It would be nice if Matt didn't try to monopolize every single one of these. He hardly gives anyone any time to talk. Don't get me wrong, Matt is really smart and a good writer, but sometimes we want to see a little more than a monologue. Especially when you're on.
If someone really want to talk about a Clinton scandal.... especially a Hillbilly Clinton scandal, ask what became of Socks: the former White House Cat.
Any cat owner that treats a cat this way I would never elect to the post of dog catcher or anything higher.
Just watching Megan's discomfort at even stating what she things Ferraro implied is amusing.
Why couldn't Megan just state:
"Ferraro could have meant one of three things; Obama wouldn't be Ivy league educated and a Harvard law graduate if he weren't black, Obama wouldn't be where he is today in the nomination race if he didn't get support due to being black (both from black voters and from whites who support the black candidate for whatever reason) or both."
Has affirmative action so chilled our speaking that we can't even describe the effect (if a black person has a degree, he or she probably is not as qualified as a white person with the same degree)? I guess that question answers itself.
It is okay for fat people to joke about being fat; it is not okay for me to do it
It is okay for a woman to joke about that time of the month; it is not okay for a man to do it
It is okay for black people to use the N word; it is not okay for white people to do it
It is okay for members of my family to call each other 'dumb micks" or make alchoholism jokes; it is not okay for WASPs or British people to do it
It is okay for Jewish people to tell Jewish jokes, or complain about Jewish culture; it is not okay for non-Jews to do it.
Etc. There are things we do not say publicly, like "He's fat", even when they are true, because it violates social norms and plays into something ugly about human nature.
It is okay for Democrats to question whether Clarence Thomas got to where he is because of affirmative action; it is not okay for Democrats to question whether Barack Obama got to where he is because of affirmative action.
It is, however, okay for everyone ...
... to imply that skinny women have eating disorders
... to make jokes about male sexual impotence
... to call white people "dumb hicks"
... to impugn the motives of people who don't agree with them politically
etc.
One wonders why certain in-groups get special protection, some do not, and some think they do even though they don't (contra Megan, even though some Irish people get really mad when stereotypes about them are used AFAIK that has never stopped a single person from making an Irish joke). Actually one doesn't wonder at all.
Well, there's nowhere near the animosity towards the Irish in 21st century America that there is towards other some groups.
Likewise, to make an incredibly obvious point, young skinny women have a cultural capital that the obese don't. It's thus considered, rightly so, to be cruel to make fun of the obese, but not skinny rich celebrities.
And, yes, Blacks, Hispanics, Arabs, Asians, Jews, the obese, gays and lesbians, etc. face greater hostility (to varying degrees) than either the Irish or hotties.
Thus joking that a young, attractive, thin celebrity is anorexic is not the same as sneering at the obese or ridiculing black achievement.
Thus there's a reason there's an NAACP and gay and lesbian rights organizations, but not a Hotties Anti-Defamation Leauge. And there's a reason Jews often feel they still have more to fear from Anti-Semitism than the Irish do. And that reason isn't societal hypocrisy. It's reality. And, yes, 20th century history. Ditto the social norms that follow about what shouldn't be laughed at by outsiders.
Prejudice against poor whites is frequent and often revolting, but there's the sense that it's a class-prejudice and that there's enough social mobility in America that it's not quite as egregious as making fun of something that's totally innate, like race, ethnicity, body-type, gender or sexual orientation. This isn't entirely legitimate, granted.
Still, the culture is geared to lower-middle-class whites in a way it isn't to, for instance, Asians. There aren't sitcoms and radio stations about how great it is to be an Asian-American. There are plenty about Southern whites. (See country music. And more TV then I can list.) Every Democratic President for over forty years has been a humble Southern white as well. So despite any snobbery the face, they have a pull and power -- the culture constantly tell us that they're the true Americans -- that other groups don't.
Finally, I don't know what you mean by "Actually one doesn't wonder at all." I trust nothing too ugly.
"Hmmm. Something to do with the Irish not being semites, perhaps?"
Nah, I think it has more to do with different approaches to corned beef. Between rye with mustard stirring up so much more ugliness in the world than just with cabbage. Go figure.
But, eh, if you want we can fix the sentence.
Okay, then . . .
Change: "And there's a reason Jews often feel they still have more to fear from Anti-Semitism than the Irish do."
To: "And there's a reason Jews often feel they still have more to fear from Anti-Semitism than the Irish do from any like prejudice against them on the basis of ethnicity or religion."
Hei Lun Chan, I hate it when people of my demographic make fun of poor southerners, and my friends will attest that doing so brings down the righteous fury of a Megan aggrieved. Moreover, politicians don't get to go out and make fun of southerners for being dumb hicks either, joke about impotence (okay, maybe Bob Dole, but he asked for it), or otherwise offend key constituencies. And if Obama or one of his surrogates had done any of these things, I would be very mad at them.
