Alternative title: "What's in it for me"

Elbert Guillory is a Louisiana state senator who recently switched to the Republican Party. In this video, he explains why. In this blog, I take his words apart.



"I wanted to take a moment to explain why I chose to become a Republican. And also to explain why I don't think it was a bold decision at all."

"It's because I'm a politician in Louisiana, and I want to stay in office."

"Somehow it's been forgotten that the Republican Party was founded in 1854 as an abolitionist movement with one simple creed: that slavery is a violation of the rights of man."

Yes, forgotten by the Republicans themselves in the age of the Southern Strategy.

"The first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln."

The first black president is a Democrat.

"It was the Republican president Dwight Eisenhower—"

A moderate nonpartisan with virtually no connection to today's GOP—

"—who championed the Civil Rights Act of 1957. But it was the Democrats in the Senate who filibustered the bill."

Actually, the filibusterer in question was Strom Thurmond, who later defined the racist right of the Republican Party. Until the early 1960s, the Democratic Party was such a monopoly in the South that the designation meant virtually nothing (much like the direction the GOP is heading in Louisiana). But then Thurmond and other conservative-leaning "Dixiecrats" began beelining in droves for the Republican Party. Why? Civil rights. 

Pictured: Obamabots.

So far, Guillory isn't too impressive with his grasp of history. Let's see how he does with politics.

"At the heart of liberalism is the idea that only a great and powerful big government can be the benefactor of social justice for all Americans. But the left is only concerned with one thing: control."

And if today's conservatives abhor anything, it's control. Why, they hate it so much that they don't want to control you, or help you in any way, at all! But still, give them your vote so they can enrich themselves while you're free to enrich yourself unencumbered by "help."

"And they disguise this control as charity. Programs such as welfare, food stamps, these programs aren't designed to lift black Americans out of poverty."

They're meant to offer a short-term helping hand to anyone who is struggling to make ends meet. That's one of the primary functions of our government — to serve the people it represents.

"They were always intended as a mechanism for politicians to control the black community. The idea that blacks, or anyone for that matter, need the government to get ahead in life, is despicable."

What's truly despicable: equating social programs with race, when the statistics don't bear out those connotations. Also despicable: the idea that blacks are a monolith of easily snookered people. And Republicans wonder why they have a racist image?

"And more important, this idea is a failure."

What is a failure, that government provides aid to its most downtrodden citizens? The only failure I see is that such programs constantly get cut to the bone while massive subsidies to the rich and well-connected continue unabated and unencumbered by racially charged sophistry.

"Our communities are just as poor as they've always been. Our schools continue to fail children. Our prisons are filled with young black men..."

Yes, we should really give Republicans a crack at fixing communities and schools and reducing the incarceration rate of young black men. It's high time the GOP brought jobs and infrastructure to the inner cities; increased funding of public schools; and stemmed the tide of an increasingly privatized prison-industrial complex that punches its ticket on arbitrary drug laws and substandard public defense that disproportionately dooms young black men to extended prison sentences. It's practically the party's linchpin!

"Our self-initiative and our self-reliance have been sacrificed in exchange for allegiance to our overseers—"

Overseers, elected representatives, same thing, amirite?

"—who control us by making us dependent on them."

This is something a white Republican politician can't politely say. But Elbert Guillory can! 

"Sometimes I wonder if the word freedom is tossed around so frequently in our society that it has become a cliché. ... It's the idea the economy must remain free of government persuasion."

I'd say that's tossing around the word freedom...

"It's the idea that the press must operate without government intrusion. And it's the idea that the e-mails and phone records of Americans should remain free from government search and seizure."

Because Republicans would never draft and pass legislation that would allow for exactly that. Right?

"It's the idea that parents must be the decision-makers in regards to their children's education, not some government bureaucrat!"

No. Many parents aren't fit to make that decision. It should be up to an elected body of qualified school officials to ensure that every single school is worth attending. The Republican idea that schools should be in competition with each other is one born of greed and elitism. Oh, and it doesn't work.

"But most importantly, it's the idea that the individual must be free to pursue his or her own happiness, free from government dependence and free from government control. Because to be truly free, is to be reliant on no one—"

I've known lots of poor people of all races, and virtually all of them wanted a better life. What they didn't want was the prospect of being completely abandoned by society in the likely event that such a transition would be difficult. It's not as if people's needs vanish in times like that. Ayn Rand never thought that one through, apparently.

"—other than the author of our destiny."

