Seems racist, if not just hypersensitive, to be so angry when mistakenly aggregated into the wrong racial category, especially by a comedian.

"What would have happened
if Patel, who is nowhere near
white, smacked Rock
for this *insult?"
--Chas

if Rock'd just turned
the other cheek
no Worries

he can take a slap:
perhaps there've
been Others

*asterisk all mine

but isn't being called White
something to be Proud of?

something we White peeps
can Bestow (@ Will) to
make ourselves Feel
better about Some-
thing? sorry some-
One? Sorry.

like the teevee show
King for a Day they
give ya flowers &
the Royal Cape
and for That
Day you're
KING.

it's really the very
Least we can Do.

NICE
♫ vid!

@--jakkkky

does your Disdain for the Wealthy
extend to those who use Their
Riches to purchase 'our' Law-
Makers* or solely to those
Not supporting ultra
Nationalism?

*who then cut funding
to those whom Need
it most to buy more
Yachts and Man-
sions for Them-
Selfs and their
Progenies?

it's

April Fools Day?
why wasn't I Informed?!

@7 - Because you're always a joke

It must be April Fools Day, because I agree with something Toby said.

"Those [northern] lights that always stun us because they are really in the out-there sky and not within some dream about an erotic alien that moves and loves like a fog-shaped afro."

Fuckin'... WHAT. You drop some acid before finishing that post, Charles?

I wish John Clayton were still alive to explain why letting Wagner go was the right move. It probably was, on the field and against the salary cap.

Which the Rams apparently DGAF about.

One of these things is not like the others:

"Most Households in Seattle Now Make Over $100K"

'"In more than half of the city’s census tracts, the majority of households have an income of at least $100,000. (There are 177 census tracts in Seattle, and 93 of them — that’s 53% — met that income threshold).'

A majority of the majority need not itself be an overall majority, and that's just the start of how badly Charles misread his 'supporting' material. For someone who complains about income and wealth inequiality as much as he does -- for someone who actually grew up in the Third World! -- you might think he'd understand that having a few households with very high incomes in a deeply impoverished locale could produce a high per-capita income amidst all of that grinding squalor.

If you click through to Gene Balk's article at the Seattle Times, you will find (in very large fonts) the actual numbers for Seattle's household incomes, by income level. Simple math then tells you just how far below "a majority" of households in Seattle have incomes of $100k or more. Just how far off Charles was, I leave as an exercise for the reader (as Charles himself obviously can't be bothered to do it).

The most interesting thing about Seattle households making over $100k is how many people discussing it assume 'household' = single person. A household of 2 making $50k each isn't necessarily affluent. Neither is a household of 3 where each makes about $33k.