Post what you like, for as long as you like, with whomever you like. Self-linking is encouraged.
(If that’s too tiny to watch — which it probably is, unless you’re browsing with Google Chrome — then you may want to go here to watch it.)
Cab Calloway isn’t easy to upstage, but the Nicholas Brothers sure did it. The staircase sequence at the end of the dance was done in a single take (or so Fayard Nicholas claimed). Fred Astaire called this the greatest dance number ever filmed.
The clip comes from the 1943 film Stormy Weather, which had an all-black cast, including Cab Calloway, Fats Waller, Ada Brown, Katherine Dunham, Lena Horn, and starred the astounding Bill Robinson. (This was Robinson’s final film.)
Robinson’s elegant, understated tapping was as opposite the Nicholas Brothers’ as it could be — but was equally astonishing. Here’s his classic step dance:
While clicking through Youtube watching classic tap dancers, I came across a video of Eleanor Powell — probably the best female tap dancer ever — doing a tribute to Robinson’s stairs routine while wearing blackface. Despite the top-notch dancing and filming (I love the shot from above, showing her shadow on the floor), the blackface ruins the performance.
I wonder what Robinson thought of Powell’s performance. By all accounts, Powell’s admiration for Robinson was genuine,1 and it’s often claimed (I’m not sure with how much truth) that Robinson personally taught her the routine — but the racist context of blackface brings up makes it impossible to enjoy the light-hearted artistry of the dance. Robinson had an extraordinary career, but he was never as big a movie star as Powell was at her peak, and it wasn’t because he lacked talent — the opportunities for black dancers simply weren’t as grand. (Powell, in turn, would probably have been a bigger star if she had been equally talented but male.)
- There’s a much-repeated story that MGM refused Powell’s request to be filmed dancing with Robinson. [↩]
I’d love for people to help me finish out my oh-shit box:
So the idea is that that box, me, and my cat can get out of here and live just about anywhere for two weeks without going nuts. If I get fired, I can live very well with the box in this apartment for about a month on just that $20 – buy a loaf of bread and a half-gallon of milk every week, and maybe a little butter, too, and ration well.
http://knitmeapony.livejournal.com/367997.html?mode=reply
Also, I have a news feed on my twitter account these days, and as I frequently link to this blog I thought I’d share:
http://twitter.com/knitmeapony
An interview with a gay syndicated cartoonist, if you care about this sort of thing…
http://www.afterelton.com/bgwe/9-26-08?page=0,4
So few days ago, cartoonist Don Wilder died. He’s known for “Crock,” but he also did a strip with Wizard of Id cartoonist Brant Parker called “Goosemyer,” about a government official.
Wilder was working at CIA at the time and it’s obvious that the strip was based on his experience there.
http://bakertoons.blogspot.com/2008/09/goosemyer.html
http://bakertoons.blogspot.com/2008/09/more-goosemyer.html
I pledge we start using the term “Reaganitis”
I’m selling a 1973 cartoon panel on eBay
http://bakertoons.blogspot.com/2008/09/original-comic-art-for-sale.html
And finally, the “Tom and Jerry” theme song…in Japanese
The latest entertaining development about Prop 8, and the million-yard-sign pro-8 blitz that didn’t materialize on 22 September, as widely promised/threatened:
http://www.calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7013
A whole bunch of interesting folks and I are all blogging at a new progressive group blog, Revolutionary Act. It’s only a week old but there’s already lots of great stuff up. : )
Blue must be true, a blog by a former law enforcement officer who is an instructor now. The image on the top of the page is a tee-shirt that’s being sold by the Denver Police Protective Association in the wake of the DNC. It’s caused controversy for glorifying police brutality. The administrator of the site posts videos on police behavior including tasings and an incident involving former Aiken County Sheriff Deputy Jeffrey Nation who was fired after shown on tape lunging for the throat of a man he stopped and detained b/c he had baggy pants.
