Here We Go Again

I don't care about Fat Joe (Joseph Antonio Cartagena at birth), a 46-year-ol former rapper whose father is Cuban-American and mother is Puerto Rican. He's a rapper, not a serious individual.

But the 47-year old Marc Lamot Hill is a serious person. He once was named by Ebony magazine as one of the nation's top 30 black leaders under the age of 30 (clever!) and has been a media personality, activist, professor of urban education, and currently co-host of the Joe Budden podcast. He is nothing if not an accomplished individual- well, a few other things, but accomplished.

And so the question: Is this still a thing?

 

Marc Lamont Hill addresses Fat Joe’s recent visit to the Joe Budden Podcast and his claim that he can use the N word due to his proximity to the culture.

“Fat Joe is not black, I disagree with him using the word due to his relation to the culture, I don’t think that’s enough”… pic.twitter.com/q3ZabDLHK1

— The Art Of Dialogue (@ArtOfDialogue_) September 7, 2026

By" this"  I mean  justifying the use of the n-word by blacks while unironically condemning white racism and racists. In the video below, Hill remarks (beginning at 1:36)

I did say, and I do mean this, that if you do this you should be black. If you're going to use the n-word, you should be somebody who could actually be called the name.That's my position. That's my belief. 

Now, Fat Joe is making the claim here that he didn't make before- "I'm the blackest person." No, he is saying that he is black. I am not trying to police anybody's ethnicity. I am not trying to police anybody's racial identity.

A few moments pass before Hill decides to question, or rather "police," his friend's ethnicity or racial identity as he maintains

Fat Joe has love for black people. Fat Joe is not racist. Fat Joe cares about black people. But Fat Joe is not black. I have no issue with Fat Joe's relationship to the black community but Fat Joe is not black. Fat Joe was basically saying "I grew up around black people, I've grown up in hip-hop,I'm ensconced in the culture. I am a part of the culture.

I agree with all of that. But Fat Joe is not black. So while I love Fat Joe and I admire Fat Joe and I appreciate Fat Joe, I don't share his position that he can use the n-word by virtue of his proximity to the culture or his love for the cultrue, I don't think that's enough.

It would be easy to condemn all others while giving his friend a pass. So Hill deserves credit for not doing that. 

But not for anything else.  In response to the professor's comments, one wise and apparently black tweeter notes (though I don't know if the last statement is accurate)

The n-word derives from the most negative and degrading system of oppression known to human kind. And before slavery here in America, people of color, no matter what part of the world they were from did not call themselves or each other the n-word. I find it embarrassing and repulsive that this guy, Mr. Hill is telling the world community that it is ok to go ahead and identify yourself with degradation, lowliness, illiteracy, poverty, and everything else that is wrong with the use of this word and its ugliness.

Even more disheartening is the fact that people will hear and agree with this foolish endorsement. If you are going to be okay with people of color saying it you ought not be offended when non colored people are saying it. The word is what it is no matter who is saying. I have long ago dispensed with this notion that the word is a term of endearment, IT IS NOT. It is as offensive from people of color as it is from those who are not. This statement by Mr. Hill is miseducation of people of color. My children do not use the word and at least in my presence are forbidden from using it because they should never associate themselves or any other person of color with this word.

We have to do better. I do not know one civil rights leader of seriousness or a true scholar in history on the subject of race who would lend an ear or credibility to this ridiculous endorsement.

It should be obvious that if black people can justifiably use a term- which they can't- then all others should be able to do so. A black person, who is one most likely offended, by the term, cannot use the n-word without giving it his or her de fact endorsement.

If they could do so, accuracy would demand that we make a judgement as to an individual's blackness. Hill recognizes that Cartagena, no matter the cultural milieu in which he chose to move, is Latino. What then of an individual who is racially mixed, black on the side of one parent and whie on the other? Or what if the latter parent is racially Laino, Asian-American, or of tribal background?

Generally, those individuals have credibly been able to claim that they are black: think Kamala Harris or Barack Obama.  However, Barack Obama, for one, was not raised in a culture Hill or anyone else would recognize as being classically African-American. Nor have been most blacks who were born in Africa or whose parents were born in Africa. They- along with individuals from the Caribbean- experienced what is an immigrant culture. Yet, "black".

So there is one simple and fair resolution to this conundrum.  Another Xer- presumably white, but not clearly so- tweets

Maybe we should be having a completely different conversation altogether. Name another group that keeps one of the most degrading slurs used against them in everyday rotation, then spends time arguing over who else is allowed to say it. Some things don’t have to be carried forever just because they became part of the culture. We can decide we’re done and move on.

Let’s just all stop saying it.

Share |

The Shoe That's Actually on the Other Foot

Several decades ago, a couple of guys I knew in public school would say "the only race is the human race".  I don't recall the names but wish I did, so I might track them down and apologize for doubting them.

In the website Science Oxygen, it is suggested that there are seven races: American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; Black or African American; Hispanic or Latino; Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander; and White. 

This imperfect classification is not quite as bad as others. However, Science Oxygen more accurately notes "racial categories are not reflective of the underlying reality", "race" cannot "be found in our genes" and

Because of the overlapping of traits that bear no relationship; to one another (such as skin colour and hair texture) and the inability of scientists to cluster peoples into discrete racial packages, modern researchers have concluded that the concept of race has no biological identity.

And that is only one thing wrong with the tweet (below) from Mehdi Hasan, who argues

The idea that in a world where Israel is genociding the Palestinians in Gaza, ethnically cleansing them in the West Bank, and blocking their legal right to return the idea that Israel's right to exist is the one we should be concerned about, and not Palestine's, is both ridiculous and, let's be honest, racist.

“Do You Support Israel’s Right to Exist?” Mehdi Hasan FIRES BACK

Mehdi Hasan: I've been debating hardcore Zionists, Israeli supporters of Israel, for years. And the conversation always comes back to one talking point:

“Do you, or do you not support Israel’s right to exist?”

