A good part of the reason I started blogging was because I went to a history conference at a UT branch up between Dallas and Fort Worth and found that, contrary to belief, many well known academic historians have found community history projects to be invaluable because of their focus and details. Photos rated high. Photos with details rate high. Interviews with participants in events rated high. Interviews with older people rated high if you cover their experience and perspective.
- Prairie Weather


“Protest works. Just look at the proof”


The last place you will hear about the new American labor movement is in big American outlets.

Via lambert, via susie. See them, their blogrolls, Twitter hash tag #1u and just about any other outlet where citizens can get the word out.

The Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW)

The CIW is a community-based organization of mainly Latino, Mayan Indian and Haitian immigrants working in low-wage jobs throughout the state of Florida. Via.


Navigation
Login
Blogroll
Free MP3 sites

Be your own program director. Venture off the beaten path. Live a little.

2dopeboyz: Hip hop. (RSS)

3hive: Sharing the sharing. Free and legal MP3s from over 600 underground and undiscovered artists — new ones added daily. (RSS)

Amazon MP3 Download - Frequency: Weekly. Get the latest on Amazon MP3 music downloads - new releases, freshly ripped hits, and special deals.

Arjan writes - arjanwrites music blog. (RSS)

Audio Drums - A blog for rare, possibly overlooked, maybe forgotten gems of music with a slight emphasis on electronic and indie genres. (RSS)

Common Folk Music - A blog about music, not just folk music, but all music ranging from indie to alt-country to bluegrass, because music is for the “Common Folk”. (RSS)

Direct Current New Music - Adult pop, rock, singer/songwriters, folk, Americana, alt-country, adult alternative, soul, world music, crossover jazz and simply those artists that make us go “hmmm.”(RSS)

Discobelle.net (RSS)

FensePost - FensePost is an indie music blog based in the fertile lands between Seattle, WA and Vancouver, BC. (RSS)

Fiddlefreak Folk Music Blog - Folk, bluegrass, Celtic, and other music of the people. (RSS)

Gorilla Vs Bear (RSS)

Hillydilly: Simply Good Music. (RSS)

I Rock Cleveland: Indie Rock, College Rock, Alt Rock, Modern Rock, Cleveland Rock, and Rock. (RSS)

KEXP Song of the Day: KEXP 90.3 FM - where the music matters (RSS)

Line Of Best Fit - TLOBF.COM | Music Reviews, News, Interviews & Downloads (RSS)

Minnesota Public Radio Song of the Day: Music lovers from 89.3 The Current share songs with you each weekday. (RSS)

Muruch (RSS)

Music Like Dirt: Music in all its many forms, mp3’s, live reviews and photography. (RSS)

My Old Kentucky Blog - a music blog that parties with unicorns. (RSS)

Nah Right. (RSS)

ninebullets.net. (RSS)

Rollo & Grady: Los Angeles Music Blog, LA Music Blog (RSS)

Said the Gramophone: a music weblog (RSS)

SOULBOUNCE.COM (RSS)

Sounds Better With Reverb (RSS)

Stereogum: All the MP3s on Stereogum.com (RSS)

their bated breath (RSS)

Women of Hip Hop (RSS)


Mourn ya till I join ya

The Wheel’s Still In Spin: Focusing on new music releases and reviews of individual albums as original, fictional short stories (RSS)

A Fifty Cent Lighter & A Whiskey Buzz - This site is just a way for me to have a little fun and share a little music. I’ll highlight some of my favorite artists that I play on the radio and try to expound upon their music in ways I can’t always do on the air. (RSS)

Aminal Sound

Audiofile: Music Blog, Music Articles - Salon.com

Crossfade: The CNET music blog

GarageBand.com Folk top tracks (RSS)

GarageBand.com Hip Hop top tracks (RSS)

Flawless Hustle: Urban culture blog featuring artist interviews, music reviews, legal music downloads, street art, graffiti and more! (RSS)

Blogrolling

Reciprocation

The Jon Swift principle: “I will add anyone to my blogroll who adds me to theirs.” Email or leave a comment to let me know.

