Monday, September 14, 2009

Racism increases 67% since January

UPDATED: 18-Sep-09 charts the dramatic increase in racism this year.

This is a difficult post to write. But some issues, no matter how distasteful, must be faced squarely. Sadly, the numbers speak for themselves. Racism is on the rise in this country.

Why the dramatic rise in racism now? I cannot answer that. Perhaps the problem was here all along and we simply chose not to see it. It was easy to ignore in the months following the election when Obama's approval rating was at 70%. In the euphoria of his election, many of us became too complacent about racism. With a 70% approval rating for the President elect, we were all too willing to overlook the 30% of racist Americans who remained. It was an easy mistake to make, the racists were outnumbered by more than two to one.

Few now remember that November 2008 to January 2009 was the golden age of the new post-racial post-partisan America, ushered in by the election of our new President. Our pundits in the mainstream media helped us to understand and appreciate the deep import of the election, and the possibility of finally turning the page on our racist past.

Maureen Dowd - Nov. 9, 2008:
"..we have images to share that are harmonizing, not polarizing -- black and white students cheering and celebrating in front of the White House and the warm and fuzzy obsession about what kind of hypoallergenic puppy Sasha and Malia will get. It's cool that President-elect Cool has gotten everybody chatting, even if it's awkward small talk. And it's fun, after so many years of unyielding barriers, to feel sentimental."
Joe Klein in Time - Nov 5.2008:
"Obama's victory creates the prospect of a new "real" America. We can't possibly know its contours yet, although I suspect the headline is that it is no longer homogeneous. It is no longer a "white" country, even though whites remain the majority. It is a place where the primacy of racial identity — and this includes the old, Jesse Jackson version of black racial identity — has been replaced by the celebration of pluralism, of cross-racial synergy...It is a country that retains its ability to startle the world — and in a good way, with our freedom. It is a place, finally, where the content of our President's character is more important than the color of his skin."
Keith Olbermann - Nov 5, 2008:
"But it has seemed to me that every study that's ever been made about prejudice between groups of people, and it doesn’t matter if we’re talking racial or religious or ethnic or societal or any kind of other differences between people, when you personally know someone of the so-called other group, your likelihood to be prejudiced or doubtful of them seems to drop from about 90 percent to about 10 percent. In some respects, a president-elect, soon we expect to be the president of the United States, is almost a figure in the family of everybody in the country, almost as well known as some at least distant relative. Will this have a material impact in knocking down what remains of prejudice in this country?"
That was then. This is now. What happened? Perhaps it was just too easy to sweep the problem under the rug. To simply pretend the problem was not there.

Here are the facts. Racism has been rising steadily over the last few months. In recent polls, President Obama's job approval number has dropped from 70% to 50%. This means the percentage of racists in this country has risen from 30% to 50% - a 67% increase in only eight months! Even more alarming, close to one out of two Americans are now racist. We have reached a tipping point. If this trend continues, the racists will soon be in a majority. Now, more than ever, we need the pundits and sages of the mainstream media to speak out. Racism is so insidious, so deep rooted, that we may not even know whether we are racists, unless or until bloggers and pundits make that determination through psychoanalysis.

Some of those same strong media voices who were sweeping the racism problem under the rug in January, are sounding the alarm now that the full scope of the problem has been realized.

Dowd - Sep 13. 2009:

Representative Wilson shouting from the floor?
= Racism
"I’ve been loath to admit that the shrieking lunacy of the summer — the frantic efforts to paint our first black president as the Other, a foreigner, socialist, fascist, Marxist, racist, Commie, Nazi; a cad who would snuff old people; a snake who would indoctrinate kids — had much to do with race.. But Wilson’s shocking disrespect for the office of the president ...convinced me. Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it."
Bravo, Maureen. How brave, this extraordinary willingness to make specific accusations of racism on the basis of nothing more than the imaginary voices in her head. Of course, it would be even braver if she lived in a country, where, unlike here, she and her paper could be sued for slander. Sadly, some do not appreciate her principled stand against imagined racism. What are we to make of those such as blogger Clifton, who shamelessly asserts: "There is enough real racism in the world as it is; you are not helping anyone by making shit up!" Clearly Clifton is a racism denier.

KLEIN on Scarborough- Sep 11. 2009:
Protests in opposition to Obamacare?
= Racism
"But the fact is that those kind of heinous arguments I think are a minor chord in the Democratic party, and they have been in the Republican party, but they are far more of a major chord. And I think that a lot of this, especially out in poor middle class white American is based in racial fears."
Joe, keep speaking out. The administration is in denial over the real reason for the opposition to their policies. Your clear dispassionate analysis may yet snap them out of their dangerous delusions. What could they be thinking? Could anyone really believe that - a President who signs an earmark stuffed budget that quadruples the deficit, pushes through an almost $1T pork laden stimulus package that does not stimulate, takes over car companies, bails out investment bankers, institutionalizes the Bush/Cheney unitary executive, is pushing massive new energy taxes and wants an additional $1T in new health care entitlements - would raise strong opposition? Nonsense. Who could be opposed to such enlightened policies? The opposition is obviously racist. That is the only rational explanation.

