Ta-Nehisi Coates

The Big Thing

Tue,10 Nov 2009 20:00:00 GMT

I'm going to take a moment to mull over Jeff's response, because frankly, some of it is beyond my rather basic knowledge of events. Anyway, I wanted you guys to see it, and offer some immediate thoughts. I'll revisit this in a day or so, with some more thorough reasoning.

I was asking for the "big thing." Jeff offers a parable before the "big thing."

Let me use an example from my own religious group (I'm Jewish, in case any of you were wondering) to illustrate a possible answer to this question. Jonathan Pollard, an intelligence analyst for the Navy, was convicted of spying on behalf of Israel in 1986. Pollard's actions cast a shadow over many Jews working in the American national security apparatus. Loyal Americans were questioned, and sometimes denied security clearances, simply because they were Jewish, or had visited Israel. The FBI pursued some dubious cases, including the recently-aborted prosecution of two former AIPAC employees, in large part because of fears that another Pollard was lurking somewhere inside the American government.

Was it fair that loyal American Jews had their patriotism questioned by the FBI? No. Was it right of the FBI, in the wake of the Pollard case, to be concerned that Israel, having turned one American Jew into a spy, had turned others? Unfortunately, yes. I'm not excusing the witch-hunts that took place after the Pollard scandal, but I am saying that it would have been a dereliction of duty on the part of the FBI to ignore, because of political correctness, an actual threat. Ultimately, it was the fault of Jonathan Pollard, and the Israeli officials who used him as a spy, that innocent American Jews were suspected of spying for Israel.

This actually helps crystallize a few things for me. Ceding that events did unfold this way, (I'm only loosely up on the Pollard case) I strongly disagree with Jeff. I think it's very wrong to deny someone a security clearance, and question them, as Jeff says, "simply because they were Jewish or had visited Israel."

Morality aside, it doesn't even strike me as very smart. We can't whittle down a class of suspects anymore than "is Jewish?" What about people who are spying for money? What about the hostility you earn by interrogating people strictly because they have the wrong last name? I took a cursory look at Pollard's wikipedia entry, and from what I can tell, there are many reasons why Pollard should have been flagged that go beyond ancestry and travel itinerary:

Within two months of being hired, the technical director of the NFOIO, Richard Haver, requested that Pollard be terminated.^{[clarification needed]} This came after a reckless and inappropriate conversation with the new hire in which Pollard offered to start a back-channel operation with the South African intelligence service and lied about his own father's involvement with the CIA.^[8]
Instead of terminating Pollard, Haver's boss decided to reassign him to a human-gathered intelligence operation. This was apparently because Pollard had a friend from graduate school in the South African intelligence service.^[8] In the vetting process for this position, Pollard, it was later discovered, lied repeatedly: he denied illegal drug use, claimed his father had been a CIA operative, misrepresented his language abilities and his educational achievements, and claimed to have applied for a commission as officer in the Naval Reserve.^[8] A month later Pollard applied for and received a transfer to the Naval Investigative Service (NIS) surface ships division while keeping his TF-168 position. (NIS was the precursor to NCIS.)
While transferring to his new job at the NIS, Pollard again initiated a meeting with someone far up the chain of command, this time with Admiral Sumner Shapiro, about an idea he had for TF 168 and South Africa (the TF 168 group had passed on his ideas). After the meeting, Shapiro immediately ordered that Pollard's security clearances be revoked and that he be reassigned to a non-sensitive position. According to The Washington Post, Shapiro dismissed Pollard as a "kook," saying later, "I wish the hell I'd fired him".^[9]
Because of the job transfer, Shapiro's order to remove Pollard's security clearances slipped through the cracks.

Again, I'm not up on all the facts, and maybe this entry is off, but I can't see how you conclude from this that the answer is to profile Jewish agents. And according to Jeff's own example, it wasn't the answer. The upshot was that we ended up prosecuting two people on a really flimsy case and the FBI was embarrassed, no? That's what we don't want, right?

This is not a small point, it gets to a core disagreement, as Jeff outlines the "big thing"

But I think the evidence is growing that the military ignored some pretty obvious warning signs in Hasan's case, signs that Hasan himself seemed to be providing: The Washington Post reports today on Hasan's extraordinary presentation about jihad to his fellow physicians at Walter Reed. It seems as if he was trying to communicate something to a military that wasn't listening. Here's Ta-Nehisi's "big thing" -- perhaps we should take slightly more seriously the degree to which jihadist thought has penetrated parts of the American Muslim community.

