Quoting badhatharry: Will early detection marriage counseling be paid for by universal health care?

No.

Quoting badhatharry: Will early detection marriage counseling be paid for by universal health care?

Yes. And as an aside, I found the comments on Tiger's "controlled" and "staid" behavior humorous. "Controlled" behavior used to be the norm in all pro sports - not just golf. Even I can remember when a touchdown or Home Run would result in nothing more than a handshake or a Fist raised in the air. Emotional displays or "Celebration dances" were thought of as either insulting, childish, or gay. And listening to Hannah made me realize she - and people like her - really are the NPR/Atlantic/NYT's target audience. Which is why they are; what they are.

Click here for the train going into the tunnel

From here on out, let it be know to all men across the universe, NEVER leave a message if you are famous. EVER. At least if it relates to something underhanded. Barely a nanosecond after he comes clean about the mistress I hear the recording on tv !!!!!!
I swear, those women, nothing sacred. Don't be careless men!
As to women not being into porn and being harder to pin down their desires, not true. Some women do have easy to detect desires and do enjoy porn, it's called romance novels, or for the younger girls, Twilight. As for writing about the mundane being uninteresting, all you need is a good writer. There are some people who can make a story about going to the post office interesting.
Take a look at Kill Bill. Yes revenge is sort of interesting, but there was basically NO STORY !!!!!!!!!!!!
It was all in the telling of the limited story. On books not being good gifts, I agree, if the person does not like reading. If they do, then it can be great. Particularly if it is something you think they would be into. If someone gave me the first book in the wheel of time series at

And they still are ridicules. If I did that for doing the job I am being paid to do they would probably be calling the men in white coats.

For some odd reason, when I click on your post, an ad appears with a near naked woman. Only on your post too. Must mean something deeper to google, some hidden link you have to the image seen here.

How do you grab an image like that?

Mesdames, I like you both a lot, but you are better than the topic of Tiger Woods's affairs and other Woodsian what not, though I liked the culture of golf insights of Ann Althouse, who has an almost preternatural way of immediately and incisively taking the cultural measure of whatever she casts her gaze on. Also, a blessedly not too long exchange. Itzik Basman (not to be confused with Itzik Basman)

You know, I bet Heather Hurlburt and Andrew Bacevich would be interesting.

By coming forward with an apology about philandering days after the crash, Tiger unambiguously signalled that marital problems have driven him to distraction. That's a stunning admission. It would have been better (for his endorsement career) to remain silent: the story would have died down and the illusion of a normal marriage could have been maintained. Now, if Tiger goes on a losing streak, the public will put a reason to it..

Quoting Unit: How do you grab an image like that?

hit your print screen key on your keyboard, that copies everything on your screen as an image, then past it somewhere.
I use a program called irfanview

Quoting claymisher: You know, I bet Heather Hurlburt and Andrew Bacevich would be interesting.

Hear, hear.

Hanna, you mentioned "Wolf Hall," apparently an historical novel about the court of Henry VIII featured Thomas Cromwell in a sympathetic light. Have you, or any one else here, ever read "The Fifth Queen"? It's an early trilogy by Ford Madox Ford, mostly about Kathryn Howard, but also featuring a great portrayal of Cromwell in his traditional role as villain. Not quite War & Peace or Il Gatopardo, but definitely worth reading. Contrary to what Ann says there, I think books are excellent gifts if they're well thought-out. One of the most enjoyable presents I ever got was a short book by Ronald Knox called "Let Dons Delight." It was part of an exchange where the rule was, each person gave the other an example of a "perfect" or "flawless" book, short enough the other would actually read it.

Forgot to say this in the previous post... the problem with books as gifts, of course, is that for those who don't enjoy reading, the book is mere dead wood, while for those who do, the person may already own the book (perhaps in a better edition) or may really want some other title.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/242...0:12&out=11:33
Rosen states that under current domestic violence law if Tiger admits his wife went after him with a golf club she would probably have to be arrested and "no one wants that". So if Tiger caught his wife cheating and chased her down with a golf club would "no one" would want him arrested? Do Rosen and Althouse approve of current domestic violence laws or have the laws crossed the line into invasion of privacy. Domestic violence laws seem to be both enforced and viewed by the public with a casual double standard that is appalling. That niether Rosen or Althouse found this topic worthy of further discussion is disappointing and perhaps revealing. Feminism should be about equal not selective application of standards.

