I think Glenn somewhat missed what John was talking about re: acting white. I think John's point was, that although there may be people in the private lives of Black America that place an emphasis on education, intellectual curiosity, playing by the rules etc. (parents, priests etc.) there haven't been too many in the public sphere. Rappers, and athletes are not quite the same role-model material as, President of the most powerful nation in the world. This is not to say that it is somehow Obama's job to reshape black culture, but his simply being out there as an example of what black (or any other color) children can aspire to, is undeniably a great thing. Of course that didn't stop TNC from giving John a beatdown on this point: http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.c...lack_nerds.php

I suspect John is right that peer pressure against academic achievement among middle and upper middle class blacks will be less effective now. Otherwise, I doubt that our next president's name or color will much matter. His political skills and policy preferences, as well as those of his allies and his opponents, along with the actions of others around the world and random natural events, will determine the ultimate outcome of his presidency.

I agree with Glenn: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/158...4:00&out=15:24 That was one of the most uplifting moments of the speech.

Glen's old pose - Easter Island style, sideways/from below the chin - was better.

Both John and Glenn seem quite confused to me. Glenn started out questioning whether concentrated power into a unique institutional figure was realistically the way to get change. He wondered out-loud if real change doesn't actually come from civil society instead. Then, a few minutes later, he's wishing for pseudo-revolutionary cataclysmic scenarios where reality is radically transformed via sweeping "wars on poverty" etc...and if Obama doesn't accomplish this, then he'll be let down. John on the other hand started out arguing that the president's persona and skin-color (the symbolism) matter with regard to our culture. I can agree with that. But then he lets his euphoria extend this claim from culture to the actual institutional role of the president, which leads him to speculate that even terrorists might come to like Obama because of his skin-color and his middle-name. But wait a minute, aren't the rulers of middle-eastern countries some of the most hated by the terrorists? What can skin-color and middle-names have to do with that? I, for one, do not think that a president's persona can have any influence whatsoever on its institutional role. The challenge is gargantuan: one

Oh, for heaven's sake. Get a grip. Presidents routinely express solidarity with the suffering, oppressed people of the world. Even that avatar of evil, G. W. Bush, did so in his 2nd augural. An excerpt: Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.

The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it." There's lots more in the same speech, and I'd bet, in most important speeches by most presidents.

The profundity of Barack Obama. Obama's acknowledgement of the rest of the world -- his embrace of humanity beyond our shores -- is a far more effective anti-terrorism weapon than the sneering contempt of the neocons and, particularly, Bush/Cheney. Sure, there will always be ultra-right wing religious fanatics. But our chances of discovering and intercepting plots to harm America (and Israel are far better when the people of the world identify more with us than they do with Islamic extremists. Where Bush, Cheney, and the hate mongering right have pushed the world away from America, Obama will draw them in.

Quoting TwinSwords: The profundity of Barack Obama.

Obama's acknowledgement of the rest of the world -- his embrace of humanity beyond our shores -- is a far more effective anti-terrorism weapon than the sneering contempt of the neocons and, particularly, Bush/Cheney. Sure, there will always be ultra-right wing religious fanatics. But our chances of discovering and intercepting plots to harm America (and Israel are far better when the people of the world identify more with us than they do with Islamic extremists. Where Bush, Cheney, and the hate mongering right have pushed the world away from America, Obama will draw them in.

Except that the neocons where posing as the last ray of hope for people huddled in prisons under ruthless dictators etc, etc...and with those noble goals did what they did. So Obama speaks to other huddled folks around the world. What's he going to do for them? What can he do for them? What other consequences will his actions have if he tries to do something, etc...imagery is fine and swell, but I don't think we can escape some harsh realities here.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I agree with Glenn:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/158...4:00&out=15:24

That was one of the most uplifting moments of the speech.

I couldn't agree more.

Shorter Unit: Because I can bring up George W. Bush as an example of something being horribly botched no matter what the issue, I believe I have proved that Obama has no hope of accomplishing anything. Tremble before my sophomoric cynicism!

Quoting otto: Glen's old pose - Easter Island style, sideways/from below the chin - was better.

Really? Hmm, he looked good that way, but I like to watch Glenn in any pose he would wish to strike in front of the camera. (Yes, alright, I like John too, don't get peeved. But Glenn is such an attractive man... oh dear. I actually live six time zones in the future, so not to worry, this is strictly a virtual infatuation.) This was not the cathartic dialogue I had been anticipating. It had a certain resignation to it, as if both John and Glenn had already said and wrote everything there was to say about the Obama win in the days previous to taping.
They were opined-out, if you allow me this ugly neologism. Maybe because the next two months of transition are going to be so sloppy and slow, they should get out and about for a bit and meet up again after January 20, 2009 to talk with renewed gusto about Obama and his administration. Me, as an onlooker, should take some of this same medicine, probably. And some of my esteemed co-commenters.

Quoting Kandigol: This was not the cathartic dialogue I had been anticipating. It had a certain resignation to it, as if both John and Glenn had already said and wrote everything there was to say about the Obama win in the days previous to taping.
They were opined-out, if you allow me this ugly neologism.

Perhaps Eric Alterman's view will serve as an antidote.

Can we please wait for President-Elect Barack H. Obama to be (officially elected in December) actually inaugurated before discussing his performance? The rhetoric is expressionistic. At least talk about Rahm Emanuel, or the gossip about cabinet picks. I need a Cato Institute fellow for measure.

Quoting bjkeefe: Shorter Unit: Because I can bring up George W. Bush as an example of something being horribly botched no matter what the issue, I believe I have proved that Obama has no hope of accomplishing anything. Tremble before my sophomoric cynicism!

Brendan, I'm sorry if I don't share TwinSwords (and your?) simple view of the world: when the bad party of hate is in power everything is bad, when the good party of love is in power, everything will be good. You're right I probably already mention this: the left was very good at demystifying the presidency, at warning us about presidential power and abuse etc....Now all of a sudden we are supposed to believe that the president can do no wrong? Maybe you can explain to me why the incentives driving the president have changed so drastically. Does Obama want to have less power than Bush? Have you heard him say he wants to end the war on drugs and the war on terrorism? Nope, sounds like he wants to start a new one on poverty instead. Look they themselves are acknowledging by their choice of words that the only thing they know

I, for one, do not think that a president's persona can have any influence whatsoever on its institutional role.

