LIMBAUGH: I got two more stories in the stack today about how black unemployment is through the roof. Black unemployment is terrible. The black frame of mind is terrible, they're depressed, they're down — Obama's not doing anything for 'em. How is that hoax and change workin' for ya? They're all livid. I mean, they thought there were gonna be an exact 180-degree economic reversal and it's done nothing but get bad for everybody, but they're especially upset about it because they look at him as one of them, and now they feel abandoned. And I'm sure Tiger Woods' choice of females not helping 'em out with their attitudes there either.

Ugh. It's not even worst parsing the bigoted stupidity in the above, but it is worth noting that, much like Obama, Tiger was once viewed as a post-racial prophet whose talent, good looks, and charm were supposed to break down barriers and teach us to love our fellow man. But when you're a racist, everything in the world becomes an exemplar of your hysterical racist beliefs, much like that one truism about the hammer and the nail.

[MediaMatters]

Contestant #1: Media Matters' daily words of wisdom from Rush Limbaugh, black American icon:

"The black frame of mind is terrible...I'm sure Tiger Woods' choice of females not helping 'em out with their attitudes there, either."

You always come through for us, Rush, you racist fuck. Contestant #2: WaPo columnist Eugene Robinson, who is upset that Tiger Woods didn't fuck a more diverse cast of ladies, among his various cocktail waitresses. Never let it be said we don't include liberals here.

Here's my real question, though: What's with the whole Barbie thing?

No offense to anyone who actually looks like Barbie, but it really is striking how much the women who've been linked to Woods resemble one another. I'm talking about the long hair, the specific body type, even the facial features. Mattel could sue for trademark infringement...

But the world is full of beautiful women of all colors, shapes and sizes — some with short hair or almond eyes, some with broad noses, some with yellow or brown skin. Woods appears to have bought into an "official" standard of beauty that is so conventional as to be almost oppressive.

His taste in mistresses leaves the impression of a man who is, deep down, both insecure and image-conscious — a control freak even when he's committing "transgressions."

If only Tiger had fucked a Vegas groupie with almond eyes, we wouldn't have these racial problems today. Vote for your favorite below! [Pic: Getty]

This is the worst thing telling me what's racist and what isn't since Crash. It's that bad:

A few thoughts come to mind:

1. No, you're racist because you fear/hate/assume/stereotype/pigeonhole [insert various ethnicity]. Also, because you're an ignoramus.

2. Really? People think the people opposed to Obama's health care plan are racists? No. If they're opposed to Obama because they're racist, that's one thing. Those people exist! And they're probably opposed to all of his policies, not just health care. People are most likely opposed to Obama's health care plan because there's some provision in it they disagree with, or because it trends in a direction they don't feel like having our government go.

3. If you hate Obama because he's black, then yes, you're a racist. And you should flush your face into another universe. Also, the use of multiple minorities in this video is especially disingenuous, as if to imply that people from other ethnicities can't be racist, because they're from other ethnic backgrounds! Which is something only someone who hasn't spent any time around other ethnic groups would be ignorant enough to imply or stupid enough to take as true.

4. Do the people who made this understand the concept of projecting? Really: this red herring is dead and it smells like ass, or more appropriately, horseshit. Has the opposition of Obama's health care plan developed a persecution complex about being racist? There's a reason it's a complex. If you're so concerned about being a racist, you should probably do things to prevent being perceived as a racist. And the people stupid enough to perceive you as a racist for something that patently doesn't make you one are stupid, so why listen to them?

5. Forgetting the fact that the first guy looks curious like George W. Bush, or that whole "I guess I'm a racist" thing. The lede is buried, or as Andrew Sullivan puts it, the ad is most effective by sneaking the real propaganda at the end:

Conflating wider worries about the intensity of vaguely articulated loathing of Obama as racially tinged with specific worries about health insurance reform is, however, a useful piece of sophism. But really: a total government take-over of the healthcare system? For a reform where almost every newly insured person will get coverage under a private insurance company and get prescription drugs from private drug companies and get treated in non-government-run hospitals? Sigh.