So much for self-reliance, huh?

"So, my brothers and sisters of the American community, please join with me today in abandoning the government plantation—"

Wonder how long that winning line sat on a speechwriter's desk before it became useful?

"—and the party of disappointment."

I guess when the alternative offers zero expectations, disappointment isn't an issue.

"So that we may all echo the words of one Republican leader—"

Let me guess ... the non-Republican Martin Luther King Jr.?

"—who famously said, 'Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty, we're free at last!'"

Man, I'm good. (Or Guillory's far too predictable. Can it be both?)

Forget his incomplete history lesson; Elbert's real reason for defection is political expediency. His deal with the devil is that, in exchange for validating condescending racial rhetoric, he can be the latest Black Republican Rising Star. That's something the Democrats can't offer, with the deep black bench it attracts organically.

Critics might be tempted to accuse Elbert Guillory of being a turncoat or a race traitor, but I don't think those allegations are fair. No, he's simply another politician thinking in the short term, so that his term isn't short. It's all about his own prospects.

In that sense, he's right where he wants to be. And where he belongs.

Such a Louisiana observation

Bent, expired inspection stickers are the beer-in-a-paper-bag of the automotive world.

We know exactly what's up. Why even bother?

When comedy is not at all funny

On the same day Sports Illustrated ran this excellent guest column by Steve Gleason, two Atlanta DJs and a third employee were fired for mocking his ALS affliction.

My immediate reaction was, "good." But after talking with two journalist friends about it, I had to re-examine my feelings a bit. One of them reminded me that shows like The Simpsons and Family Guy routinely feature Stephen Hawking-type characters for laughs, something I've never objected to before. The questions became: 1) Was the suspension out of line with free speech? 2) Is Gleason impervious to spoofery in a way that Hawking isn't? 3) Were we, as outsiders, being oversensitive in a way that a public figure might not be? 4) Had any of us heard the actual bit before passing judgment? Let's take these one by one, as I see them:

1) Was the firing out of line with free speech?

No, it was not. Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from the consequences of that speech. Now whether the punishment was appropriate, that's a better debate. I'll save it for the final question.

2) Is Gleason impervious to spoofery in a way that Hawking isn't?

No, he isn't. But the devil is in the details. When you see Hawking play himself on The Simpsons or see a similar character on Family Guy, consider where the jokes lie. Respectively, it's Hawking being a funny guy and a professor who uses his monotone computer voice to express excitement, sarcasm and boastfulness. (Years ago, my friend had a program that read her e-mails over the phone. I sent her one where the voice pleaded with her to hold him. Same gag, no disabilities involved.) In neither case is the ALS affliction the butt of the joke; the closer it gets to ALS, the less amusing it is.

The Gleason mockery was all about his ALS. He had nothing to do with the bit, and its entire basis for being was that he struggles to communicate. It also badly misrepresented that struggle, given that Gleason isn't prone to randomly spewing knock-knock jokes. At the very least, the mockery should be accurate. 

3) Were we, as outsiders, being oversensitive in a way that a public figure might not be?

Perhaps. One of my friends argued that Gleason, being the witty and sometimes self-deprecating guy that he is, would just laugh it off. But regardless of how he takes it, I (and every other listener) have a right to be offended and upset by it. Similarly, the station had a right to make a personnel decision via its own instinct. 

4) Had any of us heard the actual bit before passing judgment? 

Admittedly, no. Much of our outrage was based on the much-reported quote that fake Steve didn't know if he'd be alive next week. But then I found an audio link to the bit and it was far worse than I'd imagined. Not because the DJs were cruel and unforgiving — but because they were cruel, unforgiving and horribly unfunny. 

As a student of humor, I believe that nothing is off-limits if it works — a solid gag will transcend any taboo. That said, however, joking about things out of a target's control is almost always too mean to work. Aspects such as race, disability and even appearance require a delicate touch that's rare in the type of shock jock most likely to work those angles. If there's even a hint of genuine hostility toward the targets, the joke is derailed entirely. It's touchy territory at best, which is why only a handful of well-known comedians get a free pass for delving in it. And even then, they have to elicit big laughs every time or face a backlash.

These DJs made that long-shot gamble and came up short. Should they have been fired for missing the mark? No; comedy is always hit-or-miss. But professionals of their stature are supposed to know what risks are worth taking for the payoff, and they failed astonishingly in that regard. That poor judgment goes far beyond a single comedy bit, and it's for that reason that termination is a fair punishment.

