Showing posts with label John Scalzi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Scalzi. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Amendment One round-up

I knew the horribly homophobic and bigoted Amendment One (in North Carolina) would pass, because nothing gets the fundies stirred up like getting a chance to shit all over the gays. In fact, that and slut-shaming seem to be their favorite activities, that I can see. (Feeding the poor and all that other boring stuff Jesus instructed them to do? Not so much.)

The right-wing can fire up their base during primaries with direct-hatred opportunities like this, and win elections. This doesn't work as well in general elections.

Interestingly, the last time North Carolina amended their constitution on marriage (in 1875), it was to outlaw interracial marriages. The fundies have never apologized for that one, either. (I am sure a majority of fundamentalists still quietly agree with that position, but they have learned it isn't polite to say it out loud.)

And now, featuring some very good writing on the whole Amendment One debacle, starting off with DEAD AIR's big winner for the best case to be made for (now-defeated) Amendment One:

One Trial Lawyer’s Final Argument to the Amendment One Jury (NC Amendment One Truth)

BREAKING: Marriage-banning Amendment One Passes in North Carolina (Queerty)

North Carolina (Box Turtle Bulletin)

The Anti-Gay Religious Freedom Contradiction (Waking Up Now)

Maggie [Gallagher]: Why Focus on Same-Sex Marriage Rather than Divorce? (Waking Up Now)

In North Carolina after Amendment One, ‘Let the wild rumpus start' (Washington Post blogs)

Amendment One Passes: North Carolina State University Launches Petition Calling For Appeal (Huffington Post)

North Carolina and Amendment One (Whatever)

John Scalzi of Whatever (last link) is especially eloquent and worth quoting:

Five years from now the majority of Americans will support same-sex marriage; ten years from now the large majority will. But ten years from now it will still be against the Constitution of North Carolina for same sex couples to get married (and Ohio’s, too). I’d like to be wrong, but I doubt I will be. It’s harder to repeal a constitutional amendment than a law. The bigots know this. This is why the bigots do what they do.

It sucks for gays and lesbians that in places like North Carolina, and Ohio, and even California, all that can done at the moment is to assure those of them who would like to marry those they love is to tell them that it will get better. I shouldn’t have to get better. It should be better. But you work with what you have in the real world, and in the real world, what gays and lesbians in places like North Carolina and Ohio and even California have is the future. Let’s get working toward it.
We will be discussing evil Amendment One (and the fascist fundie response to it) at length on my radio show on WFIS, Saturday morning at 9am. (see link to podcasts on right)

Stay tuned, sports fans.


~*~

Photo at top is from Strollerderby.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Dead Air Church: Class privilege meme

It has taken me all this time to do the well-worn class privilege meme. It first circulated all over Blogdonia about a year and a half ago, but I just wasn't ready. I found it embarrassing and awful, and avoided it like the plague.

I finally decided to go ahead and take it anyway. I knew it would be unpleasant!

I initially read of this quiz (and accompanying online discussions) at Bint Alshamsa's blog.



~*~




How many privilege-steps would you have to make?

Step into Social Class (this is an updated version)
A Social Class Awareness Experience
Will Barratt, Meagan Cahill, Angie Carlen, Minnette Huck, Drew Lurker, Stacy Ploskonka
Indiana State University
© 2007

(NOTE: it is taken for granted that you are in college or did attend, since this test was first given to college students.)

Introduction:

An activity designed to help the participants gain awareness of the vast range of social class that exists within themselves and others. This has been updated based on the wide range of feedback we received as this was becoming a popular experience.

Equipment:

A big room with space to move for all participants
Chairs to sit for discussion

Rules:

Pay attention to how you feel. Angry, sad, happy, winner, loser . . .
No talking – we will talk about this a lot when it is over
Line up here and take a step forward of about 1 (one) foot or one foot length for every fact that applies to you.

