slate | Dave Chappelle is getting plenty of heat for his latest Netflix special, The Closer.
Chappelle’s 72-minute bit is squarely aimed at setting the record
straight after being widely criticized for his previous specials in
which he belittles trans people, gay people, and survivors of sexual
violence. He says this is his intention right at the start. We should
take him at his word. His routine—controversial as it is—accomplished
exactly what he set out to do.
What that accomplishment reveals is not that he isn’t funny (he is). It’s not just that he is punching down
(he is) or that his jokes haven’t aged well (they haven’t). His latest
special confirms once and for all Chappelle was never the progressive
darling many thought him to be. In 2019, when Chappelle won the Mark
Twain Prize for American Humor, Jon Stewart called him the “Black Bourdain,” a nod to the widely loved chef and documentarian whose work explored the intricacies of the human condition.
That characterization is somewhat understandable. The beauty, and ultimate demise, of Chappelle’s Show
was that he deftly and publicly explored the trials and tribulations of
Black life. At the time, his comedy was provocative, novel, even
revelatory. It makes sense we expected the same nuance with respect to
other oppressed groups. But ultimately we were just projecting onto him
something that wasn’t actually reflected in his work. We expected an
intersectional analysis where none existed.
The
line that runs through all of Chappelle’s comedy is that anti-Blackness
is the Final Boss of all oppressions. Everyone else’s pain and
suffering isn’t as bad by comparison,and therefore doesn’t
deserve the level of outrage and attention it currently gets in
progressive circles. Consider one of his opening jokes in The Closer.
“I’d like to start by addressing the LGBTQ community directly,” he says
with a smirk. “I want every member in that community to know that I
come in peace, and I hope to negotiate the release of DaBaby.” Chappelle
acknowledges that DaBaby made “a very egregious mistake” when he made disparaging comments about people living with HIV/AIDS while onstage at a concert in Miami in July. But then the joke takes a turn.
yahoo |President Biden’s net approval rating among unvaccinated black
voters has dropped a stunning 17 points since he announced plans to
implement a federal vaccine mandate for companies with more than 100 people, according to a new Morning Consult poll.
Biden’s
favor among black voters dropped substantially between an initial poll
conducted between September 6 and 8 — just before Biden’s mandate
announcement on September 9 — and a second poll taken between September
18 to 20 of more than 1,000 black voters.
The second
poll revealed that 71 percent of black voters approve of Biden’s
performance, down 5 points since the mandate. The share who disapprove
rose 7 points to 24 percent. Thirty-seven percent said they strongly
approve of his performance, while 14 percent said they strongly
disapprove.
The
president’s net approval rating — a measure of the share who approve
his job performance minus the share who disapprove — has dropped 12
percent among black voters.
Biden announced earlier this month
that his administration would develop rules to compel large companies to
mandate coronavirus vaccines for employees and to require weekly
negative test results for any unvaccinated workers. He said the rules
would be developed by the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, and apply to companies with 100 or more workers.
The plan was part of a larger initiative
by the Biden administration that includes requiring vaccinations for
all federal employees and workers for federal contractors, as well as
for health care workers in most institutions that receive Medicare or
Medicaid. The administration also called on all states to mandate
vaccinations for teachers and other school employees.
Thirty-eight
percent of black voters who say they have not received a COVID-19
vaccine disapprove of the president’s job performance — an 11 point
increase since he announced the mandate.
Black Americans are the
least likely of all racial and ethnic demographics to have received a
COVID-19 vaccine. According to Morning Consult, 53 percent of black
adults have received the shots — a lower share than that of any other
race or ethnicity.
abcnews | Much has been made about people of color being hesitant to get a
COVID-19 vaccine. Numbers have shown that Black and Latino vaccination
rates are lagging behind those of white people in America.
About
40% of Black people and 45% of Latinos have been at least partially
vaccinated as of Aug. 16, compared to 50% of white people, according to
the latest data by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
And as of Aug. 16, 72% of people eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine were
at least partially vaccinated, according to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. So far, researchers only have race or ethnicity
data of 58% of the vaccinated population, of which 58% is white, 10%
Black and 17% Hispanic.
