Thomas Friedman

It's Christmas. The season of giving.

Thomas Friedman is giving me heartburn.

These days it seems like half of Friedman's columns are about how much better China is than America. His latest column is more of the same. He doesn't really talk about all the slave labor the Chinese use to power their economy, nor the pollution problems. As for the underdeveloped countryside? Well it sometimes seems like Friedman doesn't actually know that China has non-urban areas. It also seems like Friedman doesn't understand the concept of a Communist government that spends disproportionate resources on polishing and cleaning up areas where foreigners (and especially foreign journalists) are likely to go in order to present an attractive and appealing image.

He's not wrong that America needs to invest in infrastructure and science, nor in claiming that Kennedy Airport could use some serious refurbishing, but it really seems like Friedman doesn't understand that some of the shabbiness of America is the price of freedom (China doesn't have any limitations on eminent domain usage, for example, which is one of the things that prevents America from redeveloping as easily) and part of it is the price of being an early adopter. It's much cheaper and easier to be a little behind the curve.

It's frustrating, because America is arrogant and has made a lot of mistakes, but Friedman seems to be a utopianist who doesn't understand that sometimes you have to compromise to do the right thing. If dirty train platforms are the price of not arresting people for littering then I am willing to pay that price. Friedman is not. Friedman notes that China has censored the New York Times and other news sites as if it is a phenomenon completely distinct from the gleaming bullet trains and perfect Wi-Fi access. It isn't. The two are tightly related.

It's not just that Thomas Friedman can't see the forest for the trees, it's that he doesn't seem to know that there are forests or trees.

Sentences should mean something

From a New York Times article about Evander Holyfield:

"Nor is it about pride or re-establishing his name, no small feat for someone so far removed from fame, other than for his “Dancing With the Stars” gig, that Google Earth would be hard-pressed to find him."

What does "So far removed from fame that Google Earth would be hard-pressed to find him." Mean. Is Google Earth good at finding famous people? No, of course not. So maybe it's a metaphor. Is Google Earth good at finding famous sites, like landmark buildings or natural wonders? Well yes. Is it bad at finding non-famous things, like your house or your hometown or some random barn in Arkansas? No. It's good at those things too, which is a good deal of its charm. So what, exactly, is the reference to Google Earth intended to do? Why is it there? I literally do not know. This is bad writing at its most blatant and it's in the New York Times and I know its a sports story but an editor should have caught this because it's a meaningless sentence. How would I fix it? Well, I would, perhaps, not accuse someone of being removed from fame when I was writing a BOXING article about him for the NEW YORK TIMES. Non-famous boxers do not get into the New York Times unless they have just beaten a famous boxer and thus become famous themselves. There are over 170 articles about Holyfield's upcoming fight in Google's news aggregator. Holyfield is less famous now than when he got his ear bitten off by Mike Tyson, but he's well remembered by boxing fans and the populace at large. I'd wager more people remember the ear biting than the Dancing appearance.

This sentence is the kind of lazy writing that a decent high school or college is supposed to beat out of you. It doesn't belong in professional writing and it certainly doesn't belong in the New York Times. It's not just that standards have slipped, it's like they barely exist anymore. You want to make a specious claim combined with an incomprehensible reference in the paper of record? Go ahead.

Shameful.

Shocking Discovery: Water Still Wet!

News articles like this one have been popping up all over the place.

The gist of it is that Al Qaeda isn't ready to make nice yet even though we elected Barack Obama who totally has a Muslim name and isn't white and is handsome and funny and erudite and not a boob. What a shocker.

Also the second in command at Al Qaeda used an ethnic slur.

Here's the thing. Al Qaeda is, literally, an evil terrorist organization bent on our destruction. We've laughed at George Bush and the conservatives for tarring all its enemies with that black-and-white designation, but for Al Qaeda it fits. Al Qaeda murders people. Its stated aims are both ludicrous and horrible. It's a bunch of bad bad fellows (and ladies.)

