In other news, fire is HOT!

File this under "News that isn't really news." A new study shows that minorities fare worse during traffic stops than whites.

Looks like everyone gets pulled over at about the same rate, but that there's a pretty dramatic disparity of experiences after that.

Insert obvious "Justice is blind" comment/joke here.

Let the "x" word sweepstakes begin

Apparently reducing adults to the level of having to say "the n-word" when referring to any discussion about "nigger" isn't quite enough. Looks like now the new way to have proper recognition as an oppressed minority is to have your own word that's so bad you can't say it. In the wake of the Don Imus scandal, Ruben Navarrette Jr. is calling for everyone to stop saying "wetback" (which, honestly I didn't think people really said that much) and replace it with "the w-word." Seems "wetback" is disrespectful (well...duh) but the much more juvenile "the w-word" is somehow more respectful. One, making adults say "w-word" is really just disrespectful to adults. Two, I don't want to burst Mr Navarrette's bubble, but "w-word" is just code for "wetback." Nothings really changed. It's like when people think saying "jeeze" when angry is OK, but "Jesus" isn't. It's all code for the same meaning, and bad is bad. Changing the code doesn't change the meanings.

But it looks like the trend will be for minorities to have their own "banned" words. The Irish can have the "d word," Native Americans the "r word" and the Chinese the "y word." But what happens when words start to overlap? I'm sure the Italians don't like "wop," but it looks like the Hispanics have dibbed the "w word." The Italians can't go with the "wo word" because it looks like they're stuttering, which is surely the "s word" for stutterers. Maybe they go with the "Italian w word" but that feels cumbersome. I guess we need to hold some sort of summit to work all this out, but if you work in an office you know that meetings surely rate the "m word." Maybe that's the fix. Everything we find offensive we just abbreviate it down to the "x word." Everyone can feel important and everyone else can feel stupid (s word?).

Look, I get that Mr Navarrette probably knows that his idea is s word, but that putting it out there gets people talking about him, and in the age of Reality TV, any talk is good talk (better to be known as a moron than not be known at all). However the problem is that some "i word" will not get this and take him seriously. Then a bad idea takes root, and it becomes all of our problem.

Tancredo goes after congressional race based caucuses.

Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo (R) wants to end all race based caucuses. His reason?

Tancredo told The Hill: “You should not have any organization, a caucus especially, based solely on race. I mean on issues? You bet. But on race? Why should we be separating ourselves up into these racial divisions?

“It would be anathema to me if someone wanted to create a white caucus. A race is something over which we have no control. Everything we are told is we should ignore it, that we should try to eliminate that as a distinction in our society,” he added.

Here's my official Stalin Malone Bias Alert (or SMBA if you like), I'm no fan of Tancredo. I disagree with most everything he says. But...he's in the right place on this one. I don't think there needs to be official racial caucuses. His reason above is philosophically correct, and he has an ally in me. Apparently, he'll need all the allies he can get.

Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Administration Committee, which tracks and governs caucuses, has already cast an unfavorable eye on Tancredo’s proposal. “Congressman Ney would not be supportive of such a concept,” said Brian Walsh, Ney’s spokesman. “He believes that those members of Congress who share similar interests … should be able to form a caucus.”

Since, Me and Tanny (That's what us friends call him) are on the same side, I would like to point out to Rep Ney that skin color is not an "interest." You can, however, be interested in affirmative action, for example, and Tancredo even allows that interest based caucuses are A-OK. Personally, I think its even more insulting for Rep Ney to assume that all blacks have the same interests. I mean, isn't commingling race and issue a bit...wrong? Seriously, see the man not the stereotype.

So while agree that he has a philosophical case, does he have a "legal" one? The way I see it, we have laws forbidding membership based on race/gender for public groups. Public is usually defined as taking government money. I agree. Private groups can do whatever they want. I also agree. Congress is the ultimate public group, right? Maybe. Here's the tricky part.

In 1995, the House abandoned the policy of funding caucuses with taxpayer money. Aides working on congressional caucuses now are paid from the lawmakers’ congressional accounts.

So are caucuses "public" or "private?" Great move in 1995, really like it. I assume it came way back when the GOP was about shrinking government - ahhh the good ol' days. So now that these caucuses are paid by the members, are they private? If they are, does Tancredo have a legal point? Shouldn't private groups be able to do what they want? I honestly don't have a quick answer for this as it relates to members of congress and congressional grounds. As it stands, I agree with him philosophically, but not sure I agree as a matter of process.

Anyway, while it looks like this thing has zero chance, I applaud his efforts, and the fact that he's bringing this to the public's attention.

Quick note, for those of you keeping score at home, MSNBC notes the following race based caucuses: The Dems have the Congressional Black Caucus, the Hispanic caucus with 21 members. While the Republicans have a comparable Hispanic conference with five full members and 11 "associate" members who are not Hispanic.

Funny, no mention of a Republican Black Caucus? Must be a typo.

Welcome to Moe's!

From The New York Times via Albany's Times Union:

"His music was sweaty and complex, disciplined and wild, lusty and socially conscious. And beyond his dozens of hits, James Brown forged a musical idiom that is now a foundation of pop worldwide."

Brown: "I taught them everything they know, but not everything I know."

Added 12/28/06: Why cheap shot artists can't land the left on "black conservatives." Colbert Nation, you're On Notice!