> I think you miss the point if your first thought is that "more folks
> of color...are supportive of universal h/c than whites...". The funny
> parts were about Michael Moore documentaries and just wanting
> Universal Health Care because they have it in Europe and anything from
> Europe is cool. Oh and it makes us think we can be a
> freelance-whatever, or, just feel good about having the option. Ha!
Or maybe is has something to do with a basic right that most of the industrialized world has (except for Germany, of course).
To answer B.'s question about where the blogger is from, according to the LA Times article I posted a while back, he's a Canadian living in LA. At first I thought the blog was supposed about North American whites (in general), and as some of the comments on it suggested it did an interesting job of pinning down an ethnicity that gets taken as normative, and generalizing it in a way that turned the tables. Very interesting.
But as the blogger said in the article it was inspired by his move from grad school in the Midwest to LA, where everybody knows that the heartland is a pack of Bush-voting troglodytes. Fair enough; I had a similar experience moving from Chicago to Boston (though Chicago is considered cosmopolitan in an honorary way). The problem I have is where the generalities get portrayed by double-reverse indirection as the concerns of smug coastals vs. Real Meat-and-Potato-lovin' Americans in the Heartland. Well, bullshit. It just reinforces the smug attitude he's claiming to take down, not to mention the more dominant one where Real Americans live in Wisconsin and think organic arugula is a latte liberal thing. Bullshit on them both.
This latest entry is a real shark jump.
-- Andy