The Contrarian

Did I Just Call The Entire State of West Virginia Racist?

If not, then I strongly implied it. How 'bout this: West Virginia has racists in her midst. So do other states. But maybe not as many.

Is that a fair assessment?

UPDATE:

Stats from HuffPost:

According to the exit polls, West Virginia’s voters revealed that they are the most racist in the country so far in the Democratic primaries. Fully 20% of the voters consisted of whites who reported that race was a factor, and they voted for Clinton 84-10 over Obama. That’s a total racist vote of 17%, exceeding the racist vote in all of the previous primaries where exit polls were taken, and going far above the 13.7% in Arkansas, the most racist state before now in this election.

So I dunno. You hear all this shit about black women being tortured, and newspaper quotes from people saying things like "‘Hang that darky from a tree!’" and you start to form some opinions.

UPDATE TO THE UPDATE:

Maybe we can just blame the media.

(West) Virginia Is For. . . Losers?

Well, Barry got trounced last night. No surprise there, really — West Virginia is Clinton country. Most people were predicting a 10 to 20 point victory margin, but it ended up being more like 40. What does this say about Clinton's campaign? What does it say about Obama's? What does it say about West Virginia?

Clinton is done. There's nothing she can do about it. West Virginia is a nice score, but doesn't net her many delegates, and certainly not enough to stop Obama. Plus she's 20 million in the hole, and owes tons of money to the small mom & pop vendors who make her signs and pamphlets. (Yet she's good about paying the giant cable companies for her slick ads.) Dana Milbank of the Washington Post compares Hillary's campaign to the Monty Python's infamous dead parrot sketch. Funny. And true.

Obama soldiers on, flag lapel pin and all. It's clear he's gearing up for the general election against John McBush, and he's not gonna let the big defeat in WV distract him. Hillary trumpets the fact that no President since 1916 has been elected without carrying the state. “John Kennedy didn't have the number of delegates he needed when he went to the convention in 1960," she told supporters, "but he had sumpthin' equally as important — he had West Virginia behind him." [My emphasis; her opportunistic adoption of the local parlance.]

The New York Times' Maureen Dowd suggests Obama will have real trouble turning West Virginians his way come the general. That's why his campaign is redrawing the electoral map to concentrate on states previously considered unwinnable by Dems. It' a calculated risk, but it could pay off.

There's really no way to look at the situation in West Virginia without stating the obvious. In a state whose white population tops 95 percent, only one conclusion can be drawn. WV is chock full of racists. This is something the news networks are reluctant to come out and say; instead, they offer anodyne statements like "West Virginian voters are white and socially conservative." Translation: they call black men "boy," and talk gleefully about lynching on call-in radio shows.

An entire state that indulges in open bigotry and willful ignorance. And this is Hillary's base! Maybe the question souldn't be why Obama can't win the undereducated, white and old people vote, but rather why Clinton can't win the educated, young and BLACK vote?

We should just put West Virginia behind us. If they want to wallow in pre-Civil War fantasies about white superiority while the rest of America looks to a post-racial future, I say let 'em. Better yet, let's annex the state and set up reeducation camps like they did in China during the Cultural Revolution. Okay, that's going way too far.

America's racist past is its racist present, at least in pockets of the country. I find this heartbreaking, as I do Clinton's willingness to embrace this sad fact for the sake of political expediency. That's why the so-called "dream ticket" is a joke.

I'd love to see Chuck Hagel as Barry's veep. Anti-war Republican, Vietnam vet, good guy. Who do you think should be on the ticket?

Give Ben Stein Money. . . By Jebson Interlandi

"Darwin said nothing about how life originated."

Who wants to have some fun today? The above quote is from Ben Stein during his appearance on the Glenn Beck show back in 2007. Stein, famous for his classroom-cameo monotones (and speeches for Nixon), released a film in February called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The "documentary" argues for the inclusion of "Intelligent Design" discussions in the public realm, particularly in the classroom.

Although I've yet to see the film, Stein's primary objective seems to be questioning Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Stein suggests that since it hasn't yet explained the origins of existence, Intelligent Design should be entertained as an alternate hypothesis.

