Thoughts, comments, musings on life, politics, current events and the media.



Blogroll Me!


Comments by YACCS

 

She would have gotten away with it, if it hadn't been for those meddling kids

Friday's Florida "Alligator Alley" incident may be out-and-out racism, as Partha seems to believe. Or, it could be an honest mistake, with the witness, Eunice Stone, mishearing something and jumping to a hasty conclusion. Or,it could have been a cruel joke by the three detained men. Right now, there's no way to know. And there may never be.

We can go back and forth trying to puzzle it out. On the one hand, why would the woman lie about it? She could be a racist -- but her actions, which included writing down a license plate and calling the police, seem pretty elaborate just to get some travellers who were passing through -- or a publicity seeker -- but she seemed pretty uncomfortable with the media frenzy. On the other hand, why would the men say these things? If they were really terrorists, they were incredibly careless. If they were joking, they were incredibly thoughtless. But, in the end, trying to deduce the truth without having the facts is silly.

Also silly was all the media hype. Given that a major road was closed for such a long time, it would be absurd not to report the story. But the media didn't have many facts, and they kept repeating them over and over. Ah, the wonders of all-news cable channels.

But if that's not very helpful, neither is exaggeration on the other side. Partha says that this is "racial profiling taken to its extreme." And family members complained:

"Just because of the way we look or the way we choose to live our lives, we're persecuted," said Hana Gheith, a sister of one of the men.

To read these quotes, you'd think that some vaguely black-looking people were picked at random, hauled off to jail, and beaten until they confessed. What actually happened? Specific people who were suspected of involvement in an ultra-serious crime were stopped and inconvenienced. I don't mean to downplay what it must feel like to be detained by the police for a day, but that's all that happened. They were not rounded up and put in internment camps -- which is what "racial profiling taken to its extreme" would be. They were not beaten or summarily executed. They were just questioned. If that's the worst problem these people face in their lives, they should consider themselves lucky. 3,000 people faced a lot worse a year ago. What would have happened had Stone or the police ignored this evidence, and something happened? Heads would have rolled (hopefully -- nobody has actually been punished for 9/11, yet).


One final note: I interpreted Stone's comments about the accents of the men differently than Partha did; I read them to say that given what the people were saying, she was surprised to hear them speaking without accents. Assuming that's what she meant, it seems reasonable. (Of course, I don't know where people from Georgia get off talking about American accents.)
posted by David Nieporent at 9/14/2002 05:13:00 AM |

 

Are you crazy?

The New York Times reports that the Argentine legislature is considering a law setting new requirements for political candidates:

Argentine politicians, blamed by voters for leading the country to its worst economic crisis, would have to undergo psychiatric tests to ensure they are mentally fit to hold office under the terms of a bill before the legislature.

This leads us, in a nice segue, to Janet Reno, who's actually considering a legal challenge to the results of the Democratic primary in Florida.

I don't know who thought it would be a good idea for Reno to run in the first place; an uncharismatic, highly partisan figure with little electoral experience (she had been a long-time state's attorney, an elected but low-profile position) is not what one would call a strong candidate. And now she has lost -- or almost lost, if you believe her -- to someone totally unknown, and she can't take a hint? Hey, Janet: nobody likes you.
posted by David Nieporent at 9/13/2002 03:55:00 AM |

 

Yeah, right. And Elvis is alive.

The New York Lottery picks its winning numbers for September 11: 9-1-1.
posted by David Nieporent at 9/12/2002 12:53:00 AM |

 

We remember

I'm not what one might call eloquent, so I'll quote, as George Pataki will, Abraham Lincoln's words:

"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

It's not perfect; most of the dead on 9/11 were innocent victims, not fallen heroes. But it is still appropriate. Lincoln tells us that it is not our words that matter, but our actions. We cannot forget that, while memorial ceremonies are important, we honor the dead by finishing the task for which they gave their lives. And that task is not to reorganize the Homeland Security Administration, or to change the questions asked at airline ticket counters, or to invent colorized threat levels. That task is to defend freedom by utterly defeating its enemies.

