PopConsumer

Tip of the Day: Jane Velez-Mitchell

I'm going to try out a new feature here. A daily pointer to something I think is worth knowing about. I come across lots of great stuff every day and I want to share the good stuff. It might be a thought provoking article, a useful website, a product I've found to be indespensible, an incredible image, groovy places to visit or someone you should know. You can always check out my del.icio.us account (mrniles) down on the left sidebar or follow me on twitter or friendfeed (marianiles) or read my BlogHer blog to get a sense of stuff I'm finding but this series will serve as a spotlight.

I very much enjoyed this profile of HLN (from CNN and formerly known as Headline News) host Jane Velez-Mitchell. She seems like an interesting person whose life has lead them to some insights that have supported her success. And it gives hope to those of us past our teens and twenties that new frontiers and the best of our life and career can still be ahead of us. Here are some choice bits but I encourage you to read the whole thing.

Jane Velez-Mitchell is a true-crime author, a television talking head, a lesbian, an animal activist, a recovering alcoholic and a vegan. She was until recently a glorified freelancer for Headline News, the sister channel of CNN.

Now she is one of Headline News’s nightly hosts — and her 7 o’clock show is setting ratings records for the network....

After almost two decades in Los Angeles, chasing local news for its CBS affiliate and covering criminal trials for the syndicated show “Celebrity Justice,” Ms. Velez-Mitchell, 53, was content to fill in for Ms. Grace, promote her book about crimes and write a memoir.

In appearances on Ms. Grace’s show starting in 2005, she had been enticed to share opinions, a marked change from her years in local news where, she recalled, producers would tell her to “stick to the copy.”

Having made the leap from news to views, “I kind of sensed that I couldn’t go back” to local journalism, she said. “Which is O.K.: life’s an adventure, and you keep moving forward.”

Ms. Velez-Mitchell said she drew her one-day-at-a-time philosophy from the 12-step program of Alcoholics Anonymous. She will celebrate her 14th year of sobriety on April 1. “That’s really the main thing that informs how I look at the world,” she said. “I’m not in control of anything, so why bother trying to control it?”...

“It’s astounding how little you need to survive, it really is,” she said.

The Political Rhetoric of Race and Racism Invokes Historical Perspective and Potential Backlash

Race continues to be a factor in the presidential campaign this year and in recent weeks has been raised as an issue in ways that have led observers to analyze the issue through historical lenses.

Nicholas Kristof, in an Op-Ed in the New York Times noted that there was a "push to 'otherize' Obama." Kristof describes some of the forms this otherization is taking:

What is happening, I think, is this: religious prejudice is becoming a proxy for racial prejudice. In public at least, it’s not acceptable to express reservations about a candidate’s skin color, so discomfort about race is sublimated into concerns about whether Mr. Obama is sufficiently Christian.

This type of othering has moved from email rumor campaigns to much more explicit and public expressions. The Mayor of Fort Mill, South Carolina sought scriptural backup for the rumor that Obama is the antichrist. In North Carolina a real estate agency put up a sign reading "Obsama-Obama. Not American. Not Welcome." Karen Tumulty, in Time magazine, reports that The Virginia state GOP chairman urged volunteers to compare Barack Obama to Osama bin Laden as they go campaigning door to door. Recently at a John McCain town hall appearance a woman told McCain that she could not trust Obama because she read that "he's an Arab." McCain did take the microphone from the woman and say that it was not true but unfortunately did so in a way that implied that Arab people are not decent family people as BlogHer member, ManagementProf noted. And Rochelle Nelson at Sagacious Rambling reports that the woman who made the statement about Obama remains unconvinced despite McCain's rebuttal.

As the economy crumbles, McCain-Palin campaign rallies have become hotbeds of racism from subtle to overt from audience members, campaign surrogates and Sarah Palin herself. At recent campaign stops surrogates introducing the candidates have referred to "Barack Hussein Obama" and audience members at the mention of Obama's name have yelled out "terrorist" and "kill him." They've yelled at an African American sound man for a television network covering the event to, "Sit down, boy." A man displayed a stuffed monkey with an Obama sticker on it and then passed it off when he realized that he was on camera. They've accused Obama of "treason." (Stephania Pomponi Butler has a round up of racist smears and denouncements at MOMocrats)

And it is not just at campaign events where such sentiment is being heard.

Debbie Gorman at MOMocrats reports that at her workplace she has heard from two people that they would not vote for "a black" or a "goddamn ni**er" (Oh, and Palin's "a babe").