For blogs, bold the following facts that apply to you:

Part I, when you were in college:

Father went to college
Father finished college
Mother went to college
Mother finished college
Have any relative who is an attorney, physician, or professor. (no blood relatives, but do have in-laws)
Were the same or higher class than your high school teachers
Had more than 50 books in your childhood home
Had more than 500 books in your childhood home

Were read children's books by a parent
Had lessons of any kind before you turned 18 (as I've said here before, they forced the violin on me to shut me up about the drums)
Had more than two kinds of lessons before you turned 18
The people in the media who dress and talk like me are portrayed positively
Had a credit card with your name on it before you turned 18
Your parents (or a trust) paid for the majority of your college costs
Your parents (or a trust) paid for all of your college costs
Went to a private high school
Went to summer camp
Had a private tutor
If you have been to Europe
Family vacations involved staying at hotels
Your clothing was all bought new before you turned 18
Your parents bought you a car that was not a hand-me-down from them
There was original art in your house when you were a child (by relatives, not by recognized "artists"--but it WAS original!)
Had a phone in your room before you turned 18
You and your family lived in a single family house (off and on, not consistently)
Your parent(s) owned their own house or apartment before you left home
You had your own room as a child
Participated in an SAT/ACT prep course
Had your own TV in your room in High School
Owned a mutual fund or IRA in High School or College
Flew anywhere on a commercial airline before you turned 16
Went on a cruise with your family
Went on more than one cruise with your family
Your parents took you to museums and art galleries as you grew up
You were unaware of how much heating bills were for your family

...

Now everyone recognize that you are at the same place academically.
Everyone turn around.
Everyone has permission to talk.
No one has permission to accuse any one or any group of anything.
Everyone must use “I” statements.
Note that the people on one end of the room had to work harder to be here today than the people at the other end of the room. Some of you had lives of more privilege than others. There is no one to blame, it is just the way it is. Some have privilege and some don’t.
(this can be said now or later, I don’t know where it will be appropriate)

Discussion:
What were the feelings that you had during this experience? Who was angry?
(Anger will be a primary emotion at this point.)
What, specifically, makes you angry?
Who are you angry at?

Who was happy?

Summary Statement
This experience was about creating awareness of privilege. What it is, what it does, and what it means. Having privilege does not mean that you worked less hard. All it means is that you had a head start, so maybe it does mean you didn’t have to work as hard . . . .

Homework
During the next week notice how your high school years helped or didn’t help your experience in school/at work . . . .

Explanations and Notes:
All of the step taking was about things not requiring effort on the students’ part, but were things done by others.

~*~

FIVE WHOLE POINTS. How did I feel, taking this test? Bad. Which is why everyone else did it a well over year ago, and I've been too ashamed to do it until now.

Chaser of The Paper Chase (who also got only five points!) added another level and I got some more points! :P

Part II, in childhood:

If your body does not bear long-term signs of malnutrition. (14 root canals)
If you had orthodontia.
If you saw a doctor for anything other than emergencies or school-mandated shots.
If you heated your home with clean-burning fuels or had properly vented heating.
If you grew up in a house without vermin.
If you had running water.
If you had a basement or foundation under your house. (sometimes yes, sometimes no)
If you had an indoor toilet.
If your parents and immediate family were outside the criminal justice system.
If you yourself remained outside the criminal justice system.
If your parents had a new car.
If you never went barefoot so that you could ’save your shoes for school.’
If your parents never argued in front of you about having enough money for food to last out the month.
If you ate hunted and fished meat because it was a recreational activity rather than as the major way to stock a freezer.
If your laundry was done at home in a washer rather than in a lavandaria. (Laundromat) (sometimes yes, sometimes no)
If your hair was cut by a professional barber or hair stylist instead of your parent.

~*~

Four more points!

Seriously, I find this terribly depressing. janevangalen at Education and Class commented:

Speaking of that “privilege meme” that’s still buzzing around out there after oh so many days (even a blogger from Atlantic Monthly chimed in today, critiquing the exercise from her perspective as the graduate of a private school attended by “ultra-privileged” classmates for not reflecting her particular experiences)…

The protocol of the meme has been to “bold” the items that apply to you and to then say a bit about your background.

When something like this is done in person –as it was designed to be –a moderator can facilitate discussion among those whose lives have followed different paths and ensure that all voice are heard. A central point of an exercise like this is typically to generate conversation among the people in the room that would not take place otherwise.

But the people in this virtual room who keep batting this thing around seem to be people from very similar backgrounds.

While I’ve seen all sorts of assumptions made about how others live and what they value (and about how easy it would be for parents anywhere to find free museums to take their kids too “if they cared enough”. Have these people ever been outside a city?), I’ve not yet seen, in all of these hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of posts and comments, anyone who has thought to say:
So, most of the things I’m reading on this are written by people who “score” relatively highly on this meme.

