I hope the last part of this exchange is fleshed out in subsequent installments. Loury's prescription of "help" that isn't "punitive" doesn't substantively answer McWhorter's question of what to do about deadbeat dads. Does fathering a child entail personal responsibility toward that child? Who ensures that responsibility is met? If it falls to society to meet the child's needs, what does the absent father owe to society? Is it "punitive" for society to demand that people take responsibility for their behavior? If they are ill-equipped to do so, is it "punitive" to insist that they take steps to equip themselves? The sad fact is that now there are no real penalties for men who father children they can't or won't support - or, for that matter, penalties for women who let men do that. The penalties are paid by the children born under those circumstances, which is profoundly unjust, and by the larger society that's called upon to support those children. The situation is untenable and requires correction. The longer we wait to face it squarely, the more punitive the correction will be.

john, you make a fantastic point about the politics of "true" hip-hop. i've never heard anyone say that before and i like it. great work!

Rap music can have a persuasively stylish packaging and some relatively smart messages. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN2VqFPNS8w I'd add some caveats about the buying land part, but generally real estate is a wiser investment than spinning rims. On a serious note, the "hip hop revolution" may be a fallacy, but I don't think it's necessarily an especially dangerous one. In fact, it can be an excellent vehicle for memes. KRS-One promoted condom use in 1988 with his song "Jimmy". Arrested Development's topics range from spirituality that inspires activism to the humanity of the homeless. Society's overemphasis of style over substance is nothing new. Just as Che Guevara t-shirts are worn more often as a fashion statement than a well-informed political message, the hip hop "revolution" is just a fashionable way to brand a product. I hope this makes sense, but I'm tired. You get my gist...

It seems that John and Glenn have recapitulated the previous impasse. Glenn heard in the FD speech exactly what he wisely anticipated, even if he previously was reluctant to state it fully. He senses correctly that Obama - as well as any other politician, isn't likely to follow the complicated and nebulous
program that would be required to address all the needs of the hypothetical "black man at risk." He requires that the street be two-way.
They both seem to be able to recognize and label the problem; but what John sees as a starting point, Glenn sees as unanswerable:
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/121...9&out=00:45:04 Glenn restates the problem:
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/121...0&out=00:48:30 If Glenn believes the mechanisms to be intractable or so ingrained as to be unalterable by rhetoric or reward, the what to do question remains. John isn't the only one asking. The naming of the problem is not in dispute. But just because Glenn recognizes that the complexities don't lend themselves to easy fixes, that shouldn't preclude any or all attempts at influence. I have to side with John on the need for granting leeway to Obama to proceed by instinct or design to foster a

1. I think this diavlog debacle illustrates the danger of keeping a pairing going regardless of topic. This should have been two diavlogs at least, one on music, the other on Obama's speech. #1: McWhorter vs. some music critic or other prof 'head. #2: McWhorter vs. Kleiman (or at least, a longer diavlog on the speech and the deadbeat dad issue. 2. What's happening to the editing? Please don't give us diavlogs if they're cut short, or if the sound or visual is bad! 3. I was excited when Loury brought up the internationalization of the hip-hop market, but then both punted. In ROK, there are very few independent performers, and maybe one or two of them were company products and are now really old. There's this spectacle where farmed and discovered talent performs on company-paid TV shows on the national networks to auditoriums full of older people, families, or school kids, or some mixture, who can't move from their chairs the entire concert. I saw the same stuff on Italian TV in the early 90s. The concert is like a 50s show where 15 company acts perform and then the headliner comes out. All have a stable of dancers performing behind them, only with different

Quoting Baltimoron: 1. I think this diavlog debacle illustrates the danger of keeping a pairing going regardless of topic.

Disagree. This pairing remains among my favorites, and I'm always happy to hear them talk.

2. What's happening to the editing? Please don't give us diavlogs if they're cut short, or if the sound or visual is bad!

Disagree. 95% of a loaf is better than no loaf at all.

I'm sure many have heard of Rain?

Yes, thanks to Colbert. ;^)

I had a deadbeat dad who refused to pay child support (and lied to me about every time I pressed him), so I tend to disagree with Loury's post-incarceration schemes. But, after the damage is done, what can a slimeball really do that anyone wants the government to have any relationship with? Deterrence and rehabilitation are just two aspects of punishment. But the purpose of criminal law is to identify socially intolerable action. My one year of law school gets some payback--whoopdeedoo!. But, that's how Perkins and Boyce, Criminal Law, 3rd Edition, argue. Torts, or civil offenses, are hard to distinguish from contract violations, and also look like crimes. But, with torts, the relationships between people are more important. So, I think addressing family issues legally requires the right legal definition, crime, tort, or contract. And then, other non-legal remedies should be used. So, I think society should put its most painful penalty as a legal measure against deadbeat dads. But, if a rehabilitated man wants to deal with his deeds, there should be fiscal and other remedies to encourage repairing the harm. But, government shouldn't expect rehabilitation to occur. Government should put all its efforts into punishment to deter the act. Generally, this is a legal conundrum. Is the convict ever

That was just preface to the major substantive point, Brendan! But, if you want to be philosophical about it, then I say, "Strive, Strive! Strive for perfection!" And, if you think it quixotic, or perhaps too catholic, I would quote Mickey Rourke from Diner: "If you don't have dreams, you just have nightmares!" No more diavlog nightmares!

Quoting Tao Jones:
Society's overemphasis of style over substance is nothing new. Just as Che Guevara t-shirts are worn more often as a fashion statement than a well-informed political message, the hip hop "revolution" is just a fashionable way to brand a product. I hope this makes sense, but I'm tired. You get my gist...

Even reduced to marketing ploys, the message is still threatening to some.
There is a difference between the Beatles "Love Me Do" and CSN's "Love the One You're With."
The first is a pop love song and the second a societal threat. Maybe. I was raised on Long Island and cut my rap teeth on local favorites Public Enemy and De La Soul. Public Enemy was best exemplified by "Fight the Power." Revolutionary lyrics that were given further heft as a backdrop to the opening credits of Spike Lee's "Do the Right Thing." As a white late adolescent sitting in a darkened theater, hearing the lyrics and seeing the imagery was not a call to revolution. But it did stir an inchoate yearning to move beyond the beat and question the message and messengers.
I may have been predisposed to

We now have 4 episodes entitled "Afterthought." There's got to be a better way for BH staff to alert readers to a technical difficulty.

Quoting Baltimoron: That was just preface to the major substantive point, Brendan!

Sorry if I came off as a nitpicker. I have nothing to say about hip-hop music.

Quoting Wonderment: We now have 4 episodes entitled "Afterthought."

There's got to be a better way for BH staff to alert readers to a technical difficulty.

Agreed. I sent them a nastygram via the "report this post" link to the same effect.

Somehow I knew you'd be all over this one, but I thought I should do my civic duty as well

Heh. Actually it was kind of embarrassing, because the first one took them to task for inadvertently starting a second thread for the same diavlog. And you had the count of four. So it is I who should apologize. BTW -- regarding the short discussion in another thread about nuclear disarmament, I just came across an excellent talk by Richard Rhodes. (He was on BH.tv once, a while back, and he's one of my favorite authors.) It's about an hour long, and well worth watching. I should have posted this in that other thread, but since all threads are now named "Afterthought," I can't bear to look for it. ;^)

I have nothing to say about hip-hop music.