At an Oregon university "a life-size cardboard reproduction of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was hung from a tree on the campus, an act with racial undertones that outraged students and school leaders alike."

Republican Party spokesperson, Didi Lima was removed from her role in McCain's campaign after making "racial remarks"

Maud Newton shares the story of a Florida teacher who taught his seventh-grade social studies class that Obama's call for change stood for "Can You Help A (expletive) Get Elected."

TPM reader libgirl reports that two young men yelled "N***** lover" at her (and her six year old) while standing in her yard which displays and Obama sign.

Conservative observers have compared a video of young men performing step dancing while expressing how Obama has inspired them as like "Nazi Youth" or as an example of Obama's training of "militant radicals."

Some watchers of the most recent debate wondered if McCain's response to a question asked by a young black man was subtly racist when McCain assumed that the questioner probably hadn't heard of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac prior to the current economic crisis. The young man responded on his Facebook page and he too wonders:

In defense of the Senator from Arizona I would say he is an older guy, and may have made an underestimation of my age. Honest mistake. However, it could be because I am a young African-American male.

And, perhaps most frighteningly, there are reports of incitements to and threats of violence, property damage and, in one case, actual violence (a man was shot for wearing an Obama T-shirt).

The news is not all sad and scary, though. A Daily Kos reader reports a positive racial encounter from the campaign trail:

Early on, my canvassing partner and I ran into two young black men - bling, tattooes, etc. I try not to be racist - but it was all I could do not to be scared to death. They came up to us - and we introduced ourselves. The one gentleman's name is Kai. I asked Kai if he was registered to vote - he said No and we discussed how he could register. He looked up at me - and I swear he was tearing up in his eyes - he said - "You are the first white man who has ever spoken to me with respect in my life.

In another attempt to inject racism into the campaign, there has been a concerted effort to blame the economic crisis on lending to "minorities." Unsurprisingly, conservative pundits like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin are fanning the flames of this talking point. But Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachman made similar charges on the floor of Congress.

Although the ugliness I've noted above has all happened in the past month, there is much historical precedent for the roots of this behavior. Journalists have begun to call on their colleagues to not ignore our nation's history of race.

Journalists need to do more than call the play-by-play this election cycle. We also need to blow the whistle on such egregious fouls calculated to undermine the political process and magnify the ugliest prejudices that our nation has done so much to overcome.

Donna Brazile recalls living in the segregated South and speaks of the conversation on race we are now having because of Obama's campaign:

I’m gonna say it and get it off my chest, because for the next thirty days, I’m gonna be the best Catholic woman ever….As a child who grew up in the segregated Deep South, we’ve come so far in this country….But I remember when I used to get on the bus: my mother would tell me, “Donna, when you get on the bus, you and your brothers go all the way to the back, and don’t look at anybody.” We have changed. This is a more tolerant, open, progressive society. And yet, we’re having this conversation because [Obama] is biracial. He spent nine months in the womb of a white woman. He was raised…by his white grandparents…He got out of school and went to Harvard, and all of a sudden he’s “uppity” and there’s something wrong with him? What is wrong with us?…You can vote against him, but don’t ever put me in the back of the bus. I’m not going to the back of the bus! I’m not going to be afraid! My black skin does not make me inferior! And may I add: being a female does not make me dumb!

Kai Wright at The Root announces: Breaking News: It's Racism:

Americans have notoriously short memories, so it's often assumed that the critical clamor journalists hear from both left and right is new. It actually began with Southern segregationists brow beating Northern news organizations covering the Civil Rights Movement. Both sides of the Jim Crow battle knew the news media would shape how the country viewed them, so segregationists did all they could to make reporters part of the story. The liberal-media trope was their brainchild, and they used it to provoke the sort of false moral equivalencies that today's political reporters too often draw.

When a member of the crowd at a Republican rally yelled, "bomb Obama" Rachel Maddow put it in perspective when she wondered if the woman meant bomb like the four little girls who were bombed in a church in 1963.

Peter Beinart at Time magazine gives some historical perspective to the racial attacks on Obama and shares a picture that illustrates why attacks on Obama frighten many - his need for protection


Obama with supporters, and a bodyguard, in Waterford, Mich.

Congressman John Lewis, a civil rights leader who was beaten by police during the Selma to Montgomery marches, hears echoes of that time in McCain and Palin's rhetoric:

As one who was a victim of violence and hate during the height of the Civil Rights Movement, I am deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign. What I am seeing reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse.

