This isn't a new feature on the site so much as the doom of our society. In the last week, I've been confronted with multiple instances of idiocy, both equally amusing and horrifying.
Thanks to one of my friends up in Seattle, this article was brought to my attention. Apparently, Yahoo! News did an in depth report and discovered via the polls that race is playing a role in the upcoming election-- but it's not what you'd think-- no, you see thanks to this poll, Yahoo! News reports with their headline, "Race helps Clinton with whites!" Yes, folks, being WHITE is helping Clinton gain WHITE support! I know, I know, let's all take a minute to breath and soak that in and try and understand that this ISN'T an article from The Onion.
Apparently, Yahoo was having a slow news day and pumped out this riveting gem. Here's the statement of the century, "Whites who said race was important in picking their candidate have been about twice as likely to back Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as Sen. Barack Obama." SO we're not just talking about whites here-- we're talking about RACISTS. Because what is a racist if not a person of one ethnicity that bases important decisions on race? So the headline ought to read, "Racists more likely to vote for white candidate." ASTOUNDING! "Men more likely to have penises!" "Vomiting deemed unpleasant!" "Homeless people not amped about running marathons!" Then there's this bit of insight: "Whites who say they discounted race also leaned toward Clinton, though by more modest margins," which is like saying, "Racists smart enough not to admit to being racist show signs of racism." Fortunately, that line was overshadowed by the blunt glory of the statement that Obama, "leads overwhelmingly with blacks." I'm not even gonna say anything, I think Yahoo! News beat me to the punch.
There was one paragraph in particular that made me wonder if this was a news article or a report written by a teenager who had already decided upon his thesis before looking at the facts. Like if I tried to write a paper called, "Does fried food make us fatter?" or "Who's Better At Dunking? Whites or Blacks?" In this expert journalism, they use the facts to shed some light on a certain geographic and socio-economic region of our country:
"In the exit polls, whites saying they considered the candidate's race were likelier to be from the South and rural areas, less educated, lower earning and older. That's consistent with voting so far, in which Obama has done better among whites with more education and higher incomes, especially men."
No way, the South is racist? Poor, white people are LESS likely to vote for Obama? It makes me wonder if they even researched this story or if they just had Jimmy the Intern hop on Microsoft Word and pump out some filler. Horrific.
And that one story would have been enough for me for the week, except while flipping channels, I landed momentarily on a game show-- possibly 1 v 100, but I'm not positive. I tuned in as the guy was going for a medium level question and was clearly having some trouble. "In the famous Abbott & Costello bit, 'Who's On First,' which player is at First Base? a) What b) Who c) How?"
..........
.........
........
THE MAN DIDN'T KNOW! Fine. Ok. So maybe one of you are reading and don't know the skit and maybe you, too, are illiterate and stumbled upon the site because when you space out, the dots form the image of a penguin Magic Eye style. Well, this guy didn't know the answer to WHO'S ON FIRST and felt it was necessary to eliminate one of the options. The man used a lifeline. "How" was gonesies. So now this dude is staring at two options to the question WHO'S ON FIRST? a) What or b) Who. He hesitates only momentarily before declaring..."I'd like to poll the group." Yep. He used his other lifeline. He asked the horde or the mass or whatever they're called to see how many people thought it was "Who." Almost more shocking (although maybe there's some strategy in it), only 85% of the group said the answer was "Who." Now, for anyone reading who might be a little slow or feel they are missing something integral to this story, the name of the sketch is WHO'S ON FIRST. WHO is FUCKING on FIRST. There wouldn't be a JOKE if WHO was not on FIRST. If WHO WASN'T on FIRST, the joke would go,
"Who's on first?"
"Nick Johnson."
"Oh, cool, haven't seen him in a while..."
"Yeah, he broke his leg."
"Ouch."
"Yep."
AND THAT'S NOT A JOKE. WHO IS ON FIRST. The man waited a while before finally saying a) Who, and to my utter dismay, he won more money than I make in a year. So who's the idiot, really?
"Who?"
"Yeah."
"Who's the idiot?"
"That's what I'm telling YOU!"
"I am asking YOU, WHO IS THE IDIOT!"
"EXACTLY!"
"WHAT?"
"No, what's the asshole!"
"You don't know what's the asshole??"
"Yes, I do, what's the asshole!"
"You do know or you don't know?"
"I know what's the asshole! He's white and racist, and he's voting for Clinton."
