Saturday, August 30, 2014
I guess I need to be very careful here, very clear that I'm not attacking or defending anyone in particular. It's just that I had a thought, and in all I've read and heard I've not heard that thought expressed by anyone else, and that surprised me.
Re: Ferguson, Missouri. Michael Brown.
Very soon after the shooting, TV stations in the area and online news outlets were showing a video from a store surveillance camera, from that day, where a large man identified as Michael Brown (supposedly) stole about $50 in merchandise from a shop, and then definitely physically roughed up a much smaller man, presumably the shop owner or clerk, who was objecting to the (possible) shoplifting.
Many people vociferously objected to the showing of the video, claiming it was an obvious attempt to demonize Brown, because the cop had no idea that Brown was wanted for the shoplifting, therefore it had nothing whatsoever to do with the shooting.
My immediate thought was, no, it had everything to do with the shooting. Ok, the cop didn't know Brown was wanted, but Brown did! He lifted $50 worth of cigars, was seen doing it, had an altercation with the shopkeeper, and mere minutes later is stopped by the police. Bam!
Does anyone believe that sequence of events had NO influence on Michael Brown's attitude toward and dealings with the not-in-on-the-story cop who stopped him?
.
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Saturday, August 30, 2014
Sunday, April 27, 2014
3846 It's easier to just repeat
Sunday, April 27, 2013
It's easier to just repeat what someone else tells you than to listen, learn, and draw your own conclusions.
That's happening right now to the NBA Clippers owner Donald Sterling, who's accused of racism after being heard on tape telling his girlfriend not to bring any of her black friends to his games. He and she were arguing, and she taped the argument without his knowlege. Now everybody is down on him, including Magic Johnson, whom Sterling had mentioned by name. It's blowing up into a huge storm, players on the Clippers are making sort of veiled threats about letting their playing show how they feel, and even the NBA is planning to "investigate", which we know means he's already declared guilty in the media.
I don't think a single person who's yelling racism actually listened to the whole tape, or if they did I doubt they listened to the actual meaning rather than just pulling out individual words (and no, the n-word is not used once). They are using sentences and words out of context!
They're repeating what they were told was said.
They're repeating what they were told was said.
That royally pisses me off!
Isn't potentially ruining someone's life worth at least checking it out yourself?
Isn't potentially ruining someone's life worth at least checking it out yourself?
Clippers Owner Donald Sterling to GF - Don't Bring Black People to My Games, Including Magic Johnson
- Watch More
Celebrity Videos
or
Subscribe
- Watch More
Celebrity Videos
or
Subscribe
Where I'm coming from in my understanding:
My maternal grandmother was born in the nineteenth century. She was a product of her time. She was not simply racist - she was xenophobic. You know, like "Those people are not like us". She would have had a stroke if I dated someone of another race, OR a white guy whose surname ended in a vowel other than "e". Or an Irishman. Or a Jew ("they murdered our Lord, you know"). I'm not kidding. Absolutely.
So if I were dating someone of a different race, you can be damn sure I would hide that fact from her and everyone else in the family of her generation. I just wouldn't want to hear anything they have to say. And I would ask the rest of my family and friends not to mention it either. Let's not inflame anyone.
So, now, would that make ME racist? Or am I simply avoiding having to deal with HER racism (which makes me a coward, but that's different)?
So, Sterling and the girlfriend. She is very young, beautiful, exotic. He's old and ugly (personal opinion - REALLY old and REALLY ugly!). It's possible that a lot of his friends are either jealous and wouldn't be unhappy if he were hurt by her, or see her as a gold digger and want to protect him from her, or some combination, but they are unlikely to be benevolent toward the relationship.
Oh, by the way, she is of mixed race, including at least Black and Hispanic.
He complains pretty explicitly on the tape that he's tired of his friends and people he has to deal with calling him or emailing him all the time to inform him that she's posing for photos with Black guys and posting the photos online. In the argument, he is telling her that he doesn't care who she's friends with (he never says anything that can be construed as racist, he even expresses admiration for Magic Johnson, the most recent guy she'd been photographed with) --- but he asks her to please please be a little less public about it, more discreet. He's tired of people poking at him about what she's up to now. He just doesn't want to deal with it.
It sounds to me like he has a bunch of racist friends, and like me with my grandmother, he just wants them off his back. He is forced to deal with these people. So "do what you want, but cool it with the publicity, and for God's sake don't bring Black guys to my games." Let's not inflame anyone, ok?
Folks without the patience to listen to the damn tape picked up on the "don't bring them to my games", and pounced on it without questioning what he meant and why.
And they are thoroughly pissing me off.
.
Saturday, June 29, 2013
3745 Huh?
Saturday, June 29, 2013
I can't believe that no one has mentioned that if anyone had a right to invoke the "stand your ground" defense and self-defense claim, it was Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman was the aggressor, and had no right to claim "stand your ground" once he accosted a frightened Martin.
---------------------
*The choice of quote is randomly generated.
.
It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth
when you know that you would lie if you were in his place.*
--H.L. Mencken--
---------------------------------------------------
I can't believe that no one has mentioned that if anyone had a right to invoke the "stand your ground" defense and self-defense claim, it was Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman was the aggressor, and had no right to claim "stand your ground" once he accosted a frightened Martin.