In a vast majority of situations, I think it's appropriate to avoid true but impolite statements ("He's fat", et cetera).
However, suppose you are going rafting, or tandem skydiving. If one of your party is significantly overweight, this is a relevant topic that should be delicately brought up, since it affects the safety of others.
The office of the presidency is another such situation. Obama supporters claim that the multi-ethnic, international Obama would be ideal for the presidency, yet maintain that these qualities which make him so attractive have played no part in his career advancement up to now.
Ferraro could have raised the issue in a more sensitive way, but the substance of her statement does not deserve condemnation. Perhaps her statement was strategically designed to conflate Obama with the incendiary issue of affirmative action, but even if true, it would be an accurate summation of the situation.
Pragmatically speaking, Ferraro has done no favors for the Hillary campaign, and everyone would have been better off had she not said anything. But her swift indictment, to me, speaks poorly of our politically-correct, censorious culture.
First, why is this even an issue? Its clearly true and everyone knows it true, why does an old hack like Geraldine Ferraro get any press about it at all? Further, this argument seems to apply even more strongly against Hillary. Would Hillary be anywhere if she wasn't Bill Clinton's wife? I don't think so. Most people who become presidential candidates have had some bit of random luck or good fortune that gave them the opportunity. For most of our history being black was an automatic disqualifier, it does seem peevish to complain that now it gives someone an advantage.
Second, to defend Ferraro a bit, I think she is playing less the affirmative action card then the female resentment card. I thought her argument was that this election is another example of an older more qualified woman losing to a slicker, younger, better looking but less qualified man.
I'm still waiting for an Obama supporter to say something along the lines of "Monica Lewinsky wouldn't be where she is today, if it weren't for her relationship with Bill Clinton."
Which would be quite witty, except that Monica apparently isn't anywhere today. (No news, is good news I guess.)
It would be nice if Matt didn't try to monopolize every single one of these. He hardly gives anyone any time to talk. Don't get me wrong, Matt is really smart and a good writer, but sometimes we want to see a little more than a monologue. Especially when you're on.
Video blogging is not very interesting. It seems slow and incoherent.
Megan does seem to be the only one who has structured thoughts on the issue under discussion.
Does MrProliferation have a crush on Megan?
The socks, the socks! Now that you've drawn my attention, I can't ignore them. Even in the headshot, I know they're lurking in the background.
Talking about socks....
If someone really want to talk about a Clinton scandal.... especially a Hillbilly Clinton scandal, ask what became of Socks: the former White House Cat.
Any cat owner that treats a cat this way I would never elect to the post of dog catcher or anything higher.
Just watching Megan's discomfort at even stating what she things Ferraro implied is amusing.
Why couldn't Megan just state:
"Ferraro could have meant one of three things; Obama wouldn't be Ivy league educated and a Harvard law graduate if he weren't black, Obama wouldn't be where he is today in the nomination race if he didn't get support due to being black (both from black voters and from whites who support the black candidate for whatever reason) or both."
Has affirmative action so chilled our speaking that we can't even describe the effect (if a black person has a degree, he or she probably is not as qualified as a white person with the same degree)? I guess that question answers itself.
"If you don't understand that you need to go back to third grade." Would you care to defend that hectoring, patronising non-argument?
It is okay for fat people to joke about being fat; it is not okay for me to do it
It is okay for a woman to joke about that time of the month; it is not okay for a man to do it
It is okay for black people to use the N word; it is not okay for white people to do it
It is okay for members of my family to call each other 'dumb micks" or make alchoholism jokes; it is not okay for WASPs or British people to do it
It is okay for Jewish people to tell Jewish jokes, or complain about Jewish culture; it is not okay for non-Jews to do it.
Etc. There are things we do not say publicly, like "He's fat", even when they are true, because it violates social norms and plays into something ugly about human nature.
Oh my, you mean Megan is an Irishwoman?
It is okay for Democrats to question whether Clarence Thomas got to where he is because of affirmative action; it is not okay for Democrats to question whether Barack Obama got to where he is because of affirmative action.
It is, however, okay for everyone ...
... to imply that skinny women have eating disorders
... to make jokes about male sexual impotence
... to call white people "dumb hicks"
... to impugn the motives of people who don't agree with them politically
etc.
One wonders why certain in-groups get special protection, some do not, and some think they do even though they don't (contra Megan, even though some Irish people get really mad when stereotypes about them are used AFAIK that has never stopped a single person from making an Irish joke). Actually one doesn't wonder at all.
