Month: January 2011

The reader who sparked the debate on heritage writes:

Following up on all the hackles raised by the original post, I of course, instinctively feel the need to defend myself, however futile that may be. (While I appreciate this reader's perspective, they still imply that we are closet racists.)

I think it's fairly useless to debate personal bigotry with strangers – like beating your head against a wall, really. You say you aren't (look at all these great examples!) and someone else says you are (but what about X, Y, and Z?) and, well, that wall is not getting any less hard.

So I will just point your readers to one of the main sources of training our agency provided, namely the Struggle for Identity videos here. My examples, besides being easily caricatured (who knew "kim-chee example" would resonate?), were merely the tip of the iceberg for the individuals (transracial adoptees) who tell their stories in these videos, and I encourage your readers to give them their due. (I realize there's only a preview, summary, and comments without purchasing the DVD, but I think a number of adoption agencies offer training using this DVD; also see a few clips on YouTube.)

I also recently came across a very interesting Time article on trans-racial adoption from 2008. In it, some experts say we have really moved into an era where race doesn't matter, a post-racial world. I think it sounds great but is not actual reality in most places. From the article:

"All adopted children face challenges with being adopted," says R. Richard Banks, a Stanford Law professor and author of The Color of Desire: Fulfilling Adoptive Parents' Racial Preferences through Discriminatory State Action. "To some people, saying we want children to develop a positive identity means a positive racial identity. But it could be a good thing not to have a strong racial identity. The difference is a reflection of our beliefs about what black people should be and what white people should be."

Banks likens the debate over transracial adoption to the question of whether same-sex couples can be suitable parents. "It is true that [the children of gay couples are] more likely to experiment sexually when they're older, and they're less likely to be he-men or girly girls. But you could argue that that's a good thing to not have such starkly defined gender differences. It's a question of what counts as a good sexual identity." Treating parents differently because they want to adopt across racial lines would suggest "there's something abnormal about transracial adoption," says Banks, adding, "mostly these issues reflect our own anxieties about seeing mixed-race families."

I really don't agree with Banks, though. The fact that we don't feel prepared to parent transracially absolutely does not mean we think there's "something abnormal" about it. In fact, we are ourselves a mixed race couple and so, if we do adopt an Asian child, one of us will be a transracial parent. But since the other parent is Asian (half), however, we do feel equipped to connect the child with his or her Asian roots. It would not be different if we had close family or friends who were of a different race; we would feel equipped to connect a child of that race to his or her _____ roots as well. The article ends with something I do agree with:

Still, says Adam Pertman, executive director of the Donaldson Institute, we're doing a disservice to children if we try to ignore those racially based anxieties. "We just want to assess whether people are ready to parent a child who's going to face racism," he says. "Helping kids feel comfortable in their own skin leads to better outcomes." That can certainly be accomplished by finding the best parents for the children who need them regardless of race, but also by supporting adoptive families with consideration for their ethnic make-up. Says Pertman: "Nobody's saying black kids shouldn't have white parents, but does anybody really think we live in a fully color-blind society? It's a nice ideal but it's not reality."

In closing, I'd just say that our feelings on this are continuing to evolve. It's very possible that sometime in the near future we will open ourselves up to more races and thereby commit to connecting our future child to those cultures as best we can. But if you listen to the stories from the adult adoptees in the videos I linked above, according to them, we'd be doing a disservice to that child if we didn't already have strong connections to a community in that culture.

Andrew Sprung explores in detail Loughner's obsession with this subject. It seems like a metaphor along with "grammar" to describe government control of some sort or other. Andrew believes that Loughner is just mentally ill, without any politics as such. I pretty much agree on the evidence we now have, but then statements like these hang in the air:

The majority of citizens in the United States of America have never read the United States of America's Constitution. You don't have to accept the federalist laws. Nontheless, read the United States of America's Constitution to apprehend all of the current treasonous laws. You're literate, listener?

