Richard Kim writes a piece about why we should remember all of who Michael Jackson was, warts and all:
Our fascination with Whack-o Jack-o has never been only, or even primarily, with his prodigious skills. It was with the way he personified our culture's most central ambitions to whiteness, immortality, wealth, real estate and fame. Lodged somewhere between the superhuman and the alien, aspiration and disgust, Jackson was a grotesque reflection of our collective desires.
Yea, I think that's right (minus the needless use of "Whack-o Jack-o").
The fellas over at The League of Ordinary Gentleman have been all up and through my blog lately. I am aware of this and am very okay wit it. At this point, LOG is my favorite blog to read along with my boy Ta-Nehisi Coates.
Here is Freddie goin hard at how useless the national conversation of race has become:
But those who immediately and harshly react to any suggestion of racial impropriety don’t want any discussion at all. And that’s what a really huge amount of our racial dialogue, at present, amounts to, a sustained campaign to whittle down the parameters of appropriate debate, and to cast anyone who alleges racism or something like it out of the bounds of respectability. We don’t live in a post-race society, and we aren’t moving towards one, but we are moving towards a post-race-discussion society. That’s an incredibly dangerous thing.
Precisely. Hats off to you, Freddie.
Freddie over at the steller League of Ordinary Gentleman makes a passionate plea for anti-health care reform folks to take a look at themselves, saying:
I believe that for people in the most powerful economy in the history of the world to lack for access to health care is an obscenity. I believe it makes folly of our claims to be a moral nation and undermines the very notion of democratic community. I don’t expect people who don’t agree to change their minds. But we are not asking this for no reason; we are asking this because of real and devastating suffering. Even I don’t believe that this suffering is the only meaningful part of the discussion. I know in my heart that a discussion that fails to interrogate it as an essential fact is as useless as it is immoral.
William Jelani Cobb compares Obama's incrementalism on gay rights to that of Kennedy with civil rights in the 60s, and warns:
The president would do well to define this moment by taking immediate action to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" or ensure adoption rights for homosexual, bisexual and transgender families. Kennedy believed that promoting civil rights would jeopardize other aspects of his domestic agenda during a national crisis. Barack Obama has a broader set of crises to resolve than any president in modern history, but that is not a rationale for inaction on this issue.
Then he goads us, the people:
Ultimately, the gay rights movement will have to learn something that the civil rights movement learned again and again during the 20th century — it is often necessary to force the hand of even your allies to achieve your goals.
E.D. Kain over at my new favorite blog, The League of Ordinary Gentleman, drops rational on the health care reform debate:
I suppose, beyond all this, medicine – like education, or crime – seems to be an area wherein profits ought to be secondary…We need to reevaluate how we treat this problem. Not everything having to do with the public or societal or communal good needs to be labeled communist.