Ken Burns officially outed as America's "Empire Whisperer"

I was calling out Ken Burns for promoting American exceptionalism in his PBS documentaries (mockumentaries?) more than 15 years ago.

But, the photo above, from this Pro Publica piece not actually focused on Ken Burns, but rather on Clarence Thomas, is proof positive of him as that "Empire Whisperer." Kudo to Jeet Heer, as seen by my via my Twitter alerts email feed, for first pointing out (as I'd not seen the article yet) how many people were overlooking Burns standing between Clarence Thomas and David H. Koch. (Jeet himself forgot to add the magic words about the photo's location: Bohemian Grove.)

Kudos to Pro Publica for noting in the caption that Koch has financed Burns' movies. He's also financed other things via "The David H. Koch Fund for Science," which long ago pressured PBS to tone down anything it said about climate change.

Maybe #BlueAnon type librulz will start waking up about PBS and stop giving it money. I said they should, for this reason (and it accepting other wingnut money as well), nearly a decade ago, and had a folo piece about Koch money buying PBS omerta a year later.

I ran into one of those #BlueAnon on Twitter, responding to the person whom Heer had quote-tweeted. Said person I ran into was gushing about Burns' Vietnam series. I told him the truth about just how craptacular it was.

In another post, I noted that bringing to PBS his dramatization of the book, "The Emperor of All Maladies," about the "war" on cancer, David Koch apparently bought Burns' silence about the carcinogenic power of petrochemicals. That link also notes him writing American Indians out of the picture in his librulz-acclaimed National Parks series.

He also had errors, presumably in the service of empire, in his Roosevelts series. His "10th inning" add-on to "Baseball" was meh and included Landis hero-worship.

SCOTUS hypocrisy on lawsuits

Remember a year-plus ago, before the Dobbs decision officially overturned Roe, how the Supreme Court let stand through repeated stall-outs the Texas law allowing for citizen abortion enforcement by lawsuit?

This piece, on SCOTUS saying that the feds have broad power to dismiss "qui tam" whistleblower lawsuits, shows the rank hypocrisy of the further-right justices:

A dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas was notable less for its arguments in favor of an alternative reading of the statute – Thomas agreed with Polansky that the government loses its authority to dismiss a suit once it declines to intervene – and more for its broader suggestion that the entire qui tam system may be unconstitutional. While only Thomas wrote in support of his argument about the extent of the government’s authority to dismiss, Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in which he agreed with Thomas that “[t]here are substantial arguments that the qui tam device is inconsistent with Article II and that private litigators may not represent the interests of the United States in litigation … the Court should consider the competing arguments on the Article II issues in an appropriate case.”

Emphasis mine.

So, private litigators can't represent the USofA, but CAN represent the Great State of Tex-ass? Got it.

Clarence Thomas, enigma

The Enigma of Clarence Thomas by Corey Robin
My rating: 4 of 5 stars


This is an edited and expanded version of my review of Corey Robin's "The Enigma of Clarence Thomas."

An excellent, succinct book on some of the roots of Clarence Thomas’ thinking. Basically, Robin’s thesis is that much of Thomas’ approach to the constitution is driven by a black nationalism that flowered in his collegiate times and that still burns inside him despite his move rightward since then.

Robin doesn’t just say this out of nowhere. He gets information from collegiate classmates, takes seriously Thomas’ own comments on his formative influences (beyond black nationalism, he has actually read Ayn Rand) and more.

Unfortunately, given Thomas’ penchant for not commenting to people like book authors, or to much of the media BESIDES conservative ideological media — as Robin shows, he comments to them in spades — Robin can’t bounce all of these thoughts off Thomas, though most of them seem largely correct.

The book opens by noting some white liberals have treated Thomas to the same “lazy black” and “ideological puppet of a white justice on the court” motif that Thurgood Marshall faced from white conservatives. Thomas is encouraging readers to take Thomas at his word, through this. (I saw a white liberal former editor of The New Republic, Isaac Chotiner, do just this, claiming on Twitter Thomas didn’t understand the word “deign” when he used it during his confirmation hearings, while I was reading this book.)

I found this very good, probably borderline 4/5 stars, and gave it the bump upward.

I have a few observations, as well as a couple of questions I posted for Robin on social media. I’ll update this review with any response.

Observation: I never thought it was worth my time reading Thomas Sowell and Robin confirmed that. If Sowell really thinks capitalism allowed black slaves to limit the power of slaveowner capitalists, he needs to read the likes of Edward Baptist’s “The Half Has Never Been Told.” Fact is that white masters new from experience just how much torturous punishment to use. Fact is that white slaver ship captains knew from experience what an acceptable loss rate was. Sowell also ignores “Breeder” slaves. He also ignores W.E.B. Dubois’ estimates on how many black slaves were illegally brought into the U.S. after 1807.

