Great analysis from the always awesome Melissa Harris-Lacewell on why the Palin pick is not as dumb as it seems:

…when doing strategic electoral analysis, it is very important to try to see the world through the eyes of the others. Remember that GOP voters do not see the world the way Democrats see it. This mother of five who gave birth to a down syndrome child rather than terminate her pregnancy is a paragon of motherhood values even though she works outside the home. She is a working class, gun toting, Annie Oakley who happily sends her son to war. She knows that polar bears are much less important than fueling our insatiable need for luxury family vehicles. This is all consistent with how the Republican faithful define patriotism, family values, and good judgement. So while many liberal, east coast intellectuals are shaking their heads at the stupidity of this choice, Republican strategists are licking their diabolical chops at the evil genius of their plan.

Yes I’m still addicted to Shorpy. Check out these pics of the same building on Elizabeth Street in Nolita, taken in 1912 vs. in 2007. Click the pics for larger views.

I just found a fascinating blog called Shorpy, which contains high-resolution photos from the earlier part of the 20th century.

This is  a picture of West 26th Street and 11th Avenue in Manhattan, taken in 1911. (Click the pic to see the full-size version.)

Apparently 11th Avenue used to be known as Death Avenue, because so many pedestrians were killed by the freight line that ran along it.

The guy on the horse was an equestrian signalman, whose job was to ride ahead of the train to try and prevent accidents. These signalmen were known as “the West Side Cowboys.”

The street-level tracks of the freight line were eventually replaced with an elevated track known as the High Line. That of course has been abandoned for many years, and the city is currently turning it into a public park.

Ugh, it’s so disappointing to see Julianne Malveaux and Cornel West dis Obama for not invoking MLK by name.

I agree with jjb who commented on Ta-Nehisi’s post about this issue:

I found Obama’s speech all the more powerful because he didn’t mention King’s name. While King was a great man, the lasting impact of the March on Washington is not his speech. It is that the people assembled came together to demand change. King was indispensable. But it was the movement that had power, not the man. In many ways Obama’s invocation of King as a “young preacher from Georgia” is reminiscent of his own invocation of himself as “a skinny kid with a funny name” throughout this campaign. It isn’t the man who matters in the end, but rather the movement he leads. King led a movement for change. But in the long run what matters is the fact that the movement achieved change. Obama invoked what mattered, America coming together to take a stand.

Exactly. As Obama said in his speech:

But I stand before you tonight because all across America something is stirring. What the nay-sayers don’t understand is that this election has never been about me. It’s been about you.

For eighteen long months, you have stood up, one by one, and said enough to the politics of the past. You understand that in this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result. You have shown what history teaches us – that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn’t come from Washington. Change comes to Washington. Change happens because the American people demand it – because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time.

America, this is one of those moments.

ETA: Adam Serwer at TAPPED has a great post debunking the idea that Obama shied away from race in his speech:

It is MLK’s vision which Obama then refers to, that “people of every creed and color, from every walk of life,” are “inextricably linked.” It is no accident that this vision has become the central theme of Obama’s policy vision, that he says we should approach “black problems” as American problems. Whether this will work or not is subject to discussion, but the idea that it “runs from history” or “doesn’t acknowledge” MLK or the Civil Rights Movement is just plain wrong.

Source: JJP

I’ve managed to get through 30 years without ever breaking a bone… until now. I broke my toe in martial arts class a couple nights ago and it hurts like hell.

Have I mentioned how much I heart The Wendy Williams Show? Read my ode to Wendy here.

How YOU doin’?

Interesting thoughts from Ann at Feministing and Dodai at Jezebel about that.

I have to admit, I use the word “douchebag” pretty regularly. To me, the word conjures up some really specific traits (sleazy, cheesy, self-obsessed) that just aren’t captured by other insults like “jerk” or “asshole” or even “dick.”

Wikipedia describes the perjorative as a “metaphor of identifying a person as a douche is intended to associate a variety of negative qualities, specifically arrogance and malice.”

Sidenote: One of the many competing definitions on Urban Dictionary is “One who feels the need to over-editorialize in their Urban Dictionary submissions.” Hehe.

We could argue that the word evolved to have a whole new definition that no longer has anything to do with feminine hygiene. But then again, isn’t it possible that the word’s very specific connotations of oozy yuckiness have everything to do with its original connection to vaginas?

It reminds me of a conversation I had with a disability blogger after I had used the phrase “crippling shortage” in a blog post. I found myself wondering if it was offensive, and asked for her opinion. Here’s what she said:

I tend to find “crippling” a very human term — probably because of being unkindly targeted with the use of “cripple” in the past — and so it feels like an anthropomorphic use that relies on disability stereotypes when applied to inanimate objects. I don’t believe in categorically saying metaphors relying on disability should not be used since language is so ripe with sensory descriptions. And I think language should be able to employ words about bodily experience, but with attention paid to whose experience a word or phrase uses — is it your own? Another person’s? Or is the word use just convention?

There are no easy answers when it comes to terminology, and I’m certainly not in a position of telling people what they should and shouldn’t say. But I think it’s good to keep in mind that often, the reason a word is so powerful is precisely because it is related to an oppressed group.

I was on CNN yesterday to comment on the racist ads that Spain’s Olympic basketball teams participated in. It went pretty well, and it got Racialicious a few new readers.

But at least one CNN viewer wasn’t happy. Here’s his email, for your amusement.

I was not aware of you or your blog before today. Your appearance on CNN today shocked and offended me. At one point, you said something like – by 2042, that whites will no longer be a majority in the US. I’m not arguing with that figure because I haven’t researched and it may be true. What offended me was that the story was about a bunch of Spanish kids that were duped into making a sign that offends over 50% of the world’s population that happen to be Asian.

What was your point with bringing in that whites will be a minority? What does a story about Chinese and Spanish have to do with US whites? It appeared to me that you were using your opportunity in front of a national audience to lash out at the white race. You should be ashamed if that is what you really meant. If you want racial harmony, you are going to have to eventually include the white folks too.

I guess that 2042 prediction really freaked him out.

My point in bringing that up was that none of us can afford to live in our little same-race bubbles anymore, especially not in the U.S. You can’t get much done nowadays without interacting with someone of a different background than yourself. Being able to conduct effective personal and business relationships with someone of a different race, ethnicity, culture, or country is becoming a critical survival skill.

And if you don’t get why it’s offensive to pull your eyes back at an Asian person, then you’re setting yourself up for failure in your personal life and in your career. It’s that simple.