---------------------
*The choice of quote is randomly generated.
.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
3620 It's the Pitts
Saturday, September 22, 2012
When I heard that Leonard Pitts, Jr., had a new novel out, I leapt to buy it. I didn't know he wrote fiction. [Hmmm. Spellcheck doesn't like "leapt". That's a perfectly good word!] I also bought two other of his books that I hadn't known existed. [So much for not expanding the book collection....]
I have adored Pitts for decades. I first read his nationally syndicated column in a Washington newspaper**, and then when I moved to NY was pleased to find it in the local rag, the "(town) Freeman". The man always managed to speak my thoughts. When the local paper was acquired by some big conservative conglomerate and Pitts' column was replaced by that of some rabble-rousing Rush Limbaugh wannabe who went off in half-cocked indignation with no research and little respect for facts, I was unhappy. The internet was fairly new then, so Pitts sort of dropped out of my sight. I'd almost forgotten him.
In the meantime, he'd been awarded the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary, and had written a few books. Mr. Pitts, I am very pleased to meet you again.
The new book is Freeman (absolutely no relationship to that local paper!). I'm about 2/3 of the way through it now. It is well written and absorbing, pretty much what I expected of Leonard Pitts. You don't want to put it down - and that's a problem, because it's in no way a romance or fairy tale. It's brutal. It's painful. I'm afraid that by the time I finish this I will hate all southerners, and the entire southern half of the US. The author has subtlety made me aware that for a large part of that population, the old attitudes haven't changed in the past 150 years, and I hate them for that. His characters explain why they feel that way, which may be an excuse immediately after the Civil War, when the story takes place, but it's no longer an excuse. Stupidity is the only remaining excuse.
As I said, it's well written and absorbing. The speech patterns and verbal reticence of the educated northerners is annoyingly stilted, but if Pitts says that's the way they communicated back then, I'll accept it.
--------------------------------
** Correction. He didn't start writing his social commentary column until the mid-nineties, so I would not have discovered him in the Washington paper. I was in New York by then.
.
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch,
you must first create the universe.
-- Carl Sagan --
you must first create the universe.
-- Carl Sagan --
----------------------------------------------------
When I heard that Leonard Pitts, Jr., had a new novel out, I leapt to buy it. I didn't know he wrote fiction. [Hmmm. Spellcheck doesn't like "leapt". That's a perfectly good word!] I also bought two other of his books that I hadn't known existed. [So much for not expanding the book collection....]
I have adored Pitts for decades. I first read his nationally syndicated column in a Washington newspaper**, and then when I moved to NY was pleased to find it in the local rag, the "(town) Freeman". The man always managed to speak my thoughts. When the local paper was acquired by some big conservative conglomerate and Pitts' column was replaced by that of some rabble-rousing Rush Limbaugh wannabe who went off in half-cocked indignation with no research and little respect for facts, I was unhappy. The internet was fairly new then, so Pitts sort of dropped out of my sight. I'd almost forgotten him.
In the meantime, he'd been awarded the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary, and had written a few books. Mr. Pitts, I am very pleased to meet you again.
The new book is Freeman (absolutely no relationship to that local paper!). I'm about 2/3 of the way through it now. It is well written and absorbing, pretty much what I expected of Leonard Pitts. You don't want to put it down - and that's a problem, because it's in no way a romance or fairy tale. It's brutal. It's painful. I'm afraid that by the time I finish this I will hate all southerners, and the entire southern half of the US. The author has subtlety made me aware that for a large part of that population, the old attitudes haven't changed in the past 150 years, and I hate them for that. His characters explain why they feel that way, which may be an excuse immediately after the Civil War, when the story takes place, but it's no longer an excuse. Stupidity is the only remaining excuse.
As I said, it's well written and absorbing. The speech patterns and verbal reticence of the educated northerners is annoyingly stilted, but if Pitts says that's the way they communicated back then, I'll accept it.
--------------------------------
** Correction. He didn't start writing his social commentary column until the mid-nineties, so I would not have discovered him in the Washington paper. I was in New York by then.
.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
3508 Zimmerman Charged!
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Just watched the announcement on TV. Second degree murder! Wow! I was expecting an accidental manslaughter determination. The prosecutor didn't mention secondary charges, which means if a jury won't go for 2nd degree, he'll get off. Hmmmm.
(Again, the completely random green quote at the top looks non-random.)
.
It is better to be wanted by the police than not wanted at all.
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Just watched the announcement on TV. Second degree murder! Wow! I was expecting an accidental manslaughter determination. The prosecutor didn't mention secondary charges, which means if a jury won't go for 2nd degree, he'll get off. Hmmmm.
(Again, the completely random green quote at the top looks non-random.)
.
Friday, March 30, 2012
3503 Martin/Zimmerman - my take
Friday, March 30, 2012
Everyone not under a rock knows about the Travon Martin/George Zimmerman controversy.
Both "sides" have their own theories, and in the spirit of today's political examples are trying to paint the other person as scum.
I have my own theories, based on the simple facts.
