When Stereotyping Is Promoted

The New York Times reports

Now, Aunt Jemima has a new name: the Pearl Milling Company.

In an announcement on Tuesday by PepsiCo, which owns Aunt Jemima’s parent company Quaker Oats, the pancake-mix and syrup line formally began rebranding itself and moved one step closer to permanently abandoning its 131-year-old name.

The new name comes from the milling company in St. Joseph, Mo., that pioneered the self-rising pancake mix that became known as Aunt Jemima, according to PepsiCo, which said the rebranded products would arrive in stores in June.

The change has been in the works since last June after the killing of George Floyd catalyzed widespread protests over racial injustice and a nationwide reckoning over symbols of the Old South and their meaning. Several large food companies came under fire for using racial stereotypes, including Quaker Oats, which said it would drop the Aunt Jemima name, redesign its packaging and pledge $5 million to support the Black community.

"Several large food companies" indeed, but not insurance companies.  Given that arguably the most prominent of stereotypes about African-Americans is their dancing skill, GEICO seems not to have gotten (or maybe it has) the message:

The Aunt Jemima brand was a bad one, just as GEICO's dancing blacks fosters a stereotype, entertaining and pleasing whites from coast to coast. One has been removed, the other, not.

Double standards abound. Washington "Redskins" nickname was offensive and, under fire, ownership officially changed the team's name to "Football Team," at least until a permanent name is determined. (My personal favorite is "FT" because if the franchise continues its losing ways, the abbreviation could become embarrassing.) In this instance, it's the Kansas City Chiefs who haven't gotten the memo:

Of course, primary blame should fall not on the fans but rather on team ownership, which could put an end to this if it wished. However, they do not, and that's because there is little if any criticism of this disgraceful chant, popular at every Chiefs' home game.

It's not clear why. Perhaps it is because over the last six seasons, Washington's won-lost record is a cumulative -4 as the team has lost 4 more games in the regular season than it has won, with no playoff victories. Over the same period, Kansas City is an extraordinary combined +44, with one Super Bowl victory.  The Chiefs have delighted their fans, the Redskins have not, and attacking (however justifiably) a  losing team is much safer than criticism of a winning team. 

Or there may be an alternative factor, one owing to the parallel between Redskins-Chiefs and Aunt Jemima-GEICO. 

The Redskins image had existed for 88 years, Aunt Jemima for 131 years. That's a very long time. While the Chiefs' tomahawk chant has been in effect for decades, the GEICO commercial has played for far less than one year.  The insurance company could easily pull its commercial and the Kansas City franchise could issue an edict that anyone seen aping the chant would lose his or her season ticket privileges. Done.

Limited evidence indicates that if a practice was begun, or a symbol founded, in a less enlightened era when few people would have thought it offensive, it must now be expunged. But if in our more enlightened age the offensive practice or symbol emerges, it may continue. If this doesn't make sense to you, you're catching on.

 

Share |

Better A Scumbag Than A Convicted Scumbag

It's just a hunch, but this guy may not be fond of Donald Trump:

And of course he incited them and then completely threw them under the bus because he thought they were tacky dirtbags.

Idiots thought they’d get pardons. https://t.co/eOibvPZ3s8

— Joshua Holland (@JoshuaHol) February 10, 2021

But while Donald Trump is a "ridiculous, obvious grifter," and weasel, he's no nincompoop.

Texas real estate agent Jenna Ryan, arrested for her participation in the Capitol riot, told a home-state reporter on January 15

I think we all deserve a pardon. I’m facing a prison sentence. I think I do not deserve that and from what I understand, every person is going to be arrested that was there, so I think everyone deserves a pardon, so I would ask the President of the United States to give me a pardon

Four days later, President Trump would issue 73 pardons and 70 commutations, for both the infamous and the relatively unknown.

Because a Senate vote for conviction would have been reached otherwise, those pardons were not extended to anyone arrested for the January 6 uprising against his/her own government. Unlike so many Republicans in the Senate, Donald Trump is not stupid, an unintended lesson from this tweet:

The footage the House managers have shown is sickening. Many GOP Senators who will ultimately vote not to convict Trump were making frantic calls to the White House to get him to say something. He didn’t and they will still vote against impeachment. How can they sleep at night?