OLBERMANN - Sep 8, 2009 "[video]:
Forced resignation of Van Jones?
= Racism
" the Candyland world of racism dressed up as anything else, they will believe anything about the president and they will believe any rationalization, no matter how transparent, that what they‘re feeling is not racism... The White House green jobs adviser Van Jones resigned in the middle of a storm in a tea pot over the holiday weekend... A former chair for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights John Anner who was a friend of Mr. Jones has said what many are thinking here to quote it, “It struck me why go after this guy. He‘s a minor player. He has no power, no budget. Why take him? It‘s because he looks like Obama and he has all of those same attributes of being well-educated and he‘s an electrifying speaker with an elite education.”
I cannot sufficiently express my gratitude to Keith Olbermann for stepping up yet again. The attacks on Van Jones is so clearly rooted in racism that one would have to assume that anyone who would even suggest otherwise, must also be a de-facto racist. In this context, it was particularly shocking to me that Willie Brown, Democrat, former Mayor of San Francisco, frequent MSNBC contributor, and a man who worked directly with Van Jones would sadly be revealed to be a racist. From his column Sunday:
"The only question I have about Van Jones' resignation as the White House green czar is why didn't they call me before they hired him. You would think that, as part of the vetting process, they would have called the mayor of the city where he was from. I would have said, "Yeah, I know a lot about him. He's really a pain in the ass. When he ran Bay Area PoliceWatch, he slanted every case to make the cops look as bad as possible. And while he might be talented enough, he's totally and completely unreliable."
Willie Brown - a racist. Who knew?

With these brave media voices speaking out, perhaps we can beat back the scourge of racism once again. While we may never again return to the golden age of November 2008 to January 2009 when only 30% of the country were racists, perhaps we can at least reverse the trend and insure that the racists remain a minority of the voters in this country. Before it is too late - like -before the next election.

UPDATE - 18-Sep-2009:
Some additional notes on this post. As often happens, the idea for this piece emerged from a recent comment thread at Donklephant, where I am a co-blogger. An expanded version of this post (including Jimmy Carter "piling on" with more racism accusations) was cross-posted at Donklephant where it stimulated an even more interesting comment thread - check it out.

Andrew Sullivan accepted the trackbacks for this post, which is as close as he gets to permitting unedited critical commentary on his blog. That stimulated more traffic and comments here than usual, and for that we are appreciative. Thanks.

This post was also linked at The Crossed Pond, generating another interesting comment thread that is worth a read, as it also includes a comment from your loyal blogger independently scored as a rare TKO. It also includes a great comment by Rojas, quoted here as a succinct summary and punctuation mark for this topic:

Rojas at The Crossed Pond
I guess what I find amazing about this discussion is that we are treating the racism claim about Obama’s opposition as if it were some kind of productive conversation starter.

It isn’t that, nor is it intended to be by those that offer it. It seems to me that whenever and wherever this argument is initiated, those initiating it do so in order to de-legitimize Obama’s opposition in its entirety and stop the policy conversation. Opponents are not portrayed as being influenced by a racial agenda, but as being controlled by it. The entire purpose is to deny them the sanction of reason so that their arguments may be ignored.

And that is garbage. Pure, unadulterated swill. If opposition to the policies of the President is going to be categorized in racial terms, then no national discussion is possible; there can be no negotiation with a fundamentally irrational opponent.

The tenor of the discussion over the last few weeks has put paid to any claim that Obama can be the first “post-racial” president, or any kind of transcendental figure on the issue. His own supporters have demolished that promising myth.
Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.


Tao Dao Man said...

yes, unfortunately the racists are alive and well. they hide behind the veil of the constitution, freedom, evangelical xtians, fear, and war mongering. if obama was 100% white many of these dem haters would be silent. it is an old american hidden secret. racism. it is there, has been there, will always be there. we are just not suppose to talk about it. we are all one and came from one. will we leave as many or will we leave as one. the circle of life continues.

mw said...

Mr. Zone,
Yes, but it is sure easy to find those hiding racists now isn't it? I mean - obviously - not every single person who opposes Obama or his policies is a racist.

But surely it should be obvious by now that any one who does oppose Obama or his policies can safely be assumed to be racist, unless or until they can prove otherwise.

BTW - Nice avatar.

Anonymous said...

