Archive for November, 2008
newsflash: obama gets slightly higher white vote than kerry and gore, therefore racism runs rampant in this year’s election
This is not to imply that there is no racism. As a mixed race (Black + Asian) lesbian, it’s not as if racism is a foreign idea to me. I’m an army brat, so I’ve traveled all over this country and see a lot of crap. Even so, it really sears my ass when I see silly analyses like this one in which it is implied that, since ‘only’ 43% of whites voted for Obama, there’s something peculiar about the lack of white support for the candidate.
Ahem.
% whites who voted for Kerry: 41
% whites who voted for Gore: 42
% whites who voted for Obama: 43
It’s hard to compare the Clinton elections because of a strong 3rd party candidate, Ross Perot. In other words, if I included %white support for Clinton, the numbers are much lower b/c some whites voted for Perot who might have otherwise voted for Clinton. Here are the numbers with that caveat:
% whites who voted for Clinton, 1992: 39
% whites who voted for Clinton, 1996: 43
In other words, here’s a big old *yawn* for sad analyses like this one. For Democrats, people of color are the unsung heroes of elections for quite some time.
Radical feminist attorney unaware that the first amendment is about government censorship
You’d think that an attorney wouldn’t have to buy a clue about the first amendment. She actually thinks that when leftwing publications refuse to publish radical feminist writers, it’s a form of censorship that violates first amendment rights!
“WORD” (as the young people say!)
A couple of days ago I was talking to a legal scholar who actually is fairly tepidly anti-porn, all things considered, and cripes has she gotten “pushback.” Why is it that the First Amendment is so generously embracing of porn, but so rigidly hostile to criticism of porn? BTW: Thank you for hosting one of the few blogs where I feel safe posting this!
Maybe Ann Bartow, radical feminist attorney who should know better, can show us examples of the government curtailing criticisms of porn. Hmmm?
Wait?! The economy is in a free fall, Obama is appointing right-leaning advisors and what’s at stake for women of color is Michele Obama’s image and whether Alice Walker is as popular as Erica Jong? lol
This post was hilarious. Words upon words devoted to concern at the way Michelle Obama is portrayed, as well as the supposed horrible horrible *rends clothes* *thumps chest* injustice done to the Walkers when negative commentary inflicts the Walkers and not the Jongs.
Yes. This is precisely what women of color around the world are worried about — and should be worried about. Oh my! The economy is in a free fall and these bloggers, supposedly all up in arms of justice and social movements and the state of the poor, downtrodden, and oppressed, are blogging about whether there’s something racist in questions about whether Michelle Obama appreciates taking a backseat’s to her husband.
Whatevs.
Meanwhile, this comment in the thread was a good one:
Erica Jong *is* just as influential as A.W. (ed – Alice Walker) –*why* isn’t Molly Jong treated with the same dismissive, callous, condescending attitude that R.W. is?
Yes. Sure. Do me a favor, will you. Type this search into google: “alice walker” + syllabus. Then, type this into google: “erica jong” + syllabus. You yourself have noted that white feminism has retreated to academia, so that is why I have used the phrase syllabus.
But let’s try this one: “alice walker” + activist as opposed to “erica jong” + activist.
The idea that Erica Jong and Alice Walker are equally well-known is laughable on its face.
Oh? And bfp? The answer? Hardly anyone cares who the fuck Erica Jong is, let alone her daughter. Molly Jong is not on course syllabi; Rebecca Walker is. Molly Jong does not write editorials for large newspapers; Rebecca Walker does. And so forth. Clear on the concept yet? Good.
The Uncaromshot
What is The Uncaromshot? It’s like Uncola. If an unfortunate mode of blogging is the caromshot, this blog is the uncaromshot.
The conceited prick at UMX explains:
This is a passive/aggressive tool wherein a person wants to tell another person something, but lacks the courage to tell them directly. This is why it is a Passive/Aggresive tool. The person who wields this tool prefers to get their information/intent across in a “bank shot” (or “carom shot”) fashion. For example, say Person X wants to threaten Person A, but want to come off clean (“plausible deniability,” I do think they call this).
Rather than saying “how about we step outside and scrap,” directly to Person A, Person X says to Person Y, while Person A is in listening range, “Wow, my hands sure feel itchy. If only I had a neck to grab or someone to beat up.”
This is, of course, a ridiculously obvious example. The Carom Shot can be as subtle as someone telling your friend (again, you are in listening range) “Some people just have no class,” and they could be, on the surface, talking about a celebrity, for example. But involved in the Carom Shot is the fact that the speaker knows to whom the message is really intended, probably wouldn’t speak the “surface” line were it not to zing that message over, and the receiver knows it, too. Perhaps in the above instance, the speaker had a conversation tying you and “class” together a long time ago. Or perhaps everyone in the room knows their feelings about you already. The Carom Shot is an underhanded way, in this instance, to dig in once more, without being held accountable. Because typical to the Carom Shot, there will be no hard “evidence” as to what this bank shot/carom shot is really about.
Common sense will point to intentions, though, and those less inclined to play along with the subterfuge may just call the wielder on it, though, so this method is not always safe to use against those who prefer to confront such tactics, or shoot the ball in directly.
Excellent! Uses the carom shot to criticize the users of the carom shot. He’s magical.
