just a note...

i also got a little caught up in "life" and forgot to keep up with the times. i'll post something for real tomorrow, but i just had to mention this now so you can be prepared later when i go crazy.

the cubs have not won the world series since 1908. that means if they win this year, they'll slide in just under a century of losing. i shouldn't have to tell you this, but come on. root for the cubs this year. wear a chicago t-shirt if you've got one. if you're feeling extra-friendly, break the legs of some potential threats out there. just don't tell the police i sent you.

dear world

Babies are not puppies. Puppies are not toys.
Take from that what you will.

p.s. I know I have yet to write an official for-reals post, work has been busy. I'mma try to have something up soonly.

the jena 6

it seems like no one's really giving the whole background story on the jena 6, even though everyone is keeping up with what's happening now. so just in case you don't want to read the story in Jena's paper like i did (and believe me, you don't) here's a little video clip that gives a pretty good basic summary:

oh no please, don't get up...

so yesterday was the big march in Jena protesting the injustice of the whole Jena 6 fiasco. Today, surfing my new favorite blogs, I came across a few very interesting posts that I thought were worth sharing...

the field negro posted yesterday, following on the heels of good ol' pam, to question the silence on a lot of the major progressive blogs when it came to the Jena 6 case. To be honest, I hadn't even really thought about it until those two posts pointed it out to me, and then I was mad embarassed that I hadn't. Recently I've kind of been in the mindset that its not such a terrible thing that all the major news outlets are shitty as hell, because hey, we've got the blogosphere so now it doesn't matter what fox news reports. but that's a little stupid, isn't it? i mean don't get me wrong, blogging is cool, and blogs are way more fun to read than the new york times. but it seems like we run into all the same problems in the blogosphere as we do everywhere else. things like Jena 6 get swept quietly under the carpet. its kind of fucked up, no?

anyways, just a friendly reminder that racism is still everywhere. kudos to everyone who made it down to Jena for the march. and kudos to all the bloggers who have been keeping up with the case. when i think about how many people jumped up to defend the lacrosse team during the Duke rape case, and how much publicity THAT got... well all i'm saying is its a lot more clear that the Jena 6 are innocent. but i'm not seeing a media frenzy on the horizon. :-/

black tie means white lady

sometimes i hear things about harvard that make me feel amazed i came out of that place alive. this is one such time.

a friend pointed this posting on craigslist out to me (in case the link goes dead, here it is):

Harvard senior seeking female companion - 22

My final club has a reunion this fall, and my relationship of two years ended disastrously earlier this summer. I have an invitation for myself plus one, and am willing to show you a great time. It is a private party, in an extremely classy setting. There is no real way to describe how ornate the club is, but I guarantee that it will be the most upscale experience of your life. Think back to your high school prom, take away the terrible music, and multiply the experience by ten.

You must be white, 5'6" - 5'9", young, blonde, attractive, and intelligent. You must be in school, preferably Tufts or Wellesley but BU and BC are acceptable (definitely not MIT).

You should be able to hold a conversation, know when to be quiet, and polite in all your behavior. I have seen unruly guests embarrass members before, and I hope this won't be a problem. This event is black-tie, and I am willing to procure an evening gown for you.

I hate to sound so harsh, but I have expectations to live up to. No Black, Asian, overweight, or unattractive women please. Ages 18-22 only.

Picture required.

so... what to say, what to say?

i mean this can't be only a harvard problem, and i'm not trying to say it is, but i WILL say that harvard was the first and thus far only place I have ever had to live in which you are surrounded by the kind of people who think this kind of thing is in any way ok. to begin with, you should already be ashamed of yourself for being a member of a final club - for those readers who don't know, they're all-male, predominantly white (no matter what anyone might try to tell you) remnants of those glory days when harvard didn't let in poors, women, or minorities. so you're in this club that just promotes all kinds of inequality and throws parties which are frankly often unsafe for women, and you're so fucking pleased with yourself for being a part of that fucked-up world that you'll do anything to stay in it, even solicit an "appropriate" date off of craigslist in that shameless way only the most privileged of assholes could ever think is ok.

i don't even want to touch how offensive the qualifications are in this guy's mind for who makes a "classy" date to a black tie event. i mean i guess the sad thing is its true. remember that scene in borat when he brings a pile of shit to the table and they're all like, "oh he's foreign he doesn't understand," and then he brings a black woman to the table and the party's over? yup. they probably all went to harvard. and hopefully you didn't miss the part where he said you need to know how to be a nice quiet woman. ugh. still want YOUR kid to get an ivy league "education?"

those gay elephants are stampeding again

the republican party just can't get enough.

the latest news is that while our favorite secretary of state and most endearing black woman, condoleezza rice, is "not gay," she's not doing a super job of appearing that way.

yes, condi has a 'very good friend.' i'm shocked. mainly because...well look at her.



ok cheap shot. but seriously, folks. i mean i'm not gonna say the secretary of state is a lesbian, because then i'd be trying to make a fact out of something that's more like a firm belief. but i will say i've always had my suspicions. and i'll further say that at the rate these people are going, they're going to have to paint that little elephant mascot in rainbows and give him a tiny dog in a purse. and that will just look awkward on the website, don't you think?

i COULD ask you a serious question like "do you think condi is gay" or "do you think she'll come out" or "what would that mean for the republican party," but i think instead i'll leave you to ponder this question, and you go ahead and let me know what you think:

if, hypothetically, condi WERE to be a lesbian, do you think she's had a secret fling with ann coulter? what would that be like?

saving the barbarians from themselves, and other fun ways to spend my tax dollars

I’m sick of david brooks.

