Archives

All posts for the month March, 2009

989aThe other day, Tammy Bruce; right wing firestarter and guest host for the Laura Ingram talk radio show; took some pretty hard shots at First Lady Michelle Obama. Last week, Mrs. Obama visited the Anacostia High School in DC where she spoke to a group of inner city youth. A part of Obama’s talk – in response to a question about the keys to success – focused on hard work, discipline, and learning ‘correct English’. But I suppose that a person carrying that kind of message is “trashy”; and is entirely too much for poor Tammy to stomach. From Media Matters:

@#$%&!**&!

Sorry, y’all. I wasn’t using profanity there. I was simply wiping the vomit off my keyboard. Speaking of not being able to stomach things…

At any rate, Tammy Bruce was wrong for a thousand reasons. For one, I find it deplorable that the First Lady of the United States was so blantantly disrespected. Regardless of how you may feel about the policies of certain Presidents, there is some level of disgust associated with attacking First Ladies who – despite obviously supporting their spouses – are usually politically neutral. I can’t stand George W. Bush and I made no bones about it. But Laura has always been off limits. Even Hillary as a First Lady was off limits. My criticism of her did not begin until she became a presidential candidate. For me, attacking non-political figures with political weaponary is vile and classless. Secondly, Michelle was speaking from her experience – a history to which Bruce could not attest. Not only has Bruce not walked a mile in Michelle’s shoes, it is virtually impossible for her to do so. The fact is: Mrs. Obama was simply sharing her experiences in dealing with a phenomenon that many people of color have experienced in their own lives: the notion of “Acting White“. People like Tammy Bruce will never truly grasp that notion. People like her have never lived in places like Flint, Michigan, Gary, Indiana, or Trenton, New Jersey. People like her probably did not grow up in a community where selling drugs, killing people, and having multiple children as a teenager were considered more of a normative behavior than going to school. People like her were not likely raised in an environment where attempts at success were casually dismissed (or outright ridiculed) as a social stigma.

As I have mentioned several times before (most notably when referring to a part in CNN’s Black in America segment), the idea of “Acting White” has always struck a personal chord with me. Since my days in elementary school, I was often teased by so-called friends and familiy or outright alienated from others because my grades were a little too high or my speech was a little too proper. Fortunately, I developed thick skin throughout the years. For many other people, it is not as easy. Bruce clearly lacks the ability to know this kind of hurt.

Above everything else, I find Bruce’s antipathy toward Mrs. Obama very enigmatic. After all, Michelle’s message of personal responsibility falls similarly in line with the “bootstrap” mantra consistently echoed by the Right. Obama was not planting seeds of White resentment in the heads of these children. She wasn’t encouraging a life of welfare, institutional dependency, and victimizaton. She was teaching poor inner city youth how to personally succeed without falling back on excuses of poverty and lack of resources. She stressed the value of hard work and education along with the importance of striking down the long-held belief that certain positive behaviors (proper language, dress, etc.) were attributes exclusive to White people. So my question to Ms. Bruce is simple: Michelle was wrong because…?

If Ms. Bruce took offense to the “accent” Michelle used (though it’s likely that Michelle was just being Michelle), she once again has missed the point. Anybody who has dealt with children (especially children who are otherwise uninterested) knows the importance of establishing relatability with the audience. Besides, who amongst us has never toggled back and forth between the laid back, informal persona and the professional, formal persona? Again, that’s wrong because…?

In the end, I chalk this up to a lone view of a narrow-minded loon who attempts to drum up controversy for attention . No, I’m not talking about that person. But Ms. B is not that far off.

- ACL

obama-bracket

This past week has been a very busy time for the President. First, he was featured on ESPN making his picks for the NCAA tournament (not picking Duke to win didn’t bode well for Coach K.). Then, the good President from Illinois was on the Jay Leno show sharing wisecracks about bowling (which brings up another issue because Obama compared his miserable bowling skills to the Special Olympics. Let the attacking ensue). For having Obama on the show, Leno’s ratings tripled. Simply put, the President is one of the most popular people at U.S.A High.

Unfortunately for him, that school just happens to be on fire.

Unmitigates, what do you think about Obama being on ESPN filling out brackets or on Jay Leno cracking jokes while the country is burning? Better yet, think about it this way: All things being equal, if this was President McCain, how would you be responding?

Be honest now.

- ACL

cramer-stewart

So I finally caught the highly anticipated commentarial showdown between Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart and CNBC’s Jim Cramer. While I think the interview had as much entertainment value as watching gold fish play basketball, I have to admit I found the segment at least interesting enough to be bloggable (OK, I’m lying. Goldfish playing hoop is slightly more entertaining. But you get the point).

First, the backstory:

Cramer, financial analyst and host of CNBC’s hit show “Mad Money” was a bit incensed after the Stewart lambasted him, Rick Santelli, and the rest of the network for misleading viewers about matters of financial security and responsibility. In Cramer’s case specifically, Stewart was quick to point out Jim’s failed and disasterous endorsement of global investment giant midget Bears Stearn. Jim Cramer set the pins up; Jon Stewart knocked them down:

This led to the confrontation on the show. Feel free to check it out here.

After watching the interrogation interview, what I found most notable was how defenseless Jim Cramer appeared.  While Stewart gave him the equivalent of populist lashing by making him directly complicit in people’s financial woes, Jimbo essentially sat on hands. In fact the only time I actually did see his hands was when he was waving the flag of surrender. On the one hand, I give it up to Cramer for being brave enough and a good sport enough to come on the show. On the other hand, his not putting up a fight and attempting to save face was pretty disappointing.

This wasn’t the Ali/Frazier calibur showdown I was expecting.

Perhaps, though, he did not put up a fight because he felt clearly exposed. The interview from 2006, where Cramer candidly spoke about he duplicity of the market was probably as damning of a video as anything Chris Hansen could put up. Still, you would think that being put on trial would lead to some attempt to deflect the blame from oneself or, at the very least, offer more substance in his apology. In an industry based largely upon investor confidence, Jim Cramer has conceivably committed financial suicide by freely allowing Stewart to castrate him. The same thing happened to Tucker Carlson’s political career once Stewart got a hold of him.

What do you think will happen to Cramer’s career now that Jon Stewart has completely undressed him?

- ACL