LOUISIANA JUDGE DENIES MARRIAGE LICENSE TO INTERRACIAL COUPLE

Not Good for Children?

Breaking news from AP that is unrelated to kids in flying balloons:

A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

...

Bardwell told the Daily Star of Hammond that he was not a racist.

"I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house," Bardwell said. "My main concern is for the children."

Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

Well, that was fun seeing what Louisiana was like in the 1950's. I'd like to go back to the 21st century now.

Anybody seen my time machine?


(Thanks to Mama Shih)

--Junichi

FIND THE DIFFERENCES

Microsoft ad used in the United States



Microsoft ad used in Poland

Did you spot the differences, kids?

If not, here are the answers:

1. The Asian guy in the U.S. ad is the CEO, whereas the Asian guy in the Polish ad is an exchange student.

2. The middle man in the U.S. ad does not have health insurance.

3. The woman in the Polish ad does not actually care that Michael Vick is playing football again when so many more NFL players have been convicted for crimes that involve the death of human beings and served shorter sentences.

4. The middle man in the Polish ad is playing pocket pool.

5. The U.S. ad does not use the word "firmy."

Also, something looks a bit off about the skin color of the middle guy ...

Credit: AMERICAblog

--Junichi

A LATINA JUDGE AND A COUNTRY BUILT BASICALLY BY WHITE FOLKS

Buchanan: "This has been a country built basically by white folks"

Given Judge Sotomayor's distinguished resume and impressive performance at this week's hearings, the Senate Republicans likely to vote against her confirmation are struggling to defend their position with any level of specificity and honesty.

Senator Mitch McConnell, for example, plans to vote against Sotomayor because of her "alarming lack of respect for the notion of equal justice" and her "insufficient willingness to abide by the judicial oath."

But Pat Buchanan, in the video above, is articulating what some of the opposition is thinking, but too afraid to say out of fear of alienating potential voters.

Buchanan is voicing the backwards view that many still cling to: if a person's gender and ethnicity is considered in the selection process, she must inherently be unqualified for the position.

Again, while I find nearly everything Buchanan is saying abhorrent, it's another example of a circumstance when I prefer that bigots be overt and honest instead of covert and disingenuous.

--Junichi

WHEN OVERT RACISM IS REFRESHING

When George Wallace becomes the lifeguard

Would you rather live in:

(1) a society in which all racism is transparent, blatant, and in your face; or

(2) a society with as much racism as the one above but where the prejudice is largely veiled, subtle, and repackaged as something less insidious?

Put another way, would you rather have the KKK wearing white hoods or three-piece suits? (Note to self: we need to reference Ice Cube more often around here.)

In my head, I debate this question all the time.

On the one hand, option #2 seems like a far more pleasant place to live, as it erases the visible signs of hatred. One can claim to live in a post-racial society and believe, albeit falsely, in the hope of equal opportunity.

On the other hand, with option #1, you know where you stand with everyone and vice versa. No need to wonder if your prospective employer, father-in-law, landlord, or teacher is a bigot. If he is, he'll hurl racial epithets at you or burn crosses in order to leave no ambiguity.

This all brings me to this emerging story:

As you may have heard, the Creative Steps Day Camp paid $1950 to The Valley Swim Club, a private swim club in Northeast Philly, to use their pool. The Valley Swim Club is a private club that advertises open membership.

But the seemingly all-white club ejected the kids from the day camp when the club's pool became inundated with dozens of Black and Chicano children.

News segment with more info below:



Now, here's the kicker.

In explaining why the club ejecting the kids from the camp, John Duesler, President of The Valley Swim Club, said,

"There was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion ... and the atmosphere of the club."

Did you get that? The black and brown kids would "change the complexion" of the club.

His honesty is as refreshing as a swimming pool on a hot summer day!

So while I still can't answer the question I posed at the beginning of this post, I can say that one thing I like about option #1 is that it's a world where the discriminated will have a much easier time winning lawsuits!

