Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
janinedm
Published Letters: 43 Editor's Choice: 2
It's one of the few places where we can hear singing without autotune. Regardless of its pop or corporate issues, that is a great service.
Moreover, I'm at a loss that people think it's ever been reasonable to develop a mental image of Black people through hip hop or hip hop stars. Would it be reasonable for me to think that all white people are like Ozzy Osbourne, Courtney Love or Tommy Lee? Limiting or regulating what's getting played implies that there's merit to that type of wrongheaded thinking.
I know you mean well, but that's a very good example of what I'm talking about (I think... more paragraph breaks, man.)
The idea that it's necessary or possible to "Know what Black people are like." It's outmoded and was always false. Louis Armstrong, Sidney Poitier, Denzel Washington, Michael Jordan... how many Black people need to be forced to carry the flag for all Black people before you "get a feel for what we're like." Why, after contributing to American culture for more than 400 years, do we all have to be on our best behavior, lest some pickpocket-kid in NYC reflect poorly on my nephew in VA? Why have Black people gone along with this for decades?
I'm not saying it's *impossible* to get bad ideas from pop culture. I'm saying we shouldn't treat that as a reasonable position. I'm not (nor is Lil Jon or Ludacris) personally responsible for what prejudiced people think, they are.
You tell me what I should think about race, I'll tell you how to use paragraph breaks (only one of us is guaranteed to be objectively right, though).
30 Rock IS smart, Studio 60 was ABOUT being smart. It's never a good sign when the characters are describing each others genius and artistic integrity without showing us any.
Also, Sting + Lute = Cancellation. That is as it should be.
You mean that Jemima and Butterworth were an interracial gay couple! I want videos.
"Given the innate conservatism of the black community, the burden to tend to hearth and home falls disproportionately on its women, sending the message to ambitious black girls that they can't have both fulfilling careers and families."
When did you decide Obama gets to be Black again? I can't keep up.
...dude is hot. The soulpatch is a little off-putting, though.
I think the key thing here is panel 6 about cavemen being in fact a primitive species. This is why, as a minority, I actually love these commercials.
At the center of that statement, made all the more apparent by the use of cavemen, is an idea that there are certain things objectively true about the entire group. Couldn't some person say, "don't minorities have trouble with reading?" Standardized testing statistics will back them up. Does that make it sensible to assume certain things when you meet a person or a caveman? Is it any less annoying because people "don't mean any harm?"
I'm going to watch the pilot. If it sucks, I'll stop. Hasn't the awesomeness of the US version of The Office taught anyone to stop prejudging?
I'm not okay with a music landscape that indie rock only.
... that those who are citing AC as a safety concern only use it when the temp is dangerously high (above 90).
The author has exposed Salon to zero liability and revealed no spoilers. He simply said where one could get it if one wanted to. Don't look, don't download it. It will be fine. Nothing will be ruined for you if you stop clicking on links regarding the Potter books, 'kay?
Some of us don't only read books to find out what happens next. I like the Potter books in part for its sturdy prose. Also for it's more honest depiction of orphans (I am one; if iPhone lady can share so can I) than in the horribly navel-gazing "A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius." My point is, who's really shortchanging the books here? If all you care about is what happens next, then why even bother reading the book? Why not just find a synopsis Monday morning so that you don't have to waste time reading and you can go straight to finding out what happens next?
...but I apparently don't read them for their grammar.
...are some of you unacquainted with the concept of a book review and how they work? I'd refer you to the Sunday Times Book Review. http://www.nytimes.com/pages/books/review/index.html As you'll see, plot analysis often comes into play.
I'm the poster that referred to Rowling's prose as sturdy. Not as a "comical" observation but as a compliment. Rowling's writing reminds me of a good piece of Shaker furniture. I suspect part of the reason that her writing is so popular is that she's able to paint concrete pictures of the world she describes and the action that goes on in it. Contrast this with, say, Oscar Wilde in The Portrait of Dorian Gray (no particular reason for bringing that up other than I re-read it recently). Everybody is constantly "flinging" themselves into chairs so often, I'm surprised the characters aren't all bruised.
By they way, I'm not anonymous; you are. I wish you had the guts to show us what 30 years of critical experience can do.
Now responsible womanhood means defending the stupid? Does this mean that no female human can ever do anything wrong ever (unless they're hard core right wingers)? Do men defend Kevin Federline's performance of Popozao? Was the Star Wars Kid secretly admired and I missed that subtext? I'm sorry, I will never be convinced that I must tolerate fools, regardless of gender.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