Disagree. Though it doesn't change the institutional role, the persona of the President (or any other grand figure in world goverment) directly effects the way people respond to him and thus his ability to get things done. While it doesn't necesarrily make or break him, his/her character (as it is perceived) is often the first consideration by whoever they deal with. Ahmedinajad is a case in point. His policies are not that much crazier than the typical Iranian ruler, but his offensive antics and attitude have made him into even more of a boogeyman than he would be otherwise. President Clinton's persona helped him in good ways (seen relatively favorably by the world) and bad ways (persecution by the GOP.) George W Bush has been perceived by many to be arrogant and to not even consider the positions of all the other countries on earth, or the established systems of law. This is why so many around the world are thrilled at the prospect of Obama as President. Reagan would

I agree. I especially love the Reps who are already screaming and hollering about how awful Obama is gonna be...60+ days before he even takes the oath. I wish the rumors of Hillary as Sec of State, had been out when they did this 'vlog. I would have liked to see Glenn's reaction to the idea of Obama tapping his girl Hillary for such an eminent position.

Kandigol, Hello! I like these 2 diavloggers but haven't listened to it yet. Also, I have read books by both of them which I haven't done with too many others that appear here. I am wondering what more they have to offer on this topic since they have done so many already. Perhaps, it's time to acknowledge the campaign is over and for me to stop analyzing it. What I am focusing now will be Obamas cabinet as he assembles it. So far not a lot has happening but the pace will quicken as time goes on. Not giving a lot of details in the campaign and doing the obligatory flip-flopping my focus will be on the "change" that he emphazied or promised to bring to Washington. Granted, it's a nebulous word but I am interested on how he moves to implement it. John

Quoting otto: Glen's old pose - Easter Island style, sideways/from below the chin - was better.

totally agree. anyway, a solid diavlog - as always - from these two. and i agree with the esteemed professor Loury that if obama sticks with the small-bore, his presidency will be a profound disappointment. also, i'm not sure if it's my own residual intolerance, but something grates when Glenn exclaims "Barack Hussein Obama!" can't really put my finger on why, but something about that particular phrasing bothers me . . .

Dr. J, i think there are a couple reasons why this sentiment is being so remarked upon in this instance, even though you are correct that other leaders have made similiar statements in the past. Here's just a couple possibilities that come to mind: 1.) Meaning- if you look at the statement that George H Bush made, it is very different in it's implied message than what Obama said. Specifically if you put it into the context of the Bush/Reagan years and the notable tendency that the US government had in slipping their hands into civil disputes in Central America etc. Bush's statement sounds more like it was aimed at repressed peoples in those areas and as a signal that he intends to continue the kindof covert operations and support that Reagan established as an extension of the Cold War mindset. 2.) Sincerity- though many politicians may make grand statements aimed at global audiences, one of the reasons why Obama's statement is so well received is because it sounds like he means it. Not just because he is a good speaker and it was an eloquent line. But

What is all this talk, on the bhtv forum and in the diavlogs, about nuclear disarmament? I don't remember hearing anything about it in the campaign. Is it because Samantha Power wrote something about it?
Even if American foreign policy becomes quasi-pacifist under Obama, which it won't, why would other nations adopt similar attitudes?
What's in it for other nuclear powers? Why would Russians, for example, do away with their nuclear arsenal just because Americans elected a black president? Russia, not so long ago, had a drunkard for a president and I don't recall Americans going ahead and sinking their airplane carriers. All this shall pass. After Obama, there will be other presidents with different foreign policies. Not to mention how fast intellectual fads among elites change. They will go five times from pacifism to bellicosity and back, before the first Obama's mandate is over.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I wish the rumors of Hillary as Sec of State, had been out when they did this 'vlog. I would have liked to see Glenn's reaction to the idea of Obama tapping his girl Hillary for such an eminent position.

Interesting thoughts from Al Giordano on the Clinton chatter.

Quoting Baltimoron: Can we please wait for President-Elect Barack H. Obama to be (officially elected in December) actually inaugurated before discussing his performance? The rhetoric is expressionistic. At least talk about Rahm Emanuel, or the gossip about cabinet picks.

I need a Cato Institute fellow for measure.

Yes, back to the feeling that nothing can be done! Why be impressionistic about the future when we could be talking about whether or not the White House office manager is a vulgar guy.

Good points. Considering how well the Obama team has been about leaks, it would be odd fore such a HUGE one to be the first. Especially since picking HRC would go against many of the better interests of Obama. Consider me in the Hillary's-people-floated-this camp.

Yeah. As much as I agree with the logic behind it, Glenn's in-your-face-ness is somewhat offputting. It reminds me of basketball court smack-talk (something that has always annoyed me.)

At least talk about Rahm Emanuel, or the gossip about cabinet picks.

Emanuel was already forced to apologize to the Arab-Muslim community for a racist comment his father made to an Israeli newspaper. No drama Obama? Dad: "Obviously, he [Rahm] will influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn't he? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House." Son: "From the fullness of my heart, I personally apologize on behalf of my family and me. These are not the values upon which I was raised or those of my family."

One kidneystones point for you, Wonderment.

Quoting Wonderment: Dad: "Obviously, he [Rahm] will influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn't he? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House."
my family."

Ha, ha! Funny people Rahm Israel Emanuel and his dad. I wonder, Wonderment, why is the comment racist?
I agree it's racist if he meant to say: "Rahm Israel Emanuel is not going to clean the floors, he is not an Arab."
If read more charitably his words are not racist and he meant: "Since Rahm Israel Emanuel is not an Arab, his influence is going to be pro-Israel. And, he is going to be influential, since his job is going to be more important than just cleaning the floors."

Quoting Unit: What is this supposedly magic touch that the president has made of?
And by the way, I'm no cynic. I have immense respect and awe for civil society, for cooperation among people, peaces, etc...I don't believe in superheroes.