Nothing seems to illicit as much bitter back-and-forth as Creationism vs. Evolution, but no one ever talks about how fundamentally STUPID and INEFFECTIVE the entire dispute is. In fact, actual debate between these two worlds is simply impossible. Supposition and science are totally different things.

Now, I'm not an expert. But from my understanding, a theory is an argument that can be falsified through processes of experimentation. In some cases, a theory becomes law, such as the Law of Gravity. Intelligent Design is a claim stating supernatural power(s) deliberately created all Life. It is not a theory, since it can neither be proved or disproved. It's merely somebody's assertion.

Of course, some in the scientific community posit that Existence is the result of a Big Bang, Cosmic Egg, or Electrical Bolt to the Mud Puddle, but these are only guesses. Frankly, this is all anyone can do. Yet there are key differences between empiricism and assumption. Intelligent Design is a conjectural activity with a supernatural worship agenda. Evolution is a theory regarding an ongoing process of adaptation and survival. Evolution utilizes a different critical framework than Creationism, rendering debate between the two futile.

Stein is troubled that Darwin didn't answer how life began or how cells came to be, and his counter-proposal is Intelligent Design. On a recent Bill O'Reilly segment, Stein claimed that supporters of ID are failing to be heard. Hey Stein, guess what? Since at least the days of Thales, every fucking thinker has been discussing and speculating about the supernatural or natural origins of life. The mythological arguments have been made and are certainly well known. They continue to be claims and guesses; that's all they will ever be.

To be fair, Stein is mostly concerned with modern frames of discourse. Scientists and other professionals do run a risk of  harassment if they voice religious beliefs. Freedom of speech still stands, but pointing out the possibility of God or Tiamut is frowned upon in the scientific community, mostly because it's irrelevant to their work. The aim of experimentation and research is to achieve results, and simply saying the world may have been created is unnecessary.

I've said it before: if Intelligent Design wants a place in the classroom the teachers better be prepared to address every single Creation Story known on this planet, as they are all equally possible and impossible. You say Jehovah, I say Uranus.

O'Reilly asks: "Why can't you just mention in Biology class, or whatever class you want, that there are theologians who believe a higher power was responsible for first life?"

Most children do, in fact, know there are theologians who believe in higher powers. Hell, even Secular Progressives are aware of the concept. If you are wondering why public schools don't educate on supernatural primogenitors, it's because we have churches for that. So if you want spoon-fed answers to the unanswerable, you've got a place to go, and plenty of flavors to choose from.

I've heard it suggested that Stein is only in this racket for the money. By rallying for controversial Creationism, Stein is guaranteed attention, publicity and a fatter wallet. Now that's a decent theory.

Predictions.

It occurs to me that endorsing Barack Obama is hardly a Contrarian position, given O's level of support. But I'm about to make a call that should preserve the sanctity of our title.

Back when I threw my lot in for Obama, I made a stern prediction (preserved in this thread at Candleblog) that the junior Senator from Illinois would fail to achieve the nomination of his party. Yet I was still supporting him. Why?

Because Obama is the zeitgeist candidate, who carries with him the germ of possibility that America can, for the first time in recent history, live up to at least some of the "truths" we purport to hold as "self-evident." His candidacy truly represents change, and not just from the cynicism of the last eight years, but also from historic domestic and international policy miscalculations. In other words, it's history calling on that phone at 3 AM. Who's picking up?

Not the Democratic party.

Because the Cintons are the party. Part of its DNA. This is something they've been working towards since Bill left the White House, if not when they were sweeties in college. It's clear that Hillary prizes winning over all. Why else put Osama Bin Laden in her campaign ads, after having publicly condemned the Bushies for employing "the politics of fear?" Or talk about "obliterating" Iran, having previously endorsed "robust diplomacy" in dealings with the country? I guess "robust" is code for "blow your asses off the map."

She clearly believes that aping Republicans on national security is the only way to win in the general election. Has she not seen the public polling on the war in Iraq?