In a familiar fashion, Ann laments the infidelity of high status men and uses Prince Charles and Lady Diana as an example. If I recall correctly, she was squiring around quite as much as he was and probably more. So if Ann's observation has any merit (and is not just a function of high status people being more observable) it may apply equally to women. Of course having Charles for husband would, and did, make even the most bone-headed Army Officer look attractive, but I wasn't trying to establish blame.

Quoting cacimbo: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/242...0:12&out=11:33

Rosen states that under current domestic violence law if Tiger admits his wife went after him with a golf club she would probably have to be arrested and "no one wants that". So if Tiger caught his wife cheating and chased her down with a golf club would "no one" would want him arrested? Do Rosen and Althouse approve of current domestic violence laws or have the laws crossed the line into invasion of privacy. Domestic violence laws seem to be both enforced and viewed by the public with a casual double standard that is appalling. That niether Rosen or Althouse found this topic worthy of further discussion is disappointing and perhaps revealing. Feminism should be about equal not selective application of standards.

So go ahead and make the specific (not just general case of equal treatment under the law) case for locking up the mother of two young children. Yes, the laws overreach regarding privacy and discretion. Additionally they are often applied with a double standard. If the laws were overwritten to protect the defenseless, how exactly has Tiger Woods been victimized? (assuming

Why does Ann say that women laugh at/when they read or watch porn? Does she mean they laugh nervously? Or is she implying that porn is funny?

Quoting laura: In a familiar fashion, Ann laments the infidelity of high status men and uses Prince Charles and Lady Diana as an example. If I recall correctly, she was squiring around quite as much as he was and probably more. So if Ann's observation has any merit (and is not just a function of high status people being more observable) it may apply equally to women.

Of course having Charles for husband would, and did, make even the most bone-headed Army Officer look attractive, but I wasn't trying to establish blame.

The Charles/Woods analogy was laughable on its face. Just consider the nature of the dalliances: Woods has (allegedly) been having trists with cocktail waitresses and other assorted hangers-on. Basically: it's been for the sex. Charles, on the other hand, had a multi-year affair with a woman he loved - and is now married to! Utterly different. But then again, so much about this diavlog was laughable. From the idiotic cliches about how "women's sexuality is so infinitely complex compared to troglodytic men!" to Hanna's ridiculous paen to companionate (read: sexless) marriages --- borrrrrring.

I am not upset that Mrs. Woods was not arrested. What I am disgusted with is the double standard which you highlight by emphasizing that she is the mother of two young children, isn't he the father of two young children. Would the children somehow be less traumatized seeing mom locked up instead of dad?
When you say the laws are written to protect the defenseless do you mean women or whoever the weaker partner is. Because I have seen plenty of couples were the women looks like she would be the clear winner in any physical match.
I am a female, but I try not to be a hypocrite. We cannot demand equality and then expect preferential treatment. Do you disagree?

Quoting JonIrenicus: hit your print screen key on your keyboard, that copies everything on your screen as an image, then past it somewhere.

I use a program called irfanview

That forum within the forum made me physically dizzy.

Quoting cacimbo: I am not upset that Mrs. Woods was not arrested. What I am disgusted with is the double standard which you highlight by emphasizing that she is the mother of two young children, isn't he the father of two young children. Would the children somehow be less traumatized seeing mom locked up instead of dad?
When you say the laws are written to protect the defenseless do you mean women or whoever the weaker partner is. Because I have seen plenty of couples were the women looks like she would be the clear winner in any physical match.
I am a female, but I try not to be a hypocrite. We cannot demand equality and then expect preferential treatment. Do you disagree?

I think the children, in this case, are best served by neither parent being locked up. The law and the courts are ill-equipped to handle the complexities of domestic disputes.
Although regarding physical violence, some application of law enforcement is necessary.
I'm also a proponent of equality, but equally wary of the application of bad laws. If this were a clear case of the man needing the long arm of the law to

You are so right. So far neither has numbered amongst BHTV's clearer thinkers and this diavlog did nothing to change that. While we were spared seeing Ann forcing herself to defend an indefinsible position, it was only because Hanna didn't have the analytical wherewithal to do it.

Quoting cacimbo: When you say the laws are written to protect the defenseless do you mean women or whoever the weaker partner is. Because I have seen plenty of couples were the women looks like she would be the clear winner in any physical match.

The laws should protect the 'weaker' partner, regardless of the gender. It just so happens that it is more frequent that the weaker partner is a woman.