There have been myriad efforts to explain the racial and ethnic
vaccine rate disparity. Misinformation online has been blamed.
Throughout the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, many were exposed to a
slew of misleading health information, including hoaxes about the
COVID-19 vaccines, some specifically targeted at Blacks and Latinos.
Other experts identify structural barriers to vaccines, including health
literacy, vaccine safety concerns, and physical access as contributing
factors. Distrust of the medical system and government was also cited as
an underlying source of vaccine disparity.
Misinformation plays a small role in vaccine deliberation in people of color, study finds
Recent
research by First Draft, a nonprofit focused on combating
misinformation, found misinformation to only play a small role in
vaccine deliberation among Black and Latino communities, but it also
concluded that the role of misinformation should not be understated as
it may be effective on people who exhibit higher levels of mistrust in
institutions.
Counterpunch | Dalits call themselves Dalits because they reject what they have been
historically called, “untouchables”, though most other oppressed
peoples in India are included in the title. The word comes from the
“dal”, crushed lentils, that is India’s staple food, as in a crushed and
broken people.
Most of the leadership of India’s Dalit community see Gandhi as the
main force in preserving the practice of Varna in post independence
India for his opposition to reserved voting rights for India’s Dalits in
India’s post independence constitution. This means all castes can vote
for the elected Dalit leaders, for those seats in the Indian Parliament
reserved for “minorities”.
Dalits believe that if only Dalits could vote for Dalit leaders than a
more truly representative selection would take place. This is where
Gandhi drew the line, that allowing Dalits to chose their own leaders
directly was not to be allowed, and he went on his famous hunger strike
to the death to prevent this from happening.
The Dalits leader, Dr. Ambedkar, finally gave in, accepted Gandhi’s
demand and Dalits lost the right to directly chose their own leaders.
This loss of choice is what Dalit leaders say is what is most
responsible for preserving Varna in India after independence. Without
Dalit leaders chosen directly by Dalits there has been no one to fight
for Dalit rights by the effective outlawing of varna through the
enforcement of the Indian Constitution authored by the Dalit leader Dr.
Ambedkar, or so most Dalit leaders will tell you. After over a half
century of independence India’s Constitution is still not being enforced
with only a fraction of positions reserved for Dalits in employment and
education being filled.
One thing is for sure and that is caste/varna is king in India’s
almost half a million villages where caste infested Hindus dominate
society and Dalits are forced into the most menial and degrading
professions. Even drinking water from the wells reserved for caste
infested Hindus is forbidden.
Most Dalit’s lives in post-Gandhi India remain one of misery and
hardship with basic education for their children still just a dream.
Being unable to even chose their own leaders directly through reserved
voting and with Gandhi playing such a pivotal role in this happening is
the reason India’s Dalits hate Mohandas Gandhi.
ineteconomics | Buchanan, a 1940 graduate of Middle Tennessee State University who
later attended the University of Chicago for graduate study, started out
as a conventional public finance economist. But he grew frustrated by
the way in which economic theorists ignored the political process.
Buchanan began working on a description of power that started out as a
critique of how institutions functioned in the relatively liberal 1950s
and ‘60s, a time when economist John Maynard Keynes’s ideas about the
need for government intervention in markets to protect people from flaws
so clearly demonstrated in the Great Depression held sway. Buchanan,
MacLean notes, was incensed at what he saw as a move toward socialism
and deeply suspicious of any form of state action that channels
resources to the public. Why should the increasingly powerful federal
government be able to force the wealthy to pay for goods and programs
that served ordinary citizens and the poor?
In thinking about how people make political decisions and choices,
Buchanan concluded that you could only understand them as individuals
seeking personal advantage. In an interview cited by MacLean, the
economist observed that in the 1950s Americans commonly assumed that
elected officials wanted to act in the public interest. Buchanan
vehemently disagreed — that was a belief he wanted, as he put it, to
“tear down.” His ideas developed into a theory that came to be known as
“public choice.”