Thoughtfulness, introspection, self examination, insight, intelligence, common sense, communication skills, openness to different points of view and the willingness to weigh them in his decision making, and the ability to articulate his intent to others.
I happen to be the cynics cynic, and who amongst us especially here, believe in superheros? But I value these characteristics above all others in a leader. He may fall on his face, it may turn out that he possesses only some, or none of these, but I am encouraged by what I've seen so far. I now yield the floor to the brave conservocons who echo the corporate propaganda arm of the media out of child-like fear of the "unknown" or, as I see it, the ignored. I know your fingers are quaking on your keyboards. The daily show has a quick, condensed fox news talking point montage if you need something to fire you up... click on "Baracknophobia - Post-Election Edition"

Given Mr. Emanuel's (senior) former life as an Israeli terrorist whose organization massacred Arabs , I tend not to go with the charitable interpretation. I read it as "He's not some nigger who'll be washing the floors in the White House?" But hey, I could be wrong, in which case Rahm would have no need to apologize. In fact, I tend to think he shouldn't apologize in any case. He didn't do anything wrong. Jesse Jackson, Jr. handled it much better when his father talked about cutting off Obama's balls. Rather than apologize, he said, "I'm deeply outraged and disappointed in Rev. Jackson's reckless statements about Sen. Barack Obama. His divisive and demeaning comments about the presumptive Democratic nominee -- and I believe the next president of the United States -- contradict his inspiring and courageous career." Adding that he'll "always love" his father. [But] "I thoroughly reject and repudiate his ugly rhetoric."

The election of a black president is a trailing indicator of racial progress. One need only look at how many black and hispanic people were in senior positions in the Bush cabinet (and how almost nobody considered it a big deal... Did you ever notice the press to talk much about Condi Rice's race or gender?) to realize that we are already largely in a post-racist, post-sexist society. Obama's election didn't usher in a new era. It served as proof that we've been in it for a while now. Hats off to John and Glenn, who have both, in their own ways, been making this case.

Anybody who's been watching these things for a few administrations knows the number of names on these "short"-lists is as long as the number of bigwigs in the game. Instead of chasing the spin, 'heads should be eliminating the names that aren't really serious choices from the "short"-list of comment. This is nothing more than spin on spin, which amounts in the end just to hot air. Alright Bob Wright doesn't like me, but don't waste my time, Bob with this crap!

Hey, guy, you're doing legwork above your level! Don't give the big 'heads any help! If this were a paysite, I'd send my credit card payment to you! Susstantively, what does the appointment process have to look like in the "Age of Obama" to be reformed?

I'm with John about the elation going on in the black community and elsewhere. Driving up Crenshaw Blvd. around 57th St. and beyond in Los Angeles and seeing all these sidewalk concessions with Obama t-shirts and other paraphenalia it is truly amazing. At least for the short term people deserve to bask in the glow of the recent election. John

Wooah, you almost painted me like an elitist, anti-Emanuel guy! You're so sneaky! If Barack H. Obama is so paradigm-changing, why do we have the same politics of factionalism polluting the appointment process? The prez-elect has a majority vote with a huge popular vote, but he can't mobilize his online battalions to weed out the narcissists and dross to get to the people's cabinet? Why don't we put the cabinet to a survey? What's been missing in the age of triumphalism is that comparison of alternative policies. For instance, health care needs reform in both coverage and cost. The candidates split the alternatives, but Obama's emphasis on coverage doesn't mean policy-makers should ignore the cost issue. We need Cato, for example, to keep plugging that issue. If this Wall Street debacle tells me anything, it's that no politician should be content with a policy until it's dragged through scrutiny, packaged, sold, broken, rebuilt, stomped on, spat on, and then offered with an apology and a letter of resignation. Ditto, for the politicians. I want revenge, too. Virginia and Maryland could surely use the property DC took from them. And, burnt over, even fly-infested swampland would be a fine return to the people of both states if

This only raises in another form the Israel issue in an Obama administration. Either we can get in the dirt, or we can push for fundamental review with no alternatives left out.

I agree with you, insomuch as Obama won with marginal increases that put him over the mark. But, this talk of coalitions abscures what each of these groups want. As with African-Americans and Proposition 8 in California, the thought that all groups might not have the same page is a shocker for some. But the number of issues and possible policies where an Obama administration can expect unified, maximum support is probably as slim as the tightest county race.

Granted I was raised in a household where one half of the clan assumed Washington was a disease sent by God for human sin. I rejected the belief behind that skepticism. But, I embraced the skepticism. It's a necessary evil, but one people still have to tackle in the best way. Let's not get wrapt up in this human vanity too tightly.

And, too, whatever happened to Richard Holbrooke for State? I actually voted for Obama based, among other things, because Holbrooke was on board.

Driving up Crenshaw Blvd. around 57th St. and beyond in Los Angeles and seeing all these sidewalk concessions with Obama t-shirts and other paraphenalia it is truly amazing. At least for the short term people deserve to bask in the glow of the recent election.

Beautiful!

Another possibility is that the Hillary deal for SecState was in since the Biden pick.

I guess all that spin about HRC becoming the new Ted Kennedy was just that. Damn Bill Clinton for starting rule by trial balloon! Something tells me it's too early to count coup.

Quoting handle: Thoughtfulness, introspection, self examination, insight, intelligence, common sense, communication skills, openness to different points of view and the willingness to weigh them in his decision making, and the ability to articulate his intent to others.
I happen to be the cynics cynic, and who amongst us especially here, believe in superheros? But I value these characteristics above all others in a leader. He may fall on his face, it may turn out that he possesses only some, or none of these, but I am encouraged by what I've seen so far.

I now yield the floor to the brave conservocons who echo the corporate propaganda arm of the media out of child-like fear of the "unknown" or, as I see it, the ignored. I know your fingers are quaking on your keyboards. The daily show has a quick, condensed fox news talking point montage if you need something to fire you up... click on "Baracknophobia - Post-Election Edition"

I'm sorry, I thought I had been clear that I was separating the individual qualities of a president from the institutional role.

I guess all that spin about HRC becoming the new Ted Kennedy was just that.

I would much rather see HRC replacing a retiring Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. I don't trust her on foreign policy, but she'd be a solid liberal on the Court. It would also be better for her. No one can fire her, and she's there for life. On the other hand, it closes off forever the path to the presidency, but that's 99% closed now anyway.