Neither did Loury, except for something about his choice of workout music (Michael Jackson? Was that pre-or-post Quincy Jones?) If the purpose of the diavlog is to plug a book, please read it, Dr. Loury! Is that the rap kind of hip-hop, or the jazz? How did hip-hop become its own master? Silver Age, indeed! WTF, Brendan, being contrarian? But, graz is a public servant! I was keeping it in the house until there was consensus that we have a problem! It's not as if someone didn't read this! Anyway, hi Joel_Cairo! I guess I'm directing my complaint at you!

Quoting Baltimoron: Neither did Loury, except for something about his choice of workout music

I thought his point about Christian hiphop was a good one. It's not my kind of music (nor my kind of poetry -- can't stand the insistent finger-nail-on-the-blackboard near-rhymes on the order of pain/fame or one/thumb), so I speak very much as an outsider. My sense of rap, from this very distant perspective, is that John's onto something about the emotional tone that goes with the style of music -- it seems best at expressing anger/indignation/resentment/complaint. But Glenn points out that there's such a thing as Christian hip-hop. Surely John should have something to say about that as an apparent counter-example to his thesis -- something within the book. He does have a response here -- where he suggests that (at least at this point in hip hop's development) the medium fits poorly with the Christian message. From my point of view, this seems very plausible, but John's argument actually makes this seem less certain to me, since he notes that there was a time when rap was compatible with a smile on the face etc. (something I wasn't aware

I felt like I was seeing an old friend on TV, when I saw Glenn on Bill Moyers' Journal, talking about Obama's Fathers' Day Speech. Here's a link. I'm inclined to think Glenn ought to cut Obama a little slack. Obama's goal is, in part, to sell social programs that would (he hopes) benefit African Americans. The stumbling block for selling these programs has been a sense (fair or unfair) on the part of a large portion of the electorate that these programs constitute a moral hazard -- that they allow people to slough off their own responsibilities onto society. Any politically effective approach to selling new social programs is going to have to face this concern. The "deal" has to be that the wider society will pitch in and help, but it will help those who help themselves. I don't have much hope for any attempt to sell liberal social programs without that implicit deal. Glenn's objections would be well-directed at conservatives who simply want to use family dysfunction as an excuse not to pay for social programs, but Obama is preaching personal responsibility in the context of trying to meet such personal

Please stop with the painful small talk about the weather at the beginning of these. It is terrible. Just introduce yourself and get to the topics. Your attempts at humor are cringe inducing.

I think both of these guys are living in fantasy-land if they think that music is someday going to raise significant political issues in a positive fashion (beyond angst and calls to revolution). First off, most music listeners simply aren't interested in policy solutions, they just want to hear the artist bitch about the lousy situation. Second, positivity and music are a dealy combo. Aside from "All you need is love", I can't think of too many popular songs that had an overtly positive message that didn't immediately make me want to wretch violently. Aside from the occasional love song (and they walk a pretty fine line) as soon as an artist writes a song that praises god, or America or their children, I immediately want to change the channel. This is what makes Christian rock so entirely insufferable to me. Art (and music especially) is about fantasy or misery (or both.) Anything that is too smart, or too progressive generally falls on deaf ears, because well it's not "cool." I love BHTV and wish everyone I know would watch it and visit all the links and be more well-informed, but come on, I'm a realist. Although

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Although I'm not a huge fan of hip-hop, the early stuff from the streets of LA was raw and showed an amazing perspective to a middle-class white boy in the Mass suburbs.

You are a coastal traitor! A Mass. boy choosing LA rap over East Coast.
Don't tell me you were rooting for the Lakers over the Celts?

Hi Uncle,
I don't think I'm very big on Christian music -- unless it's classical. THAT can be pretty damn good stuff.
The Christian pop that I've heard sounds pretty hoaky, though I recall Daniel Radosh (author of Rapture Ready) had good things to say about some Christian popular music, as I recall. But it's one thing to say that songs can't be all "sweetness and light" or they run the risk of being hoaky or sappy and it's quite another to say that songs all have to be negative or (even more specifically) angry/indignant. You yourself mention love songs, which you note, run the risk of being sappy, though they can successfully avoid that trap.
But it seems to me there are a lot of emotions between love (of either God or some girl) and anger. The question John seems to raise is this: how adaptable is hip-hop's musical style to the expression of other emotions? If it is THE style, and if it's emotional range is limited to anger/indignation, then there might be reason to worry that the dominance of hip-hop is funneling a lot of emotional expression into a very narrow range. At least, that's

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: I felt like I was seeing an old friend on TV, when I saw Glenn on Bill Moyers' Journal, talking about Obama's Fathers' Day Speech. Here's a link.

Thanks for the link. It contained a condensed version of Glenn's complaint against Obama. The last two minutes capture it: "Obama wants to transcend and not litigate the open questions of racial matters."
Glenn seems so certain that the full redress of issues isn't likely to happen,
that he is unwilling to buy into the "hope and change."
I think I understand his take more fully now. I respect his wariness and agree in part with his concerns, but he might heed Orlando Pattersons final words to the effect that: "this is how change happens in America."
We shall see.

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: You yourself mention love songs, which you note, run the risk of being sappy, though they can successfully avoid that trap.
But it seems to me there are a lot of emotions between love (of either God or some girl) and anger.

The question John seems to raise is this: how adaptable is hip-hop's musical style to the expression of other emotions? If it is THE style, and if it's emotional range is limited to anger/indignation, then there might be reason to worry that the dominance of hip-hop is funneling a lot of emotional expression into a very narrow range.

I wonder, are there any good hip-hop love songs? Or would the style fight with the message too much?
Of course, I wouldn't expect

I don't know if this qualifies as a love song - maybe lust:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTkxCwEZx3A This is a love song of sorts... with "sampling" (Steely Dan).
This would be a counter example to the complaint that the style disallows a range of expression and subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoSkD...eature=related

Bloggin', you're right. I was just ranting based on my own preferences (it's what I do best.) My instinct has always been that western music is largely rooted from tales of woe or rebellion (blues/jazz/country/rock/rap) and that if a study was ever done, I would bet that a far greater percentage of our all-time hits were of a melancholy nature rather than happy anthems (I'd be interested to see if there's any studies that address this angle of art.) Positivity has it's place (love songs, even gospel etc.) but to me it's more the overtness of it that generally gets to me. But then again the radio is filled with power ballads and bookshelves are loaded with glowing orange-cover self-help books so maybe I'm the one who's out of the mainstream. So I guess what I'm saying on music is that positivity mixed with good music CAN work, but it's a lot tougher than a simple I-hate-the-world song and probably won't resonate as much. As far as trying to put more cogent political commentary into music, I just think that would only appeal to a small minority of listeners

Graz, I'm no traitor in basketball, Celtics all the way (I'm still savoring the silence among the teary-eyed Laker fans even now...), but i gotta admit that South Central LA was the home of the best rap ever. Easy E was a hero to every 8th grade white boy in my high school (until his mysgenistic ways finally got the best of him...aids). Never listened to much "East Coast" but then again I was more often listening to metal/grunge than anything else.

Quoting Baltimoron: WTF, Brendan, being contrarian?

If you ask this in response to my saying that I have nothing to say about hip-hop, then my answer is no. I meant merely that this is a form of music that is not really to my taste, though some individual songs have appealed to me. Generally, I care little about lyrics, in any form of music, and as much as a strong, simple beat can resonate with me, I usually want to hear other instruments as well. I also don't much buy the claim that there's political importance to hip-hop. Maybe there used to be, as with early Public Enemy, but these days, hip-hop strikes me as such a commercialized industry that it has itself become The Establishment. It reminds me of the evolution of rock and roll -- what was once viewed as provocative and even dangerous has become just another form of entertainment. I'd also say that the arousal provoked in fans by hip-hop music strikes me as no different from the same response that other people show from listening to, say, heavy metal, punk rock, marching band music, or for that matter, religious hymns. You can pump up a person or a crowd

It must be nice to have time to write a book about a topic you don't think is important to begin with. Publish or perish, I guess.