They had to be funny. They could have been mean-funny. But unfunny and mean is just plain mean.

UPDATE (6/19/13): I got called out, indirectly, on another blog for an alleged double standard on this one. The blogger cited my defense of The Onion after it tweeted that really terrible remark about Quvenzhané Wallis as proof that my stance on comedy changes depending on who's being lampooned. She suggested that I must identify more with Steve Gleason than with the child star — and that race is a factor. Frankly, that's a cheap shot that I find as surprising as it is insulting. And I don't think there is a double standard, because the jokes aren't comparable. If The Onion had mocked Wallis for being black or poor, yes — but they called this cute and sweet little girl an inappropriate (and, importantly, random) epithet to poke fun at their own (fake) rudeness. The DJs, on the other hand, attacked Gleason for having ALS. It was mean (and calculatedly so) all the way through, and there was no indication that the joke was on anyone but Gleason. Intent is everything in comedy.

The one similarity in my view is that in both cases, the comedy landed with a thud. As it should have.

An open letter to Michael Collins

Hi Michael,

I just read your blog titled, "Saints fans are the worst in the NFL." I found it ridden with factual inaccuracies that, as a fellow writer and journalist, leave me worried about the integrity of your work. Allow me to set the record straight so we fans can continue our rivalry on an enlightened note:

• Saints fans are indeed the worst in the NFL, in the sense that we're the worst at disloyalty. Perhaps it was a space or kerning issue, but chopping off the "at disloyalty" part from your header casts it in a dubious light.

• You alluded to "good taste" preventing you from embedding the tweets that compelled you to write your blog in the first place. It would much easier to address the allegations you made if you sufficiently backed them up with the tweets in question. "Good taste" is no excuse, because it implies there was any good taste to be prohibitive.

• The picture of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell as Hitler was not, despite your assertion, "classy." Perhaps that was some sort of linguistic trick on your part, but I can't imagine how such a turn of phrase can be taken at anything other than face value. As a Saints fan, I'm no defender of the Classy Commish, but neither will I defend such a sign. There are much more appropriate and creative ways to address Goodell's actions than that. I wrote him a letter, myself.

• I'll grant you that some Saints fans are awful and illiterate, because some people in Louisiana are awful and illiterate. But the Internet attracts awfulness from all corners, doesn't it? Considering how they behave in person, I can't believe you'd ever compare New Orleanians to the Philadelphia fan base that booed Santa Claus and threw battery-packed snowballs at players. New Orleans is a hotbed of hospitality; even if it wasn't, though, I'll bet most Americans would brave booing and projectiles to enjoy the French Quarter and the Superdome. (Come to think of it, Mardi Gras is all about projectiles, isn't it?)

• The Saints haven't been the "Aints" for awhile. The last time the Saints faithful wore paper bags en masse, I was young enough to be carried in one. Because I was an infant. I'm 33 now. This Aints talk reminds me of those who mock President Obama for being just a community organizer, because that was his job from 1985-88. He's accomplished a lot since then, and so have the Saints. That criticism is especially ironic because — how can I put this delicately — John Elway.

• Yes, Atlanta has New Orleans beat in number of pro sports teams. Housewives too. 34-19.

• Atlanta, contrary to your assertion, is the City Too Busy to Hate. We Saints fans are certainly too busy to hate it. Does that make New Orleanians better Atlantans? Work on that!

• "Who Dat" is not defined as "callow, en masse" in any textbook. It's an inquisitive query as to who can best the Saints in athletic competition. We ask because, most of the time, we don't know the answer. That question gets especially repetitive in the Georgia Dome, hence your understandable confusion.

I hope I have offered my corrections in an earnest, literate, dispassionate and non-callow manner. By refraining from any cracks about the dirtiness of your birds and how lucky you are that Gary Anderson missed that kick that year, I hope to be an ambassador for all that is good in Who Dat Nation. Thank you for opening up this dialogue. Can't wait for football season!

Yours in NFC South blogdom,

Ian

UPDATE! Collins had this to say:

Gee, love notes from Saints fans. How touching. RT @ianyourhead: @GaSportsCraze I wrote you a letter: http://t.co/IsElv2kF8Z
— Michael Collins (@GaSportsCraze) June 17, 2013

And this:

I'm unsure of this new codicil that requires me to have points of fact or proof to defend my opinion. It's my opinion, don't agree? Ok.
— Michael Collins (@GaSportsCraze) June 17, 2013

Heck of a job, Heck

Nevada congressman's son tweets racist, homophobic stuff

I'm a big believer that people should not be held responsible for the sins of others. Also, teenagers shouldn't have their reputations permanently damaged for ignorant stuff they say on account of being teenagers.

