Television News

General Motors filed for bankruptcy this morning.
They are the 4th largest US business and largest industrial company to ever file for bankruptcy.
Yahoo Finance reported:

General Motors filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Monday as part of the Obama administration's plan to shrink the automaker to a sustainable size and give a majority ownership stake to the federal government.

GM's bankruptcy filing is the fourth-largest in U.S. history and the largest for an industrial company. The company said it has $172.81 billion in debt and $82.29 billion in assets.

As it reorganizes, the fallen icon of American industrial might will rely on $30 billion of additional financial assistance from the Treasury Department and $9.5 billion from Canada. That's on top of about $20 billion in taxpayer money GM already has received in the form of low-interest loans.

Meanwhile... The US dollar now has dropped 19% against the pound in the last 3 months and 14% against the euro.

by Pam Spaulding

A reader of my blog named Kevin wrote me the other day to say that he is interested in building bridges with people of color (POC) about race and equality but doesn’t know how to engage when the conversation turns tense. I asked if I could post his letter to generate discussion because I know he’s not the only one out there who had this reaction to my recent blog posts about the topic.

I am a twenty-one-year-old white, gay male living in California. I campaigned for ridiculous amounts of time (seriously, I had a huge void in my life when President Obama was safely elected—a sign that I was addicted! Or something.) for Obama and against Proposition 8. I was part of the effort in San Diego, California and frequently rubbed arms with POC (as you call them in your HuffPo) people while campaigning for both things.

I wanted to say I just read your post on ”Black, Gay and Reclaiming ‘Civil Rights’“ and I found it to be very inspiring. It also reignited my interest in working toward some form of outreach toward the local black community. I found that while I spoke about Obama and why he was the right choice for America, etc, I had the focus of the people I was talking to 100% (assuming they weren’t McCainites) but when I tried to segue into Proposition 8 a lot of people would slip into an interesting… defensive stance? Their demeanor completely shifted to what I liked to call ”I am not listening to anything you said while trying to think of a way to escape from this conversation“. Anyway, I noticed that certain members of the black community were quick to dismiss me as some kind of white, gay racist. I am not sure when this became such a widespread stereotype, nor am I sure why I of all people was labeled a racist for bringing up a collection of quotes from MLK and Coretta Scott King. My boyfriend is bi-racial (he doesn’t like being called ‘black or white’ and dislikes people being labeled and sorted into groups) and I had to do a lot of convincing to get him to march with me, and to go out and talk to people about Prop 8.

On two separate occasions, while trying to use him to display that I am not at all racist, he was told by the black people we were talking to that he ‘gave up’ being black when he decided to be gay. I’ve also tried explaining that my two best friends growing up were both black, though I imagine that probably worked more against me than for me. This isn’t just an issue within minorities and several of the white people outwardly called me a faggot on multiple occasions (I live in an oddly socially conservative part of California).

So I guess what I am asking is… how do I establish the dialogue? How do I get through to members of the black community that seem to think if I sneeze on them they will catch some gay disease? I am going to work my ass off again in 2010 and beyond, but I am not able to do it all by myself and you seem to be very educated on the subject.

Well, I’m not exactly well-educated about such things, so much as I have had to deal with inhabiting two worlds that frequently have problems with my very existence because it challenges assumptions they would like to remain intact.

That out of the way, I want to thank you and your boyfriend for being willing to step outside of your comfort zone and take the predictable abuse in order to challenge these black residents on their bigotry. Most people are so scared of being labeled racist by perfect strangers that they avoid the outreach. Honestly, those in the black community who are homophobic don’t get challenged enough—the charges they lob is a defense for not wanting to engage. They know they can play the dreaded race card—even at black gays, denying their blackness, something I’ve personally experienced (and it occurred yet again, in the comments of that HuffPost piece).

My suggestions are below the fold. Contribute yours in the comments.

You see, they have no sense of their own hypocrisy—that not all white gay men are racist, just as not all blacks are homophobic. Both groups tend to cling to the generalizations because there is always a factual basis for any bias or stereotype. The fact is the faces of the LGBT community are largely white gay men. There are no insurmountable reasons for this in this day and time, yet the lack of diversity (including class) in the visible leadership in our organizations continues. It should be no surprise to hear this charge.