Quoting bjkeefe: I'd also say that the arousal provoked in fans by hip-hop music strikes me as no different from the same response that other people show from listening to, say, heavy metal, punk rock, marching band music, or for that matter, religious hymns. You can pump up a person or a crowd for a short time, but really, does anything ever happen after that?

Well yeah... Life goes on. Which isn't to say that the music doesn't have some net positive or negative effect. I don't liken it to the argument against violent video games because of the supposed detrimental effect. But aside from the limited effect on you, why are you so sure about the unlikely effect on others? I would imagine that you have been greatly influenced by ideas transmitted by books? Inspiration comes in many forms. Einstein was inspired to some extent by music: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/31/science/31essa.html Granted, the average listener is hardly an Einstein, yet....

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Graz, I'm no traitor in basketball, Celtics all the way (I'm still savoring the silence among the teary-eyed Laker fans even now...), but i gotta admit that South Central LA was the home of the best rap ever. Easy E was a hero to every 8th grade white boy in my high school (until his mysgenistic ways finally got the best of him...aids). Never listened to much "East Coast" but then again I was more often listening to metal/grunge than anything else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zitbExMdlvY
Tell it homey.

If you ask this in response to my saying that...

My bad! I meant your response to Wonderment ("Quadruple Afterthought") about the technical difficulties. No takers on the music business side of the problem?

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: . BHTV could finally address the issue we discussed WAY back about why there have been so few successful (if any) comedians who use Right-leaning political views as a substantial part of their act. With as many Rep's out there you would think there would be a whole slew of comics catering to that niche.

That would be Miller Time: Dennis and Larry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC6y_...eature=related http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...1/161yaihr.asp
I think Larry is naturally funny and his politics skew right. Dennis on the other hand does interesting wordplay, not necessarily funny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miXAZj-tcGI

Graz, I knew Dennis Miller would pop-up. He was marginally funny when he did the news on SNL but politics was never really part of his schtick until 9/11turned him into Bill(y) Kristol. Actually the funniest thing DM ever did was Monday Night Football, but that was funny in a whole nother (unintended) way. I would say that PJ O'Rourke is marginally funny at making right-wing observations, but still...compared to Carlin, Lenny Bruce, Bill Hicks, Jon Stewart etc., not so much. BTW- I LOVED the fact that Obama used the Chris Rock routine in his speech and applied it to 8th grade graduations. Everytime one of my co-workers tells me of these things I'm amazed and feel like going into my old man "ya know, back in my day..." rant about how we only celebrated ONE graduation.

graz:

Well yeah... Life goes on. Which isn't to say that the music doesn't have some net positive or negative effect. I don't liken it to the argument against violent video games because of the supposed detrimental effect. But aside from the limited effect on you, why are you so sure about the unlikely effect on others?

One can say music has a net positive or negative effect, but i'm not sure how you'd support this, apart from offering anecdotal evidence. Put another way, I'm sure it's true that for some individuals, a form of music or even a specific song has had an effect one way or the other. But a lasting societal impact, again, in either direction? I don't see it. Some people may have been made aware of the downside of life in the 'hood, and that's a good thing, and some people may have embraced a lifestyle of conspicuous assumption, and that's probably less desirable. We have another art form, and that's a good thing. Its commercial dominance tends to mean the diversity of music on the airwaves is somewhat limited, and that's a bad thing. So, I'll agree that there have been effects, but

Quoting bjkeefe: Yes. Maybe I'm an elitist, but I think books provide much more depth than songs do. I'd also say that books appeal more to rationality, while music appeals more to emotion, although there are exceptions in both cases.

Yes. You are an Obamalitist. And I mean that in a good way. I guess I'm reluctantly with you on the greater import of influence on rationality vs. emotion. This relates to your thread with Bokonon. There seems to be an irrational appeal to granting special status to states of emotion. It's obvious that the same leeway isn't allowed for irrational discourse or unverifiable proofs. But I offer the idea that a raised emotional state, can have great impact on consciousness and behavior. Not simply a distraction. Just because there isn't a tool for measuring the correlation effect, does not rule out the possibility.
Think of it as the "string theory" of emotions? No luck?

Brendan, I largely agree with you that a song, or band doesn't make a huge difference in the bigger picture of the world. I don't believe that song lyrics make kids commit mass suicide, so on the flip side I don't think even the most inspiring music lifts people up or makes any great leaps in the advancement of society. What are your thoughts on music as sortof a drip-drip effect of slow cultural change? (I'm thinking attitudes towards homosexuality, acceptance of the "reality" of conditions in the hood, spreading of anti-war/civil rights sentiment in 60's folk tunes etc.) Obviously it runs into the chicken/egg dilemna of causation: maybe attitudes changed and they are REFLECTED in the music, not the other way around. But it seems to me that simply spreading new memes, even in the compact and inefficient form of music (compared to literature) could slowly alter the public outlook on certain issues just for the sake that people tend to believe things that they hear over and over. Just curious. I tend to agree that music is unlikely to lead to any significant political movement.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: What are your thoughts on music as sortof a drip-drip effect of slow cultural change? (I'm thinking attitudes towards homosexuality, acceptance of the "reality" of conditions in the hood, spreading of anti-war/civil rights sentiment in 60's folk tunes etc.) Obviously it runs into the chicken/egg dilemna of causation: maybe attitudes changed and they are REFLECTED in the music, not the other way around. But it seems to me that simply spreading new memes, even in the compact and inefficient form of music (compared to literature) could slowly alter the public outlook on certain issues just for the sake that people tend to believe things that they hear over and over.

Very well put. I think we're completely in agreement here -- there is some entanglement regarding cause and effect, and there's no doubt that once a movement and a piece (or kind) of music get associated, they tend to reinforce each other, and it's almost never possible to separate the two. But there does seem to be something there. Music can provide the focus, a convenient shorthand, a rallying cry, a way to feel inside the out group, and so on. It may provide the impetus

Quoting bjkeefe:
I also don't much buy the claim that there's political importance to hip-hop. Maybe there used to be, as with early Public Enemy, but these days, hip-hop strikes me as such a commercialized industry that it has itself become The Establishment.

http://www.latimes.com/features/book...72,print.story

Quoting graz: Yes. You are an Obamalitist. And I mean that in a good way. I guess I'm reluctantly with you on the greater import of influence on rationality vs. emotion. This relates to your thread with Bokonon. There seems to be an irrational appeal to granting special status to states of emotion. It's obvious that the same leeway isn't allowed for irrational discourse or unverifiable proofs.

Yeah, but as Uncle Eb made me realize, there's a possibility that emotion can be the seed of an idea, and that music can be part of articulating the emotion. But also yes, the emotion needs to be distilled to really have lasting effects.

But I offer the idea that a raised emotional state, can have great impact on consciousness and behavior. Not simply a distraction.

I guess I have no problem accepting that this can happen. Still, though, whenever I hear a story from someone along the lines of, "I still remember the first time I heard [song X], and ever since then I ...," I usually think that this is more an example of how we like to tell well-packaged, simple stories. Things are not usually that clean and straightforward, especially when humans are involved, but we do like to pretend

Another way that music directly enables or assists cultural shift is in breaking down bigotry. I know my somewhat old-fashioned mom wept openly when Freddie Mercury died and the music of Queen greatly changed her outlook towards gays and aids. Neither here nor there, but I just thought I'd throw that out there as another unintended way that music shapes culture (more than film or novels in my experience.)