Now I don’t usually read brooks’s columns in the new york times, partly because he’s a terrible columnist, partly because he makes me angry, and partly because of that whole “pay more money” times select bullshit that tries to deny you half the articles online. But as long as the new york times hasn’t figured out yet that I’m not paying to read these articles, I occasionally venture into the land of timesselect just to see what’s going on. Today I made the mistake of reading david brooks’s article, “The Road to Partition.” Clever title. Not. Anyways,

For those of you who don’t have times select, I’ll just copy-paste the body of the article for you to read:

Op-Ed Columnist
TimesSelect The Road to Partition

By DAVID BROOKS
Published: September 11, 2007

Zealots don’t laugh when elevators break. Shatha al-Musawi did laugh. She smiled at the camera crew that was following her to her Baghdad office, and she sighed, “We’ll have to take the stairs.”

Thoughts of Musawi ran through my head as I watched David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker testify yesterday. Musawi was the subject of a profile by Damien Cave that ran on the front page of The Times a few weeks ago, and a Web cast on The Times’s Web site by Damien Cave and Diana Oliva Cave.

Musawi is a moderate Shiite member of the Iraqi Parliament who earned a university degree after her children grew up. She speaks thoughtfully and gently, but there is a wall in her mind separating Sunnis from Shiites, a wall that was erected during Saddam’s persecution and that has been fortified by the violence since. For her, the conflict with the Sunnis is not over oil; it’s a matter of honor. She wants them to accept historical guilt and grant Shiites moral supremacy.

As she said in the Web cast: “If they come and apologize to victims, if they admitted their faults and asked for forgiveness, maybe we can forget about it. But now with this continuous killing and continuous crimes against us, how could we? How could we?”

This is how many Palestinians and Israelis talk. When conflicts become struggles for moral capitulation, they take forever to end.

Musawi’s words are just one more piece of evidence that Iraq will not be put together the way it was. It’s one more piece of evidence that America’s best course is not to reunify Iraq, but simply to inhibit the violence as Iraqis feel their own way to partition.

What we’re really trying to build, in other words, is a road to partition. We’re trying to build a pathway to separation that involves the sort of low-intensity civil war that Iraq is enduring right now. We’re trying to prevent a pathway that is even worse — a high-intensity genocide.

As I was watching yesterday’s hearings, I was thinking of the sensible yet sectarian Musawi. How many American lives is it worth to save those like her? Is it realistic to think U.S. troops can help Iraqis move on that less barbaric path?

If you look around, you see this is the wrong time to give up hope, for circumstances in Iraq are better than they were in the spring.

First, there’s clearer evidence than ever that U.S. forces can inhibit violence. Despite all the debates over the data, violence over all is on the decline. In neighborhoods where 30 and 40 bodies used to show up a night, now only one or two do. After rising in 2006, violent civilian deaths of all kinds are down 45 percent since December.

Second, the worst of the ethnic cleansing may be over. For years, Shiites and Sunnis have been purging each other from towns and neighborhoods. That ugly process may be nearing its completion, and stabilization may be possible. As Damien Cave and Stephen Farrell wrote in The Times last Sunday, “Iraq’s mixed neighborhoods are sliding toward extinction.”

Third, the tribal revolt against extremism is real and growing. Few anticipated it. Few predicted that it would spread from Anbar to Diyala to Salahaddin and beyond. But it has, and U.S. troops are essential to its success.

Fourth, U.S. commanders finally have a realistic definition of their mission. We’re not trying to determine the future shape of Iraq, Petraeus said yesterday. We’re just trying to ensure that Iraqi sects compete for power in less violent ways.

Fifth, American diplomats are no longer waiting for Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. Yesterday Crocker made some dubious assertions about Iraqi elites discovering the virtues of power-sharing. But the concrete parts of Crocker’s efforts do not require those virtues. They involve bulking up municipal governments and disbursing money from Baghdad.

What we have then, is a confluence of events, a series of processes that weren’t happening four months ago. Obviously, these processes are tenuous. But, given the consequences, it would be foolish to give up now. It would be foolish to weaken U.S. support for the sane sectarians just when they are striving to create a segregated yet inhabitable Iraq.

Shatha al-Musawi is one of those Iraqis unwilling to reconcile. In that way, she’s part of the problem. But she doesn’t want to die in some cataclysmic civil war. There may come a time when the U.S. can do nothing for her. But with all that is happening, that time is not now.

Anyways, I have a couple of things to point out really quick about why this man needs to just get fired and go back to school.

1 – he opens the article by trying to shock you with the news that a “zealot” might have a sense of humor. Way to reinforce stereotypes and closemindedness. I’m not impressed. No style points to you.

2 – he seems to think that the concept of a “wall in the mind” separating one group of people from another is some kind of big news. He’s all shocked that this woman seems smart and has one such “wall.” Well david, I’m no genius but is it possible you’ve got a couple of those walls up too? From what I’ve read of yours in the past, I’d say there are some pretty thick walls separating you from oh, say, black people. And women. The difference between you and the woman in the article: she, apparently, is thoughtful.

3 – he actually uses the word “barbaric” in reference to Iraqis. That’s not even bad journalism, that’s being a bad human. Well, it’s a little of both. And just a few sentences earlier he suggests that American lives are more valuable than the lives of these apparent “barbarians” with the walls in their minds.

4 – he uses the phrase “the worst of the ethnic cleansing may be over.” Again, no expert, but is it possible that sentence doesn’t make a whole lot of sense? “hey doc, what’s the news?” “oh well the bad news is you’re still gonna die. But the good news is, the worst of the terminal illness is over. I can probably go home and watch some tv while you finish up here yourself.”

