Hipster racism, a refresher

Ok, so let me begin by saying, I came pretty late to the party on this whole Colbert thing, and I’m a pretty big fan of Colbert’s brand of humor. I like the absurd. I also like some of Suey Park’s work. But for me the conversation was lost when it became about Suey Park the person. First, I give zero fucks if Park doesn’t get satire, but I think she does. Second, as white people if people of color are telling us something is racist, then it is probably racist. Finally, those upset by Park criticisms really fall into straight up racist and sexist to fanatical fanboy.

The whole things seem to come from a tweet, which is pretty ridiculous when you watch the actual segment. Someone working at Comedy Central wrote a racist tweet. The handle @ColbertReport wrote “I am willing to show #Asian community I care by introducing the Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever.” This is not Stephen Colbert’s Tweeter feed.

I was going to post the clip of the segment, but Viacom...

Yeah, I watched that and cringed. The character Colbert does in the skit is racist; that is yellow face even if it is because some conservative did it first. The segment was supposed to be throwing shade at Snyder’s attempt to prove he’s not a racist by opening a foundation for Native Americans and refusing to recognize the racism of the Washington football team’s name. Satire is defined as using irony, sarcasm, and ridicule to draw attention and dismiss vice, folly, etc. (as defined by Websters). This segment could be satire…I think we should also take a minute to discuss privilege and oppression. Colbert has no place using racism (even hipster racism because its satire) to draw attention to the racism against another group.

This is particularly evident because COLBERT IS A WHITE DUDE! I know you’re shocked. He has a bunch of privilege, and the segment draws attention to a group of people of color who have traditionally been portrayed as the “model minority” and it comes off as an attempt to distract from the struggle of Native Americans who were systematically murdered by our government and now are being dismissed by Snyder. See the oppression is different, damaging on both accounts, but to pretend like all people are color are treated the same is ignorant. This is a decisive attempt by “whiteness” to prevent solidarity building between people of color. That is what I saw when I watched the clip. Colbert’s satire is exactly what “whiteness” has been doing to people of color forever, and I think the argument can be made then that it is failed satire. Keep the Irish and Blacks at each other’s throats on the railroad: they’re taking our jobs. Then the Irish became white, and Jewish people, and it looks like Asian Americans maybe the next group to be assumed into “whiteness”. Now it is immigrants of Central American descent that are the new enemy joining “blackness” in what American society has been trying force race into a binary where white is on one side and black is on the other.

Now, let’s get to the fanboys. You see a lot of people (women too) have been all about how Park didn’t get the joke, well I got the joke, and the joke is racist. It was racist in 2005, and it racist now, and it will be racist tomorrow. The tweet was racist as well, and we give passes to people who make racists tweets in the name of hipster racism because if you remember hipster racism is racism when you say something racist, but then say it was a joke because racists are stupid. But statement is still racist, and you don’t get a pass for acknowledging it after you say it. The fanboys did what they do, they rushed to defend Colbert and Comedy Central because as you know, they are going to be destroyed by this. *appropriate use of sarcasm* Often this defense was shrouded in sexism and racism, which just went to echo the underlining issues with race within the US.

Dr. Brittney Cooper calls out the exact sentiment here from the left and black people in unilateral defense of Colbert because Colbert gives some of the best racial commentary, but that is a reactionary impulse. Read Cooper’s article, it is very good and clear. Remember when you read it Cooper is talking about “blackness” the way I’m talking about “whiteness” as a social construct that only has the meaning we give it, and that does not mean all white people or individual people.

JN and JJ have excellent points as well about Park’s treatment on Twitter and how while they disagree with her argument: the response to her is overwhelmingly problematic. These two are pretty smart so while I’m not sure if we still disagree, their arguments are well thought out. Follow them on Twitter, if nothing else for the funny; I'm pretty sure JN is on some kind of watch list. We, like many people on Twitter, were probably having two different conversations with one another at the same time. (That should really be Twitter’s tagline.)

Northwestern gets to organize, but white people don’t like it

I think I’ve written about the attempts of Northwestern football players to unionize, well the National Labor Relations Board in Chicago ruled they can on Wednesday. Northwestern said they’d appeal the ruling.

According to Sara Ganim for CNN, the university claimed the students weren’t employers and can’t unionize while the student argued they were employers being paid via scholarships, working between 20 and 50 hours a week, and generating millions of dollars for their institutions. The athletes want better medical coverage, concussion testing, four-year scholarships, and the possibility of being paid. You know outlandish demands.

The regional NLRB office said any review requests have to be filed in DC by April 9. The appeal could go as far as the Supreme Court and will likely take years to resolve. The NCAA said it was disappointed with the ruling and disagreed “with the notion that student-athletes are employees.” NCAA Chief legal officer Donald Remy said,

“We frequently hear from student-athletes, across all sports, that they participate to enhance their overall college experience and for the love of their sport, not to be paid. While improvements need to be made, we do not need to completely throw away a system that has helped literally millions of students over the past decade alone attend college.

