Defending a False Meme...With FEEEELING!

I read Lawrence Otis Graham’s tear-jerking account of his prep school son’s first encounter with anti-black racism…and I came away as unconvinced as I was by some of Mr. Graham’s other accounts, like his 2009 memoir, A Member of the Club (http://www.amazon.com/Member-Club-Lawrence-Otis-Graham-ebook/dp/B000UOJTU8/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1416250306&sr=8-2&keywords=lawrence+otis+graham), or his earlier work chronicling his “undercover” work as a caddy in a wealthy Country Club, Our Kind of People (http://www.amazon.com/Kind-People-Lawrence-Otis-Graham-ebook/dp/B000GCFWVY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1416250306&sr=8-1&keywords=lawrence+otis+graham).

Lawrence Otis Graham

The prevailing social meme remains that white males maintain “privilege,” merely by being white that even wealthy, well-connected, Ivy educated African-Americans do not.

It’s not only a ridiculous and indefensible meme, but it’s pernicious in that its goal is to mask very real privilege (the kind Mr. Graham was born into) and to configure actual “victims,” like poor, rural whites from Appalachia and elsewhere (people who truly have neither any privilege nor connections) as “oppressors.”

There can be a no more dishonest, disingenuous and destructive social construct as that, but it benefits the likes of Mr. Graham to perpetuate it and so many of them do so with gusto!

You see, the kind of blatant bigotry he writes about his son encountering (being asked if he was “the only nigger” at his prep school) is so exceedingly rare, as to be virtually non-existent today, while sadly other forms of racial bigotry are much more common...and at least partly because of the meme that Mr. Graham among others defend...more accepted.

Those (more socially accepted bigotries) don’t have to be “fictionalized” (The name of the boarding school has been fictionalized. This essay is adapted from a story in the Oct. 8 edition of the Princeton Alumni Weekly) as Mr. Graham’s “story” was.

Just this past week, a New York Lawyer and Chair of the BAR Association’s Medical Malpractice Division, Andrew Barovick, was forced to apologize and then resign (AFTER the BAR Association initially defended him) for tweeting “inappropriate” and “racist” comments about Chemung County Sheriff Christopher Moss, a black Republican who ran for lieutenant governor this year. (http://nypost.com/2014/11/12/lawyer-resigns-from-bar-association-after-racist-tweet/)

One inane tweet read; “In light of election loss, [Sheriff Moss] mulling offers to be new spokes model for either Cream of Wheat or Uncle Ben’s rice.”

Upon his resignation he apologized, “As you know, I made a grave mistake by attempting to use humor to personally convey my frustration with the New York Republican Party through a tweet that upset a great number of people.”

WHAT?!

That’s not at all clear. What, exactly, is Mr. Barovick frustrated over? The NYS GOP running a black man for Lieutenant Governor, or that a black man would be a Conservative, or a Republican to begin with?

It becomes a LOT LESS clear when Mr. Barovick’s history of such bigoted comments comes to light;

Whoops! Say it ain’t so Andy;

Then there was Rep Charlie Rangel who derided Tea Party members as “white crackers,” and later steadfastly defending it as “a term of endearment.”

Enough said, apparently Rep. Rangel would rather people be convinced he’s an idiot, rather than a racist. Well, OK. (http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/10/charlie-rangel-i-called-tea-party-white-crackers-as-term-of-endearment-video/)

Then there was Vinita Hegwood, the Texas schoolteacher who was fired over inflammatory tweets relative to the Ferguson, Mo situation and her racially offensive, “Crackers...Kill yourselves.” (http://newsone.com/3071087/vinita-hegwood-resigns-over-mike-brown-related-tweet/)

Interestingly enough, I didn’t have to fictionalize anything, nor resort to anecdotal accounts, the way Lawrence Otis Graham did with his “story.” In fact, I didn’t even need to look further back than the past week’s news feeds to come up with these few examples of the much more socially accepted bigotries we ALL live with today.

I think that pretty much proves my point.

Well, That Didn’t Take Very Long!

In Tuesday’s WSJ Brody Mullins and Sarah Lueck declared, “Some prominent Democrats are beginning to rethink proposed tax increases on hedge-fund and private-equity managers' earnings, after an aggressive pushback by industry lobbyists and arguments that the impact could extend far beyond Wall Street.”

"When you first hear about it, it seems like, 'Yes, this looks like an appealing way to generate a lot of revenue,' but when you study it more it seems like there are some serious unintended consequences," said Rep. Brian Baird of Washington, a member of a coalition of centrist Democrats who often play a deciding role on business and tax bills."

As Mullins and Lueck note, “Among other things, lawmakers say they worry a tax boost could take a bite out of public pensions' investment returns, adversely affect financial-sector profits and employment or, more broadly, disrupt investment incentives.

“It remains to be seen, however, how any individual Democrat might vote on the issue, especially if it is combined with another, more popular Democratic priority. One such vehicle might be legislation to reduce the hit of the alternative minimum tax, which was designed to prevent the richest Americans from dodging their taxes but will ensnare growing numbers of middle-class taxpayers. That combination would fit with Democrats' broader push for tax equity.”

The real threat is its impact on public employee pension funds. Public employee Unions are one of the Democrats most powerful constituents.

According to Mullins and Lueck, “New York Sen. Charles Schumer, the top fund-raiser for Senate Democrats -- and a perennial favorite of Wall Street donors -- was among the first in his party to question the legislation. He says Congress shouldn't single out hedge-fund and private-equity managers. Any legislation, he says, should be expanded to include managers of other investment partnerships, such as real estate, oil and gas, timber and agriculture investment vehicles. Such a move, though, would likely boost opposition to it.

“Lawmakers' emerging concerns may open the door to compromise. Some Democrats have discussed a plan to raise the tax on carried interest above 15%, but lower than the 35% proposed in the House bill, an idea floated by some in the private-equity industry.”

.

Still, Charels Rangel (D-NY) supports the tax hike, in fact, there are few tax hikes he doesn't support, so it'll be interesting over the next few months.

SEE: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118584621735982940.html?mod=politics_primary_hs