No matter. Again, the Clintons are the party, and what they say goes. So here's the official Contrarian call:

Hillary takes the nomination. She strongarms, bribes and otherwise coerces the superdelegates into going against the majority of pledged delegates and the popular vote. She successfully paints Obama as unelectable. She continues to exploit unfounded (and geopolitically inaccurate) fears about national security.  She tacitly sanctions soft bigotry while loudly accusing the media of sexism. . . on and on, South of Heaven, as Slayer once sang.

And here's the rub: with her impossibly high negatives, Hillary helps to coalesce the conservative vote around the weakest GOP candidate since Bob Dole. Then it's four years with an ill-tempered, ethically-compromised, mentally-addled oldster with zero sense of where his country is at and where it needs to go.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: establishment always wins. America, meet the new boss — same as the old boss.

Why The Fu*k Was George Stephanopoulos Allowed As A Moderator Of Last Night's Democratic "Debate?"

In case you don't recall, this handsome ex-Boy Genius was one of the chief architects of Bill Clinton's 1992 Presidential victory, and later went on to become Clinton's Communications Director.

As a journalist (and current Communications Director), I'm outraged by this flagrant conflict of interest. By allowing Stephanopoulos to question the candidates, ABC completely abandoned any pretense to the principles of ethical reporting. I'd expect this shit out of Fox News, but not the network that gave us the venerable Ted Koppel.

What a joke this debate was. They even brought up Barack's supposed refusal to wear a flag pin. This was a non-issue six months ago, when it was first put forth by an opportunistic media looking to fill airtime. I don't even want to get into the rest of the ludicrous questions. Isn't there a war on? Isn't the economy in the shitter? Isn't our education system a shambles? Say, maybe we should talk about Rev. Wright some more!

I wonder what Hillary promised Stephanopoulos in exchange for these tabloid-worthy attacks on Obama. Given that he quit Bill Clinton's White House due to stress and depression, I doubt it was a position in a new Clinton administration. My guess is that an old favor was repaid on this shameful evening.

In other news, the Pope is in DC. I'm sure it'll make Holy Hell out of my morning commute.

In Defense of Elitism.

Looks great on my mudflaps!

While the gun-totin,' beer slammin,' sniper fire dodgin' free trade lovin' hatin' lovin' Hillary Clinton worms her way into the bitter Christian hearts of rural Pennsylvanian voters, Barack Obama continues to struggle with accusation of elitism. As a dyed-in-the-wool elitist who rests strong in his convictions that half of this country is indeed stupid and/or backwards, I feel Barack's pain, to borrow a phrase from our philandering ex-president (and Hillary Achilles heel), Big Billy C.

So this thing is gonna go to the convention, eh? I'd love a glimpse at the behind-the-scenes skullduggery. And now I've got one! Well, sort of.

Former "West Wing" writer-producer Lawrence O’Donnell Jr gives us an idea of what a four-day Denver deadlock might look like, with all of the garrulous pedantry you'd expect from an Aaron Sorkin attaché.

Via New York Magazine, who clearly know from elitism.

PS: the "West Wing" link originally came from my coworker Chhaya (proprietress of Liquid Sunshine), who in turn got it from Sampo: The Journal of Abundant Media.

Chuck Wagon.

Let's talk about Chuck Klosterman's recent Esquire article, "Anyone Seen My $4.2 Billion?" The print edition came out a while ago, but it's just now making the rounds on the 'nets. I saw it on the Dean's List earlier this morning, then — voilà! — it appears on Idolator, complete with snarky comments.

I have a complicated relationship with Chucky; part derision, part jealousy and a smidgen of admiration. I commend him for making a career out of not-terribly-original, predictably broad cultural observations, but it's a bit like Columbus and America: if Klosterman hadn't discovered the "metal nostalgia + whitebread malaise + geeky romanticism = book deal" formula, someone else of his generation surely would've. Maybe even yours truly. Sigh.

Anyway, Klosterman makes some interesting points, but they're couched in his cute-smarmy prose, which is the essay equivalent of a Tina Fey-penned SNL sketch. The central premise:

People hate corporate record labels and love reading about how the industry is failing. As such, the media coverage of plummeting music sales almost always focuses on how labels are losing money. But this coverage usually ignores an economic element that is less tangible but more interesting: What is happening to all the money not being spent on music?

