Posts Tagged ‘politics’

I’ve been vaguely aware of both the plot of The Blind Side (homeless black teenager from broken family is adopted by wealthy white family and goes on to play pro football) and the critiques of its racial politics for some time, and despite its unexpected box office success, I’ve had little desire to see it. I’m currently in Florida visiting my grandmother, though, and she wanted to see The Blind Side, so see The Blind Side we did.

I don’t much care for Sandra Bullock, but she’s exactly as good as everyone says she is as the loving, no-nonsense matriarch of a wealthy Southern family. And the movie in general is pretty much what you’d expect: cutesy, saccharine, uplifting, and formulaic. It’s good for what it is though, with a remarkable story, quick pace, witty dialogue, and genuinely likable characters.

As for the film’s racial politics, I can’t say that I entirely agree with most of the critiques I’ve seen, though I do have a few of my own. A. O. Scott’s review for the New York Times encapsulates the most common criticism of Blind Side:

To the extent that Michael represents a social problem (or maybe a whole bunch of them, including poverty, drug addiction and family dysfunction), the solution depicted is individual, charitable and, at least implicitly, faith based.  Read the complete post...

I wrote this yesterday, about 12 hours after McCain’s concession, but didn’t get a chance to post it until today.

I can’t bring myself to get as excited as I feel I should be about Obama’s victory. I was pulling for him- he was in fact the first major party candidate for whom I voted in a presidential election- but neither his victory nor the historic election of America’s first black president excites me the way they have others.

It’s nothing personal about Obama. He seems to be a smart and capable candidate and who may well prove a good president. But I just can’t imagine him deserving or living up to the incredible expectations that seem to be invested in him.

His victory is being celebrated as a mandate for change, a watershed moment for liberalism in America, and a civil rights milestone. I believe it is all of these things, but not to the extent so many people seem to think.

Not in the case of the latter two, anyway. With regard to the mandate for change, I think that expectations are hopelessly high. Much was made, in the days before the election, of the hope that voters, particularly black ones, had invested in Obama. There was talk of unprecedented engagement with the political process among African-Americans and speculation about the sense of disenfranchisement that might ensue if Obama were somehow to lose.  Read the complete post...

About five years ago, when I was a senior in college, I attended a panel on education reform that a professor of mine had organized. One of the panelists was “domestic terrorist” Bill Ayers. I don’t recall what Ayers was bloviating about, but he told some story about seeing a group of big, “thugged out” guys getting interviewed by a reporter at a high school in a rough part of Chicago. He asked if they were the football team and was told that in fact they were the chess team, and that they had won the city championships. He was surprised that that this school with a bad reputation in a bad part of town would be so into chess. I didn’t know about the chess championship, but I actually coached debate at the same school.

After the panel, there was a reception. It was a small crowd, and I was one of the only students there, certainly the least consequential person by a mile. My professor called Bill over to introduce him to me, and I began to tell him my story, “I was interested to hear about the [High School] chess team you met, because I actually coach a debate team at that same school. I’ve had similar-”  Read the complete post...

I haven’t watched or followed much of the DNC Convention, but I’ve seen enough to make these two observations:

1. Hillary Clinton and the Glass Ceiling. Before Hillary’s speech, they did this video montage thing that was all about how she may not shattered the “glass ceiling” that restricts the opportunities available to women in America but she cracked in 1000 places or something. The insinuation was very much that she lost not because Obama was the better candidate but because he was a man and she was a woman and America is unfair. I’m generally fairly sympathetic to that kind of argument, but I don’t think it holds much water in this case given that Obama is contending with a glass ceiling of his own.

More importantly, though, this is just the wrong message for her to be sending. She lost the primariy, and her role now is to suck it up and throw her support behind Obama. McCain is proof that candidates who lose in a primary but toe the party line for the general election can still be viable candidates eight years down the road. McCain had much more legitimate grievances in light of the dirty tricks that Bush/Rove employed against him in 2000, but he swallowed his pride, fell into line, and now he’s getting his moment.  Read the complete post...