Uncle Eb: Another good example. Add to yours how much jazz and blues helped blacks and whites get along in America, and for that matter, how "world music" teaches us all a little bit about others. So maybe I'll have to withdraw my claim further. Music, as with other art forms, may by itself be capable of fostering revolutions, albeit slow ones.

I wonder if it would be more effective to endeavor to alter the behavior of unwed mothers than unwed fathers. Bob's The Moral Animal tells us women are naturally attracted to good providers and inclined toward monogamy, whereas men can easily do without monogamy and raising kids. In other words, unwed fathers are doing what comes naturally (broadly speaking, of course), while the wantonness of unwed mothers is less to be expected. The men don't act responsibly became the women don't require them to. Civilize (shame?) the women and the women will civilize the men. Don't ask me how the government is supposed to do this. No idea.

I'm not an American, and so I offer these comments at a remove, hoping not to appear presumptuous. I watched the Moyers interview that someone linked to, and that was after I listened to this diavlog, which, apart from the discussion of rap, retrod a lot of old themes between these guys without them saying much I found fresh. But in Loury's closing comments with Moyers I thought he, in an illuminating way, put his finger right on what disturbs him about Obama--he favoured Hillary. His concern is that Obama represents the potential for a radical reconfiguration of racial issues along the universalist lines that Patterson spoke about. A consequence will be that policy will be less targeted at blacks as such, with affirmative action being a case in point in the possible move from race to class. Loury thinks it likely that that move will decrease black attendance in colleges and while, he says, that may or may not be a good thing (though clearly for him it will be a bad thing), he wonders whether blacks understand that this is an example of what Obama may bode for them. At a minimum, argues

p.s. As to the revolutionary potential of rap, which I think is a delusion, the example was put of how rock and roll played a role in breaking down segregation in the South in the fifties as black kids and white kids attending rock and rolls shows overran the flimsy barriers segregating them and danced side by side and danced together too, as Booker T and the MGs were an integrated band as were the doo wopping Dell Vikings for that matter. A point of distinction I'd suggest is that rock and roll was never overtly or directly revolutionary in its message. Its breaking down barriers role was catalytic. The claim for rap is that it is or was explicitly revolutionary in its message and intent. And that was true in some of its inception in the seventies with progenitors like the Last Poets. But time and commercial success have leached out that message and intent nearly completely.

Fans of Glenn (I am one) really should check out the Adam Shatz profile. Really amazing.

I was going to mention the blues/jazz/motown effect on race attitudes too, but couldn't think of any specific examples to point to. Of course all this can go the other way too. I'm sure that exagerating the nature of say: pot smoking, misogeny, gang-violence etc. (all real aspects of ghetto life) in rap music, also just makes many white people believe that the stereotype is 100% true. As with the Metal/Satan connection, some associations that were bred from music, are very hard to dispell once the public buys into them. I'd be interested to hear someone knowledeable discuss the role that music has played in revolutions in Africa, South America or Haiti etc. Or the Middle East, for that matter. On an entirely unrelated note. Have you ever read any Mike Davis? I just started City of Quartz (about Los Angeles). Very good. He'd be a great guest for BHTV, although he'd have to be matched with someone pretty Republican (or Libertarian) cause he makes Chomsky look like George Will, by comparison.

Eb:
Beware the dark sinkhole of his myopic vision... be afraid, it's mesmerizing.
Even though I was captivated "City of Quartz" and his "Dead Cities," it did leave me feeling uneasy for succumbing. He is a smart cookie. But I had to ask myself after reading his books, why he still chooses to live there, or anywhere for that matter? I linked to a little counter perspective I found comforting: http://bostonreview.net/BR19.3/haefele.html or this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiizQk_3pLI

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: On an entirely unrelated note. Have you ever read any Mike Davis? I just started City of Quartz (about Los Angeles). Very good. He'd be a great guest for BHTV, although he'd have to be matched with someone pretty Republican (or Libertarian) cause he makes Chomsky look like George Will, by comparison.

I have not, but I do like it dark, so thanks for the recommendation.

Quoting graz: But I had to ask myself after reading his books, why he [Mike Davis] still chooses to live there, or anywhere for that matter?

It's not unprecedented. Think of Raymond Chandler, who never left L.A., or Andrew Vachss, who stayed in NYC for most of his life and still lives there part time. You'd be hard-pressed to find a complimentary word for either of the respective cities in any of these guys' books, but there they stayed. Could be they all actually like where they live, and just like harping on the bad points. That would make them fairly standard human beings.

Seeing Glenn on Moyers recently was a surprise. I did disagree from the start though with Moyers' premise that blacks are 'deliberately assigned to the margins', unless he included self-inflicted assignation. I'm always struck by something I sense in Glenn, that he absolutely is invested in white guilt, that nothing is more important than refusing to budge on the fact that blacks are owed. The reactionary sitting at the bar that Glenn fears hearing a black leader saying some black problems are the result of black practices isn't (IMO) getting his jollies because he's racist or wants to escape his share of the debt to the collective 'enterprise', he's agreeing with a philosophy that explains his own successes and failures and is hopeful that maybe some will finally 'get it'. My biggest problem with Glenn's argument is slightly captured by John's allusion to 'the past 30 years': many of the problems of the black urban community are maintained and even cultivated by the very solutions Loury advocates. Increasing handouts or rewards for incorrect behavior will never correct it. 'Lowered expectations' may be anathema to Glenn but hey

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/vi...out-race-11379

Quoting bjkeefe: It's not unprecedented. Think of Raymond Chandler, who never left L.A., or Andrew Vachss, who stayed in NYC for most of his life and still lives there part time. You'd be hard-pressed to find a complimentary word for either of the respective cities in any of these guys' books, but there they stayed.

Could be they all actually like where they live, and just like harping on the bad points. That would make them fairly standard human beings.

Interesting, I was reminded of Chandler also. I take your point, but if you read Davis you might agree with me. There is a difference between illuminating the dark side or underbelly like Chandler - which I also read as a twisted Valentine - and a dystopian prognosticator. I love Chandler, especially his ability to evoke a sense of the place (LA), separate from the venality of his capture of the culture. Davis is the godless equivalent of the religious apocalyptic crusader. There isn't much art. It's mostly soul-crushing fact and interpretation. I liked the darkness too. P.S. You have to live somewhere. And maybe he has a death wish.

Davis definitely has a very dark tone, but the info in "Quartz" is fascinating, especially to someone like me who has only lived in Los Angeles for a couple years and doesn't know much about the history. He definitely favors the dismal side of the story. When I read i almost hear the voice from that creepy old show "In Search Of", or maybe "Frontline". His writing almost has a true-crime sorta feel to it, but it's always interesting.

Uncle Eb: Have you read any of James Ellroy's books? Some are set in LA, about a half-century ago. I can heartily recommend Black Dahlia, L.A. Confidential, and The Big Nowhere. White Jazz involves sort of an experiment with language and may be "for fans only," so maybe don't start with that one. His autobiography, My Dark Places, is also good, and is also set in L.A., starting back in the late 1950s.

Quoting bjkeefe: Uncle Eb:

Have you read any of James Ellroy's books? Some are set in LA, about a half-century ago.