5 – amidst all that bullshit, he manages to make a note of something that actually IS very interesting, and then completely ignore it. In the fourth paragraph of the article he quotes Shatha al-Musawi as saying, “If they come and apologize to victims, if they admitted their faults and asked for forgiveness, maybe we can forget about it. But now with this continuous killing and continuous crimes against us, how could we? How could we?”

Brooks then moves on, dismissing this as basically idiotic. Again, no expert, but if you’re aiming for reconciliation, isn’t it maybe a good idea to listen to what people say would help them forgive, rather than deciding they’re stupid and sending for more troops? You can’t beat someone into forgetfulness. But I think history has shown there are a lot of things societies CAN do to heal after violence. And “continued occupation by American troops” has never really been one of those.

Sigh. What really bothers me is the fact that a lot of people seem to share Brooks’s point of view, and more to the point, don’t seem to find any problems at all with any of the things I just mentioned above. That’s probably the reason he still has a job when his column is a pile of culturally insensitive, shallow, conservative shit. And that makes me pretty sad. I get that the new york times needs a conservative columnist, but I don’t think they’re doing anyone any favors by employing one who sucks at his job. I guess I wouldn’t want to see a conservative columnist who actually argued his point effectively, but I mean, you’d think the new york times would want to see that. Wouldn’t you?

I’m sick of david brooks.

Now I don’t usually read brooks’s columns in the new york times, partly because he’s a terrible columnist, partly because he makes me angry, and partly because of that whole “pay more money” times select bullshit that tries to deny you half the articles online. But as long as the new york times hasn’t figured out yet that I’m not paying to read these articles, I occasionally venture into the land of timesselect just to see what’s going on. Today I made the mistake of reading david brooks’s article, “The Road to Partition.” Clever title. Not. Anyways,

For those of you who don’t have times select, I’ll just copy-paste the body of the article for you to read:

Op-Ed Columnist
TimesSelect The Road to Partition

By DAVID BROOKS
Published: September 11, 2007

Zealots don’t laugh when elevators break. Shatha al-Musawi did laugh. She smiled at the camera crew that was following her to her Baghdad office, and she sighed, “We’ll have to take the stairs.”

Thoughts of Musawi ran through my head as I watched David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker testify yesterday. Musawi was the subject of a profile by Damien Cave that ran on the front page of The Times a few weeks ago, and a Web cast on The Times’s Web site by Damien Cave and Diana Oliva Cave.

Musawi is a moderate Shiite member of the Iraqi Parliament who earned a university degree after her children grew up. She speaks thoughtfully and gently, but there is a wall in her mind separating Sunnis from Shiites, a wall that was erected during Saddam’s persecution and that has been fortified by the violence since. For her, the conflict with the Sunnis is not over oil; it’s a matter of honor. She wants them to accept historical guilt and grant Shiites moral supremacy.

As she said in the Web cast: “If they come and apologize to victims, if they admitted their faults and asked for forgiveness, maybe we can forget about it. But now with this continuous killing and continuous crimes against us, how could we? How could we?”

This is how many Palestinians and Israelis talk. When conflicts become struggles for moral capitulation, they take forever to end.

Musawi’s words are just one more piece of evidence that Iraq will not be put together the way it was. It’s one more piece of evidence that America’s best course is not to reunify Iraq, but simply to inhibit the violence as Iraqis feel their own way to partition.

What we’re really trying to build, in other words, is a road to partition. We’re trying to build a pathway to separation that involves the sort of low-intensity civil war that Iraq is enduring right now. We’re trying to prevent a pathway that is even worse — a high-intensity genocide.

As I was watching yesterday’s hearings, I was thinking of the sensible yet sectarian Musawi. How many American lives is it worth to save those like her? Is it realistic to think U.S. troops can help Iraqis move on that less barbaric path?

If you look around, you see this is the wrong time to give up hope, for circumstances in Iraq are better than they were in the spring.

First, there’s clearer evidence than ever that U.S. forces can inhibit violence. Despite all the debates over the data, violence over all is on the decline. In neighborhoods where 30 and 40 bodies used to show up a night, now only one or two do. After rising in 2006, violent civilian deaths of all kinds are down 45 percent since December.

Second, the worst of the ethnic cleansing may be over. For years, Shiites and Sunnis have been purging each other from towns and neighborhoods. That ugly process may be nearing its completion, and stabilization may be possible. As Damien Cave and Stephen Farrell wrote in The Times last Sunday, “Iraq’s mixed neighborhoods are sliding toward extinction.”

Third, the tribal revolt against extremism is real and growing. Few anticipated it. Few predicted that it would spread from Anbar to Diyala to Salahaddin and beyond. But it has, and U.S. troops are essential to its success.

Fourth, U.S. commanders finally have a realistic definition of their mission. We’re not trying to determine the future shape of Iraq, Petraeus said yesterday. We’re just trying to ensure that Iraqi sects compete for power in less violent ways.

Fifth, American diplomats are no longer waiting for Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. Yesterday Crocker made some dubious assertions about Iraqi elites discovering the virtues of power-sharing. But the concrete parts of Crocker’s efforts do not require those virtues. They involve bulking up municipal governments and disbursing money from Baghdad.

What we have then, is a confluence of events, a series of processes that weren’t happening four months ago. Obviously, these processes are tenuous. But, given the consequences, it would be foolish to give up now. It would be foolish to weaken U.S. support for the sane sectarians just when they are striving to create a segregated yet inhabitable Iraq.

