber. Instead, we got a nursing home patient wandering off the grounds after hours. Instead, we got "That One." My analysis was grounded in the premise that the Republicans would nominate a candidate both weaker in ideological appeal than Barry Goldwater and weaker in charismatic appeal than Alfred Landon...in other words, a GOP nominee as weak as, well, whoever it was who ran against Woodrow Wilson in 1916. Given the fact that my now-deceased father (briefly a Republican) wasn't even born then, I thought the odds were fairly certain that they wouldn't hand the election to us. And I don't think too many fair-minded Obamaistas had such a confidence.
3. Here is where I missed something about Obama, although judging from his slogan-filled, telegenia-driven primary campaign, I don't know how, not knowing the guy, I could have picked it up: He more than matched his style with substance. Both by coolly addressing the economic Pompeii in progress while McCain behaved like any other extra in a 1970's airline crash disaster movie, and in doing a remarkable job of reaching to every wing of his party to form a cabinet that can truly be composed of the "best and the brightest" - I could say that the only flaw in his textbook campaign was perhaps not giving us a blueprint of just such an administration conceptualized, but I suppose one can't really argue with results.
Yes, you did. Job well done. VERY well done. Go to it, Mr. President.
I was a very lucky person in 2008, where lousy American political soothsaying aside, I did a lot better than a lot of others did.
I went abroad twice - paying for it every step of the way. I saw unchartered territory in the wee north of the Hebrides and rediscovered comfort food in a bistro in Montparnasse. I discovered the hauting beauty outside the run from Inverness to Kyle of Lochalsh and the simple, afterthought elegance of an intercity run between two world famous capitals, passing through an engineering marvel in the process. The first voyage was a nod to independence, the second helped wonderfully cement a very promising relationship.
What's more, Antioch may yet live. A letter of intent was signed which apparently sets in motion Antioch College being forever rid of the offspring that became its parasite - Antioch University.
During the summer, I took to drafting for this blog my experience of an e-mail exchange I had with someone who could only be described as a "wingnut" who wrote a "dance on the grave" piece about my alma mater for the American Thinker. When I challenged him on the notion that his vibrating the light fantastic for ideological purposes obscured the reality that people who had worked for years at this very private institution were losing their jobs, he quite conveniently chose to "invoke" (using only quotation marks, not in fact sharing any authentication, such as a copy of an email or a scanned document) an alleged "message" he had gotten from a "25-year tenured professor" which referred to the College's students as "degenerates," among other things. Needless to say, the professor was not identified by name. I sent him one reply, choosing my words carefully as to the quote's authenticity, which engendered a somewhat defensive response from the columnist, but again, no identification of this source.
I came to thinking that having a tenure of 25 years at Antioch would take one back to the very time I was a student there. And given the college's small size and the fact that, undeniably, not many had stayed, I forwarded my exchange to two of the four who met this biographical criteria (by my count, of the remaining two, one of them served on a Faculty committee determined to fight closure in Court; the other stayed in Yellow Springs to work on the "Non Stop Liberal Arts Institute" in town, which, I daresay, would rule these out as being people who would badmouth the institution to an obviously hostile voice). Of the two who I forwarded the exchange to (both of whom I had studied under), the revealing dichotomy is this: One of them had moved on to another institution, landing on his feet as Chair of the Department of International Relations at a college not far from here; the other (somewhat akin to being in steerage on the Titanic and surviving) remained associated with Antioch University - possibly the only one. The former Antiochian responded categorically that he had never met or known the right wing columnist. To my chagrin, the one associated with Antioch University never responded.
Thus, I cannot rule out the possibility that maybe someone really did harbor such a cynical attitude about Antioch. Was it this individual who wound up latching onto the University in order to keep his job? Only he knows. But I can also not rule out the possibility that the University was orchestrating such comments and leaking them to obviously hostile sources to advance its own agenda. I share that vignette to underscore that Antioch College never should have created Antioch University (and I can say that with all due objectivity, since technically it is the "university" which issued my bachelors' degree), and will never survive as a part of it.
The Mets blew it again...and for good measure, the Jets managed to do quite much the same thing. I suppose I can never stop being loyal to the colors and uniform. But the Wilpons are quite another thing. I have no plans to go crawling over others to Citi Field next year. If Jeff W. can say that after signing Santana, they "underachieved," I can give that statement about as much credit as one would give to so many of those uttered by our (ahhhhhh!) former President.