Hei Lun Chan,
Well, there's nowhere near the animosity towards the Irish in 21st century America that there is towards other some groups.
Likewise, to make an incredibly obvious point, young skinny women have a cultural capital that the obese don't. It's thus considered, rightly so, to be cruel to make fun of the obese, but not skinny rich celebrities.
And, yes, Blacks, Hispanics, Arabs, Asians, Jews, the obese, gays and lesbians, etc. face greater hostility (to varying degrees) than either the Irish or hotties.
Thus joking that a young, attractive, thin celebrity is anorexic is not the same as sneering at the obese or ridiculing black achievement.
Thus there's a reason there's an NAACP and gay and lesbian rights organizations, but not a Hotties Anti-Defamation Leauge. And there's a reason Jews often feel they still have more to fear from Anti-Semitism than the Irish do. And that reason isn't societal hypocrisy. It's reality. And, yes, 20th century history. Ditto the social norms that follow about what shouldn't be laughed at by outsiders.
Prejudice against poor whites is frequent and often revolting, but there's the sense that it's a class-prejudice and that there's enough social mobility in America that it's not quite as egregious as making fun of something that's totally innate, like race, ethnicity, body-type, gender or sexual orientation. This isn't entirely legitimate, granted.
Still, the culture is geared to lower-middle-class whites in a way it isn't to, for instance, Asians. There aren't sitcoms and radio stations about how great it is to be an Asian-American. There are plenty about Southern whites. (See country music. And more TV then I can list.) Every Democratic President for over forty years has been a humble Southern white as well. So despite any snobbery the face, they have a pull and power -- the culture constantly tell us that they're the true Americans -- that other groups don't.
Finally, I don't know what you mean by "Actually one doesn't wonder at all." I trust nothing too ugly.
"And there's a reason Jews often feel they still have more to fear from Anti-Semitism than the Irish do."
Hmmm. Something to do with the Irish not being semites, perhaps?
"Hmmm. Something to do with the Irish not being semites, perhaps?"
Nah, I think it has more to do with different approaches to corned beef. Between rye with mustard stirring up so much more ugliness in the world than just with cabbage. Go figure.
But, eh, if you want we can fix the sentence.
Okay, then . . .
Change: "And there's a reason Jews often feel they still have more to fear from Anti-Semitism than the Irish do."
To: "And there's a reason Jews often feel they still have more to fear from Anti-Semitism than the Irish do from any like prejudice against them on the basis of ethnicity or religion."
Sweet dreams, 40 degrees.
Hei Lun Chan, I hate it when people of my demographic make fun of poor southerners, and my friends will attest that doing so brings down the righteous fury of a Megan aggrieved. Moreover, politicians don't get to go out and make fun of southerners for being dumb hicks either, joke about impotence (okay, maybe Bob Dole, but he asked for it), or otherwise offend key constituencies. And if Obama or one of his surrogates had done any of these things, I would be very mad at them.
In a vast majority of situations, I think it's appropriate to avoid true but impolite statements ("He's fat", et cetera).
However, suppose you are going rafting, or tandem skydiving. If one of your party is significantly overweight, this is a relevant topic that should be delicately brought up, since it affects the safety of others.
The office of the presidency is another such situation. Obama supporters claim that the multi-ethnic, international Obama would be ideal for the presidency, yet maintain that these qualities which make him so attractive have played no part in his career advancement up to now.
Ferraro could have raised the issue in a more sensitive way, but the substance of her statement does not deserve condemnation. Perhaps her statement was strategically designed to conflate Obama with the incendiary issue of affirmative action, but even if true, it would be an accurate summation of the situation.
Pragmatically speaking, Ferraro has done no favors for the Hillary campaign, and everyone would have been better off had she not said anything. But her swift indictment, to me, speaks poorly of our politically-correct, censorious culture.
I have two thoughts on this.
First, why is this even an issue? Its clearly true and everyone knows it true, why does an old hack like Geraldine Ferraro get any press about it at all? Further, this argument seems to apply even more strongly against Hillary. Would Hillary be anywhere if she wasn't Bill Clinton's wife? I don't think so. Most people who become presidential candidates have had some bit of random luck or good fortune that gave them the opportunity. For most of our history being black was an automatic disqualifier, it does seem peevish to complain that now it gives someone an advantage.
Second, to defend Ferraro a bit, I think she is playing less the affirmative action card then the female resentment card. I thought her argument was that this election is another example of an older more qualified woman losing to a slicker, younger, better looking but less qualified man.
I'm still waiting for an Obama supporter to say something along the lines of "Monica Lewinsky wouldn't be where she is today, if it weren't for her relationship with Bill Clinton."
Which would be quite witty, except that Monica apparently isn't anywhere today. (No news, is good news I guess.)