I've mentioned before that I've written in print about some of the more bizarre e-mail I've gotten here, so I actually have a record of some of it. So even now, I can quote stuff I got years ago, word-for-word.

Here's one I got in 2004.

    I would hope this is not a unique question, but I don't have a clue as to where to get an answer. I like Betty Boop, but I'm a black lady and I cannot wear anything with all white people on it. I would love to purchase Betty Boop stuff with a black Betty Boop. Is this an option anywhere? If not, why not?

I wrote back that in fact, this question is indeed unique in my experience, then went on to criticize it as racist. I mean, geez, decent Americans in this day and age all know being a lady of one color or another is no good reason for being unable to wear anything with only people of another color on it.

But I did have a useful suggestion for her. I told her she should only wear items where Betty appears with her pal Koko, and tell everybody he's black under the clown make-up. I also mentioned Betty started out as a dog, and that doesn't exactly make her a white woman, or any other color, does it?

It was only after I'd replied that I had the idea of telling her Betty is black. She's just "passing". Too bad I didn't think of it in time, because it's the best answer. In the real world, she was the product of a studio run by working class New York Jews, and shows all the influences you'd expect from the heterogenous New York Masses of the 1930s. There is definitely an element of blackness in her. She even did duets with Cab Calloway.

And how might I have phrased it? Let's try, "Go ahead and wear it. She's black, but passing. (Geez, what a maroon!) (Uh, the mike isn't still on, is it?)"

What gets me most about this question is the final part — "If not, why not?" The implication is, this is an undisputed example of non-rightness in the world, and I'm required to either come up with an explanation for it or commiserate with the self-appointed victim. I've carried on before about my unwillingness to coddle people who are victims only because they decide they are.

The only explanation I could possibly supply is that the owners of the Betty Boop property have not chosen to make such products available. I can't go any deeper because they've also not chosen to confide their reasons for not so choosing to me. And I think practically anybody could make that explanation, so why ask me?

Actually, the demand is that I justify it. The correspondent sees grounds for moral outrage, and is daring me to refute them. Maybe I would, but life's too short.

By the way, I had very good traffic that day. Next day, better yet — good enough, in fact, that I began to suspect there might be something going on (as when CNN made me a "Fun Site of the Day" or a porn site linked to me as a joke). I poked around in available info about recent traffic, and — why, that's odd! My most-read article of the month was Betty Boop!

I checked older stats, and it had been about six months since she was even in the top 30. For some reason, people were clicking on my Betty Boop article at well over twice the usual rate.

Might my correspondent have been a powerful blogger or something? And might my reply have prompted her to write something highly emotional about me?

If so, bring on them bloggers! I'll piss of a dozen of 'em!

— DDM