On September 11, we can and should remember the victims of terrorism. But on September 12, we need to get on with the business of destroying terrorists and their supporters.
posted by David Nieporent at 9/11/2002 04:03:00 AM |

 

Early returns

John Sununu the younger easily defeated incumbent Bob Smith in the Republican senatorial primary in New Hampshire. After 9/11, President Bush quickly urged everyone not to take out their anger on Arabs, while some on the left rushed to denounce the U.S. as racist, just in case. And yet Sununu, a Lebanese-American of Palestinian ancestry, won 54-44 over Smith. A desperate Smith stooped to implying that Sununu was soft on terrorism, but that tactic failed miserably. That an Arab-American won nomination in a conservative state was so unremarkable that neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post thought it was worthy of mention. Meanwhile, Christians and Jews aren't even allowed to visit Mecca, and American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia to protect the country are not allowed to practice their religions openly.

Advantage: United States. Despite what the National Educational Association may think, tolerance is not a problem, at least on our end.
posted by David Nieporent at 9/11/2002 03:17:00 AM |

 

He said, Iraq said

Reuters reports on European positions with regard to Iraq, in that wacky Reuters way:

French President Jacques Chirac said on Saturday Paris was keeping its options open over possible military action against Iraq, but had full understanding for Germany's outright rejection of any involvement.

Speaking after an informal meeting with Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in the German leader's private home in Hanover, Chirac said Germany and France agreed they were opposed to unilateral military action

I think I'm going to have an aneurysm if I read this one more time. If the United States and Britain are both involved, it's not unilateral. More to the point, ignoring Britain, if the French and/or Germans join in, it also ceases to be unilateral. So when they say that they're opposed to unilateral action, what they're really saying is that they won't agree to help unless they decide to help. Which is true, but not particularly useful.

On the other hand, perhaps "unilateral" is just a faulty buzzword, and what these Eurocrats really means is that even a group of countries shouldn't act, that action should only be taken if the United Nations agrees. Well, in that case, what they're actually saying is that even a united U.S. and Europe should not act unless Russia, China, and others agree. They're saying that a group of countries that includes Syria, Bulgaria, and Singapore should have veto power over U.S. actions. If anybody can explain to me why that's a good idea, I'm all ears.

and reiterated their call to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to allow arms inspectors to return unconditionally.

Hmmm. Wonder if he's going to listen. Is anybody else picturing the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail where the knights try to enter the French castle?

In any case, Reuters explains the problem:

Bush views Iraq as part of a so-called axis of evil, and says he wants to topple the Baghdad government of President Saddam Hussein and destroy his alleged weapons of mass destruction. Iraq says it no longer has prohibited arms.

Isn't that all so evenhanded? Bush "views" Iraq as part of a "so-called" axis of evil. Iraq "says" it doesn't have these weapons. Who's right? Reuters doesn't know and doesn't care. Why does this sound like a teaser from The People's Court?

I'm Doug Llewellyn. What you are witnessing is real. The participants are not actors. They are actual litigants with a case pending in an international court. Both parties have agreed to dismiss their court cases and have their dispute settled here in our forum -- The People's Court.

This is the plaintiff, George Bush. He alleges that Saddam Hussein has acquired weapons of mass destruction and is threatening to use them. He's suing for regime change and weapons inspections.

This is the defendant, Saddam Hussein. He denies having weapons of mass destruction, and says that sanctions are causing suffering in his country. He wants an end to inspections and sanctions.

We'll return for "The Case of the Dangerous Dictator" after these messages.

I mean, it's all just he-said, she-said to Reuters. Except, of course, when Iraq says something, in which case Reuters reports it credulously:

Baghdad has called for a comprehensive solution to the crisis, including an end to sanctions imposed for its 1990 invasion of Kuwait and which have caused widespread suffering.