BLCKDGRD

The Hunting of the Snark



Sites participating in blogroll amnesty day

Jon Swift aka Al Weisel, may he rest in peace. Co-originator of Blogroll Amnesty Day

skippy the bush kangaroo (Co-originator of Blogroll Amnesty Day) (2012)

Vagabond Scholar (2012)
Occasional blogging, mostly of the long-form variety. Keeper of the Jon Swift Memorial Roundup (The Best Posts of the Year, Chosen by the Bloggers Themselves)

Notes From Underground (2012)

Redeye’s Front Page (2012)

Wisdom of the West (2012)

Zen Comix (2012)

pygalgia (2012)

Mikeb302000 (2012)

The Agonist (2012)

Brilliant At Breakfast (2012)

Bacon and Eggs (2012)

#RaceTogether to the bottom

Now that Starbucks is winding down its somewhat poorly received Race Together campaign, we’re starting to hear from its supporters. Soledad O’Brien defended it, saying (emphasis in original) “there was something aggressively interested in challenging people to have a conversation who were not the kind of people who generally have these conversations.”

The problem is that not all conversations are equal, though. Tressie McMillan Cottom responded to the initiative with a great piece about the quality of the discussions that would be on the menu. As she writes, people don’t really have a problem talking about race at all - if the talk is about sharing one’s opinions or feelings. She also notes that some of those opinions might not be very enlightened, either: “There is no reporting yet on whether Starbucks issued a training module on ‘when the customer is always right and the customer wants to be right and racist’.”

Which is both hilarious and true. After all, “I’m sick of all these uppity Negroes” is a conversation about race! Is Starbucks comfortable hosting that conversation in its stores? Are baristas instructed to steer the conversation in a certain direction or discourage certain viewpoints? If so then fine, but the company should also advertise its position on the subject - not bill it as a completely open-ended discussion.

Sharing opinions about race doesn’t strike me as likely to promote more enlightened views on the subject, especially given the context. There won’t be much complexity in a discussion held while people are in line for a cup of coffee. How exactly will there be nuance in a thirty second snippet of talk? What kind of insight can be shared so quickly on such a huge topic that might prove thought provoking or that might challenge pre-existing beliefs?

Big businesses are notoriously risk-averse. They don’t look to invite controversy. Yet discussions about race that go beyond platitudes tend to get very animated very quickly. If the discussion they want to have is along the lines of “deep down inside we’re all the same,” well fine - but generic calls for diversity or equality aren’t going to change much of anything. Everyone this side of the Grand Wizard is on board with that. Those discussions don’t get interesting until we start talking about how it translates into practice. Starbucks saying it wants to talk about race might give it a halo for some (like O’Brien), but for others (like Cottom) it isn’t very edifying unless we are also talking about racism.

And what might a conversation about racism look like? How about this: are there ongoing negative effects from slavery or has that terrible legacy been entirely remediated? One could argue that the passage of civil rights legislation, voting rights laws and so on have created a level playing field. Or one could argue that slavery echoes through our history via Jim Crow, redlining, and so on - down to the present day in the form of stop-and-frisk laws, punitive fining, and so on.

How about this: The United States paid reparations to Japanese-American citizens sent to internment camps during World War II. Are reparations to African-Americans for a few hundred years of slavery appropriate? I bet that would make for a lively discussion in the coffee line! And of course for these kinds of discussions it isn’t enough to just sound off, it’s good to have supporting material. It also requires a certain familiarity with that topic, not just a gut-level belief in how the world works. And, as Cottom points out, it’s also the kind of thing she gets paid to cover. Expertise doesn’t just happen, and we shouldn’t expect those who have invested in expertise to share it for free any more than we would for, say, a plumber. (Or maybe Starbucks is developing a socialist streak?)

This isn’t about Starbucks not having the kind of conversations I’d like it to have. I mean, it is but it isn’t. Any discussion worth having on the subject will be contentious, and any discussion that isn’t will be superficial. Starbucks seems to be trying to thread a very fine needle: Getting credit for raising an uncomfortable issue and encouraging discussion on it, but without actually addressing any of the substance of the controversy.