Buchanan’s view of human nature was distinctly dismal. Adam Smith saw
human beings as self-interested and hungry for personal power and
material comfort, but he also acknowledged social instincts like
compassion and fairness. Buchanan, in contrast, insisted that people
were primarily driven by venal self-interest. Crediting people with
altruism or a desire to serve others was “romantic” fantasy: politicians
and government workers were out for themselves, and so, for that
matter, were teachers, doctors, and civil rights activists. They wanted
to control others and wrest away their resources: “Each person seeks
mastery over a world of slaves,” he wrote in his 1975 book, The Limits of Liberty.
Does that sound like your kindergarten teacher? It did to Buchanan.
The people who needed protection were property owners, and their
rights could only be secured though constitutional limits to prevent the
majority of voters from encroaching on them, an idea Buchanan lays out
in works like Property as a Guarantor of Liberty (1993).
MacLean observes that Buchanan saw society as a cutthroat realm of
makers (entrepreneurs) constantly under siege by takers (everybody else)
His own language was often more stark, warning the alleged “prey” of
“parasites” and “predators” out to fleece them.
In 1965 the economist launched a center dedicated to his theories at
the University of Virginia, which later relocated to George Mason
University. MacLean describes how he trained thinkers to push back
against the Brown v. Board of Education decision to desegregate
America’s public schools and to challenge the constitutional
perspectives and federal policy that enabled it. She notes that he took
care to use economic and political precepts, rather than overtly racial
arguments, to make his case, which nonetheless gave cover to racists who
knew that spelling out their prejudices would alienate the country.
All the while, a ghost hovered in the background — that of John C.
Calhoun of South Carolina, senator and seventh vice president of the
United States.
Calhoun was an intellectual and political powerhouse in the South
from the 1820s until his death in 1850, expending his formidable energy
to defend slavery. Calhoun, called the “Marx of the Master Class” by
historian Richard Hofstadter, saw himself and his fellow southern
oligarchs as victims of the majority. Therefore, as MacLean explains, he
sought to create “constitutional gadgets” to constrict the operations
of government.
Economists Tyler Cowen and Alexander Tabarrok, both of George Mason University, have noted the two men’s affinities, heralding
Calhoun “a precursor of modern public choice theory” who “anticipates”
Buchanan’s thinking. MacLean observes that both focused on how democracy
constrains property owners and aimed for ways to restrict the latitude
of voters. She argues that unlike even the most property-friendly
founders Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, Buchanan wanted a private
governing elite of corporate power that was wholly released from public
accountability.
Suppressing voting, changing legislative processes so that a normal
majority could no longer prevail, sowing public distrust of government
institutions— all these were tactics toward the goal. But the Holy Grail
was the Constitution: alter it and you could increase and secure the
power of the wealthy in a way that no politician could ever challenge.
Gravy Train to Oligarchy
MacLean explains that Virginia’s white elite and the pro-corporate
president of the University of Virginia, Colgate Darden, who had married
into the DuPont family, found Buchanan’s ideas to be spot on. In
nurturing a new intelligentsia to commit to his values, Buchanan stated
that he needed a “gravy train,” and with backers like Charles Koch and
conservative foundations like the Scaife Family Charitable Trusts,
others hopped aboard. Money, Buchanan knew, can be a persuasive tool in
academia. His circle of influence began to widen.
MacLean observes that the Virginia school, as Buchanan’s brand of
economic and political thinking is known, is a kind of cousin to the
better-known, market-oriented Chicago and Austrian schools — proponents
of all three were members of the Mont Pelerin Society, an international
neoliberal organization which included Milton Friedman and Friedrich
Hayek. But the Virginia school’s focus and career missions were
distinct. In an interview with the Institute for New Economic Thinking
(INET), MacLean described Friedman and Buchanan as yin and yang:
“Friedman was this genial, personable character who loved to be in
the limelight and made a sunny case for the free market and the freedom
to choose and so forth. Buchanan was the dark side of this: he thought,
ok, fine, they can make a case for the free market, but everybody knows
that free markets have externalities and other problems. So he wanted to
keep people from believing that government could be the alternative to
those problems.”