“We want student-athletes—99 percent of whom will never make it to professional leagues—focused on what matters most---finding success in the classroom, on the field of life.”

Fuck this guy. Let’s be clear, the students are employees, but without job security if they are injured some can lose their scholarships so much for focusing on the classroom. They have shit insurance, as all of us did when we got it through our universities. Finally, these students are overwhelming people of color working as entertainment for white people; that is a clear oppressive power dynamic.

Former Northwestern University’s President Henry Bienen has threaten to give up Division I sports, “If we got into collective bargaining situations, I would not take for granted that the Northwesterns of the world would continue to play Division I sports.”

Sounds like union busting threats to me. Of course, he also noted that some academically rigorous institutions opted out of the current model to preserve academic integrity. Notably 15% of men’s football, baseball, and basketball players have said they would have had different majors if not for athletes. Additionally, 12% of Division I football players said athletes caused them to forego majors they wanted. They also found that the average time devoted to sports hovered around 40 hours per week, which is in direct violation of the NCAA 20-hour rule.

So back to the issues of social construction, well we know that college sports are pretty sexist. They invest far more funds into men’s sports than women’s, they cover up sexual assaults committed by players (Norte Dame, Duke, Penn State, not OSU though where our couch benches anyone accused like a boss), and then the whole recruitment process which lends itself to rape culture, and I’m sure I’m missing things.

I read on Deadspin this morning, that white people don’t really want college athletes to be paid, in a piece written by Barry Pechesky. He cites a poll by the Washington Post and ABC News, which found that the majority of Americans are opposed to paying student-athletes, mostly white Americans. Try to contain your shock.

The findings showed that 33% of respondents were strongly or somewhat in support of paying salaries to student-athletes, while 64% strongly or somewhat opposed it. Of all respondents about 56% were college sports fans. As you may expect, young, liberal, less religious people are more likely to support salaries, while old, conservative, religious people opposed pay. I can’t really work out that religious piece, because Jesus.

Naturally, the real difference was in race. White people opposed paying student-athletes by a 72-24 margin, while non-white respondents supported salaries for student-athletes by a 51-46 margin. There is a 47-47 split when respondents were asked if they were in favor of student-athletes forming unions, of course with similar breakdowns.

Obviously, I’m in favor of unions and pay for student-athletes because of the dangers and lack of protection in these sports and institutions. I find the system (while I like sports) to be exploitative of low-income men of color. And of course the awful racial implications of promising an escape from poverty through the means of sports for the entertainment of white, wealthy, educated people. Anyone else feel like they need a shower? But this is what inequity yields, who am I to decide this is an unreasonable attempt for class jumping? However, if it is going to be a means, then it has to be fully thought out and as beneficial as possible for those participating.

Let's throw out the Electoral College

I’m pretty excited about the possibility of this because we don’t need the Electoral College. Both houses of the New York legislature voted to join a multi-state compact to ensure the person who received the most votes in the presidential election would become President of the United States. As we all know the Electoral College enables a person who loses the popular vote to win because of Electoral votes. This has happened four times in the history of the US. Ian Millhiser wrote about it for ThinkProgress.

The bill is waiting for Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s signature, which would add New York to an agreement to award the state’s electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote of the nation as a while regardless of who wins the popular vote in New York. This compact does not take effect until a bloc of states totally 270 electoral votes (the total needed to win the Electoral College) agrees to sign on. The compact will end the risk that the losing candidate will become president.

If the bill is signed it will bring the compact’s total to 160. The idea behind this is candidates have no incentive to campaign in some states, while other swing states (Ohio) get all the attention. Of course, most of the states that have signed on to this compact have been blue state instead of red states. Oklahoma is the first state that leans Republican to come to the compact.

I think we should throw out the Electoral College because it is condescending and as far as I’m concerned continues to keep the powerful in power. That said, I wonder about the implications for funding, specifically whether people with a lot of private funding (their own funds for example) will have better luck campaign in every state, which would now be necessary. Then again, the only people who ever win elections are from the upper class so this probably won’t matter anyway.

Hobby Lobby and lunacy

Sometimes I have frustrating days, but then someone on the Internet decides to explain policy (labor and healthcare policy this time) to me, which makes me feel smart and pretty, like really smart and pretty.

To the beginning! Hobby Lobby is suing over the birth control mandate in the Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare), and I’ve written about it before as a labor issue. The case is Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Store, Inc. and Conestoga Wood v. Sebelius, and we should all read SCOTUS’s blog before we talk about be because otherwise we’ll look really fucking ignorant…like the dude on Twitter who things having a penis makes him more knowledgeable than everyone (inferred of course). SCOTUS lists the issue as:

“Issue: Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., which provides that the government  ‘shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion’ unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest, allows a for-profit corporation to deny its employees the health coverage of contraceptives to which the employees are otherwise entitled by federal law, based on the religious objections of the corporation’s owners.”