Lying liars are not only liars about what racists they are, but about what they're racist about, too. People suck. Or as I emailed back: for fuck's sake.

Remember, please, that an actual elected official, and an adult, wrote this:

"Ok, so, this is total crap, we sit the kids down to watch ‘The Charlie Brown Christmas Special' and our muslim president is there, what a load…..try to convince me that wasn't done on purpose. Ask the man if he believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he will give you a 10 minute disertation (sic) about it….w…hen the answer should simply be ‘yes'…."
[...]
In Wiseman's extensive thread that attacked the president, his supporters and Muslims, he stated "…you obama people need to move to a muslim country…oh wait, that's America….pitiful."

It is the fact that we are basically completely inured to actually legitimately dangerous rhetoric like this that is worrying.

Like, this man believes that it is self-evident that our nation's first black President, who was born in America and who is a Christian, is a Muslim who intentionally preempted A Charlie Brown Christmas. And this man is the mayor of a town with a population of almost 10,000 people. And he has 1,600 Facebook friends. And according to more than 2,000 voters in an internet poll, this man "speaks for a lot of Americans who are frustrated with the President." (Why is that even a poll option, Memphis Commercial Appeal?)

This is eliminationist rhetoric. These are 2,000 people who believe that Barack Obama is a threat to this nation. Plus there are Sarah Palin's Facebook fans.

So, yeah, this shit is funny. But with the mainstream GOP more than willing to rile up the nuts if it means a little fundraising cash and a higher media profile, lord knows where this ends.

Arresting African American Harvard professors at their own homes, is much ado about nothing.

Addressing healthcare, Obama said, "All we're trying to do is make sure that if you're buying health insurance on the private marketplace that you're not getting gouged, and gypped, by the insurance companies."

"Gypped," unfortunately, is something of an ethnic slur. At least some members of the Roma community—formerly known as gypsies—regard it as such. The word is said to have been derived from "to gypsy," and means to rip off, implying that all gypsies are thieves—it's sort of analagous to saying, "that 7-11 clerk Jewed me out of me change." When a British judge used it in open court in June, the British Roma community protested and the Oxford English Dictionary, which simply defines "gyp" as an "act of cheating," said it would likely look into the matter next year. The dictionary's chief etymolygist told the Daily Telegraph that there was a "scholarly consensus" that it was probably a "racial slur." Someone has made sure that it appears in Wikipedia's list of ethnic insults.

If a British judge caused a stir by using it a few months ago, we'd imagine that an American president employing it will cause a minor uproar. Oh look! Right-wingers are already standing up for the interests of the Roma people. You can now add gypsies to the list of people Obama hates, along with the mentally and physically challenged and white people.

Austin Fenner, a 20-year veteran reporter, was fired on November 9th, the same day as Guzman. And—if Fenner's claims are true—for the same reason: complaining about the Post publishing that infamous cartoon depicting officers shooting a chimpanzee meant to be Barack Obama. (Was it worth it, New York Post?)

The Huffington Post reports Fenner filed a 27-page complaint in court today which specifically signals out metropolitan editor Michelle Gotthelf and assignment editor Daniel Greenfield as the racists-in-chief. The lawsuit outlines a number of claims that fall just short of the sheer crazy-terribleness of Guzman's, but it's still a model example of (alleged!) racism.

Here are the worst/best parts:

The main thrust of the complaint is that minority Post staffers are subjected to "pervasive discrimination and harassment... based on their race and/or color" at the hands of their nearly all-white colleagues.

This discrimination manifested itself most blatantly in Fenner's claim that, after he criticized the chimpanzee cartoon in the blog Journal-ism, Greenfield and Gotthelf told him he couldn't enter the "Whites Only" newsroom without their permission for the five months before he was ultimately fired:

During the cartoon row, Fenner claims he also witnessed racism directed at New York Governor David Patterson, when editors refused to interview him about the cartoon:

And after Fenner publicly complained about the chimpanzee cartoon he said editors started to get sweary—and not even in a creative, hard-boiled-newspaper-editor-type way:

All this led to that fateful Nov. 9 day, when Fenner was called from an assignment in Brooklyn, ordered to give his notes to a white reporter, and fired.