That said, Sowell made a left-to-right pilgrimage similar to Thomas’ and Thomas was introduced to his writing for just that reason.

Robin shows that part of black nationalism is an emphasis on black patriarchy. The 60s peace and love movements had problems with women and gender issues in general; the Black Panthers had them in spades.

Robin has two takeaways from this. One is that Thomas basically makes no effort to extend his constitutional jurisprudence on race to issues of gender. Unspoken: To do so would empower black women and undercut an old-time patriarchy.

Second, because of this, Anita Hill was an “overdetermined” challenge for Thomas. Black and female both, an “intersectionality” hit, if one will. That said, Thomas still believes “his truth” about the confirmation hearings and his time working with Hill. And, his anger was real.

That said, I would have liked some additional pages here. Have any black nationalist orgs of today, like The New Black Panthers, or even Nation of Islam, asked Thomas to speak to them? Did Robin think to ask any of these groups for their thoughts on Thomas?

After all, Thomas praised Louis Farrakhan in 1983 — twice, but then repudiated his anti-Semitism in 1991, kind of like Obama and Rev. Wright. (Corey didn't mention this, for whatever reason.)

Robin also shows that, contra traditional modern black (and white) liberalism, blacks should not expect salvation at the ballot box. His hostility to most Voting Rights Acts claims are as great or greater than any white conservative justice. His bottom line, per Robin is that “we’re outnumbered.”

So: Why does Thomas (if he says anything) think the 2nd Amendment will uniquely save black America when, per his "We're outnumbered" thesis, there are a lot more whites with guns just like there's a lot more white voters? I’m sure that, since Thomas is as selective in his constitutional theorizing as any other justice, he has no answers.

Question: Does Thomas really reconcile 13th-15th Amendments with his "original Constitution" or is this more a rhetorical trope? Thomas himself of course wouldn't answer such questions if presented them by Robin, but Robin could have made an educated guess as to whether this is reality or trope.

Related observation: I know Lincoln et al appealed BEYOND the Constitution to the Declaration; sounds like Thomas is trying to have his cake and eat it too. Again, thought, this is something that he probably would have no answer for.

I did think Robin, on a related issue, did probably “force” the idea of dividing Thomas’ thoughts into “White Constitution” and “Black Constitution.”

One last question, which I indirectly asked on Twitter before I started reading.

Everybody who knows Thomas knows that Ginni Thomas is white. People who know more know that he was married before and his first wife was black. Given the black nationalism issue, and that black pride and purity were emphasized by groups like the Panthers, when did Thomas shift in his personal life and why? Was this a calculated move, just as it was to hire a couple of constitutional scholars for “coaching” not too long before his was nominated to the appellate bench?

And, did Robin at least try looking for anything that, given Thomas' race solidarity on relationship issues when younger, led him to abandon that?

Not having received answers after a month, and with more reflection, I dropped this to four stars.

Thomas' second marriage has long been a matter of curiosity to me, and, when I first heard about some of his black nationalist background, even before word of Robin's book, it moved beyond low-level curiosity.

Perhaps there is no public answer to this, and even to his closest friends, Thomas hasn't revealed his heart and mind. It would have been nice to get an official "I tried" from Robin, though.


View all my reviews

#SCOTUS says #Confederate flag not free speech; #hypocrisy alert?

More specifically, the Supreme Court has said the state of Texas can ban the Sons of Confederate Veterans from being part of the state's vanity license plate program because of its use of the Confederate flag.

This is a tough issue, but I generally disagree with Gov. Greg Abbott, who led the push for the ban. The Sons of Confederate Veterans has had local chapters that have been squirrely, but, how else do you put the SCV on vanity plates without the Confederate flag?

Here's the backstory:

In 2010, the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board denied a request from the Sons of Confederate Veterans' Texas Division that the state issue a license plate featuring the group's name and a picture of the Confederate flag. The board said it denied the application in part because "a significant portion of the public associate the confederate flag with organizations advocating expressions of hate directed toward people or groups that is demeaning to those people or groups."

This, of course, gets into issues of hate speech vs. actual hate crimes, and many other things. 

The easy answer is to get rid of vanity plate programs in general. Here in Tex-ass, that would have the advantage of killing off another privatization contract, for starters. (Here's the details of the current contract.)