— Mike Walker (@New_Narrative) February 10, 2021

Any criminal defense lawyer will tell her client to keep his mouth shut unless testifying under oath. Trump understood that anything he might have said could have (and should have) been used against him. He did not speak out against what was happening and, unless he acts out again before the Senate vote, will not be convicted.

He was given a heads up by the then-Senate Majority Leader. Mitch McConnell, who joined 43 of his GOP colleagues in voting to hold the proceedings unconstitutional, artfully warned Trump a week before the inauguration "I have not made a final decision on how I will vote and I intend to listen to the legal arguments when they are presented to the Senate.”

It isn't only being thrown off Twitter and Facebook that is keeping the ex-Presient from making a foolish remark. He can still call in to Fox News, let alone OANN or Newsmax, to put on record anything he wishes. However, the ridiculous, scumbag grifter (or is it a ridiculous, grifter scumbag?) knows most of those senators who called into the White House will ultimately vote to acquit him while he holds on to his base. Not a bad strategy if you're Donald J. Trump.

 

Share |

Legitimate Face-Off

A colloquy between presidential Press Secretary Jen Psaki and Fox News' Peter Doocy about energy policy, especially Keystone XL, provoked a whole raft of tweets from both supporters and opponents of the Administration, though the former were more numerous. Transcript of the entire news conference is here, that of the more significant portion below, and video of the entire exchange between Psaki and Doocy further below..

Q    So how about this: The Laborers’ International Union of North America said the Keystone decision will “cost 1,000 existing union jobs and 10,000 projected construction” jobs.

MS. PSAKI:  Well, what Mr. Trumka also indicated in the same interview was that President Biden has proposed a climate plan with transformative investments and infrastructure and laid out a plan that will not only create millions of good union jobs, but also help tackle the climate crisis.

And as the President has indicated when he gave his primetime address to talk about the American Rescue Plan, he talked about his plans to also put forward a jobs plan in the — in the weeks or months following.  And he has every plan to do exactly that.

Q    But there are people living paycheck to paycheck.  There are now people out of job once the Keystone pipe — out of jobs once the Keystone pipeline stopped construction.  It’s been 12 days since Gina McCarthy and John Kerry were here, and it’s been 19 days since that EO.  So what are these people who need money now — when do they get their green job?

MS. PSAKI:  Well, the President and many Democrats and Republicans in Congress believe that investment in infrastructure — building infrastructure that’s in our national interests, that boosts the U.S. economy, creates good-paying union jobs here in America, and advances our climate and clean energy goals — are something that we can certainly work on doing together.  And he has every plan to share more about his details of that plan in the weeks ahead.

Defenders of the Administration came out in droves, the tweets including:

'Present your data': Jen Psaki smacks down Peter Doocy's gotcha question on Keystone Pipeline jobs

Man, @PressSec came with the damn recipts for Doocy's bad faith question. When you get a heckler at a comedy show, the problem isn’t what the heckler is saying, it’s the nervous, stomach-churning dark energy they bring into the room.

Psaki working on a level or two above Doocy.

This is called "dropping a Doocy."

I’m gonna start calling that feeling a Doocy.

Peter Doocy is clearly a masochist — a normal person would be tired of being smacked down by Psaki on a daily basis by now

Watching Jen Psaki call bs on Peter Doocy is an unrivaled daily pick-me-up.

 "You come for the queen, you better not miss." There is no monarchy in the USA and idolizing someone to the extent of calling her a "queen" should be disturbing.

It should be but it won't, because that's how it is these days. Tweets from critics of the Administration, praising Doocy and blasting Psaki, were about as bad.  

Jen Psaki's response was in fact fairly good. In her final response, she was able to go on for 71 words, effectively denying the mainstream media an opportunity to notice she hadn't answered the question. On Twitter, the left (without a touchdown scored) ignored the issue of energy on environmental policy, instead spiking the football: smacks down; damn receipts; working on a level above a daily pick-me-up; Doocy a masochist; if you come for the queen, better not miss.