Facts aren't easy to come by. Zimmerman has been described as the neighborhood watch captain. Other sources describe him as a vigilante who appointed himself to the supposed position. The photo that's on every website shows him as pudgy. The police video of his arrival at the police station shows him as trim and muscular. It has been reported that the police report says that he had a cut on the back of his head that would have required stitches, and a broken nose. The police video shows him uninjured and with no blood on his clothing, and he did not go to the hospital. The photo everywhere of Martin shows him looking small, and sweet. Actually, that photo is several years old, and now he was much taller and filled out more.
Several things we do know for sure. Zimmerman had a gun. He called 911 and was advised not to follow the kid. Zimmerman was white, Martin was black, and it was a mostly white neighborhood. If racism entered the picture anywhere (and friends of Zimmerman claim he was not racist) it was significant that Martin didn't know if Zimmerman was racist or not. That's key. Anyone looking at this has to understand that. A white person might be able to understand how nervous they'd feel walking in, say, South Philadelphia after dark. Well, a lot of black people feel the same way about threatening-looking whites, and that's everywhere, all the time. You never know when some racist thug is going to pick a fight, just because they don't want you in their area. Having the wrong skin color is like wearing the wrong color in a gang area.
We also know that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin in his car. Slowly. It's dark. That would scare anyone. We believed it scared Martin because he called his girlfriend, and she said she told him to run.
Fact - Zimmerman got out of his car and confronted Martin. We don't know why.
We don't know what was said, or who did what. Martin can't give his side of the story. Zimmerman said that Martin attacked him, knocked him to the ground, bashed his head against the concrete, and tried to take his gun, and so he shot him in self defense, which is legal under Florida's "stand your ground law" (which I'm sure Zimmerman knew all about). Then the story changed, and now Zimmerman claims he didn't pull the trigger, that Martin pulled the trigger while they were struggling for the gun, so forget self defense or manslaughter, he didn't even kill him. Ta-rah.
(Consider how difficult it is to pull a trigger with the gun pointed at your own chest. Yeah, it happens on soap operas all the time, but that's fiction.)
Other people said they heard someone yelling "Help", then the shot. Some people think it was Martin yelling for help. Zimmerman says it was he himself. Who knows.
There are a few things I do know.
If Zimmerman hadn't followed Martin after being advised not to, thereby scaring the kid, it wouldn't have happened. Period.
If Zimmerman hadn't gotten out of the car and confronted the kid, it wouldn't have happened. Period. And I would not be surprised if Zimmerman's lawyer hadn't pointed out that his having been the aggressor sorta negates the "stand your ground" argument, since if anyone had the right to stand his ground, it was Martin. Zimmerman had complained in the 911 call that "They always get away". So I can't help but wonder why he got out of the car. To keep the kid from getting away? And how did he intend to accomplish that?
If Zimmerman hadn't gotten so close to the kid that he could be pushed to the ground, he wouldn't have been pushed to the ground, assuming he was, and it wouldn't have happened. Is it possible that Zimmerman displayed the gun, thinking that made him all-powerful? How else did Martin know there was a gun, to try to take it away from him? As to Martin, if you were wearing the wrong colors in a gang neighborhood, and were confronted by a guy with a gun, running or surrendering could get you shot in the back. He didn't know for sure what Zimmerman's intent was. If you're scared witless, the first thing you'd think of is to knock the guy down and get the gun - THEN run.
It doesn't matter at all whose finger was on the trigger when the gun went off. If Zimmerman had not displayed the weapon, it wouldn't have happened. Period.
If the gun had gone off during a struggle for the gun, then the two would have been close together. Zimmerman (now, since the story changed) claims he was on the ground with Martin over him, struggling for the gun. Got the picture? So why wasn't any of Martin's blood on Zimmerman?
The above is all fact, even given that facts in this case are hard to get.
In my opinion, Zimmerman set it all up playing cowboy. It was entirely his fault. I suspect that HE shot the kid in a moment of panic, and then later realized how wrong he was. Or that the kid pulled on the gun and Zimmerman, whose finger was on the trigger, reflexively tightened his grip, firing the bullet.
Whatever. He is entirely at fault, he killed the kid. Period. If it was accidental, then it's manslaughter, at least. But only the actual pulling of the trigger was accidental. He set it up for the trigger to be pulled. "Stand your ground", as stupid as that law is, doesn't apply here. Zimmerman was the aggressor. Under "stand your ground", Martin had a right to kill Zimmerman, not the other way around.
None of this would have happened if Zimmerman hadn't acted like a macho asshole and invaded Martin's space.
Everything else is misdirection and blather.
.
Bumper stickers are a yapping dog.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone not under a rock knows about the Travon Martin/George Zimmerman controversy.
Both "sides" have their own theories, and in the spirit of today's political examples are trying to paint the other person as scum.
I have my own theories, based on the simple facts.
Facts aren't easy to come by. Zimmerman has been described as the neighborhood watch captain. Other sources describe him as a vigilante who appointed himself to the supposed position. The photo that's on every website shows him as pudgy. The police video of his arrival at the police station shows him as trim and muscular. It has been reported that the police report says that he had a cut on the back of his head that would have required stitches, and a broken nose. The police video shows him uninjured and with no blood on his clothing, and he did not go to the hospital. The photo everywhere of Martin shows him looking small, and sweet. Actually, that photo is several years old, and now he was much taller and filled out more.