Of course Obama's critics have legitimate concerns. And *everyone* should be alarmed and infuriated by the near-wholesale corporate sellout that has taken place on both sides of the aisle. But perhaps none of this so-called racism would be an issue if we'd heard the same outcry over the economic and civil rights abuses that took place under the Bush administration and would-be-permanent-Republican-majority congress.

Anonymous said...

I don't think everyone gets that this post is sarcasm.

It's hard to ignore the possibility of racism when scared old white people are saying that Obama is too foreign to be the president. That's just not the kind of objection that you hear from liberals.

Face it - much of the opposition to Obama is bogus.

mw said...

The outcry from the right under Bush is comparable to the outcry of the left under Obama, who has defended, expanded and institutionalized some of worst civil rights excesses of the Bush/Cheney administration. Which is to say - inadequate on both sides.

All I can say, is I did my part. Examples HERE and HERE

Regardless how you chooses to weigh the relative size and merits of the sycophant supporters and rabid antagonists under either Bush or Obama, the simple fact is this:

The Republican party has been reduced to sideshow. By any objective measure the Democrats under Obama have more unconstrained power than the Republicans ever had under Bush. That makes the Democrats the greatest threat to the civil liberties and economic prosperity of all Americans. That is where the focus belongs today. Not on the sideshow, but on the ones controlling the levers of power.

Tao Dao Man said...

mw; i dig your avatar also. i saw your blog and your avatar, so i had to hook up.
what i am saying is. if mc cain would have won, does any one believe the dems would have made a big deal out of him being born in panama ? i rather doubt it. the right wing fringe element the [ birthers] are. their total and complete nonsense, about kenya, birth certificate, communism, socialism, is all fear mongering. they want him to fail. why? because he is a dem. and he is half black. they fear the unknown. i also have to add. i am not a big obama policy fan. especially when it comes to af/par/aq/an. or health care. he should have pressed for the single payer plan. imo; obama has proven to the masses that he is [ bush lite ]. he is owned by the corps. and [TPTB]--the powers that be---. they select so we may elect. he is not heading us into socialism. rather he was handed the baton to lead us further into fascism. [tptb] needed a saleman and they got the best. he just so happens to be african/american.

mw said...

I won't respond to most of this, as we don't agree on much (although there is some common ground). Too much there, and not all on topic for this post. I'll just address your central point -

"if mccain would have won, does any one believe the dems would have made a big deal out of him being born in panama ? i rather doubt it."

I'd say that is the wrong question. The right question is whether we can point to a phenomena on the left under Bush that is comparable to the "birthers" under Obama. And there is - There was a virtually identical percentage of Democrats who believed the "Truther" nonsense while GWB was president as there are "Birthers" in the GOP now. The virulence and hatred of Bush among the extreme of left was real and palpable. It even inspired a name - "Bush Derangement Syndrome". As regards the meme of whether the President is legitimate, the right has no monopoly. How many Democrats still repeat to this day that Bush was illegitimate because he "stole" the election in Florida over Gore? How may Democrats still believe that Bush "stole" the 2004 election over Kerry with fraud in Ohio. I wouldn't be surprised if you subscribe to one or both of these theories. Then there is the whole Diebold conspiracy theories.

The point is this - The reality is the about 1/3 of the hard-core partisans on either the right or left will gin up and believe paranoid fantasies about a president of the opposite party. There is no need to invoke racism and thereby demean and trivialize that various serious charge to explain a reaction on the right to Obama that is completely consistent with the reaction of the left to Bush.

BTW - I voted for Gore and Kerry.

Paul said...

South Carolina has a long list of dignitaries that includes Lauren Caitlin Upton (Miss Teen USA 2007 pageant contestant), Board of Education Chair, Kristin Maguire, Governor (and avid Appalachian hiker), Mark Sanford and now Joe “the hater not a debater” Wilson or the “screamer not the dreamer” as others have dubbed him. I did enjoy him cut and running through his apology, which only goes to show that he stands for nothing. He is just another good old boy where in the morning these married men preach to you that there should be prayer in our schools and in the evening they are on their cell phones setting up a date with their other women on the side, hypocrisy has been bred in. I am not surprised that he felt compel to yell like he was at some Friday night game. So long Joey, you too will be seeing the unemployment lines.

mw said...


I think you are right about one thing Anon #2.

Not everyone gets it.

Or perhaps - they just don't read it.


bobsmith said...

There's a certain seductive symmetry in the argument that Bush had Truthers, so Obama's Birthers are just the equalizing flip side of the coin; that it's all a wash, and a pox on the houses of both groups of hyper-partisans.

But Bush, although demonized by the left, had no mass protests against him until 2003 when we invaded Iraq. Furthermore, his "American-ness" was never really questioned, just his policies and brains. Millions of Americans, however, now believe Obama to be foreign, Muslim, fundamentally un-American, even the agent of another govt. In short, he's the enemy within.