Quoting nikkibong: The Charles/Woods analogy was laughable on its face. Just consider the nature of the dalliances: Woods has (allegedly) been having trists with cocktail waitresses and other assorted hangers-on. Basically: it's been for the sex. Charles, on the other hand, had a multi-year affair with a woman he loved - and is now married to! Utterly different.

Not to say, that you could write the story from Charles' point of view. That story would probably say that he wasn't allowed to marry the woman he loved. He had to marry some other woman because it was convenient for his status/royal customs, and keep his true love clandestine. Both Charles and Diana were treated as breeding animals. Some would argue that's the right thing to do.

But then again, so much about this diavlog was laughable. From the idiotic cliches about how "women's sexuality is so infinitely complex compared to troglodytic men!" to Hanna's ridiculous paen to companionate (read: sexless) marriages --- borrrrrring.

Is that what companionate means? I was trying to figure out what they were talking about.

Quoting cacimbo: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/242...0:12&out=11:33

Rosen states that under current domestic violence law if Tiger admits his wife went after him with a golf club she would probably have to be arrested and "no one wants that". So if Tiger caught his wife cheating and chased her down with a golf club would "no one" would want him arrested? Do Rosen and Althouse approve of current domestic violence laws or have the laws crossed the line into invasion of privacy. Domestic violence laws seem to be both enforced and viewed by the public with a casual double standard that is appalling. That niether Rosen or Althouse found this topic worthy of further discussion is disappointing and perhaps revealing. Feminism should be about equal not selective application of standards.

absolutely agree. its the perfect case to expose the hypocrisy of the two 'heads and the fact that these laws need amendment.

My problem with books as gifts is that they impose a feeling of obligation to read them, and you never know when you're reading the book whether you're doing it because you want to or out of obligation. If you don't read it, then you feel as though you're disappointing the giver (or that you didn't really get a gift). I also hate the way authors make $ with books that seem to make good gift objects but that aren't actually read. I'm kind of a gift crank generally though as you can tell from the diavlog.

"That niether Rosen or Althouse found this topic worthy of further discussion is disappointing and perhaps revealing. Feminism should be about equal not selective application of standards." I would have liked to talk about this more. I have a blog post on the subject if you really are interested in what I think. FYI, I agree that women's violence against men deserves serious attention.

Quoting laura: In a familiar fashion, Ann laments the infidelity of high status men and uses Prince Charles and Lady Diana as an example. If I recall correctly, she was squiring around quite as much as he was and probably more.

Diana was a very young virgin when she married, and she learned on her honeymoon that Charles was uninterested in her sexually and in love with another woman. She suffered with that for quite a while before finding love elsewhere. I stand by what I said.

Quoting Ocean: Why does Ann say that women laugh at/when they read or watch porn? Does she mean they laugh nervously? Or is she implying that porn is funny?

That it's funny (and stupid).

Quoting nikkibong: From the idiotic cliches about how "women's sexuality is so infinitely complex compared to troglodytic men!" to Hanna's ridiculous paen to companionate (read: sexless) marriages --- borrrrrring.

I tried to get Hanna to define the term companionate and to own up to whether it's a euphemism for sexless. As for the "idiotic cliches," I think I was making fun of women at least as much as men. Try listening to the diavlog without the static of what you're sure we must be saying. What did we actually say? I don't think you really know.

Quoting Ann Althouse: I tried to get Hanna to define the term companionate and to own up to whether it's a euphemism for sexless. As for the "idiotic cliches," I think I was making fun of women at least as much as men. Try listening to the diavlog without the static of what you're sure we must be saying. What did we actually say? I don't think you really know.

I think Rosin said they had a full marriage, or something to that effect, meaning they have sex. Where's that derring-do, Althouse? I saw you were reluctant to be point-blank.

Quoting look: I think Rosin said they had a full marriage, or something to that effect, meaning they have sex. Where's that derring-do, Althouse? I saw you were reluctant to be point-blank.

Oh, so you want to see more of Althouse pinning down the interlocutor? I could do that. (Encourage me!) But some things are more humorous and social. I threw out the material, and she had the option to pick it up or not.

I think Tiger's perfect image is all about his golf talents. And it's still completely intact in my mind.
I also think that men in general have a somewhat crazier sex drive than women. And when a guy like Tiger gives in to the sorts of sexual temptations he must be faced with much of the time, it ought to be seen at least somewhat in the context of how often he has probably resisted how difficult it might be for any of us to resist if we were in his position.

Quoting Ann Althouse: That it's funny (and stupid).

What about like Mulholland Drive? What's the verdict?