And, if a pattern of hateful speech eventually becomes part of criminal activity, as with Charleston shooter Dylann (sic) Roof reportedly  displaying a Confederate flag license plate, you then prosecute for a hate crime.

Otherwise, this is just like Adopt-a-Spot programs that have highway road signs. States, when someone like a Ku Klux Klan local has become an Adopt-a-Spot volunteer, have simply killed the public signage for the program.

It's interesting that Clarence Thomas was part of the majority. Given that he's been more philosophically consistent on the Court than Nino Scalia, and has opposed many affirmative action programs, it's interesting indeed. The Atlantic has more on his flip-flop, which does stem from his Southern background. Now I'm back to questioning his intelligence, if he can see no link between Southern white intimidation of blacks and the need for some type of affirmative action. There's good in-depth analysis here of Thomas in particular and the majority in general.

And, isn't that, my "get rid of vanity plate programs in general," reminiscent about what John Roberts has said about affirmative action?

"There is no honor among Supreme Court justices."

And, the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, among others, agree this is censorship.

Obama's legacy: Historians take a first crack; so do I

President Barack Obama —
how much is he actually like

Supreme Court Associate Justice
Clarence Thomas

If Charles Pierce considers George W. Bush our "C+ Augustus," where does that leave Barack Obama, who is arguably a better president, but primarily due to that Bush phrase "the soft bigotry of low expectations"? Since Obama actually — deluded not-too-liberal of liberals and "projections" aside — "delivered" even less on what he actually promised or semi-promised than did C+, too, in terms of any "base" of support, just how should we rank Dear Leader?

Well, at New York Magazine, a coterie of professional historians, ranging from from quasi-reactionary to left-liberal, give it their shot. (Clickable links lead to full reviews of DL by each historian.)

A fair amount of more liberal to left-liberal ones appeared to have, like me, "seen through" Obama at least by 2010, if not during his 2008 campaign. As for that group, I have no idea how many of them still voted for him anyway, rather than voting Green or Socialist or whatever.

Anyway, here's a roundup of the few best insights from left of center:

"His contributions were sometimes remarkable, but Obama’s primary legacy is his destruction of political idealism for the foreseeable future. He proved an impressive steward of the traditions of his party since the 1970s. Where Obama differed was his brief but unforgettable achievement of a surprisingly large consensus around a belief — or delusion — that Americans rarely entertain. Put simply, it was that American politics could and must fundamentally change. The energies he conjured will not reappear soon and are less likely to do so because he summoned them for so ordinary and predictable a set of policies." – Samuel Moyn

Those of us semi-idealists who "saw through him" before the 2008 general election haven't had our semi-idealism destroyed, or ditto on full idealists like me, because we never invested it in him in the first place.

Other than that, Moyn is totally right on Obama being a "worthy" steward of neoliberalism. As for Obama's "consensus"? Maybe Obama never intended that fundamental change. Either that, or a point I've hammered into the dust is true here, too — Dear Leader thought the mellifluous dulcet tones of his voice (sarcasm alert) would work fundamental change all along.

What about Obamacare? This is not a bad observation:

“It might very well be insurance exchanges, rather than the expansion of coverage, that stands as the most significant aspect of the Affordable Care Act. That is especially the case if the exchanges work and therefore lay the foundations for privatizing or ‘“marketizing” Medicare and Medicaid. As much as some called him a socialist, he might well be remembered as someone who de-socialized public health care.” – Alexander Gourevitch

Gourevich? I'm not sure if he means that in a good or a bad sense. It could be in a bad sense, as he is a left-liberal type. If so, I'd totally agree. It's hard to tell from his whole set of responses, but, since he is some sort of left-liberal, I'm going to take it he means it in a bad sense.

I certainly look at O-care that way myself. Sometimes, the good is the enemy of the best, and I fear that is very much the case here — he wrecked political capital, per Moyn, for a non-fundamental change which he chose as his target all along.

Next, let's look more directly at the myth of The Great Communicator 2.0:

“Talk to us — tell us what he is aiming at, what our challenges are, especially abroad. He may be our mutest president.” – Mark Lilla

Indeed, whether deliberately Sphinx-like, or simply unable to move much beyond TelePrompTer 101 on a regular basis, the allegedly divine powers of Obama here were often not displayed.

That said, regular readers won't be surprised by my allegedly. Obama as Great Communicator 2.0 was a flop, a lie, and a social construct all three. As for political oratory, he's never been close to Reagan.

His legacy? One of the historians said that he currently puts Obama at the top edge of the bottom one-third of presidents, but thinks he will rise in the future, and into the bottom slice of the top one-third of presidents. See my take below the fold.