This was good. I missed doing this. Look forward to writing more.
Yes, I can. :}
The Brahmin
Thursday, May 8, 2008
My e-mail to "Bill Clinton"
In light of the disappointing results in North Carolina and Indiana, I thought the time had come
to assess the inevitable - of who will win the nomination, and what November result it would
augur. I found no better forum to express these thoughts than in reply to yet another
fundraising appeal sent from "Bill Clinton" which I found in my e-mail box today:
to assess the inevitable - of who will win the nomination, and what November result it would
augur. I found no better forum to express these thoughts than in reply to yet another
fundraising appeal sent from "Bill Clinton" which I found in my e-mail box today:
I realize that Bill Clinton won't be reading this message and that what I write will not be highlighted in any future fundraising effort. But to whoever is reading this, let me make a couple of candid points:
I supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries because of the two remaining Democratic candidates I believed she was the only one who could mount a winning November campaign. To be sure, my assessment has not changed, and I am bitterly disappointed that my party has chosen slogans over substance and is all but certain to place the nomination in the hands of someone who is likely to lose everywhere except for Vermont and D.C. in November.
Nevertheless, assuming my assessment is correct, I want people like Bill and Hillary Clinton to be viable contributors to an effort to revitalize our party from what is likely to be the ash heap of a potential McCain landslide. I want our party to thoughtfully and intelligently scrutinize itself for failing to scrutinize Mr. Obama and to fall into the cesspool of identity politics that is likely to doom our chances in November, barring a total economic collapse which I, as a patriot before being a partisan, do not want to see. If Bill and Hillary Clinton see the wisdom of gracefully ceding the spotlight, they will have every right to remind our fellow Democrats of their potential mistake at the appropriate time. If they do not, then they will be deemed as "part of the problem."
Regrettably, the Democratic Party now faces one of two instruments of its own doom for 2008: A McGovern/Mondale type of electoral wipeout, or self-destruction by its own infighting. We as a party have shown ourselves to recover from the former; we will not revive so easily in the aftermath of the latter.
Senator Clinton, I applaud you for having put up the fight. But you are also my Senator, and I want you to be effective in that role - both in working for New York and in working to make our party competitive again. You seriously damage your ability to complete both tasks by keeping up this futile cause...to say nothing of your chances of returning to the arena in 2012 where you could easily champion yourself as both a "stateswoman" and visionary to lead us back from the wilderness. I beg you to consider these consequences.
Sincerely,
[The Brahmin]
Monday, May 5, 2008
Returning...at Random
It's been a while, so a few random musings:
The Obama/Jeremiah Wright thing:
I think I'll have to eschew false modesty and say that the Wright thing exposes the concerns I've had about him - or perhaps moreso - his cult following - all along. It's not that I think particularly less of him because of Wright, but because his befuddled response to the whole thing underscores what I thought about him all along. McCain has a racist, anti-Catholic preacher backing him...Obama says nothing. Even when McCain "denounced" Bill Cunningham for the Hussein hiss a few months ago, he lied about having never met him before. Obama says nothing.
I continue to clash with Obama supporters - and a few of them are starting to acknowledge that it wasn't exactly Carvillian strategy to label every Democrat who opposed him (or simply wouldn't support him) as "racist." The chickens are coming home...oh, did I say that?
In one conversation I pointed out that I do not think Obama will carry anything other than Vermont, while not mentioning that I had offered such a prognostication on this blog. Let me clarify or amend. Obama will win D.C. and Vermont. That's six electoral votes in the kitty. FEWER than McGovern or Mondale.
The Ranger season ended yesterday with an overtime loss in Pittsburgh. I eat my words (not uttered here) that I thought it was a break they did not draw Montreal in the second round. The Penguins are a very talented team and they will face Detroit in the Finals, imho. Detroit and Pittsburgh. 1985. I spent the spring and summer in those two cities, respectively, on two coops for my now officially defunct alma mater, Antioch College. Detroit was (and is) unsafe to the point where you can't walk half a block. Not surprisingly, it is impossible to get around without your own set of wheels. It has a large drug scene and a rather affected, closed-minded intelligentsia. Pittsburgh's people are the friendliest of all U.S. city dwellers in the country. It is manageable to get around. Good nightlife. I saw Pittsburghers in stark relief to their cross-state citizens from Philly during my largely miserable 15 months in State College, Pennsylvania some years after I lived in Pittsburgh. Despite the tough series loss, I know who I will be rooting for in both the Eastern Conference and Stanley Cup finals.
