Final Thoughts on Weinergate

Like so many others at this point, I promise to rid my system of this Anthony Weiner nonsense once and for all. As of last week, the dude has officially resigned his seat in the House, and will probably fade into obscurity, end up on some reality show or – like others in similar situations – land as a political analyst somewhere. Over and done with. I get it.

But there is one thing about Weinergate that still has me annoyed. Rather than waste my time expounding too deeply, Rachel Maddow nailed it for me. In the linked clip (sorry, I haven’t figured out how to embed non-YouTube videos to my blog), Rach focuses on the selective outrage folks on both sides of the aisle have displayed toward Weiner, while allowing their counterparts – who have committed similar or WORSE offenses – to continue their careers relatively unscathed. She dissects the anatomy of Congressional corruption from Sen. David Vitter to Sen. John Ensign; from Rep. Charlie Rangel to Rep. William Jefferson and how they all managed to politically survive their scandals with little resistance from their opponents and with just as little pressure from their colleagues. Meanwhile, Weiner – who’s major sin was sending photos to an girls through social networking – was given a full court press.

Now, I should point out that it was ultimately his decision to resign. No one is disputing that. But the response to his sins from the media and folks in Congress is laughable, unfortunate, and reeking of double standard. Additionally, Maddow pulls no punches in putting her very own profession on display, arguing that Weiner’s resignation had less to do with his bad behavior, and more to do with him simply succumbing to what has quickly become a media circus. In that respect, she has far more (forgive the expression) testicular fortitude than most people who share the airwaves with her.

She closes out her segment with a fair and justified warning to Democrats: the resignation of Anthony Weiner, partially motivated by Democrats unwillingness to stand with their guy, could have long-lasting ramifications. The fact is: Democrats echoed the very same narrative against one of their own as Republicans did, while having no pangs for looking the other way as others have been involved in equally scandalous behavior. This kind of spinelessness is dangerous when you consider how productive and cohesive Republicans are. Very seldom will they throw their people under the bus…regardless of the offense. I hate to say it, but Democrats could learn tons from their colleagues across the aisle.

I leave you with what I consider one of “Weiner’s Greatest Hits”:

Take a good look, Democrats. The fireball in the clip above is what you just lost to a sexting scandal and to your own cowardice. If and when Republicans continue to steamroll all over you, you have no one to blame but yourselves.

- ACL

‘Tis Better to Give Than To Receive

“Why Republicans are Full of Sh*t”, Take 4,781,571.

Once again, our dear friends on the right have proven that they can dish it out, but they can’t take it. The newest student to this reality is Obama impersonator Reggie Brown, who was recently given the boot at last week’s Republican Leadership Conference (RLC) in Louisiana. Brown first took to with Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the USA” — likely an opening shot at Birthers. He proceeded with his routine by telling a series of stinging one-liners, taking jabs at President Obama (in first person, since he was also imitating the Prez, Anthony Weiner, Barney Frank, etc.

What started off as a performance well-received by the audience (deprecating humor mostly at Obama’s expense) turned into a litany of potshots against the Republican party; particularly the candidates vying for the 2012 nomination. After a few more minutes of jokes – met largely with heckles and moans from the audience – an event organizer proceeded to cut off Brown’s microphone and overshadow him with music…Oscars style. Another man then came on stage and escorted Brown away. See it all for yourself.

Part 1:

Part 2:

According to NBC Chicago.com, Mr. Brown has downplayed the entire event:

Brown told NBCChicago.com that the entire situation has been blown out of proportion, and that the reason his mic was cut off was because his time was up, similar to what happened to several other speakers during the program. He says he was invited to the after-party on Saturday, where he was warmly received and signed autographs for many of the Republican supporters there.

If anything, I think Brown was taking the high road as an entertainer. I think he was trying to be careful not to burn bridges and potentially ruin any other opportunities to have similar performances in the future. His speciality is clearly doing Barack Obama impersonations, and he doesn’t want to be left out in the cold. Smart move on his part. However, I think this went well beyond simply being an issue of time; especially when you consider the comments from Charlie Davis, RLC President and CEO in an interview with the Washington Post:

“I pulled him off the stage [...] I just thought he had gone too far. He was funny the first 10 or 15 minutes, but it was inappropriate, it was getting ridiculous [...] We’ve had a great event. Probably the only problem we’ve had was the impersonator.”

Source

There you have it. The jokes were nice and funny when they were at the President’s expense. But flip the script on Republicans? You can most certainly expect your mic to get cut off while getting kicked off stage. Thank God Stephen Colbert wasn’t the entertainment that evening.

- ACL

Racist Politics and Uncomfortable Truths

Most of us politicos outside of Los Angeles have never heard of Janice Hahn. Until now, that is. As it appears, Hahn — a Democrat running in a California special election next month — is not on somebody’s Christmas list. A bizarre attack ad has been released against her campaign making the claim that she assisted gang members and deviant criminals get out of jail to work on her anti-gang efforts, who will likely revert back to their criminal ways…specifically to “…rape and kill again.” No, this isn’t 1988. But the following ad does have every bit as much race-baiting and fear-mongering as could ever be found in 1988. See it for yourself:

The culprit behind this embarrassment would be Turn Right USA, a conservative, self-proclaimed “Super PAC.” I don’t know much about them – as I suspect many people don’t. All I know at this point is that they apparently express all kinds of pathetic racist and sexist sentiments disguised as information surrounding Hahn’s anti-gang initiatives. So to hell with them and what they purport.