However, one should always use a face-to-face interaction as a mutual learning opportunity by actively listening and testing assumptions. When you come up against that wall of resistance—when the “white, gay racist” retort comes up—it’s going to sting. You can’t help feeling slighted but you have to move past it and acknowledge the truth in the statement. You could have said something on the order of:

“I understand why you may feel that way; there are too many in the LGBT community who have not visibly engaged in struggles affecting the black community, but I can’t change the past. What I am offering, with my presence here today, is to work for change across the board—and why this election is important. I want to address all instances of discrimination that have gone long unaddressed. As part of that I would like you to consider voting against Prop 8 because it represents instituting government-based discrimination.”

You are: 1) acknowledging a truth; 2) representing that you are both taking personal responsibility as a white gay man to counter racism in the LGBT community; and 3) asking her for support in stopping all discrimination.

BTW, it’s doubly difficult sometimes if you bring up MLK or other black civil rights leaders since the people you’re meeting with may object out of the box to the “appropriation” of that movement’s figures. In fact, some try to explain away or ignore black leaders still with us who support LGBT civil rights, such as John Lewis, Ben Jealous of NAACP national and Julian Bond.

That’s my two cents; I’m sure others will be glad to contribute in the comments.

My suggested answer, of course, doesn’t even address religious objections to homosexuality; if it hasn’t been brought up as a defense shield yet, would likely come up next. One way to respectfully approach scripture being tossed out or that religious freedom is under attack is to discuss the church state separation issue, but the conflation of state/civil marriage with anti-gay people makes this a tough nut to crack. A better approach is to say that this kind of discrimination:

1) Opens the door for government to allow religious discrimination—ask them about why they would vote for a measure that discriminates against other faiths, including other Christian ones, that DO want to marry gay and lesbian couples.

2) That placing civil rights at the whim of a majority vote at the ballot box endangers all civil rights.

I’m sure other readers have other ideas for you. There is no answer that can cover every encounter you may have when engaging on this challenging topic, but just know that by doing something, rather than sitting back and doing nothing out of fear and the desire to avoid discomfort, that you are making a difference.

Over at my pad, someone suggested that the writer’s partnering with his boyfriend on these outreach efforts was in itself racist. My reply:

I don’t see partnering with his boyfriend on these outreach efforts as racist; it’s a reality that the people they are encountering often refuse to acknowledge that there are POC LGBTs and start right into the attack mode. Obviously his BF went willingly (if apprehensively, knowing what was coming), and the fact is his presence allows the conversation to turn away from invisibility to their ownership of the fact they consider he’s turned in his black card. That’s their public admission of bigotry.

That’s why I have advocated that when canvassing POC neighborhoods that may be hostile to LGBT rights, whites should pair up with someone of color to take that “weapon” out of the hands of those you talk to. These are people who are rarely challenged about their own prejudices. The major problem with this is we have to tackle the racism in the LGBT community that makes it difficult for POC to feel they will be accepted if the come out. So that leaves a movement with precious few POC to rise to the challenge of taking the almost-certain abuse by members of their own communities of color for the goal of full civil equality. A tall order.

If you read through the HuffPost column, POC who were anti-gay tried repeatedly to turn the argument around to “what about racism in the white LGBT community?”. That’s not an answer to the question being asked (and I’ve covered that before anyway), nor does it explain away the problem at hand. No one is denying the racism exists in that sphere, it’s about pointing out that it’s not one way either. You can’t address the problem if it’s not acknowledged or if it is deflected by tossing out a different question. The bottom line is a good number homophobic POC want to change the subject rather than own up to the problem that is costing those community lives—exploding HIV/AIDS rates—because of their silence and promotion of homophobia in the pews.

***

NOTE: These discussions are essential and The Dallas Principles are something to keep in mind when you are facing this uphill battle, particularly 3-6 in this context. Kevin and his boyfriend are participating in the kind of activism that does change hearts and minds. Even for those who disagree, they have been in engaged in a way that forces them to confront their biases.

1. Full civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals must be enacted now.  Delay and excuses are no longer acceptable.

2. We will not leave any part of our community behind.

3. Separate is never equal.

4. Religious beliefs are not a basis upon which to affirm or deny civil rights.

5. The establishment and guardianship of full civil rights is a non-partisan issue.

6. Individual involvement and grassroots action are paramount to success and must be encouraged.

7. Success is measured by the civil rights we all achieve, not by words, access or money raised.

8. Those who seek our support are expected to commit to these principles.

Related: Black, Gay and Reclaiming ‘Civil Rights’

I arrived in Aarhus, Denmark, two weeks ago with the strange feeling that I had really not left Toronto. Tamil demonstrators, waving Tiger flags, banging drums and chanting incomprehensibly, blocked traffic in front of the railway station. A few days later in Copenhagen, their leader dead, their resistance in Sri Lanka at an end, Tamils were chanting "U. S. A., U. S. A." in front of the American embassy. Polyglot Denmark is not, but multiculturalism is present everywhere in the cities.