I would like to add Walter Mosley to Brendan's list. Mostly set in LA and different genres:
http://www.math.buffalo.edu/~sww/mos...er_primer.html

Quoting graz: I would like to add Walter Mosley to Brendan's list.

Second that, for sure. And for darkness to the point of absurdity, although set in more modern L.A., John Ridley's early books are great. (Absurdist in the literary sense, of course.)

Thanks Brendan.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: He definitely favors the dismal side of the story. When I read i almost hear the voice from that creepy old show "In Search Of",...

You're aware that "that voice" was the voice of Leonard Nimoy [Spock], right? (He wasn't always just a voice, either, as I recall. It struck me as rather a shame that he took that gig -- horrible show.) PS Reading over the Wikipedia entry, I discovered why you may have thought Nimoy was just a voice:

The In Search Of series aired during the early 1990s on the A&E Network, which edited out all of Leonard Nimoy's on-camera appearances. In the latter 1990s, the show aired on another of the A&E Television Networks' properties, The History Channel, which included Leonard Nimoy's on-camera appearances. The licensing agreement expired in the early 2000s, ending the show's run.

I also did not know that Nimoy was a replacement for Rod Serling:

In Search of ... is a TV documentary series that was broadcast weekly from 1976 to 1982. It was created after two successful hour long TV documentaries, In Search of Ancient Astronauts in 1973 (based on the book Chariots of the Gods), and In Search of Ancient Mysteries in 1975 both with narration by Rod

Bloggin Noggin: I felt like I was seeing an old friend on TV, when I saw Glenn on Bill Moyers' Journal, talking about Obama's Fathers' Day Speech.

Thanks BN for that link. I believe the Moyers conversation really shows that Loury is not throwing up his hands about what to do about the problems in Black America. In fact the opposite is true because he wants to go beyond moral judgments and sloganeering to real solutions based on smart policies and mutual obligation. It also appears that one of his objections to Obama's Father's Day speech is not so much that it isn't accurate in its depiction of the situation but that its being delivered during a Presidential campaign. Speaking to the black community in this way at this time does smack of political opportunism i.e. offering him the chance to inadvertently impress others "out there" that he is not like those he is speaking to and will not favor them (You know, wink, wink...Sister Soulja and all that) Had he waited until after the election and combined this sermon with concrete policy solutions, I feel that Mr. Loury would be better pleased.

Anyuser: Fans of Glenn (I am one) really should check out the Adam Shatz profile. Really amazing.

I agree that the Shatz article was a real eye-opener. Had no idea about the details of Professor Loury's personal journey. I too greatly admire him, particularly because of his original "beat of his own drummer" thinking style which can sometimes seem a little lonely. Perhaps he could be best described as a "Raging Moderate" but hardly someone who is wishy washy or ordinary.

Quoting deebee: Speaking to the black community in this way at this time does smack of political opportunism i.e. offering him the chance to inadvertently impress others "out there" that he is not like those he is speaking to and will not favor them (You know, wink, wink...Sister Soulja and all that) Had he waited until after the election and combined this sermon with concrete policy solutions, I feel that Mr. Loury would be better pleased.

Not surprising that you have offered the least generous interpretation of the speech. After all, the still wounded Clintonites (Glenn too) believe all Obama's motives are suspect.
Fortunately, BO has never suggested that he is unlike "those." He doesn't deny his race or deny his desire to campaign - last I checked this would include political maneuvering - so as to be in position as President, to implement the policies that are implied by the speech. Sorry that your "feelings" are once again unflattered. By the way - Hillary's return to the Senate was marked by her recommitment to fight for the principles she believes in. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. Why don't you try the same for Obama.

renzo: ]Not surprising that you have offered the least generous interpretation of his speech. After all, the still wounded Clintonites (Glenn too) believe all Obama's motives are suspect.....Sorry that your "feelings" are once again unflattered.

Attributing someone's perceptions solely to "feelings" implies unfair dismissiveness. Am I not entitled to offer my personal take on what Professor Loury said about the issue based on his cogent and unique perspective without being belittled? After all, the black community expressed much anger at Bill Clinton's Sister Soulja moment because they felt used (that's a FACT) -- what's different about this event, especially given the timing? Also, if I were looking for flattery I can think of better places to visit. I also "feel" that you are entitled to your own opinion too -- whether based on reason, emotion, spiritual perception or any combination thereof with the understanding that it's not my place to psychoanalyze or dissect your personal motivation.

Quoting deebee:
Also, if I were looking for flattery I can think of better places to visit. I also "feel" that you are entitled to your own opinion too -- whether based on reason, emotion, spiritual perception or any combination thereof with the understanding that it's not my place to psychoanalyze or dissect your personal motivation.

And therein lies my point. It does matter as to the source of the reasoning. I don't wish to stifle or deny your expression. What I am attempting is to persuade you to recognize a perspective - call it politics or whatever you like.
Our opinions are of little value if we are not willing to offer them in a forum like this to be challenged.
I assume that your participation here is not solely to have your assumptions acknowledged? I chose "feelings" for arguments sake - not to insult. You didn't address my point that he is neither race denying or without policy prescription. http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.c...362F14531AFFDF

Quoting Baltimoron: l

2. What's happening to the editing? Please don't give us diavlogs if they're cut short, or if the sound or visual is bad!

1. I DON'T SHARE THIS ARROGANT POINT OF VIEW. My world is a little better because of this diavlog, WARTS AND ALL!!!
I would hate to have missed out on it because of some self-important commenter.
2. I DON'T SHARE THIS ARROGANT POINT OF VIEW. My world is a little better because of this diavlog, WARTS AND ALL!!!
I would hate to have missed out on it because of some self-important commenter.
3. I find it annoying when people number their points.
4. See point number 3.
5. Please refer to all previous numbered points.

I read Black Dahlia but didn't really get into it (strangely because I love murder stories, Helter Skelter being one of my all-time fav's) and I read the one that was about the JFK/Castro/CIA conspiracy. It was ok but something about Ellroy's style didn't grab me at the time. Davis does a very interesting chapter on "Noir" in City of Quartz that is excellent. The other issue with Davis though, is that you sometimes feel like you have to be an urban-planner/sociologist/architect/cultural historian, to get all the references he uses. He sometimes goes under the assumption that everyone knows all about a certain topic and fails to give a quick primer to those of us who don't. Still worth reading.

Bloggin': Which show was horrible, Star Trek or In Search Of?? I could debate either side of the quality argument for either show. I did know that that was Nimoy, I just forgot. BTW- for great voice-overs, check out the movie "Little Children" if you haven't seen it already. Priceless use of a very familiar voice.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: ... and I read the one that was about the JFK/Castro/CIA conspiracy. It was ok but something about Ellroy's style didn't grab me at the time.

That one did less for me than some of his others, but I still thought it was an enjoyable read. It's a small additional recommendation to say that liked it despite my general distaste for JFK conspiracy themes. Ellroy does have a distinct style, and I can well imagine that it's not to everybody's taste.

[...] The other issue with Davis though, is that you sometimes feel like you have to be an urban-planner/sociologist/architect/cultural historian, to get all the references he uses. He sometimes goes under the assumption that everyone knows all about a certain topic and fails to give a quick primer to those of us who don't. Still worth reading.

