Derbyshire notes some inaccuracies, and agrees with Karl that it was condescending.
Taranto‘s piece is substantive.ÂÂ
Allah Pundit on Barack’s reaction to Imus’s Nappyheadedhogate:
Hail he of the immaculate standards for associating with racists!ÂÂ
In an interview with ABC News Wednesday afternoon, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., called for the firing of talk radio host Don Imus. Obama said he would never again appear on Imus’ show, which is broadcast on CBS Radio and MSNBC television.“I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus,†Obama told ABC News, “but I would also say that there’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude.â€Â ÂÂ
But that wasn’t quite true, was it? It’s almost as though he’s an abject hypocrite who’s making up his “principled†positions on race as he goes along to maximize his electoral advantage, isn’t it?
Arthur C. Clarke was so affected that he died.
Patterico goes to the nub.
Please send me any intelligent commentary, pro or con, that you feel might be generally overlooked.ÂÂ
Off-topic: Arthur C. Clarke, dead at 90.
Turn down an empty glass.
I think I’ll watch 2001 tonight.
Ah, fuck. Clarke’s gone.
Roger Simon has an interesting piece.
I haven’t read the links yet Dan, but if you can get those guys to react to your Shannon Elizabeth alert so quickly, then you’re really getting to be a player
Thanks, Kevin.
Only that was Karl.
Arthur C. Clarke was so affected that he died. Does that mean that any sufficiently advanced terminal travel to the great comet in the sky is indistinguishable from the magic negro?
Sorry Dan, I’d just read Karl’s liberation theology post and I kinda assumed the Shannon post was yours. Dreadful stereotyping on my part of course, but my head was still buzzing with trying to come to terms with the US as a North American version of Venezuala come next January.
Still, if you guys are gonna be giving away cheap oil to deserving causes, can I get my bid in now?
Please send me any intelligent commentary, pro or con, that you feel might be generally overlooked.
Damn. Well, that sort of locks me out. Is this the start of a trend?
Niggle: That wasn’t Patterico, but a guest blogger. A fine, bang-up job he did, too. Like a f’n rapier, those guest bloggers over there are.
Just insert David Duke for Rev White and it’s really quite comical.
Dan, I BESEECH YOU! Please put more info in the post before you start offering links!
First line: “Derbyshire notes some inaccuracies, and agrees with Karl that it was condescending.”
What the hell is ‘it’? How am I to know if I care enough about the subject matter to click the link if you don’t tell me what it’s about?
I think Obama gave a speech today, Kevin. NPR I think maybe mentioned it. Just guessing.
Yeah, I know what it’s about, but not from local context. I’m just saying that we get enough of the ‘click this if you want to know what I’m talking about’ crap from Greenwald. For a while I decided that if GG wasn’t going to explain what the link was about, I wasn’t going to click the link. Then I realized that he NEVER explains it, so I took him off the feed.
And now here’s Dan doing the same thing! How would you like to come to one of your favorite sites and see:
They said it wouldn’t happen.
—————————-
Some thoughts on the situation.
——————————-
And then there were three.
etc. I’m guessing that 3 out of 3 of those links were uninteresting to you. You probably would have known it if I told you what they were about. That’s all I’m saying. Perhaps naming the post “Some of the reaction to Obama’s speech”… That’s all I’m asking for. That way I could click it off fast and not have to be annoyed about the time I wasted reading about a guy I have no interest in.
Maybe it’s just me though. On the other hand, maybe it’s just you!