Like Dangling Crack In Front of an Idiot

Poll #1415200
Open to: Friends, detailed results viewable to: Friends

Do you identify as a member of a group which has historically been discriminated against because of:

Do you believe people negatively pre-judge on the basis of your connection with any of the above categories?

What types of assumptions do you think they make?

Do you believe people positively prejudge you on the basis of your connection with any of the above categories?

What assumptions do you think they make?

Do you think you negatively pre-judge people on the basis of their connection with any of the above categories?

What assumptions do you think you make?

Do you think you positively pre-judge people on the basis of their connection with any of the above categories?

What assumptions do you think you make?

I just joined a gym and started working out again. So I'm curious:

Poll #1395287
Open to: Friends, detailed results viewable to: Friends

How often do you work out?

How long is your workout (in minutes

What motivates you to work out?

Your preferred method of cardiovascular training is...

Other?

1 being "hate it" and 10 being "love it" how do you feel about cardovascular training?

Weightlifting?

How do you keep motivated?

Four of us got on the elevator on the first floor - a fit woman in her thirties and two tall, lanky frat boy lawyer types. The woman was wearing flattering but professional clothing and seemed like the type who worked out a lot.

She exited on the 14th floor. Upon her exit:

Frat Boy 1: "Oooooh, that is a hell of a way to start the morning."
Frat Boy 2: "But-her-face, man, but-her-face."
Frat Boy 1: "That's what paper bags are for."

Whereupon I exited.

At the beginning of this campaign, the concern among Democrats was this: "Why do Obama (or Clinton) underperform generic Democrats against McCain?" Poll after poll showed a 'generic' Democrat winning by 10+ points.

The reasons were straightforward: McCain was an unusually strong Republican in a year like this. His 'Maverick' image mostly remained in tact, despite uncomfortable lurches to the right. Bottom line: McCain was not a 'generic' Republican - to a vast majority of the independents and conservative Democrats that were the GOPs only hope of winning, he was the only acceptable Republican.

On top of that Obama and Clinton each had weaknesses. Clinton had the highest unfavorable ratings of any national figure in American politics. She was viewed as someone who would do or say anything to win. Many Americans knew her well and did not like her.

Obama had the opposite problem: he was a cypher. This could be an advantage: people from all over the ideological spectrum believed he understood and was sympathetic to their ideology. Liberals probably thought he was more liberal then he was, while conservatives often saw him as more conservative. The problem was that after a while people began to wonder if there was anything there.

HOW THE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN BLEW IT

In that environment, the McCain campaign did the most foolish thing possible: they used typical Republican tactics to point Obama as a typical Democrat. McCain has argued that Obama would raise taxes and increase spending. They have argued that he is not warlike enough. They have argued he is soft on crime and soft on the cultural issues Republicans always run on.

In doing so, they have helped define Obama as a generic Democrat in an election where the population wants a generic Democrat.

So I say this, genuinely: THANK YOU SENATOR MCCAIN FOR YOUR EMBRACE OF CREEPY KARL ROVE TACTICS AND OLD ELECTORAL STRATEGIES.

The world will be a better place because you didn't have the courage to run a different kind of campaign.

Started: August 9, 2008
Ends: May 7, 2011

( New Mission 101 List )

Based on previous history, Obama will announce his Veep candidate sometime this coming week, before the Olympics start. The Democratic Convention begins shortly after the Olympics, and Obama has ponied up the money to be an official Olympic sponsor (so his national advertising during the Olympics will be substantial). It would be the perfect time to make the announcement (I'm guessing Monday or Tuesday so as to try to get a full week of coverage).

At mydd.com Todd Beaton makes the counterintuitive argument in favor of an experienced Washington insider. The liberal blogs have been debating the value of a 'reinforcing' selection (who would build upon strengths) or a 'traditional' selection designed to shore up weaknesses. The liberal blogs tend to think 'reinforcing' is a good idea.

Current mathematical models suggest that location doesn't matter that much - that selecting a candidate from a particular swing State is unlikely to win a state the candidate wouldn't otherwise win (FiveThirtyEight cites Muskie in 1968 as the only Veep candidate in the past 50 years to have done so.