Shatha al-Musawi is one of those Iraqis unwilling to reconcile. In that way, she’s part of the problem. But she doesn’t want to die in some cataclysmic civil war. There may come a time when the U.S. can do nothing for her. But with all that is happening, that time is not now.

Anyways, I have a couple of things to point out really quick about why this man needs to just get fired and go back to school.

1 – he opens the article by trying to shock you with the news that a “zealot” might have a sense of humor. Way to reinforce stereotypes and closemindedness. I’m not impressed. No style points to you.

2 – he seems to think that the concept of a “wall in the mind” separating one group of people from another is some kind of big news. He’s all shocked that this woman seems smart and has one such “wall.” Well david, I’m no genius but is it possible you’ve got a couple of those walls up too? From what I’ve read of yours in the past, I’d say there are some pretty thick walls separating you from oh, say, black people. And women. The difference between you and the woman in the article: she, apparently, is thoughtful.

3 – he actually uses the word “barbaric” in reference to Iraqis. That’s not even bad journalism, that’s being a bad human. Well, it’s a little of both. And just a few sentences earlier he suggests that American lives are more valuable than the lives of these apparent “barbarians” with the walls in their minds.

4 – he uses the phrase “the worst of the ethnic cleansing may be over.” Again, no expert, but is it possible that sentence doesn’t make a whole lot of sense? “hey doc, what’s the news?” “oh well the bad news is you’re still gonna die. But the good news is, the worst of the terminal illness is over. I can probably go home and watch some tv while you finish up here yourself.”

5 – amidst all that bullshit, he manages to make a note of something that actually IS very interesting, and then completely ignore it. In the fourth paragraph of the article he quotes Shatha al-Musawi as saying, “If they come and apologize to victims, if they admitted their faults and asked for forgiveness, maybe we can forget about it. But now with this continuous killing and continuous crimes against us, how could we? How could we?”

Brooks then moves on, dismissing this as basically idiotic. Again, no expert, but if you’re aiming for reconciliation, isn’t it maybe a good idea to listen to what people say would help them forgive, rather than deciding they’re stupid and sending for more troops? You can’t beat someone into forgetfulness. But I think history has shown there are a lot of things societies CAN do to heal after violence. And “continued occupation by American troops” has never really been one of those.
Sigh. What really bothers me is the fact that a lot of people seem to share Brooks’s point of view, and more to the point, don’t seem to find any problems at all with any of the things I just mentioned above. That’s probably the reason he still has a job when his column is a pile of culturally insensitive, shallow, conservative shit. And that makes me pretty sad. I get that the new york times needs a conservative columnist, but I don’t think they’re doing anyone any favors by employing one who sucks at his job. I guess I wouldn’t want to see a conservative columnist who actually argued his point effectively, but I mean, you’d think the new york times would want to see that. Wouldn’t you?

celebrity gossip

when was it, exactly, that our country became so wildly obsessed with celebrity gossip?

I mean sure, we all remember OJ. but I like to think that was on a slightly different level as far as "newsworthiness" goes than, say, angelina and brad's less-than-perfect marriage. I'd say that it can't have really gone into full swing more than a few years ago. my first real memories of celebrity gossip as something i was "supposed to know" are hazy memories of the younger and slightly less prison-worthy exploits of the hilton sisters and lindsey lohan.

for a while now, i've been feeling sort of behind-the-times. i even read perez hilton for a brief week of my life, in an attempt to catch up on the gossip. i read US weekly and all of a sudden had something to talk to people about. but right around the time the Michael Vick dogfighting incident blew up, i started to get a bit creeped out. That's around the time that i realized that all the news "buzz" i was hearing was about Paris Hilton and Lindsey Lohan's various crimes, Amy Winehouse's multiple addictions, Vick's dogs, and Britney Spears's....issues. But while everyone was talking about that, let's just consider a couple of "events" that attracted little to no attention among the majority of the American public:

- Karl Rove's resignation
- Alberto Gonzales's resignation
- the air force "misplaced" five nuclear warheads (for an interesting take on THAT, check out what digby has to say)
- that Larry Craig thing is still going on
- oh yeah, isn't there something going on in Iraq? i forget what...

feels a little sinister, no? the fact that the majority of America has managed to just "forget" to pay attention to anything our government is doing is not a great thing. I'd wager most of us don't even know who all is planning on running for president in 2008. and that's AFTER the whole presidential race has been turned into a slightly more boring version of celebrity gossip. i'd hate to think how many people would be well-informed enough to vote if the candidates just presented their platforms and ran with no publicity stunts.

the moral of the story: i've decided to log off of perez once and for all. i'm scared if i keep reading, i'll get sucked under with him. and i'm still holding on to the dream that we can get out of this mess.

the new (york) minstrel show

i know what you're thinking and no, this is not a post about hip-hop. good guess though. no, this is about an experience i had today in central park. maybe experience is the wrong word. this is about a spectacle i saw today in central park. the story unfolds...

it was actually my first time IN central park (i know, i'm slow to do the touristy things. what can i say?) and i was psyched to go see the Bethesda fountain. ever since Tony Kushner introduced it to me in "Angels in America," i've felt like its a place i would really like. my plan was to go see the fountain, maybe sit in the shade for a bit and ponder it's beauty, and then move on. of course the HBO mini-series probably closed off the park for shooting, so in my head i was gonna have the place all to myself, and obviously my head was wrong. when we arrived at the fountain, there was a huge crowd covering the steps and spilling out into the plaza in front of the fountain. the crowd was clapping and cheering to what, from a distance, appeared to be three young black teenage boys dancing. as we got closer, we discovered a much more fascinating and problematic scene.