If… pic.twitter.com/HITkx4mJH5

— Jeff (@_Jeffery0) August 15, 2026

If Hasan had any concept of honesty, he'd recognize that Israel is not committing genocide (and there is no such thing as "genociding").  Also, Palestine is a geographical construct and thus, were there even distinct races, discriminating against Palestinians would not be racist."  And if the Palestinians who left Israel in 1948, voluntarily or involuntarily, have a right to return, we'd have to consider that (according to this site) "since 1948, 99% of the 1,000,000 indigenous Jews living in 10 Arab countries plus Iran, were uprooted from their countries of birth- one of the more significant cases of ethnic cleansing in modern history."

Of course, Jews would not return to those countries if given a choice because before expulsion from those lands they were treated much worse than are Arabs/Muslims currently living in the West Bank and far worse than those individuals residing in Israel proper. So much for Hasan's precious right of return for Muslims/Palestinians, and only for them.

It's ironic that Hasan, who supports creation of a Palestinian state, would state "people, individuals have a right to exist. Human beings have a right. Not states, not countries."

Massachusetts, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and a lot of other places would like a word.  Also, this: if countries have no right to exist, neither would a "Palestine". But Hasan believes a "Palestine" should exist, but not Israel, created by the UN General Assembly on November 29, 1947. 

And he believes that "Palestine" should exist at the expense of Israel, which he refuses to say should exist. Israel is "a country with sovereignty, it's on the map," he says, as many Republicans still say when asked whether Joe Biden won the 2020 election: with "he is the President."

Comparison of the Soviet Union to Israel is hideous.  In the wake of a failed coup against Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev, fourteen republics of the Soviet Union declared their independence. Aside from the three Baltic states, they formed with Russia the Commonwealth of Independent States. And now Russia is "only" approximately 6.6 million square miles in size. By contrast, Israel comprises 8,630 square miles.

And in contrast to that, Saudi Arabia covers 868,730 square miles, more than 100 times the size of Israel. However, Hasan doesn't recommend that the Kingdom relinquish any portion of its nation to help its Muslim brothers. Such an accomodation would not sit well with the Saudis, who accept Palestinian Arabs only as guest workers and forbid them from becoming citizens, a far cry from their status in Israel proper. 

Mehdi Hasan has not spoken up about that, however, because his abiding interest is not in a Palestinian state. He does not argue that Gaza should become a Palestinian state. He does not argue that the West Bank should become a Palestinian state.

His interest is in the abolition of Israel. He is not alone in the Muslim community in the West, though unlike most others, his words make it clear that he supports the ethnic cleansing of Mideast Jews.  Quite ironic, but not so surprising.

Share |

Shhh! Don't Tell Anyone.

 

This is an organization, determined that "no other unarmed Black or Brown person is murdered again," that deserves an A for revealing its motive.

In March of 2024, Al Sharpton's National Action Network announced an upcoming forum, Turning Grief Into Action, to beheld at the annual convention of the organization.  The NAN noted that moderator Ben Crump, whom Reverend Sharpton had called the "Attorney General for Black America," would be joined by family members of Eric Garner, Ahmaud Arbery, George Floyd, Trayvon Martin, Tyre Nichols, and AJ Owens. 

Each individual had been, the press release stated, "unjustly killed either by law enforcement or in violent acts of hatred" and that NAN had

covered costs for the funerals, with Rev. Sharp and Attorney Crump delivering eulogies and calls to action at their ceremonies. The organization continues to work with these families either to hold their loved one's killers accountable or advance issues to ensure no other unarmed Black or Brown person is murdered again.

Whatever one thinks of the virtue of Ben Crump and Al Sharpton or of the specific cases in which they've intervened, these activists clearly believe they are acting on behalf of not only the families, but of the black community itself, in the struggle against allegedly unjust violence- especially from police- against blacks.

And so, unless we live in Texas, you- and I- did not hear about this splendid police work four years ago when

Timothy Michael Randall was on the phone with his mother when a police car pulled up behind his Nissan Altima with its lights flashing. It was just after 12:30 a.m. on Sept. 14, 2022, and Randall was heading to his cousin’s house after a night out.

“He had called to let me know that he was going to be home a few minutes later,” Randall’s mother, Wendy Tippitt, recalled. “So I wouldn’t worry.”

Randall, 29, pulled over and hung up with his mom. Sgt. Shane Iversen of the Rusk County Sheriff’s Office walked up to the Altima and told Randall that he had run a stop sign, police dash camera footage shows. Randall denied doing so, and Iversen ordered him out of the car.

What began as a routine traffic stop, on a country road two hours east of Dallas, quickly spun out of control.

As Randall was stepping out of the car, he put his wallet in his back pocket and adjusted his waistband.

Iversen dug his hands into the front of Randall’s pants and then told him to put his hands behind his back, the dash cam footage shows. Randall kept his arms raised.

I don't know the reason for this- uh-- excursion, but I'm straight and it seems odd. Evidently, Mr. Randall didn't understand the importance of keeping one's mouth shut while being molested (searched) and

“Officer, I don’t have anything on me,” he said.

“Officer, please, can you tell me what I’m under arrest for?” Randall asked moments later.

Iversen didn’t respond. Instead, he wrestled Randall to the pavement.

“Officer, please,” Randall pleaded again as he struggled to get to his feet.

Police often are appreciative if the motorist is respectful to the point of being submissive. Not so this officer because

Then Iversen threw Randall to the ground again. He landed on his back several feet away, but the momentum brought him back to his feet. Randall began to turn to run away from Iversen, who had already pulled out his gun and was pointing it at Randall.

“Get down,” Iversen yelled as he fired one shot, striking Randall in the chest.