Speaking of the Rangers. My trip to Scotland is less than 3 weeks away. Toward the end of the run I will be stopping off in Glasgow. Now what to do. A rivalry which apparently makes Crankees/Red Sux look like a somewhat heated game of third grade marbles is that of the "Old Firm" - Rangers and Celtic, both football (soccer) clubs based in Glasgow. Now, I thought it might be a cool thing to visit pubs which cater to the fans of each respective team. Visiting the Rangers pub, I would wear my New York Rangers cap and claim some sort of "honorary supporter" status. However, half my ancestry is that which constitutes the core base of Celtic support - this would be mentioned in the Celtic pub. No protestant blood here.
However, one surfs the web and finds just ugly sectarian bigotry on both sides. Rangers' fight song is "Billy Boys":
Hullo! Hullo!
We are the Billy Boys!
Hullo! Hullo!
You'll know us by our noise!
We're up to our knees in Fenian blood,
Surrender or you'll die!
We are the Brigton Billy Boys!
Celtic players also wear pictures of the Pope underneath their jerseys, apparently.
My own personal conclusion, aside from considerations of personal safety, is to give this "rivalry" no endorsement at all and to visit neutral pubs only.
I saw "Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay" the other night. It's the kind of flick you have to be in a silly mood to like, and one you'd love if you smoked a lot of pot beforehand - in other words, probably one I'd love before I became an officer of the Courts.
In today's New York Times Forest City Ratner has been connected to a "flip flop" of a certain Yonkers councilwoman from "no" to "yes" on one of its nefarious land grabs up there. Hurrah. Mr. Prosecutor, please board Metro North, then take a downtown 4 or 5 from Grand Central to Borough Hall and stay there until you find me some heads to scalp from Community Board 2, the City Council and (especially) Farty Marty Markowitz for similar offenses.
We're up to our knees in No-Fault files,
Must bill or we will die!
We are the Brooklyn Brahmin Boys!
The Obama/Jeremiah Wright thing:
I think I'll have to eschew false modesty and say that the Wright thing exposes the concerns I've had about him - or perhaps moreso - his cult following - all along. It's not that I think particularly less of him because of Wright, but because his befuddled response to the whole thing underscores what I thought about him all along. McCain has a racist, anti-Catholic preacher backing him...Obama says nothing. Even when McCain "denounced" Bill Cunningham for the Hussein hiss a few months ago, he lied about having never met him before. Obama says nothing.
I continue to clash with Obama supporters - and a few of them are starting to acknowledge that it wasn't exactly Carvillian strategy to label every Democrat who opposed him (or simply wouldn't support him) as "racist." The chickens are coming home...oh, did I say that?
In one conversation I pointed out that I do not think Obama will carry anything other than Vermont, while not mentioning that I had offered such a prognostication on this blog. Let me clarify or amend. Obama will win D.C. and Vermont. That's six electoral votes in the kitty. FEWER than McGovern or Mondale.
The Ranger season ended yesterday with an overtime loss in Pittsburgh. I eat my words (not uttered here) that I thought it was a break they did not draw Montreal in the second round. The Penguins are a very talented team and they will face Detroit in the Finals, imho. Detroit and Pittsburgh. 1985. I spent the spring and summer in those two cities, respectively, on two coops for my now officially defunct alma mater, Antioch College. Detroit was (and is) unsafe to the point where you can't walk half a block. Not surprisingly, it is impossible to get around without your own set of wheels. It has a large drug scene and a rather affected, closed-minded intelligentsia. Pittsburgh's people are the friendliest of all U.S. city dwellers in the country. It is manageable to get around. Good nightlife. I saw Pittsburghers in stark relief to their cross-state citizens from Philly during my largely miserable 15 months in State College, Pennsylvania some years after I lived in Pittsburgh. Despite the tough series loss, I know who I will be rooting for in both the Eastern Conference and Stanley Cup finals.
