Just In Case You Thought I Was Too PC

Okay, I have a decent amount to catch up on before I spend the day writing intellectual property papers. By the way, with the election season over for six months or so, expect fewer posts for the near future.

First, I want to respond to a comment that was recently left on the last post, pointing out that Obama is half white, and that he should mean no more to black people than white people, given his biracial identity.

That commenter was black, and I am not, but I respectfully disagree. The fact is that race in this country, for many, comes down to appearance. I have a friend who is of Latin American descent (his parents spoke Spanish in the home, but he does not), but anyone talking to him would likely identify him as black, not Latino, regardless of what box he checks on the census. That is mostly because his skin is very dark. Is that fair? Such words have little meaning in real life. But that's part of what makes race different from religion and other things; it is readily apparent from sight, even if the appearance is misleading.

Barack Obama is black, to much of the American consciousness, because he has dark skin, and so looks black. One could say he's half white, but the half-white part is not exceptional for a president. We've had lots of white halves of presidents. We have had no halves of presidents that are not white, until Obama.

Now, all that said, part of Obama's appeal to many was his embodiment of a shades of gray philosophy, which certainly extends beyond policy to race. He is the picture of an America where fewer and fewer people can identify themselves within one easy demographic. That is part of what made his coalition of voters so compelling. If someone who is black doesn't feel like Obama is all that special for black populations because he's half white, well, I suppose that's his or her perogative, but it strikes me as a little zealous. To have a "black" president, then, how much of his ancestry would have to be black? 90%? 95%? Does it need to be all African? Within how many generations? It just seems a little wrong to start crunching someone's geneology this way to determine if he's black enough (reverse that word in that sentence to "white" and you'll see what I mean). I see how many black people might see, in Barack Obama, someone who is not like them, just as I see someone who is not like me. His background is very different from that of anyone I know. But, when it comes to being a part of a specific demographic, for better or worse, most people use the highly unscientific test that society has used for discrimination throughout our history: What does the person look like?

Since we're on the topic of breaking barriers, it's worth reading this story on how women's advocacy groups are trying to push some women into the top ranks of the Pentagon, and how many procedural things are in the way. For example, did you know that the Army and Marines still don't allow women to be in direct-combat infantry or armor units? The Navy and Air Force have since the mid-1990s.

The highest profile female prospective Obama appointee, of course, is Hillary Clinton, half of American politics most drama-obsessed couple. Her husband, who was in politics himself for a while, has finally appointed a legal team to clear the vetting for Hillary, so she can be appointed Secretary of State. After a couple weeks of dragging feet over finances for the Clinton foundation by Bill, she has now started leaking that she's not sure she'll take the job if it's offered. And, through all this, one can begin to understand how people can get really tired of the Clintons. SHE'S NOT SURE SHE WANTS TO BE SECRETARY OF STATE? For the love of God, stop playing games for 30 seconds and act like everyone else in your messed up business of politics. If you don't want the job, then just take your name out of the running. If you want the job, turn over the info, get vetted, and stop trying to turn it into a power play. Just stop.

Since I'm doing all sorts of politically incorrect things in this post, I'll link this endorsement of former Clinton Treasury Head and Harvard President Larry Summers, by the Freakonomics blog. I've always liked Summers (though not always agreed with him, and always shaken my head at his lack of communications savvy), and when Ian Ayres says he's way smarter than the other smart guys being considered for the top economic post, I believe him. Now, there are two main problems with Summers, neither having anything to do with his ability. One is that he and black faculty clashed when he said "the jury's out" on the affects of affirmative action (something many feel and is perfectly reasonable, but perhaps not to be said in a meeting with black faculty at Harvard). And his supposedly sexist comments in an interview when asked about the shortage of women in math and sciences field. It is worth reading what Summers actually said, because it is not what is widely reported. It's excerpted in the linked post, but it's quite technical.

What he actually said is that he did an admittedly "crude" and "unsubtle" calculation based on math test scores of 12th graders, and the women displayed significantly more consistency, while the young men showed more variability. Because physicists at top Universities are by definition statistical outliers when it comes to ability, that could pose a real numbers problem as far as the available women for such posts. He never speculated on root causes (though one can have a fun time playing evolutionary biologist with it), and he admits the many problems with his back-of-the-envelope research. Certainly, he made no value judgement on it (Ayres speculates most people would rather have a reliable intelligence than a wide range for, say, their child). Anyway, it was a statistical attempt to shed some light on something he agrees is a big problem. He of course got shelled for it, and lots of people think he's sexist now. I say, with the economy the way it is now, I'm really okay hiring an inveterate chauvinist if you think he can help. And Larry Summers is nothing like that.

Some short stuff:

• Chris Cillizza takes on the five myths of the 2008 campaign. Most are kind of blah, but number 2 is interesting; it turns out there was no special increase in black and young voters, relative to all voters.
• Beau Biden took his name out of consideration for his father's Senate seat, so he can go to Iraq and fight in a war he likely doesn't support. When he gets back, he will be a phenomenally attractive candidate for something. He could easily be president one day.
• George Packer says it's time for Bill Kristol to go at the New York Times. I couldn't agree more. I hated this choice from day one. With so many smart, witty conservatives who are excellent writers, why did the Times pick one who is so often churlish, inaccurate and unlikable? Kristol has said he's "ambivalent" about it, which is enough for me. If you can't take being a Times' columnist seriously, get out of the business.
• Okay, this is now the best column (out of 3o or so) I've read touting black athletes as a precursor to Obama's success. Because it's about Buck O'Neill.
  
• And, in the weirdest story of the year: Remember that leak about Sarah Palin not knowing if Africa was a continent? Well, it's attributed to McCain aide Martin Eisenstadt. Problem is Mr. Eisenstadt doesn't exist; he's fictional. FOXNews stands behind the story. I'm not kidding.