Except that Doocy actually asked a well-thought out series of questions about an important topic.  Psaki answered the question in the manner, under the circumstances, she should have. Now that Donald Trump is out of office, reporters should not lay down and act as sycophants to the Administration.  

The response to the practice of the press secretaries of the previous President to avoid questions, insult reporters, and lie to the American people is not to be a stenographer to this one.  Good for Peter Doocy and Jen Psaki; not so good for the partisans who count this as a win or loss for their side.

 

Share |

Do It

Donald J. Trump's legal team has turned down a request by the House impeachment managers that the former President testify in his upcoming trial. Prior to this expected rejection, CNN legal analyst Elie Honig offered a tweet thread in which he observed "Trump might simply defy- ignore- a subpoena," which would "push the limits of the law and look terrible politically."

Issuing a subpoena would put the former President into an even more difficult spot. Yet below, Norm Eisen can be seen remarking 

The House managers sent their letter, made the point, their point to the empty chair. Ah, there's no real, uh, end to be achieved to serving a subpoena that he won't answer.

 

Trump won’t show up live at trial because he can’t defend his own actions. However, the House managers will put him on the stand via his own videos, as I told @VictorBlackwell @CNN @newday pic.twitter.com/6jUFj3Ps9F

— Norm Eisen (@NormEisen) February 7, 2021

Eisen's argument about "the empty chair" seems to refer to the the remark by the House impeachment manager, in response to Trump's refusal, that "his immediate refusal to testify speaks volumes and plainly establishes an adverse inference supporting his guilt."

However, "there is no real end to serving a subpoena that he won't answer" suggests a subpoena should be served only on those individuals who are largely cooperative. If they are not, wave the white flag. In response to Eisen, this tweeter understands 

Given the reluctance of conflict-adverse Democratic senators such as Joe Manchin and Chris Coons, the Senate would be unlikely to approve a subpoena. Were Trump subpoenaed, he would tie up the process in the courts. That should not be an impediment to issuing a subpoena, though, because as one tweeter understands "serving him says more about the legitimacy of impeachment than not doing so. And, Trump ignoring the subpoena says more about him delegitimizing the Senate, which should be on the record."

Call it white privilege; more accurately, call it the privilege of the rich and powerful because very few of us of any ethnicity would have the resources or the influence to fight a subpoena.  That would yet again make clear what it takes to manipulate the legal system. It's one of the reasons a request for a subpoena should be made, and why it won't be.

 

Share |

Proudly Insurrectional

Even before Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene was removed from the House Education and Budget committees, there was reason for colleagues to realize that the Georgia Republican was not remorseful. She referred to "Democrat colleagues," though- or because- "Democrat" as an adjective is recognized as a slur. She blamed "the left and the right," mainstream media and social media, praised Donald Trump, and made clear she was neither ashamed nor embarrassed but above all, proud to be Marjorie Taylor Greene.

While she condemned "Democrat tyrannical government" and called Democrats "morons," Greene made Republicans who backed her look like saps. She did not praise or even thank those Republicans, the vast majority of her caucus, who voted in her favor. Instead, she embarrassed them, alleging they are impotent with "no say on committees, anyway."  She effectively informed her GOP colleagues that they serve little purpose but to expose themselves to ridicule for her benefit.

Greene now has confirmed the wisdom of the entire Democratic caucus and of eleven Republicans to deny her a seat on the committees. Told on January7 by an adoring interviewer "what you did was so brave," Greene responded "yea, that- it was a hard thing we did yesterday."

Air Force pilot and congressman Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, though a conservative Republican, voted to impeach President Trump and remove Greene, recognizing his colleague's defiance:

Have you seen this, Congressman?
It’s Greene warmly embracing the insurrection and coup attempt the day after it occurred in response to a question from Katie Hopkins.
And she uses the word “we” in her response: pic.twitter.com/nvA2jChJJ7

— LarryGJr (@JrLawrenceG) February 5, 2021

 

Share |

Wait Your Turn

In a New York Times op-ed, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar notes that adults under 35 and African-Americans have been farm more reluctant than other Americans to be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2.