Several things we do know for sure. Zimmerman had a gun. He called 911 and was advised not to follow the kid. Zimmerman was white, Martin was black, and it was a mostly white neighborhood. If racism entered the picture anywhere (and friends of Zimmerman claim he was not racist) it was significant that Martin didn't know if Zimmerman was racist or not. That's key. Anyone looking at this has to understand that. A white person might be able to understand how nervous they'd feel walking in, say, South Philadelphia after dark. Well, a lot of black people feel the same way about threatening-looking whites, and that's everywhere, all the time. You never know when some racist thug is going to pick a fight, just because they don't want you in their area. Having the wrong skin color is like wearing the wrong color in a gang area.
We also know that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin in his car. Slowly. It's dark. That would scare anyone. We believed it scared Martin because he called his girlfriend, and she said she told him to run.
Fact - Zimmerman got out of his car and confronted Martin. We don't know why.
We don't know what was said, or who did what. Martin can't give his side of the story. Zimmerman said that Martin attacked him, knocked him to the ground, bashed his head against the concrete, and tried to take his gun, and so he shot him in self defense, which is legal under Florida's "stand your ground law" (which I'm sure Zimmerman knew all about). Then the story changed, and now Zimmerman claims he didn't pull the trigger, that Martin pulled the trigger while they were struggling for the gun, so forget self defense or manslaughter, he didn't even kill him. Ta-rah.
(Consider how difficult it is to pull a trigger with the gun pointed at your own chest. Yeah, it happens on soap operas all the time, but that's fiction.)
Other people said they heard someone yelling "Help", then the shot. Some people think it was Martin yelling for help. Zimmerman says it was he himself. Who knows.
There are a few things I do know.
If Zimmerman hadn't followed Martin after being advised not to, thereby scaring the kid, it wouldn't have happened. Period.
If Zimmerman hadn't gotten out of the car and confronted the kid, it wouldn't have happened. Period. And I would not be surprised if Zimmerman's lawyer hadn't pointed out that his having been the aggressor sorta negates the "stand your ground" argument, since if anyone had the right to stand his ground, it was Martin. Zimmerman had complained in the 911 call that "They always get away". So I can't help but wonder why he got out of the car. To keep the kid from getting away? And how did he intend to accomplish that?
If Zimmerman hadn't gotten so close to the kid that he could be pushed to the ground, he wouldn't have been pushed to the ground, assuming he was, and it wouldn't have happened. Is it possible that Zimmerman displayed the gun, thinking that made him all-powerful? How else did Martin know there was a gun, to try to take it away from him? As to Martin, if you were wearing the wrong colors in a gang neighborhood, and were confronted by a guy with a gun, running or surrendering could get you shot in the back. He didn't know for sure what Zimmerman's intent was. If you're scared witless, the first thing you'd think of is to knock the guy down and get the gun - THEN run.
It doesn't matter at all whose finger was on the trigger when the gun went off. If Zimmerman had not displayed the weapon, it wouldn't have happened. Period.
If the gun had gone off during a struggle for the gun, then the two would have been close together. Zimmerman (now, since the story changed) claims he was on the ground with Martin over him, struggling for the gun. Got the picture? So why wasn't any of Martin's blood on Zimmerman?
The above is all fact, even given that facts in this case are hard to get.
In my opinion, Zimmerman set it all up playing cowboy. It was entirely his fault. I suspect that HE shot the kid in a moment of panic, and then later realized how wrong he was. Or that the kid pulled on the gun and Zimmerman, whose finger was on the trigger, reflexively tightened his grip, firing the bullet.
Whatever. He is entirely at fault, he killed the kid. Period. If it was accidental, then it's manslaughter, at least. But only the actual pulling of the trigger was accidental. He set it up for the trigger to be pulled. "Stand your ground", as stupid as that law is, doesn't apply here. Zimmerman was the aggressor. Under "stand your ground", Martin had a right to kill Zimmerman, not the other way around.
None of this would have happened if Zimmerman hadn't acted like a macho asshole and invaded Martin's space.
Everything else is misdirection and blather.
.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
3354 Exacerbated exasperation
Sunday, September 11, 2011
I haven't had the TV or radio on all day, so I assume NYC is still standing. I don't see any smoke columns in the Northeast.
----------------------------
People whose livelihood depends on language don't seem to know the difference any more between "exacerbate" and "exasperate". More and more I am hearing the latter when they mean the former. Very tiresome.
----------------------------
I am also frustrated by polls that slant the questions. I saw one yesterday that's a prime example. The question was, "Do you agree with President Barack Obama’s plan to slash Social Security to 3.1 percent for workers? (Yes) (No)" Naturally, the response was overwhelmingly "No", and I suspect this will be reported as "The public overwhelmingly rejects...blah blah".
The pollsters know that the public are idiots, have zero reading comprehension skills, and will vote on the emotional impact of "slash Social Security to 3.1% for workers."