Quoting Markos: I think Tiger's perfect image is all about his golf talents.

good point! and one utterly ignored by these two - especially Rosin, who plainly knows nothing of the subject. (sports.) the athletic prowess of the man was underrated and ignored in this dv. instead, from rosin, all we get is the insistence that woods is "just like obama." wha??? (thanks, ann, for calling rosin's "analogy" what it was - pretty damn racist) for people who actually care, the dear leader Bob W. wrote a superb piece about tiger, back before slate started to suck: http://www.slate.com/id/86898/

Nonsense. What's the legal definition of weak anyway. Assault is assault is assault. Battery is battery is battery. Murder is murder is murder. Some legal definition of weak has nothing to do with it.

I disagree with you. I love to give books as Christmas gifts to family or close friends. I genuinely search for something I think they will enjoy reading, and I always hope they appreciate the thought I put in to it. There's no expectations, on my part, that they'll read it.

Quoting nikkibong: good point!

and one utterly ignored by these two - especially Rosin, who plainly knows nothing of the subject. (sports.) the athletic prowess of the man was underrated and ignored in this dv. instead, from rosin, all we get is the insistence that woods is "just like obama." wha??? (thanks, ann, for calling rosin's "analogy" what it was - pretty damn racist)

for people who actually care, the dear leader Bob W. wrote a superb piece about tiger, back before slate started to suck:

http://www.slate.com/id/86898/

I don't know Nikki. Seems to me both were discussing Tiger "the endorsement king" - hence the ignoring of Tiger's golf talents. Lets be honest. If Tiger were white or 100 percent Asian he wouldn't be pulling down the same endorsement money. He's definitely getting extra $$$ because - like Obama - many whites WANT to think of him as some kind
of AA role model. A kind of Sidney Poitier of Golf. In terms of talent, I think Tiger has earned his place with Hogan, Jones, Nicklaus, and Watson as the greatest ever. But in terms of endorsements he reminds me of Palmer - who got more endorsement $$ then his talent deserved. Added: Palmer was of course the King of Golf from 1960-1966, but never won a major after 1965 and

Quoting rcocean: In terms of talent, I think Tiger has earned his place with Hogan, Jones, Nicklaus, and Watson as the greatest ever. But in terms of endorsements he reminds me of Palmer - who got more endorsement $$ then his talent deserved.

You're right, of course, that Tiger is just like Palmer: they both got endorsement money they didn't deserve, because they are black. And your analysis here...yeah...you know what it is.

Quoting Ray: You're right, of course, that Tiger is just like Palmer: they both got endorsement money they didn't deserve, because they are black.

And your analysis here...yeah...you know what it is.

Also, Michael Jordan was overrated as a basketball player and never would have had sneakers named after him if he were white. Ask anybody: rcocean, Vox Day, RS McCain ...

Quoting Ray: You're right, of course, that Tiger is just like Palmer: they both got endorsement money they didn't deserve, because they are black.

Amazing. Ray, you're one reason why everyone thinks so highly of BHTV commentators - keep up the good work.

Quoting Ann Althouse: Oh, so you want to see more of Althouse pinning down the interlocutor? I could do that. (Encourage me!) But some things are more humorous and social. I threw out the material, and she had the option to pick it up or not.

If you are ever at sixes and sevens for a future topic with Rosin, here is a pre-election article she wrote relating to Palin: http://www.slate.com/id/2199255/

Quoting bjkeefe: Also, Michael Jordan was overrated as a basketball player and never would have had sneakers named after him if he were white. Ask anybody: rcocean, Vox Day, RS McCain ...

Ah, good ol' whitebread BJ Keefe - maybe you could join LGF and be a Race Detective.
And keep on posting - the DNC only pays for output my friend.

Quoting rcocean: Ah, good ol' whitebread BJ Keefe - maybe you could join LGF and be a Race Detective.

Which racist wingnut blog did you get that self-pitying piece of tripe from?

Quoting rcocean: Amazing. Ray, you're one of reason everyone thinks so highly of BHTV commentators - keep up the good work.

I am one of reason. This is how I know that Arnold Palmer is both black and 100% Asian. It's how he sells sneakers! Barack Obama, on the other hand...he's a white socialist. This is why he sells hardly any sneakers at all.

Quoting bjkeefe: Which racist wingnut blog did you get that self-pitying piece of tripe from?

Bite Me Comics has done excellent work.

Quoting Ray: This is how I know that Arnold Palmer is both black and 100% Asian.