Which could make the situation worse instead of better. After all, if people spend a minute or two chatting about “hey what’s it like to be black?” or whatever, and then congratulate themselves that they’ve done something, it crowds out room in the discourse for consideration of the much thornier issues. Marginalizing those subjects even more than they already are (it’s possible!) is no trivial thing. In fact, trying to prevent that from happening is something worth being aggressively interested in.

Period Three Implies Chaos, political discourse edition

In James Gleick’s book Chaos he writes about a paper titled Period Three Implies Chaos. Very roughly, the idea is that even seemingly simple systems can start behaving unpredictably by the third iteration. The responses to David Brooks’ column Tuesday makes it seem like there may be a similar phenomenon with political commentary. Writing about poverty, Brooks described “feedback loops of economic stress and family breakdown.” The causes? “It’s not only money and better policy that are missing in these circles; it’s norms” - norms which have been subverted by what he calls nonjudgmentalism.

Elizabeth Bruenig responded to Brooks, and on that point actually agreed: “if Brooks images that improving social norms is just a sliver of the solution, then he’s right,” but she also basically says, slow down there cowboy. Brooks breezes past the whole money and better policy part, Bruenig focuses on it. She doesn’t weigh in on norms (which is what a nonjudgmental approach would do), just puts them on the periphery.

The traditional conservative criticism of liberal antipoverty sentiment is that it exists in a haze of moral relativism. Hey man it’s all the same if a kid grows up in a stable two parent family or a single parent one with an endless, bewildering parade of shady partners. Bruenig specifically does not do that. She notes approvingly that poor people want to get married at the same rate as the rich, and otherwise notes the presence of sound values.

Bruenig isn’t saying that it’s all the same, just that Brooks’ prescription as a very small part of the solution. Exhorting lower income people to make good choices is fine, but won’t have nearly the impact that well designed programs will. She just points out that programs like SNAP and child allowances have an overall good effect on the very problems Brooks frets about. The biggest problems with them is that they are routinely demonized on the right as fostering dependency, and that conservative leaders have spent decades using singular or apocryphal stories about them as being characteristic of the programs as a whole.

So here’s where it stands at that point. Brooks: (mumble mumble policy money) we must focus on norms! (Perhaps not coincidentally, Brooks’ preferred approach doesn’t require us to do anything but talk.) Bruenig: Sure we do, but hey what was that first part again? At which point period three and chaos arrives in the form of Kevin Williamson. He begins with a variant of a long-running right wing talking point, that America has the richest poor in the world. Which even if it’s true doesn’t ameliorate the anxiety and uncertainty low income people swim about in like a fish in water.

He then goes on a vaguely creepy trip through Bruenig’s biography. Everything he links to is public, but as I read through his litany I thought, this dude is taking an unseemly interest in her. Your mileage may vary but it seemed a little off to me.

Amazingly, Williamson’s non-sequiturs are the strongest part of his post. When he tries to stay on topic he does even worse. He uses his own story of growing up poor as a rebuttal to Bruenig’s data, which is hardly persuasive. Lived experience is important of course, but extrapolating it to everyone is silly. It can be an effective rhetorical technique - witness the persistence of welfare queens and strapping young bucks in the conservative imagination - but if one is seriously trying to refute an argument based on data it’s incredibly weak.

He finishes by claiming, incorrectly, that she is making the case for moral relativism. Her point about moral compasses was that low income people report similar values and aspirations as other groups, not that every single poor person is a paragon of virtue. This seems to be a pretty simple point. If you are poor you will probably want similar things for yourself and your family as everyone else, but the fact of poverty itself will put you in a position to accept or tolerate circumstances you might not be obliged to otherwise. Staying with a less than ideal partner in order to have additional income or child care support, for instance.

Her point is that encouraging good decision making is a comparative drop in the bucket when measured against policies that make real resources available to low income people. If you’re going to devote, say, a New York Times op-ed to poverty, make exhortation the parenthetical aside and policy the focus of the piece, not the other way around. Doesn’t seem like a difficult concept to grasp, but Williamson misses it entirely.