It does seem clear that the military ignored some pretty obvious warning signs. But just like there's significant difference between being an intelligence officer with the last name Silverman, and being an intelligence officer who repeatedly lies to his superiors, there's significant difference between merely being a Muslim in the Army and being a soldier attempting to cooperate with Al Qaeda.

As for Jeff's last point (that "we should take slightly more seriously the degree to which jihadist thought has penetrated parts of the American Muslim community") I agree--with an emphasis on "parts." But "parts" has to mean more than "regular mosque attendance," or "took a trip to Mecca." Or "has a funny last name."

These are my off-the-cuff thoughts. More later.

Awse

Tue,10 Nov 2009 19:00:00 GMT

Heh, it's Jem! Jem is excitement! What? You thought I was all Tiamat, Roadblock and Galvatron? Come on. Jem is probably one of the most progressive cartoons of its era. Plus she's outrageous. In any language. Kenyatta says the Misfits had better songs, though.

In Which I Agree With Stanley Crouch

Tue,10 Nov 2009 18:00:00 GMT

On Precious star, Gabourey Sidibe:

Precious: Based On The Novel Push By Sapphire, is extremely powerful, but I sincerely doubt it will change anything for black actresses in Hollywood. The film is strong, but not that strong.
Even if totally successful on every level--from box office receipts to a cultural shift away from the paralysis of self-pity--Hollywood will continue to go along as it has gone. Too many people are satisfied with the cardboard darkies that supposedly represent black women on film in the past.

This is basically true, but it's important to acknowledge some other truths. Doing more than cardboard cut-outs in Hollywood is always tough. Furthermore, women--in general--are always hurting for decent roles. It's true that there is no black Meryl Streep, but I really can't think of another white one either.

But more than race, Sidibe is actually compromised by her size. I highly doubt that there will be very many roles for any woman, of any color, who is 300plus pounds. This is why I'm pretty numb to all the celebration of Precious's willingness to defy Hollywood's norms in terms of body image. The girl's size is part of the story. When I see Sidibe cast in a "normal" story, I'll be impressed.

One last thing--it's important to acknowledge why people go see movies. Escapism is part of it. In some respect, people want to live in a world where everyone is "pretty" or "handsome." Hollywood could probably loosen its standards, some. But in large measure, I don't think Hollywood is much worse than the audience it serves.

Open Thread At Noon

Tue,10 Nov 2009 17:00:00 GMT

Go for it, folks.

Black Elves

Tue,10 Nov 2009 16:26:06 GMT

Also, am I the only African-American gamer who makes his toons look as black as possible? It's the weirdest thing. My younger brother takes this to laughable extremes--in WoW he made his tauren druid as dark as he could. Even on my blood elf pally, I made sure he had a tan. Still got the shock of red hair though. I need that.

Dragon-Age--Preliminary Thoughts

Tue,10 Nov 2009 16:00:00 GMT

Someone asked, last week, about my favorites computer role-playing games, ones which I thought did a solid job of narrative. Like all old people, I think everything great that ever happened in the world, happened when I was young. Thus I have a romantic attachment to the era of Might and Might II, the Bard's Tale series, and Ultima. The Gold Box games are the pinnacle for me--I think Pool of Radiance might be the most incredible gaming experience I've ever had. It wasn't just the game, it was seeing actual D&D played out on screen. Before that, Ultima/Bard's Tale/M&M all felt like knock-offs of what we all knew we wanted--an elven Fighter-Magic User, a halfling thief, and dwarf fighter. Of course we're all knock-offs of Lord Of The Rings, so there. A few other mentions of role-playing games from the 80s--Below The Root, Mobius and Legacy of the Ancients. Legacy was particularly well done.

The mid-late 90s crop are almost certainly better games--Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale are just stellar. I really wish they had made BG a trilogy. Might and Magic 6 and 7 are both really underrated games--the sheer sprawl of the world, the number of options, are all overwhelming in a good way. But the sad thing is that after I went to MMOs, I stopped playing single-player games, so there's a gap in my RPG experience. I'm actually deeply tempted to go back and play The Longest Journey, which is supposed to be just incredible.

All of this is a long way of saying I just started Dragon Age: Origins, and frankly, it's a miracle I'm here blogging right now and not hacking my way through Darkspawn. Oh who am I kidding, by the time you read this I will almost certainly be hacking my way through Darkspawn. Seriously though, I haven't really had much time for WoW lately--work has been rather insane, so I've had to go back to the single-player joints. I find it easier to jump in, get my fix for 30 minutes, and then get back to work.