The Post told the Huffington Post that Fenner's claims were "totally false and the claims of discrimination completely baseless." OK, you convinced us! Forget paywalls: The Post should charging for seminars on how to deny accusations that your organization is a seething pit of racism.

Contestant #1: Hero lady Ann Coulter, a non-racist who said that Maxine Waters "couldn't get a job that didn't involve wearing a paper hat without affirmative action." But Ann has a non-racist explanation!

Contestant #2: Former Bush flack Dana Perino. Who says, "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term." Yep.

Vote for the Queen of Thanksgiving now!

First of all, the only people besides Harvard-Yale grads who have anything invested in this ritual are their hangers-on, asshole bloggers (me), or sports writers, who think they have a really great narrative on their hands by writing the same narrative they do every year. Watch. This year's filing by ESPN, penned by one Mr. Tom Lakin:

It is, after all, the 126th installment of a tradition that began back in 1875 with a 4-0 Harvard win. In the years since that first meeting, the legend of The Game has grown. Perhaps best known is the 1968 contest in which Harvard scored 16 points in the final 42 seconds to tie an undefeated and heavily favored Yale squad — a result immortalized in The Harvard Crimson student newspaper by the famous headline "Harvard Beats Yale, 29-29."

In 2008:

Before two of the nation's oldest universities had a field to play on, they were eager to prove which school was superior in the rough-and-tumble new sport of football. Since 1875, the Harvard-Yale rivalry has emerged simply as "The Game."...And with Satuday's tilt at the Yale Bowl the first time since 1968 both Yale and Harvard come into The Game unbeaten in league play, the rivalry game will determine the Ivy title.

And in 2007:

NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) — The current Yale and Harvard players have heard all about the tradition of the venerable rivalry and are preparing to make some history of their own. Meeting No. 124 is Saturday and the stakes are as high as they get with the Ivy League title up for grabs. Both teams enter with 6-0 conference records. The last time that happened was 1968 and Harvard famously rallied from 16 points down in the final 42 seconds to tie Yale, spoiling Yale's perfect season.

So, yeah: basically, the same shit every year. Big old tradition for people who don't normally care about football to care about football. These people don't have time for football! Between all the awesome regattas and going to one of a handful of schools getting a degree from now maybe matters, football's mostly bullshit to them until they own a stake in whatever team is smashing the Bears this week. To the rest of us, it's interesting only if you've really seen Big or The Dark Knight that many times, and there's nothing else to watch on TV. Because the Harvard-Yale game, as far as football goes, sucks. This is not an opinion so much as it is a general consensus.

This young gentlemen seems to think this year's hyperbolic announcing of the Yale-Harvard game might be a bit much.

As in, straight-up stupid. Because, yes, going to a game in New Haven is just like seeing a game anywhere south of the Mason-Dixon line. You don't need to watch football or sports or even have been to the south to understand this. One palpable difference is: at the Harvard-Yale game, this guy has a better chance at scoring than either of the teams.

Needless to say, the situation in the SEC is slightly different. Like security! At Old Miss, they have issues with people wearing costumes. I mean, sure, Yale has people in "costumes."

But real football games don't mess with things like facepaint, or the asstacular body suit pictured above. Oh no, these guys go all out:

Woah, there, buddy! Went a little over the edge with your sporty spirit, no? Just slightly. KKK guys, showin' up to Old Miss games. At least the Ivy crowd would pick up on this kind of irony, and dress as Marxists, or something. What'd security at the Yale-Harvard game look like today?

OH ZHHOOOZHOOPUPPY.

Yeah, but Ivy Peeps can get hard, too, motherfuckers.

When they're not busy farting out the inevitable air of disappointment over the uninitiated. Observe the sad and sober:

A first-time drinker's disappointment, maybe? Next time we suggest an ether-soaked cloth. Because this isn't exactly the riotous assembly the rest of College Football gets to see every Saturday. Oh no. This is something else. The easily intimidated should gird their loins:

Who's skiing, today, right? The most accurate assessment might come via comparative basis. Granted, your high school football team may not be running world economies, but at least they can run an audible.