Despite the media rumors that this is a close race, Obama is leading so substantially in the State-by-State polls, and the map is so favorable to him that it is most accurate to say he has a commanding lead. Part of his strategy is to dominate the air waves and suck the oxygen out of the McCain campaign. The trip abroad, which did not provide Obama a bump in the polls, was still a major victory because it thoroughly dominated media coverage for almost a week. Before the trip, McCain was hitting Obama as a flip flopper, and that charge was starting to get traction, despite being false, on the cable channels. The trip abroad killed that meme, at least in the short term.

A lot of the Republican attacks require a sort of momentum to be effective. Part of the effectiveness of the Swift Boat attacks or the Willie Horton ad is that they drive the narrative. The press, by debating the ads, tends to offer them free air time. They wring their hands and talk about how vicious and underhanded the attacks are - by while they do so they end up creating the environment where those attacks get repeated and are able to grow.

That's why this period is so critical for Obama - between his veep selection, the Olympics, and the Democratic national convention he is almost certain to have about a month where the major stories are neutral to positive. McCain, of course, will continue to make his daily attacks, but they will be relegated to thirty second quips 10 minutes into the show, or five-column-inch stories placed on page A-14.

Unless Obama is perceived as blowing the VP pick.

With that in mind, I think there will be extra focus on picking someone who does not seem like they would need on the job training.

________________________________________

Here are the people whose names are mentioned and how I rank them:

TOP TIER

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS (GOV. KANSAS) - Reinforcing
Strengths: 70+ percent approval rating as a progressive governing in a deeply Red state. She has a good record on health care and abortion. She's smart, competent, and a surprisingly effective campaigner. Opposed Iraq early. Catholic.
Weaknesses: Her response to one of Bush's State of the Union speeches, her biggest 'prime time' moment, was a flop. She isn't well known nationally. All of the news stories about Hillary Clinton's 'supporters' being pissed about picking another woman would be a pain in the ass.

WESLEY CLARK (GEN. ARKANSAS) - Reinforcing/Traditional
Strengths: Opposed the Iraq war from the start. Particularly powerful speaker on national security, Iraq, Afghanistan. Has a strong base of support within the party. Already a national figure. Could be a highly effective attack dog.
Weaknesses: Unusually unlikely to help in any particular state. May not be an effective surrogate on the economy. Had a minor scandal earlier when he noted that having been a prisoner of war wasn't really experience that would help in the White House.

THE MIDDLE GROUP

EVAN BAYH (SEN. INDIANA/GOV. INDIANA) - Traditional
Strengths: The safest of the traditional picks, he is a moderate, slightly DLCish Democrat who has a long career of popular and competent, if uninspiring, governing. He will get praise from the media, would be ready for a campaign from the start and would be unlikely to make any mistakes. Note: Democratic governor means no loss of a Senate seat.
Weaknesses: Voted for the Iraq War. Most boring, conventional pick. Doesn't really bring much to the campaign beyond allaying fears.

JACK REED (SEN. RHODE ISLAND) - Reinforcing/Traditional
Strengths/weaknesses: Basically has the same as Wesley Clark, but was also one of the most liberal votes in the Senate. He voted against the Iraq War.

TIM KAINE (GOV. VIRGINIA) - Reinforcing
Strengths: Early support, opposition to the Iraq War, Catholic (and effective talking about religion on the campaign trail).
Weaknesses: Not a great governor.

JOE BIDEN (SEN. DELAWARE) - Unclear
Strengths: I came around late on Biden, whose weaknesses, are pretty profound. BUT... he's one of the most effective attack dogs in the Democratic Party. In one line ("There's only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun, and a verb and 9/11") Biden essentially destroyed the campaign of Rudy Guiliani, who went from front-runner to joke. He is also extremely knowledgeable about the issues, both in terms of foreign policy and domestically. His propensity for only marginally constrained 'straight talk' contrasts well with McCain.
Weaknesses: He has been a flack for credit card companies, and was the primary mover behind the terrible bankruptcy reform bill. He voted for the Iraq war. He can put his foot in his mouth so deep it comes out his ass. He has a long history of votes that could become a weakness.

BILL RICHARDSON (GOV. NEW MEXICO, AMBASSADOR TO THE UN, ENERGY SECRETARY)
Strengths: He has the perfect resume. He has extraordinary experience dealing with foreign leaders and is a strong diplomat. His experience as Energy Secretary could make him effective on another key topic. Charismatic. Latino.
Weaknesses: Probably did not keep his dick in his pants. Has a tendency to make crazy, nonsensical panders (God wants Iowa to have the first in the nation primary). Caveat: if he did keep his dick in his pants, he'd move up a tier.

