Columnist On Columnist Crime

A mother of a mother, who I never knew and whose son I'll never meet, and don't wish to (we get it, you speed up the samples ... weak).

Insensitive is when I laugh in your face. Unless you're Kanye, get off the your shiny unicorn.

 

That almost was a coherent thought.

 

NO OUTING!

 

Leonard Pitts' column on it took a lot of guts, since he wrote it shortly after Reagan died:

http://www.aasfe.org/contests/2005winners/div4-generalcommentary.pdf

 

Shit, my bad.

Well, now that we're on the mare together ... nice sweaters, there, pouty.

 

I'm not Kanye, but my mother did grow up with Donda. That was fucked up, simple and plain, whether anyone here knew her, me or anyone else.

The problem with Reagan is that his legacy has become victory in the Cold War, something that's managed to trump his indefensible takes on race. But eh, there's really no reason for me to expect anyone to care about that. Dick Cheney's take on apartheid was in lock-step with Reagan's, and no one cared enough about that to think, "really, do we want this man as the vice-president?" Or, de facto president, if you prefer. Draw your own conclusions from that.

Anyway, back to Kanye...Kanye was right when he said Bush doesn't care about black people. Bush clearly hasn't given black folks a second thought. After all, black people don't tend to vote Republican and the GOP tends not to need their votes (at least so long as Democrats keep trying to win elections by winning about 43 per cent of white votes and every black person but Clarence Thomas and Alan Keyes). He's savvy enough to sprinkle color into his administration, but he's frighteningly indifferent toward black folks. That's foul, but it doesn't make me angry.

Reagan, on the other hand, DID care about black people...in a really bad way. He was openly antagonistic toward black people and didn't even try to pretend otherwise.

And even though that was blatantly obvious at every turn, people ate that shit up and continue to do so. Says as much about this country as it does about Ronnie.

 

After floating the failed Huckabee trial baloon, Brooks now wants to talk about McCain.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/opinion/13brooks.html?em&ex=1195102800&en=8c6f2937970a008f&ei=5087

 

He's back!

 

NICE HAIR?!?!?!?!

I know you meant to put that in blue.

Love how Nancy luuuuuvs stem-cel research. When it's their own personal oxes being gored, all the garden-variety cons turn tail and
plead their own special cases.

 

Fine and dandy, hem and haw, I could give a lick. I don't care.

 

From Pitts' column:

I'm completely fine with that.

 

It could be funnier. Try a writer's feud between two columnists on the same publication.

That happened to me, although it was on a Web site I and the other guy were on. The guy wrote a column in which he launched an ad hominem attack on the Dixie Chicks right after their comments. I wrote a column in which I attacked his facts. He wrote a response column that attacked me.

He didn't just post his attack column on our Web site. He posted it in a bunch of places.