I guess I feel a little more "pull" for Congress than even SCOTUS. Not only is the Capitol less garish, but it's a darker zone of corruption. Still, I think that other end of Penn Avenue is far more "republican" (and, recalling that, is tonic to reform in a safer direction than an imperial president) than the one where that ugly mansion sits. On my wife's first visit to Washington, DC, I made sure she saw the Capitol end first (we actually never made it the the WH - ironically, one can get a cheap tour of the Confederate WH for less hassle). To her credit, and my relief, she thought SCOTUS just grand. But, SCOTUS would be such a placid place for such a pair of expert fund-raisers. Without the rough-and-tumble of elections, what would Clintons do?

I am a fan of John McWhorter -- mostly based on his truly wonderful lecture series, The Story of Human Language, which you should all buy and listen to. That said, these McWhorter-Loury diavlogs are getting a little stale, because they mostly seem to be talking past each other and repeating themselves in doing it. I would really, really like to see Loury do a Bloggingheads (or several) with someone who would engage him on the conversations he seems to really want to have. Whither economic and social policy under Obama? What is to be done about America's massive rates of incarceration? The shifting demographics of its cities? The continuing long-term flux of its economic order? The man clearly has some things he wants to say; let's give him a chance to say them to someone who is interested in having the same conversation. Loury's diavlog with Heather Mac Donald was great (though I wouldn't necessarily want to watch more of the two of them). McWhorter's conversation with Ta-Nehisi Coates was pretty good, too, and I think their conversations would get even more interesting if they talked a little more and got past

I agree - more Loury on economics...Loury on "ginger ale"! How about Loury the economist vs. Loury the older, African-American? A first for bhTV - 'heads debating themselves!

Another episode in the best conversation in America! The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Heads up, Glen: I am coming to Brown next Tuesday or Monday to promote my new book, and I plan to knock on your door. I hope you will hear me out when I try to explain why I think it is class, not race, that is responsible for what you refered to as "structural racism" (stuctural unemployment would be more accurate). More specifically, the problem is than ordinary working-class people in America, black or white, can no longer realistically imagine a good life for themselves in the new global economy. It is out of reach of them all, which only exacerbates the fears and tensions between working-class ethnics of all descriptions. For BloggingHeads readers who are interested, btw, the title of my book is THE SOFT PATH: Notes for a New Way of Life in America. Here is the copy on the back cover: "In place of the old middle-class dream of a house in the suburbs and a full-time Mom who stays at home with the kids, Luke Lea proposes something entirely different: a program to build New Towns in

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/158...0:45&out=21:20 Yeahh: Glenn hits it.
Transforming institutions toward mutuality and grace. Progressing toward a shared Humanity. Common respect toward the foreigner and the stranger. (I do know he's just an exceptional human person but he has won the world back from cynicism.)
Yes. We can. We will. And surely we must.
And everywhere people who think of the world engaging serious purpose are talking about what must now be done. Without the customary because necessary irony and bitter disappointment of the loss of it all. The preceding diavlog is in fact the one I have in mind at the at the moment, but that conversation has analogs all over the web. The kids over at Obsidian Wings are writing better brighter stuff and they're no slouches. The pieces seemed to expand out in ripples from Ezra Klein’s pieces (which I’m not linking because it will drive me crazy futzing with ‘insert link’) at the American Prospect on health insurance. GUANTANAMO IS CLOSING! Never in my 65 years have I seen the world light up like this. And the real revolution is that person came to be where he is not in a blatant prancing power grab

I wish you luck on your new political fantasy novel.

Quoting Baltimoron: If Barack H. Obama is so paradigm-changing, why do we have the same politics of factionalism polluting the appointment process? The prez-elect has a majority vote with a huge popular vote, but he can't mobilize his online battalions to weed out the narcissists and dross to get to the people's cabinet?

At some point, you have to have staff who know how to get things done within the existing system. Just chucking out everybody who has any past connection with Washington is a virtually guaranteed prescription for disaster. Even a new president with a powerful swell of popular support can't just sweep into office and implement his plans by fiat. In part, the hope is that Obama chooses people who are willing to subsume themselves to some degree -- to trade a slightly different ideological outlook for a chance to be a part of implementing generally agreed-upon goals. Another piece is that Obama is not a my-way-or-the-highway kind of leader, so you should take some comfort in his willingness to bring on board people who are going to challenge him.

Quoting Unit: Brendan,

I'm sorry if I don't share TwinSwords (and your?) simple view of the world: when the bad party of hate is in power everything is bad, when the good party of love is in power, everything will be good.

What you should be apologizing for is failing to understand that neither Twin nor I have anywhere near as simplistic a view of the world as the caricature you suggest.

Quoting ed fielding: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/158...0:45&out=21:20

But really: take your bitter selfish contemptuous mockery home, fry it up with your steak and eggs, and have a great meal.
But really: if you're so smart and see so clearly shouldn’t you be a little ashamed of what a waste you are making of your potential to contribute, to help.

Glenn does get it, and he’s right, and it’s already happening. Serious about the world has gained ground and is grounding itself in something new, at least in my lifetime. It’s way beyond Kennedy at a time far later than his.

Wrote before I read the comments expecting the same sour souls to be at their muddying; but then I read and behold: No trolls! A miracle!
This is the time of miracles and wonders. And none too soon. Of course, and I fear it, there are people seeing all this as a Sign of the End Times. (It’s how I was raised.) Christian militias, people like that. They may be our next terrorists.
I hope and pray they will realize their proper activity is to look up at the sky rather than look around craving blood. And then I wish them well. N.B. Thanks for the improved sound! At last and well done.

Born Again Democrat, Hello! You are correct that the middle class is disappearing and has been so since the 70's. Kevin Phillips has pointed this out in at least 3 of his books. I have addressed it in an earlier reply that this problem is one that President Obama should address since his predecessors have not. In hindsight, this is probably wishful thinking. It will take more than an enlightened chief executive to help the bottom 70% of the population achieve a higher standard of living. I have no answers so I will look into what you have to say. John

Quoting bjkeefe: What you should be apologizing for is failing to understand that neither Twin nor I have anywhere near as simplistic a view of the world as the caricature you suggest.