In some way, Andrew posits, Loughner seems to believe in "the inherent illegitimacy of the Constitution or its later corruption (again, it's not clear which)." Then this:

Firstly, the current governmental officials are in power for their currency, but I'm informing you for your new currency!  If you're treasurer of a new money system, then you're responsible for the distributing of a new currency. We now know – the treasurer for a new money system, is the distributor of the new currency. As a result, the people approve a new monetary system which is promising new information that's accurate, and we truly believe in a new currency. Above all, have you your new currency, listener?

The man is mentally ill, so maybe any attempt to understand this is futile. But to describe this as having nothing to do with politics is a stretch.

Marc Lynch cautions that recent protests have Arab world "on edge":

Defenders of the [Arab] regimes generally try to define the events as food and price riots, or else as externally fomented terrorism. Few independent columnists or activists agree with the idea that these are simply food and price riots, or external terrorism. They point to the underlying political problems which have enabled the economic mismanagement and corruption and lack of opportunity. 

Julian Sanchez explains:

Most people assume their online communications enjoy the same Fourth Amendment protection as traditional dead-tree-based correspondence, but the statutory language allows the contents of “electronic communications” to be obtained using those D-orders if they’re older than 180 days or have already been “opened” by the recipient. Unlike traditional search warrants, which require investigators to establish “probable cause,” D-orders are issued on the mere basis of “specific facts” demonstrating that the information sought is “relevant” to a legitimate investigation. Fortunately, an appellate court has recently ruled that part of the law unconstitutional—making it clear that the Fourth Amendment does indeed apply to email… a mere 24 years after the original passage of the law.

He calls this "one more reminder that our digital privacy laws are long overdue for an upgrade."

Howard Gleckman begs Obama to address tax reform in his SOTU:

Watch what Obama says in two weeks. If he ignores [tax] reform, the issue is almost surely finished for the next two years. If, by contrast, he puts the issue at the top of his 2011-2012 agenda, something may actually happen.

Today on the Dish, Andrew live-blogged Obama's moving speech in Tucson. He still didn't buy Palin's victimization, which tightened her grip on the base. Readers broke down her skewed logic on whether rhetoric can inspire violence, Ezra Klein seconded Andrew on what she should have said, and Scott Benen focused on the ever-opaque Palin model of interacting with the press. We worked Dan Riehl over for his vile discourse and moral grandstanding, and Jews apologized to Palin. The left also had a bullseye map, and Andrew nominated Boehner to revolutionize the right in tone. Clive Crook pushed back against anger, Mark Thompson grew tired of debate over debate, and a reader amended Buchanan's Yglesias nomination. Nate Silver applied statistics to threats and tried to understand the evolution of the gun debate. Choire Sicha couldn't compute how we identify crazy, and Shafer sized up Loughner's mugshot. Tony Woodlief feared for his own parenting habits, and readers balked at involuntarily committing patients. Serwer and Sullum rejected Loughner's schizophrenic connections to cannabis, Andrew pored over his gamer days and political obsessions, and we grasped at the science of Giffords' survival here.

John Seabrook marked the Haiti earthquake anniversary on a personal note, Brazil whooped the US in combatting poverty, Cowen explained why the French succeed, and Stieg Larsson's trilogy upended our assumptions about Sweden. Larison had concerns about South Sudan, Schwarzenegger never wanted a safety net, and conservates and liberals both thought the other was illegitimate. Readers offered more background info on adoptions, and on the war against meth. Ta-Nehisi feared for the film adaptation of the Great Gatsby, Jessa Crispin decoded Berlin through books, some compliments were never doled out to restaurant websites, and 50 Cent made mad money off of Twitter.

Deep thought of the day here, unemployed in Brooklyn advice here, VFYW here, Malkin award here, cool ad watch here, MHB here and here, FOTD here, and dissent of the day here.

–Z.P.

9.42 pm To rate this address on any political meter would be to demean it. The president wrested free of politics tonight and spoke of greater things. I pledge myself to try and follow his advice and debate with vigor and spirit and candor and bluntness, but with more civility, more empathy, and, yes, more love.