The fourth (arguably, third) greatest center ever in the National Basketball Association explains that blacks have received inferior health care because of systemic racism, the Tuskegee study of black men with syphilis, the Trump Administration's awful response to Covid-19, and the recent, vigorous effort of the GOP to suppress the black vote. He believes

N.B.A. players, 81.1 percent of whom are Black, appeal to the under-35 and African-American demographics. LeBron James, whom Forbes called “America’s most popular athlete,” has 72.6 million Instagram followers, and Steph Curry has 30.4 million (compared with Tom Brady’s 8.2 million), so when they and other influential N.B.A. athletes publicly get their shots, they will contribute to convincing Black and under-35 skeptics that the vaccines are safe and necessary. Other role models might be necessary to reach other populations that are reluctant to get vaccinated, like those in rural areas of the country.

Abdul-Jabbar is well-meaning and well-intentioned, unlike Charles Barkley (from whose view Kareem distinguishes himself), who thinks NBA players should be ushered to the front of the line because they pay higher income taxes. That reasoning is reprehensible while Abdul-Jabbar's is merely misguided.

Some people would believe NBA players were receiving priority in vaccination because of race, inasmuch as most of the stars are African-American.  Strictly speaking, they wouldn't be getting preferential treatment simply because they are black but because they are celebrities and the objective would be to induce (especially young) blacks to get the vaccine. The subtlety may be lost on many, however.

More Americans would object because it is a dramatic example of the wealthy convinced they are entitled. It is the privilege of the elite, the (usually) .1% benefitting at the expense of everyone else. Further, there is understandable, albeit unfortunate, envy of individuals who get paid for playing a game, which most of us (men traditionally, increasingly men and women) have done for nothing at some period in our lives.

Most of all, this would be advantaging the wealthy over the non-wealthy. In a nation reeling from income inequality (remember that?), this is not a good look and not good policy.

 

 

 Share |

Ham-Handed

In a study of voters in ten swing states, Trump pollster Tony Fabrizzio found several factors, especially the incumbent's handling of the pandemic, contributing to Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential race. While that's hardly surprising, "The analysis says that voters gave former vice president Mike Pence slightly higher marks over Vice President Harris, but it wasn’t a determinative factor."

Harris got slightly lower marks than did Mike Pence, even though most video of their debate featured a fly perched upon the Vice-President's head. Not a good look.

Four days before that finding was revealed, one of President Biden's surrogates appeared on television in West Virginia, making an argument in favor of the Administration's coronavirus relief package in a state featuring Democrat Joe Manchin, a key figure in the negotiations in the Senate. It didn't go as planned (emphasis the tweeter's).

Kamala Harris joins the late Lady Di's crusade against abandoned land mines pic.twitter.com/PDo5mnKWbg

— moe tkacik (@moetkacik) February 1, 2021

In the video below, Chuck Rocha, organizer for the Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign, notes

There's a lot of West Virginians that are hurting a lot. The wealth in West Virginia is not really big compared to other states....

Up in the hollers people are hurting so if you go there now do you go there with Kamala Harris (or) do you go there with somebody else? I would have recommended maybe a Bernie Sanders or somebody but this is good.

Going with the guy whose presidential campaign preached the importance of mobilizing the grass roots to support proposed legislation was the obvious move. Not so wise was sending to West Virginia (West Virginia!) an individual who was unpopular as a presidential candidate, not particularly popular as a presidential nominee, and whose election was celebrated by the national Democratic Party and its culturally progressive followers as "historical" and "transformative." Those West Virginians in the "holler" must have been dazzled by the celebrated "rock star" from California.

Even more obviously: call the Senator beforehand to let him know that you're coming, a courtesy particularly important in a state in which the Democratic ticket (as usual) was clobbered. Instead

“I couldn’t believe it,” Manchin said. “No one called me. . . . We’re going to try to find a bipartisan pathway forward . . . but we need to work together. That’s not a way of working together, what was done.”

Kamala Harris can be an asset or detriment to President Biden.  The first returns are not favorable, but neither were they on November 3 and Donald Trump is out of office, Joe Biden in.

 

 

Share |