Randall continued to run down the street but collapsed face down. Iversen radioed for help and then tried to render medical aid, but Randall died on the pavement. The bullet had torn through his ribs, lungs and heart, according to autopsy records.

After another deputy arrived minutes later, Iversen, then 57, returned to his patrol car and phoned a colleague.

Chastened from just having killed a human being, “I just smoked a dude,” he said in a hushed voice.

It gets worse. 

You don't recall (as I didn't) this incident unless you live(d) in Texas, western Arkansas, or southern Oklahoma, or possibly not even there. Nor would you recall the customary arrival of the Crump & Sharpton Roadshow because it didn't make an appearance. 

Two days after the incident, Iversen  told Texas Rangers investigators that he threw Randall to the ground because he was concerned the man might be able to reach what he thought was gun but Randall quickl got onto his fat. Iversen added "at this point in time, I see him running towards me. I'm on my knees and I'm like he's coming at me." After Randall was cut down, the officer found in his pocket a methamphetamine pipe which he thought be a gun before he searched him.

The case was presented to the grand jury, which issued a no bill, thus failing to indict the policeman. This might strike one as odd, given the a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, or rather, persuade a grand jury to do so. Exceptions, Crump & Sharpton would point out, would include a black man killed by a police officer, especially a white police officer What they won't tell you- and what the media won't tell you- is that sometimes a white man is killed with impunity.

Wait- what? We haven't been told that by police reform advocates, the media, Democrats, and- yes- even Republicans. But if this were a story merely of police sometimes being able to get away with (figurative and literal) murder, it would be a story only half-told. There is an even more important moral to the story because

After reviewing the dashcam footage and the Texas Rangers report, two police use-of-force experts contacted by NBC News said they saw no reason for Iversen to open fire during the encounter.

Mickie McComb, a former New Jersey state trooper, said Randall never made any movement that would suggest he was “drawing or attempting to draw a weapon” and at no point was he “charging the officer.”

“There was no threat,” added McComb, who now works as an expert witness on use-of-force cases. “He should have never used deadly force. It was completely uncalled for.”

 David Klinger, a former police officer in Los Angeles and Redmond, Washington, offered a similarly blunt assessment.

“It doesn’t make any sense why he shot the guy,” said Klinger, a criminology professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis who researches police shootings.

Klinger said he doesn’t understand why Iversen would try to tackle a man whom he believed to be carrying a gun. If he wasn’t able to grab the weapon himself, Klinger said, he should have stepped back, drew his own firearm, radioed for back up and ordered the man onto his knees or onto a prone position on the ground.

“You give him verbal commands to keep his hands in plain view,” Klinger added.

McComb said he believes that Iversen would have faced criminal charges — and likely ended up in prison — had the incident occurred in the Northeast.

“It’d be a completely different ball game,” McComb said. “That’s a bad case.”

It's possible that McComb may be informed by his experience in the People's Republic of New Jersey. There, the investigation of the death of any civilian in an "encounter with a law enforecemnt officer" must be presented to a grand jury, and the investigation conducted not by a county but by the state to maintain its independence from law enforcement.

Nonetheless, what McComb said may in fact be not only common, but standard throughout the northeastern USA   Here, it is a completely different ballgame than in Texas and no doubt some other states.

It's a radical statement because you will hear it nowhere else. One would think that, as the "defund the police slogan" has brought increasing criticism, there would be questioning of the two premises of the black lives matter movement: police overreach is imposed against only blacks; and 2) police misbehavior is widespread, almost uniform, throughout the USA.

These two things are not true and never were. Democrats will not acknowledge it because the base of the party is black women. Republicans won't acknowledge it because they will not admit that police can be in wrong, and also wish to throw blame upon any combination of Democrats, liberals, the underclass,or the media. The media will not acknowledge it because Democrats and Republicans won't, and thus it is not "news".

But it's reality. Many police officers do their job very well, some poorly, and some merely adequately.... kind of, like, other Americans. But they often are characterized as a whole as God's gift to humanity or racist pigs.  Most are neither, and the minnority who are irresponsible are irresponsible to civilians regardless of their race. And when they are, the consequences can range from nothing to very severe, often depending on the jurisdiction in which the act occurred. It's Criminology 101.

   

Share |

Hero Worship

Oh, get a room. Sally Jenkins, reportedly an award-winning journalist, writes in a recent column in The Atlantic

Suavity is a sorely missed ingredient in the American presidency. The effortless charm of a Roosevelt or a Reagan, a Bush or a Clinton, projected a particular brand of power. Suave means a kind of athletic ease and self-command in difficult, spotlighted circumstances, the assurance that solutions are at hand if only we all hold our composure and act right-headedly. Here was the ultra-suave Barack Obama’s message to the basketball player Caitlin Clark in a small but noteworthy exchange over the WNBA All-Star weekend: It never hurts to be winsome. In fact, it can help you win.

Almost unbelievably, it goes downhill from there.

You can read in her piece about the soiree of the ex-President and Clark's Indiana Fever as the team was "milling around an indoor court at the newly opened Obama Presidential Center on Chicago's South Side." Obama, the breathless Jenkins recounted, was suave enough "to gently remind them of certain truths." When he spoke to Clark, there was "a sweetness in the moment, a subtle teaching. In the nicest way, Obama shored Clark up..."

Jenkins remarks that the young superstar guard

can be either mesmerizing to watch or tiresome, depending on how aggrieved she feels on the day. Clark has complained that she is intentionally targeted with hard fouls—and sometimes she is, but not because she’s white. Mauling is the guaranteed, time-honored way to stop an otherwise insuperable player.

Highlights from video and television suggest that Clark can be mesmerizing to watch or tiresome and is sometimes "intentionally targeted with hard fouls."  Further, Jenkins comments, "mauling is the guaranteed, time-honored way to stop an ohtewise insuperable player."