theintercept |Dr. Touré
Reed, professor of 20th Century U.S. and African American History at
Illinois State University, observed that the presumption that black
Americans aren’t equally or more invested in economic interventions as
white Americans is “pregnant, of course, with class presumptions” which
work well for the black and Latinx professional middle class — many of
whom play a significant role in defining public narratives via their
work in politics or media. Since “the principal beneficiaries of
universal policies would be poor and working class people who would
disproportionately be black and brown,” he told me, “dismissing such
policies on the grounds that they aren’t addressing systemic racism is
a sleight of hand of sorts.”
Intersectionality, the “buzzword” taken up so faithfully by mainstream Democrats
in 2016, requires an acknowledgment that like race and sexual identity,
class is a dimension that mediates one’s perspective. That means the hashtag #trustblackwomen shouldn’t collapse the interests of Oprah, a billionaire, with, well, anyone else’s.
Similarly, not all blacks or latinos should be presumed to speak
equally to the interests of poor and working class people of color. This
is a truth easily internalized when Democrats consider figures like Ben Carson or Ted Cruz. It’s a more difficult reality to swallow when considering one of our own.
None of this is to say that in every scenario, race, gender, sexuality, and class are equal inputs. Affluent black athletes are still tackled by cops despite their wealth, and black Harvard professors are arrested
trying to unlock their own front doors. But the fact that racism hurts
even those with economic privilege is not “proof” that class doesn’t
matter, as some race reductionists have claimed. It’s simply affirmation
that racism matters too.
Consider, for instance, my colleague Zaid Jilani’s review of comprehensive police shooting data in 2015, in which he found
that 95 percent of police shootings had occurred in neighborhoods where
the household income averaged below $100,000 a year. Remember that
Philando Castile was pulled over, in part, because he was flagged for
dozens of driving offenses described as “crimes of poverty”
by local public defender Erik Sandvick. Failure to show proof of
insurance, driving with a broken taillight — these are hardly patrician
slip ups. If anything is privileged, it’s the fiction that there’s no
difference between the abuses suffered by wealthy black athletes and
working class blacks like Philando Castile. Race can increase your odds
of being targeted and abused. Money can help you survive abuse and secure justice — something which sadly eluded Castile.
“There is a tendency to reduce issues
that have quite a bit to do with the economic opportunities available to
all Americans, African Americans among them, and in some instances
overrepresented among them, to matters of race,” explained Dr. Reed, who
is currently writing a book on the conservative implications of race
reductionism. He pointed to the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, as well
as the mass incarceration crisis, as examples. “In both those
instances, Flint and the criminal justice system, whites are 40 percent,
or near 40 percent, of the victims,” he said. And that’s an awfully
high number for collateral damage.” He went on: “There’s something
systemic at play. But it can’t be reduced, be reducible, to race.”
Rejuvenation Pills
-
No one likes getting old. Everyone would like to be immorbid. Let's be
careful here. Immortal doesnt include youth or return to youth. Immorbid
means you s...
Death of the Author — at the Hands of Cthulhu
-
In 1967, French literary theorist and philosopher Roland Barthes wrote of
“The Death of the Author,” arguing that the meaning of a text is divorced
from au...
9/29 again
-
"On this sacred day of Michaelmas, former President Donald Trump invoked
the heavenly power of St. Michael the Archangel, sharing a powerful prayer
for pro...
Return of the Magi
-
Lately, the Holy Spirit is in the air. Emotional energy is swirling out of
the earth.I can feel it bubbling up, effervescing and evaporating around
us, s...
New Travels
-
Haven’t published on the Blog in quite a while. I at least part have been
immersed in the area of writing books. My focus is on Science Fiction an
Historic...
Covid-19 Preys Upon The Elderly And The Obese
-
sciencemag | This spring, after days of flulike symptoms and fever, a man
arrived at the emergency room at the University of Vermont Medical Center.
He ...