But I wonder: what does this all look like to people whose backgrounds included very few of these things?
Might it not be bold to even wonder whether one might have it wrong?

Indeed, I believe there is plenty wrong, but I don't know how to define it. For instance, why so few questions about the nature of families? No mention of traditions or religion; skills inherited or learned within families...no mention of family inter-relationships. I consider these crucial. Why doesn't the test? (Does this fact mark me as low-class also?)

Undine at Not of General Interest wrote about the subsequent internet discussion over this meme (which I found painful and tried to avoid):

A lot of people responded by saying, "Well, I had X but I worked for it myself" or "I didn't have a television set but I had books" or "This test is measuring the wrong things." There are lots of good points on all sides, so read the comments, too, at both places, which like the posts are excellent.

I think that what the exercise is trying to do--reveal the existence of class privilege to students in a real way--is important, but one thing was troubling: if you were a student, and especially if you had been bullied in the past for being different in some way, how would you feel about being forced to do this exercise in class? The teachers who chimed in on the comments all said versions of "oh, we don't make it mandatory; they can sit it out if they want to." Some said that they just had students write the answers on a piece of paper and turn it in.

Right. Would you sit it out, if you were 17 years old and your grade was on the line? Would you sit it out if you could see that your instructor thought this was a crucial part of the class and was clearly enthusiastic about the exercise? Would you write nothing or refuse to turn in the paper, again, if you believed that you'd be losing the good will of your instructor--and a grade--for doing so?

Since the admitted object of the exercise is to make students aware of and uncomfortable (in a good way, the authors imply) about their class privilege, most students would probably learn from it and shrug it off. Some are probably going to have their every statement greeted with eye-rolling about class privilege from then on, as I've witnessed when students in my classes volunteer information about trips to Europe or other markers of privilege.

But for a few, those who have been singled out and bullied for having the wrong haircut or being too smart or wearing the wrong clothes or being the nondominant race, it's going to make them feel like dodgeball targets all over again. Remember dodgeball, where some were out there flinging balls at the opposite team and aiming for those cowering in the corner, the ones you knew couldn't catch the ball on a bet, the dodgeball targets?
As I've said, it took me a long time to do this. If I'd had to do it publicly in a class, I can easily imagine a few fibs here and there, so that I would fit in with the majority. I can also imagine attempting to "sit it out"--which is, in fact, exactly what I did when I first encountered it online.

Chaser responds:

Whenever I use these types of exercises in class, it's painful. For example, for years I have used "unpacking the knapsack of white privilege" and unpacking the knapsack of male privilege" and there are *always* students who are offended.

To address privilege in some way is to threaten people's notions of what they "earned themselves." They have to face the fact the have not earned much of what they take for granted. It hurts and it is threatening.

Ultimately,so what if you earned the money for your car yourself--that's great. But it's not necessarily a sign you don't have class privilege. I worked in the fields with my parents for *nothing*. No allowance; no chance to get wage-earning work for car. People who tell me they "earned" their sports scholarships--sure, you worked very hard: but the leisure time you had in which to engage in those sports was bought for you by your class privilege. Oh, it's hard to hear that when these are things people are (understandably) proud of!

My favorite reaction to this discussion on the blogosphere was a grad student who is ALWAYS theorizing about race/gender/blah. When I added some point to the exercise--points that noted just how much more impoverished people can be than middle class people assume fellow Americans can be--somebody suggested this grad student should go look at my list. She said dismissively "I've read that list"--and then went right back to abstracting. It was the typical academic reaction to class privilege: it's too hard to face in practice, so we will chatter about it. It drives me crazy sometimes; I feel helpless enough as it is without having people I usually respect respond to these like this. I don't know how my colleagues of color stand it sometimes.
John Scalzi, who surprised me by defending his private school education as no big thang (!) provided the link to the follow-up Social Class Knowledge Quiz, with a derisive snort. (WARNING: Link is to a Word file!) As a confirmed coffee junkie, I knew the coffee question, but that was it for the "Blue Questions." By contrast, I knew all of the answers to the "Red Questions."

Wow.

An example of the tenor of Scalzi's commenters can be summed up by one outburst from someone named udarnik:

This is not just a conversation starter, as the loaded term “privilege” indicates. Some of the questions are meant to make people feel guilty for having parents who cared about education and the welfare of their children, and instead of abusing those kids as privileged, the profs need to commend the other kids whose hard work landed them in school despite lacking some advantages.