I don't watch WNBA games. But if the journalist believes that "mauling is the guaranteed, time-honored way to stop" a great player, she has not watched the National Basketball Association much in the past quarter century. The men often play an o'le defense (defense, optional), much to the annoyance of most of us in middle-age or above. And when the ball handler is a star, it is even more common for the defender (word used loosely) to make only a disinterested effort at stopping him. (If Jenkins were referring specifically  to the women's league, she would not have used "time-honored" and would have clarified her remark.)

Nonetheless, she really is more interested in aleging that the mauling of Clark is "not because she's white."

But we don't know that, and Jenkins makes no effort to explain why she believes that.  It is very likely that jealousy is involved. Though there have been seveal excellent players in the NBA, all have gone under the radar, elicing little attention or endorsements. Caitlin Clark joins the league,  garners tremendous publicity and while lighting up the league, reaps endorsements and credit for making the WNBA a hot ticket (or at least much hotter than in the past). 

Gun to head, I would say that race and/or the sexuality (straight) of Clark plays a role. However, that's only speculation- I would not assume, unlike Jenkins. I admit I may be wrong; she leaves no doubt of her certainty.

She also is certain about the ex-President.  The article was not only about Jenkins' perception that the player embodies a sense of entitlement but also about Barack Obama's awesomeness.  The latter "gave her grace" and "a lesson in how to be winning."

As it happens, President Obama was himself given a lesson in winning in his second term.  One chapter in the recently-published U.S. Foreign Policy and Presidential Leadership in an Age of Strategic Uncertainty

explores the rise and fall of President Barack Obama’s “reset” policy toward Russia, highlighting its conciliatory approach and strategic missteps. ​ Obama sought to improve US-Russia relations, leveraging cooperation on arms control, counterterrorism, and nuclear nonproliferation. ​ However, his administration underestimated Russia’s expansionist ambitions, particularly in Ukraine, where limited sanctions and non-lethal aid failed to deter Russia’s aggression. ​ The reset policy, rooted in Obama’s consequentialist worldview, prioritized avoiding escalation but overlooked long-term security risks. ​ Ultimately, the policy’s shortcomings contributed to strained US-Russia relations, emboldened Moscow’s neo-imperialist aspirations, and left lasting negative impacts on European and global security.

In early 2012,  President Obama assured outgoing Russian president Dmitry Medvedev that he would have "more flexibility" in dealing with Russia once he was re-elected later that year. Medvedev told Obama that he'd relay the information to incoming president Vladimir Putin.

Message received. Russia in 2014 annexed Crimea and invaded Ukraine's eastern Donbas region, part of which still is occupied by the Kremlin. The US response, consisting of mild sanctions, was tepid.

In 2024, we learned

According to Watergate journalist Bob Woodward's forthcoming book, War, (President Joe) Biden expressed discontent during a private conversation late last year over how his former running mate handled Russian troops invading Ukraine's eastern Donbas region in February 2014. At the time, Biden was serving as vice president under former President Barack Obama.

"They f***** up in 2014," Woodward quoted Biden saying to a close friend in December 2023, according to the Associated Press, who obtained a copy of Woodward's book before its publishing date of October 15. "Barack never took [Russian President Vladimir Putin] seriously."

Biden is also quoted as telling the friend that the White House "never should have let Putin just walk in there" and that Washington "did nothing" when Russia invaded.

Many Ukrainians consider the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 merely a continuation of the war begun in 2014. This is the particular "brand of power projected" by four presidents, whom she believes include Barack Obama and not Joe Biden. Yet, President Biden did what President Obama did not do and chose to defend Ukraine aggesively. As Sally Jenkins will tell you, Barack Obama knows "winning"- he did it twice. Unwittingly, he helped Vladimir Putin also do it.

Share |

Jim Crow?

This pro-Israel tweeter believes "of course, to Coates, the specifics hardly matter, as he admits this is less about what you believve, and more about getting elected."

In the relevant portion (way below) of the conversation betwee Ta-Nehisi Coates and Chris Hayes of MSNOW, the two fellows agree that Barack Obama probably wouldn't have been nominated for President in 2008 had he not opposed the Iraq War. (That's another reason for hating that war- that year, Hillary Clinton otherwise would have been nominated, probably would have won, and would have been a better President than Barack Obama. Ask Ukraine.)

Ta-Nehisi Coates: "I don't know how you stay consistent by claiming an anti-apartheid legacy here in the United States of America while enforcing it abroad."

Coates is implying that Israel, a state that guarantees full rights to all citizens regardless of background, is an… pic.twitter.com/BMTpCRGiJG

— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) June 21, 2026

So, too, was Zohran Mandami wise to oppose Israeli actions in Gaza, without which, Coates notes (and Hayes agrees), Mandami likely would not have been elected mayor of New York City. Coates believes Mandami, in taking an anti-Israel (and anti-Semitic, others of us recognize) position "has the right and correct moral view. So I think even from a practical perspective there's no choice."

From a practical perspective, it appears so.  From a "moral" perspective, however, no. Fortunately, the tweeter notes that Coates took "a trip to the West Bank, which he concludes is an apartheid." That trip, "to Israel and teh Palestinian territories in the summer of 2023," formed the basis of an October, 2024 review of Coates' The Message. Helen Andrews writes of the author

The conclusion he comes to is that the Jewish state is the equivalent of the Jim Crow South. “I don’t think I ever, in my life, felt the glare of racism burn stranger and more intense than in Israel,” he writes. “‘Jim Crow’ was the first thing that came to mind, if only because ‘Jim Crow’ is a phrase that connotes an injustice, a sorting of human beings, the awarding and stripping of the rights of a population. Certainly, that was some part of what I saw in Hebron, in Jerusalem, in Lydd.”