Ok, sorry for that.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Disagree. Though it doesn't change the institutional role, the persona of the President (or any other grand figure in world goverment) directly effects the way people respond to him and thus his ability to get things done. While it doesn't necesarrily make or break him, his/her character (as it is perceived) is often the first consideration by whoever they deal with. Ahmedinajad is a case in point. His policies are not that much crazier than the typical Iranian ruler, but his offensive antics and attitude have made him into even more of a boogeyman than he would be otherwise. President Clinton's persona helped him in good ways (seen relatively favorably by the world) and bad ways (persecution by the GOP.) George W Bush has been perceived by many to be arrogant and to not even consider the positions of all the other countries on earth, or the established systems of law. This is why so many around the world are thrilled at the prospect of Obama as President. Reagan would be another prime example of persona playing a tremendous role in his ability to govern. So much

Quoting nikkibong: also, i'm not sure if it's my own residual intolerance, but something grates when Glenn exclaims "Barack Hussein Obama!" can't really put my finger on why, but something about that particular phrasing bothers me . . .

I also felt it. I think it was Glenn’s "in your face" way of delivery. Never-the-less, I am surprised by how many presidential middle names I can remember just by using my "mental Google". They become household. In just a few months we will all hear our next President start his term in office with the words: I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear…, Frankly, I can hardly wait to hear them.

Quoting Unit: Ok, sorry for that.

Thanks. And please understand when I do a "shorter" that I'm almost always partly goofing around -- it's partly serious criticism/disagreement, but I'm also going for the laugh (or at least, amusing myself), so there necessarily will be some oversimplification involved.

Quoting bjkeefe: Thanks.

And please understand when I do a "shorter" that I'm almost always partly goofing around -- it's partly serious criticism/disagreement, but I'm also going for the laugh (or at least, amusing myself), so there necessarily will be some oversimplification involved.

That's fine. Besides, "sophomoric" is half wise (sophos) and half moronic...So I'll take the half wise :-).

I really think John sells many blacks short by his declaration that bookish black kids will now not be teased about 'acting white' because Obama is president. I doubt he realizes it, but he's also saying that Bill Cosby is light years ahead of the blacks who criticized him for stating the obvious. That it's slightly more obvious now (but just enough to reach into JM's brain) is not a comment on Cosby or Obama, but really a comment on McWhorter. One also wonders if JM even realizes that he works for an instutute that agreed with Cosby way before those who needed a mixed-race president-elect to decide whether reading was beneficial. Glenn slowly moves off his 'now we can say his name' posture from his last dialogue to now claiming he was pushing Obama's middle name before the election. Yeah, OK.
And if he's going to tout Muhammad Ali for his pronouncements, he should also condemn him for pandering to racists by stating Joe Frazier resembled a 'gorilla' and promising Madison Square Garden to be the launching pad of the first 'black satellite'. I didn't have time to

Quoting harkin: Williams wonders whether anger and victimization will continue to be the driving force in black politics and Williams asks why it took Obama for some to believe they could succeed.

btw - would love to have Elder and/or Juan Williams here to widen the perspectives.

I read both articles and found them very interesting. Here are some excerpts from Juan Williams:

The idea of black politics now tilts away from leadership based on voicing grievance, and identity politics based on victimization and anger. In its place is an era in which it is assumed that talented, tough people of any background will find a way to their rightful seat of power in mainstream political life.

The emphasis on racial threats and extortion-like demands -- all aimed at maximizing white guilt as leverage for getting government and corporate money -- has lost its moment. How does anyone waste time on racial fantasies like reparations for slavery when there is a black man who earned his way into the White House?

Make no mistake, there is still discrimination against people of color in America. And inside black America, there

Quoting Wonderment: Given Mr. Emanuel's (senior) former life as an Israeli terrorist whose organization massacred Arabs ,

oh dear...you're in that wing of the netroots, eh? The only thing that relieved me about Immanuel is his pro-Israel leaning. Other than that, he's a bitter, mercurial hard ball player who totally contradicts Obama's peace love and butterflies message. Anyway, my predictions: Sec of defense: Bob Gates
Sec of state: Hillary Clinton (not as good as Dick Lugar, but still a good pick)
Sec of treasury: Sumners Still thinking about the other ones...

Quoting cognitive madisonian:
Obama's peace love and butterflies message.

I'm hoping you don't underestimate the strength required to deliver this message.

I believe I was making a point about limits - even a messiah can't change Washington, DC, even with a dozen Matthew's (the tax collector of the group). I just would like to ask for a cabinet officer who actually has specific experience to run a department. I worked in restaurants, so now I can aspire to be chief of staff. Then again, the Clinton marriage might just be the epitome of diplomacy between two sovereigns where Bill keeps allying himself with the wrong woman in return for no gain. Hopefully, by the end of January, we will find out that Obama is savvy enough to soothe egos and select a competent cabinet. Clinton fucked in the WH, Bush fucked us over in the WH, and now Obama won't force us to sleep in the cold spot. It's progress in America.

Quoting Ocean: I'm hoping you don't underestimate the strength required to deliver this message.

Interesting, y’know? I myself can recall no reference to peace or love during the campaign. Sure and certainly they were implicit in a variety of positions and promises; but the only explicit pie-in-the-sky words I heard were ‘yes we can’, and while the coupon-clipping (that was) what’s-mine-is-mine toads (it’s a metaphor; apologies to the fine members or the bufo family) grumble, whine, and spit, as noted above we already are becoming energized and it is already unfolding. Swallow your bile awhile. If you keep your eyes open you may, as you already can, see things never seen before, things that promise healing and productivity where it is most needed.
It has taken an unprecedented degree of skill and endurance and self-control and organizational effectiveness to reach this point, which almost no one was capable of honestly imagining. If that doesn’t signify strength to you you’re looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

Quoting ed fielding: Interesting, y’know? I myself can recall no reference to peace or love during the campaign. Sure and certainly they were implicit in a variety of positions and promises; but the only explicit pie-in-the-sky words I heard were ‘yes we can’, and while the coupon-clipping (that was) what’s-mine-is-mine toads (it’s a metaphor; apologies to the fine members or the bufo family) grumble, whine, and spit, as noted above we already are becoming energized and it is already unfolding. Swallow your bile awhile. If you keep your eyes open you may, as you already can, see things never seen before, things that promise healing and productivity where it is most needed.

I wish I could respond to this knowing what exactly I'm responding to. But, I still have my eyes too closed or blurry to understand the exact meaning of your (sarcastic?) remarks. I will be very happy to get some clarity and energy and come out of this tragic comedy I'm still struggling with. I have no comments about the bufo family, other than to say that they are all too human and in need of growth.