DISASTROUS PICKS

HILLARY CLINTON (SEN. NY) - Traditional)
Strengths: Deep support in Democratic Party. Relentless campaigner. Might be most effective attack-dog in the party.
Weaknesses: Probably has the highest negatives of anyone in politics, she would unite and energize the Republican party. Her attacks against Obama would be fodder for campaign commercials.

CHRIS DODD (SEN. CONNECTICUT) - Reinforcing
Strengths: Reasonably progressive record in the Senate. Effective, proven campaigner. He has a strong base of support in the Democratic Party.
Weaknesses: Countrywide scandal disqualifies him. He is probably only still on the list as a favor to someone.

ED RENDELL (GOV. PENNSYLVANIA) - Traditional
Strengths: Former DLC chair could probably raise a lot of money from traditional sources. Has an actual party machine which might be able to deliver votes in his state. He, like Biden, can be an effective straight talking attack dog.
Weaknesses: So deeply an inside the party hack, he would mute all of Obama's criticisms of Washington. Like Biden, that straight talking means he is almost never "on message" and will put his foot in his mouth. Almost impossibly undisciplined.

SAM NUNN (FORMER SEN. GEORGIA) - Traditional
Strengths: Foreign policy gravitas up the wazoo. Would reassure a lot of conservative Democrats. His work on nuclear nonproliferation is substantive, and reinforcing. Favorite Veep choice of Jimmy Carter.
Weaknesses: Barely a Democrat. The DLC was founded to elect him President. Bad (not just bad... tragically bad and borderline bigoted) history on gender issues and gay rights.

CHUCK HAGEL (REPUBLICAN SEN. NEBRASKA)
Strength: Criticized Iraq War (but voted for it). Foreign policy gravitas.
Weaknesses: Not a Democrat. Unlikely to agree with Obama on anything except war.

Starring: Pam Grier, Antonio Fargas

The content of Foxy Brown makes it sound daring and edgy. The movie touches on racism, explicit drug use, prostitution, murder, betrayal by a family member, forced heroin use, rape and castration.

Foxy Brown begins with a homage to James Bond, with an afro-clad Pam Grier cavorting in silhouette while caressing a gun. The promise is something of a playful romp - James Bond could not be described as hardcore or edgy and is, instead, something of a superhero.

Maybe that is what Foxy Brown aspired to be, but if so it wasn't quite over the top enough. Foxy's motivations (revenge for the murder of her undercover narc boyfriend by The Man) is too straightforward and earnest. Worse, while Bond is never as much as rumpled by the bad guys, Foxy spends a lot of the movie being brutalized. The result is a movie that is fucking dark, but doesn't act like it.

Part of the problem is that some of the movie is so terrible as to be funny. The plot centers around whores-as-protection-for-narcotics-pushers, is at least partially to blame. A madame uses her women to bribe judges and other influential people to go easy on those who purchase the protection. The story is not treated with any sense of seriousness and the villains are so one-dimensional and pathetic it is hard to see them as menacing (even as they do horrible things). Like the Bond movies, Foxy Brown is only as good as its villain - and that is not very good at all.

That's not to say that the movie is without pleasures. Blaxploitation great Antonio Fargas (who later became famous as Huggybear of Starksy and Hutch) excels in a small but critical role as Foxy's dipshit brother who finds himself in debt to organized crime. The opening scene, in which Fargas tries to string out conversation with cops at a late night diner knowing that as soon as they leave waiting thugs will break him in half, effectively combines humor and pathos. Fargas also plays, convincingly 1) amorality, 2) drug addiction, 3) intelligence. Not the easiest combination.

And, while the movie doesn't do her justice, Pam Grier exudes that indescribable bit of magical star power that few possess. Her performance isn't deep but it is full of life and charisma.

Overall: Adequate but interesting.

Good to Watch: With people who are not bothered by violence and/or nudity.

Would I watch it again? Possibly. The tone was strange, but this is the type of flick that might grow on me.

RIP.

• I want to say something clever, witty or poignant about the Hindenburg-like failure of the open boob project, but have little to say. I haven't followed the drama closely and all I can do is shake my head and think what the hell was he thinking?
  