There is, however, culture to be had! And Yale-Harvard has a competitive spirit, to be sure. While inflatable bulldogs loom over alumni old and young, the youngest are trying to get drunk enough to black out—but inevitably puking—while rumblings and remembrances of competition not yet had or had too often result in the vicious pejorative shouting of whose school is better. It results in things like this. NSFW, especially if your work has a thing against assholes being incredible assholes and bad apings of The Departed:

And astute observations!

In SECspeak, this translates to EAT SHIT AND DIE YANKEE even though a rival school might only be thirty minutes north of another. Lost in translation, again and again. Other dispatches emerge:

I'm not sure what that means, but then again, I didn't go to Yale. Or Harvard. But I bet it has something to do with the enormous networking opportunities that present themselves at these things. Next year, I'm dressing as this guy and not leaving until I've closed a lower rate on my Visa. Or at least my dry cleaning bill.

But in the end, a winner must emerge. And today's winner was a come-from-behind defeat by Harvard. Let the celebrating begin. With Batman fans:

The Dark Knight would like you to get home safely, you second-rate sissies! A 14-10 victory IN YO FACE. More! The Harvard Law Dean of Students' Twitter Feed would like to feed into your insecurities over and over and over Yalies. Even they gotta get in on the action:

And Yale fans, like any good sports fans, prepare to riot at the failure of their warriors. Cop cars, turned over! Terrible taunting! Emotionally scarring and physically dangerous situations, yes? Yes!

We all have our own private consolations. Because, really, though, all college football ends in the same result, no matter who it is winning, no matter your school, your degree, your color, age, race, sexual orientation, tax bracket, building clearence, byline or birthright, we really truly are all the same when it comes to the endgame of a football victory: some straight-up homoerotic manlove, as fans rush the field.

Granted, these fans won't be getting arrested today, like everyone else's, but then again, they're not tearing down goalposts, either. Hell, they might get to play on "special teams" for an hour or two. A higher, deeper education, indeed. Note the young man in the left-hand corner of the picture, though: he knows, oh yes, he knows the truth of the situation. Yale-Harvard games, like their students, are just different. In the best ways possible.

Barbour's proposed budget would merge the state's three public historically black colleges into one public historically black college. Then, for good measure, Mississippi University for Women would be merged into Mississippi State University.

While his plan stressed that the various merged institutions would survive in some form, he also said that this major reorganization should result in the elimination of many programs, which supporters of black colleges fear will come largely from their institutions. The governor's budget statement said that all of the state's public colleges would see "a rationalization of class offerings.... Every university would be expected to reduce costs by consolidating or eliminating programs not pulling their financial weight." (The plan in total would turn eight universities in the state system into five.)

No better way to get your state out of a financial crisis than to reduce opportunities for minorities, women, and the poor and middle-class to receive quality, affordable education! If only Mississippi had a historically Gay Atheist university whose budget he could slash!

(The Supreme Court found Mississippi's attempts at providing black people with educational opportunities to be somewhat lacking, back in the '90s, and the state promised to heavily fund its HBCs to make up for it. But: "the state's pledge to create a $35 million private endowment to support black colleges never gained more than the initial $1 million that was used to start the endowment seven years ago.")

First up, the mighty Glenn Beck offers a new way to look at Obama's health care proposal:

"We're the young girl saying, 'No no! Help me!' and the government is Roman Polanski. In the end I think we're all going to be cowering in France."

The Obama administration is a child rapist. He just might be on to something. Next up, Washington Times editor emeritus Wesley Pruden gets truly provocative about Obama bowing down to foreign leaders:

But Mr. Obama, unlike his predecessors, likely knows no better, and many of those around him, true children of the grungy '60s, are contemptuous of custom. Cutting America down to size is what attracts them to "hope" for "change." It's no fault of the president that he has no natural instinct or blood impulse for what the America of "the 57 states" is about. He was sired by a Kenyan father, born to a mother attracted to men of the Third World and reared by grandparents in Hawaii, a paradise far from the American mainstream.