--Junichi

CHATTING WITH JOHN CHO

cho gets serious

I was really happy to be able to do this; I knew John as a classmate from UC Berkeley - *15 years ago* - and I've taken a lot of pleasure in seeing his career accelerate over that time. I finally had the opportunity to interview him and at the risk of sounding immodest, I thought it was a great conversation, especially with his candor about issues of acting, media and race.

Here's Part 1 of our interview, part 2 is here.

--O.W.

BEHIND THE WHITE HOUSE DOOR

james gets jimmied
Justine Lai's "Join or Die" series (NSFW)

Artist statement:

"In Join Or Die, I paint myself having sex with the Presidents of the United States in chronological order. I am interested in humanizing and demythologizing the Presidents by addressing their public legacies and private lives. The presidency itself is a seemingly immortal and impenetrable institution; by inserting myself in its timeline, I attempt to locate something intimate and mortal. I use this intimacy to subvert authority, but it demands that I make myself vulnerable along with the Presidents. A power lies in rendering these patriarchal figures the possible object of shame, ridicule and desire, but it is a power that is constantly negotiated.

I approach the spectacle of sex and politics with a certain playfulness. It would be easy to let the images slide into territory that’s strictly pornographic—the lurid and hardcore, the predictably “controversial.” One could also imagine a series preoccupied with wearing its “Fuck the Man” symbolism on its sleeve. But I wish to move beyond these things and make something playful and tender and maybe a little ambiguous, but exuberantly so. This, I feel, is the most humanizing act I can do."

A provocative artistic series to say the least. I do wonder, however, about the assumption that the office of the Presidency is typically seen as (prepare your rimshot): "impenetrable" given the huge wave of best-selling histories of different Presidents that, in my opinion, precisely aim to offer a portrait of them in "intimate and mortal" ways. If anything, Lai's portraits (all except one, perhaps) takes the presidential power dynamic and "humanizes" them only insofar as making the phrase "getting f---ed by the President" into something more literal rather than the common figurative sense.

Of course, for that reason, I get the feeling that the fan favorite among these will likely be the Buchanan portrait where Lai gets to turn the tables by pegging him instead. Of course, there is also a certain irony that it should be Buchanan given 1) the rumors of his sexual orientation and 2) he's reviled as one of the worst Presidents in history, having done his fair share (arguably) of screwing over the nation. Is Lai's portrait some form of creative payback? (If so, one can only imagine what G.W.'s portrait will look like. And now that I've imagined it, I wish I hadn't).

There's also something amusing in realizing how many people will likely relearn their history of Presidential succession once they cease to be able to recognize the obvious ones such as Washington or Lincoln in order to ascertain, "wait, which President was getting his spank on? Was that Grant or Jackson?"

One last thought: Lai doesn't discuss race in her statement but that has to be the (blushing) elephant in the room, no? (I can only imagine the response this series will get from Angry AZN types...and no, I don't mean Phil Yu). Speaking of which...

(Link: Angry Asian Man)

--O.W.

OH, LIGHTEN UP

Ah, global irony: even in an era where tanning has become more vogue than ever in the U.S., with the light-skinned going to great lengths to become browner, elsewhere in the world, especially Asia, the trend has been to become lighter.

PRI's The World has a good radio segment about the skin whitening craze in Asia, with the stunning statistic that 50% of women in Taiwan purchase skin whitening products and elsewhere in Asia, rates of 40% are not unusual. As the piece points out in nations such as Japan, the preference for lighter skin taps into centuries-old cultural biases but that certainly doesn't also discount the impact of a global media where Whiteness has long been a beauty norm as well.

I'm curious to see what some of long-term implications of this trend may be, for example, how it might impact the prevalence of skin disease/damage in these societies with the wholesale abandonment of the protections afforded melanin.

--O.W.

READING ROOM

their cultural reign...ended?
A few stories friends of mine have contributed in recent days:

In this month's The Atlantic cover story, Hua Hsu discusses "The End of White America". Hua's talking about the end of Whiteness as a normative identity in American culture (but certainly not the end of White racial privilege). An interesting idea to ponder in the days leading up to Barack Obama's inauguration.