• I've had something of a paradigm shift about a number of topics (most notably feminism). It goes like this: I have been thinking about how some quasi-lefties were duped about the Iraq war. Basically, there were some quasi-legitimate progressive and humanitarian reasons to invade Iraq. The thing, though, is that once George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are citing a progressive or humanitarian reason for doing anything, anyone who legitimately supports that position should be on guard to ensure that they are not being used (because god knows, we know that they are neither progressive nor human). The paradigm shift is that I realized that something that had bothered me in some feminist discourse - the immediate rejection of, or failure to engage with arguments that seemed to have some legitimacy - may actually be a Reverse Iraq Dupe situation wherein even if the arguments are legitimate, the use of the argument is pretextual. If the arguments are not offered in good faith, maybe it's right not to directly address them, or even reject them out of hand.
  
• For example, imagine a guy suggesting strangers grope women's breasts and citing sexual repression. Repression is a bad thing, no? But, like Cheney and Iraq, the key is not the badness of Hussein/Repression, the problem is when you muster forces to do something cataclysmically dumb about it.

Brinks gives lousy rewards.

She mathematically can't beat or even catch up with Obama. The most miraculous projections (her winning 60 percent of the vote in every remaining State) still leave her 50-75 pledged delegates behind.

The only way she can win now is by destroying Obama. She has to attack enough to convince the Superdelgates that he could not beat McCain. We've already seen some ugly tactics (but some of them may be overblown).

So, the thought goes, she should be encouraged to drop out before she damages our candidate and hands the election to the Republicans.

I admit, I've had that urge. But I realize it has come out of fear; the fear that like Kerry and Dukakis, Obama is not up for the task of the Republican smear machine.

If Clinton can sink him, it's better that we know it now.

I don't think she will be able too. I think he will emerge as a tougher, more skilled campaigner. I think he will have developed a reasonably compelling answer for every skeleton in his closet and all of those skeletons will be old news and thus the media will ignore them.

(Consider Hillary Clinton attacking Obama for a land-deal. But Whitewater is old news, and there was probably nothing there so the media ignores it. Even if Obama wanted too, it would be hard to revive it. By the time McCain gets a chance to use Clinton's attacks, they'll have faded away and be equally difficult to bring back to life).

Obama is a better debater because he had to face down Clinton 20 times. He's a better fundraiser because he faced her powerful and 'inevitable' campaign. For a lot of Democrats, I worry, the transition from the primary to the general election is like going from single A to the majors. Obama may find the opposite; that after Clinton, a dance with McCain would be like Albert Pujols feasting on triple-A pitching.

I don't like Clinton's tactics. I think it would have spoken well for her if she withdrew after her victories (allowing her to bow out honorably on a positive note), but I don't think she actually hurts the party by staying in. Hell, it might even help.

Some of you may remember my love for covers of Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah. Well, I ganked this download site from a comment in dimethirwen's journal (there are other links in that entry that I haven't explored yet, so this could be a goldmine).

Anyway, I fully encourage everyone to go.

I tend to prefer the song with a bit of passion. Often I like restraint, but this is one, to me, that there is a danger of under performing (I couldn't even get through the Dresden Doll's live version before giving up on it), and no matter how hard you belt it out, it's hard to overdo it.

Right now I'm enjoying Allison Crowe's version. I also like Imogen Heap's somewhat acapella (save for a few editing tricks where she appears to sing with herself) version. It sounds, appropriately, raw. Kathryn Williams version is also beautiful, simple, and breathtaking.

Poll #1149888
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All

Who do you support for President of the remaining candidates?

How satisfied (0 = not at all, 5 = amazingly) are you with your candidate?

Has Barak Obama's campaign been sexist?

Has Hillary Clinton's campaign been racist/anti-muslim?

Who would be your dream candidate?

Needs to learn to denounce and reject.

( Edited to add: my rage )

One of the strangest things about livejournal is when an anonymous quasi-sock-puppet journal adds me and I look around and I see most of the rest of what they've added is pornographic in nature.

I know I have talked about sex in this journal, but it seems like the last place someone would go for kink:

• I almost never mention my own sex life, and I certainly don't provide details.
  
• I almost never post pictures, and if I did I would make the worst cam-bunny ever.
  
• When I do talk about sex it is almost always in the form of cultural analysis. Even that is rare.

My conclusion: a lot of people must get off on Barak Obama.

A lot of Democrats have been freaking out about having a long primary battle. The fear is that it prevents them from campaigning against John McCain and allows him to rift the holes in his coalition and lob attacks at them.

