On Race and Opposition to Obama

Even when it comes to blogging, Jimmy Carter somehow finds a way to screw things up.

I just completed reading a trio of books on Carter - a newly published work, his presidential autobiography, and a '76 biography. I would have liked the opportunity to discuss them here without having to muddy the waters with current events. Instead, Carter sounds off, gets some national facetime, and worms his way into Slapinions through a side door.

Thanks Jimmy.

Just in case you've been encased in Carbonite for the last week, Carter claims that much of the criticism of President Obama is due to the color of his skin. I don't know the inner working of Carter's mind. Maybe he believes that story. Maybe not.*

It's not that his was such an original statement. Oh, the things that have been said online on this subject, not to mention at the water cooler! Boiled down and simplified, it sounds something like this: if you strongly disagree with Obama, especially if you take action to show that disapproval, then there's a chance that you are acting out of an unspoken or (at least) subconscious reaction to the color of his skin. Hell, if you listen to some of the Far Left, there's no 'chance' - you ARE acting out of racial bias.

Hmm. With respect to those who sincerely believe this . . .schtuff, I call bullshit.

Are there cuckoos out there that are walking advertisements for Birth of a Nation? Sure there are. Idiots abound in a world of nearly seven billion, and if you get together a group of 100 people - much less millions - you're going to get some.

A fringe minority does not discredit the ideas and beliefs of millions of concerned American citizens. And frankly, saying it's true but that it "isn't everyone on the right" is insulting. It's implying that 'you' are the rare good apple and impugning those who stand with you. (and you'll always assume it's you, because who wants to be thought of as the racist in that comparison?).

You'll hear a lot of the Left reference the freaks who get all the media play. But I wonder how it would be if the show was on the other foot? Do the same type of nutters speak for the Left?

I watched (and laughed along with) a video taken by a conservative who went 'undercover' at a pro-Health Care Reform rally. Among the crowd there was every conceivable liberal stereotype: the hippie who lived in a commune and didn't 'believe' in property, the radical, and the leech who lived off the system and had no intention of ever changing her ways. Funny as hell, but not even worth a repost, because it was obviously skewed to show *only* the Funny Farm rejects.

But if I wanted to , what lesson could I extrapolate from that piece of selective reporting? Hmm. Let me see. How about: everyone who backs Obama is a drug addled welfare recipient that advocates the use of violence to save a tree.

Stupid right? A damn ignorant thing to say? Then why is it okay to slap labels on the Right?

Somewhere in America, right this very moment, there is an act of racism at play. Perhaps its white on black, or black on white, or Hmong on Arab, but it's happening. Scream to the heavens at the injustice of that, and I'll join your cry. But this?

This is about creating a distraction in order to explain an administration mired in legislative setbacks. This is about ridiculous claims, like a member of the Congressional Black Caucus saying

"I guess we'll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside intimidating people. ... That's the logical conclusion if this kind of attitude is not rebuked"

and still having a job. This is about coming to grips with the fact that the man you view as a hero, one destined to change the world, is simply human after all.

What I say doesn't matter much in this world. In the end, we can only speak for ourselves and our own actions. I'm not going to judge our President by his color, but neither will I ever again devote so much as a paragraph to defending myself from such hateful generalizations. I will continue to speak out, with increasing volume if need be, in opposition to any plan I feel is against the spirit or well-being of this country.

If you feel the need to call me names for doing so, well, that's on you.


** * * *** * * * *



* Either way, IMO he wasn't there to express his own opinion so much as to act as the designated 'hammer' for his party. He has sufficient national presence to go out there, throw himself on a sword, and say what needs to be said (good or bad) to jump start a media debate. Following that the President can step in and say he respectfully disagrees, thereby distancing himself from the fray while reaping the results. Politically, it's not a bad way of conducting business.