If the question had been "blah blah ... slash the Social Security tax paid by workers, thereby increasing their annual take home pay by an average of $1500 per year", which is the actual question, then I strongly suspect that the answer would have been different. Of course, that's slanting it the other way.
Idiots.
This is why I NEVER believe the results of polls.
----------------------------
I am currently reading Sisters, by Kathleen Thompson Norris, published sometime in the late '20s. It was one of the free book offers for the Kindle, and I selected it because it was one of the few I'd never heard of. (Reviews at http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6562314-sisters.)
You can read the reviews, folks love it or hate it. I'm not finished yet, so I have no opinion other than that I'm tired of the lavish descriptions of the beauty of Cherry, the youngest character. Ok, we get it! Also of the way absolutely everything comfortable is lovingly described as "shabby".
What no other reviewer has mentioned but which shocked me is the casual racism. Discussing the prospect of an excellent job in Mexico, the characters decide it's not a place Cherry would want to follow her husband, since no country where the native inhabitants are black, brown, or yellow is worth visiting, because if there were anything to recommend it, the inhabitants would be white.
Also, Chinese household help abounds, and their employers speak to them in babytalk pidgin.
All very casual and accepted.
That was then. This is now. But I'm still surprised that no other reviewer noted it as one of the elements that dates the book. It's the casualness that dates it. Mark Twain, for example, was not casual.
-----------------------------
I dislike people who chew with their mouths open. I despise those do it with crunchy things in movie theaters! I want to leap over seats and throttle them!
Close your damn mouth!
.
Ad for Norwegian Cruise Line:
Most of the Earth is covered by water. And most of the water is covered by Norwegians.
------------------------------------------------------
Most of the Earth is covered by water. And most of the water is covered by Norwegians.
------------------------------------------------------
I haven't had the TV or radio on all day, so I assume NYC is still standing. I don't see any smoke columns in the Northeast.
----------------------------
People whose livelihood depends on language don't seem to know the difference any more between "exacerbate" and "exasperate". More and more I am hearing the latter when they mean the former. Very tiresome.
----------------------------
I am also frustrated by polls that slant the questions. I saw one yesterday that's a prime example. The question was, "Do you agree with President Barack Obama’s plan to slash Social Security to 3.1 percent for workers? (Yes) (No)" Naturally, the response was overwhelmingly "No", and I suspect this will be reported as "The public overwhelmingly rejects...blah blah".
The pollsters know that the public are idiots, have zero reading comprehension skills, and will vote on the emotional impact of "slash Social Security to 3.1% for workers."
If the question had been "blah blah ... slash the Social Security tax paid by workers, thereby increasing their annual take home pay by an average of $1500 per year", which is the actual question, then I strongly suspect that the answer would have been different. Of course, that's slanting it the other way.
Idiots.
This is why I NEVER believe the results of polls.
----------------------------
I am currently reading Sisters, by Kathleen Thompson Norris, published sometime in the late '20s. It was one of the free book offers for the Kindle, and I selected it because it was one of the few I'd never heard of. (Reviews at http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6562314-sisters.)
You can read the reviews, folks love it or hate it. I'm not finished yet, so I have no opinion other than that I'm tired of the lavish descriptions of the beauty of Cherry, the youngest character. Ok, we get it! Also of the way absolutely everything comfortable is lovingly described as "shabby".
What no other reviewer has mentioned but which shocked me is the casual racism. Discussing the prospect of an excellent job in Mexico, the characters decide it's not a place Cherry would want to follow her husband, since no country where the native inhabitants are black, brown, or yellow is worth visiting, because if there were anything to recommend it, the inhabitants would be white.
Also, Chinese household help abounds, and their employers speak to them in babytalk pidgin.
All very casual and accepted.
That was then. This is now. But I'm still surprised that no other reviewer noted it as one of the elements that dates the book. It's the casualness that dates it. Mark Twain, for example, was not casual.
-----------------------------
I dislike people who chew with their mouths open. I despise those do it with crunchy things in movie theaters! I want to leap over seats and throttle them!
Close your damn mouth!
.
Monday, January 11, 2010
2740 Wishes
Monday, January 11, 2010
I often wish I could sort search results, especially news articles, by "latest updated". I also wish every web page had a date on it, so you'd know how old the information is.
----------------------------
Some people seem to consider Harry Reid's comment to be stereotyping and racist. I understand why some people are pushing it - because they hope people who don't think for themselves will think Reid is racist, and they want to hurt his campaign for reelection.
The statement that Obama stood a chance of being elected because he's light and articulate was simple truth. It doesn't show racism on Reid's part, but simply that Reid understands the inherent racism and/or colorism of many voters, and if anyone should be offended, it should be those who would NOT consider voting for a darker candidate. If there was a disrespected target, it was those voters.
I wish people would think before they react.
----------------------------
Asbestos is being blamed for all kinds of illnesses, from lung and bladder cancer to kidney failure. Class action lawyers have been trolling for plaintiffs for the past fifteen years, and they've expanded the job classifications that would have been exposed to asbestos.