Speaking of the Rangers. My trip to Scotland is less than 3 weeks away. Toward the end of the run I will be stopping off in Glasgow. Now what to do. A rivalry which apparently makes Crankees/Red Sux look like a somewhat heated game of third grade marbles is that of the "Old Firm" - Rangers and Celtic, both football (soccer) clubs based in Glasgow. Now, I thought it might be a cool thing to visit pubs which cater to the fans of each respective team. Visiting the Rangers pub, I would wear my New York Rangers cap and claim some sort of "honorary supporter" status. However, half my ancestry is that which constitutes the core base of Celtic support - this would be mentioned in the Celtic pub. No protestant blood here.
However, one surfs the web and finds just ugly sectarian bigotry on both sides. Rangers' fight song is "Billy Boys":
Hullo! Hullo!
We are the Billy Boys!
Hullo! Hullo!
You'll know us by our noise!
We're up to our knees in Fenian blood,
Surrender or you'll die!
We are the Brigton Billy Boys!
Celtic players also wear pictures of the Pope underneath their jerseys, apparently.
My own personal conclusion, aside from considerations of personal safety, is to give this "rivalry" no endorsement at all and to visit neutral pubs only.
I saw "Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay" the other night. It's the kind of flick you have to be in a silly mood to like, and one you'd love if you smoked a lot of pot beforehand - in other words, probably one I'd love before I became an officer of the Courts.
In today's New York Times Forest City Ratner has been connected to a "flip flop" of a certain Yonkers councilwoman from "no" to "yes" on one of its nefarious land grabs up there. Hurrah. Mr. Prosecutor, please board Metro North, then take a downtown 4 or 5 from Grand Central to Borough Hall and stay there until you find me some heads to scalp from Community Board 2, the City Council and (especially) Farty Marty Markowitz for similar offenses.
We're up to our knees in No-Fault files,
Must bill or we will die!
We are the Brooklyn Brahmin Boys!
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Obama's speech
I've had a few thoughts spinning around about the Obama speech last week and they generally reduce themselves to the maxim that it was very good, although it does not ease my cynicism about him being nothing more than a very new, very slick model of a "genuine" politician who is still a politician; however, another blog I glanced at earlier today compels me to put this foot forward:
A blog by an African American woman commenting on interracial dating zeroed in on the notion of Caucasian men dating black women. One of the more outrageous points she made was that white men date black women because they want to go out with women who they once "enslaved" because they either (a) like to feel like they're in control or (b) they feel inadequate around their own and because of their low self-esteem, fall back on someone "beneath" them.
She who is new to the Brahmin's life happens to be a woman of color. As of now, she doesn't know about this blog, as I suspect I don't know skillions of things about her life...including the possibility that she might have her own blog. And as our fledgling relationship goes forward, I reflect privately about what aspects of my life I choose to "unpeel" for her as a means of extending trust and sharing soul -- telling her I have this blog really isn't high on the list.
One of the things I liked about Obama's speech was his pointing out both the roots of black "anger" as well as the sources of white "resentment" - specifically citing the fact that so many whites feel that they should not be made to atone for the sins of people who have a common skin color but absolutely no ancestry.
So exactly who have I "enslaved"? I'm the descendant of Jewish Ukranian serfs and Irish peasants. And you bet, there are statements relatives on both sides made about African Americans that would make Mr. Obama (and no doubt, my current better half) "cringe." But my "slave" is a college graduate who works in corporate management. I think I could have done better living out that supposed fantasy...beginning with having bloodlines to the Thurmond family that nature denied me.
The last "significant" significant other I had was white as the driven snow with piercing blue eyes to match--if you pressed your ear to the dens of certain factions within her family, you'd hear whispers of anti-Semitism. And there was no urging for jungle fever when that ended. Actually, from a professional standpoint, my current one is doing better than the last one.
Lastly, why does a black woman need to categorize herself as "beneath" another class of people? Professional victimization. Something I saw all too well at my alma mater. Kudos to Obama for calling it out. And shame on those who seem, perhaps, to have so much emptiness in their own love lives so as to spew shallow pablum about the love lives of others.