That's an interesting criticism. I sometimes feel lost when reading books that make assumptions about what I should have brought to the table. (Depending on the way it's presented, I either feel it's my fault or the author's.) Other times, though, I like when a book hints at all sorts of things that I don't know about, provided I can follow the story despite

BJ, it's definitely a fine line to tread when it comes to author's veering into "assumed knowledge" or cultural references beyond the scope of their audience. Sometimes it works wonderfully, sometimes it doesn't. The books I've read it recent years that gave my brain that kindof a workout were: Instance of the Fingerpost: by Iain Pears (losta Cromwell era political players, few of which I realized were real.) Great book, even for my ignorant ass. Foccault's Pendelum: by Umberto Eco. Lots of conspiracy references involving the masons, illuminati, rosicrucians etc. Excellent writing but sometimes the vast amounts of references bogged it down. And then ther's guys like Pynchon and D. Foster Wallace who take the "out there" references and endnotes to such extremes that for me they're almost unreadable.

1. And, I hate whiny bitches and rude animals. Which one of us has more right to complain here about others and those who don't offer constructive arguments? Or, who just like to suck up and bow down to whatever authority he finds? 2. Computer etiquette: don't use caps unless you like being on the ignore list. 3. Should I care for your opinion? Or, you? 4. I like enumerating. 5. Don't worry! The more you post, the less I will watch bhTV! With all the election-relation diavlogs and the continuing presence of hacks and a**holes like you, you won't have to miss much! 6 Lowest common denominator

uncle eb: Thanks for the recommendations. I think I've read something by Pears, but not that one. I keep meaning to read Foucault's Pendulum, but haven't ever remembered when I'm at the library. I tried reading something by Pynchon on more than one occasion -- Gravity's Rainbow was certainly one of those, and for whatever reason, I never got much into any of them. I don't remember the problem being excessive external references, but that could have been part of it. I don't know anything about DFW, but looking at his Wikipedia entry makes me think I should try one of his books, even if it seems like an even money bet that I'd hurl it across the room before getting to page 50.

BJ- DFW is supposed to be a real challenge. "Consider the Lobster" looks like a good starting point (shorter essays) that highlight his unique style. But the real McCoy is supposed to be "Infinite Jest". Reviewers say you need to have a book mark in the endnotes and keep a thesaurus or encyclopedia handy to really enjoy it. I have yet to take the plunge, myself, but it's my one-of-these-days mental Everests that I hope to scale in the future. Check out "Fingerpost" for sure. It's much better than his other book (which was kinda lame. I tried to read Vineland by Pynchon (thinking that, hey anything with lesbian ninjas...) but alas it was too out there for me.

uncle eb:

... hey anything with lesbian ninjas ...

Book pitch of the year! Thanks for the further DFW advice. Sounds like you've made quite the effort, given that you said you don't care for him. That's admirable. I tend to make snap judgments; e.g., the assignment of A Tale of Two Cities made me shun Dickens for years, to my great loss. Fortunately, I later had to read Hard Times and loved it, so now I can give him another chance.

Re DFW: I've only read a couple of the Lobster essays and a couple pages of Infinite Jest (basically as much as I could get through in 30 minutes at Borders.) He looks like a great/unique writer but it's quite an investment of time that most readers say was either: the greatest book in modern times, OR a completely frustrating waste of (a lot of) time.

I'm very confused about Glenn's religious orientation. In one diavlog we had him talking about his Christianity with Josh Cohen, in the Shatz article we learn that he "repudiated" Christianity after the death of that promising young woman, and in this diavlog he says that he doesn't talk to people in the church (ministers, I'm guessing) anymore. So...is he a Christian, but one who can't go to church anymore? Or did this death happen shortly after the diavlog with Cohen, and he's now an atheist?

Quoting Bobby G: I'm very confused about Glenn's religious orientation.

He did describe his journey in detail in an earlier diavlog. As I remember it, he's pretty much an atheist/agnostic right now, although he continues to acknowledge the power of belief, religious exhortation, communities, and like that.

harkin,

Glenn, this is not complicated and yet you don't seem to get it at all......

It's not as simplistic as you're making it either. You are being unfair to Glenn. His answer to John's question was not a cop-out. In fact, it was a very good, thoughtful answer to what any social scientist worth his/her paycheck would agree is a complicated social condition that exists in many urban ghettos. Glenn cites one ethnography in his reply that exposes the limitations of the 'if they would only make the right choices' school of right-wing punditry. I would offer Elijah Anderson's ethnographies of inner city Philadelphia if you want a 'thick description' of the problem.

My biggest problem with Glenn's argument is slightly captured by John's allusion to 'the past 30 years': many of the problems of the black urban community are maintained and even cultivated by the very solutions Loury advocates. Increasing handouts or rewards for incorrect behavior will never correct it. 'Lowered expectations' may be anathema to Glenn but hey it's true; people (regardless of color) will rise to the standards you demand of them.

Straw man. You are implying Glenn's argument

Thanks for the link to Moyers. It was interesting to see Loury in that context but less satisfying than his bloggingheads appearances which are freer and more intimate. The hip-hop discussion wasn't one of the best discussions these two have had, in my opinion, but it was still good. They didn't quite plumb the depth of their topics in the way they usually do. To a certain extent they came across as more hardened in their positions. In previous talks John seemed surprised by, but tolerant of Glenn's criticisms of Obama. Now he seems frustrated that Glenn continues to find fault with Obama. Glenn, like many Hillary supporters (of which I am one -- so I may be projecting!) is still seeing the qualities he disliked and distrusted in Obama through the course of the primaries.

Quoting renzo: I assume that your participation here is not solely to have your assumptions acknowledged? I chose "feelings" for arguments sake - not to insult. You didn't address my point that he is neither race denying or without policy prescription.

I accept what you say, but your exclusive use of the word "feelings" tends to imply that I have not thought things through which, as you say, is exactly what this forum is for -- that is primarily why I took issue with your reply. You are correct that Obama does mention some general policy directions within his speech but the bulk of it is delivered in a preacherly tone. This is of course what you would expect in a church setting, but I still question his choice of NOW to offer out this Bill Cosby moment. After all, Cosby had nothing to gain personally through his pioneering tough love approach -- Obama has much to gain from those watching well beyond the pews. In my estimation, this is why Glenn Loury exhibited some discomfort with his speech while still admiring its style and not in the least denying the legitimacy of its substance. If the black

Quoting grits-n-gravy: harkin,

It's not as simplistic as you're making it either.

You are being unfair to Glenn. His answer to John's question was not a cop-out. In fact, it was a very good, thoughtful answer to what any social scientist worth his/her paycheck would agree is a complicated social condition that exists in many urban ghettos. Glenn cites one ethnography in his reply that exposes the limitations of the 'if they would only make the right choices' school of right-wing punditry. I would offer Elijah Anderson's ethnographies of inner city Philadelphia if you want a 'thick description' of the problem.

Of course it's a cop-out. Citing ethnographies is no answer to what he himself would do to solve a problem that so far has not been solved by social programs, it's changing the subject. Saying we just don't understand what everyone is up against and hey here's a study that shows how complicated it is and then failing to provide any solution to any of these complications is a cop-out whether you recognize it or not. IMO opinion, one major part of the problem is the error of declaring

I should add that one place where I agree with Glenn is in his being less-than-impressed with BO's Father's Day speech. I see it as political pandering of the shallowest kind. Now that the radical, socialist/liberal vote is clearly behind BO with the all-but-the-conv secured nomination, he now starts on a personal responsibility crusade? Anyone who reads this as anything other than going after the moderate conservative vote is delusional. The time and place when BO could have been 'courageous' was when Rev Wright was spewing his racist hate specch. THAT was the time for BO to show courage. Same with the curious 'I'm for FISA but hey I'll fight against retroactive immunity' stance. wth was that? Whatever it is it isn't courage. The only way I ever feel impressed with Obama is not when I hear him speak, he's downright painful in his evasive cherry picking, it's when I hear McCain that he seems halfway acceptable.