It has taken an unprecedented degree of skill and endurance and self-control and organizational effectiveness

Quoting Ocean: I wish I could respond to this knowing what exactly I'm responding to. But, I still have my eyes too closed or blurry to understand the exact meaning of your (sarcastic?) remarks.

I don't think Ed was being sarcastic at all. I hope not, anyway, because I completely agree with him -- Obama wasn't campaigning on a message of squishiness, but on a message of strength. To the degree that some find it easy to mock his insistence that "there is no red America and blue America," this is just a measure of how long a childish worldview of us-vs-them has been allowed to fester. That he has enough optimism to believe that people are fundamentally good and that there is reason to hope that we can work together is, ultimately, a challenge to all of us to grow up.

Quoting bjkeefe: I don't think Ed was being sarcastic at all. I hope not, anyway, because I completely agree with him -- Obama wasn't campaigning on a message of squishiness, but on a message of strength. To the degree that some find it easy to mock his insistence that "there is no red America and blue America," this is just a measure of how long a childish worldview of us-vs-them has been allowed to fester. That he has enough optimism to believe that people are fundamentally good and that there is reason to hope that we can work together is, ultimately, a challenge to all of us to grow up.

Well, I obviously agree, since this is what I've been saying. I also know that for many people these are empty ideas because they are too cynic to believe there will ever be change. I reject that position. We can speculate about how near or far in the future this can be realized, but we should all believe that it can happen. It just gives us the right perspective.

Quoting Ocean: Well, I obviously agree, since this is what I've been saying. I also know that for many people these are empty ideas because they are too cynic to believe there will ever be change. I reject that position. We can speculate about how near or far in the future this can be realized, but we should all believe that it can happen. It just gives us the right perspective.

Okay. If I misunderstood you, I apologize, but I did want to come to Ed's defense regarding your speculation that he was being sarcastic. Then I got a little carried away and ended up responding to things others besides you have said.

Quoting bjkeefe: Okay. If I misunderstood you, I apologize, but I did want to come to Ed's defense regarding your speculation that he was being sarcastic. Then I got a little carried away and ended up responding to things others besides you have said.

I placed a question mark after the word sarcastic, implying that I didn't know whether some of his comments were sarcastic, or simply a sample of Ed's literary style.

Quoting Ocean: I placed a question mark after the word sarcastic, implying that I didn't know whether some of his comments were sarcastic, or simply a sample of Ed's literary style.

Physician, heal thyself. Get over your sarcasm aversion... you are even sensing it where it may not exist. I am selfish and sarcastic (often). I miss the bold and free-flowing Ocean.
Let it flow.

Quoting graz: Physician, heal thyself. Get over your sarcasm aversion... you are even sensing it where it may not exist.

I am selfish and sarcastic (often). I miss the bold and free-flowing Ocean.
Let it flow.

Thank you for your advice, Graz. I wish I could follow it. But, in spite of global warming, I think Ocean is 'frozen'. Or would it be a better metaphor to say that the Ocean doesn't know in what direction to flow? Or both.

Quoting bjkeefe: I don't think Ed was being sarcastic at all. I hope not, anyway, because I completely agree with him -- Obama wasn't campaigning on a message of squishiness, but on a message of strength. To the degree that some find it easy to mock his insistence that "there is no red America and blue America," this is just a measure of how long a childish worldview of us-vs-them has been allowed to fester. That he has enough optimism to believe that people are fundamentally good and that there is reason to hope that we can work together is, ultimately, a challenge to all of us to grow up.

This coming from someone who advocates a "truth and reconciliation" panel to go after Bush administration figures is more than a bit ironic. Obama's whole message "yes we can"...yes you can what? Electing a politician is no accomplishment, yet Obama is telling his supporters that they changed the world by electing him. It's the most vacuous campaign since William Henry Harrisson ran on Log Cabin and Hard Cider. Obama didn't run on uniting the country. He ran on calling Republicans racists, claiming criticisms of

Quoting Ocean: Thank you for your advice, Graz. I wish I could follow it. But, in spite of global warming, I think Ocean is 'frozen'. Or would it be a better metaphor to say that the Ocean doesn't know in what direction to flow? Or both.

Ocean has deep currents flowing within?

Shorter cog. mad.:

I believe everything I read on NoQuarter.

Quoting bjkeefe: Shorter cog. mad.:

See this is why we need actual right wing wingnuts so left wing WNs such as yourself can get a genuine counterbalance. This site is incomplete without posters responding to left wing lunacy with claims of Obama's birth certificate, secret Muslim faith, etc. On the bad news front, a blog I had been reading recently got into the whole birth certificate silliness. So now I have one less blog to read

Quoting cognitive madisonian: This coming from someone who advocates a "truth and reconciliation" panel to go after Bush administration figures is more than a bit ironic.

You are showing black and white mentality. You are thinking of 'this state' (Bush government) versus 'that state' (Obama government), as if you could turn a switch and that's it. There is a process of transition that has to occur between those two states. If there are aspects of the Bush legacy that are going to be a major impediment for Obama to effectively affect change, those aspects will have to be addressed. I don't think, personally at least, that this is about retaliation or witch hunting. It's more about teaching the right principles and start reversing the damage that may have been done by years of corruption and disdain for civil rights and human life. I have repeatedly said that it would be unrealistic to expect all goals to be achieved, and even less so in a short period of time. And it's only fair to recognize that in every human endeavor there are mistakes made by all parties involved. We all have to learn from

I applaud the overall tone and sophistication of your post, but I was rather disappointed by this line:

the damage that may have been done by years of corruption and disdain for civil rights and human life.

Come now. This is the type of statement you should make against Hu Jintao, not George Bush. Bush does not disdain civil rights, let alone human life.

And it's only fair to recognize that in every human endeavor there are mistakes made by all parties involved.