An interesting note on blackface as it relates to tap dancing: For the last three years, the Century Ballroom in Seattle has hosted an annual event called the Masters of Lindy Hop and Tap, which is a gathering of famous dancers from the pre-war era (all black, or at least they were this year) to teach classes and talk about their experiences. One of them (I think it was Norma Miller) mentioned that one reason white dancers performed in blackface was that there was a widespread perception that white entertainers just weren’t as good as black entertainers.
Which is not to say that this is not itself a racist belief, but a lot of people are under the impression that blackface was always about making fun of black people, when the reasons were actually more varied and complex than that.
Not to take away from how racist blackface is but didn’t Bill Robinson himself perform in blackface early in his career? A quick wiki search didn’t turn up anything but I remember that from the Gregory Hines biopic of him. Maybe that had something to do with Powell’s blackface.
ETA: just to be clear, I definitely realize that Robinson being forced to wear blackface was also racist, just wondering if that did have something to do with Powell’s donning of it.
But then again, watching her performance just now, you’re right Amp, the blackface does make it hard to watch.
This story is pretty disgusting. Apparently, good Christians are allowed to attack babies as long as they’re Islamic babies. Lovely.
Yeesh, Dianne. It’s a horrible enough story in and of itself, but some of the comments on that blog post were even scarier.
The following is a reply to PG from a question posed on another thread. I drew the line at this because it was not an open thread and I decided that I was about to cross the boundary into threadjacking.
PG, there is a lot of writing that supports the idea that the founders of this country saw the right to keep and bear arms as an ancient individual right. Take a look at a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. In context, he’s talking to an Englishman he knew about how Americans developed their form of government and how we determined the source and kind of rights that we should enjoy.
My emphasis. The idea here is that where we had the ability to determine for ourselves what our rights and freedoms were, we chose to recognize that individuals had the right to keep and bear arms just as they had the right to freedom or religion, property, press, person, etc.
Federalist Paper #29 is also applicable here. It discussed the role of the militia. The topic of what a well-regulated militia requires and the concept of arming the entire poplulace is treated here:
It’s impossible to keep the general public trained to the point that they are able to act at an expert level militarily (i.e., to keep them “well-regulated”). But it is necessary that some level of essential expertise in such matters should generally exist. Therefore the people at large (which is about as comprehensive a term to refer to the collection of individuals in this country as I can think of) should at least all be properly armed.
He’s differentiating between the people at large and a smaller select force that is well trained (“well-regulated”), and envisions that the people at large should join them and have some skills with arms when they do:
The founders had seen the Crown and it’s representatives abuse the liberties of the people though the establishment and maintenance of a standing army answerable only to it. With the establishment of the Federal government with the authority to establish a standing army States needed a well-regulated militia to counter the threat it represented (as well as to deal with insurrection, invasion, etc. that the Federal government might not be able to respond to in a timely fashion). But the existence of that militia in turn represents a threat to the liberties of the people (treated at more depth earlier in the citation) as it could be used by the Executive to abuse them. This threat must be countered by arming the general public.
Elkins: The punch line is that Pharyngula’s commenters are usually sane and reasonable people.
Pharyngula attracts its share of loony creeps. The comments in that thread aren’t any more outrageous than you find in the average thread there.
@R0nF
Since you missed my reply in the other thread – a completely different set of 4 justices voted against Habeas Corpus in Guantanamo Bay.
That means that 8 of the 9 justices are partisan hacks who will bend the constitution to say whatever they want it to say, 4 for each party.
The Republican ones are simply better at branding themselves as “strict constructionists” and whatnot. That’s the only reason McCain supporters seem to care about the constitution – because his party has made it into a buzzword, regardless of what’s actually written on the damned thing.
Here’s a post I wrote about that one Wikipedia flamewar and the whole issue of gender variance, transphobia and sexual harassment in virtual spaces.
Yes, but what did people think of the awesome tap dancing? :-p
Indeed truly awesome. Thanks for digging that up.
