Ta-Nehisi Coates to the New York Times: A really bad idea

I've seen this idea surface in several places, most recently Andrew Sullivan's blog, and I'd like to nip it in the bud:

I read your item on Bob Herbert's resignation with interest, as you summarized my sentiments precisely. As way of replacement, I hope the Times considers Ta-Nehisi Coates, even though I have no idea whether he's even interested in the perch. It's not because they're both African-American; Ta-Nehisi writes about similar issues with twice the wit and grace that Herbert could muster. It would be a shame to see those issues drop off the table with Herbert's resignation, and it would represent a real promotion to one of the most talented American pundits out there.

I'm a huge fan of Coates--at this point, in fact, his career represents what I'd like to achieve with my own: He's largely self-taught; he knows what he doesn't know; he's liberal without being knee-jerk about it; and he is contemplative and graceful in addressing the issues that he does address. He doesn't tend to get caught up in the punch-counterpunch of the political blogosphere, but when he addresses an issue of the day, well, it stays addressed.

And I think the 1,000-word column format, twice a week, is precisely the wrong place for Coates. If the pressures of the format and platform didn't push him into becoming stridently ideological, the danger is that he might end up like David Brooks--following his muse into places better addressed somewhere other than the New York Times op-ed pages.

If the Times is looking for a young, non-Caucasian liberal to fill the slot, I'd recommend somebody like Adam Serwer, whose straight-ahead style seems to fit better into the major newspaper format. But let Ta-Nehisi be Ta-Nehisis.

UPDATE: I was probably wrong.

Today in inequality reading: 'The sad but true story of wages in America'

The Economic Policy Institute crunches some wage numbers in a new paper:

Recent debates about whether public- or private-sector workers earn more have obscured a larger truth: all workers have suffered from decades of stagnating wages despite large gains in productivity. The current public discussion illogically pits state and local government employees against private workers, when both groups have failed to sufficiently benefit from the economic fruits of their labors. This paper examines trends in the compensation of public (state and local government) and private-sector employees relative to the growth of productivity over the past two decades.

These data underscore that there is a bigger story than public versus private compensation and a more penetrating set of questions to ask than who has more than whom. The ability of the economy to produce more goods and services has not translated into greater compensation for either group of workers. Why has pay fared so poorly overall? Why did the richest 1% of Americans receive 56% of all the income growth between 1989 and 2007, before the recession began (compared with 16% going to the bottom 90% of households)? Why are corporate profits 22% above their pre-recession level while total corporate sector employees’ compensation (reflecting lower employment and meager pay increases) is 3% below pre-recession levels? The answers lie in an economy that is designed to work for the well off and not to produce good jobs and improved living standards.1

Essentially, economic policy has not supported good jobs over the last 30 years or so. Rather, the focus has been on policies that were thought to make consumers better off through lower prices: deregulation of industries, privatization of public services, the weakening of labor standards including the minimum wage, erosion of the social safety net, expanding globalization, and the move toward fewer and weaker unions. These policies have served to erode the bargaining power of most workers, widen wage inequality, and deplete access to good jobs. In the last 10 years even workers with a college degree have failed to see any real wage growth.

Billy Eger doesn't like my column on Libya

Even when I criticize Barack Obama, Billy Eger gets mad. His latest missive:

If that was bush I guarantee you would've written more than,perhaps the president did the right thing by intervening in Libya,but he certainly did it the wrong way. I call BS. Who is he attacking,an why,those aren't civilians they're Muslim brotherhood,they were busses there just like union thugs were too Wisconsin by SOROS,you really only have 2 braincells an 1 is out looking for the other,do you think the Muslims you support wouldnt hesitate to cut your head off an your children's heads after they're done using u too overthrow are govt. If you think they are so friendly u should b able too walk streets over there wo worry an harm,I doubt you would come back unscathed.think retard use the brain god gave u,its your arrogance that affects ur thinking,I feel sorry for your kids
billy from wickliffe

Single-Tasking Sundays

More than a decade ago, I read a news story about a man who took a vow of silence--once a week. The world was so full of noise that he decided every Sunday was a day he would no longer add to the cacophony. Six days a week he looked and acted normal; the Sabbath he kept holy, more or less.

The world, of course, has only gotten noisier for many of us since the turn of the millennium. And for the most part, I welcome the advances that bring us the noise: blogs and Twitter and the iPad, among other developments, have made me better-informed and (I think) my life a bit richer. It is sometimes a bit much. And like a lot of folks, I have sought to ensure that I control the noise I receive, instead of the other way around. (I become more concerned about such control when I see my young son's facility and obsession with computers and iEverything.) There have been moments--fleeting to be sure-- that I have been tempted to cast all electronics out of my house a live a comfortable life of candle-lit Ludditism.

But I won't do that, for a variety of reasons.

I think, however, I will an attempt a solution. I will try--try--to keep the Sabbath holy.

I am not religious these days, so perhaps there is a certain amount of tongue-in-cheekness to my use of the phrase. I am embracing the wisdom found in the world's major religions, though, in trying to set a day apart for relaxation and contemplation. Call it a "Single-Tasking Sunday."

And here's my plan for my Single-Tasking Sundays: no electronics. No e-mail. No Facebook. No blogging. No fiddling with my iPhone every two minutes out of bored habit. For one day a week, I will live my life as though the world after (say) 1950 doesn't exist.

(One exception: music will continue to be delivered through an iPod. Right now, it's either compromise a bit, or have no music at all. But I've got my eye on a turntable. In any case, the point of this exercise isn't dogmatism.)

