Imagine if African American men and boys were committing mass shootings month after month, year after year. Articles and interviews would flood the media, and we’d have political debates demanding that African Americans be “held accountable.” Then, if an atrocity such as the Newtown, Conn., shootings took place and African American male leaders held a news conference to offer solutions, their credibility would be questionable. The public would tell these leaders that they need to focus on problems in their own culture and communities.

But when the criminals and leaders are white men, race and gender become the elephant in the room.

(snip)

If life were equitable, white male gun-rights advocates would face some serious questions to assess their degree of credibility and objectivity. We would expect them to explain:

What facets of white male culture create so many mass shootings?

Why are so many white men and boys producing and entertaining themselves with violent video games and other media?

Why do white men buy, sell and manufacture guns for profit; attend gun shows; and demonstrate for unrestricted gun access disproportionately more than people of other ethnicities or races?

Why are white male congressmen leading the fight against gun control?

If Americans ask the right questions on gun issues, we will get the right answers.

Don’t Say ‘White’

I have no idea why, but white people hate it when anyone uses the phrase “white people,” because, for some reason, they consider it a pejorative. When protesting police brutality, education inequality, unfair housing practices or anything else, you must be careful not to “make it all about race”—even if the thing you’re protesting is all about race.

Refer to racism as a “social issue.” Instead of slinging the phrase “white supremacy” around all willy-nilly, you can instead refer to it as “structural inequality.” If your “underprivileged” child has been fenced into a poorly funded educational system, call it an “inner-city school.”

Uttering the words “white people” only serves as a reminder of their historic ties to oppression, which can only be negated by their instinctual regurgitation of the preamble to all white excuses: “Not all white people ...” Even if you make your protest about a “societal issue” that’s not about race, you still shouldn’t expect them to join in or approve.

They already heard you say “white people.”

Liccy Dahl told BBC Radio 4's Today programme her husband had written about a "little black boy".

But Dahl's agent thought the idea a bad one and insisted the character be changed - something Dahl's widow said was a "great pity".

She said seeing the 1964 children's book as her husband had intended it would be "wonderful".

(snip)

"It was his agent who thought it was a bad idea, when the book was first published, to have a black hero," said Sturrock. "She said: 'People would ask why.'"

Michelle Jones was released last month after serving more than two decades in an Indiana prison for the murder of her 4-year-old son. The very next day, she arrived at New York University, a promising Ph.D. student in American studies.

In a breathtaking feat of rehabilitation, Jones, now 45, became a published scholar of American history while behind bars, and presented her work by videoconference to historians’ conclaves and the Indiana General Assembly. With no internet access and a prison library that skewed toward romance novels, she led a team of inmates that poured through reams of photocopied documents from the state archives to produce the Indiana Historical Society’s best research project last year. As prisoner No. 970554, Jones also wrote several dance compositions and historical plays, one of which is slated to open at an Indianapolis theater in December.

N.Y.U. was one of several top schools that recruited her for their doctoral programs. She was also among 18 selected from more than 300 applicants to Harvard University’s history program. But in a rare override of a department’s authority to choose its graduate students, Harvard’s top brass overturned Jones’s admission after some professors raised concerns that she downplayed her crime during the application process.

Elizabeth Hinton, one of the Harvard historians who backed Jones, called her “one of the strongest candidates in the country last year, period.” The case “throws into relief,” she added, the question of “how much do we really believe in the possibility of human redemption?”

The term “white privilege” is incorporated so much in the progressive lexicon that it’s become an abstract catchall. In Fey’s case, however—and with white women with similar statuses and politics—it’s helpful to be as literal as possible. Because she is white, Tina Fey possesses the privilege of access. She can go places I just cannot go, can hear conversations I’ll never be within earshot of, and can grab audiences I’d never keep. And not just because she’s a celebrity, but because she’s a white woman, and the type of white people who need to be reached are more likely to listen to her than to me.

Of course, her sheet-caking bit came several hours before Panama Jackson published a piece here, in which he’s considering ending his relationship with his own mother because of her abhorrent views. These are the types of conversations and confrontations white people need to have with other white people (and themselves) if they’re sincere about attempting to combat white supremacy. We (black people) have done enough. We’ll continue to do what we’re doing, but there are limits. Because there are people we’ll just never reach.

So maybe the next time Tina Fey is in the cake-buying mood, she should give the cake to us instead, and then go and talk to the people we can’t. And when she’s done, she can come back and get a slice.

On Thursday morning, hardly 48 hours after U.S. President Donald J. Trump first threatened “fire and fury” for continued threats, North Korea released an unusual statement through its state-run Korean Central News Agency.

(snip)

While Thursday’s statement was certainly unusual, it isn’t entirely out of the blue for North Korea. Analysts had suspected that Pyongyang might seek to conduct a full-range flight test, but it was always unclear if they would one day overfly Japan out of the blue. Now, it seems that Kim Jong-un has chosen to give the Japanese — and the Americans — sufficient notice of its intent.

Importantly, Thursday’s statement hinted at a launch date later this month, should Kim Jong-un give the order. Incidentally, the United States and South Korea will convene their annual Ulchi-Freedom Guardian military exercise soon, giving North Korea what it sees as sufficient cause to stage a developmental missile test that will also serve as a show of force.

Unsaid so far in this analysis is the matter of strategic escalation. Make no mistake: a salvo launch of four Hwasong-12 IRBMs within tens of kilometers of Guam would be the single most threatening direct action that North Korea would have ever taken against U.S. territory. That has serious implications for U.S. strategic decision-making, allied reassurance toward Tokyo, and even escalation.