How much more pride would our nation have today if only Obama's mother had been attracted not to the lowly dirt-people of the third world, but rather to fine American men, like, say, Wesley Pruden, pictured? Vote for the most outrageous American hero, below!

The Daily Mail reports on the "race row" (Oh, Brits: Everything's a 'row' with them) sparked when black stars Faizon Love and Kali Hawk were cut from the UK version of the poster for the new Vince Vaugn vehicle Couples Retreat. This left a phalanx of palefaces begging passersby to spend some of their hard earned pounds on a film that scores 12% on Rotten Tomatoes.

A quick reminder of the rules before we get started: Each of you has two buttons in front of you—one marked "Racist," one marked "Not Racist". Once we begin, you may hit either of these buttons at any time; just be ready to state why you think the poster for this movie is or is not racist! Alright, contestants, let's take a look at this helpful diagram created by the Huffington Post that points out very clearly why the UK poster on the left may or may not be racist. Are you ready? Let's play! Is! It! Racist!

Racist!
This was a shameless, racist move by Universal to play to the historical aversion of foreign markets to black actors. As this Newsweek story on Will Smith points out:

Black actors have had a tough time appealing to foreign audiences, because the films they're often cast in are specific to African-American culture or history-they are films about African-Americans, as opposed to films that happen to have African-Americans in them.

Removing black people from a poster just because it's a sound business decision is offensive—not just to the actors, but to foreign audiences you're assuming are so backwards and scared of the Blacks that just seeing a movie starring African-Americans will fill their dreams for weeks with the terrifying image of a thousand dark hands grasping at them from some ancient, howling forest.

Not Racist!
Lighten up: The whole point of advertising is to make people want to come to your movie via making it seem good. Who has ever heard of Faizon Love (maybe best-known for his turn as "Big Large" in 2007's Who's Your Caddy) or Kali Hawk ("Popcorn Girl (uncredited)" in Celebrity)? As the Daily Mail article says: "A spokesman for makers Universal Pictures confirmed the poster had been changed to ‘simplify' it for the UK and international market outside America." When compared to Vaughn, Jason Bateman, Kristin Bell, Jon Favreau, etc., it's surprising is that these two no-names even made it on the U.S. poster.

Not (Any More) Racist!
Uh, never mind the British poster: Did you see the U.S. version? Not exactly a paragon of post-racial harmony: Love and Hawk are literally sitting in the back of the bus asking, "Um, hi, guys... can we come up to the front now? Did the Civil Rights Movement happen yet?"

Who Gives a Shit, the Movie is Terrible!
Love and Hawk should say a silent prayer of thanks for being left out of the poster, racist-ly or not. Maybe this way everyone will eventually forget they were in "Couples Retreat," and their nascent careers won't be killed by starring in a film Time magazine calls "just sad."

Sandra Guzman was an editor at the Post charged with running, among other things, a section aimed at Latino readers. After the paper published a Sean Delonas cartoon depicting President Barack Obama as a chimpanzee being gunned down by white police officers, she complained internally about what she saw as the paper's persistent and overt racism under the leadership of Australian he-man Col Allan. Then she got fired.

Yesterday, she filed a complaint in federal court alleging systematic racism in the Post's hiring, firing, and editorial practices, and depicting Allan as a stupid, giggling frat-boy who likes to show his female employees pictures of naked men for kicks. The complaint has all sorts of damning allegations—you can read the whole thing here, but some of the good bits are below. Guzman has separately filed a complaint against the Post with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The lawsuit comes just one day after the paper fired reporter Austin Fenner, one of the few remaining African-American reporters on the paper's staff—we're told there are just three others, one of whom has been on an extended sick leave for most of the year. We're also told that the paper—a metro daily in New York City—has no African-American editors, and hasn't for nine years. UPDATE: A tipster points out Robert George, an editor on the Post's editorial page, is an African American. Our sources on the Post's demographics were thinking of the news and features pages.

SECOND UPDATE: According to two other tipsters, business editor Jay Sherman is an African American as well. For the record, we asked a rep for the Post about the paper's demographics, and got an e-mailed statement, printed below, in response.