Speaking of which, Ta-Nehisi Coates profiles Michelle Obama, also in The Atlantic and he and Hua chop it up, blog-style.

Kai Ma reports on the (in)value of having a PhD in today's current academic market. This hits too close to home! (She did interview a few friends of mine though - and boy, are they salty!)

Ok, this one wasn't written by someone I know, but it's still interesting: Christopher Shea on how sociology is confronting the genetics of human behavior. Does this mean I should have listened to my mother and gone into medical sciences instead?

--O.W.

WHAT HASN'T CHANGED IN AMERICA

a staircase built for one
Now that the glow of last week's election has ever-so faded, it's worth taking stock of exactly "what this all means." Let's first start by noting that, previous to the election, one major concern amongst progressives was that more liberal humanist types - to say nothing of the hyperbole-addicted punditry - would perhaps mistakenly construe Obama's then-possible election as a repudiation of America's shameful legacy of race.

As if on cue, the day after the election brought an avalanche of superlatives and overbaked rhetoric that made it sound as if, with a single election, America had managed to overcome the racial divisions of the last 400 years. I was especially aghast at the ways in which the election was portrayed as the validation of the Civil Rights Movement...as if the elevation of a single Black leader was what getting rid of Jim Crow was about.

I trust that at least some amongst you were skeptical of this logic from the start but it was surreal, laughable and tragic that the very next day, some genius at CNN (possibly the same one who thought holograms were a good idea) put up a viewer poll about, "Do we still need affirmative action?"

Wait...what?

Last I checked, affirmative action wasn't about trying to get a Black person elected President. It was meant to address centuries of systemic, institutionalized racial inequality. Obama's election is not proof that such institutionalized racism has been eliminated. One person rising above limitations doesn't suggest the absence of limitations. Only a complete fool would assume that Obama's victory represents something truly, paradigm-shifting about American racial inequality.

Consider two things:

1) Obama lost the white vote. Yeah - newsflash to everyone: Obama lost the white vote. Timothy Noah breaks down the numbers in today's Slate: White voters, nationally, went 43% for Obama compared to McCain's 55%. That's 50% higher than Obama's overall national lead over McCain.

Let's put it another way - if the election were in the hands of White America, McCain/Palin would planning their transition team right now, not Obama. Sober up on that for a moment, especially those liberal whites who've been patting themselves on the back.

It is true that Obama did do well amongst white voters compared to previous Democratic candidates; in the last 40 years, only Jimmy Carter did better but even he couldn't get over 50%. This raises Noah's other point: no white majority has voted for a Democratic president since Johnson in '64 (and his election was largely a product of JFK's assassination the year prior). Consistently and overwhelmingly, Democratic candidates cannot depend on majority white support and the conventional wisdom suggests this is at least due in part to the bitterness of Southern Dixiecrats forced by a Democratic administration (Johnson) to abandon Jim Crow. To put it another way, the dismantling of some forms of institutionalized racism (separate drinking fountains for example) has cost the Democratic party a majority of the national  White vote for the last 40+ years. Obama didn't change that. In fact, in the deep South, his margin of loss was as great as 6 to 1. 

I want to very carefully note that I'm not suggesting race is the only meaningful factor to weigh here. This is something else that's annoying in the current, "America isn't racist!" rhetoric - it actually assumes that race was the overwhelming issue in this election which is absurd. People vote for myriad reasons, race only being one possible factor. That's why it's naive to think that Obama's election represents some kind of mandate on social relations. After all, when whites went 60/40 for Bush Sr. over Dukakis in 1988, does that mean Whites were anti-Greek that year? Of course not.