But from all of this, I do have a few thoughts/questions:

(1) It’s important to note that it doesn’t appear that Hahn’s opponent, Republican Craig Huey, was tied to this smear ad in any way. In fact, he has even denounced this message. I don’t know anything about his politics, I freely admit (though Hahn has compared him to Sarah Palin. I know, I know.). But if he is free of any association with this video, it was a good and politically-sound move on his part to say so. Of course I wouldn’t be surprised if I later discovered that he did authorize the video, only to then denounce it once the damage was done. But that’s the cynical part of me. The more credulous part of me – the part of me willing to believe Huey even without evidence suggesting his blamelessness – wants to believe he honestly had nothing to do with the ad.

(2) I feel bad for Hahn, given that she had to be subjected to a vicious attack which – racism aside – also reeked of lurid, butt-shaking sexism. But, there is still the pesky issue of her comments toward the end. In stating that “It takes a different kind of person to speak the language”, was Hahn talking about gang members being more effective at communicating with other gang members, or was this about black people in general? It is not very clear in this video. Of course, in the era of the soundbyte, this was probably done intentionally by the video’s creator. This is for certain, however, she needs to clarify her remarks. I’m not going to do her the favor of trying to contextualize her comments.

(3) To all my non-black readers, you can turn away for a second. I need to do a little in-house cleaning by addressing my cousins ‘nem. You see cousins: THIS is why I make it my mission to spread the word about the dangers BET, street life, etc. THIS is why I urge brothas and sistas I know to stop acting like coons every chance they get. THIS is why I preach the notion that being educated and socially refined is NOT the antithesis of “being black.” With every gold tooth we put in our mouths, every half-naked woman paraded around in a rap video, every knucklehead teenager on welfare with five kids, every high school dropout, and every shooting over nonsense, we feed the monster of bigotry. We promulgate the beliefs and fears about black people that others in this country (read: racist people with an ability to affect society) have about us. Instead of playing right into their bigotry, why not do more to dispel those ideas? Make it HARD for people to justify their bigotry.

There are some of my cousins ‘nem who could care less about society thinks about them…and I suppose that can be refreshingly liberating in one sense. But in another sense, it puts those of us who strive for success – be it political, financial, social, academic, or whatever – at an unfair disadvantage. Like it or not, fair or not, black people (arguably more than any other racial group in this country) are often defined by the more stereotypical elements in our culture. Until the unfavorable behavioral pathologies of some black folks change, all of us will be subjected to the same initial stereotypes…making it that much more difficult for us to receive social validation of a positive sort. In short, until y’all negroes stop acting like fools, all black folks will suffer the social consequences.

I guess I’m finished with my rant for the day. As you were.

- ACL

Permanent Records

When we discuss the damaging permanency of the errors and mistakes online, its usually within the context of young people and their lack of discretion on social networking sites. But – in recent events – its pretty clear this lesson could and probably should also apply to adults as well, especially with high-profiled political figures.

For the sake of argument, consider the following examples of what not to do in the age of 24/7 information. Of course, these scenarios are strictly hypothetical:

Scenario 1: Imagine you decided to tour the country as a publicity stunt an opportunity to explore the nation’s rich historical sites. A reporter comes up to you and asks something like…oh, I don’t know…”What have you learned from your trip?”. In your response, you provide a mangled and improperly framed reference to an important story from American history (For fun, let’s say Paul Revere’s famous ride).  It’s probably not the best idea to go on national TV shortly afterwards refusing to see the error of your ways. Even if some historians think you may have serendipitously stumbled on to something, you should probably stop pretending that you possess some highly sophisticated and more deeply learned account of history that most Americans – with the exception, perhaps, of scholars - don’t have. Instead, it would probably be cleaner if you simply declare “I made a mistake. I was caught off guard, did a little flubbing and might’ve been off on a couple of key points. Oh, and I certainly don’t endorse my supporters trying to edit a Wikipedia entry as an effort to validate my incorrect view of things.”

Problem solved.

While it’s true some people would still attack you for nobly admitting your mistake, wouldn’t you feel a little better by telling the truth?

Scenario 2: You find yourself on Twitter flirting with young people connecting with your constituents. Though married and apparently expecting a child, pictures of your private parts are sent to one of your followers. Once the story breaks, you immediately go into damage control, launching a furious campaign to prove your innocence. You claim your account is hacked. You hire a lawyer to investigate said hacking. You make an appearance on national TV. But after all sorts of evidence surfaces proving the contrary, you change your story. You admit the genitalia in the photos does, in fact, belong to you.

The story was embarassing enough. But couldn’t additional embarassment from being caught in a bold face lie have been avoided in the first place? Wouldn’t it have been a little more admirable to admit: “Yes, I flirted online and things got a little out of control. Though I’m not the first person to ever commit and offense of this nature, I recognize the wrongness of it all. I apologize to my wife and to my constituents.”?

Again, problem solved.

Of course there are plenty more examples I could use. I mean, focusing on the gaffes/lies from people like Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Joe Biden – for instance – would give me enough to write a book. So this post isn’t solely about Palin and Weiner.

That notwithstanding, need I remind you, people: we are dealing with a new day in age here. We find ourselves in a time where our words and actions are not so easily deleted once released to the world. Any attempts we make to sanitize the truth will usually get defeated by the truth itself. That’s why I think it’s important – and indeed, healthy – to simply own up to you mistakes. Doing so will initially sting of embarassment, but it will eventually nullify the ability of others to publicly shame you; especially if you acknowledge your wrongness in a spirit of humility. But defending a lie until the very end can (and usually does) carry with it long-term disadvantages.

At the very least, avoid posting pictures of your penis on the Internet and don’t ramble on cluelessly about American history. From there, it should be smooth sailing.

- ACL

Taking Weinergate in Good “Spirit”

And the jokes keep a ‘coming.

My bet is: Brother Tony will be taking more buses from now on. That is, until Greyhound decides to offer a special Grey Hound Dog fare or something.

- ACL