Folks, I'm on the move today spending some time with some folk who I hope will be my next book. Talk amongst yourselves, and remember, only you can prevent thread trolls. Eyal may post today, not sure. I'll be back to you tomorrow.
More evidence that the NAACP has lost its collective mind...or maybe just that of the Alabama chapter.
Truly I don't understand sentiments like this much farther past the "ooo I see a chance to grab headlines with something that will make me look even more antiquated than that which I'm bitching about"
I meant to say that TNC has been hired to ghost write the Jonas Brothers' tell-all autobiography -- so even if I'm right this will probably never be revealed.
If I were the NAACP, I think I would have better things on my mind, but if I were in charge of the Parade, I wouldn't want a bunch of women marching in such tacky looking outfits. From a distance, they look like those peeps you get in your Easter basket.
Since this is an open thread, I was wondering what the hell happened to the thread on the political leanings of football. Is it communism or fascism?
According to Derek Lutz in the movie Back to School: Violent ground-acquisition games such as football are in fact a crypto-fascist metaphor for nuclear war.
First, except strictly military parades, like Christmas lawn decorations, all parades are supposed to be tacky on some level.
I wonder if the idiot that's in charge of those loons in that chapter owns any bicycles and, if so, if he removes all the chains off of them because of the overt anguish it must cause him and his family. Obviously, Huffy and Schwinn are just another facet of The Man.
Coincidentally, I just emailed TNC a day or so ago about that football topic, or conspicuous lack thereof.
I'm leaning toward agreeing with the Alabama NAACP. Having those girls dressed up like pre-civil war southern belles may not be as bad as waving a Confederate flag, but it is essentially in that same category. I can understand why people wouldn't like it.
The fact is, these fools should have thought about it and planned something else.
You really have to reach to be pissed off about that.
For one thing, and I know this usually gets brushed under the rug, the overwhelming majority of southerners did NOT own slaves. Second, fashions for women along those lines existed in the north as well in that era. Just check out any catalog of the time.
If someone wants to be pissed off about the Confederate battle standard (because that's usually what's debated, not the national Confederate flag), then fine. I can understand why that flag would have up-front emotional connotations especially when given what the contemporary white supremacists do with it.
However, I don't believe the Klan get tattoos of or wear gowns like that to their meetings.
Perhaps we should all go down to Natchez, MS and tear down all the antebellum historical sites. Better yet, while we're there we can change the name of the town to We-Committed-Atrocities, Mississippi in deference to the Natchez Indians.
These loons have GOT to have better things to be worried about.
For those who could do with a bit of harmless political theater, the Editor of the Anchorage daily news versus Governor Palin; you'll never guess who wins.
For one thing, and I know this usually gets brushed under the rug, the overwhelming majority of southerners did NOT own slaves.
But I'll bet that the daddies of most of the Alabama girls who dressed like that in 1850 DID own slaves.
We're talking about the partying clothes of the landed aristocracy of the antebellum South here. And the landed aristocracy of the antebellum South employed what kind of people to work their lands? Exactly.
Absolutely not. I did some research into yesterday after it came up to back up what just seemed to make sense. If you owned a house in a large city, only 2% of your fellow homeowners were likely to own slaves as house workers, as opposed to the 5% or 6% of the landed gentry.
And, further, these were not just the party close of the south. You can find these gowns (although not the exaggerated inaccuracies on display in the parade) in woodcarvings from events in New England and Europe of the same period.
I read an article a while back on this, before it broke nationally on a slow news day, which took the angle that these dresses cost upwards of $30000 and that is discriminatory against the poor.
Well...that would describe just about every cool thing I'd like to do. I'd like to own my own plane. Or superbike. Or lots of things I can't because it's too expensive. I suppose that means everyone hates me.
Truly...don't we have bigger fish to fry these days?
Trick question; we all lose.
No, no. I'm becoming convinced we need Palin out there being egregious to unite Democrats/liberals long enough for the Obama administration to actually take their oath of office and attempt to accomplish a couple of things. Tennessee Democrats actually outmaneuvered Republicans at the beginning of the week--it can be done!
Scott: Truly...don't we have bigger fish to fry these days?
Hey, your idea. And no, I didn't have any bigger fish to fry at 6am today.
If you owned a house in a large city, only 2% of your fellow homeowners were likely to own slaves as house workers, as opposed to the 5% or 6% of the landed gentry.
5-6%? Nonsense.
The landed gentry in the antebellum South owned slaves. What made them (a)landed (b)gentry was (a) they owned land, but (b) other people were doing all the physical labor involved in turning that land into an income stream.
And in the antebellum south, the landed gentry didn't hire free men to plant and harvest their cotton and tobacco; they bought slaves.
Here's a piece no one cared about. Meh, whatever, probably the most enjoyable article I did during my stint at TIME. Premiered a month before I got laid-off. The nail in the coffin? Ya think?
Here's me going after Al. I didn't so much have a problem with him, as I had a problem with media acting like this dude was the go-to guy for everything black.
This was my first real story at time. I was writing for the Business section, a real change of direction for me. At any rate, it's about Wal-Mart's attempts to colonize the inner-city. As much as I enjoyed this piece, I mostly enjoyed going out to Chicago, which is a beautiful, beautiful city.
This a piece I did about the cops just outside our nation capitol, in Prince George's County, a few years back. I wanted to offer a counter to the dumb, conventional wisdom that if you paint your police force black, you could eradicate police brutality. In fact, Prince George's--one of the richest, blackest counties in the country--also had one of the most brutal police force's in the country.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Well, at least now I won't be checking in every hour or so to see what I missed.