The whole thing ticks me off. It's not like the manufacturers or suppliers of asbestos, or the companies or people who used it, were aware at the time that it was a problem. At the time, it was seen as a Very Good material, because it was safe and fireproof. People my age spent our entire childhood in schools with asbestos ceilings and floors, because it was considered a good thing in schools, because it was fireproof, and our parents demanded it.
Ok, it wasn't such a good idea. At the time, it seemed like a good idea. Nobody knew it could cause health issues. That was discovered later (and it's not as widespread or as bad as it's being painted), and I don't agree that people/companies who thought they were doing the right thing should be sued when it turned out to be a bad idea.
If that were so, we should all be allowed to sue our parents for bad decisions.
I wish 'lack of harmful intent' would work as a defense to lawsuits.
------------------------------
I accidentally landed on a PBS cartoon show this morning. It was supposed to be educational, I suppose, but their teaching method left a lot to be desired. I haven't the faintest idea what age group or educational level it was aimed toward. Anyway, they had a series of dashes that they were filling in with letters to make a phrase. The secret phrase was "growing up". There were secret letters the kids were expected to find. The secret letters were huge, like
The poor presentation wasn't what bothered me most. They were using "The Ugly Duckling" to illustrate the phrase. You know the story, "There once was an ugly duckling, with feathers all stubby and brown...." That one. The guy that turned into a beautiful swan.
The first thing I noticed was that the ugly duckling had yellow feathers, and the other ducklings were brown. That had to be a conscious choice, because swan cygnets are gray, and domestic duck chicks are more likely to be yellow or white.
I wondered what reaction the PC police would have when theblond yellow duckling turned into the swan.
Then the first three secret letters were shown: "R N P", which I at first read as related to "RNC", and I started laughing.
It was along about then that I noticed that the dotted lines they were plugging the letters into reminded me of "Hangman".
Oh, PBS. I wish folks would review before distribution. And I wish the PC police would stop messing with my brain.
.
We can never predict the outcome of our actions,
which is why every action must be acceptable in itself,
and not as part of a stratagem.
---------------------------------------
which is why every action must be acceptable in itself,
and not as part of a stratagem.
---------------------------------------
I often wish I could sort search results, especially news articles, by "latest updated". I also wish every web page had a date on it, so you'd know how old the information is.
----------------------------
Some people seem to consider Harry Reid's comment to be stereotyping and racist. I understand why some people are pushing it - because they hope people who don't think for themselves will think Reid is racist, and they want to hurt his campaign for reelection.
The statement that Obama stood a chance of being elected because he's light and articulate was simple truth. It doesn't show racism on Reid's part, but simply that Reid understands the inherent racism and/or colorism of many voters, and if anyone should be offended, it should be those who would NOT consider voting for a darker candidate. If there was a disrespected target, it was those voters.
I wish people would think before they react.
----------------------------
Asbestos is being blamed for all kinds of illnesses, from lung and bladder cancer to kidney failure. Class action lawyers have been trolling for plaintiffs for the past fifteen years, and they've expanded the job classifications that would have been exposed to asbestos.
The whole thing ticks me off. It's not like the manufacturers or suppliers of asbestos, or the companies or people who used it, were aware at the time that it was a problem. At the time, it was seen as a Very Good material, because it was safe and fireproof. People my age spent our entire childhood in schools with asbestos ceilings and floors, because it was considered a good thing in schools, because it was fireproof, and our parents demanded it.
Ok, it wasn't such a good idea. At the time, it seemed like a good idea. Nobody knew it could cause health issues. That was discovered later (and it's not as widespread or as bad as it's being painted), and I don't agree that people/companies who thought they were doing the right thing should be sued when it turned out to be a bad idea.
If that were so, we should all be allowed to sue our parents for bad decisions.
I wish 'lack of harmful intent' would work as a defense to lawsuits.
------------------------------
I accidentally landed on a PBS cartoon show this morning. It was supposed to be educational, I suppose, but their teaching method left a lot to be desired. I haven't the faintest idea what age group or educational level it was aimed toward. Anyway, they had a series of dashes that they were filling in with letters to make a phrase. The secret phrase was "growing up". There were secret letters the kids were expected to find. The secret letters were huge, like
M L D
in red, smack in the middle of the screen, in groups of three. Wow. "Did you find them? What letter is this? D! What sound does 'D' make?" At the end, kids who apparently weren't sure what sound "R" makes were eventually expected to sound out "GROWING UP". I began to suspect that there was some other purpose to the whole exercise, other than teaching phonics.The poor presentation wasn't what bothered me most. They were using "The Ugly Duckling" to illustrate the phrase. You know the story, "There once was an ugly duckling, with feathers all stubby and brown...." That one. The guy that turned into a beautiful swan.
The first thing I noticed was that the ugly duckling had yellow feathers, and the other ducklings were brown. That had to be a conscious choice, because swan cygnets are gray, and domestic duck chicks are more likely to be yellow or white.
I wondered what reaction the PC police would have when the
Then the first three secret letters were shown: "R N P", which I at first read as related to "RNC", and I started laughing.
It was along about then that I noticed that the dotted lines they were plugging the letters into reminded me of "Hangman".
Oh, PBS. I wish folks would review before distribution. And I wish the PC police would stop messing with my brain.
.