That said, however...

Parents are a child's No. 1 influence. When a teen regularly tweets astoundingly bigoted messages for the whole world to see, one (or both) of two things is happening:

1) The child is learning such behavior from their parents, and/or

2) The parents aren't giving sufficient oversight to the child's activities.

The second point would seem especially relevant for someone who holds high elected office, as a member of a party trying to shake a reputation of prejudice. Short of that, surely Joe Heck wants to be a decent parent at least. One would hope.

Yes, it's no given that offspring reflect the political or social views of their parents, especially at 16. But in my experience, every racist I've ever met had parents who held similar views. 

Given how little I know about Joe Heck, I can't say for sure what he holds in his heart. But if how his son talks is any indicator, his first impression isn't too good. And this doesn't help:

'I am extremely disappointed in my son’s use of the offensive and inappropriate language on twitter: that type of language has never been permitted in our home,' Heck's father said in a statement to Buzzfeed. 

What kind of apology is that? He might as well have said, "I am extremely disappointed in my son's use of bad words when expressing his hate for blacks and women. I would prefer he use more polite words when tweeting that hate."

The words aren't the problem; the hate behind them is.

Hittheroad for Humanity

The Metro Council in Baton Rouge has approved funding for a program that gives homeless people bus tickets out of town.

Its original name? Clean Sweep.

I didn't make that up, because I couldn't make that up. 

Now it's called HOPE (Homeless Outreach Prevention Efforts), which leaves the modification of "prevention" in question. But hey, it's Baton Rouge. We should be happy they didn't call it White Wash. Or worse.

Like so many ideas that arise from a conservative culture, this one has a seemingly charitable premise that turns horrible with a little critical thought. The stated idea is that many of these people traveled from elsewhere, encountered hard luck and just need a ride home. But that raises a few questions:

1) To how many people does that specific scenario apply?

2) Do those people even want to go home, the place that compelled them to see Baton Rouge as a better alternative in the first place?

3) If so, and they fulfill the requirement that they have open arms to return to, how likely is it that those arms can't forward them the money?

4) What is the parish doing about improving the lot of the native homeless?

5) Isn't this a signal that the parish cares less about providing opportunity than sweeping itself clean of undesirables to appease the upper class?

I'd like this plan better if it offered relocation to residents who want more than the area can offer. But of course things like that don't happen. Clean sweeps happen.

The only saving grace is that it's underfunded. Of course it is.

They don't say which generation

I know very few profligate spenders these days. Most are in some degree of debt, but it's over necessities such as medical care, child care and/or a decent roof over their heads. Living within your means is a sensible idea in principle — but the fact is, most people are in debt, sometimes cripplingly so. And humans haven't yet evolved to the point where vomiting and sweating replaces eating and drinking, so they still have to consume something to break even in a sentient sense. Some things you have to do regardless of fortune and financial acumen.

Even with a steady income and the most grounded spending habits, it can be tough to get by these days. Those people don't deserve to be judged as if they're Gordon Gekko on an Al Bundy budget. People my age (the "generation" under question here, I imagine) don't have the 1980s yuppie mentality. Even where we do go nuts over shiny things, we're humble enough to not equate bling with superiority.

I grew up in a rough neighborhood, and I've never been shy about saying so. This always embarrassed Mom and Dad, because they thought I was saying they were bad parents. But to me (and my peers), it was a badge of honor, proof that I wasn't a clueless and soft rich jerk. It was, in fact, a compliment to my parents' resolve — that they lived with what they had. For them that was perhaps less of a virtue, because their generation was about the supremacy of upward mobility. 

My grandparents, being Depression survivors, had a quirk — if I started a soda and didn't finish it, they'd finish it off. After all, the Depression. My parents, on the other hand, would just tell me to throw it away. Now, I definitely don't finish out anyone's drinks out of principle, but I do value the virtue of thrift. And I yearn for the stable economic times that allowed my parents, even with their struggles, to not worry about every last sip of Faygo Moon Mist. There's much to learn (both up and down) from our elders of all generations, and I think we're in a unique spot to make the most of it. Because if we've learned one thing in our short lives, it's how to make the most of things.

Electing some of our own to high office would help too.