SIF, I just checked the other thread and there’s no reply referencing Gitmo in that. Unless I missed something.
RonF,
Yes, I specified in my comment that reading the 2nd Amendment in the context of other historical texts can lend support to the idea that it is for an individual right. However, you were positing that the Constitution, in itself as a text, is quite clear and that McCain voters were in favor of such clear textualist reading while Obama voters wanted judges to rule by their notions of justice instead of with attention to the Constitution. I am trying to explain that this is a nonsensical binary. No text that is as short as the Constitution yet intended to govern a large, diverse country for 200-odd years can be totally obvious on its face as to what the meaning is.
But the existence of that militia in turn represents a threat to the liberties of the people (treated at more depth earlier in the citation) as it could be used by the Executive to abuse them. This threat must be countered by arming the general public.
People in favor of an individual rights interpretation of the 2nd Amendment will quote Jefferson and Hamilton and ignore that the Bill of Rights was written to constrain the federal government and did not apply to state governments at all until after the 14th Amendment was passed and the Supreme Court started “incorporating” the Bill of Rights. Unless the state’s own constitution barred infringement on the right to bear arms, state governments were free to disarm their populaces, just as they were free to establish religions.
In 1818, a generation after the passage of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, Mass., Conn. and NH all still had state religions. Private schools historically were identified with Catholics because in the 19th c. the public schools literally preached Protestantism.
Hm. I clicked down through the link Dianne gave through Pharyngula to the Daily Kos to the Dayton Daily News.
Dayton Daily News, the primary source:
Daily Kos:
Pharyngula:
Dianne:
Given the information in the only primary source cited by anyone here – how does the Daily Kos know the perpetrators are American? How does Pharyngula know they’re conservative and white? Dianne – how do you know they’re Christian? Spin is one thing. Just flat making shit up is another, folks.
I was impressed by the one with the Nicholas Brothers, but I don’t know what to think about Robinson’s routine. It’s charming, to be sure, but I don’t know enough about tap dancing to know whether to be impressed. Is it a very difficult routine?
By the way, when I saw “Bojangles” in the intro text, the obvious question popped into my mind, so I looked it up, and it turns out that the song “Mr. Bojangles” is not about Bill Robinson, but about a prisoner nicknamed “Bojangles” by his cellmates after Robinson due to his dancing ability.
We’re talking about issues of race and the bailout over at CA NOW: “Gender, Race, and the Bailout” http://www.canow.org/canoworg/2008/09/gender-race-and.html
People in favor of an individual rights interpretation of the 2nd Amendment will quote Jefferson and Hamilton and ignore that the Bill of Rights was written to constrain the federal government and did not apply to state governments at all until after the 14th Amendment was passed and the Supreme Court started “incorporating” the Bill of Rights. Unless the state’s own constitution barred infringement on the right to bear arms, state governments were free to disarm their populaces, just as they were free to establish religions.
Granted. But note from my first cite of Jefferson’s letter that it was known to him (and presumably the other writers and ratifiers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) that the state governments already granted the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right.
So: yes, the BoR was written to constrain the Federal government. But that constraint was primarily focused on constraining it from restricting certain individual rights (press, religion, assembly, refusal to quarter troops, etc.). It did leave the states free to do so, but as was well known at the time they did not with regards to the RKBA (as you correctly point out, they did with regard to other rights). Then the 14th Amendment was passed, and the BoR was incorporated into the State Constitutions. At that point the 2nd Amendment supercedes any subsequent legislation at the State or municipal level that attempts to remove the rights it grants. That’s all consistent with the 2nd Amendment being recognized as protecting the RKBA as an individual right that no level of government can legally disregard.
Er, the Jefferson passage you quote doesn’t say that all the state constitutions provided for RKBA.
“The constitutions of most of our States assert … that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.”