No, an Arnold Palmer is half lemonade and half iced tea. Hold on ... are you calling lemonade black?! (the iced tea being asian I get).

A good chat. Regarding that long NYT piece about the couple from San Francisco who exposed themselves and their marriage uncertainties, I'm with Ann this time, which is unusual. It seemed to me long, boring, and mostly fruitless, not only for the reader, but for the couple too. Like giving samples of your sputum for public comment, is anyone really served by this? And yes, maybe even some unecessary damage was done. Though there are plenty who are drawn to this kind of thing, maybe in large part because of it's 'reality' factor. Being from SF as well, maybe I'm biased against such navel gazing which is pretty common there. But I am not against self-examination, it's just this type of public display that to me seems better for a tabloid. (Though there were too many tricky words, and maybe too many words period, for that readership.)

What Tolstoy meant, I think, is that most happy unions follow a basic set of psychological truths - eg: importance of sincerity, integrity, self-respect - and that these are a relatively short list of things, which in fact few people get right in their individual selves or their marriages. And how many different ways there are to fail, what infinite numbers of variations! Kind of a "the road is straight and narrow, and most of us fall off" or "many are called yet few chosen", kind of theme. And while he was a titan in literature, LT was also quite moralistic, so this kind of subtext is right in keeping. (He had stumbled from the straight and narrow himself once or twice, I've heard) Most of us are attracted to the lurid. It is more varied, interesting and gives quick, cheap pleasure. Writing a good sex scene ? Nabokov pulled off a virtuoso feat - Humbert Humbert basically dry humps himself to a climax on Lolita's behind while the girl is completely unaware. The description is absolutely enchanting, magical, and yet, NOT erotic. It actually takes a pretty damn good reader with good vocab to even penetrate the artistry (no pun). Yet this is a

I think the thing to remember is that endorsements have little to do with about anything other than the color GREEN. Tiger gets huge endorsements because his fans buy shit. That simple. There's MANY factors in what gives someoen a high Q rating. His ethnic background and life-story is in the mix, but hardly the main contributor. No more so than Larry Bird's, or Allen Iverson's or any other superstar athlete. You could just as easily say that Bird's white-ness got him more attention than he deserved. Or Babe Ruth, or Mantle or Ted Williams or Joe Montana etc. I would love to see a list of which athletes got appropriate levels of endorsements, which ones didn't get enough, which got too many, and why. As a tennis fan, I think it is a shame that Roger Federer isn't universally considered the world's greatest athlete (because he is in my opinion) but what can you do...tennis is a much smaller sport than football or basketball or soccer or (ugh) Nascar. So the most brilliant player in his given sport and probably the most dominant athlete in any sport in his generation (along with Tiger) goes

Tennis, soccer, and golf, were prominently represented by these three dudes for Gillette during The World Series (no offense - not intending to remind you of that Red Sox free extravaganza). I wonder if they will can this campaign?

(no offense - not intending to remind you of that Red Sox free extravaganza).

You sure know how to hit a guy where it hurts;-) ! Next thing you'll be bringing up my woeful Steelers...ugh. Yeah, I saw these ads, but seeing Federer in an advertisement oustide of the Tennis channel or during the US Open, is the exception rather than the rule. Considering he has broken the all-time records faster and in more dominant fashion and (like Woods) does things in his sport that were thought humanly impossible by almost evryone who understands the sport, it's surprising that he's probably a relatively unknown face to most Americans compared to Kobe, Tiger, Jeter, Manning, Brady etc. I think the perfect illustration (from the world of tennis) of how advertising is really driven can be summed up in two words...Maria Sharapova. 2 majors compared with Federer's 15 and I would bet the house that she is FAR more well-known outside the world of tennis afficianados.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I think the perfect illustration (from the world of tennis) of how advertising is really driven can be summed up in two words...Maria Sharapova. 2 majors compared with Federer's 15 and I would bet the house that she is FAR more well-known outside the world of tennis afficianados.

You mean it's not because of the superiority of the Canon Sure Shot camera?

Quoting graz: Tennis, soccer, and golf, were prominently represented by these three dudes for Gillette during The World Series (no offense - not intending to remind you of that Red Sox free extravaganza). I wonder if they will can this campaign?

Way cool pic.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: You sure know how to hit a guy where it hurts;-) ! Next thing you'll be bringing up my woeful Steelers...ugh.