Saturday, April 04, 2009
2342 Why some, but not others?
Saturday, April 4, 2009
The shootings in Binghamton have received a lot of media attention. The shooter, by the way, was recently laid off by The Company. The theory is that he was upset because his grasp of English was poor, making it difficult to find another job. I'm not surprised at the possibility that The Company brought him in from Pakistan on a work permit, then dumped him.
But that's not what I'm wondering about right now.
I'm wondering why, when articles in US and world newspapers and news sites reporting this incident cite earlier similar mass shootings, they mention the guy who went on a rampage in Alabama last month, and the Virginia Tech incident, and Columbine, and several others, but no one mentions the shootings this past Sunday at a nursing home in North Carolina.
Well, I don't have to wonder why nobody mentions it, because almost nobody knows about it. And that's my question. Why does nobody know? Why was it ignored? You can find reports, but you have to look for them (in contrast to the non-news of levees that DIDN'T break in North Dakota).
I have to wonder what is the basis for media decisions to flood us with some stories, but ignore others.
Is it possible that most of the seven elderly residents and one employee killed, and others wounded, were black, and therefore not worth mention? (I don't know that they are, just something else to wonder about.)
Sorta like when a white child goes missing, the whole country hears about it, but when a black child goes missing, everybody just shrugs.
---------------------
Update: Others are wondering, too. In his blog, Field Negro points out
The shootings in Binghamton have received a lot of media attention. The shooter, by the way, was recently laid off by The Company. The theory is that he was upset because his grasp of English was poor, making it difficult to find another job. I'm not surprised at the possibility that The Company brought him in from Pakistan on a work permit, then dumped him.
But that's not what I'm wondering about right now.
I'm wondering why, when articles in US and world newspapers and news sites reporting this incident cite earlier similar mass shootings, they mention the guy who went on a rampage in Alabama last month, and the Virginia Tech incident, and Columbine, and several others, but no one mentions the shootings this past Sunday at a nursing home in North Carolina.
Well, I don't have to wonder why nobody mentions it, because almost nobody knows about it. And that's my question. Why does nobody know? Why was it ignored? You can find reports, but you have to look for them (in contrast to the non-news of levees that DIDN'T break in North Dakota).
I have to wonder what is the basis for media decisions to flood us with some stories, but ignore others.
Is it possible that most of the seven elderly residents and one employee killed, and others wounded, were black, and therefore not worth mention? (I don't know that they are, just something else to wonder about.)
Sorta like when a white child goes missing, the whole country hears about it, but when a black child goes missing, everybody just shrugs.
---------------------
Update: Others are wondering, too. In his blog, Field Negro points out
The thin coverage the story has received nationwide has been rather astounding. According to TVeyes.com, in the 24 hours since news broke about the bloody killing spree, it has received just 180 mentions on cable and network television, combined (i.e. ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, CNN Headline News, MSNBC, and NBC.)
By contrast, the flood that didn't materialize as feared in Fargo, North Dakota, over the weekend received nearly 250 mentions during the same time span. So the flood that didn't happen got more coverage than than the killing rampage that left eight people dead in North Carolina.
.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
1793 Stupid Poll
Thursday, May 1, 2008
I forget where I read this, so I can't link to it, and the details aren't important anyway. It's been kicking around in my head for a few days.
Some group did an exit poll wherein they asked people if race made a difference in whom they'd be willing to vote for. An overwhelming number of people, something like 85% or 90%, said "No."
Then they asked the same people if they knew someone to whom race would make a difference, and a very large percentage said "Yes."
The part that bugs me is that the conclusion of the pollsters was that the numbers didn't jive, somebody must be lying, and therefore a lot more people were racist than were willing to admit it to the pollsters.
Huh? Therefore?
Let's take 10 people most of whom know each other. 1 is racist and the other 9 are not. If we ask them the first question, we get 90% No, which is true.
If we ask them the second question, and 7 of the 9 know the racist guy, then we get 70% or 80% Yes, which is true.
How could they conclude that most people were lying?
Sheesh. Buncha idiots.
.
I forget where I read this, so I can't link to it, and the details aren't important anyway. It's been kicking around in my head for a few days.
Some group did an exit poll wherein they asked people if race made a difference in whom they'd be willing to vote for. An overwhelming number of people, something like 85% or 90%, said "No."
Then they asked the same people if they knew someone to whom race would make a difference, and a very large percentage said "Yes."
The part that bugs me is that the conclusion of the pollsters was that the numbers didn't jive, somebody must be lying, and therefore a lot more people were racist than were willing to admit it to the pollsters.
Huh? Therefore?
Let's take 10 people most of whom know each other. 1 is racist and the other 9 are not. If we ask them the first question, we get 90% No, which is true.
If we ask them the second question, and 7 of the 9 know the racist guy, then we get 70% or 80% Yes, which is true.
How could they conclude that most people were lying?
Sheesh. Buncha idiots.
.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
1760 No Excuse
Sunday, April 13, 2008
--------------------
I went to a luncheon today, and on the way home I had some fun with the GPS. I knew exactly how I wanted to go home, but the device wanted to take me up the Thruway. I didn't want to go on the Thruway, so I didn't take the turn. The supercilious voice informed me she was "recalculating", and she tried to take me to a U-turn back to the Thruway - three different U-turns, because I didn't take any of them, either.