Gary Kamiya at Salon.com writes The GOP goes back to its ugly roots:

McCain is resurrecting the GOP’s oldest tactic: Smearing Obama as a scary black terrorist sympathizer. But he may meet the same fate as Barry Goldwater.

Frank Rich, writing at the New York Times, notes:

From the start, there have always been two separate but equal questions about race in this election. Is there still enough racism in America to prevent a black man from being elected president no matter what? And, will Republicans play the race card? The jury is out on the first question until Nov. 4. But we now have the unambiguous answer to the second: Yes.

To the second question there are signs of backlash within his own party:

Christopher Buckley, son of conservative hero, William F. Buckley, endorses Obama (and not at conservative publication The National Review where he has a regular column because colleague Kathleen Parker "has to date received 12,000 (quite literally) foam-at-the-mouth hate-emails" for speaking out against the selection of Sarah Palin). Carla Marinucchi at the San Francisco Chronicle writes that McCain-Palin's hot rhetoric risks GOP backlash.

To the first question, although fears of the Bradley Effect have been widely noted, other observers believe that race plays out in voting through a number of different mechanisms and not only do not believe that there will not be a Bradley Effect but that Obama may reshape intersections of racial attitudes and voting in a way that will lead us to speak of the Obama Effect in the future. Despite the painful revival of our history of race and racism, the conversations that we are having might be shaping a new and brighter future.

But what if Obama loses some ask? Two writers come to similar conclusions - that even though there will be inevitable feelings that racism will have played a role if Obama is defeated, ultimately the national conversations around race that Obama is prompting are positive for our country.

But, if Obama does win, perhaps it will signal as Nicholas Kristof describes in his excellent article, "Racism Without Racists" (which points out how unconscious discrimination functions):

One lesson from this research is that racial biases are deeply embedded within us, more so than many whites believe. But another lesson, a historical one, is that we can overcome unconscious bias. That’s what happened with the decline in prejudice against Catholics after the candidacy of John F. Kennedy in 1960.

It just might happen again, this time with race.

Cross Posted at BlogHer.

Can Obama Afford to Risk Invoking the "Angry Black Man" Stereotype?

One of the discussions going on after the debates is how far Obama could go in being forceful without invoking the "Angry Black Man" stereotype.

Andrew Sullivan at The Atlantic says:

Obama is also a black man against a white man. So he must also be very careful not to get angry and to stay cool and calm. He has to do that to avoid the "angry black man" trap. But then he cannot afford to seem weak either. You realize how hard a balance that is for ninety minutes?

Obama has to walk through a racial minefield all the time.

Jenny at Tao of Coffee recognizes the tightrope Obama is walking:

I do hope that Obama will be a bit more assertive in the next debate, albeit carefully so as not to come off as an “angry black man.”

In contrast, The Angry Black Woman examines the subtext of McCain's anger and unwillingness to look at Obama during the debate:

Not so long ago in this country — within McCain’s adult lifetime, though not Obama’s — white men did not look at black men, except to order them around or warn them off white women. They did not address black men directly if they could help it — and if they had to, it was never done in a way that might suggest respect. Black men did not look at white men either, because that was the shortest path to death; a black man who dared to look a white man in the eye was “uppity”. Didn’t know his place. Needed to have a lesson taught him, usually with a bullet or a length of rope. Even today there’s a certain kind of white man — usually older ones from the South or from wealthy backgrounds — who still won’t accord a man of color the simple courtesy of looking him in the eye. They’ll look everywhere else, address “the air” rather than the person, and get progressively more irritated if that person doesn’t back off and go away.

Ta-Nehisi Coates also writing at The Atlantic thinks observers are "confusing strength with arrogance."

Perhaps there is good reason for Obama to be mindful of invoking the stereotype when some viewers have reactions like this:

I was so completely disturbed by Obama’s harsh, angry eyes that I am seriously starting to wonder if the man is an actual sociopath, who is incapable of feeling real warmth and love for another human being. These are the eyes of a serial killer.

And when some opponents are determined to drag racism into the race:

Laura Fitzpatrick, Time: The Ku Klux Klan at the debate

The Klan will, however, have pamphlets and membership applications on hand for any audience members who happen to share the Klansmen's views. Some examples of those views: Obama's election "could be the destruction of America," says Greene, who states categorically that he would not vote for a black candidate. Says the Emperor of the Mississippi White Knights (the group's ritual leader), who asked not to be identified: "Locally, every place that has come under black rule has declined, and has declined sharply." He cited Jackson, Miss., and Washington, D.C., as examples. "Not all black people are particularly bad people," the emperor adds. But leadership, he asserts, "is just not in their character ... it's just not in their ability."