I would have resented the hell out of this as an undergrad. Why should I be accused of privilege in a faux-Marxist confessional because my mom was a schoolteacher and my dad was an adjunct prof?
"Accused" of privilege? No, you are RECOGNIZED AS HAVING privilege.

But hey, his parents' educational background didn't land him in school, his "hard work" did!

((((runs away screaming)))) See, this is why I hate this thing. It just makes me upset.

~*~

Did you do the quiz the first time it appeared on the net, or is this the first time you've ever seen it?

Any thoughts?

Friday, March 13, 2009

Happy Friday the 13th!

I have been linked on John Scalzi's blog, in the middle of a gargantuan thread about racism and science fiction, titled Mary Anne Mohanraj Gets You Up to Speed, Part I. I am thrilled to be included! The linked post is my all-time big-draw, the one about having a black name.

But you know what? I gotta say... this linkage happens fairly regularly, accompanied by something like: This white woman says racism is real, now do you believe us? Jesus H. Why don't (other white) people believe personal testimonies about racism, unless it comes from one of us? I have noticed that I am often posted to bolster the arguments of People of Color when they are not believed.

I realized while I was reading threads during the post's major-linkage period last year (particularly on MetaFilter): Many white people simply do not want to believe racism is genuine. Why not? What exactly is lost if whites believe racism is still a dominant influence? Why the constant arguing that it isn't really like that, that isn't really about race, you musta got it wrong?

When I started reading threads in which my word was doubted, I got really sick over it. I realized then, of course: this is what People of Color have to put up with, when they report racism. It must be due to something else, you are over-sensitive, etc.

My question is, why the doubt? What exactly does it COST whites of good will, to take racism seriously? I am confused about the protesting.

And speaking of which, over at John Scalzi's, the posts on the thread in question are currently up to 471, and it's not even noon. (Good lord, I can't imagine traffic like that, she marveled.) Lots of defensiveness, but also a great deal of raw intelligence on display. Mary Anne, of course, is tops.

Check it out.

~*~

How do the Calorie Restriction people stop from periodically going berserk and binging? Last night, I bought a package of mega-sugary conchas, and yes, ate the whole thing.

It was especially satisfying to chow down whilst watching the entertaining Jon Stewart vs. Jim Cramer spectacle! Technical knock-out! James Poniewozik of TIME reports on the prize-fight:


So, be my guest—talk among yourselves about who "won" the interview. (By the way, The Daily Show also has the full unedited exchange online.) Dance in the streets with Cramer's trophy head held aloft if you like. (As I type, The Huffington Post's headline is JON STEWART EVISCERATES JIM CRAMER AND CNBC, in VICTORY DECLARED IN EUROPE-sized type. [Matt] Drudge is rather more coy on the subject.) It was a beatdown, to be sure. (After airing a promo for Cramer's Mad Money which could have itself been a Daily Show parody: "I understand you want to make finance entertaining, but it's not a f__ing game.) But in the long run, it was most fascinating as a discussion about how business journalism in particular and journalism in general are done in America.

About CNBC generally, Stewart kept returning to the question not only of why the network didn't report on financial disaster coming, but who CNBC is for at all: "Who are you responsible to? The people in the 401ks and the pensions and the general public, or the Wall Street traders?" Stewart asked (adding that most traders are "bright guys" who are "f__ed in all this too").
I was fairly stunned by Cramer's fake innocent-routine...as well as disgusted by his overweening self-centeredness. He really seemed to believe the entire Wall Street fiasco is about HIM and HIS TV SHOW.

Cramer, the economy is in the shitter, dude! Wake the fuck up!

Poniewozik writes:

[Cramer stated during the interview] "It's difficult to have a reporter say, 'I just came from an interview with Hank Paulson, and he lied his darn-fool head off.' It's difficult. I think it challenges the boundaries." OK, this is an easy quote to attack—why not just say he's lying, damn you!—but in fairness it's not as simple than that. The real story—and not at all a more flattering story—is that lies like these are not obvious and cut-and-dried: refuting them takes a lot of work and a lot of time and often involves sticking your neck out and going against the crowd (see previous point). Much easier to quote your subject, adding a caveat if necessary, and move on.