if i were to guess, i'd say the performers were around twenty years old. the three young black men were dressed in matching basketball shorts, nikes, and white tank tops. they had three members of the audience standing next to each other in the center of the "stage:" two european women and an asian man, all young. the performers were speaking - shouting, rather - in unison and encouraging the audience to cheer. we stopped, intrigued by what seemed like an increasingly likely probability that one of the performers was planning on leaping over all three of them. they made several racist jokes that received uneasy laughter from the audience, which further drew us in to watch the unfolding scene: "if you have a camera, now's the time to take pictures," they proclaimed to an already photo-happy audience. "if you are japanese with a camera, take-photo-now," they continued in a generic "asian" accent, clapping their hands together and bowing. i had to wonder: was the audience laughing because they were amused by the "joke," or because black men were saying it? if a black man makes a racist joke, does a white man feel obliged to laugh? does he feel that he's been given license to laugh?

what made me stick around for the second show, though, was the money-collecting. before the big jump everyone seemed to be waiting for, the performers wanted to get audience donations. they turned it into a strange game, challenging the audience to give as much as they had in their wallets. They took a large bill from a black man and turned to the white people asking if they were going to let a black man be the biggest donor. Then they started asking people where they were from. "The last donation came from New Jersey," they yelled. "New York, are you going to let that happen?" the fact that I didn't think it would work clearly means that I'm no businesswoman, because within five seconds a new yorker was waving two twenty dollar bills at them. when a couple from montreal threw $40 more into the bag, the same man pulled out another $40. he continued to rep new york until he was down to his last seven dollars, and then tried to pull out a credit card. I saw a child get $20 from her parents to rep new jersey, and i saw a man give $100. i figured the show up til that point must have been something to see, and decided to stick around.

he did his jump, which was impressive, and several more jokes were made, all either intensely racist or completely degrading to women. the show ended, and the performers waited about five minutes for the crowd to disperse, then turned on their speakers and started to dance. that's when i realized just what was going on.

there was no show at all. i had actually already seen the entire thing. the boys put red shirts on over their tank tops, and each shirt had a nickname written on the back. the jumper was "skillz," the one with all the jokes about women was "meek da freak," and the one with the charming but uncomfortably wide smile was "sugar ray." they didn't even have to try. they let the speakers continue to blast a mix of old school and new hip-hop while they pranced around and grinned huge empty grins, and within five minutes they had a crowd of almost a hundred. that crowd was 99% white. these black men were making money by simply displaying themselves to white tourists. i'd like to say it wasn't as dirty as that just sounded, but within twenty minutes, they had taken off their shorts as part of a "joke."

"there's a naked indian in that tunnel over there. so you've seen a naked indian and a naked cowboy, now see the naked negro." and the shorts came off. by this time, the crowd was more like 300. they jumped and danced from audience member to audience member, cracking jokes in unison and objectifying the women in a way that was really uncomfortable. "hey baby, you like chocolate?" was a favorite phrase, followed closely by "you know, it doesn't always have to be money," and the implication that if you were a young white female in the crowd, they'd just as soon have sex with you as take your cash.

the pointed way in which these men used their race to entertain the white audience was shocking. they made jokes about being in jail, they made jokes like "ladies, i'm single...with five kids." they played hip-hop. they objectified women. they smiled. they pretended to steal their volunteer's purses. they danced (badly). they shucked. they jived. they did everything the worst stereotype of a black man would do. and the audience just lapped it up. scanning the audience, you saw middle-aged wealthy white men and women in their polo shirts and khakis, young twenty-somethings with their sundresses, and families with children. almost all white, almost all having the best time of their lives. these people were thrilled. so thrilled, they thought that $40 was a reasonable amount of money to pay for the privelege of watching these boys act a fool and then do one admittedly impressive jump.

so the question is, what's going on here? i stopped one of them after the second show and asked him how long they'd been doing this. since they were six, he said. and today was a pretty small crowd. a "small" crowd of no less than 400, i'd estimate.

i know the description of this scene doesn't portray the three performers in a great light. and it's true, the performance wasn't "great" by any stretch of the imagination. but i'm not trying to vilify them here. if i could make a thousand bucks a day by pretending to dance in front of a fountain, don't think i wouldn't do it. my question is, why does it still work? why is it that a black man in the year 2007 can still make more money by shucking and jiving than he can working for a living? why is it that a middle-aged white man from connecticut sees three black men making fools of themselves and gets excited for the show to come? looking at those fake smiles flash across the perfomers faces, i couldn't help but see a cartoon sambo in my head. and i couldn't help but feel that they knew that just as well as i did. how could they not? remember, they've been doing this since they were six. now i'm no mathematician, but i think that might mean they've been a spectacle for longer than they've known what a spectacle is. and now that they know, it's still their best bet for a paycheck. the fact that this kind of complete debasement and prostitution of the self is still considered entertainment says to me that we are not much closer to "solving" america's "race problem" than we were a century ago. and that, my friends, is a tragedy.

intel-ligent responses? pretty much, kind of.

So okay, I know I just posted something .3102 seconds ago, but I was looking through stuff and saw that I got 2 interesting responses to my post on the racially awkward Intel ad and I definitely wanted to respond to them, like a responsible blogging responding internet person. First off was this comment from underwayent:

"Hey Brittany, Black people do work at Intel and some of us are proud of it. Although the ad does prove to be insensitive, It was not Intel's intent. Intel is a very diverse company and African Americans play a very important role within the company. It seems that most people are always looking to play the race card at the drop of a dime. We need to start throwing the races cards at each other."