Quoting deebee: You are correct that Obama does mention some general policy directions within his speech but the bulk of it is delivered in a preacherly tone. This is of course what you would expect in a church setting, but I still question his choice of NOW to offer out this Bill Cosby moment.

Well, obviously his choice of 'now' is that he needs to do this sort of thing now in order to be elected in November. But my main distrust of Obama revolves around the shuckin' and jivin'. It's the adoption of a black persona at will to further his postition, which he plays for both black and white to marvel at. But that's the game, right? McCain the family values war hero has crashed 5 planes and left a crippled wife. Hillary the strong woman has been screwed over by her husband in their marriage, and now politically. So maybe I'm being too hard on Obama. I honestly don't know, but it just seems that to a great extent he's used blacks as a bunch of marks.

harkin,

Of course it's a cop-out. Citing ethnographies is no answer to what he himself would do to solve a problem that so far has not been solved by social programs, it's changing the subject. Saying we just don't understand what everyone is up against and hey here's a study that shows how complicated it is and then failing to provide any solution to any of these complications is a cop-out whether you recognize it or not.

Glenn answers the question head-on by saying, essentially, that we should not give up. We should continue to look for ways to help those individuals who want and seek help. John seems to suggest that there should be disincentives for bad behavior. But I agree with Glenn, for the most part; simply punishing them by denying help and assistance when they don't measure up is not a solution.

look:

So maybe I'm being too hard on Obama. I honestly don't know, but it just seems that to a great extent he's used blacks as a bunch of marks.

Yes, I think you're being too hard on Obama, and exaggerating about "great extent." You're forgetting, I think, the realities of what any candidate has to do to get elected, which is to appeal to a large group of people with different views. You're also implying that he's managed to con about 90% or more of all black voters. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I don't see why you would say that he's "used blacks as a bunch of marks" at all. Because he touched on personal responsibility and other themes which might also appeal to other groups? Because he's hinting that he wants to move away from race-based affirmative action and maybe some other policies that are arguably showing their age? Because he was conscious that his address to a largely black audience would be played to a larger, mixed one?

Quoting deebee: I accept what you say, but your exclusive use of the word "feelings" tends to imply that I have not thought things through which, as you say, is exactly what this forum is for -- that is primarily why I took issue with your reply.

You are correct that Obama does mention some general policy directions within his speech but the bulk of it is delivered in a preacherly tone. This is of course what you would expect in a church setting, but I still question his choice of NOW to offer out this Bill Cosby moment. After all, Cosby had nothing to gain personally through his pioneering tough love approach -- Obama has much to gain from those watching well beyond the pews. In my estimation, this is why Glenn Loury exhibited some discomfort with his speech while still admiring its style and not in the least denying the legitimacy of its substance. If the black community does not feel used by Obama, then that's all the better for him. Sorry, but I still sense a whiff of opportunism here although I don't expect everyone to see it my way.

Thanks for replying. Sometimes on

John McWhorter's book is the subject of this week's Lexington editorial in The Economist (http://www.economist.com/world/na/Pr...ry_id=11622433). Here's the last three paragraphs:

Fans love rappers partly because they strike such a confrontational pose. Dead Prez sometimes burn dollar bills to protest the evils of capitalism, and their lyrics accuse teachers of teaching “white man lies”. Mr McWhorter summarises the message of hip-hop as: “Things will keep sucking until there is a revolution where the white man finally understands and does a complete 180-degree turn.” This was true half a century ago in the segregated South. But today, it is nonsense.

Some people argue that hip-hop is politically consequential because activists can use the music and the culture that surrounds it to communicate with young people who might otherwise shun politics. There is something to this. For example, in 2004 the superstar P. Diddy fronted a fairly successful voter-registration campaign called “Vote or Die”. And HSAN once co-sponsored a rally to protest about a proposed $300m cut to the New York City school budget. The cut never happened. HSAN trumpets this as a great victory. But it is hardly evidence that hip-hop can change

But Mr Nkrumah shrugs that even if Mr Obama is elected president, he will be powerless to implement progressive policies because the corporate power structure will not let him.

Who knew The Economist would diss The Man?

A very tongue-in-cheek drive-by remark that one about Nkrumah. Then again, The Economist is quirkily classical liberal and also manages to make money, unlike most American rags. I checked my pockets after I read that. Fortunately, I only pay for the e-version. Reading The Economist is like dealing with an aristo cabal, entertaining and patronizing.

Quoting Baltimoron: 1. And, I hate whiny bitches and rude animals. Which one of us has more right to complain here about others and those who don't offer constructive arguments? Or, who just like to suck up and bow down to whatever authority he finds?

2. Computer etiquette: don't use caps unless you like being on the ignore list.

3. Should I care for your opinion? Or, you?

4. I like enumerating.

5. Don't worry! The more you post, the less I will watch bhTV! With all the election-relation diavlogs and the continuing presence of hacks and a**holes like you, you won't have to miss much!

6 Lowest common denominator

1. You were whining about the tech problems and being rude about presuming to speak for all of us saying that the whole thing should be trashed because of a few glitches. I LOVED WATCHING THIS EXCHANGE.
1a. "bitch" is a word most often used to promote the systematic abuse of women. I AM a rude animal, but even I will not go there.
1b.You need to explain the second part of (1.), that is some confusing shit.. sorry.
2>IGNORE THIS
3? My OPINing was dirECTed At the heads, SO AS to OFFSET youR opining.
4. YOU ARE RIGHT
5. THIS is Fun.
6. I TAKE IT BACK.
6a. I'm going to start enumerating.
7. PPPPLLLLEEAAAS don't stop watching!!!! (you won't) but thanks for giving me the power to stop you! True reward for being

Quoting bjkeefe: Yes, I think you're being too hard on Obama, and exaggerating about "great extent." You're forgetting, I think, the realities of what any candidate has to do to get elected, which is to appeal to a large group of people with different views.

Here's a dingalink from the vlog John and Glenn discussed Obama choosing to adopt Southside Chicago blackness: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/813...0:08&out=43:54 I'm not talking about what politicians have to do to appeal to large groups, like Hillary getting that pitiful little twang when she talks in the South, changing her ing to in'. I'm talking about a man changing his speech patterns to 'pass' as an authentic brother when need be, meaning most of his adult life. And note Glenn thinks he probably developed it before he went to Chicago. These are clips from Shelby Steele: http://fora.tv/2008/01/18/Barack_Oba...Raced_Heritage http://fora.tv/2008/01/18/Shelby_Ste...Racial_Masking I think Steele questioning how sharply defined is Obama's 'self' is a relevant issue. Is he wrapped so tight he can't relax, is he a bowl of mush who knows he's a fake so can't make a decision, is he Joe Cool who thinks he's got it all together for getting what he wants and getting over

I show my love by hammering away at perceived problems. I'm not a groupie. One day bhTv could go premium pay, and then there will be no sympathy for technical glitches. Or, one day, bhTV go south. But, it's value depends upon its technical prowess at presenting arguments. Anyone can hear Scher on radio, or read a blog, but bhTV has to work for a diavlog to succeed. We, the "????" (we need a name!) can do good service by being as critical now, so that the product goes to market at its best. I resent the caps and personal attacks (not you) from those who then hide behind liberty of expression and tu quoque attacks. Don't flatter yourself about my viewing habits. Just stop using caps, please. I find shouting particularly demeaning.