We've contacted the Post to confirm that and for a response to Guzman's complaint, and we'll publish it when we get one.

Here are some of the allegations:

The Post, Guzman says, was a "hostile work environment" for women and non-white staffers, who are subject to "pervasive and systemic discrimination" and "harassment":

Allan's "inappropriate and sexist comments and conduct have been widely known throughout" the Post. For instance, he likes to show ladies what penises look like. He thinks it's funny!

He also, Guzman says, likes to rub his penis up against his female employees, whether they want him to or not:

Other editors at the paper, following Allan's classy lead, have taken to offering female staffers better jobs in exchange for blow jobs:

Allan's colleague Les Goodstein, a News Corp. senior vice president, thinks latin ladies are hot, and told Guzman so. He also liked to lick his lips while staring at other women's breasts in her presence:

The beef that precipitated Guzman's firing was over a drawing by Sean Delonas, a racist, gay-hating, and—worst of all—astoundingly humorless cartoonist. The Barack-Obama-Is-a-Dead-Chimp cartoon is not his first exceedingly tasteless offering, and at one point, Guzman says, Delonas had the bright idea of depicting Jews as sewer rats, a pitch that apparently got nixed:

Guzman's complaints about the cartoon fell on deaf ears, both because real men don't care about whiny P.C. minority-type people and because she just didn't get that the whole point of the New York Post is to "destroy Barack Obama." At least that's what she says the paper's Washington bureau chief told her:

Col Allan certainly didn't care about P.C. minority-type people: When some of them staged a protest outside his newspaper, he laughed at them because "most of them are minorities and the majority are uneducated." Unlike the Post's highly sophisticated, Sean Delonas-loving readership:

Allan felt the same way about the vanishingly small number of non-white employees he oversees. When one of them approached him to discuss his feelings about the cartoon, Allan simply walked away:

After Guzman made her feelings public in an e-mail stating that she had raised her objections to the cartoon to management—an e-mail that got picked up by the Huffington Post and other blogs—Allan, she says, launched a crusade against her. His animus, according to Guzman, overwhelmed his news judgment. In August, Guzman—who is a personal friend of Justice Sonia Sotomayor—was invited as a guest to a White House reception celebrating Sotomayor's confirmation. No other reporters were to be present. Guzman asked for permission to cover and report on the event, and Allan said no. Granted, her personal relationship and status as a guest would make such an assignment weird, but a) it could have been disclosed and presented as an insider account, and b) since when has the Post cared about conflicts of interest? Especially when they have a chance to get an exclusive about a highly newsworthy event? Of all the transgressions listed in Guzman's complaint, this is perhaps the most shocking—that Allan let his hatred of Obama, Sotomayor, and Guzman kill a potential scoop.

There's much more, so do read the complaint in its entirety. We're sure Rupert Murdoch will, using his sophisticated racism-detecting system to determine that Guzman is full of it. Because if Glenn Beck's not a racist, then Col Allan certainly isn't, right?

UPDATE: The Post has released a statement responding to the complaint.

This lawsuit has no merit and is based on charges that are groundless. As previously stated, Ms. Guzman's position was eliminated when the section she edited was discontinued due to a decline in advertising sales.

Pat Robertson, great Jesus-like man:

So you are dealing with not a religion. You're dealing with a political system. And I think we should treat it as such and treat its adherences as such as we would members of the Communist Party or members of some fascist group.

Can you top that, bearded Forbes columnist Tunku Varadarajan?

[We] must ask whether we are confronting a new phenomenon of violent rage, one we might dub—disconcertingly—"Going Muslim." This phrase would describe the turn of events where a seemingly integrated Muslim-American—a friendly donut vendor in New York, say, or an officer in the U.S. Army at Fort Hood—discards his apparent integration into American society and elects to vindicate his religion in an act of messianic violence against his fellow Americans.

Not the friendly donut vendor!

The difference between "going postal," in the conventional sense, and "going Muslim," in the sense that I suggest, is that there would not necessarily be a psychological "snapping" point in the case of the imminently violent Muslim; instead, there could be a calculated discarding of camouflage—the camouflage of integration—in an act of revelatory catharsis.