Absolutely.
Regarding the semantics of the term, I'm sure you're well aware that the term is a direct reference to Apartheid South Africa. Let's not kid ourselves. The inference is of gross illegality and disrespect of human life, and as not just a Republican (who happened to vote against Bush in 04) but as an American I find that insulting. Specifically in regards to ending hostility, what hostility? An unpopular president is soon to be replaced by a politician from the other party. Same deal as when Eisenhower took over after Truman. As with Bush, Truman was quite unpopular. His opponents made abundant accusations of illegalities. Then the people had their time to

First off, I would just reiterate my view that Bush and Cheney are war criminals who should be held accountable for their crimes. The "forgive, forget and move on" attitude is really bad for democracy. Impeachment efforts failed because Congress abdicated its responsibility, and since Congress will continue to do so, the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions idea is an excellent one. Let it all come out, and let Americans and the world learn how we started an illegal war and ended up torturing and holding people in prison without charges or trial for years. Second,

While we're on this philosophical ground though, what is your opinion of sites like antigayblackist.com? I find them to be atrocious, and I'd say the same thing if it were a group supporting a position I'm fond of. Just as we need a separation of church and state, we need a separation of political and social life. Sites that intend on destroying people's lives for supporting a different political cause are a grave threat to the health of our democracy.

The purpose of those lists is to identify businesses to boycott. Individuals who don't own businesses

In California we have had a political quagmire that was exacerbated by the religious establishment. There was a proposition put on the ballot that passed that outlawed same sex marriages. It was prop. 8. What it did was reversed a recent state supreme court ruling that OK'd homosexual marriages. First there were members of the Mormon Chrrch that contrubuted large sums of money to pass this piece of measure. This was compounded by majorities in the African American and Hispanic communities voting for the measure. The other night I was listening to talk radio and they were discussing this matter. A black male listener called in and complained about the majority of his South Los Angeles community being anti gay. He said he used to go to a rather large church where the minister frequently lambasted homosexuals. He said that he left the church in short order but wondered why the 50 other gay people that he knew of would stay around and lap up this kind of talk. I am wondering that, too. John

Quoting Wonderment: First off, I would just reiterate my view that Bush and Cheney are war criminals who should be held accountable for their crimes.

'War criminal' is a ludicrous charge. Honestly, it is. Tojo was a war criminal. Slobadan Melosivic was a war criminal. If you put George Bush in their company, then I struggle to take you seriously.

The "forgive, forget and move on" attitude is really bad for democracy. Impeachment efforts failed because Congress abdicated its responsibility, and since Congress will continue to do so, the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions idea is an excellent one. Let it all come out, and let Americans and the world learn how we started an illegal war and ended up torturing and holding people in prison without charges or trial for years.

You do know that Obama will likely keep the Bush interrogation rules, and may not close Guantanamo, right? We didn't start an illegal war. Getting a few intelligence items wrong, thanks in large part to deceit by the dictator who you overthrew, does not equate illegality. And this whole torturing thing, please. We waterboarded a few people. You can count the number of people on one hand. Compare that to US actions in

Quoting bkjazfan: In California we have had a political quagmire that was exacerbated by the religious establishment. There was a proposition put on the ballot that passed that outlawed same sex marriages. It was prop. 8. What it did was reversed a recent state supreme court ruling that OK'd homosexual marriages.

First there were members of the Mormon Chrrch that contrubuted large sums of money to pass this piece of measure. This was compounded by majorities in the African American and Hispanic communities voting for the measure.

The other night I was listening to talk radio and they were discussing this matter. A black male listener called in and complained about the majority of his South Los Angeles community being anti gay. He said he used to go to a rather large church where the minister frequently lambasted homosexuals. He said that he left the church in short order but wondered why the 50 other gay people that he knew of would stay around and lap up this kind of talk. I am wondering that, too.

John

You're describing the death of the Obama coalition

Quoting bkjazfan: In California we have had a political quagmire that was exacerbated by the religious establishment. There was a proposition put on the ballot that passed that outlawed same sex marriages. It was prop. 8. What it did was reversed a recent state supreme court ruling that OK'd homosexual marriages.

First there were members of the Mormon Chrrch that contrubuted large sums of money to pass this piece of measure. This was compounded by majorities in the African American and Hispanic communities voting for the measure.

You are giving an example of how religious and cultural beliefs have an effect on social issues. I think this country has to start thinking about 'boundaries'. In this case, I refer to boundaries as the alleged right that some people think they have to decide on someone else's life. Same sex marriage doesn't directly affect Mormons, other religions, or straight people from any ethnic background. People in these groups may think they are affected because they 'disapprove' or 'dislike', for their own reasons, G/L marriage. But same sex marriage does directly affect the G/L community. And that's where the big difference is found. Gay/Lesbian people are not trying

Do you think boycotting lunch counters that wouldn't serve blacks in the South or boycotting business conducted with Apartheid South Africa was "McCarthyism"? Never mind. You probably do.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: 'War criminal' is a ludicrous charge. Honestly, it is. Tojo was a war criminal. Slobadan Melosivic was a war criminal. If you put George Bush in their company, then I struggle to take you seriously.

We didn't start an illegal war. Getting a few intelligence items wrong, thanks in large part to deceit by the dictator who you overthrew, does not equate illegality. And this whole torturing thing, please. We waterboarded a few people. You can count the number of people on one hand. Compare that to US actions in every previous war. Same thing with indefinite imprisonment. This is nothing new. This is done in war. Barack Obama will do it too. Bill Clinton started many of these programs.

I'm not going to address the specific arguments you present, but rather comment on kind of argument you are making. You take something that is quite unequivocally wrong (torture, human rights violations, an unnecessary war) and you compare that to something that, perhaps, was even worse. And you call that a valid argument. From my perspective, this kind of argument is good as 'consolation', so that we don't feel so bad about something that is clearly wrong. What some of us propose is to move forward

Quoting Wonderment: Do you think boycotting lunch counters that wouldn't serve blacks in the South or boycotting business conducted with Apartheid South Africa was "McCarthyism"?

Never mind. You probably do.

A fundamental difference is in the nature of the three instances. If you can not see the difference in gays not being able to marry and blacks being subject to Apartheid, then I'd recommend the book Kaffir Boy so you get a greater handle on life in Apartheid South Africa. Is there ever a time when a boycott is acceptable? Yes. In extreme circumstances. That's it.