Quoting Baltimoron: I show my love by hammering away at perceived problems. I'm not a groupie. One day bhTv could go premium pay, and then there will be no sympathy for technical glitches. Or, one day, bhTV go south. But, it's value depends upon its technical prowess at presenting arguments. Anyone can hear Scher on radio, or read a blog, but bhTV has to work for a diavlog to succeed. We, the "????" (we need a name!) can do good service by being as critical now, so that the product goes to market at its best.

I resent the caps and personal attacks (not you) from those who then hide behind liberty of expression and tu quoque attacks. Don't flatter yourself about my viewing habits. Just stop using caps, please. I find shouting particularly demeaning.

I THOUGHT I WAS ON THE "IGNORE" LIST.
sorry, i crack myself up sometimes, and often at the expense of others. alas i, an ass, i resembleth, oft times. i didn't know i was shouting but i'm too lazy to find the italic button for emphasis.
i think most of the tech issues are windows os related and if they went big time could maybe afford someone technical (like me) geeks or geekettes to insist they use macs. the big tv guys tend

Quoting handle: I THOUGHT I WAS ON THE "IGNORE" LIST.
sorry, i crack myself up sometimes, and often at the expense of others. alas i, an ass, i resembleth, oft times. i didn't know i was shouting but i'm too lazy to find the italic button for emphasis.
i think most of the tech issues are windows os related and if they went big time could maybe afford someone technical (like me) geeks or geekettes to insist they use macs. the big tv guys tend to use sat links that have the most (i really wanted to cap the previous two words) annoying delay that make the exchanges seem very awkward, to me at least.
my assumption is, (i wanted to cap assumption 'cause i really don't know) the bheads use telephones for speaking to each other, while recording the a/v in each room on pc's, syncing and combining them later. which leaves them open to telephone troubles as well...

i flatter myself not, but was given the power by you, and to taketh it away, is also within your power.

it's too bad you are not a "groupie" 'cause i think the "bhtv groupies" might be a self effacing yet humorously descriptive name for

look: For what it's worth, I have not made up my mind on whether race-based affirmative action is an idea whose time has passed. You're also flat wrong to characterize me as one of those "whites who want blacks to clean up their act." As for the rest, I'll just leave it at this: I continue to think you place much more negative emphasis on Obama when he does what politicians do, and that you use a different set of standards for judging him than you do other politicians. That's your privilege, of course, but I think you're being unbalanced about it.

Quoting bjkeefe: For what it's worth, I have not made up my mind on whether race-based affirmative action is an idea whose time has passed. You're also flat wrong to characterize me as one of those "whites who want blacks to clean up their act."

Then I apologize.

As for the rest, I'll just leave it at this: I continue to think you place much more negative emphasis on Obama when he does what politicians do, and that you use a different set of standards for judging him than you do other politicians. That's your privilege, of course, but I think you're being unbalanced about it.

Hmmmm. Wish I could be as balanced as you. No comment on the Steele clips, no comment on psychological implications. Your mind is simply made up, and I understand that, but you seem to be so completely in the tank as to have no intellectual curiosity about Obama.

Quoting look: Hmmmm. Wish I could be as balanced as you. No comment on the Steele clips, no comment on psychological implications. Your mind is simply made up, and I understand that, but you seem to be so completely in the tank as to have no intellectual curiosity about Obama.

As for declining to comment on Steele or the psychological implications, I have several reasons. First, I am tired of listening to people speculate about things that there's no way to settle, particularly when those people are known to be anti-Obama. Second, I don't find it surprising, or troubling, that someone in Obama's position has had to wrestle with the problem of defining his identity, to himself or to the world. Most worthwhile people do this, even without the complications that being of mixed race entails. As far as I can tell, he seems to be dealing with this process as well as anyone could ask. And in any case, I am far more at ease with a candidate who still entertains doubt than I am by one who made up his mind decades ago. Third, given the recent appearance of being interested only in negative things about Obama, by you, most of the diavloggers, and the

Quoting bjkeefe: Third, given the recent appearance of being interested only in negative things about Obama, by you, most of the diavloggers, and the media overall, I see no upside to my adding to it by reiterating my own points of disagreement with him. There is something to the position that Bob Wright tried to defend a short while ago -- that it's necessary to hold your own guy's feet to the fire -- but virtually all political discussion lately has amounted to "let's find something bad to say about Obama and then let's talk it to death." The one-sided nature of it irritates me and the repetitiveness of it bores me. It's starting to feel like 2000 all over again: everyone, including Democrats, delights in nitpicking the Democratic candidate, while the Republican candidate is either ignored, excused, or summarized with bromides.

Thanks for your thoughts, Brendan. The way it's looking now to me, Obama seems to be getting the favored treatment. Regarding issues like telecom and campaign finance, there's a media flurry for a couple days, and then, 'well, people faulted him for being naive, now he's shown he can throw some elbows, heh, heh.' I think if anything he'll be the one

Quoting look: Thanks for your thoughts, Brendan. The way it's looking now to me, Obama seems to be getting the favored treatment. Regarding issues like telecom and campaign finance, there's a media flurry for a couple days, and then, 'well, people faulted him for being naive, now he's shown he can throw some elbows, heh, heh.' I think if anything he'll be the one to get the softer Bush II treatment, and McCain the Gore treatment. But they have both been favorites. I can see a scenario where the media begin to resent things like Obama staying in the back of the plane, or the very tight control of info/access. And it would be even easier to go negative on McCain.

I grant that Obama got some kid-glove treatment early on, and there is no doubt that some in the media continue to favor him openly. It's even arguable that he had an easier time of it than Clinton did for most of the primaries, although the wall-to-wall Jeremiah Wright, lapel pin, and bittergate stuff seemed to even things out there. As for the here and now, I've already said my piece about the so-called liberal media seeming to take special

Quoting bjkeefe: But when it comes to never getting a critical look, I think McCain remains the all-time champion. And you talk about something getting a cursory look and then being dropped, wow. I've never seen anything that he's said or done stay on the MSM's front burner. And don't forget that the first rule of MSMism is: Thou shalt not mention the name McCain without appending maverick or war hero.

I'll just add that he's been paid little attention because of the focus on the Dem race and because he hasn't been doing much. But I think a lot was made of his confusion of Sunni/Shia and of course his stroll in Baghdad. And did you hear he's old? Really ancient. If 'maverick' is brought up, it's to say that he's no longer one. I'm quite sure that they're circling like vultures waiting for senior moments from McCain, Trinity footage from Obama, and affairs from both.

Quoting look: I'll just add that he's been paid little attention because of the focus on the Dem race and because he hasn't been doing much.

I accepted that in the past, but it's going on a month now since the primary season ended.

But I think a lot was made of his confusion of Sunni/Shia and of course his stroll in Baghdad.

Fair points.

And did you hear he's old?

Almost never from the MSM. When I do hear this touched upon, McCain's mother is usually mentioned in the next breath. I grant that it's an easy laugh line for comedians, and I suppose it's arguable that Jay Leno is as much a part of the MSM as anybody else.

If 'maverick' is brought up, it's to say that he's no longer one.

I've never seen this except from openly lefty sources. If you have, I'll take your word for it, but I do repeat that I still hear it said regularly in the positive sense.

I'm quite sure that they're circling like vultures waiting for senior moments from McCain, Trinity footage from Obama, and affairs from both.

No disagreement there, although I wouldn't say everybody in the MSM is this way. Just 95% of them. ;^)