I probably still will. By Force of habit.
So...How 'bout them Iggles?
How about this to get the conversation started?
http://www.wsfa.com/Global/story.asp?S=9655036&nav=menu33_2
More evidence that the NAACP has lost its collective mind...or maybe just that of the Alabama chapter.
Truly I don't understand sentiments like this much farther past the "ooo I see a chance to grab headlines with something that will make me look even more antiquated than that which I'm bitching about"
One abbreviation and two words...FFS COME ON!!!
i'll be your next book. i won't even ask you to visit!
One should never never feed a troll.
Should we start a thread in which we try to guess who are these "folk" that TNC hopes will be his next book?
To get this started, I'll guess that it is the Jonas Brothers, and TNC has been hired to write their tell-all biography.
Eek - I messed up again!
I meant to say that TNC has been hired to ghost write the Jonas Brothers' tell-all autobiography -- so even if I'm right this will probably never be revealed.
If I were the NAACP, I think I would have better things on my mind, but if I were in charge of the Parade, I wouldn't want a bunch of women marching in such tacky looking outfits. From a distance, they look like those peeps you get in your Easter basket.
Since this is an open thread, I was wondering what the hell happened to the thread on the political leanings of football. Is it communism or fascism?
According to Derek Lutz in the movie Back to School: Violent ground-acquisition games such as football are in fact a crypto-fascist metaphor for nuclear war.
@DaveEMI
First, except strictly military parades, like Christmas lawn decorations, all parades are supposed to be tacky on some level.
I wonder if the idiot that's in charge of those loons in that chapter owns any bicycles and, if so, if he removes all the chains off of them because of the overt anguish it must cause him and his family. Obviously, Huffy and Schwinn are just another facet of The Man.
Coincidentally, I just emailed TNC a day or so ago about that football topic, or conspicuous lack thereof.
Hey TNC, who's your agent? I'm putting the finishing touches on my book proposal too actually.
I'm leaning toward agreeing with the Alabama NAACP. Having those girls dressed up like pre-civil war southern belles may not be as bad as waving a Confederate flag, but it is essentially in that same category. I can understand why people wouldn't like it.
The fact is, these fools should have thought about it and planned something else.
Is is worth a controversy? Probably not.
You really have to reach to be pissed off about that.
For one thing, and I know this usually gets brushed under the rug, the overwhelming majority of southerners did NOT own slaves. Second, fashions for women along those lines existed in the north as well in that era. Just check out any catalog of the time.
If someone wants to be pissed off about the Confederate battle standard (because that's usually what's debated, not the national Confederate flag), then fine. I can understand why that flag would have up-front emotional connotations especially when given what the contemporary white supremacists do with it.
However, I don't believe the Klan get tattoos of or wear gowns like that to their meetings.
Perhaps we should all go down to Natchez, MS and tear down all the antebellum historical sites. Better yet, while we're there we can change the name of the town to We-Committed-Atrocities, Mississippi in deference to the Natchez Indians.
These loons have GOT to have better things to be worried about.
Another book? When's the movie coming out?
Seriously good luck.
For those who could do with a bit of harmless political theater, the Editor of the Anchorage daily news versus Governor Palin; you'll never guess who wins.
Anyone going to TNC's reading in L.A. this Friday night?
If it could get any more retarded...it probably impossible by now.
http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2009/01/13/unabashed-racism-in-the-bush-doj-_civil-rights_-division/
you'll never guess who wins.
Trick question; we all lose.
For one thing, and I know this usually gets brushed under the rug, the overwhelming majority of southerners did NOT own slaves.
But I'll bet that the daddies of most of the Alabama girls who dressed like that in 1850 DID own slaves.
We're talking about the partying clothes of the landed aristocracy of the antebellum South here. And the landed aristocracy of the antebellum South employed what kind of people to work their lands? Exactly.
@low-tech
Absolutely not. I did some research into yesterday after it came up to back up what just seemed to make sense. If you owned a house in a large city, only 2% of your fellow homeowners were likely to own slaves as house workers, as opposed to the 5% or 6% of the landed gentry.
And, further, these were not just the party close of the south. You can find these gowns (although not the exaggerated inaccuracies on display in the parade) in woodcarvings from events in New England and Europe of the same period.
I read an article a while back on this, before it broke nationally on a slow news day, which took the angle that these dresses cost upwards of $30000 and that is discriminatory against the poor.
Well...that would describe just about every cool thing I'd like to do. I'd like to own my own plane. Or superbike. Or lots of things I can't because it's too expensive. I suppose that means everyone hates me.
Truly...don't we have bigger fish to fry these days?
Trick question; we all lose.
No, no. I'm becoming convinced we need Palin out there being egregious to unite Democrats/liberals long enough for the Obama administration to actually take their oath of office and attempt to accomplish a couple of things. Tennessee Democrats actually outmaneuvered Republicans at the beginning of the week--it can be done!
Scott: Truly...don't we have bigger fish to fry these days?
Hey, your idea. And no, I didn't have any bigger fish to fry at 6am today.
If you owned a house in a large city, only 2% of your fellow homeowners were likely to own slaves as house workers, as opposed to the 5% or 6% of the landed gentry.
5-6%? Nonsense.
The landed gentry in the antebellum South owned slaves. What made them (a)landed (b)gentry was (a) they owned land, but (b) other people were doing all the physical labor involved in turning that land into an income stream.
And in the antebellum south, the landed gentry didn't hire free men to plant and harvest their cotton and tobacco; they bought slaves.