Moreover, even if we were to accept that race played a major role in this election, the more accurate narrative to follow isn't about the redemption of White America over its racist past but rather, it's about the transformation of America, writ large. It's demographic change that mattered in 2008, not wholesale changes in attitudes. We are a far more diverse society than we have been in the past. Equally, if not important, is where those diverse voters ended up - states like Virginia and North Carolina especially have experienced significant demographic change over the last decade; their populations skew younger, more Latinos, better educated, etc. Those are also demographics that tend to lean Democratic.

Both nationally and in the "swing states," what we saw was the pooling of those different demographics into a voting bloc that was stronger than the white majority that went for McCain. Again: Whites didn't win it for Obama. They just weren't a big enough voting bloc to lose it for him. If Obama's victory says anything about America, it's not that we're "over" the colorline that has dominated our society. It's that our demographic changes managed to weaken the impact of that colorline last week. But as the warning goes: past results are no guarantee of future returns. One only has to compare the relative hopes of 1964 with what happened four years later.

As for my second point:

Obama's election was an incredible symbolic moment. I don't doubt this at all and I've been swept up in it too. Just the image of the Obamas as the new First Family is so incredibly profound, I still haven't taken it completely in yet.

However, Obama's victory doesn't remotely speak to the condition of poor, urban schools. It won't prevent Brown and Black bodies from disproportionately filling our prisons. It won't magically undo over half a century of preferential mortgage lending to White home buyers or empower families of color to begin building their own wealth. This is how racism is lived in America; it's not just about the dearth of non-white political leadership. It's about fundamentally different and unequal life chances based around race. I challenge anyone to demonstrate how Obama's election speaks directly to those material inequalities. Or why we'd think his Presidency would lead to improvements in those areas without specific policies designed to address them?

Obama's victory says nothing, does nothing about this fact of institutional racism in America. White privilege does not disappear simply because a Black man sits in the Oval Office. We are still the same stratified society we were last week. And last year. And last decade. And last...you get the picture.

If anything, the fear is that Obama's election actually sets the path to progress back since some liberal whites may feel it less urgent to pursue racial equality now that they can celebrate their "courage" for voting for a Black man. Only the next few years will tell what progress can be achieved. Unfortunately, iif we know anything about times of economic turmoil, it's the potential for racial scapegoats to come into play.

It wasn't easy to get Obama elected; his level of organization has been marveled over. But really, getting him elected was simple work compared to actually bringing about the social change many have portended his election represents. That hard work has always been there and will continue to be, regardless of the President's skin color.

--O.W.

THE NEW SUSAN SMITH THROWS THE LATEST McCAIN CAMPAIGN'S HAIL MARY PASS

Crazy woman or sane McCain supporter who understands McCain's desperation?

It's easy to dismiss Ashley Todd as mentally ill.

Todd is the infamous McCain campaign volunteer who fabricated a story about being sexually assaulted by a Barack Obama supporter after he saw a McCain bumper sticker on her car.

But I don't think she needs mental health treatment at all.

On the contrary, she appears to be a sane woman who had enough marbles to mastermind a story that she knew could hand the McCain campaign the momentum it needed to win the election. Unfortunately, like her predecessor Susan Smith, she was too stupid to concoct a believable story.

For those who haven't been following the story, here's what Todd initially claimed:

Todd initially told investigators she was attempting to use a bank branch ATM on Wednesday night when a 6-foot-4 black man approached her from behind, put a knife blade to her throat and demanded money. She told police she handed the assailant $60 and walked away.

Todd, who is white, told investigators she suspected the man then noticed a John McCain sticker on her car. She said the man punched her in the back of the head, knocked her to the ground and scratched a backward letter "B" into her face with a dull knife.

Police said Todd claimed the man told her that he was going to "teach her a lesson" for supporting the Republican presidential candidate, and that she was going to become a supporter of Democratic candidate Barack Obama.

After later adding allegations of sexual assault, forgetting crucial details, providing inconsistent accounts, and failing a lie detector test, Todd confessed to making the whole thing up.

What I don't understand is why anybody is wondering why a woman would do such a thing.

Isn't it obvious?