Yeah, I saw these ads, but seeing Federer in an advertisement oustide of the Tennis channel or during the US Open, is the exception rather than the rule. Considering he has broken the all-time records faster and in more dominant fashion and (like Woods) does things in his sport that were thought humanly impossible by almost evryone who understands the sport, it's surprising that he's probably a relatively unknown face to most Americans compared to Kobe, Tiger, Jeter, Manning, Brady etc. I think the perfect illustration (from the world of tennis) of how advertising is really driven can be summed up in two words...Maria Sharapova. 2 majors compared with Federer's 15 and I would bet the house that she is FAR more well-known outside the world of tennis afficianados.

Seems to me that back a few years ago, Andre Agassi was a hugely successful figure in the advertising world. Both with and without hair, I might add. ;^) I would guess that Federer is either seen as lacking in on-camera charisma (as was Jeter for most of the beginning of

So I actually read the NYT magazine article, and this is what I have to say about it: STOP NAVELGAZING! WHO CARES! The most interesting thing in it was that the first few sentences included something like this -- "I pretend to be asleep while my husband vomits in the middle of the night", which made me wonder why her husband is vomiting in the middle of the night. Is this a regular thing? Is listening to the person you're married to vomit in the middle of the night what being married is all about? Is he bulimic? Does everyone who's in their forties vomit in the middle of the night and I just haven't heard about it yet? She never explained, and I don't even remember the rest of the article because this is the sort of ridiculous upper-middle-class middle-aged too-much-time-on-their-hands coastal pontificating that the New York Times somehow thinks all of America would find interesting. Kind of like Metropolitan Diary. But longer.

Quoting kezboard: So I actually read the NYT magazine article, and this is what I have to say about it: STOP NAVELGAZING! WHO CARES! The most interesting thing in it was that the first few sentences included something like this -- "I pretend to be asleep while my husband vomits in the middle of the night", which made me wonder why her husband is vomiting in the middle of the night. Is this a regular thing? Is listening to the person you're married to vomit in the middle of the night what being married is all about? Is he bulimic? Does everyone who's in their forties vomit in the middle of the night and I just haven't heard about it yet? She never explained, and I don't even remember the rest of the article ...

LOL! I didn't realize this article was under discussion, having not watched this diavlog, but by coincidence, I clicked on it in the NYT's "most emailed" list yesterday and started reading it. Anyway, by the time I got to the vomiting part, my brain was already so shut down from what I had read up to that point that it didn't even occur to me to wonder. (I suppose it's possible I subconsciously

Quoting kezboard: So I actually read the NYT magazine article, and this is what I have to say about it: STOP NAVELGAZING! WHO CARES! The most interesting thing in it was that the first few sentences included something like this -- "I pretend to be asleep while my husband vomits in the middle of the night", which made me wonder why her husband is vomiting in the middle of the night. Is this a regular thing? Is listening to the person you're married to vomit in the middle of the night what being married is all about? Is he bulimic? Does everyone who's in their forties vomit in the middle of the night and I just haven't heard about it yet? She never explained, and I don't even remember the rest of the article because this is the sort of ridiculous upper-middle-class middle-aged too-much-time-on-their-hands coastal pontificating that the New York Times somehow thinks all of America would find interesting. Kind of like Metropolitan Diary. But longer.

Speaking of Metropolitan Diary: http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2007/0...second_de.html

Quoting claymisher: Speaking of Metropolitan Diary:

http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2007/0...second_de.html

Heh. I was going to say before "aw, let's not hate on Metropolitan Diary," until I realized it's probably been close to twenty years since I last read it, and further, I often have to affect a frozen smile when some family member insists on reading aloud a "funny" item from it. However, before we get too carried away with hating on the NYT's core demographic, let's remember that they are the ones still buying the print edition, not to mention attracting the advertising dollars for all the $7000 handbags and such, that pay for keeping the good parts of the NYT good.

"What Americans want to see in black people"? "Is this what WE want from a black person"? You mean, what WHITE Americans want to see in black people and is this what WHITE people want from a black person. Clearly, the problem with this discussion is that you have two white women discussing race, with their inherently racist notions intact. I don't know that either Obama or Woods represents what AFRICAN-AMERICANS want to see. All they're saying is that Woods doesn't comport with THEIR racial sterotypes. Few African-Americans are purely black. Remember, all black women were at the disposal of the master and other white men who wanted them. So the beginning of the discussion, when they try to parse his blackness, based on a false "American" standard, makes the rest of this discussion worthless. How can you discuss race when you don't have a clue or at least fail to acknowledge what it entails in America, which is the case with most white people.