 If his luck had been different, and he were less self-involved, Coates could have come up with a better checkpoint anecdote than the lame one he offers. Something like the incident in November 2009 when a Palestinian music teacher on his way to teach a lesson was held at the Beit Iba checkpoint and forced to take out his violin and play it while Israeli soldiers laughed. There you have something more than inconvenience, a vivid and poetic illustration of the dehumanization ordinary Palestinians often face. There, too, you have a rebuttal: The 2001 Sbarro pizza shop bombing in Jerusalem, which killed 16 Israelis including a pregnant woman, was committed by a Palestinian who hid his bomb in a guitar case.

These are the kinds of complexities Coates has no time for.

Many supporters of Israel, especially on social media, also have no time for complexities. Their critics notice that Coates and others are consumed by a blind and ahistorical view of a democratic state while pining for a Judenfrei "Palestine". 

The latter are fabulists whose hatred of a country with a land mass one-sixth the size of Florida and less than 1% of the size of Saudi Arabia coexists with a lingering infatuation for a "'state' with no border, no government, no economy, and no control over its claimed territory".

Sometime after October 7, 2023, Ta-Nehisi Coates and his fellow ethnic-obsessed ideologues found a hill to die on. Worse judgement on the left would be nearly impossible to come by.

 

Share |

As If It Never Happened

"I want to be clear that when I spoke of really dumb basketball the other night, I was talking about the players. I wasn't talking about their coach. I don't want to be criticizing young white coaches because we need more young white players in the NBA to maintain diversity."

If anyone had said this, he would immediately, and roundly, be branded a "racist". He wouldn't be, of course, because "racism" is the belief in the inherent superiority of one race over another, or of one race being inferior to another or all others. However, the speaker clearly would have been racially biased in his words and would have deserved condemnation.

And so,this was a "wait- what?" moment:

Charles Barkley on this comment:

"I got a couple of NBA coaches call me and I want to be crystal clear: when I said it was really dumb basketball the other night, I was talking about the players. I wasn't talking about coach Johnson. I don't want to be criticizing young black… https://t.co/vSvdHclMhX pic.twitter.com/9668GnWQOf

— Oh No He Didn't (@ohnohedidnt24) June 13, 2026

The outcry was.... virtually nonexistent. There were a few individuals on Twitter critical but otherwise, crickets.  And when Yahoo Sports ran a story about the controversy, it pertained to the issue of whether Barkley should have blamed the coach (as he appeared to do initially) or the players (as he did with his clarification).  No one questioned whether a very popular sports personality should be asserting that race plays a dominant role in his commentary.

Charles Barkley should not be fired for this. It is not a capital offense and he should not have been cancelled. But if a white analyst on ESPN (as this was) or on any network had said that he didn't want to be criticizing whites- of whatever generation, for whatever reason- he or she would have been raked over the coals, forced to apoligize, then terminated. A career wiped out in a matter of moments.

What Charles Barkley said was reprehensible. And the virtual complete disregard to this is as reprehensible, and more dangerous.

 

Share |

The Money Factor

Balderdash.

Appearing on Bill Maher's Real Time in October of 2024, Van Jones had stated 

If progressives have a politics that says all White people are racist, all men are toxic, and all billionaires are evil, it's kinda hard to keep them on your side. if you're chasing people out of the party, you can't be mad when they leave.

This quote had become most widely circulated only recently, and nothing Jones has said or even hinted at suggests that he has revised his perspective. So earlier this week I wrote "in 2020, neither Jones, or (Rahm) Emanuel (nor Carville) was heard offering criticismor even skepticism, maybe a word of caution,of the Black Lives Matter protests or the movement it symbolized. That would have demonstrated leadership, boldness, or prescience."

I have not changed my opinion but have changed my perspective. There are such Democrats who bash their own party because, among other things, it (allegedly) says that all white people are racist. These Democrats in neither 2020 nor the intervening years have uttered even a word of skepticism about BLM, thus rendering them feckless.

Most Democrats, even most progressives, don't argue that all white people are racist. However, the idea that some whites don't believe they're fully accepted by the Democratic Party because of their race has merit.

This (real or imagined) perception goes back decades. However, it was placed on steroids by the George Floyd protests of 2020,  of which the Democrats publicly skeptical could fit inside a phone booth, were one to be found.

Yet, as Sam Seder recognized, the thrust of Jones' comments was not directed toward race or gender. It concerned primarily money, or class. Seder remarked (with remarks in parentheses made by off-screen contributors)

It sounds like he's making an argument like "look, you just don't have the votes if you say no white people or no men. Yea. But honestly, like how many votes could we lose if we said no billionaires? (About a thousand.) I mean, how many billionaires do we have voting for, uh, Democrats now or progressives? How many billionaires do we have that are supporting progressives?

I don't know. Yea, a bunch. And with, uh (there are 200 billionaires in the United States but they're all in, um, in Ohio.) We could be losing a small town somewhere. (We'd be losing Pritzer?) It just gives you a sense of what his project is and it, it really is one of the best illustrations of that whole cohort of voices that you hear across the spectrum who considers themselves moderates The will argue we've got to stop this identitarian politics.

Characterizing Jones' sentiment, Seder adds "we've got to stop demonizing, uh, white people, we've got to stop demonizing, uh, black people. I mean, excuse me, we can still do that. Uh, we've got to stop demonizing men, etc. etc."

For one brief moment, Seder geot it wrong. Not only does Van Jones never demonize black people but no reasonably prominent Democrat on the national level demonizes black persons. A black person, obviously, can be demonized but never black people as a race nor anyone because he or she is black. Never.

Pardon the digression (or as they say on ESPN, Pardon the Interruption).  