As a fan of Bioware, I've been waiting on Dragon's Age for a long-time now, and it really doesn't disappoint. It reminds me a lot of Oblivion, but better. I think Oblivion offers more options, in terms of customizing, but the game was just too big for me. It felt really lonely, and combat felt non-intuitive. The thing about Dragon's Age is you can actually see people doing cool shit--like ripostes etc.

My one beef with the game is the gore--it's way too much. Bioware was attempting to make a "mature" game. But mature can mean much more than guts and fucking, and you can tell the developers know this because DAO is actually mature in some of its themes. But the gore actually makes the game look less mature. It makes it feel like it was built for twelve year olds who want to feel like their doing something forbidden. In other words, the gore in DAO is mature in the way that Hustler is mature. I'm not arguing for no gore, and no blood. I love the realism. But in DAO it feels like the gore goes beyond what would actually happen. It feels cartoonish.

Back on story, It felt right to play the descendants of slaves (What can I say? Even when I'm role-playing, I'm hood.), so I picked an elf. I don't want to say too much about the game, but the sequence where you have to storm the castle and save your betrothed is really intense. I'll have more to say as I get further in. But for right now, color me impressed.

Not To Push The Point...

Tue,10 Nov 2009 15:00:00 GMT

...but Yglesias pulls out this statement from United States Conference of Bishops on the murder of George Tiller:

"Our bishops' conference and all its members have repeatedly and publicly denounced all forms of violence in our society, including abortion as well as the misguided resort to violence by anyone opposed to abortion," Cardinal Rigali said. "Such killing is the opposite of everything we stand for, and everything we want our culture to stand for: respect for the life of each and every human being from its beginning to its natural end. We pray for Dr. Tiller and his family."

Now, Jeff was talking about folks here at the Atlantic, not American Islamic groups, so this is only tangentially related to his original point. But the issue of political correctness was raised in comments. I have my own biases. Still, the USCB effectively equated Tiller's murder with abortion. Fair enough. But, to take Matt's point a little further, it's very hard for me to imagine CAIR issuing a statement like this in which they fold in, say, the murder of innocent Afghan children by American Predator drones with the Fort Hood massacre.

About Pick Em...

Mon,09 Nov 2009 21:00:00 GMT

Anybody else get wrecked this week? I think I won two games. I did call the Cowboys, but I lacked the courage of my convictions--I put two points on the game. Damn.

Whoa..No Need To Resort To Ugly Stereotypes

Mon,09 Nov 2009 20:00:00 GMT

Alec Baldwin awesome-sauce...

I agree with Alyssa. 30 Rock is having a meh season. The writers really need to take a vow to not a make a joke about Liz Lemon's digestive track for at least another five years.I'm still watching, though. There's always this sense that you can't make fun of black people--or maybe that sense just exists among talentless white comedians. But 30 Rock does some of the best race humor on TV. Heh--"Balanka! Balanka! Balanka!"

Jane Krakowski goes all in though. I think after Baldwin, she's the champ.

It Was All Good Just A Year Ago

Mon,09 Nov 2009 19:00:00 GMT

David Plouffe talks to Terry Gross. It's interesting, and she pushes him as always. But, no disrespect to Plouffe, I find that listening to political operatives to be unrevealing. They're always selling. It's why I can't watch cable news. It's like watching two used car salesmen fight it out on MILF Island. How's that for mixed metaphors.

Hail Caeasar

Mon,09 Nov 2009 18:00:00 GMT

Yeah, I'm a week late, but I wanted to highlight this piece by Rick Hertzberg. It really gets at the complexity of submitting to Bloomberg:

The truth is that Michael Bloomberg has been a very good mayor. The record is mixed, of course, but the mixture is largely positive. Crime is down. Public education is better, owing mainly to the Mayor's takeover of the system. The racial rancor of Giuliani Time is gone. People are healthier and longer-lived, and it would be rash to suggest that the Mayor's nanny-state initiatives--his smoking bans, his banishment of trans fats, his posted calorie counts--have had nothing to do with this happy development. He has fought the good fight for congestion pricing and gun control. His plans for a West Side football coliseum were thwarted, thank God, and his new stadiums for the Yankees and the Mets cost the city a bundle and are unfriendly to fans of modest means, but his bike lanes are terrific and his transformation of Times Square into a people's piazza was visionary, fun, and cheap.

