2008.08.27
Our girl, Linda!
If you watched CNN last evening during Hillary Clinton's speech, you undoubtedly caught a fleeting glimpse of former Roanoke City Councilwoman Linda Wyatt. It was nice to see a homegirl, if only for a nanosecond.
In typical fashion, Linda was about business. She wasn't mugging for the camera or waving a placard. In fact, I'm pretty sure she didn't know she was on television. She was sitting there listening to the speech when the camera did a quick closeup of her. I enjoyed seeing a familiar face in the crowd, other than the rich and famous.
I'll try to get up with Linda on Wednesday and will post any reaction she received from adoring former constituents who saw her on the tube.
s
Linda is a good and honest person. That's why she's not on Roanoke City Council anymore.
Comment by Percy Kution — August 27, 2008 @ 8:57 am
Does "homegirl" mean black? and does "if only for a nanosecond." suggest in a veiled way that people of color are not being treated equally? This in conjunction with "I enjoyed seeing a familiar face in the crowd, other than the rich and famous." ,suggest that "homegirl" is not rich or famous. Let me translate Shannas' very poor attempt to race bait. Message= If you watched "White" TV during "White Girl" speech you may have seen a "Black Girl" but only for "a nanosecond", cause she ain't Rich and Famous like "White" people that they were showing on tv.
You might want to find a picture of former Roanoke councilwoman Linda Wyatt online and then reconsider which of us is race-baiting.--s
Comment by robert hutton — August 27, 2008 @ 10:09 am
Ha ha! Why do people read so much into what you might say in a casual tone?
Robert, Linda isn't black and neither am I but I'm guessing neither of us would mind Shanna calling us homegirl in her good natured way. That our town was "represented" by a face in the crowd at the convention is pretty cool and enough reason to call someone "homegirl" to me. A female from our "home," recognized in a friendly way is all Shanna's comment said to me.
Comment by Heather — August 27, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
Shanna: Don't let Robert get to you. If he read your work regularly, he'd know you are straight forward enough to have said just that if that's what you were feeling. People need to stop reading into things so much. Sometimes, being happy to see a Roanoker on TV is just that, happy to see a local on TV.
Comment by Danny — August 27, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
Robert Hutton: you didn't go too far in school did you, son? You're wasting time on this site. You SHOULD be out looking for whoever convinced you the 5th grade was your senior year.
Comment by Percy Kution — August 27, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
It's great to see someone from the Roanoke area representing, yet hearing Hillary versing Harriet Tubman words to freedom makes me nauseated. Listening to her belch out how she and other Democrats are trying to save us from the Bush administration.
1) Why would you ask the people to cover your debts of 5 Million dollars when this money will become a Tax write off?
Didn't she report her net worth for last year total $125 Million Dollars, why take it from those that need it most.
2) Why delay drilling for oil on or off shore, while alternative fuel sources is still 20 years away from reality?
Maybe this is the reason there is Democratic bill to end all oil drilling in Anwr, so the Caribou can live in peace.
3) And if the Democrats truly wants lower gas prices, why did Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D) recess the house for 5 weeks so they can't vote on the new energy bill?
Will this not make gas prices skyrocket to the levels of the European Market. I guess" The Gang of 10" have their job cut out for them.
I guess this is helpful when you own stock in EXXON Right Ms. Pelosi.
Maybe there is something to deceiving billions when you are make millions.
Comment by Backlash — August 27, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
Percy, don't be too hard on robert hutton for thinking that fifth grade was his senior year if he didn't get any further....maybe he was drafted!
With "backlash", again we see how the opportunity to reply to a blog exposes posters with a reactionary mindset, as well as those who, because they are selective in accepting information, aren't well informed. Quite aside from hiding behind a silly sounding pseudonym, there are many things in that post that suggest the poster is long on emotion and short on analytical preparation. Most obviously, the poster flirts with illiteracy: e.g. "versing" is not a word in standard English, although "versifying" is; two full syllables missing suggests it was the writer's intent more so than a typo. This impression is reinforced by the many other grammatical mistakes that follow: sentence fragment ("Listening..."), noun/verb disagreements ("sources is...", etc.) Perhaps "backlash" fells that this level of competency in standard English is suitable for one's first language?
Comment by Warren — August 29, 2008 @ 2:38 pm