So in response I'd like to say that you know what? I'm glad that you responded defending your company, I totally respect you and would probably do the same if I were in your shoes. That being said, my question of whether or not Black people work at Intel was purely smart-ass-ness, and not really serious. If Intel employed zero Black people that would be fodder for an entirely different kind of post. Anyway, I don't doubt that Intel (as a major technological company who definitely provided the processor on which my little HP pavilion is buzzin' right now) makes strides at effective diversity and inclusion within their company, in addition to dedicating its resources (people, technology and money alike) to socially-aware initiative. However, clearly that doesn't mean that they can't make (and didn't make) mistakes, or that people high-up/in creative roles (or the ones coordinating with any ad agencies, whose mistake this probably was more than Intel's) weren't racially insensitive when creating, approving and rolling out this ad. If anything this goes to show that companies need to put more energy into educating associates of all races, backgrounds and on all levels, about these sorts of issues (i.e. what is taboo, what is racist, and what's just plain awkward).
Here's the other little gem from a Richard that I'd like to respond to as well:

"And, what if the colors were revered? Is that not also racism in your eyes? There have been several ads of late showing a cool black dude letting us know how dorkey, lame, or dumb the white guy was. This is racism. "White Men Can't Jump" is also racist. If you can't see it, I'd suggest you open your eyes and think about it."

Um.. okay, so why are you telling me to open my eyes? Does the fact that you'd find this ad offensive if the races were flipped make it any less offensive? I absolutely cannot stand when I air some grievance I have with a racially charged issue, somebody comes at me with some stuff like this, basically saying "well Black people can be racist too."
..So? So what?
Does that mean that it's not worth me being upset about? I'd have to say... No, it doesn't. Yes, you are right, white people can be the ones on the bad side of a racially offensive ad/situation, but that doesn't mean that when Black people are (as we so luckily get to be so often, huzzah!) that we should not complain about it or not be upset. And no, I don't know whether or not you (or anyone agreeing with you) is white, or male, or shizz, if you're even named Richard, but your post lead me to believe that. Anyway, the fact that you got upset about my pointing out that this was a race issue instead of being annoyed that this is happening to any race (if it had been a bunch of Latinos I'd be annoyed, too) just points to white privilege in the matter of not having to think about race until it is presented to you. Open your eyes and think about it!
Okay, smart ass again, sorry.
Or am I?
Maybe 35%

Oh the anonymity of the net- I just noticed that many posts like that are linked to (surprise!) unviewable profiles. Most interesting. Well not really, but still.

we got quotes, son!

Random little spec of a post, but I was bored and googled "afropologe" and saw that a few people referred to/linked/quoted us in some places. That is cool. Thanks y'all, I got a warm fuzzy feeling inside! To celebrate I think I'mma see Morris Chestnutt's movie Hey Baby, Let's Get Married. Haha.

But really though I'd go see that.

free rap concert! sike nah, but you can join the army though.

Okay, so it's no real secret that the armed forces take a huge chunk of their population (no, not the officers and not the generals and ish, the recruits that end up on the front lines) from the bottom of America's socio-economic ladder. And of course, although the fighting is being done across the world instead of across the street, America is in a war (which people seem to be forgetting all the time, hell, I'm guilty of it) so of course recruitment efforts have been ramping up more and more as support for the war in Iraq (and subsequent enlistments) has been dwindling. What else has been increasing? The Army's attempt to be hip, youthful and overwhelmingly Black. Take a look at this screen shot of their website..
Black guy, front and center, and no, the picture does not alternative to show other soldiers of different races, ages or of another sex. Mm, and do you see that iPod bribe in the bottom left corner? Ridiculous. The only thing that really drove me to go to the Army's website was the fact that while I was watching BET the past few days I've noticed a lot of GoArmy commercials, and have also noticed that these commercials tend to focus only on Black people.
I feel like before they used to be a little more subtle about it, but I guess they figure they're just gonna go for it full force.
Next thing you know, they'll be offering promotions like "Free chain on enlisting! Rim for a Friend- with each friend you bring to the army you'll get one 26" chrome spinner!"


..okay sorry, I know I'm wrong for that lol.

customer "service" and the year of the octopus

so i don't know if you've also noticed this, but there are two disturbing trends sweeping the nation and i can't help but feel like just maybe they're related.

trend one: monopolies are back in style. we all learned in US history in high school that back in the day, like maybe around the turn of the century or something, the government started making lots of anti-trust laws to control the rampant monopolization of big business. ok so maybe we didn't all learn that in school, but we would have if our public education system was on a level somewhere higher than absolute shit. point being, what most of us don't know, although i'm sure we've started to suspect, is that most of those laws no longer exist. here are a couple of fun facts for you:

Time Warner: I called some company called cablevision (i think) to try and order cable and internet for my apartment in brooklyn. the representative did something on the computer and then told me in a terrified voice that "oh no no no" she couldn't possibly provide me with cable. i live in time warner's zone. then she fled. upon further investigation, not only is time warner my one solitary option for cable and internet, but Time Warner also owns quite a few things, including AOL, Moviefone, mapquest, netscape, HBO, Cinemax, E!, Cartoon Network, TBS, TNT, CNN, New Line Cinema, Warner Bros., Entertainment Weekly, Sports Illustrated, and Time magazine. and those were just the ones i felt like writing down because I thought you'd recognize them. there are hundreds more. Additionally, Time Warner is currently involved in some kind of fun deal with comcast, where they jointly own some shit in texas so they can help each other acquire smaller companies. think about what that means. time warner basically owns you, and you didnt even know it.

i'm not even going to list the things coca-cola owns, because you'd have to stop reading this, it's so long.