Reggie Willits Is WHITE?,
Witz
Thanks to one of my friends up in Seattle, this article was brought to my attention. Apparently, Yahoo! News did an in depth report and discovered via the polls that race is playing a role in the upcoming election-- but it's not what you'd think-- no, you see thanks to this poll, Yahoo! News reports with their headline, "Race helps Clinton with whites!" Yes, folks, being WHITE is helping Clinton gain WHITE support! I know, I know, let's all take a minute to breath and soak that in and try and understand that this ISN'T an article from The Onion.
Apparently, Yahoo was having a slow news day and pumped out this riveting gem. Here's the statement of the century, "Whites who said race was important in picking their candidate have been about twice as likely to back Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as Sen. Barack Obama." SO we're not just talking about whites here-- we're talking about RACISTS. Because what is a racist if not a person of one ethnicity that bases important decisions on race? So the headline ought to read, "Racists more likely to vote for white candidate." ASTOUNDING! "Men more likely to have penises!" "Vomiting deemed unpleasant!" "Homeless people not amped about running marathons!" Then there's this bit of insight: "Whites who say they discounted race also leaned toward Clinton, though by more modest margins," which is like saying, "Racists smart enough not to admit to being racist show signs of racism." Fortunately, that line was overshadowed by the blunt glory of the statement that Obama, "leads overwhelmingly with blacks." I'm not even gonna say anything, I think Yahoo! News beat me to the punch.
There was one paragraph in particular that made me wonder if this was a news article or a report written by a teenager who had already decided upon his thesis before looking at the facts. Like if I tried to write a paper called, "Does fried food make us fatter?" or "Who's Better At Dunking? Whites or Blacks?" In this expert journalism, they use the facts to shed some light on a certain geographic and socio-economic region of our country:
"In the exit polls, whites saying they considered the candidate's race were likelier to be from the South and rural areas, less educated, lower earning and older. That's consistent with voting so far, in which Obama has done better among whites with more education and higher incomes, especially men."
No way, the South is racist? Poor, white people are LESS likely to vote for Obama? It makes me wonder if they even researched this story or if they just had Jimmy the Intern hop on Microsoft Word and pump out some filler. Horrific.
And that one story would have been enough for me for the week, except while flipping channels, I landed momentarily on a game show-- possibly 1 v 100, but I'm not positive. I tuned in as the guy was going for a medium level question and was clearly having some trouble. "In the famous Abbott & Costello bit, 'Who's On First,' which player is at First Base? a) What b) Who c) How?"
..........
.........
........
THE MAN DIDN'T KNOW! Fine. Ok. So maybe one of you are reading and don't know the skit and maybe you, too, are illiterate and stumbled upon the site because when you space out, the dots form the image of a penguin Magic Eye style. Well, this guy didn't know the answer to WHO'S ON FIRST and felt it was necessary to eliminate one of the options. The man used a lifeline. "How" was gonesies. So now this dude is staring at two options to the question WHO'S ON FIRST? a) What or b) Who. He hesitates only momentarily before declaring..."I'd like to poll the group." Yep. He used his other lifeline. He asked the horde or the mass or whatever they're called to see how many people thought it was "Who." Almost more shocking (although maybe there's some strategy in it), only 85% of the group said the answer was "Who." Now, for anyone reading who might be a little slow or feel they are missing something integral to this story, the name of the sketch is WHO'S ON FIRST. WHO is FUCKING on FIRST. There wouldn't be a JOKE if WHO was not on FIRST. If WHO WASN'T on FIRST, the joke would go,
"Who's on first?"
"Nick Johnson."
"Oh, cool, haven't seen him in a while..."
"Yeah, he broke his leg."
"Ouch."
"Yep."
AND THAT'S NOT A JOKE. WHO IS ON FIRST. The man waited a while before finally saying a) Who, and to my utter dismay, he won more money than I make in a year. So who's the idiot, really?
"Who?"
"Yeah."
"Who's the idiot?"
"That's what I'm telling YOU!"
"I am asking YOU, WHO IS THE IDIOT!"
"EXACTLY!"
"WHAT?"
"No, what's the asshole!"
"You don't know what's the asshole??"
"Yes, I do, what's the asshole!"
"You do know or you don't know?"
"I know what's the asshole! He's white and racist, and he's voting for Clinton."
Reggie Willits Is WHITE?,
Witz
Posts
1 comment:
So Hillary is the 'victim' of two kinds of prejudice - racists voting for her because she's white, and misogynists voting against her because she's a woman. How many of the people polled, ever, consider how SEXIST they are? And why doesn't anyone do a poll about how most men won't vote for a woman, no matter how smart or capable, and how a lot of women won't either, which is pretty sickening.
Signed,
Voting for Hillary Because I Have Two Daughters
Post a Comment