If the story were true, Ashley Todd would have provided the ultimate October Surprise that ignited enough of a race war to tilt the election. With McCain over ten points down, she decided it was her duty to throw the necessary Hail Mary pass.

While undoubtedly ignorant, Ashley Todd is sane and smart enough to understand that some white (and non-white) voters can't get past the idea that our next president will be a black man. Ashley Todd wanted to appeal to those who have no difficulty believing a story about a black man who is a violent savage that preys upon young white women near ATM machines.

Now that the story has been debunked, this story would normally deserve no more national attention.

Except that the McCain campaign in Pennsylvania pushed the more partisan and incendiary elements of the story before the media got a hold of it.

This says far more about the state of the McCain campaign than anything else.

Perhaps Fox News Executive VP John Moody said it best (before the lie was exposed):

This incident could become a watershed event in the 11 days before the election.
If Ms. Todd's allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator Obama, not because they are racists (with due respect to Rep. John Murtha), but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee.

If the incident turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain's quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting.

For Pittsburgh, a city that has done so much to shape American history over the centuries, another moment of truth is at hand.

Thanks, Ashley Todd, for ending Senator McCain's quest for the presidency.

--Junichi

RACE AND POLLING: DECONSTRUCTING THE "BRADLEY" EFFECT

truer colors behind closed curtains?
One of the things that has really surprised me is that talking to my university colleagues -professors trained in sociology, political science, psychology, etc. - is how many of them, despite whatever data is out there, seem to think that latent, closet racism will ultimately swing the election for McCain.

It seems that paranoia - however well-founded - trumps the empirical. And sure, race is part of this election no matter how many people (cough cough, Obama) avoid talking about it but there's abundant evidence and analysis to suggest that the assumed racial bias that will only show up on Nov. 4 is unfounded.

Today, the NY Times tackles this issue, debunking the idea that there may be an Bradley Effect waiting to spring on Obama.

Some highlights:

"Among the non-Bradley factors at the intersection of race and polling is something called the reverse Bradley (perhaps more prevalent than the Bradley), in which polls understate support for a black candidate, particularly in regions where it is socially acceptable to express distrust of blacks."

"Research shows that those who refuse to participate in surveys tend to be less likely to vote for a black candidate... Pollsters had a harder time reaching voters with lower levels of education. Less-educated whites are the kind Mr. Obama has had trouble winning over. Conversely, young people are more likely to answer surveys, and they tend to favor Mr. Obama."

"The Bradley gap seems to be disappearing. In this year’s Democratic primaries, University of Washington researchers found a Bradley effect in three states, but a reverse Bradley effect in 12 (in the other 17, polls were within a seven-point margin of error)."

"The Bradley effect, Mr. Greenwald concluded, “has conceptually mutated.” “It’s not something that’s an absolute that we should generally expect, but something that will vary with the cultural context and the desirability of expressing pro-black attitudes.”

All of which is to say: the paranoia is neither justified nor unjustified but it's nowhere near as simple as saying, "a bunch of politically correct White liberals say they're pro-Obama but won't be in November" (which is how the Bradley Effect boils down).

Instead, the point here is that how race plays out can go in many different directions, some which result in a net gain, some in a net loss. It's impossible to fully decipher polling data to know what's what since there's no way to empirically verify that individuals actually vote the way they say they're going to vote.

More important, I think one of the central things to remember is this:

My own feeling is that people are largely being honest about which way they're going to vote and I've yet to see how, by way of empirical data, to suggest otherwise. That's not to say there aren't those who are publicly saying one thing yet voting another; I'm just not remotely convinced those folks represent a sizable demographic. To put it another way: there's plenty of legitimate reasons not to vote for Obama that have nothing to do with race and I think most Americans have no qualms about being upfront with their political choices.

I mean, hell, that's a badge of honor these days, like the jackass wearing a "No-bama"" t-shirt (with the Islamic crescent moon next to the slogan, no less) at the Brentwood Farmer's Market the other day.