Date:  July 6, 2017

Motorist: Philando Castille, 32-year-old black male

Police Officer: Geronimo Yanez

Location: Falcon Heights, a suburb of Minnesota

Incident: Officer stops car with whose two adult occupants look like robbery suspects. Castille tells Yanez that he has a gun (legally/illegally carried unclear). Yanez tells Castille not to reach for it or pull it out. Castille makes a move. Yanez believes Castille is reaching for gun, shoots him five times, killing him.

Trual: Prosecutor argues that Yanez was "a nervous officer who lost control of his traffic stop. He was too quick to pull the trigger after learning Castille had a gun" (CNN).

Verdict: Not guilty of "culpable negligence" 

It was awful police work, Castille shouldn't have been shot, and Officer Yanez soon thereafter was separated from the St. Anthony, Minnesota Police Department. 

The victim should not- and was not- blamed by anyone anywhere for having been shot. It proved tragically disastrous that Castille was carrying a firearm while driving with his wife and his child. The police officer, as the prosecution conceded in its own argument, panicked. Following the killing, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain issued a travel advisory as they warned of the USA's "gun culture." (Good point, guys.)

Gun safety advocates joined all notable Americans  (NRA excepted, for its own reasons) in acceptance of an individual unnecessarily carrying a firearm. Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, otherwise a gun safety advocacy group, argued "A traffic stop should not be a death sentence for Black men but, in America, it's an all-too-oommon occurrence."

Not "a traffic stop should not be a death sentence" but "a traffic stop should not be a death sentence for Black men." He was a hero because he was black, which runs contrary to Seder's notion that blacks can be demonized. Moms Demand Action hardly demonized blacks, Van Jones did not demonize blacks, and given black women as the base of the Democratic Party, no Democrat demonizes blacks. However, Seder is spot-on when he continues 

But what they're doing is they're protecting money interests. They're just trying to distract you with the first two. It was really the perfect illustration, the perfect and most concise illustration. And the context in which he said it also was sort of magnificent. You would literally have to goto a laboratory and create that.

Van Jones et al. are trying to distract us with the other stuff.  Moms Demand Action was unintentionally and stupidly diverting attention from its calling, gun safety. However, Jones and others usually are trying to distract us, turning our attention from their support of monied interests. Race and gender are easy distractions, but money talks.

 

Share |

Come Clean, Fellas

And from the anti-Democrat wing of the Democratic Party, we have Van Jones:

Van Jones: “If progressives have a politics that says all White people are racist, all men are toxic, and all billionaires are evil, it’s kinda hard to keep them on your side. If you’re chasing people out of the party, you can’t be mad when they leave.” pic.twitter.com/WchdC0u5wx

— Taya (@travelingflying) February 23, 2026

Jones added "and maybe if we had a different politics, dignity for everybody everybody is respected and we need you, more pople might stay."

Actually, though, the Democratic Party does have the kind of politics embodied in Jones. It is a politics of self-flaggelation. Last July, James Carville described his own party as "Constipated. Leaderless. Confused..... The Democratic Party is in shambles." Similarly, Rahm Emanuel a year ago maintained "politics is adddition, not subtraction, and we've been doing subtraction really well." he claims "both the political and economic establishment.... and we're all part of it, I'm part of it- we have failed the American people."

Not that the Republican Party has failed the American people- us, too! And Van Jones appears to be concerened that Democrats are chasing white people, men, and billionaires out of the party, which would repesent significantly more than half of voters.

Nonetheless, if there is a better way of chasing voters generally from your political party, there may be no better way than by saying "we have failed the American people" or "we stink, too."

The criticism of Emanuel and Jones- and the other Democratic politicians who have said something similar- is particularly ironic. They both see their Party as subtracting people and they are, in an odd sort of way, correct- just not in the manner they believe (Jones, probably) or not as they care to admit (Emanuel, probably).

Because a funny thing- somewhat controversial but insufficiently so- happened three years ago this month, when the Democratic Party placed South Carolina first on the party's presidential nominating calendar. It was catapulted to the head of the table, granting the state status which New Hampshire had previously possessed. Two months earlier, President Biden had written the Rules and Bylaws Committe, maintaing

For decades, Black voters in particular have been the backbone of the Democratic Party but have been pushed to the back of the early primary process. We rely on these voters in elections but have not recognized their importance in our nominating calendar. It is time to stop taking these voters for granted, and time to give them a louder and earlier voice in the process.

Prior to 2024, South Carolina had been sixth on the party's presidential primary/caucus schedule and as the state immediately preceding Super Tuesday, had more than once proven pivotal. However, as was noted shortly before the 2/24 primary in the state

The campaign's not just signaling. It's broadcasting to Black voters that they are the priority, and they're why the Party chose South Carolina to lead the nominating contest.

Toutin a "six-figure" ad blitz in South Carolina, Demoratic Party officials noted it's the party's earliest ever spending during a presidential contest on outreach to Black voters.

"When you think about he heart and the backbone of the Democratic Party,if there are any folks who deserve to go from the back of the bus to driving the damn bus, it's the Black folks here in South Carolina," Jaime Harrison, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said last week at a historically Black college in Sumter.

South Carolina was not given the interests of diversity. Not only are there many black voters in the Democratic primary in the state, they are a clear majority. If the Party wanted to reward a state which has a large number of black voters but which is more racially representative of the nation, it could have chosen Maryland, Illinois, or perhaps a couple of others. If it wanted to give a nod to a swing state, it could have chosen to be first New Hampshire (as it had been), Nevada, Wisonsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, or perhaps Colorado, Minnesota, or New Mexico, which typically vote Democratic but not by rock-solid margins.

Instead, the Party selected South Carolina for reasons of racial preference and, as usual in presidential and statewide elections there, got their rear-ends kicked, as it expected.

Perhaps that's wise,or at least not grossly unwise, because black voters have been particularly supportive of the Democratic Party. Yet, choosing a state precisely because its (primary) voters are predominantly black should be abhorrent to  a prominent Democrat who complains that his Party "says all White people are racist." Nor is it consistent with advocating that Democrats concentrate on "addition."