Most of it is benign and hopeful. There are mixed race children playing happily together in both Aarhus and Copenhagen, teenagers moving in packs and black and white couples walking with small children. There are women in chadors and Muslim men with beards, halal meat shops and kebabs for sale everywhere. But after the controversy over the Muhammad cartoons, there is substantial unease among many Danes. When the cartoons were published in 2006, they were frightened by the rage directed against them in the Muslim world--and the hints of violence they detected from the 4% of the Danish population who are Muslim.

And they worried about the threat to freedom of speech posed by the controversy. More recently, they bitterly resented Muslim Turkey's attempt, in response to the cartoon controversy, to block the Danish Prime Minister from becoming secretary-general of NATO. Only in the face of Danish resistance will Turkey now make it into membership in the European community.

Many Danes look to Canada as a model of multiculturalism -- a country that they believe got it right. But even if almost everyone speaks English, few know much about Canada, and certainly they know nothing about this nation's problems in integrating immigrants or the difficulties with our refugee system. Still, when compared to racial and religious tensions in Britain, France, the Netherlands and Denmark, Canada's multiculturalism looks like a great success.

What does seem clear is that the European community has been good to Denmark, even if the Danes have thus far refused to adopt the Euro as their currency. The tiny nation's GDP per capita in 2008 was $66,760 (well above Canada's at $48,427), and welfare benefits are generous, so much so that most Danes label their welfare state as their country's defining characteristic. Many cynics might declare that Denmark's taxes --"the highest anywhere," I was repeatedly told -- are the true defining fact (and this tax burden is largely responsible for complaints about the costs of trying to integrate immigrants). But the Danish medical care system is good, the emergency room lineups relatively short and cancer operations in first-class hospitals, for example, can be scheduled and performed quickly and well. (Nonetheless, private hospitals advertise their up-to-date facilities at pleasant locations on the coast.) Even more extraordinarily, university students who make it to higher education after tough competition for places get free tuition and a stipend.

Graduate students get the same, and their stipend is enough to live on, no matter their subject of study.

The only drawback in this halcyon paradise? Everything is ridiculously expensive -- notably clothing (though women are nonetheless stylishly dressed), restaurant meals and alcohol. Copenhagen has a number of two-star Michelin restaurants, but there seems a large gulf between the hot young chefs and most of the rest. The food here is good but simple, though fresh fish seems available everywhere and Danish pork, proudly labelled as such, appears on almost every menu. The pastries are good, the breads wonderful.

Unfortunately, a half-pint of Carlsberg costs around 30 kroner ($6.50) and a glass of Italian plonk will run about $12. With gasoline selling for almost 10 kroner a litre, taxi meters in Aarhus start at 30 kronor and even a short trip will hit $25.

On the other hand, the public transit system is first rate, with bus networks and subways operating in Copenhagen and an efficient rail network reaching into the country. If they're not riding their bicycles around town, people will commute a hundred kilometres to get to work and do so without a qualm. Likewise, Swedes take the train from Malmo, just a bridge away from Copenhagen, to work. Danes, in return, go to Malmo to buy houses and apartments, which are much cheaper there than in Copenhagen.

Occupied without a fight by the Nazis in 1940, Denmark drew the appropriate lessons and joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as a founding member. It despatched troops to Iraq, and has some 700 soldiers in Afghanistan's difficult Helmand Province. The Danish casualty rate is comparable to Canada's, and people I spoke too worried that the Afghan mission's aims were hopelessly muddled. Others noted that Denmark, proud of its peacekeeping record, had trouble dealing with combat and its costs.

In other words, Denmark is much like Canada on the important issues. Politicians brag about Denmark punching above its weight, but ordinary Danes worry about the economy and the strains posed to the polity by immigration and wonder if their taxes can possibly go any higher.

But it's a sweet life for now, everyone sitting outside at cafes in the sun or lying stretched out in Copenhagen's superb parks. There really is nothing rotten in the state of Denmark.