The other half of the article is equally interesting: trying to weigh how much Obama may be benefitting in poll numbers by people willing to be polled to begin with.

Again, we'll sort all this out in about 20 days. And then can argue over the results for the next 20 years...

--O.W.

THE SCAPEGOAT RACE IS ON!

"damn those poor people for losing our money!"
There's been a disturbing trend amongst pundits of late to try to blame the current financial debacle at the feet of poor people and people of color. It's a remarkably brazen smokescreen that smacks of the kind of racially-driven reactionary politics we've seen whenever the economy runs poorly.

Among other places, Slate.com's Daniel Gross deconstructs (read: demolishes) the argument as its currently being laid out.

Seriously, is there anything the far right won't blame poor people and people of color for? Global warming (oh wait, that's not man-made)? Missing socks? The Cubs?

I should add: I know it's the trend, especially in the media, to reduce large, complex problems to simple soundbites but this really isn't serving anyone. I think it's equally naive and problematic to assume "fat cat lenders" are solely behind this mess or that de-regulation, by itself, explains it. We are where we are because a whole clusterf*** of things happened (and continue to happen) and as desirable as it is to point a single finger, we need more hands than Kali to do the issue justice.

I'll also add: I caught myself earlier this week, reading the headlines and thinking, "hey, the market is tanking...good for Obama!" as if wanting an election outcome should come at the price of our financial system imploding (and my family's finances along with it). I'm mentally and emotionally exhausted by this race and at this point, Nov. 4th really can't come soon enough so we can stop viewing everything through the prism of the election.

--O.W.

BAILOUTS AND BAILING OUT

Somebody just read the latest polls

The last 48 hours have been some of the most fascinating of any news cycle. Let's review.

McCain has allegedly "suspended" his campaign to work on the bailout, even though the fundamentals of our economy is strong and even though Republicans and Democrats already have reached a compromise.

McCain also wants to postpone Friday's debate in order to devote time in the Senate chamber toward staging a photo opportunity building a bipartisan consensus. This is surprising, since he has been absent for more votes in the Senate than any other current senator.

His potential pullout from the debate is all the more suspicious when considering that he wants to reschedule it for the date of the Vice Presidential debate, which would be indefinitely bumped.

Meanwhile, Palin, who apparently didn't get the message that McCain suspended the campaign, went trolling for votes at Ground Zero today and was actually allowed by the non-sexists at the McCain campaign to take four questions from the press. Four! Wow!

One can understand why the GOP is nervous about her talking to any reporter outside of Fox News, given last night's train wreck of an interview with Katie Couric:

One conclusion you can reach from the interview: Katie Couric is not a witch. Because Palin was recently protected from witchcraft at her hometown church.

Her interview, however, wasn't half as bad as McCain's non-interview with David Letterman, who might have single-handedly tilted public opinion about McCain's campaign suspension and debate bailout:

McCain may not be happy with Letterman, but he's probably even less thrilled with his campaign manager, Rick Davis, who -- Newsweek just uncovered -- is still an officer with the lobbying firm that represents Freddie Mac. I see no conflicts there in the same way that I do not see my widening posterior when I look in the mirror.

As for Obama? He's finally up in the polls, which is a miracle given how many Democrats have negative views about black people.

As if that race survey was not depressing enough, somebody at George Fox University wanted to really hammer home the point that this election really might come down to whether America is ready for a black president. That's why he or she decided to hang a life-size depiction of Obama in effigy from a tree.

Just in case you were starting to get optimistic that the bailout and Clay Aiken's refreshing honesty might cure our economic woes, the Congressional Budget Office director just said the proposed bailout might worsen the current financial crisis.

Good times!

--Junichi

THE BLACK LIST

For those with HBO, try to catch one of the upcoming screenings of Timothy Greenfield-Sanders/Elvis Mitchell's The Black List, please do. It's very well-done and poignant without being ham-fisted. (Someone needs to do an Asian American equivalent, seriously).

Here's part of Chris Rock's segment. Wish the whole thing was available; Rock was predictably hilarious, brilliant and heartfelt.