How nice for them. Note that Bush merely "calls" Iraq evil, while the suffering caused by the sanctions is reported as fact, not allegation, by Reuters. And of course Reuters reports the sanctions as part of the "crisis" to be "solved," rather than as part of the means to solve the crisis itself.

I know bashing Reuters coverage is so easy, but there's good reason so many people do it.
posted by David Nieporent at 9/10/2002 09:33:00 PM |

 

Real blacks don't eat quiche

Last week, NAACP head Julian Bond denounced those who argued that Washington D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams "isn't black enough."

Silly charges about adherence to an imaginary black aesthetic based on college choices, speech patterns, clothing styles and leisure activities cheapen the political process. They reflect an unhealthy insecurity in those who make them -- and in those who reject them, a healthy respect for democracy.

African Americans properly reject as racist allegations from others that we all think, look and act alike. Why should we impose these reactionary notions on one another?

It's hard to imagine anybody who could disagree with that. And yet, never underestimate the power of identity politics, as Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy did precisely that:

Now, I may have some unhealthy insecurities as to whether Mayor Williams is black enough, but they are not based so much on how he talks as what he says. To be black enough simply means being able to connect with black people, to speak to their needs, hopes and fears -- especially when other, more powerful constituencies are competing for attention.

So, in other words, black people all think alike and say the same things. If you don't, you're not a real black. And of course, real black politicians cater only to their black constituents, not to "more powerful" ones. So isn't that an argument that no non-black should vote for a "real black" politician?

Now a new day is dawning, and it is not at all clear whether the concerns of ordinary blacks will even be heard, let alone acted on.

At the luncheon, Wilson, who is a long-shot contender for Williams's job in the Democratic primary, criticized the mayor for not doing something about the long lines at some Department of Motor Vehicles stations.

Williams responded by explaining that the long lines were the result of the DMV "screening people who haven't settled their accounts."

In other words, forget the inconvenience. What makes Williams proud is the coldly efficient way that his network of computers goes about snaring residents who owe the city. Anyone with, say, $1,500 in outstanding taxes cannot get a driver's license renewed until the bill is paid.

For the District's new well-to-do, that may be chump change. But for many others, that's more than a month's pay.

So, in short, real black people are poor, and bad at financial management. I'd sure as heck be the last to defend a department of motor vehicles anywhere on earth, but what it has to do with racial politics escapes me. But Milloy continues:

The inability to anticipate the pain of such actions, and to come up with more reasonable ways for struggling residents to pay, shows a particular kind of insensitivity. It wouldn't matter whether the politician who reveled in such a moneymaking scheme wore a dashiki; he still wouldn't be black enough.

Again, you're not going to find me defending current levels of taxation, but aren't we getting a little silly? Taxes are not a moneymaking "scheme." And what is this inanity about the "pain" of these actions? White people are cold and heartless and don't care how others feel, while black people do?

Wilson also characterized the mayor's leadership as "dishonest" and "untrustworthy." Now, most black people I know, when called a liar to their face, would offer a quick retort -- or at least an evil eye.

But Williams reacted the way most Ivy League white men would do in a similar situation: He was oblivious. And when Deputy Editorial Page Editor Colby King, who is black, asked him to explain that nonreaction, the mayor first dismissed Wilson's remarks as unworthy of comment. But then he stared meekly at his plate and began talking about how much tourism had increased and how many people had showed up for the Cherry Blossom Festival.

Definitely not black enough.

So black people also lack self-control. And of course they're not Ivy Leaguers.

John Rocker never said anything which approached the outrageous bigotry of this column -- and he was merely a baseball player. Courtland Milloy works for one of the preeminent newspapers in the United States, and is paid specifically to express his opinion. And yet Rocker was punished for his remarks, while Milloy's escaped notice.
posted by David Nieporent at 9/10/2002 03:54:00 AM |