Quoting Ocean: I'm not going to address the specific arguments you present, but rather comment on kind of argument you are making. You take something that is quite unequivocally wrong (torture, human rights violations, an unnecessary war)

Well, I don't accept these at face values. Torture is wrong, but I fully accept it in ticking time bomb situations. Would rather a nuclear weapon go off in Baltimore than waterboard a terrorist? I certainly hope not. And in terms of unnecessary war, again, we removed a heinous dictator. You mean to tell me you wouldn't support an effort to remove al Bashir in Sudan? Or Obiang in Eq. Guinea? Was our operation against Milosivic necessary? Not for our strategic interests. But it was moral. We stopped ethnic cleansing. That makes it right. And in Iraq, we stopped a terrible dictator and his two psychotic sons from continuing their reign of terror. That is moral.

and you compare that to something that, perhaps, was even worse. And you call that a valid argument. From my perspective, this kind of argument is good as 'consolation', so that we don't feel so bad about something that is clearly wrong. What some of us propose is to move forward with a higher

I hate to play devil's advocate, because I honestly don't care all that much about the marriage issue one way or the other (but my position is one of opposition), but I think you're not weighing the consequences of your stated philosophy. Are you prepared to end laws restricting public nudity? Public sex acts? These are 'decency' laws. Well, seeing a naked person biking down Main Street doesn't actually cause you harm, right? I could point to other examples, too. The point is that we have plenty of laws that extend beyond the minimalistic prism set by JS Mill.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: I hate to play devil's advocate, because I honestly don't care all that much about the marriage issue one way or the other (but my position is one of opposition), but I think you're not weighing the consequences of your stated philosophy.

Are you prepared to end laws restricting public nudity? Public sex acts? These are 'decency' laws. Well, seeing a naked person biking down Main Street doesn't actually cause you harm, right?

I could point to other examples, too. The point is that we have plenty of laws that extend beyond the minimalistic prism set by JS Mill.

The problem I see here is that you are trying to apply 'blanket' statements. If we accept this, we have to accept that. I do understand the rationale behind, but we have to be very careful in identifying not only the similarities between situations but also the differences. I don't know whether ultimately public nudity or sex will be accepted. Certainly there are other, perhaps more primitive societies that don't have a problem with that. I'm not defending or attacking this point, only trying to examine it. The reality is that I don't think that our more conservative society is anywhere near accepting those. If

Quoting Ocean: The problem I see here is that you are trying to apply 'blanket' statements. If we accept this, we have to accept that. I do understand the rationale behind, but we have to be very careful in identifying not only the similarities between situations but also the differences. I don't know whether ultimately public nudity or sex will be accepted. Certainly there are other, perhaps more primitive societies that don't have a problem with that. I'm not defending or attacking this point, only trying to examine it. The reality is that I don't think that our more conservative society is anywhere near accepting those. If we are talking about a more sexually liberal society, we will agree that whatever changes there are, they will be gradual. Issues about sexuality are too emotionally charged and deeply seated in people and cultures. There are too many layers of taboos. I wouldn't try to force any of these issues, but I would encourage people to examine their own beliefs, feelings and principles related to sexuality in an honest way. People say one thing and do the other. Why? Shouldn't we be a little more serious about examining what sexuality is, has been

Quoting cognitive madisonian: Well, I don't accept these at face values. Torture is wrong, but I fully accept it in ticking time bomb situations. Would rather a nuclear weapon go off in Baltimore than waterboard a terrorist? I certainly hope not.

And in terms of unnecessary war, again, we removed a heinous dictator. You mean to tell me you wouldn't support an effort to remove al Bashir in Sudan? Or Obiang in Eq. Guinea?

Was our operation against Milosivic necessary? Not for our strategic interests. But it was moral. We stopped ethnic cleansing. That makes it right.

And in Iraq, we stopped a terrible dictator and his two psychotic sons from continuing their reign of terror. That is moral.

I said that I wouldn't address the specific issues because there are a multitude of possibilities. But I will repeat and emphasize that my argument is about holding certain principles that aim at a higher standard. The key behind my insistence in spite of some of the examples you present which seem to 'justify' one bad to avoid a bigger one, has to do with another principle that I hold which is the rejection of dogma. It is impossible to imagine beforehand all the possible scenarios

Quoting Baltimoron: Wooah, you almost painted me like an elitist, anti-Emanuel guy! You're so sneaky!

You read me wrong, then. I was painting you as someone who is far too ready to get back to gossip and unimportant personnel issues. I like Emanuel (he lived across the street from me at one point) but I have a hard time believing that he merits discussion instead of rhapsodizing about the future. Rhapsodize. It's important. The chief of staff, all things considered, really isn't.

Quoting Unit: I'm sorry, I thought I had been clear that I was separating the individual qualities of a president from the institutional role.

I would have to argue that the Bush / Cheney reign is a glaring example of just how much the individual qualities not only set the tone of the institutional role, but play a role in every decision, and how those decisions are sold to the people here, and around the world. Hence my emphasis on the attributes of communication, and diplomatic skills. But some of the partisan posters here will argue that many events of the last eight years were either for the greater good, or were not consequential of decisions made by Bush / Cheney, and were motivated not by personality, but by pure moral righteousness. I have a feeling they will not take the same defensive stance for the new administration.

I hope you're being ironic. Yeah, personnel! Paaassssh! Like selecting a slate of candidates to run for office... I hate to ruin your dreaming, but the help are how the future will be actualized, help get the president elected, and actually do the work. Trying to avoid the last Mac McLarty and hiring the next Jim Baker is a test of leadership.

Quoting Baltimoron: I hope you're being ironic.

Nnnnnope.

Two things: 1. JM wants wants to restrict the meaning of "acting white" to not wanting to be educated to fit in. But, in fact, its the other meaning that bothers him: idealizing western culture, while demeaning anything perceived to be black, e.g. black music, black slang, black leaders, black cities, black political agenda. In the latter sense, Obama's election will not change the phenomenon of "acting white". There will always be blacks who don't want to be black because they hate the stereotypes however fair or unfair they might be. 2. The Economic Policy Institute has a writeup of Eisenhower Foundation co-sponsored an event titled "The Work That Remains: A Forty-year Update of the Kerner Commission Report.". Its fitting because the Kerner Commission Report is about the same age as JM. "We've in many ways gone backwards since the sixties," he said, pointing out that child poverty, income inequality, and school integration had all gotten worse since the time of the Kerner report. Dr. Algernon Austin (Economic Policy Institute) then explored the specifics of employment discrimination. His presentation began by looking at national employment rates among blacks and whites and then proceeded to examine specific sub-groups, by gender, education, and location. Austin demonstrated that although

I love these guys! Two of the best talking heads of bloggingheads! I never fail to walk away without some additional insight into many different things.