--O.W.

WTF WERE THEY THINKING?

"Spain's eye catching faux pas".

And timely enough, here's the ever-great Jay Smooth schooling folks on how to deal with a situation as the above:




Also, I read this on a blog comment, had to laugh despite myself: "China will get the last laugh when the Spanish basketball team ingests the urine filled Coca-Cola."

--O.W.

THE COST OF SOUNDING BLACK

Which one is depressing these guys' wages more:
(1) the fact that they sound black or (2) the vines wrapped around their curtain rods?

When I teach Race and the Law, I devote at least a day to the topic of accent discrimination, which I consider one of the most understudied and under-reported phenomena in the United States. Thankfully, a new paper by University of Chicago Professor Jeff Grogger will help fill up my future syllabi.

Grogger researched whether different speech patterns between white and black people cause wage differences.

He concluded that black employees whose voices were distinctly identified as black by anonymous listeners earn 10% less than whites with similar skills.

In contrast, black people who were not vocally identified as black earn only 2% less than comparable whites.

As for whites, those who "sound black" earn 6% lower than those whites who don't.

These conclusions controlled for intelligence, education, work experience, and other factors that affect one's wages. (Those who are into statistics should definitely read the paper, especially if you have a fetish for regression analysis.)

Perhaps most interesting of all, Grogger's charts indicate that the negative impact of "sounding black" on wages is nearly equal to the downside of "sounding Southern." This suggests, in my opinion, that classism might play a bigger role than racism in explaining the cause of the differential.

Grogger's data on the likelihood of accurately identifying others' race and gender through voice is equally as interesting. When he asked listeners to attempt to identify the race and gender of speakers (who were all stripped of any other identifying information like their name), they correctly guessed the speaker's gender 98% of the time, the white speakers' race 84% of the time, and the black speakers' race 77% of the time.

Bummer the study didn't also include Chicano/Latinos and Asian Americans.

(Hat tip: Steven Levitt)

--Junichi

THE OTHER PRESIDENTIAL "RACE"

This isn't particularly surprising but despite Obama-mania, a recent NYT/CBS poll discovered, lo and behold, we still live in a racially divided society. One conclusion drawn here is that:

"Mr. Obama’s candidacy, while generating high levels of enthusiasm among black voters, is not seen by them as evidence of significant improvement in race relations."

The upside is that progressives don't have to be so paranoid. The fear had been that an Obama presidency would be treated as "proof" that racism is over but it seems that our fair nation is pretty much in the same place it was eight years ago when it comes to divergent opinions regarding race and privilege.

Some interesting political notes: Whites are on the fence around Obama but Blacks are pretty clear: McCain gets no love (a tiny 5% favorable rating compared to 57% unfavorable). I was doing some of the math here too: Whites favor McCain over Obama 46-37% (not including "undecided") but Obama leads McCain in the same poll by 45 to 39%. The only explanation is that even Whites are less enthused about Obama compared to other groups, Obama must be earning enough support from "everyone else" to take a decent lead over McCain at this point.

--O.W.

FORGET LEBRON AND KING KONG, IT'S OBAMA'S TURN

--O.W.

RACIAL DRAFT = REAL?

ahead of the curve

The prescience of Dave Chappelle is mindboggling: "In South Africa, Chinese is the New Black"

"...A high court in South Africa ruled on Wednesday that Chinese-South Africans will be reclassified as “black."

Just to be serious, this is what these guys would call a "racial project." It's definitely not something unique to South Africa.

--O.W.

RACHEL RAY: DUNKIN' FOR TERRORISM?

What.

The.

F---.

Rachel Ray accused by Michelle Malkin of promoting terrorism.

Malkin couldn't self-parody herself any better than she is now. Somewhere, Ann Coulter is probably trying to figure out if the Neelys are secretly Muslim.

Dunkin' Donuts took a cowardly way out. Their response should have been: "Ms. Malkin - relax and have a donut!"

--O.W.