Now, I could have turned it off, but it started to be fun. I wondered how long it would take her to give up. Since I was paralleling the Thruway, she kept trying to get me onto it, and got upset every time I refused.
---------------------
On the way, I passed the yellow house.
I go to a lot of the big fancy craft fairs, and there was a local guy who made tiny models of well-known local historic houses out of tiny bits of carved wood. He took pictures of the real houses, and then copied them. They were sturdy and beautiful, perfect down to the smallest detail, and if you lifted the roof off a house, it was a tiny velvet-lined box.
A few years before my mother died, I gave her several of the tiny houses for her birthday, each wrapped separately. Most of them were fancy mulit-colored Victorians with towers, but one was a rather plain white-trimmed yellow house with a wrap-around porch, multiple gables, and white gingerbread. She opened the gift boxes one at a time, and the yellow house happened to be the last.
She was shocked speechless by that house. When she could speak again, she asked me why?/where?/how? I had chosen it. I told her I knew it didn't match the others, but I picked it because it was on a road I frequently traveled, and it was one I was familiar with.
It turned out that all her life, since childhood, she had had dreams involving a particular house. Whatever else went on in the dream, the action took place on the sloping lawn, with the house in the background.
It was this house.
She had never been in this area, never on that road.
--------------------
Ok, maybe I'll get in trouble for this one, but it's real, and mine, so there.
There was a show on PBS today about how stress affects health, the eventual focus being on how racism creates constant stress, affecting even things like a high rate of premature births among Black and Hispanic mothers.
Ok, I buy that.
Then there was a group of mothers talking about how even little things affect them, lifelong, like when they take their child to the playground, and their 3-year-old runs up to a group of white children playing, and asks to play with them, and the other kids don't say anything, they just turn and run away, and how such racist attitudes can affect even a 3-year-old.
My immediate reaction was "Bullshit!" I wish I'd had such a convenient excuse when MY blond 3-year-old got exactly the same treatment!
That just happens. When a group of little girls are already playing together, they don't open up to admit a latecomer unless they already know her. That's just the way it is. Color may or may not have had anything to do with it, and there's a fair chance it didn't.
I get really really upset when people immediately jump to assume racism. That's racist, too!
---------------------
Later: BTW, before objecting to my observation, take a good look at the photo up there on the top right.
.
African Proverb: It matters not what you call me, but what I answer to.
--------------------
I went to a luncheon today, and on the way home I had some fun with the GPS. I knew exactly how I wanted to go home, but the device wanted to take me up the Thruway. I didn't want to go on the Thruway, so I didn't take the turn. The supercilious voice informed me she was "recalculating", and she tried to take me to a U-turn back to the Thruway - three different U-turns, because I didn't take any of them, either.
Now, I could have turned it off, but it started to be fun. I wondered how long it would take her to give up. Since I was paralleling the Thruway, she kept trying to get me onto it, and got upset every time I refused.
---------------------
On the way, I passed the yellow house.
I go to a lot of the big fancy craft fairs, and there was a local guy who made tiny models of well-known local historic houses out of tiny bits of carved wood. He took pictures of the real houses, and then copied them. They were sturdy and beautiful, perfect down to the smallest detail, and if you lifted the roof off a house, it was a tiny velvet-lined box.
A few years before my mother died, I gave her several of the tiny houses for her birthday, each wrapped separately. Most of them were fancy mulit-colored Victorians with towers, but one was a rather plain white-trimmed yellow house with a wrap-around porch, multiple gables, and white gingerbread. She opened the gift boxes one at a time, and the yellow house happened to be the last.
She was shocked speechless by that house. When she could speak again, she asked me why?/where?/how? I had chosen it. I told her I knew it didn't match the others, but I picked it because it was on a road I frequently traveled, and it was one I was familiar with.
It turned out that all her life, since childhood, she had had dreams involving a particular house. Whatever else went on in the dream, the action took place on the sloping lawn, with the house in the background.
It was this house.
She had never been in this area, never on that road.
--------------------
Ok, maybe I'll get in trouble for this one, but it's real, and mine, so there.
There was a show on PBS today about how stress affects health, the eventual focus being on how racism creates constant stress, affecting even things like a high rate of premature births among Black and Hispanic mothers.
Ok, I buy that.
Then there was a group of mothers talking about how even little things affect them, lifelong, like when they take their child to the playground, and their 3-year-old runs up to a group of white children playing, and asks to play with them, and the other kids don't say anything, they just turn and run away, and how such racist attitudes can affect even a 3-year-old.
My immediate reaction was "Bullshit!" I wish I'd had such a convenient excuse when MY blond 3-year-old got exactly the same treatment!
That just happens. When a group of little girls are already playing together, they don't open up to admit a latecomer unless they already know her. That's just the way it is. Color may or may not have had anything to do with it, and there's a fair chance it didn't.
I get really really upset when people immediately jump to assume racism. That's racist, too!
---------------------
Later: BTW, before objecting to my observation, take a good look at the photo up there on the top right.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)