My newspapers will be newspapers. My walks will be outdoors, moving through time and space. My movies will be on film, viewed on a large screen. My books and magazines will be printed. I will try to live more quietly, more slowly, more deliberately.

This is not to cast off the modern world--I make my living, in part, chronicling the progress of technology. I'm writing this piece on an iPad! I have no reason to abandon the 21st century part of my 21st century life.

I need some breathing room, though. Maybe I can find it on Sunday.

Obama, Congress and Libya

I'm a little bit down on the president in this week's Scripps column:

Barack Obama was an attractive candidate to liberals in 2008 in part because he offered the promise of reining in the "imperial presidency" that had flourished under President George W. Bush, particularly when it came to military action abroad.

"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," then-candidate Obama told the Boston Globe in 2007. He added: "History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action."

Obama's actions in the last week -- committing the United States to military action in Libya with only the most-meager attempt to inform and involve Congress beforehand -- mean he has broken the promise of 2007. Libya was not and is not "an actual or imminent threat to the nation." That's not to say there aren't good reasons for intervening there; Congress should have had the opportunity to consider those reasons.

Despite Obama's protests otherwise, there was time. Discussion of the no-fly zone percolated in Washington D.C. and internationally for several weeks before action was finally taken; that was the time the president could have used to secure the support of Congress. He used it to get the support of the U.N. instead. He should have done both; a president should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Presidents have been going to war for decades without Congress' permission. It is plainly un-Constitutional. If liberals don't object, loudly, when a Democratic president crosses the line, they'll have no standing when a Republican president does the same thing. Perhaps the president did the right thing by intervening in Libya, but he certainly did it the wrong way.

Officer William Giulian says that Philadelphians who care about civil liberties are the real racists

Infuriating letter to the editor in today's Philadelphia Daily News from Officer William Giulian, responding to Marc Lamont Hill's column last week about the illegal traffic stop he endured. (The city settled his lawsuit instead of filing it.)

Some excerpts:

Now, today, I have to read about the struggle an apparently educated but blatantly racist college professor (aka Marc Lamont Hill) must go through on a day-to-day basis - oh, the humanity. His entire day was interfered with for five, maybe 10 minutes by a working police officer.

You have some brass ones to question why a police officer approaches a car he's pulled over to investigate, for a legitimate purpose (whether you agree with that or not doesn't matter), with his hand either over or on his weapon?

How about asking the family of Danny Boyle why we do that, or Sgt. Liczbinski's kids, or Daniel Faulkner's wife? I'd say to ask them, but you can't - they're dead, murdered in cold blood for simply doing their job. You have to look no further than the officer you have such a problem with for a reason that we approach a car with caution.

The problem I have with you, Marc, is that, just like so many of the people I serve, you want us to "do our job" (a phrase we hear almost daily) - but you also want us to do so at no inconvenience to you. What are you so nervous about? I know there has been some negative print regarding the Philadelphia Police Department recently, but not even the Daily News has printed an article about a police officer just walking up to a car and shooting the driver.

I'D LOVE to know how much they paid you for what amounts to nothing more than a regular old car stop in a bad neighborhood. Lucky for you they love to just throw money away around here.

This letter probably did more to damage the reputation of the Philly PD than Hill's unjustified car stop did. What Officer Giulian is suggesting here is that Philadelphians should be grateful to be stopped and felt up by police without probable cause just, you know, because they're in a bad neighborhood. And if you think the police have pulled you over illegitimately, hey: DEAD COPS! DEAD COPS!

Forgive me. I think the shooting of cops is evil. I understand why police officers feel the need to be cautious when they pull over a car. But that doesn't justify pulling over a nice car for no other reason than a cop's gut instinct. It just doesn't.

From what I can tell, Philly cops don't care much about the rights of Philadelphians. And they've used the martyrdom of their fellow cops as an excuse not to care much about the rights of Philadelphians. I'm grateful for a police force that keeps my family safe. But I'm angry that there are so many Philly cops like Officer William Giulian, who presume the rest of us are criminals until we prove otherwise.

Today in agnostic biblical literacy: Southern Baptists and single pastors

Today's NYT has an interesting story about single pastors and their inability to get hired because churches want to hire married men with children. Naturally, there's a justification:

R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., said it was unfair to accuse churches of discrimination because that word implied something “wrongful.”

“Both the logic of Scripture and the centrality of marriage in society,” he said, justify “the strong inclination of congregations to hire a man who is not only married but faithfully married.”

Mr. Mohler said he tells the students at his seminary that “if they remain single, they need to understand that there’s going to be a significant limitation on their ability to serve as a pastor.”

Now, I know, I know: I'm agnostic. And I also believe the Apostle Paul was kind of nuts. But Paul did write a fair amount of scripture, including lots of stuff that suggested that he saw marriage as desirable only insofar as it kept horny men from committing sins of passion. Otherwise, he was pretty down on the institution. Just a couple of quotes from I Corinthians Chapter 7.

8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

If a church decides that it needs a married pastor, I'm not going to dispute it. And certainly, I'm not a fan of the priestly celibacy requirement in the Roman Catholic church--though, again, it's not my place to dispute it. But if you're going to turn away single ministers based on "the logic of scripture" as opposed to "scripture itself," it seems like you've already gone down the slippery path of moral relativism that Mr. Mohler likes to yell about in other cases. More to the point, it's kind of sad to see churches deprive themselves of the service of dedicated ministers who happen to be single. And those churches shouldn't fool themselves: there's lots of biblical argumentation against their position.