Similarly, in 2020, neither Jones, or Emanuel (nor Carville) was heard offering criticism or even skepticism, maybe a word of caution, of the Black Lives Matter protests or the movement it symbolzied. That would have demonstrated leadership, boldness, or prescience.

But there was no criticism then, nor was there more than a tiny bit when the Democratic Party decided race would trumpet all considerations. Now, people are questioning the Party while being either ignorant or dishonest about it, and they're doing it without offering specifics. It all rings hollow. 

Share |

Ethnicity and Federal Agents

This blog's favorite blogger, Steve M. of No More Mr. Nice Blog, has written an excellent post with an unfortunate title. He critiques the "Stephen Miller Paid Latino Thugs to Murder Alex Pretti" by empty wheel's Marci Wheeler with "Overthinking the Ethnicity of Alex Pretti's Killers." SM first refers to the Pro Publica article which reported 

The two federal immigration agents who fired on Minneapolis protester Alex Pretti are identified in government records as Border Patrol agent Jesus Ochoa and Customs and Border Protection officer Raymundo Gutierrez....

Ochoa is a Border Patrol agent who joined CBP in 2018. Gutierrez joined in 2014 and works for CBP’s Office of Field Operations. He is assigned to a special response team, which conducts high-risk operations like those of police SWAT units.

He then quotes Wheeler as emphasizing

Alfredo Mancillas Jr. was found in St. Paul last Tuesday, passed out drunk in his illegally-parked car, covered in his own vomit....

The two heavily masked ICE agents who snatched Brad Lander last June are “a Pakistani Muslim immigrant who lives in Brighton Beach” and “an Indo-Guyanese gentleman who lives in South Ozone Park.”

There are a lot of reasons Stephen Miller’s goons wear masks. To terrify the communities they invade. To make it harder to shame them. To make it harder to tie them to other crimes they may have committed....

But there is accumulating evidence that a big reason these goons hide their faces is to hide that the white nationalist project Stephen Miller is pursuing — like virtually everything else in America — relies on brown people to do the hard work. Miller can only sustain the myth of white self-reliance by hiding the faces of those who murder white men at his behest in the streets of Blue cities....

They’re trying to hide how much even their deeply racist project is helpless without brown labor.

I think this misunderstands the way right-wingers look at race. Some are pure bigots in the David Duke/Nick Fuentes mold. They hate anyone who isn't white and Christian. And even those who don't fall into this category want to live in an America in which white male heterosexual Christians run pretty much everything.

But the people hoping to build a white ethnostate are always in tension with those on the right who proudly point to everyone of color who seems to have "escaped" from "the liberal plantation." The organizers of Trump's campaign rallies seemed happy to have the candidate speak with "BLACKS FOR TRUMP" signs in the background. Trump embraced Kanye West before West became too toxic. And Republican candidates of color -- Herschel Walker in Georgia, Mark Robinson in North Carolina, Royce White in Minnesota -- have won Republican primaries throughout the Trump era. In the Florida governor's race, Byron Donalds leads all other candidates in Republican primary polling by more than 30 points, and in polling of the Ohio GOP gubernatorial primary, Vivek Ramaswamy's lead is more than 50 points. Most Republicans enjoy pointing to these figures and accusing liberals of being "the real racists."

Wheeler's framing implies that Miller's non-white immigration agents are laboring in a state of pseudo-enslavement, or at least doing the work reluctantly because there's nothing else available. That's belied by what the ProPublica story tells us about one of the agents....

This is an accurate reading of the right and a critically important point to make. Some are "pure bigots" while a larger number are proud to trumpet (pun intended) support of their cause by blacks so they can accuse liberals of being "the  real racists," as SM recognizes.

But there is something else going on. Whites generally, and conservative whites specifically, are tired of accusations of racism directed toward them, or what they perceive as such criticism. They are happy and relieved whenever individuals such as Herschel Walker, Mark Robinson, Royce White, or Byron Donalds rear their black head, as long as those individuals are on their side. They believe that proves they are not racist and legitimizes their conservative viewpoints. It's not only progressives, liberals, moderates, and centrists who want to be recognized as open-minded; the right does, also.

That was key to Barack Obama's success. Of course, few conservative Republicans- as the vast majority of Republicans are- would vote for him because they were, obviously Republicans. However, that left many moderates, and  especially centrists, who comforted themselves by voting for the man who would become the first black President.  It frees them, as SM argues, to accuse Democrats themselves as being "the real racists." Then in an off-year election, they could vote Republican, having already done their part to prove they were open-minded.

Yet, SM is wrong insofar as he's maintaining that we are overemphasizing race in considering the ethnicity of the killers of Alex Pretti.  He says the apparent killers "shared the mindset that compels white men to become immigration officers."

Well, sure, that is accurate. But it is too easy, implying that it is a white mindset that impels such injustice or brutality. One of his readers comments "there's a lotta men who are hungry, and lack, a sense of belonging and meaning in their lives, and a sense of control and power, and being given a  gun  and being made part of a group with a mission can be very attractive, whatever their ethnicity."  Less elegantly or thoughtfully, another realizes (emphasis his) "ALL ethnicities have assholes."  And I would add: "and bigots."

These all are valid critiques of Wheeler's primary thesis, as is the one from another commenter who notes that many border patrol agents

are Hispanics whose families have been there for generations, if not since Texas was Mexican. Even more recent arrivals may despise those trying to come in now as poorer and somehow less worthy than they, their parents or grandparents were. Also, they are more likely to feel directly threatened by competition for jobs by the newcomers than most.