Seeing the discussion fall apart so quickly - point, counterpoint, argle bargle - is a reason to put less stock in the idea of epistemic closure on the left. If this is the kind of dialogue on offer from the right, what benefit is there in engaging with it? National Review Online is one of the pre-eminent sites for conservative analysis, and this is an all too typical example of the quality of the work there. It doesn’t come across as a good faith effort to address the issue but as a quickly assembled grab bag of personal attacks and straw men. Steering clear of that is not an unwillingness to encounter contrary ideas as much as an unwillingness to engage with incipient madness.

Period Three Implies Chaos, political discourse edition

In James Gleick’s book Chaos he writes about a paper titled Period Three Implies Chaos. Very roughly, the idea is that even seemingly simple systems can start behaving unpredictably by the third iteration. The responses to David Brooks’ column Tuesday makes it seem like there may be a similar phenomenon with political commentary. Writing about poverty, Brooks described “feedback loops of economic stress and family breakdown.” The causes? “It’s not only money and better policy that are missing in these circles; it’s norms” - norms which have been subverted by what he calls nonjudgmentalism.

Elizabeth Bruenig responded to Brooks, and on that point actually agreed: “if Brooks images that improving social norms is just a sliver of the solution, then he’s right,” but she also basically says, slow down there cowboy. Brooks breezes past the whole money and better policy part, Bruenig focuses on it. She doesn’t weigh in on norms (which is what a nonjudgmental approach would do), just puts them on the periphery.

The traditional conservative criticism of liberal antipoverty sentiment is that it exists in a haze of moral relativism. Hey man it’s all the same if a kid grows up in a stable two parent family or a single parent one with an endless, bewildering parade of shady partners. Bruenig specifically does not do that. She notes approvingly that poor people want to get married at the same rate as the rich, and otherwise notes the presence of sound values.

Bruenig isn’t saying that it’s all the same, just that Brooks’ prescription as a very small part of the solution. Exhorting lower income people to make good choices is fine, but won’t have nearly the impact that well designed programs will. She just points out that programs like SNAP and child allowances have an overall good effect on the very problems Brooks frets about. The biggest problems with them is that they are routinely demonized on the right as fostering dependency, and that conservative leaders have spent decades using singular or apocryphal stories about them as being characteristic of the programs as a whole.

So here’s where it stands at that point. Brooks: (mumble mumble policy money) we must focus on norms! (Perhaps not coincidentally, Brooks’ preferred approach doesn’t require us to do anything but talk.) Bruenig: Sure we do, but hey what was that first part again? At which point period three and chaos arrives in the form of Kevin Williamson. He begins with a variant of a long-running right wing talking point, that America has the richest poor in the world. Which even if it’s true doesn’t ameliorate the anxiety and uncertainty low income people swim about in like a fish in water.

He then goes on a vaguely creepy trip through Bruenig’s biography. Everything he links to is public, but as I read through his litany I thought, this dude is taking an unseemly interest in her. Your mileage may vary but it seemed a little off to me.

Amazingly, Williamson’s non-sequiturs are the strongest part of his post. When he tries to stay on topic he does even worse. He uses his own story of growing up poor as a rebuttal to Bruenig’s data, which is hardly persuasive. Lived experience is important of course, but extrapolating it to everyone is silly. It can be an effective rhetorical technique - witness the persistence of welfare queens and strapping young bucks in the conservative imagination - but if one is seriously trying to refute an argument based on data it’s incredibly weak.

He finishes by claiming, incorrectly, that she is making the case for moral relativism. Her point about moral compasses was that low income people report similar values and aspirations as other groups, not that every single poor person is a paragon of virtue. This seems to be a pretty simple point. If you are poor you will probably want similar things for yourself and your family as everyone else, but the fact of poverty itself will put you in a position to accept or tolerate circumstances you might not be obliged to otherwise. Staying with a less than ideal partner in order to have additional income or child care support, for instance.

Her point is that encouraging good decision making is a comparative drop in the bucket when measured against policies that make real resources available to low income people. If you’re going to devote, say, a New York Times op-ed to poverty, make exhortation the parenthetical aside and policy the focus of the piece, not the other way around. Doesn’t seem like a difficult concept to grasp, but Williamson misses it entirely.