Historian J. L. Granatstein writes for the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.

font_size(0);

Kim Jong Il has named his youngest son, Kim Jong Un as his heir. Writing for The Washington Post, Blaine Harden reports that the younger Kim is a great fan of former basketball player Michael Jordan and action movie star Jean-Claude Van Damme. Like father, like son, I suppose. Kim Jong Il is known to be a movie buff himself, the Imelda Marcos of DVDs with a collection reportedly numbering some 20,000 films.

The implications of this news for U.S. policy are fairly obvious. President Obama, a fellow baller, should name Michael Jordan head of the U.S. delegation to the six-party talks. The Belgians, led by Van Damme, should take Russia?"s place in the negotiations. And if we can convince the Chinese to appoint Jackie Chan as their representative, the Kim clan will be positively giddy. We?"ll call it a ?Scelebrity surge,? and in their rush to get autographs and photographs with the stars, the Kims will quickly agree to whatever MJ asks for.

Could this really be any less effective than the six-party talks have been? Wooing Kim with Hollywood, I think, has real promise. And with celebrities leading the way, the American delegation might actually voice some real concern for human rights in North Korea. Wouldn?"t that be something?

Michael Mazza is a research assistant at the American Enterprise Institute.

Last Wednesday, Keith Olbermann falsely compared statements Samuel Alito made during his 2006 Supreme Court confirmation hearings to the now controversial and seemingly racist remark Sonia Sotomayor uttered during a 2001 speech.

In her lecture to the Boalt School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, Barack Obama's nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

By contrast, Alito in 2006 talked about his background indeed impacting his decisions, but never said that would make him "more often than not reach a better conclusion than" women of a different race.

Olbermann, as he so often does with his agenda-driven drivel, missed this obvious distinction (video embedded below the fold with partial transcript):

KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST: Good evening from New York.

"When a case comes before me involving, let??s say, someone who is an immigrant," said the nominee for the Supreme Court, "I can??t help but think of my own ancestors because it wasn??t that long ago when they were in that position. I have to say to myself and I do say to myself, you know, this could be your grandfather. This could be your grandmother."

"When I get a case about discrimination," the nominee continued, "I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender and I do take that into account."

Our fifth story on the COUNTDOWN: The smoking gun, the damming confirmation of reverse racism and reverse sexism from Judge Sonia Sotomayor? No, those quotes were from then-Supreme Court nominee, conservative judge, Samuel Alito, during his confirmation hearing in January 2006 when he was answering a question from Republican Senator Coburn.

So conservatives predicating their attempt at character-assassination of Judge Sotomayor on those exact points? You can collect your backsides from the coat check after the show because they??ve been handed to you.

Actually, no, because the issue here is NOT a jurist using his or her background and experiences to make legal judgements. The problem with Sotomayor's statement in 2001 was that she claimed someone with her background "would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Let's view her comments in their complete context (full lecture available here) :

In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

As such, Sotomayor was making the case that her experience and background as a Latina woman somehow makes her more qualified than white men to reach proper judicial decisions in certain cases.

As you can see from the following video and partial transcript of this 2006 exchange with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Ok.), Alito only talked about his background and how it impacts his decisions on the bench, but NEVER suggested that would make him more qualified than a non-white woman without the same experiences:

SENATOR TOM COBURN, (R-OK): You know, I think at times during these hearings you have been unfairly criticized or characterized as that you don't care about the less fortunate, you don't care about the little guy, you don't care about the weak or the innocent.

Can you comment just about Sam Alito, and what he cares about, and let us see a little bit of your heart and what's important to you in life?

SAMUEL ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point.

SAMUEL ALITO: I don't come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.

And I know about their experiences and I didn't experience those things. I don't take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.

But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.

And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant - and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases - I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.

And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.

But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."

When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me.

And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing - the barriers that it puts up to them.

So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person.

COBURN: Thank you.

See anywhere in Alito's statement when he claimed his background and experience make him more qualified than anybody of differing background, gender, or race?

No, I don't either.

In the end, it seems possible that Olbermann and his crew once again channeled a member of the Netroots without doing any fact-checking, for from what I can tell, Salon's Glenn Greenwald was the first to uncover and publish Alito's comments as a "smoking gun" about five and a half hours before Wednesday's "Countdown" aired.

As NewsBusters has recommended in the past, it would be wonderful if a so-called news outlet like MSNBC might actually check the veracity of Netroots blog postings BEFORE echoing them.

Or, would that be too much like journalism?