i could go on for days. we'll just move on to trend 2:

trend two: customer service has been flushed straight down the toilet.
now call me paranoid, but i can't help but think that the fact that time warner is not jumping to hook up my cable might just have something to do with the fact that I have no choice but to wait however long they might decide they want to take. what am i going to do? get my cable from time warner instead? oh wait.

let me share a couple of stories with you about how much fun my move to new york has been.

story one: "luggage is for the weak"
scene 1: O'Hare airport, Chicago, IL
the protagonist, kaya, is waiting for her bags in the baggage claim area. as everyone around her receives their bags and departs, she starts to worry and approaches the desk.
kaya: um, I think my bags might not be coming.
dude (scanning bag claim tickets): oh yeah. they never left washington dulles. we can have those delivered to you.
kaya (fooled by the apparent consideration): that would be great!
(kaya gives dude her address and phone number)

scene 2: evanston, IL. 9:00pm (2 hours after the 'latest' the bags were scheduled to be delivered)
phone rings
kaya: hello?
delivery man: hello, is this kaya, united, red bags?
kaya: i guess...
delivery man: will you be home for the next 3 hours?
kaya: well in 3 hours it will be midnight. my family will be asleep.
delivery man: so yes?
kaya: i'm really going to need my bags before midnight.
delivery man: don't worry.

scene 3: evanston, IL. 1:00am. kaya has just given up on her bags.
phone rings. bags are arriving. they are covered in filth. kaya is excited to see them. what she has yet to realize is that this exact scene is going to repeat itself a mere four days later when she flies from chicago to new york on delta airlines. except that next time, when the delivery man arrives, he won't even have her bags. he'll be just as confused as she is, but that will be no comfort at all.


Story two: "bedding is for the weak"
scene 1: brooklyn, NY. kaya's new apartment. she's psyched because the fedex man has arrived with her bedding two days before she expected! she's puzzled that the package is so small. how could a comfoter fit into such a small package? she opens it to discover that it can't. there is no comforter. puzzled, she tracks the package online and discovers that while the sheets were picked up on the 4th for delivery, the comforter has not had any activity since it was acknowledged on the 3rd that the comforter exists. she picks up the phone to call fed ex.

kaya: hello?
automated system: please listen to the following 46 options, none of which apply to you, and speak your answer clearly into the phone. if you ask to speak to a representative, i will get an attitude with you even though i am a machine, because i'm positive that you are calling about something you could easily have just looked up online, and that you do not have a real problem.
kaya: begins to scream "representative" over and over again into the phone
automated system (pissed): fine, i will transfer you to the next available representative.
rep: hello, fed ex. this is someone speaking.
kaya: hi, i just got a package but i was supposed to get two, and i was hoping you could tell me what happened.
(some information is exchanged)
rep: oh ok. yeah, we never picked that up. i can't tell you what happened, but we don't have it. if you want to call and find out, you probably should.
kaya: great, what's the number?
rep: i don't know.
kaya: um...
rep: you could probably also just call linens 'n' things.
kaya: ok...thanks?
rep: hangs up.

kaya dials the number for linens and things, and struggles with a new automated woman, who is even more pissed about having to relenquish control of the conversation.
rep: hello linens 'n' things, i sound like i'm having a bad day and that is not a good sign for you.
kaya: hi, i ordered a comforter a few days ago, and i just talked to fed ex and they never got it.
rep: i'm going to pretend like i understand and talk to you for five minutes about some pillows. eventually i'll realize you want a comforter and we'll start this process over.
kaya: fine, i guess.
rep: oh ok, it shows that the package was entered into the fed ex system on the 4th.
kaya: yeah, i can see that online. you're just looking at the same-ass "track package" screen on the fed ex website that i clearly checked before calling you.
rep: right. well so it was shipped on the 4th then.
kaya: no that's the whole point. it wasn't.
rep: oh ok. well it'll take 5-6 business days, so it should come tomorrow or monday.
kaya: well no, because the other things that it was shipped with arrived today. also because i talked to fed ex and they are not planning on delivering it. in fact, they don't even have it.
rep: i see. well it should probably show up in a few days.
kaya: no no, i won't.
rep: i understand your frustration. why don't you call back on monday if you still haven't gotten it.
kaya: hangs up in fury, and then immediately regrets hanging up, as her problem is nowhere near solved.


...well, this was a long post. i guess i should get offline and go call linens 'n' things back.