The Brahmin
A blog by an African American woman commenting on interracial dating zeroed in on the notion of Caucasian men dating black women. One of the more outrageous points she made was that white men date black women because they want to go out with women who they once "enslaved" because they either (a) like to feel like they're in control or (b) they feel inadequate around their own and because of their low self-esteem, fall back on someone "beneath" them.
She who is new to the Brahmin's life happens to be a woman of color. As of now, she doesn't know about this blog, as I suspect I don't know skillions of things about her life...including the possibility that she might have her own blog. And as our fledgling relationship goes forward, I reflect privately about what aspects of my life I choose to "unpeel" for her as a means of extending trust and sharing soul -- telling her I have this blog really isn't high on the list.
One of the things I liked about Obama's speech was his pointing out both the roots of black "anger" as well as the sources of white "resentment" - specifically citing the fact that so many whites feel that they should not be made to atone for the sins of people who have a common skin color but absolutely no ancestry.
So exactly who have I "enslaved"? I'm the descendant of Jewish Ukranian serfs and Irish peasants. And you bet, there are statements relatives on both sides made about African Americans that would make Mr. Obama (and no doubt, my current better half) "cringe." But my "slave" is a college graduate who works in corporate management. I think I could have done better living out that supposed fantasy...beginning with having bloodlines to the Thurmond family that nature denied me.
The last "significant" significant other I had was white as the driven snow with piercing blue eyes to match--if you pressed your ear to the dens of certain factions within her family, you'd hear whispers of anti-Semitism. And there was no urging for jungle fever when that ended. Actually, from a professional standpoint, my current one is doing better than the last one.
Lastly, why does a black woman need to categorize herself as "beneath" another class of people? Professional victimization. Something I saw all too well at my alma mater. Kudos to Obama for calling it out. And shame on those who seem, perhaps, to have so much emptiness in their own love lives so as to spew shallow pablum about the love lives of others.
The Brahmin
Hypocrisy makes Fine Whine
A columnist for the supermarket rag, The Park Slope Courier who, as I mentioned in passing previously, manages to write for a Brooklyn publication while living in Florida. Could be that his brand of Goebbels-style pro-Republican propaganda doesn't have enough adherents in Brooklyn so that the powers that be who publish the paper could find someone local to write it, but he (or the paper) more than make up for it since he signs off his article every time by identifying himself by what appears to be an e-mail address but which is obviously bogus. I tried responding to one or more of his columns but the e-mail bounced each time.
Anyway, in his latest missive (typically dominated by his stalker-like obsession with Hillary Clinton, who he has savaged for such pressing global issues of the day as to what baseball team she supports), he writes as follows: "I don’t drink at all nor do I talk about alcoholic beverages. At the least I must be average."
That got me thinking. Yes, holding out a phony e-mail address to delude those not inclined to speak out that one welcomes open dialogue doesn't stop the rest of us from thinking.
Here's the same columnist on 12.28.06:
"I’ve been looking back at my notes for 2006 and I found that, besides words, we did a lot of talking with our hands. For example, were still shaking our fist at France and telling them where they can stick their fancy wines and expensive perfumes."
Same columnist in November 2006:
I’ve been attending these wine tasting gatherings for many years and I can recall the days, not that long ago, when the vino inventory aboard cruise ships consisted mostly of French wines. Sure there were a few wines from Italy, some of the many wines from California, and a bit of various brands from a handful of scattered countries here and there. But mostly, the liquid grapes aboard the vessels were from France. Times have changed. The Star Princess, a British cruise ship, boasts an inventory of exactly one hundred different white, red, blush, sparkling and dessert wines. The Wine waiters distributed a printout and I took the time to count how many and where they are from. How many do you think were French? Half? A quarter? Nope. Of the one hundred different brands and varieties only fifteen were French. The great majority of the people aboard the Star were Americans and I think this is a statement on the subject of how our countrymen feel about supporting the French.
To paraphrase his signature line:
I am Brooklyn Brahmin and I drink. I talk about drinking. I don't lie about it. I really live in Brooklyn. And while I don't care to leave an email address out there in the public domain, if I chose to do so it would be a legit one.
Anyway, in his latest missive (typically dominated by his stalker-like obsession with Hillary Clinton, who he has savaged for such pressing global issues of the day as to what baseball team she supports), he writes as follows: "I don’t drink at all nor do I talk about alcoholic beverages. At the least I must be average."