Jim Rutenberg, The New York Times: Pinpoint Attacks Focus on Obama

It is a view shared by Democratic leaders, including Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who, in a recent interview with MSNBC, said of the advertising campaign, “The fact that it is being run in a predominantly white suburb tells you that there is an explicit effort to try to divide people by race.”

Brent Staples, The New York Times: Barack Obama, John McCain and the Language of Race

The throwback references that have surfaced in the campaign suggest that Republicans are fighting on racial grounds, even when express references to race are not evident. In a replay of elections past, the G.O.P. will try to leverage racial ghosts and fears without getting its hands visibly dirty. The Democrats try to parry in customary ways.

Mr. Obama seems to understand that he is always an utterance away from a statement — or a phrase — that could transform him in a campaign ad from the affable, rational and racially ambiguous candidate into the archetypical angry black man who scares off the white vote. His caution is evident from the way he sifts and searches the language as he speaks, stepping around words that might push him into the danger zone.

These maneuvers are often painful to watch. The troubling part is that they are necessary.

cross posted at BlogHer

Time to Reclaim the FCC

Recently @QueenofSpain (blogger Erin Kotecki Vest) was stirring up trouble over on twitter as she is wont to do.  This time it was ab0ut an article regarding pushing some limits:

They also raise questions about the placement of “30 Rock” as an anchor of what an NBC executive, Ben Silverman, has designated the “family hour.”

Erin's outraged stemmed over Silverman proclaiming a family hour and then airing shows in that time slot which are arguably not family friendly fare.

The article is badly written and therefore I think Erin's outrage is misplaced.  Silverman has not designated a family hour.  The so-called family hour is a practice the FCC asked the major broadcast networks to voluntarily adopt in 1975 after complaints about violence and sex being broadcast.  NBC did not create "family hour" nor do they (or any other network) currently market the 8:00 time slot as family hour. 

Also, the sanctity of family hour was violated long ago.  I remember some outrage about a sitcom in the 1980's where a child character said "you suck" during the family hour.  Some were convinced that this certainly heralded the demise of western civilization.  Time has shown we had so much further to go.

The real travesty in my mind is that outrage of any sort expressed to the FCC no longer results in any action in favor of the community and citizens.  Prior to the vote on allowing further media consolidation thousands of citizens at hearings around the country and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle urged FCC chairman Kevin Martin to not press forward with this move.  And Martin pushed it through anyway.  The FCC has become a lackey serving corporate interests rather than acting in service to the citizens of the United States who own the airwaves and grant corporations the right to broadcast over them as long as they do so with consideration to our needs and concerns.  They have no capitalist right to profit from the public good we lease to them without regard to our voices.

When I tweeted this view as best I could in 140 characters, @Stranahan (videomaker Lee Stranahan) expressed concern that I was perhaps sliding down the slippery slope towards advocating censorship.  I certainly don't but it's hard to explain in a tweet, so I'm here blogging.  My desire for greater FCC control is not out of a belief that we need the FCC or the government in any way to save us from the horrors of MILF Island at 8:00 pm.  Rather it's that I believe in the notion that the public owns and has a right to be the boss of the airwaves.

Stranahan's other concern is that such regulation invariably focuses on censoring sex rather than violence.  True that.  We are a prudish society and whether it's the MPAA, the government or parents up in arms that little Bobby saw Janet Jackson's nipple at half time, too many Americans care much more about having the kiddies eyes shielded from naked body parts than from bloody body parts.

Still, I believe that if we want the FCC to pay attention to Americans when we say we want net neutrality (300 people showed up at Stanford yesterday to tell the FCC and Comcast to stop throttling) and do not want corporate consolidation of news outlets which further limits the independent points of views we hear and that we want local news outlets to cover local news and not just run AP newswire pieces (which are increasingly biased and crappy), then we have to allow for our prim and proper neighbors to also say they don't want talk of tits and boners at 8 pm and not expressing concern over simulated machine gun deaths, autopsies and The Donald's combover.

The latest example of the need for a mechanism for holding the media's feet to the fire when they are not acting in the public interest is the recent presidential debate on ABC.   ABC is ignoring the tens of thousands of complaints it has received about the non-issue questions asked by claiming people actually are deeply concerned with nonsensical symbolic tabloid drama.  Baratunde Thurston (of Jack and Jill Politics and Good Crime Think) suggests ABC's broadcast license should be revoked.