9.35 pm I am glad that the president has said we should debate the manifold ways in which we can help prevent this from occurring again; but that we should debate these things in a way that is worthy of the victims, in a way that would make them proud. It's an elegant threading of a very small needle. Watching Christina Green's parents as the president speaks brings home the enormity of this crime. Making her brief nine years of life the focus for hope and inspiration is a lovely peroration.

"I want America to be as good as [Christina] imagined it."

And one senses palpably that Obama's own love for his own daughters is behind this message.

9.31 pm Obama suggests that this sudden tear in our communal fabric can be a chance to reconsider our lives and our loves. It has been a deeply spiritual speech, and it has transcended politics, which was not as easy as he made it appear.

9.27 pm "What we cannot do is use this as another occasion to turn on each other."

9.23 pm. The way in which Obama has made this about the heroism and character of those who were on the scene has been a grace-filled re-focus on the hope, rather than the anger.

9.20 pm. I find myself in tears, as the president speaks of Gabrielle Giffords' eyes opening for the first time since she was attacked. This is profoundly emotional in ways I did not quite expect. And cathartic.

9.13 pm. Another sentence that should not uplift us, but does: "A Republican, she took a liking to Gabby, and wanted to get to know her more." What a concept.

9.11 pm. I did not know that John Roll was on his way back from Mass – something he did every day, according to the president.

9.01 pm. Napolitano reading Isaiah was a lovely touch. Holder's invocation of Corinthians was also strikingly devout. How wonderful to see Scripture invoked this way by public officials. And restraint.

8.50 pm. I haven't written anything so far because it, well, seems inappropriate. This speaks for itself. All I can say is that hearing governor Jan Brewer being so graceful to the president in her introduction was uplifting. That such a courtesy should be uplifting is a terrible sign of where we now find ourselves.

Because on a day like today – after the last week – we need as many as we can find. Here’s our kind of Republican:

I will, of course, be live-blogging the event at 8 pm.

A reader writes:

Your hatred of Palin has completely clouded your judgment on this incident. As Ezra Klein pointed out (and which you failed make note of in your posting of his comments), Palin should feel aggrieved.  She is being blamed partly for this horrible incident.  Maybe you need to step back and think how you would feel, if someone were to attack her or her family, and then have people blame you because you have written very critical opinions of her.

I do not hate Sarah Palin. I wish I had never heard of her. I just think it was farcical that she was proposed as a possible president of the United States, and fear that her polarizing, vindictive, divisive personality has hurt this country and could lead into very dangerous territory.

But the first problem with the meme that Palin was partly blamed for the shooting by the entire MSM is that it's wrong.

Maybe a handful did so, with Kos the most egregious. It's inexcusable and wrong and I didn't go there. But the person who did go there, months before she was shot, was Giffords herself, presciently.

If Giffords hadn't herself predicted possible violence as a result of Palin's cross-hairs, Palin would not be anywhere near this story. That's the simple and amazing truth.

The proof of this is that you will find not a mention of Giffords' statement on any of the right-wing blogs. On the Dish, we air dissent and as much information as we can. And in that spirit, a bleg: can anyone find for me a reference to Giffords' MSNBC statement on a conservative or Republican blog?

A reader made this point before, but it's worth making again. Palin's key point in her video is that no words can inspire or enrage or mislead or whip up someone to murder another person:

"Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them."

But then she directly contradicts this by arguing that airing concerns about violent rhetoric after such an incident – rhetoric that Giffords herself personally flagged as dangerous – "serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn." But if violence cannot be incited by language, then no harm could possibly come of such a discussion.

More poisonously, it seems to me that the history of the blood libel against Jews is a very powerful rebuttal of the loopy case that rhetoric cannot lead to or inspire violence. If you read "Hitler's Willing Executioners" by Daniel Goldhagen, or a unforgettable book like "We Wish To Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families," by Philip Gourevitch, on the Rwanda genocide, you will learn that eliminationist rhetoric is, in fact, a necessary condition for pogroms or genocides to occur. Palin takes the example of ancient anti-Semitism to invert the lessons of history.

The ignorance and narcissism are staggering. But they do not surprise me. How could they, after all we have learned about this farce of a public figure over the past two and a half years?