I don't think that is true. In fact, I think it might be a good thing if the primary battle goes all the way to the convention (or close) as long as the pledged delegate winner wins.

Advantages:

1. Less time for Republicans to smear the winner. This might not matter much with Clinton, who has been smeared for the past fifteen years. But for Obama, he wouldn't face unified attack until only two months were left in the election.

2. The Democratic primary sucks the air out of McCain's message. At the point McCain has to be accused of fucking a lobbyist or be caught in an outright lie to even get on television. Almost every show, save for Fox news (and, from what I've understood, even them) is 75 percent Democratic coverage. Why? It's news!

3. It increases Democratic interest. The base is motivated. Last month Obama raised a record $36 million in a month. This month, Clinton raised around $35 million and Obama may have raised between $50-60 million. That isn't big money donors: it's apparently mostly coming from small donors. Small donors tend to reflect passionate voters. Obama's crowds also indicate a lot of passion (and it is worth remembering not to underestimate how passionately many voters feel about the Clinton campaign).

4. Democrats may have to campaign and build general election campaign infrastructure in fifty states and assorted territories (and whatever D.C. is). The Democratic party hasn't been organized as a national party in a long time. One of the things Howard Dean is trying to do is build up dormant organizations in Red States. With some effort and luck, that infrastructure/ground game will result in a few purple states turning blue and a few red states turning purple. Even if it isn't that powerful, it could revitalize State and local parties which will produce more and better lower level candidates to feed into national office (When I lived in Houston, I was surprised that it never felt as conservative as I thought - in fact, it felt pretty blue. So I'm not surprised that the Texas campaign appears to be reviving the Texas democratic party by bringing in a bunch of new voters and allowing local politicians to know where to look for votes).

5. The Democrats get better! Obama looks stronger in debates. Clinton is improving her grass roots organization and learning to focus on small donors. Competition is forcing both of them to improve their games, so whomever emerges will be better prepared for the general election.

6. McCain, screaming from the sidelines while his own voters mock him, looks feeble and weak.

All and all, I don't mind a long primary.

The 2000 election was a twin tragedy. Not only did Gore 'lose' but the John McCain of 2000 was one of the most thrilling and compelling political figures I had seen. He seemed honest and courageous, and had one of the most impressive biographies.

Either Gore or McCain would have been immeasurably better then George W. Bush.

I never thought I would register as a Republican, but I did - so I could vote in the California Republican primary for John McCain (which tells you closed primaries aren't that closed to people who plan). It was not a vote to sabotage Bush - or at least it wasn't only a vote to sabotage Bush; I genuinely liked McCain and felt he would make a decent, honorable president.

Now, whenever I see him on television I think of Greek tragedies. He is a larger then life heroic figure. He survived five and a half years of the worst torture imaginable and every day had the option, if he gave in, to be released. He simply refused and insisted that the first POW captured should be the first released. (He got 'special' treatment, in the form of even more brutal torture, because he father was the US naval commander).

John McCain is, in the truest and deepest sense, a hero.

But he also has a heroes ego and a heroes weakness. While he held out against torture, he caved to the most extreme elements of his party with relative ease. He even flip-flopped on an issue which imagine he would ever change his mind: torture. In a party of psychopaths and sadists he was one of the few with the courage to say that torture was wrong. That changed, however, because of political expediency.

I am sympathetic. I can't imagine how much the past seven years must have angered John McCain. He was the better, more substantiative candidate then Bush. He also was more bipartisan and more authentically conservative (he really does have a good record on spending and a conservative record on abortion).

Bush was inferior in every way: a coward born with a silver spoon who didn't know squat and slandered him with vicious lies including racist attacks against his daughter.

McCain decided to play the game.

I am reminded of another Republican war hero I admired - Bob Dole. Dole was funny, and competent. He was a genuine military hero with an impressive record of public service and bipartisanship. But in the waning days of a losing campaign he growled to a crowd something along the lines of "you want Reagan, damnit, I can be Reagan." It was, in a way, the ultimate surrender. He realized that, for all his accomplishments, and for all his service, to a small but critical group of kooks in his party, it would never be enough.

Despite his efforts to bribe them by twisting around his positions and pretending he agrees with them on some issues, McCain will learn the same thing.

Sadly, he's already sold his soul.

But every time I see him on television, I think of the man, and the President, he could have been.

[Exchange with Heather right now:

Me: "McCain is a very appealing Republican candidate, but he could have been a better one... but they wouldn't have them."