Doubtless, Border Parol has always been far more aggressive on the southern border than elsewhere and coverage of the aggression and illegality has been limited and localized

It's typical that it never occurred to Trump, Miller, Noem and the rest that South texas Border Patrol aggressiveness and disregard for law would appal residents of Minneapolis, nor that people in the rest of the country, including rred areas, would be outraged and disgusted by it, not cowed by it.

This seems to me a far more likely explanation for Stephen Miller "relying on brown people to do the hard work" of "maintaing the myth of white self-releance." Yet, all of this- Marci Wheeler's speculative theory, Steve M's cogent rebuttal, and the wise remarks largely buttressing the rebuttal- pertain only to the perpetrators.

Closing the circle would require consideration also of the victims, as it does in the matter of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and their co-conspirators..

This, the left does not want to dwell on. And in a dirty little secret, centrists generally would be even more loathe to address it.

And that is this: Renee Good and Alex Pretti are both white. Obvious? Yes.  Mentioned? No.

It was a fundamental tenet of the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020 that brutal law enforcement was not only focused on blacks but was directed virtually exclusively toward "people of color." It needn't have been stated; we all just knew that blacks were the sole targets of police officers acting badly.  

Unlike today and especially during campaign 2024, actual critics of the protest were few.. Conservatives much preferred the slogan "Blue Lives Matter" to substantive condemnation of the movement. There was some, but relatively muted, criticsm of the blue lives matter argument. By contrast, the slogan "All Lives Matter" was consistently attacked as being racially insensitive, if not racist.

This was a response not only from the left. Moderates and centrists who should have known better, many of them probably knowing better, went along for the ride.

We now know better, yet still refuse to acknowledge it. ICE is practicing racial profiling, but much less out of racial bias than because it has implemented quotas and stopping people who appear to look Latino gets the numbers up. We've learned also that if an individual gets in the way, such as by filming an ICE agent or border patrol officer, being white will not spare the activist from harassment or worse..

So race, as Marci Wheeler believes, is a factor. It usually is. Nonetheless, as Steve M. and most of his readers evidently believe, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and thuggery is just thuggery.

 

Share |

Erasing History

It's hard to imagine there is a connection between the Greenland controversy and slavery once common in the American south. Consider, though, that since it first deployed soldiers in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, more than 18,000 Danish soldiers were deployed to Afghanistand and 33 were killed in action.

aA explained a couple of years ago on the 9/11 Memorial & Museum website

On September 12, 2001, the day after the 9/11 attacks, NATO met in an emergency session. For the first and only time in its history, NATO invoked Article 5. All 18 of the United States’s allies stated they would support America’s response to the attacks…

Since 2001, troops from the U.S.'s NATO allies have stood shoulder to shoulder with American soldiers in Afghanistan. More than one thousand of these soldiers have paid the ultimate price. In 2017, NATO inaugurated its new headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. Near its entrance, a memorial composed of a piece of mangled steel from the 107th floor of the World Trade Center's North Tower sits atop a pedestal. In front of it, an inscription on a plaque pays tribute to the singular use of Article 5 of NATO’s founding treaty. During a public program at the National September 11 Memorial & Museum, Jens Stoltenberg, the current NATO Secretary General, reflected on the memorial. He remarked, “It serves as a powerful symbol of the enduring partnership and friendship between the United States and its NATO Allies across Europe and Canada. It is also a daily reminder of the deadly dangers posed by terrorism, the importance of standing together to protect our people and our values.”

And now, this:

Trump on NATO: "I've always said, will they be there if we ever needed them? That's really the ultimate test. I'm not sure of that. We've never needed them. They'll say they sent some troops to Afghanistan and this or that. And they did. They stayed a little back, off the front… pic.twitter.com/fA0i1S3LxY

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) January 22, 2026

This is a case not only of hostility toward allies but also of rewriting history. And so it is that  

Outraged critics accused President Donald Trump of “whitewashing history” on Friday after the National Park Service removed an exhibit on slavery at Philadelphia’s Independence National Historical Park in response to his executive order “restoring truth and sanity to American history” at the nation’s museums, parks and landmarks.

Empty bolt holes and shadows are all that remains on the brick walls where explanatory panels were displayed at the President’s House Site, where George and Martha Washington lived with the people they owned as property when Philadelphia was the nation’s capital. One woman cried silently at their absence. Someone left a bouquet of flowers. A hand-lettered sign said “Slavery was real”….

Workers on Thursday removed the exhibit, which included biographical details about the nine people enslaved by the Washingtons at the presidential mansion. Just their names — Austin, Paris, Hercules, Christopher Sheels, Richmond, Giles, Oney Judge, Moll and Joe — remain engraved into a cement wall.

The President of the USA insults our allies by stomping over the history of the Trans-Atlantic Alliance and the National Park Service "whitewashes" history by removing exhibits at museums, parks, and landmarks. Donald Trump also has demolished the East Wing of the White House and plastered a White House walkway with bronze plaques of each USA president. 

We are to believe that President Obama was "one of the most divisive political figures in American history" and that the Affordable Care Act was "highly ineffective."  And we're told that Joe Biden, represented by an autopen rather than a portrait, assumed office only "as a result of the most corrupt election evr seen in the United States and as President presided over the "worst inflation ever recorded." 

Ridiculous, but consistent with Donald's behavior throughout his presidency. Rewriting history, in the matter of describing ex- Presidents, removing cultural artifacts from public view, and lying about NATO history all are examples of rewriting history. 

A Philadelphian who recently visited Independence National Historical Park and lamented the purge of a portion of the nation's history remarked "You show all of it- the good, the bad, and the ugly." But that's becoming increasingly uncommon. Writing in 2021, one journalist noted that in dictatorships such as Russia and China, "a single version of history prevails, stamped and sealed by the leadership and imposed in classrooms, through culture, and on the internet."  Donald Trum is still in the early stages, but he understands this lesson well.

Share |