In other words, he was making a generalized statement that, as I’ve already described, certainly was inaccurate for some of the colonies with regard to freedom of religion. It also is inaccurate with regard to the right, much less the “duty,” to be at all times armed.
Not even a majority of the state constitutions’ mentions of arms predate the Constitution (1789). Of those, there are:
– North Carolina, 1776: “That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” Bill of Rights, § XVII.
– Massachusetts: “The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. Pt. 1, art. 17 (enacted 1780).” [Interpreted as collective right only, Commonwealth v. Davis, 343 N.E.2d 847 (Mass. 1976).]
– Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Art. I, § 13 (enacted 1776 without explicit right to keep and bear arms; “therefore, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” added in 1971).
– Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State — and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).
– Pennsylvania: 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.
As you can see, they express a great deal more concern about having citizen militias so there won’t be a justification for standing armies hanging around, than they do about an individual right to keep and bear arms. And three colonies (Maryland, New Jersey, New York) never have mentioned arms in their state constitutions.
Again, you are plugging an originalist interpretation in which what matters is what Jefferson thought, rather than the actual texts.
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe you’ll find this commentary on how Congress is leading the nation in this crisis both accurate and amusing.
Thanks for the tap dancing video. Marvelous.
Here’s my favorite.
Best solo routine ever.
Brandon Berg – I’m not a tap dancer, so I can’t speak to the specific technical difficulty. However, I am a musician (33 years on piano) and a student of a discipline that requires significant foot control/fancy footwork (karate, 6 years), and Robinson’s work had me in far more awe than the Nicholas brothers. They were excellent and amazingly athletic, but they were simply athletic tap dancers. Robinson’s feet were an instrument, every bit as much as the piano, and he was playing Swanee River with his feet, on a staircase, while making it visually entertaining, with extreme rhythmic complication. I wouldn’t want to try the riffs he was doing with his feet with my fingers – they were astounding.
@RonF
It was post #39 of “Judging the Homeless”. In my humble opinion, the only justice who could possibly claim to have a libertarian “strict constructionalist” view of the constitution is Justice Kennedy – a position he loves, since he basically gets to call the shots in any partisan issue.
Given the information in the only primary source cited by anyone here – how does the Daily Kos know the perpetrators are American? How does Pharyngula know they’re conservative and white? Dianne – how do you know they’re Christian?
If the men in question were anything other than white the paper would have mentioned it. “White” is the default and not mentioned. Therefore, it is highly likely that the men were white. White men in Dayton, Ohio are highly likely to be US-American as well. That they are Christian is a bit more of a stretch, but probability favors it: not only is Christianity the majority religion in the midwest, it is a religion strongly associated with acts of terrorism (see the Oklahoma City bombing, various acts of violence against women’s health clinics and doctors who perform abortions, etc). I’ll withdraw the statement about their political beliefs: it does stretch the assumptions a bit too far.
Follow up on the story: a can of pepper spray was found near the site of the attack. The Dayton Daily News stories keep emphasizing the statement by the police that “no evidence of a hate crime was found”. Would they say the same thing if two Arabic appearing men came up to the window of a church nursery, sprayed pepper spray directly into the face of a 10 year old girl standing there and left? I doubt it.
I received an email that the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney’s office are going to investigate the police shootings of people on the bridge that took place after Hurricane Katrina. People were shocked b/c it’s been three years but the charges against several police officers for that shooting were tossed out by a judge (for what sounds like prosecutory misconduct).
Feds to investigate Katrina bridge shootings
If the men in question were anything other than white the paper would have mentioned it. “White” is the default and not mentioned.
First, that’s an assumption, and I see no reason to accept it. When I read the Chicago papers or listen to the news a description of an unknown perpetrator always mentions the race; there is no default. I don’t see any reason to assume that the perpetrator was white only because it was not mentioned that he was anything else.