That got me thinking. Yes, holding out a phony e-mail address to delude those not inclined to speak out that one welcomes open dialogue doesn't stop the rest of us from thinking.
Here's the same columnist on 12.28.06:
"I’ve been looking back at my notes for 2006 and I found that, besides words, we did a lot of talking with our hands. For example, were still shaking our fist at France and telling them where they can stick their fancy wines and expensive perfumes."
OK, so you talk about booze. Now, never having been out for a pop with this man (which would be hard, since I've never been in Florida and have no idea whether this man's ever been to Brooklyn, though he obviously knows a right-wing newspaper publisher here), I couldn't possibly question his veracity as to his being teetotal.
Er...could I?
Same columnist in November 2006:
I’ve been attending these wine tasting gatherings for many years and I can recall the days, not that long ago, when the vino inventory aboard cruise ships consisted mostly of French wines. Sure there were a few wines from Italy, some of the many wines from California, and a bit of various brands from a handful of scattered countries here and there. But mostly, the liquid grapes aboard the vessels were from France. Times have changed. The Star Princess, a British cruise ship, boasts an inventory of exactly one hundred different white, red, blush, sparkling and dessert wines. The Wine waiters distributed a printout and I took the time to count how many and where they are from. How many do you think were French? Half? A quarter? Nope. Of the one hundred different brands and varieties only fifteen were French. The great majority of the people aboard the Star were Americans and I think this is a statement on the subject of how our countrymen feel about supporting the French.
To paraphrase his signature line:
I am Brooklyn Brahmin and I drink. I talk about drinking. I don't lie about it. I really live in Brooklyn. And while I don't care to leave an email address out there in the public domain, if I chose to do so it would be a legit one.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Splitsville for Spitzer
A couple of thoughts on the Spitzer H-bomb today:
1. He not only has to resign, but he probably will, notwithstanding the fact that he did not do so today. Undoubtedly, he is using resignation as a bargaining chip to stay out of jail or at the very least wind up at a Club Fed instead of Leavenworth.
2. To those typically in ideological alignment with the Brahmin who might be tempted to cite David Vitter or Larry "Wide Stance" Craig, I say, yeah, both should have resigned. To reduce this to simple partisan point-notching, we can say (hopefully) Spitzer did the right thing; the others did not.
3. David Paterson is on the precipice of further cementing a remarkably charmed political career. Born legally blind, he lucked into Dinkins' rise to power in the mid to late '80's, then squeezed into the State Senate on the death of an incumbent; successfully knocked off the Minority Leader (Marty Connor of the Heights, who I met more than once at Eamonn Doran on Montague Street), and now is about to reach Cloud 9 in Albany...thanks to "Client 9."
4. No one had a shinier and more of a crusading pro-reform reputation as an elected official than Eliot Spitzer. It underscores what this business does to people. Does this mean Barack Obama was partaking in the world's oldest profession across state lines? No, but one has to wonder about this Rezko thing a bit more. That might be unfair, but it does give at least the amateur political class (to which I supposedly belong) a very big pause about the people we follow.
1. He not only has to resign, but he probably will, notwithstanding the fact that he did not do so today. Undoubtedly, he is using resignation as a bargaining chip to stay out of jail or at the very least wind up at a Club Fed instead of Leavenworth.
2. To those typically in ideological alignment with the Brahmin who might be tempted to cite David Vitter or Larry "Wide Stance" Craig, I say, yeah, both should have resigned. To reduce this to simple partisan point-notching, we can say (hopefully) Spitzer did the right thing; the others did not.
3. David Paterson is on the precipice of further cementing a remarkably charmed political career. Born legally blind, he lucked into Dinkins' rise to power in the mid to late '80's, then squeezed into the State Senate on the death of an incumbent; successfully knocked off the Minority Leader (Marty Connor of the Heights, who I met more than once at Eamonn Doran on Montague Street), and now is about to reach Cloud 9 in Albany...thanks to "Client 9."
4. No one had a shinier and more of a crusading pro-reform reputation as an elected official than Eliot Spitzer. It underscores what this business does to people. Does this mean Barack Obama was partaking in the world's oldest profession across state lines? No, but one has to wonder about this Rezko thing a bit more. That might be unfair, but it does give at least the amateur political class (to which I supposedly belong) a very big pause about the people we follow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)