Clarence Thomas — 20 years and counting

It's not just five years of silence from Clarence Thomas. It's the full 20 years, now, of his time on the Supreme Court, without authoring a single significant majority decision.

Do us a favor, and quit, if you're one-tenth as ethical as you claim to be.

Clarence Thomas not the only family hypocrite

Now his wife, Virginia, wants an apology from Anita Hill:

"I did place a call to Ms. Hill at her office extending an olive branch to her after all these years, in hopes that we could ultimately get past what happened so long ago," Virginia Thomas said through a spokesman. Mrs. Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, has lately taken a more visible role by founding a tea-party group called Liberty Central.

Hell, your husband should apologize for being a black Republican, because he'd never be within sniffing distance of the Supreme Court otherwise.

Hill, meanwhile, mixed "taking the high road" just right with "talk to the hand":

Ms. Hill, now a professor at Brandeis University, said she didn't take Mrs. Thomas's Oct. 9 voicemail as conciliatory. "I certainly thought the call was inappropriate," Ms. Hill said through a Brandeis spokesman. "I have no intention of apologizing because I testified truthfully about my experience and I stand by that testimony."

But, I won't let it lie there.

With Virginia Thomas' far-right connections, the push of some far-righters trying to get blacks to believe that abortion is deliberate, planned genocide, and more, I can't believe that, just weeks before midterm elections, there's nothing political behind this.

Clarece Thomas not the only family hypocrite

Now his wife, Virginia, wants an apology from Anita Hill:

"I did place a call to Ms. Hill at her office extending an olive branch to her after all these years, in hopes that we could ultimately get past what happened so long ago," Virginia Thomas said through a spokesman. Mrs. Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, has lately taken a more visible role by founding a tea-party group called Liberty Central.

Hell, your husband should apologize for being a black Republican, because he'd never be within sniffing distance of the Supreme Court otherwise.

Hill, meanwhile, mixed "taking the high road" just right with "talk to the hand":

Ms. Hill, now a professor at Brandeis University, said she didn't take Mrs. Thomas's Oct. 9 voicemail as conciliatory. "I certainly thought the call was inappropriate," Ms. Hill said through a Brandeis spokesman. "I have no intention of apologizing because I testified truthfully about my experience and I stand by that testimony."

But, I won't let it lie there.

With Virginia Thomas' far-right connections, the push of some far-righters trying to get blacks to believe that abortion is deliberate, planned genocide, and more, I can't believe that, just weeks before midterm elections, there's nothing political behind this.

Schools kids get back bit of civil liberties

The Supreme Court has found unconstitutional the strip search of an Arizona girl who had been believed to have “illicit” ibuprofen on her person.

That’s problem No. 1 — the portion of the inane “War on Drugs” that plays out on school campuses, so inane that Advil and generic equivalents are an “illicit drug.” And, a fellow student ratting her out?

And, shock me that Clarence Thomas would be the only person to dissent from the 8-1 ruling. I think he’s let his own mom be strip-searched for driving while black.

Tha said, Justices Stevens and Ginsburg did want the principal of the school in question to be held liable to suit, which the rest of the court rejected; only the district can now be sued.

Did Shelby Steele oppose Clarence Thomas?

He was certainly less qualified than Sonia Sotomayor, yet Poppy Bush picked him solely on his skin color. Steele doesn’t even mention that while eviscerating Obama for tapping Sotomayor. Rather, Steele sounds like he actually is riffing on Thomas:

I have called Mr. Obama a bound man because he cannot win white support without bargaining and he cannot maintain minority support without playing the very identity politics that injure him with whites. The latter form of politics is grounded in being what I call a challenger -- i.e., someone who presumes that whites are racist until they prove otherwise by granting preferences of some kind to minorities.

With insight like that, who needs reality, eh?

(Of course, this is the same Steele who wrote a political handicapping book in 2007 predicting Obama couldn’t win.)

Parallel lives – Thomas and Sotomayor

There’s not much new to learn about either Clarence Thomas or Sonia Sotomayor from the New York Times’ mini-Plutarchian parallel lives, although it does set Clarence Thomas in starker relief.

To me, it confirms what I’ve already held — much of Thomas’ anger and bitterness is partially self-inflicted. That, in turn, was partially from reacting to new situations and problems with old, stereotypical behavior patterns.

It’s like he took his Ayn Rand reading and ran it through the sausage grinder of aggrieved minority, fully recognizing the two didn’t mesh while determining to pretend he could create some Hegelian synthesis out of that.