Second; the paper may well not have mentioned it because they didn’t know. No other aspect of their appearance was mentioned – not their height, weight, clothing or any other detail that commonly accompanies these things. The crime occurred at 9:40 PM. Sunset in Dayton on that day was 7:27 PM, over two hours previous. The assault was committed through a basement window, meaning that the floor was below grade. The most likely situation here is that the information wasn’t reported because the information didn’t exist; nobody in the presumably well-lit basement could see up through the window to the perpetrator standing in the dark well enough to tell what race he was and quite possibly couldn’t even see their heads at all.
Everything else that you and all the other commentors said are the same thing; guesses based on agenda-driven assumptions that are then misrepresented as facts.
As far as it being a hate crime; that’s where I’d put my money, for sure. But “my best guess” is not evidence. Right now there’s no evidence of what the motive for the crime was. Nobody yelled out “Go to hell Moslems” or spray-painted anti-Islamic slogans or dropped inciteful pamphlets. They won’t have evidence of it being a hate crime until they catch the perpetrator and investigate his motives.
It says something about how politics-obsessed I’ve been of late that when I read the title “Best. Tappers. Ever.,” I immediately thought, “Jake?”
Seriously.
—Myca
Hey, I’ve been here for what, five years? something like that, and I finally have something to link!
It’s really, really bad. You have been warned.
I have a question. If someone says, I wish I had the ovaries to have argued harder for this, is that worthy of being threatened with being kicked off a police commission?
I mean guys, bond by saying “ballsy”, “grab the [insert prize] by the balls” and “it takes balls” and it’s not seen as being offensive. But a woman substitutes “ovaries” and all hell breaks loose.
City Councilman rebukes commissioners
The actual quote used wasn’t even directed at the city attorney. Not that this councilman’ s behavior surprises me. He’s not likely to win reelection next year unless he runs unopposed and I think he’s making the most of what political career he has left.
To answer your question, I’d say it’s not.
But I think you knew I’d say that. :-)
Actually, when I saw the title I thought the thread was going to be about beer. But the dancing was very interesting.
CONNECTICUT SUPREMES RECOGNIZE GAY MARRIAGE RIGHTS!!!!
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hcu-gaymarriage-1010,0,7812756.story
YAHOOO!!!
CONNECTICUT SUPREMES RECOGNIZE GAY MARRIAGE RIGHTS!!!!
It’s taken the better part of 4 years, but it looks like progress on equality is moving forward once again.
Thanks Amp. It’s just ridiculous. But then this elected official’s threatened to sue the producers of O.C. for how that show portrayed my city. He’s silly.
Congratulations Connecticut!
Saddest thing I have read today*:
“When the man died, his son called the cartoonist to tell him his dad insisted on being buried in his Pluggers shirt.”
*Not counting reports from Afghanistan, Iraq, Darfur, and angry McCain rallies.
Ah – blackface, art and cultural norms:
In 1930 New York’s Metropolitan Opera offered George Gershwin a commission to write a distinctly American grand opera, using any story he pleased. Gershwin wanted to present a “folk opera” presentation of the book Porgy, about the lives of poor blacks in South Carolina. But the Met’s doors were closed to black performers. The practice at the time was for white actors to perform black roles in blackface, as was done with the landmark Kern & Hammerstein production Showboat.
Gershwin kept the Met waiting three years for a reply. But when Kern & Hammerstein made a generous offer to Porgy’s author for the right to make a blackface musical comedy out of the story – starring the famous Al Jolson – Gershwin had to act. He signed a deal to create an opera with an entirely Negro cast, Porgy and Bess, even if he would have to lose his commission with the Met. No blackface for Gershwin.
Yet the show would later be performed in blackface. The first European performance took place with an all-white cast in Copenhagen in 1943. It was regarded as a finger in the eye to the Nazi occupiers, which shut the show down after 22 performances. And in the 1950s Anne Brown – the soprano who quite literally created the role of Bess – would direct a Norwegian production of Porgy & Bess in blackface because she could not attracted sufficient (or any?) black opera singers in Norway.