So why is it news that Al Qaeda doesn't like Barack Obama? The right wing may have accused him of palling around with terrorists, but they weren't radical Muslim terrorists, and only the truly insane thought he had anything but animus towards Al Qaeda. Barack Obama has stated that he will make it a priority for the U.S. to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden, leader of Al Qaeda. Of course they aren't going to like him.

What's the news here? The ethnic slur? Al Qaeda is a group of unrepentant murderous terrorists. They murder as a matter of course. Is it really shocking that they use nasty language? Especially considering that in the part of the world from which they hail there's a lot less political correctness than there is in the West. They still won't let women drive in Saudi Arabia, and Al Qaeda hates the Saudi government because it's not fundamentalist ENOUGH.

Now I realize that Al Qaeda is our enemy and any big statement from them needs to be covered as legitimate news, but what I don't get is the tone of a lot of these pieces, implying that it's noteworthy that Al Qaeda would use an ethnic slur and that there was any other possible reaction they might have to Obama. Is the implication that Obama is so wonderful that he might win over Al Qaeda even though he openly talks about his desire to arrest or kill the group's leader? Seems unlikely. Are we offended by the term "House Negro" used by those responsible for the blowing up of buildings and ships and trains? It seems like a fairly minor crime in comparison.

Zawahiri's statement is a very minor news event, especially in a time when major important stories are not in short supply. Al Qaeda still hates America. Obama isn't getting a Christmas card from the world's premier terrorist group, nor will they offer him any suggestions about the type of puppy he should pick out for his daughters. In other news water is still wet and Glenn Beck remains batshit crazy. Nothing to see here.

Difficult conditions

Dear Football announcers and everyone else who writes and/or speaks for a living.

Averse and adverse are not the same word. That one little "D" makes a world of difference.

To offer an analogous example: "Sit" describes an action you might take before you do something that can be described by adding one little "H" to that word. This second word also, conveniently, describes your grasp of the English language if you don't know that averse and adverse are different words.

No, seriously, racism is finally dead.

The National Review Online decided to convene a symposium in order to analyze Barack Obama's victory from their...unique...perspective. The results are, of course, rife with horrendous writing, such as:


For old-line civil-rights leaders like Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton, Rep. John Lewis (D., Ga.), and others, Obama’s triumph will make far harder for them and others to chant about blacks being held down by “Whitey.” The instant rejoinder soon will be, “The whitest thing around here is Barack Obama’s house.”

Which manages to combine poor copy editing with the worst instant rejoinder ever conceived of. This particular example is, however, at least reasonable. Obama's victory is certainly evidence of changing attitudes towards race in the United States. It will make it harder for people to make simplistic claims about African Americans being oppressed.

What if you want bad logic, horrendous overreaches, weird inconsistencies, and the like? Does the National Review have anything to offer in those arenas. Why yes. Yes it does.

the election of the first black president will finally settle the question of whether America is a racist country.

Linda Chavez' claim is startlingly strong, especially when you consider the number of openly made accusations that Obama was Arab and/or Muslim*. But let's see what she means by "Racist country." Maybe she's just saying it shows that explicit institutionalized racism is dead, which is more or less accurate.

Many of us have been arguing for years that — despite a history of slavery, Jim Crow, and, at one time, widespread prejudice — American society is today the most colorblind in the world.

Or she could be making completely unsubstantiated claims based on nothing but what she wishes were true. Conservatives LOVE making statements like "America is the most colorblind society in the world." That statement is utterly without meaning unless you define what makes a society colorblind, and how colorblindness can be measured. How do we know that, for example, Canada is not more colorblind? If it's just about the chief executive being a racial minority then what about Peru, which had Alberto Fujimori as its president for quite some time?

A President Obama could also take on issues that others have avoided: the breakdown in the black family, the latent racism inherent in holding blacks to lower standards than whites, the enervating aspect of perpetual victimhood.

"Hopefully Barack Obama will recognize that racism is no longer a problem and instead focus all his energy on fixing the various things that blacks, and their allies, are doing to keep blacks down despite a totally non-racist society."

Thanks Linda. I'm sure he'll take that under advisement.