color television

..Okay sorry, I couldn't help it. Lol.
Anyway, as I've been sitting home and resting on my little bit of time off from working most of my activities have centered around catching up on cable television. Okay, so most of my one main activity. And if you know much about me, you know that I can a.) obviously get annoyed by most people and most things going on today (which can be seen on this blog) and b.) I love cartoons and children's programming in general. While at home my television is pretty much regularly set on Nickelodeon and the Disney Channel, and I stay watching shows like SpongeBob SquarePants and Jake Long American Dragon. For anybody who shares this should-have-been-outgrown-but-is-still-fun sentiment of mine, you know that these shows (while often sickeningly corny or sweet) are generally a really great time. Most of the time they give kids valuable lessons while providing harmless entertainment. Not to mention these shows really touch kids, and definitely have a huge influence on shaping entire generations (come on, how many of us don't get excited when somebody brings up when All That was actually good, or when talking about old episodes of Salute Your Shorts or Eureka's Castle?)- and what works at shaping these kids and developing strong brand loyalty? Relating. At least in the sense of having characters, situations and environments that really speak to a child's reality- after all, how can you get lost in a world when you can't really see yourself in it? And what makes a show really great? When it relates to minority audiences.
Yep, people of color have saturated popular culture, and while we don't control most of the wealth in this society, we definitely control a large cornerstone of its buying power (which is a problematic issue that I won't even get started on right now). Obviously this has been getting more and more well-known to corporate America, who has in turn developed whole genres of movies, music, product lines and commercials to serving this previously under-served and often ignored audience. The world of media & entertainment has caught on as well, and over the past 8 or so years has really ramped up programming that focuses on characters of color. And who has done this really well in my opinion?
Disney.
Yep, ironically enough the corporation founded by and named for a huge racist, bigot, anti-semetic asshole has provided at least two really good shows centered around a black family. One, which I'm sad to say has been canceled, was The Proud Family. Focused on Penny Proud and her friends, this show did a really good job of attracting a Black audience (a Destiny's Child made theme song? Yeah) and sticking close to themes used by other children's shows (honesty, hard work, unconditional friendship, etc.) all while still feeling really genuine. What I mean to say is that The Proud Family didn't just feel like a regular cartoon with Black people pasted in, it felt very natural. Another show that accomplished this same genuine feel was definitely That's So Raven. Using Raven's great ability at physical comedy (I'll probably be roasted by someone for saying this, but she's often really reminded me of a young, Black Lucille Ball) along with a cast whose acting styles really blended well with Raven's extravagance and eccentricity, Disney was able to deliver a show that was entertaining to everyone, but could really reach out to a young Black audience.
While I love Disney for these shows, I also love me some Nickelodeon, and for a while was annoyed that they seemed for some reason to be seriously sleeping on an audience of color. Yeah there use to be Taina and Keenan and Kel, but shows like that have been long since canceled and other shows like Zoey 101, The Naked Brothers Band and Ned's Declassified have taken over. And don't get me wrong, these shows are cute (I actually really enjoy Ned's Declassified, that kid is hilarious) but there's a serious lack of color.
So where does the color come in with Nickelodeon?
Nick Jr.
So yeah, this is definitely not that tween audience that most companies seem to be clamoring for, but it's still a really impressionable audience that could be served well by having characters to whom they can relate. And, interestingly enough, Nick Jr. is serving up minority programming in a really innovative way. And no, I'm not going to be talking about Dora the Explorer or Go, Diego, Go! but I'm going to focus on some equally great shows.
First up- The Backyardigans. This show is, in addition to being incredibly cute, secretly for Black kids! Okay, so obviously it's for everyone, but with a Black female creator and characters named things like Uniqua, Pablo and Tyrone, this show is definitely for children of color. My first encounter with The Backyardigans was when my friend Tiff told me "there's a show with Black kids singing on Nickelodeon!" and then urged me to check it out as soon as I could. So I did, and I'll admit that first I was a little thrown off by the fact that none of the characters are actually humans or like, you know.. correctly colored even for the animals that they represent, but I immediately warmed up to it. These "backyardigans" use their rich imaginations to create entire worlds in the back yards where they explore typical kid issues all while being surrounded by great imagery and making use of a really amazing soundtrack. Not to mention Nickelodeon does a great job of serving a minority audience not by simply having a cast of minorities, but by completely integrating them into the programming- children of color voice the characters and the characters are given what most people would classify as typical "urban or ethnic" (read: Latino or Black) names, kind of giving the feeling that of course it's natural for them to be in this setting because they are as much a valuable part of this society as anybody else. So yeah, I basically have a new spot in my heart for this cute bunch of back yard kids.
But Nick Jr. hasn't stopped with The Backyardigans in its interesting use of and appeal to minority audiences. Another show that has recently premiered on the daytime network for children is Yo Gabba Gabba!, a show that uses hip hop and dance to help kids play to learn. Okay, so when I first heard of and saw a few clips of Yo Gabba Gabba! on YouTube I was definitely not impressed, and was almost a little annoyed at the whole fried-chicken song (I can't find the clip, but yeah..). However today as I was sitting around watching t.v. I flipped to Nickelodeon and found an episode of the new show and was almost immediately drawn in. And I'm 22. Okay okay, so I already admitted that yes, I am oldish and I love children's programming, but this show is like actually freaking great. Maybe it's just me and my generation, but the way it uses hip hop beats reminiscent of old-school along with bright colors and shapes and a really interesting 90's aesthetic (down to the pixelated video-game backgrounds used as sedge ways between games and dances) this show really masters playing to learn and does a great job of getting kids up and moving (an issues of increasing relevance in a society that is definitely saturated with weight problems in all age demographics) while showing that different kinds of musical aesthetics have value. So you can see what I mean, here's a clip of the intro to this show in action..

The point of this rambling? I really love kids shows, and I'm really pleased at what I've been seeing develop over in the pre-K area of entertainment for kids- I'm really excited to see what they come up with next.

movie poster review: the brave one

i'm not gonna lie, this wasn't my idea. but it was such a good one i just had to "borrow" it for a second. but i'll give credit where credit is due. i've started reading the insanity report, and aside from being hilarious and a great blogger, this dude does the occasional "movie trailer review." because after all: why watch the movie when you can learn pretty much all you need to know from the trailer?

...or for that matter, from the poster that's plastered all over the subway and also on a 4-story building in harlem.




so this is apparently jodie foster's new movie, "the brave one." word on the street is its about her avenging someone's death or something. i'm not sure.

anyways, to make a long story short, i'd argue that this poster is to lesbians what THIS poster might be to.....


straight men:



straight women:




...well i'm no wiz with photoshop, but you get my point. further proof, in my opinion, that new york is SO overrun with lesbians that marketing companies feel the need to target them on the sides of buildings. whats next, i ask you? the US Open sponsored by soy: no coca-cola products served? i mean i would go to that. but i think it would be confusing.