Much easier, too, to make this story about a feud between two cable-TV stars, declare a winner, and move on. Because then we don't have to recognize that this song is about us.
If you didn't see it, go over there and watch the whole thing. It explains more than any single news show or documentary, exactly how this happened: the fawning "financial news" media was up Wall Street's ass.

You can't report fairly on something if you are also trying to get rich off it yourself.

We might call that biased reporting, yes?

Saturday, June 14, 2008

Odds and Sods - Baltar is my prophet edition

The season finale of BATTLESTAR GALACTICA was last night.... and wasn't it just SO GREAT!!!????

~*~

SPOILERS AHEAD!

~*~

The next time someone argues with you about global warming, just show them the last episode of this season! Earth has been irradiated, and the whole place looks like the coast of LAKE ERIE!

Heather Havrilesky of Salon sums it up very well for us:

The road to Earth is paved with good inventions -- like a viper that knows the way! Friday night's "Battlestar Galactica" finale was packed with big surprises, from the revelation of the secret four Cylons living among the fleet to the suddenly bellicose maneuvering of D'Anna, fresh from her resurrection. But the biggest whopper of them all came in the last few minutes of the show when the Cylons and the colonists make peace and follow Starbuck's viper to Earth, only to discover that…. Oh nooooo! Earth is a post-apocalyptic wasteland!

But that's exactly the combination of high stakes and suspense that loyal viewers have come to expect from "Battlestar Galactica," a show that shines the most brightly during the start and finish of its demi-seasons (with a little bit of finger-strumming and pacing in between). When the final episodes of the series begin to air in January 2009 (Oh noooo! Why must we wait so long?), the colonists (and their big Cylon buddies) will be forced to reckon with the fact that their new home, which they've imagined so long is their salvation, isn't the land of sunshine and moonbeams that they'd so dearly hoped it would be. At least it isn't anymore. After the celebrating and embracing and high fiving over finally locating Earth, that moment where Admiral Adama runs his fingers through a fistful of irradiated soil and then scans the wreckage-strewn, overcast landscape is just devastating. Welcome to the promised land, motherfrackers!
I'm very relieved they didn't execute Captain Tigh, who looked so regal and resigned, facing his fate with solemn military bearing as that green light flashed and Lee reaches for the key to blow him out of the airlock. He was ready to die with dignity, and you know that living with the knowledge that he is a skin-job is a far worse punishment than death for him. He is the best alcoholic I've seen on TV for awhile.

Cylon alcoholics! WHO KNEW???

Meanwhile, Baltar is still playing his preacher-prophet role to a fare-thee-well, and we'll see what his glazed-eyed groupies do in the next season, as they undoubtedly gain religiously-based power within the BSG-population. Will he become a Messiah? We can only hope!

~*~

Speaking of Messiahs, or fake ones, or whatever it is, I'm still getting steady hits on my Is Barack Obama the Antichrist post. I followed one of the searches and discovered that although I WAS about fifth or sixth on the list, as one of the first cynics, I have now fallen to the second and third Google pages ((frowns)) as the religious fanatics have eagerly taken over the topic.

They are dead serious, of course.

Intrinsic to the claim is the foofaraw surrounding the year 2012. This probably deserves a post of its own, but I am not yet knowledgeable enough on the full spiritual significance of the year. Suffice to say, its got something to do with the Mayans, Nostradamus, numerology and various other prophecies... Apparently, the Biblical account in Revelation has been wedded in some strange way to these ideas. (As Ash famously said in the movie ALIEN: I'm still collating.)

These combined-theories, presented together, look like a total mishmash to me, and I am naturally given to seeing weird connections everywhere. Let's not JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS!

At my workplace (a veritable bastion of scientific objectivity) we are selling a CD titled UNLOCKING THE MYSTERIES OF 2012, which sounds interesting. (There is also a book to go with it, but we don't sell it yet.) A co-worker listened to the CD and wasn't unduly spooked. If you have a positive attitude, it will all work out for the best!

In the CD, John Major Jenkins explains everything:
• What is the Galactic Alignment of 2012? The astronomical phenomenon predicted by the Mayans, and how it will affect us

• Izapa as the origin place of the 2012 calendar and the "uncorrupted vision" of the early Mayan skywatchers

• How the “Hero Twins” creation story encodes a hidden blueprint for the evolution of human consciousness

• The spiritual practices of the Mayan mystics, featuring a guided breathwork exercise based on their shamanic traditions
Now, who could argue with that?

