Plus, no 'net access during the day
It started with Cosby's comments.
Or, not so much the comments, as the reaction of the (when I say "mainstream" read "white") mainstream media to said comments.
This was followed by the over-the-top praise of Reagan, with the odd notice that Negro folk didn't seem to be joining in in sufficient numbers, with sufficient enthusiasim, and discussion of what's wrong with those people that they didn't appreciate the greatness of the man, or at least couldn't put their petty differences (our differences are always petty) aside and go through the motions.
Mixed in with a beheading or two and calls to sterilize the entire Middle East, Except the White Folks Israel, and acts of stupidity in comments sections elsewhere. . . kind'a not feeling like writing much here lately.
Not anything that anyone, including me, would want to read, anyway.
Or is bitter, profanity-laced, ill-thought-out commentary what people come here for? I forget.
Update: Permalinks are a wonderful thing. If I was a real web log type person, I'd use them. . .
Comments
i feel you man. it was a bugged two weeks.
love the blog, be.
i will place oyu as a link...
Posted by: dan tres Omi | June 23, 2004 9:11 AM
Saw a Chris Rock show on HBO. He said he was not happy about all the talk about killing Arabs, because he knew that once that sort of talk starts, the Blacks and Jews are next.
Speaking as one but not the other: agreement.
The speed with which hate is achieved compared to the speed with which love, or even tolerance, is achieved is like comparing light speed to Bush's thought processes.
Appeals to our better natures get lip service, and not the good kind.
I am partisan (can you tell), so take this as you will, but it seems to me the Republicans feed The Beast to feed themselves, but their followers feed The Beast to Feed The Beast. They love the Beast as they decry it.
I'd say this better, but I lost my poetry fourteen years ago. This is just awkward. I apologize for that.
Posted by: dean | June 23, 2004 9:25 AM
WRT that Chris Rock comment, I have in the blog backlog a post upcoming about an article Jewish attitudes about immigration that references his reasoning as why Jews support unrestricted immigration. This article appeared in Front Page magazine, so I take it with rock salt, but it was interesting to read nonetheless.
(Yes, I have search feeds for immigration-related matters. Sometimes they turn up really interesting stuff. Other times they turn up train wrecks.)
Posted by: Ginger | June 23, 2004 10:21 AM
If you have a clear reference, I would like to see the article. I actually, in the last couple of years, have begun to think unrestricted immigration is a good thing. My reasoning is that people who abandon their homelands and seek a new life in a better place tend to be risk-takers. Risk-takers tend to be more innovative, driven, and often successful. I fully approve of bringing more innovative, successful people to the country. I also think the diversity of cultures adds spice to the mix. And I am not afraid of losing my place to another nor do people from different cultures scare me. I have a friend who wants to see more restrictive immigration. His argument seems to be that there isn't enough here to go around, especially in the area of jobs. I say that innovative people create jobs. Of course, my entire premise could be flawed as all get-out, so take it for what it's worth.
I would also like to see some reverse immigration. George Bush, for instance, can go the hell back to where his ancestors came from.
Posted by: dean | June 23, 2004 1:11 PM
Dean, this is the article (actually two, sort of point and similar point). Notice the references to CIS, which is an anti-immigration think tank. I could go into depth about the people who finance them, but Aaron might spank me for taking over his comments section completely.
It's quite interesting to me to read immigration stuff from a more right-wing perspective, because they clearly live in a different planet sometimes.
Posted by: Ginger | June 23, 2004 2:05 PM
Wow, and thanks. "Wow" because that article is one snotty, condescending, paternalistic pile of horsecrap. Okay, so I have to admit I am not in the know when it comes to Jewish attitudes anymore. I travel in such diverse circles these days that I don't even pay attention to what anyone's religion might be. But that article is definitely a snotty and condescending paternalistic piece of crap.
I was at a family gathering a week ago. Someone started on Bush and a lot of people joined in. At least among the thirty people in that back yard, there was a definite anti-Bush and anti-conservative feeling. And he's supposed to be the pro-Israel candidate. But then, as one of us said and others assented, we're Americans, not Israelis. That's a more common attitude than you think.
I think Steinlight has been traveling in TOO Jewish a circle. What is really happening, and what really threatens American Jewry, is assimilation. I don't, personally, have any problem with that. If all the religions disappeared, it wouldn't bother me and it wouldn't be so awful, either. As for anti-Semitism being such a massive Muslim trait, Jews have weathered that storm before. Besides, I'm not so willing to help his bigotry in fanning flames by ascribing bigotry to others. It's there, but you fight them when they show up, you don't just label all people of a certain group and fight them without a good reason.
Guess that makes me a liberal. Damn, liberal again. I keep trying for "moderately liberal conservative with touches of monarchist dementia" and I just wind up at liberal. Bald liberal. Bald, middle-aged, Jewish liberal. I'm a damn cliche is what I am.
Posted by: dean | June 23, 2004 2:23 PM