April 15th 2012
Posted under American history & fluff
You be the judge, via Politico:
There are a few problems with this mashup, however: Continue Reading »
Archive for April, 2012
April 13th 2012
Posted under American history & race & wankers
Old crazy ideas
You be the judge. Answer on the flip!
I know further. . . that we have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race–the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind of incorporating of an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race. . . .
[I]t is a remarkable fact, that in the whole history of man, as far as my knowledge extends, there is no instance whatever of any civilized colored races being found equal to the establishment of free popular government, although by far the largest portion of the human family is composed of these races. . . . Are we to overlook this fact? Are we to associate with ourselves as equals, companions, and fellow-citizens, the Indians and mixed race of Mexico? I should consider such a thing as fatal to our institutions. . . . Continue Reading »
April 10th 2012
Posted under American history & European history & unhappy endings & weirdness
Does anyone else find the obsession with the sinking of the Titanic disturbing and distasteful? Continue Reading »
April 8th 2012
Posted under fluff
Happy Easter, brought to you by a slaughtered bunny rabbit lying in a pool of its own blood. Thank you, bunny, for giving us your life so that we may enjoy your delicious flesh. (Kidding! It’s a molded French cream in raspberry sauce.) Continue Reading »
April 5th 2012
Posted under childhood & Gender & GLBTQ & Intersectionality & race & women's history
Via Bridget Crawford at Feminist Law Profs, we learn of a trend observed by Erin KLG at 5 Cities, 6 Women:
[T]here’s a trend I’ve noticed lately that gets me as teary …. It’s this: when pregnant women – smart, funny, fierce women I respect – say they don’t want daughters. Some even take to their Facebook pages to rejoice, at approximately 20 weeks, when they find out it’s a boy instead of a girl – or, in the case of one person I know, updates her status to complain specifically about the disappointment of having a girl.
I find these women fall into two camps:
#1: “I don’t want a daughter because girls are harder to raise than boys.” Variations on this: “Girls are so moody and dramatic” or “Girls are manipulative and dangerous” or “Girls are easy when they’re young but watch out when they’re teenagers! Hoo boy!” or the ironic “Girls are too girly. I just can’t get into that stuff.” I cannot explain these women. I’m sorry. The best I can figure is that they dislike themselves, their sister, their mother, or someone else with a vagina, based on past experience, and the thought of producing another creature of the female variety makes their brain short and they say stupid things like, “Girls are just, I don’t know, harder on you emotionally.”. . . Really, you should pity these women. Show them kindness. Love them. But do not try to change them; you will not be able to reason with them. . . .
#2: “I don’t want a girl because the world is harder for girls.”. . . Continue Reading »
April 3rd 2012
Posted under American history & wankers & weirdness
Hilarious! “Seven or eight out of the California system of universities don’t even teach an American history course. It’s not even available to be taught!,” says Rick Santorum. I wonder what all of those friends of mine are doing out there, if they’re not teaching American history?
How about all of you readers and commenters at Davis, Merced, Irvine, San Diego, and Berkeley? Care to weigh in on this one? (Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?)
I am not a Rachel Maddow fan–I think her style is often childish and her “news” program is really just light entertainment for people who already agree with her point of view. (Then again, I suppose that’s a reasonable description of most of what I see of cable TV news.) However, this analysis of the Rick Santorum campaign seems shrewd to me. She says that “Rick Santorum is hard to report on. . . . but the way that he campaigns frankly repels top-tier style [media] coverage, as in coverage that takes him seriously.” Continue Reading »
April 1st 2012
Posted under American history & art & fluff
I get along without you very well. Of course I do.