OK, but what about the surge of profits from video game and DVD sales? Professor K continues:

. . .while CDs, DVDs, and video games are physically similar, and they're sold in the same outlet, the experiences they offer aren't logically connected. I don't see why not having to pay for a Band of Horses album would make a person any more likely to buy a copy of Knocked Up, as opposed to buying four gallons of gas or a pair of sunglasses or a turtle. . .

Uh-huh. And the coup de grace:

. . .my specific theory is this: A lot of the money not spent on music in the twenty-first century is being used to pay off credit-card debt that was incurred during the nineties. In other words, not paying for In Rainbows today is helping people eliminate the balance they still owe for buying Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness when they were broke in 1995.

Yay! We can blame it all on Billy Corgan. I know I always do.

Well, Except One.

Buddhism has some fairy tales in it, but it's prescriptions and disciplines are hardly make-believe. Of course, it might not even be a religion. Or "true," for that matter. [Giggle.]

Thanks to Murf from False 45th for this gem of an article: "Businesses Owners, Customers Upset Over Controversial Billboard." But the rest of us just have deal with your ubiquitous "Christian" propaganda.

Hey, WE GOT OUR HOUSE!!!!!!!

The Lord does move in mysterious ways!

Follow-Up.

Two more worthy New York Times Op-Eds this morning:

"Imagined Snipers, Real Challenges," by Roger Cohen. Money quote:

Barack Obama, his speech on race, did important things. He confronted reality, thought big, probed division, sketched convergence. He took Americans and many people beyond U.S. shores to a different mental place. Imagine that capacity applied to GWOT, Iran, Russia, China and Israel-Palestine.

"Obama, Clinton — and Echoes of Nader?" by Nichoas D. Kristof. Money quote(s):

The battle is getting bloodier. Mrs. Clinton spoke this week about the contest continuing for “the next three months” — and those would surely be a toxic three months. There’s already grumbling that Mrs. Clinton’s real strategy is to destroy Obama’s chances of winning the general election so that she can compete in 2012. . .

. . .if the brawl continues, then [Hillary] and her husband may be remembered by many people who long admired them as having the same effect on Mr. Obama this November that Ralph Nader had on Al Gore in 2000.

What does it matter? We're all gonna die, anyway.

Gotta run — Matt Taibbi is on Joe Scarborough . . .

Let's Get Political. . . Again.

"Bill Richardson said you eat babies!"

As much as I don't want to and have tried desperately not to pay attention to the increasingly bitter battle for the Democratic nomination, I have to get a couple of things off my chest, or I'll explode.

It'll also give me a chance to link to two New York Times Op-Eds about the Horror that is Hillary.

If Clinton somehow secures the nomination (in his damning article "The Long Defeat," David Brooks puts her chances at a mere five percent) I fear that I may actually be morally compelled to sit out one of the most important Presidential elections of my time.

Because I cannot, in good conscience, vote for a person so egocentric and vainglorious that she's willing to tear apart a political party and provide the opposition with electoral ammunition just so she can continue to soak up a spotlight that was never rightfully hers to begin with.

Oh, I know she's smart, shrewd, capable etc. But she has little regard for the Democratic process, or even the future of her party. The Clintons, with their long and tangled relationship with truth and transparency, are willing to twist delegates' arms (and I'm not even talking the super ones) on the road to a Presidency that would be as divisive and polarizing as George W. Bush's.

I'm not saying Barack Obama is perfect. But he's the zeitgeist candidate, the one with the best chance of repairing the damage to America's global reputation, while forging the necessary alliances to solve the legion of domestic problems we currently face. He's a thoughtful, considered, intelligent man who's firm and judicious, yet slow to anger. Obama is our best hope for an American Restoration. I'm wondering if we even deserve him.

Hillary, to borrow Brooks' phrase, represents "the audacity of hopelessness."

I agree with Maureen Dowd that a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket is looking like a pipe dream. Of course, stranger things have happened. John F. Kennedy was no fan of Lyndon Johnson, and they were forced to pair up.

I suppose I could suppress my gag reflex if she was Obama's VP.

But if it's Hillary on top with some other running mate, I may do the unconscionable.

I might just stay home.