 One issue as I see them is how far Citizen’s United goes, right? It upheld the rights of corporations, unions, and associations to donate money to campaigns. However, it is being largely interpreted as corporations are people because Scalia interpreted it that way. So if corporations are people then corporations have religious freedom. How one goes about deciding who gets to determine which religion seems to be the owners (who are a monolithic group?). Then by extension, how much control over employees can employers exercise?

This second issue is where the Supreme Ladies really came after Hobby Lobby and Conestoga’s lawyer. Sahil Kapur wrote a piece for Talking Points Memo on how the women Supreme Court Justices taking the birth control challengers to task for you know being stupid and inconsistent. It began with Justice Sonia Sotomayor who challenged the lawyer’s, Paul Clement, claim of a religious objection as an exception from the general law, “There are many people who have religious objections to vaccinations.”

Clement responded with each case would have to be individually evaluated under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). However, it was Justice Elena Kagan, who asked the particularly aggressive questions saying, “There are quite a number of medical treatments that religious groups object to.” She was position the discussion that a ruling against the Obama administration could allow businesses to seek exemptions from laws about sec discrimination, family leave, and the minimum wage (the article leaves out tithe). “You’d see religious objectors come out of the woodwork.”

My lady, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also asked skeptical questions about the argument that the mandate infringes on the RFRA. We can’t predict the outcome because SCOTUS is hella conservative. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito asked difficult questions of the administration while giving easy ones to the challenger’s lawyer. Justice Clarence Thomas didn’t say anything, which is kind of typical for him (someone I’m assuming check his pulse and kept waking him up).

Once again, Justice Anthony Kennedy will likely decide; he asked skeptical questions of U.S. Solicitor General Donald Vernilli, defending the government, and fewer of Clement. Kennedy didn’t seem convinced that the birth control mandate satisfied the scrutiny under RFRA, saying the government’s reasoning could force businesses to pay for abortions. However, he wondered aloud whether the right of employers trumped the right of female employees who are guaranteed concentration coverage under the ACA. Kagan also directly warned ruling against the mandate harms women, “Congress has made a judgment and Congress has given a statutory entitlement and that entitlement is to women and includes contraceptive coverage. And when the employer says, no, I don’t want to give that, that woman is quite directly, quite tangibly harmed.

Of course, as Kevin Drum points out for Mother Jones the law probably doesn’t matter much anyway. See this is the first of what appears to be several challenges to ACA. Drum states,

“There’s no precedent for corporations having rights of religious freedom in the first place, and that along seems like enough to toss the case out. But even if they do, the plaintiffs have to show that the contraception requirement imposes a ‘substantial burden’ on them. They argument is that if they don’t comply, they’ll get hit by substantial penalties. But that’s ridiculous. The question is whether complying with the law is a substantial burden.”

 Drum continues to note there little to no evidence that contraception coverage impacts the costs of health insurance for employers. Additionally, in the case of Hobby Lobby, all they have to do is continue the health coverage they have always offered (they offered contraception coverage before ACA).

Of course, none of this will matter.

“Four justices just don’t like the Obamacare mandate and will vote anywhere and at anytime to strike it down. Four justices will vote to uphold the mandate. Anthony Kennedy will provide the swing vote. It’s also possible, I suppose, the John Roberts will vote to uphold the mandate, simple on the principle that having upheld Obamacare once before on a slim technicality…”

 Drum’s probably right. Law doesn’t really matter anymore. We’re being held hostage by conservative religious zealots in Congress, and they’re well on their way to taking over the Supreme Court.

Poverty is expensive, and so is letting people be poor

You know the funny thing about poverty? It is pretty expensive, and it is definitely more cost effective to just give people money and homes. Scott Keyes discusses this for ThinkProgress. Studies have proven this time and time again. Giving the homeless homes is more cost effective than having to place them during weather emergencies, and that is before the medical costs of living on the streets.

Keyes points to a new study coming out of Charlotte and the University of North Carolina Charlotte which examines a new apartment complex what aims to assist homeless people. Moore Place has 85 unit and was opened in 2012. The residents are required to contribute 30% of their income as rent, which includes benefits such as disability, veterans, or Social Security. The rest of the housing costs are covered by a mix of both local and federal grants and private donors, totally $14,000 per person annually.

Researchers found Moore Place saved taxpayers more than $1.8 million in the first year. These savings come from health care and incarceration. Because of course. The researchers found that Moore Place residents visited the emergency room 447 fewer times in the year after getting housing. These residents had fewer problems with the law as well; arrests dropped 78%. Additionally, despite opponents fears, only 15 tenants got in trouble and were asked to leave Moore Place in the first year. Due to the large success, Charlotte City Council has unanimously approved $1 million more to Moore Place for 120 more units.

Welp, can’t say any of this is surprising except that Charlotte is supporting this initiative. Fingers-crossed other cities take note including let’s say DC, with their ridiculous homelessness and housing problems. Remember DC don’t have many beds for the homeless, which was a huge issue this past winter because SNOW.