Anything else? Oh yeah. From Kay Cole James:

Election days are all pretty much the same for me...[Nov 4th 2008] began with [me] approaching a polling place to volunteer and being ignored by the Republican worker, and being greeted warmly by the Democrat... I am a black conservative.

Okay, that was a bit of editorial manipulation, but it's worth noting that the anecdote about being ignored by the Republican poll worker is never explained. Even if you are generous and assume that the Republican poll worker ignored Coles because most African Americans were hostile to him/her, it is still bad strategy. When you are trying to win someone over you need to be nice to them even when they are rude and dismissive to you. If African Americans see Republicans being curteous and polite to them at the polls they will be more inclined to be open to their message over time. If they are ignored they will feel unwanted, as would anyone. The Republicans talk a big game about being a big tent party; they know they need minority votes to remain competitive as the demographics of the country change and they know that it looks really bad fora bunch of white folks, recently descended from proponents of segregation and white superiority, to be lecturing the black community about what it needs to do, but all too often they are awkward and off-putting around actual black people.

Is there anything like that in the NRO symposium?

You betcha, folks.

Courtesy of Abigail Thernstrom:

The Obama family is also a role model. It’s not a “black” family, but an American family, with two loving parents, and two beautiful children.


So a "black" family is...

There's really no good way out of this. If you want to be supremely generous you could assume that she means that the perception is that black families are dysfunctional and this is a good example of one that's not, or that she means that the Obamas are an inspiration to all Americans, not just black people, but let's be honest. That's not what she means. She means that black families are ugly and dysfunctional and the Obamas have transcended their blackness.

Racism is dead, right?

Republicans routinely say things like this, statements that aren't intended to be racist but come out that way because so many conservatives are blind to their own racism and casual disdain of African Americans. Not all conservatives are racist, but racists in the Republican party can be compared to chocolate chips in a carton of ice cream. Take a big enough scoop and you're bound to get a bunch. And Republicans always want us to give their pundits every benefit of the doubt, to twist meanings and intentions until racist statements can be interpreted as benign. Twist hard enough and any statement can be made innocuous. No negroes in our swimming pools, why? Because our swimming pools are full of urine. We want to protect the negro.

Here's the thing. The conservative movement of today is descended intellectually and politically from the conservative movement of yesterday, which was, for the most part, explicitly racist. The Republican party got control of the South after Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil rights act. Republicans have a contentious relationship with Black America, fewer black politicians than the Democrats, and a very critical message that seems to ignore the influence of racial injustice on the current world order (For example the fact that many black families lack any sort of generational wealth due, in part, to Jim Crow laws and racism.)

Given the situation it is extremely unwise for middle aged white women to be using phrases like "The black family" without extreme caution. Joe Biden, who has a good record on racial issues, was pilloried for calling Barack Obama clean and articulate. While I am against censorship, there's no reason ideas can't be expressed in precise and inoffensive ways.

Unless the ideas, themselves, are offensive.

If the National Review is not subtlely racist then it is doing an excellent impression of a publication that is.


*Muslim is not technically a race, but rather a religion, obviously. One can be a white Muslim or an Arab Christian. But the sorts of people who use "Muslim" as an accusation are also the sorts of people who are likely to accuse Sikhs and Lebanese Christians of being Muslim because of their skin color. The term is used as a stand-in for "Other" in an impulse that may not be racism but is closely related. When these people want to talk about Islam as a religious threat they usually say "Islamofascist," which is a term of questionable provenance, but one that at least explicitly refers to an adherent of an ideology rather than a member of an outsider group.

Republican Amusements: Now Open For Business

One of the undervalued benefits of the Barack Obama win is that conservative writers are funny again. I don't mean intentionally, that's not going to happen any time soon, but in the same way that flat earthers and creationists are funny when they're marginalized. Oh look at the cute little lunatics with their crazy opinions. They can't hurt us anymore, at least for now, and that turns the horrific into the humorous. I know that my orthodox cousin's conservative rantings got a lot funnier around 11:00 pm on Tuesday.

So did Ann Coulter.