Yes, I've heard of cases of Muslims shedding their "American" skins like so many reptilian aliens from 'V.' Provocative point, Respectable Columnist Tunku Varadarajan. Vote for your favorite outrage now!

[Pic via]

Meet Lionel McIntyre (pictured), an "Associate Professor in the Practice of Community Development and the Founding Director of the Urban Technical Assistance Project at Columbia University." According to the Columbia Spectator and the NY Post, he went out to a bar on 125th St. last Friday night with Margaret Davis, a white female colleague, and practiced community development by technically assisting her with a sucker punch in the face:

The professor, who is black, had been engaged in a fiery discussion about "white privilege" with Davis, who is white, and another male regular, who is also white...McIntyre, who is known as "Mac" at the bar, shoved Davis, and when the other patron and a bar employee tried to break it up, the prof slugged Davis in the face, witnesses said.

Dude Lionel McIntyre we hope you were really drunk, for your own sake. Judging by all the sources cited, this is an accurate report of what happened. Professor McIntyre is a veteran of the civil rights movement but appears to have descended into either a serious drinking problem or total bitchassness.

The Ivy League Punch-Edginess hypothesis has failed.

The Wall Street Journal, bless its nilla heart, breaks this story and undermines it in the course of two paragraphs:

"Do you think that hip-hop would be an appropriate area for NEA to fund?" I inquired.

"Absolutely. And mural painting and graffiti are art. There are popular aspects of all the arts that I think shouldn't be ignored."

Funding hip-hop-the best of which is rhythmically poetic, but commonly punctuated by profanity, violence and/or misogynistic sexuality-could put the previously embattled agency back in the crosshairs of the decency police.

Sure, rappers have rhythm. Many can dance! But, you know...bitches and hoes. Guns and malt liquor. Pussy and weed. Glocks and rocks. The WSJ thinks you know what it means. The things those people talk about. [Pic: Rob Gale]

At the time, Al Sharpton called for a hate crime investigation. And why wouldn't he? Megan Williams said that she had been "stabbed, sexually assaulted, beaten with sticks, forced to eat human feces and doused with hot water" in a trailer where she was being held captive by white people shouting racial slurs at her. Six people are in prison for the attack (because of physical evidence and their own statements, according to the prosecutor). Now, Williams says she was just trying to get back at her boyfriend, who beat her up. She also says she was pressured by her mother to inflate the case for financial gain.

So: Just another case of race-baiting by Rev. Al! Right? He singlehandedly forced those six convictions into existence! Right? Even though he didn't even get the hate crimes investigation he was asking for? Well. This maybe was a contributing factor to the downfall of the suspects: The two people Williams was living with in the trailer were both convicted murderers, says the NYT.

At the time of the alleged assaults, Ms. Williams was staying at a ramshackle trailer owned by Bobby Brewster and his mother, Frankie Brewster, in Logan County, about 50 miles from Charleston. Mr. Brewster had killed his stepfather at the trailer when he was 12, the authorities said, and served time at a juvenile facility. In July 1994, Mrs. Brewster shot and killed an 84-year-old woman she was looking after, also in the trailer, according to court records. She served six years at a state correctional facility and was paroled in 2000.

By all means, throw out the convictions. Let the people unjustly convicted sue. Hell, fire the prosecutor. But let's skip the "JESSE JACKSON AL SHARPTON PLAYS THE RACE CARD AND IT BACKFIRES AGAIN" bit. (Drudge: "Sharpton pushed WV rape story which turned out to be a hoax..."). Hate crime laws are dumb, but that's not what anyone is arguing about here. They're arguing that Al Sharpton should have known this girl was lying about her charges, even though no one else knew that.
Al Sharpton is not a detective! Although he'd be a funny one. Al Sharpton has many, many cartoonish qualities. But he's also on the right side of most issues. Particularly racial issues. Unlike Drudge, or the New York Post, or most of West Virginia. So, let's all save our valuable breath.
[Pic via]