Heather: "THEY DON'T DESERVE HIM."

To which I agreed].

The Democratic nomination is broadly between two people whose policies are shockingly similar. There are a few of us who find an important enough distinction so as to favor one over another (I favor Obama, as much as anything, for his opposition to the Iraq war contrasted with Clinton's support, while at least one of my livejournal friends prefers Clinton's health care policy).

It's no surprise, then, that the contest has degenerated into decision making based on non-policy meta narratives such as 'electability,' 'change,' 'experience,' 'hope,' 'solutions,' etc. To some degree, these types of appeals are inherently silly. 'Change,' as Clinton notes, in and of itself, is pretty useless. Dubya changed a whole lot. Similarly, as Obama likes to point out Donald Rumsfield and Dick Cheney had a boatload of 'experience.'

So the critical issue right now for a lot of voters, and probably the only way to get anything useful out of these debates, is to look at whether the candidate has the right kind of the trait they tout.

The Flap

Today there is a flap over what should be a minor issue: a Drudge Report special report about the release of a picture of Barak Obama dressed in traditional Kenyan garb.

Is this a dogwhistle? Not yet. But it is designed to be the worst kind of political attack: to lay the groundwork to smear Obama by claiming he is a Muslim (and therefore scccccaaaaaaaarrrrry. Oooooooh). This kind of release is what leads to dogwhistles (if, later in this campaign, you hear McCain talking about Obama's 'unusual background' you'll know to what he is alluding).

Now Drudge is not terribly reliable. He's made his name as the release point of the worst of Republican opposition research. On default, I would assume that anything published on his site was leaked by the RNC. So when he said that he got it from the Clinton campaign, it's worth taking with a grain of salt.

All the Clinton campaign had to do was deny it. Instead they released a laughable/pathetic excuse for a denial.

NOT COOL.

Later they all but admitted they did it.

Why Does it Matter?

This exchange undermines Clinton's positive meta-narratives (that because she is tough and experienced she is the better candidate to compete against the Republicans) while at the same time buoying one of Obama's big weaknesses (that he isn't tough enough to take on smears).

One of the frustrating things about politics is that a lot of things that shouldn't matter, do. It didn't mean anything that Mike Dukakis looked funny in a tank, that Bob Dole looked old, or that John Kerry looked funny on a surfboard. It is only marginally 'meaningful' that George Herbert Walker Bush didn't know the cost of a gallon of milk.

But all of them lost campaigns because they couldn't manage the media.

The bedrock of Hillary Clinton's 'experience' claim is the implied claim that she has the right kind of experience: the experience to take on the right-wing noise machine. That she survived all the crap thrown against her (she is 'vetted') is a major part of her argument. Similarly, that she is willing to wallow in the mud, gouge out eyes, etc. is her meta-narrative.

That's not a bad thing. Hell, I don't like her and find it appealing. But that argument fails if she does more damage to herself then to her opponent. I like the idea of an attack dog, but it would help if her attacks were deft and didn't bite her in the ass.

Similarly, the suggestion that Obama's 'inexperience' in this area is a weakness would be augmented if he responded to attacks badly. He hasn't. Instead he looks tough, firm and willing to respond forcefully to attacks.

This is a complete tactical disaster.

Soon, I'm going to have to indulge my love in movies by watching more of them. It's been a while.

(I also realized, during the earlier montage, that there are a lot of Best Pictures I have never seen).

Her: You need to have a conversation with your people.
Me: ?
Her: Your people. White people. About wearing flip-flips in the winter. Why do they do that? When I was at Princeton* they used to do that. Sometimes your people would even wear flip flops and shorts. I mean, it was Princeton, so they did lots of egregious shit… like oppress me.

Why do white people wear flip-flops in the winter?

__________________
*Don’t hate her too much for dropping the P-bomb

From feministe.

Normally I try to stay out of the actual critical issues of the day and prefer to sit on the sidelines mocking the participants. But on this, I feel like I have some fucking expertise.

In law school, in Virginia, I would wear shorts and flip flops in the snow. People looked at me like I was crazy. Hell, the former Green Beret with PTSD who rarely talked and everyone thought was crazy actually commented on how freakin' nuts I was.

Anyway, now that I have established my credentials as a crazy white guy who wears flip flops and shorts in the snow around less-crazy non-white people, allow me to tell you why I did it:

I was lazy and I hated tying my shoes.

The end.