I know that will never happen but perhaps the FCC can help we the people compel ABC to actually act in the public interest should they ever have the fortune to air another debate especially one riddled with commercials and highly profitable coming at a time when ratings for such debates are at a record high.

I am an out of touch, liberal, elitist formerly from Hyde Park

I am vastly amused by the new terms popping up to describe Barack Obama "Hyde Park Liberal" or "Hyde Park Elitist."  They are using this term to allude to the neighborhood the University of Chicago is located in and give him an air of ivory tower out of touchness much like they do to denizens of Berkeley, Madison, Ann Arbor and other college towns.

Except, this is Hyde Park where yes there are big houses which you can call mansions.  But this is also the neighborhood where on the first day of school at the University of Chicago the security officers sit you down and warn you against wandering much past the confines of campus because OMG, there are poor black people there and you might die!  And where there was a charming little gang shooting outside the window of my apartment.  And, other than the snow, which the city did an outstanding job of clearing rapidly, and the oppressive summer humidity for this Cali girl, was one of my most favorite places I've ever lived.  But I hardly think living there makes someone out of touch with the real problems of real people - just the opposite.  So rather than allowing the media invoking it as an epitaph, Obama should wear it as a badge of pride.

Vote for Mitt - He's Got Faith!

I highly encourage folks to read Mitt Romney's speech on faith in America and not just rely on the breathless media reports about how this speech was a bold achievement yet did nothing to persuade those who believe Mormonism to be a cult.  “He didn’t sway me one way or the other,” he said. “I don’t know anything he could have said.”

So what did Romney say and what beliefs did he profess?  (Followed by my translation - but, make your own and share it, please!)

"A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith."  (Vote for me even if you think I'm a member of the world's fastest growing cult.)

"Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree." (Except Islam* which poses the biggest threat** to Americans though I sure do wish I had their nifty "commitment to frequent prayer"***)

*"America faces a new generation of challenges. Radical, violent Islam seeks to destroy us."

**"These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance."

***[Actually, Mitt, I don't think there is anything in your faith that prohibits you from a commitment to frequent prayer so perhaps if you drop to your knees five times a day that might assuage the concerns some Americans have about your faith.]

"When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I'm fortunate to become your President, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States."  (I'll be the president of everyone who is religious* and a monotheist**)

*"Freedom requires religion..."

**"...any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me."

"Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world."  (Like when I said I believe in a woman's right to choose and now I am jettisoning that belief to gain the presidency and asserting that it is crucial that I use an instrument of the state* in order to enforce my personal religious beliefs on all Americans.)

*"Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our Constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'"

And I'll leave you with this interesting nugget... Naomi Schaeffer Riley, the Wall Street Journal's deputy Taste editor offers this portrait of young Mormons...

So let me offer a brief snapshot, not in the hope that Iowans will vote for Mr. Romney but in the hope that, if they don't vote for him, their decision won't have anything to do with his religion.

The young men and women at Brigham Young University are among the smartest, hardest-working and most pleasant college kids you will find anywhere. (For better or worse, I have visited dozens of college campuses.) The student body lives by the Mormon principle: "The glory of God is intelligence." Most reside off campus without adult supervision, yet they adhere strictly to curfews, rules about contact with the opposite sex and every other church directive. They are purposeful but seem to enjoy themselves, spending their free time hiking in the sprawling desert. And BYU has America's largest ROTC program outside of our military schools.

And Ms. Riley muses...

A recent Pew poll shows that only 53% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Mormons. That's roughly the same percentage who feel that way toward Muslims. By contrast, more than three-quarters of Americans have a favorable opinion of Jews and Catholics. Whatever the validity of such judgments, one has to wonder: Why does a faith professed by the 9/11 hijackers rank alongside that of a peaceful, productive, highly educated religious group founded within our own borders?

So, vote for Mitt because his cult faith is that of nice, clean cut, patriotic Americans not the evil 9/11 hijackers.

Don't Believe the Hype: Obama and the Media Narrative of Naiveté

The media develops a narrative and once the narrative develops, it's hard to break out of - Barack Obama

So the current Obama narrative is that he is naive and inexperienced.  The latest spin on this story is in response to a recent foreign policy speech in which he said:

But that is no excuse. There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard.

As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will. (emphasis mine)