Seeing the discussion fall apart so quickly - point, counterpoint, argle bargle - is a reason to put less stock in the idea of epistemic closure on the left. If this is the kind of dialogue on offer from the right, what benefit is there in engaging with it? National Review Online is one of the pre-eminent sites for conservative analysis, and this is an all too typical example of the quality of the work there. It doesn’t come across as a good faith effort to address the issue but as a quickly assembled grab bag of personal attacks and straw men. Steering clear of that is not an unwillingness to encounter contrary ideas as much as an unwillingness to engage with incipient madness.

Patricia Arquette, Harriet Christian, and opportunities to listen

As someone who hits for the privilege cycle (white, male and heterosexual) I have had many opportunities over the years to realize I’ve inadvertently offended someone. It’s always a bit of a shock - I thought I was being complimentary/helpful/sensitive! - but I think I’ve learned at least one useful lesson from these experiences: The best response is usually to shut up and listen.

That’s a tough thing to do, because the overwhelming impulse it to justify the offense, to let those offended know that none was intended, that my motive really was good and pure, and so on. Following that impulse is usually the best way to make a bad situation worse, though. The offended individuals usually aren’t much interested in hearing a strained rationalization (exasperated women call it mansplaining); usually they are more interested in being heard.

So when Patricia Arquette’s comments on Oscar night (“it’s time for all the women in America, and the men who love women and all the gay people and people of color we’ve all fought for to fight for us now”) went over like a lead balloon among people of color, I really hoped those who initially applauded her comments would take a step back and reconsider. After all, white feminists have at times sidelined people of color. Prejudiced language periodically rears its ugly head to the present day, with examples both famous (Geraldine Ferraro) and infamous (Harriet Christian).

Christian’s language is particularly revealing. In the same short clip she disparages Barack Obama as an “inadequate black male” she also says: “it’s equality for all of us, it’s about time we all stood up for it.” She claims to be for equality for everyone, but that sentiment sure seems to rest comfortably with a pretty virulent racism. Perhaps people of color could be forgiven for picking up echoes of the former when hearing declarations of the latter.

Because here’s the thing. If you claim to be welcoming of everyone and interested in justice for all, it’s fair to look at how people are responding. In Arquette’s case, people of color had an extremely negative response. I had an extended discussion about that with Libby Spencer on Twitter, and the starting point was Libby’s belief that criticizing Arquette’s comments amounted to an attack on Arquette.

I thought of it much differently: if Arquette was making a call for solidarity with people of color, and they reacted negatively, then maybe that represented an excellent opportunity to shut up and listen to them - not to explain why they are misunderstanding her. Maybe they weren’t feeling an ally vibe because Arquette was not being a good ally. Maybe she wasn’t calling for mutual aid by demanding it of others. (Mutual aid is something one offers, not claims.)

Nicole Sandler went further, by turns wallowing in self-pity (“I feel as if I’m supposed to apologize for being born white, but even that wouldn’t satisfy the people who are excoriating me today…I’m apparently everything that’s wrong with the evil white woman”), belittling critics (who are “projecting their insecurities”) and essentially declaring America post-racial (“I am denying that I benefit from White Privilege”).

But cutting through the rhetorical clutter, her thesis still has that blind spot: “I always thought the issues we feminists fought for were inclusive of ALL women.” If that’s the case then why hasn’t a proportionate demographic slice of all women flocked to it? Why are there still such clear racial fault lines on the subject? It’s silly, almost trivial, to say one is welcoming of all people. Hell, even Rush Limbaugh says that. The proof is in the pudding.

Similarly, saying that Arquette was “using the phrase ALL WOMEN over and over again” doesn’t mean the message resonated with all women. The fact that so many women of color reacted negatively suggests that the burden is more on Arquette (and her defenders) to understand why that is - rather than on others to “reach out for clarification.” It’s not as though her words were cleverly edited or truncated. Everyone heard exactly what she said, fully in context.