Now Ann Coulter fancies herself a comedienne, in the same way that David Duke is an inspirational speaker or Osama Bin Laden is an advocate for global peace, which is to say that if you buy into her insane and incredibly limited worldview you might find some of the things she says to be intentionally funny. To the rest of us she's more of a curiosity, an unpleasantly mannish skinny blond woman who openly advocates the sorts of things that most Republican commentators save for their most intimate acquaintances, or the gay hookers they do meth with.

In Coulter's latest column she not only bizarrely states that Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama was 'sarcastic' but she also claims that Sarah Palin is the future of the Republican party, a true conservative in the sense that she's so afraid of books that she, at over 40 years of age, had yet to open an atlas and see that Africa is a continent, or count all of the countries on the continent of North America. To her the whole world is just one big "Here there be monsters." She spends her frequent taxpayer funded plane trips looking out the window for krakens and sea dragons. It was long thought impossible to underestimate the intelligence of the American public. Looks like that's another piece of conventional wisdom to relegate to the dustbin of history.

This is going to be fun. No longer will the absurd beliefs of America's cooky backward hill people be scary, because we will have a man in the White House who doesn't believe any of it. We get to go from depressing gallows humor to outright mockery and mirth. This is going to be fun.

Ann Coulter thinks that Barack Obama will reveal himself to be a radical Black Muslim bent on destroying Whitey. Tee hee.

The secret of his failure

I finally understand David Brooks.

It's not that he doesn't believe the things he writes, or that he is constantly looking for a way to suck up to the powerful (though he is.) It's that he is basically a functional amnesiac, who doesn't even understand the basic concept of intellectual consistency, and has no reason to want to put it into practice.

"In the past two decades, the United States has become a much more interesting place. Companies like Starbucks, Apple, Crate & Barrel, Microsoft and many others enlivened daily life."

One of the things David Brooks loves to do is insult latte sipping, Crate & Barrel shopping effete liberal elites. In THIS column, however, he claims that the very symbols of effete liberal elitism make the United States more interesting and enliven daily life. There seems to be a conflict here, until you realize that David Brooks has, for all intents and purposes, never read a David Brooks column and doesn't know what David Brooks thinks. His memory is wiped clean every evening when he goes to sleep. Where some of us might look at things like, say, the growth of Starbucks, and see complex difficult to parse trends, David Brooks glances at them, spots one facet, comments on it, and then the next day takes another glance, spots another facet, and comments on that, without ever having to resolve the conflict between his beliefs. Through this method he manages to say a host of conflicting things that all contain a grain of truth but are, fundamentally, wrongheaded because they fail to take into account other facets of the phenomena he's describing (E.G. The fact that chain stores have driven interesting local stores out of business, which homogenizes American life rather than enlivening it, and the fact that there is not a single thing at Crate & Barrel that a sane healthy person would want to purchase.)

Let's continue.

Despite decades of affluence, longstanding issues like health care, education, energy and entitlement debt have not been adequately addressed.

But David Brooks, you support a party that does everything it can NOT to address these issues. Oh right. You don't know that. You're unaware of your own history of advocacy. Sorry. Yeah. These are serious problems. Thank you for discovering them, David Brooks.

Raised in prosperity, favored by genetics, these young meritocrats [who elected Obama] will have to govern in a period when the demands on the nation’s wealth outstrip the supply. They will grapple with the growing burdens of an aging society, rising health care costs and high energy prices. They will have to make up for the trillion-plus dollars the government will spend to avoid a deep recession. They will have to struggle to keep their promises to cut taxes, create an energy revolution, pass an expensive health care plan and all the rest.

In other words they will have to deal with all the stuff that the Republicans let slip by the wayside for the last 8 years (as opposed to Bill Clinton who worked on balancing the budget and took a shot at health care, even though he was unsuccessful.) They will have to deal with the horrible fallout from the disaster that your chosen party visited upon America.

But you've already forgotten the Bush administration and your place among the pundocracy that supported it. You're just looking at how things are now without wondering how we got here, and whether there are any lessons we can learn from the past to help us act more wisely in the future. Because you're David Brooks. And that's what you do.