The Mayor has ruled us well, but he has infantilized us. We are a little too much like the passive Romans of Crassus' day, when the institutions of the old republic were giving way to a despotic (and competent) imperium. "People got used to the idea of them," Edith Hamilton wrote of Crassus and his fellow-triumvirs, Pompey and Caesar, "and when four years later their powerful organization was completed and they began to act openly, honored and honorable patriots could find excellent reasons for acquiescing in their running the city. Indeed, it seemed exceedingly probable that if they did not do so there would be nobody to run it." If Bloomberg had been satisfied with two terms, he would be leaving office a beloved legend, a municipal god. He'll get his third, but we'll give it to him sullenly, knowing that while it probably won't measure up to his first two--times are hard, huge budget gaps are at hand--it'll probably be good enough. The Pax Bloombergiana will endure a while longer. But then what? Will we have forgotten how to govern ourselves?

It would all be much easier if he were more Giuliani-like.

Open Thread At Noon

Mon,09 Nov 2009 17:00:00 GMT

Go for it...

M00slim-Lovin Media Elites

Mon,09 Nov 2009 16:00:00 GMT

My buddy Jeff Goldberg thinks Atlantis isn't pushing hard enough on Islam and Ft. Hood:

A consensus seems to have formed here at The Atlantic that the Ft. Hood massacre means not very much at all. Megan McArdle writes that "there is absolutely no political lesson to be learned from this." James Fallows says: "The shootings never mean anything. Forty years later, what did the Charles Whitman massacre 'mean'? A decade later, do we 'know' anything about Columbine?" And the Atlantic Wire has already investigated the motivation for the shooting, and released its preliminary findings. Of Nidal Malik Hasan, the Wire states: "A 39-year-old Army psychiatrist, he appears to have not been motivated by his Muslim religion, his Palestinian heritage (he is American by nationality), or any related political causes...

I am not arguing, of course, that American Muslims, as a whole, are violently unhappy with America (I've argued the opposite, in fact). But I do think that elite makers of opinion in this country try very hard to ignore the larger meaning of violent acts when they happen to be perpetrated by Muslims. Here's a simple test: If Nidal Malik Hasan had been a devout Christian with pronounced anti-abortion views, and had he attacked, say, a Planned Parenthood office, would his religion have been considered relevant as we tried to understand the motivation and meaning of the attack? Of course. Elite opinion makers do not, as a rule, try to protect Christians and Christian belief from investigation and criticism. Quite the opposite. It would be useful to apply the same standards of inquiry and criticism to all religions.

I think this mostly hinges on what "means" means. If we grant that Hasan was motivated by religion, what does that actually tell us? What is there beyond the fact that people will, at times, interpret religion as a justification to commit heinous acts?

Jeff asks what we'd say if a devout Christian had attacked Planned Parenthood. Fair enough--we have a pretty good corollary in George Tiller. I could be wrong, but I don't recall a lot of "media elites" trying to divine what Tiller's death said about Christianity, itself. Again, beyond the fact that some wacko interpreted Christianity to mean he had the right to shoot people, what else would there be to say?

That's really my issue. What is the big "thing" that we should be seeing, in this case? What are those elite blinders preventing us from seeing?

UPDATE: This post was unclear--George Tiller was the victim, not the killer. Scott Roeder was the killer. Sorry about the confusion

Mad Men

Mon,09 Nov 2009 15:00:00 GMT

Be serious. No one wants to talk about your "health care bills."

One of the more amazing things about Mad Men is how Matt Wiener reveals the recklessness that lies beneath the Draper's bourgeois pretense. I used to think it was just Don's, but when you look at Betty you see the same thing. It's stunning, given how the world has changed, to watch a woman raised to be dependent and incapable of taking care of herself. She didn't leave Don because he was unfaithful or dishonest, she left him because she got a better offer, what appears (to her) a truer version of what she really wanted. By my calculation her and Henry have had one really extended conversation, and off passion, they'll commit their lives. Amazing. That she would bet the future of children on that, and that Don, likewise, would routinely bet the future of his children on something just as flimsy, says so much about their regard for these holy institutions.

I felt sad for her. Don now owns something. Betty is just an accessory. Again. Don gets the chance to sort his head out--not that he'll do it, but he does have the chance. Betty goes from one marriage to another--it's like "taken care of" is the only way she can imagine herself. And then we get into the conversation we've had so much around these parts. Where does free will begin? How could Betty, having come up as she did, with three kids in tow really be any different? How could Don, after all he's seen, really been any different in his marriage? How could it have gone any other way?

Oh well. As side-note, the Ocean's 13 "We're getting the old gang back together" vibe bothered me, a bit. But that's a minor quibble. It's still the best thing going on TV.

NFL Open Thread

Sun,08 Nov 2009 17:20:45 GMT

You know what I'm watching--Philly v. Dallas. But I guess that isn't till tonight. Baltimore v Cincy should be a good one.