Solidarity is a tough thing. It isn’t enough to say you’re inclusive, it’s also important to look around and see who’s actually included. Who’s drawn to it and who stays away. Arquette’s comments were tone deaf at best, and at worst were part of a long tradition of “wait your turn” activism that has an undertone of racial animus. Those repelled by her words may not have misunderstood her, and may in fact have understood her all too well. The unwillingness to reach out for clarification on that is the real missed opportunity.

The hazards of abandoning reason

NOTE: Much of this post concerns Jonathan Chait’s terrible judgment on the Iraq War. I understand the impulse to say: that was a long time ago, let’s move on already, what else ya got? But the Iraq War was the most important foreign policy issue of the last couple of decades, which means reputations deserve to be made or destroyed by it. You don’t get to screw up on something of that magnitude and then get what Charles Pierce called (in a slightly different context) a Great Mulligan. It should haunt you for as long as you are an analyst. Whiff on the biggest issue of a generation and expect to hear about it year after year. So yes, Iraq again. For those who got it wrong, always and forever Iraq.


Sam Pritchard has a great essay responding to Chait’s piece on political correctness. (Inclusiveness is a long-standing concern for Chait.) He addresses Chait’s wildly overheated rhetoric, the contradiction between demanding some ideas be logically engaged while summarily dismissing others, and the limits of civil discourse in changing people’s minds. He also writes about the ability of falsehood to persist in the popular imagination, noting (among other things) that “42% of Americans still believe we found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”

This bit of misinformation jumped out at me because it points back to Chait’s own enthusiastic support of the Iraq War. He was one of the leading voices on the left calling for the attack. He now invokes “the ultimate power of reason, not coercion, to triumph.” How was he using reason back in 2002? Well for one, he wrote “we must eliminate Iraq’s nonconventional arsenal by any means at our disposal, including, if all else fails, war.” Which means everyone knew Iraq had WMDs right?

Actually, no. Scott Ritter didn’t think so. Mohamed El Baradei didn’t think so. Why were these experts not legitimate in his eyes? They actually had experience on the ground. For someone as concerned as Chait now is with opposing views being defined as illegitimate, he didn’t even bother to acknowledge (much less rebut) their arguments - which, just to be clear, were correct.

Chait could only muster withering contempt for the idea inspections and later write “it was very hard to know at the time.” It was only hard to know if one was heavily emotionally invested in supporting the Bush administration. If one took a more rational approach it was pretty easy. But faith in Iraq’s WMD program assumed, to coin a phrase, a towering presence in the psychic space of politically active people.

There was excellent reason to believe Iraq likely didn’t have WMDs. Even if it did, did that justify launching a war? Again, looking at it rationally: of course not - and that too was easy to know at the time. (Keep in mind the WMD issue is just one of Chait’s intuition-based positions on Iraq. For brevity’s sake I won’t touch the claim that “the liberal concern for humanitarianism should not stand in the way” of war, wholesale absurdities like this, etc.)

Pushing the Bush administration’s line was not an intellectual exercise. Pierce (again) wrote that it “relied on journalistic convention and the soft agreements between gentlemen to peddle their poison,” and concludes: “it is still the most important thing to remember that there were people who got…it…right.” These things were knowable, provided one wanted to know them.

During the run-up to war America’s political and media elite were overwhelmingly, almost exclusively, pro-war (just ask Phil Donahue). I understand the worry one might have had about being fired or ostracized. I understand the psychic incentive to go along, to look extra hard for reasons to support the case for war, and conversely to give extra scrutiny to the case against it.

I know how tempting it was to blandly say “I don’t think you can argue that a regime change in Iraq won’t demonstrably and almost immediately improve the living conditions of the Iraqi people,” even though there wasn’t a scrap of evidence - beyond the wild imaginings of neocon warmongers and Iraqi exiles eyeing power - to support it. Not that I agree with it or excuse it, but I can certainly understand it. It’s entirely possible I’d have done the same thing.

But boy howdy it takes a special kind of cluelessness to happily surf a wave of propaganda that helps launch a war of aggression, and then ever again for the rest of your life talk about how you are a champion of Enlightenment thinking. Chait’s actual sins against rational discourse dwarf the ones he imagines in his opponents.