~*~

The Angry Black Woman points us to John Scalzi, who reports that Fox News actually referred to Michele Obama as Barack's Babymama. (!!!!)

This must be quoted in its entirety:

Back in the day – you know, when presidential candidates were respectably white – news organizations called potential First Ladies “wives.” But now that black folks are running, we can get all funky fresh with the lingo, yo. So it’s basically fine for Fox News to use “Baby Mama” for Michelle Obama, slang that implies a married 44-year-old Princeton-educated lawyer is, to use an Urban Dictionary definition of the term, “some chick you knocked up on accident during a fling who you can’t stand but you have to tolerate cuz she got your baby now.” Because the Obamas are black! And the blacks, they’re all relaxed about that shit, yo. Word up. And anyway, as the caption clearly indicates, it’s not Fox News that’s calling Michelle Obama “Baby Mama,” it’s outraged liberals. Fox News is just telling you what those outraged liberals are saying. They didn’t want to use the term “Baby Mama.” But clearly they had no choice.

Meanwhile, over at her personal site, Michelle “Fox News’ Ethnic Shield” Malkin defends Fox News’ use of the “Baby Mama” phrase by essentially making two arguments. First, Michelle Obama once called Barack Obama her “baby’s daddy,” and as we all know, a married woman factually and correctly calling her husband her child’s father is exactly the same as a major news organization calling a potential First Lady some chick what got knocked up on a fling. Second, the term “baby-daddy” has gone out into the common culture; heck, even Tom Cruise was called Katie Holmes’ baby-daddy, you know, when he impregnated her and she subsequently gave birth while the two were not married, which is exactly like what happened between Michelle and Barack Obama, who were married in 1992 and whose first child was born six years later.

So by Malkin’s reasoning it’s perfectly fine for Fox News to call Michelle Obama the unmarried mother of Barack Obama’s children because an entirely different phrase has to her mind entered the common culture, and there was this one time that Michelle Obama once uttered something that sounded like that entirely different phrase, which is not the phrase that Fox News used. But wait! Malkin also points to someone in her comment thread saying that one time, Michelle Obama actually used the phrase “baby daddy”! No apostrophe! It’s in a comment thread, so it must be true. Therefore, Michelle Obama apocryphally using a piece of urban slang makes it perfectly okay for Fox News to use an entirely different piece of urban slang. And that’s why, you see, it won’t be a problem for Bill O’Reilly to refer to Barack Obama as “my nigga” on the next O’Reilly Factor.

It’s shit like this that makes this story on CNN, about whether Barack Obama should be considered black or biracial, an absolute hoot. Here’s a quick test on whether Obama should be considered fully black: Poof! Barack Obama has been magically transported to a KKK meeting in deepest, whitest Klanistan without his Secret Service detail. There’s a rope and a tree nearby. What happens to Obama? If you say, “why, Barack Obama walks out of there alive, of course” then sure, he’s biracial. Also, you’re a fucking idiot. To everybody who cares about Obama’s racial identity, either positively or negatively, the man is a black man, married to a black woman, who has black children. Black black black black black black black black.

It sure as hell matters to Fox News, which is why it’s dog whistling about Barack so loudly that it’s vibrating the windows. Calling Michelle Obama a “baby mama” isn’t just Fox News having a happy casual larf; it’s using urban slang to a) remind you the Obamas are black, b) belittle a woman of considerable personal accomplishment, and c) frame Barack Obama’s relationship to his wife and children in a way that insults him, minimizes his love for and commitment to his family, and reinforces stereotypes about black men. Someone at Fox News just ought to call Barack Obama “boy” at some point so we can have all the cards right out there on the table.

This will keep happening. Fox News will keep finding ways to remind its viewers that the Obamas are black (and possibly Muslim), Michelle Malkin will continue to make excuses for Fox News’ dog-whistling racism that expose the fact that she’s about as familiar with logical thinking as a rainbow trout is with knitting, and eventually some portion of the Fox News audience will get to the ballot box in November convinced that they’re not really racists, they just know that there’s something about that Obama boy they just don’t like. This is how it will go. Let’s not pretend it’s not part of equation, this election year.
226 responses, all worth reading.

I suppose it will get a lot uglier before it's over.