It may be tempting to dismiss race as a factor in all this, as we mostly hope America is now post-racial. But there is a great deal of nasty stuff out there, primarily on the internet but also at conservative rallies. How many emails and signs do you have to see linking Obama to watermelon, fried chicken, monkeys and voodoo witch doctors before you admit that race is indeed a factor?

We aren't really that far removed temporally from legally enforced segregation and the other remnants of Jim Crow. Millions of today's older whites grew up being told that blacks were inferior--socially, intellectually, even morally. Thus it's unrealistic to believe that there wouldn't be a backlash against the first black president.

Anonymous said...

Anon #1 here. Yes, it's easy to dismiss the opposition by labeling them as batty racists or as suffering from BDS, because we have a general and genuine shortage of principled opposition in this country. But seriously, the Republicans are a sideshow and the Dems are an unconstrained threat? They are "two wings of the same bird of prey" fighting over the spoils, and the "debate" is the sideshow. (Just look at who's still running Treasury and the Fed for chrissakes.) Few care about the truth or what's best for the citizenry; most care only about winning. And anyone who genuinely cares about checking abuse of power, whether it's a Bush government's or Obama government's, had better be careful who he gets in bed with: he might just find himself handcuffed to it in the morning.

Paul said...

Some call Joe Wilson a great statesman, and are even proud of his “Shout Out”, so lets see, he says, he was told by the Republican leadership to apologize (he did not realize the magnitude of his mistake), he then gives his weak “not for reals” apology, but then goes on to those “Commentator Talk Shows” and basically says he real was not wrong and plays the victim card and calls for people to send in for money to support him for re-election. Had he kept quiet after his apology, that might have been the end of it but now that people know he lied about the apology the story will continue, until he is out of a job and the funny thing is, he does not see it coming. This summer has been rough for his beleaguered political party. At least he did not end up on the “Republican 2009 Summer of Love” list: Assemblyman, Michael D. Duvall (CA), Senator John Ensign (NV), Senator Paul Stanley (TN), Governor Mark Stanford (SC), Board of Ed Chair, and Kristin Maguire AKA Bridget Keeney (SC). In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme religious right (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away the rights of those they just hate) and that’s who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win. Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, “We Ain’t Coming Out”. The bithers, the teabaggers, the screamers, and the deathers continued extreme minority presence will become tiresome to mainstream America, if it has not already done so.

Anonymous said...

you've got to be kidding. you're saying because our president has dropped in popularity, it's, ipso facto, because of racism? are you nuts? people can disagree with a president's policies without anything more than that--disagreement with his policies. this racism charge is extremely unhealthy and devalues the reality of REAL racism.

mw said...

heh. This is even more fun than I thought. Anon #3 ... meet Anon #2.

repsac3 said...

There's a certain all or nothing mentality to much of this "the right are/are not racists" argument around the internet.

As far as I can tell, most of the criticism isn't racially motivated (or is racially motivated, but cleverly disguised behind an arguably valid point). On the other hand, some of the criticism of Obama clearly is racially motivated (or isn't really racially motivated, but is stupidly (or ignorantly) expressed as though it is.)

Joe "the scream" Wilson - xenophobia maybe, and the manners of a barn animal, but not racism.

Obama as witchdoctor, watermelon farm on the White House lawn, - Yeah, there's some racism, there.

The NY Post cartoon with the cop shooting the monkey - That was one of those "stupid or ignorant" situations. The guy didn't mean to refer to Obama as a monkey (and an assassinated monkey, taboot). He just didn't think it through. (The ObamaJoka pic falls into this category, too... While it's more'n'likely not intended that way, there is something vaguely racially insensitive about putting a black man in whiteface and accentuating his lips.)

The Obama birther thing has a "fear of other" aspect to it that I just don't think would be as strong if his black father was from (& Obama himself spent a few years in) England or Portugal. To reach this level, Obama has to be African, (or Arab) Muslim (or both, according to the birthers), or South American hispanic (&/or socialist... I mean REALLY socialist), or maybe Russian/eastern bloc communist. It's not racist, exactly, but the same kinda fear that underlies racism is there...

The bottom line is, it's neither "ALL rightwing attacks on Obama are racist." or "NO rightwing attacks on Obama are racist."

Some (most, if ya ask me) ain't, and some (a few) are.

mw said...

"Some (most, if ya ask me) ain't, and some (a few) are." - repsac

I agree, it certainly seems to be in the nature of this discussion that it always immediately devolves to absolutes and strawman arguments. "You're claiming they're all racists", "They're mostly racists", "You are denying that racism exists", "You are a racism denier", "this one sign is racist, so obviously they are all racists."

One thing is certain, once racism becomes the discussion, all rational discourse on policy stops. I do believe that this is part of reason we are hearing the racism charge thrown with such frequency now. Some supporters are so emotionally invested in the notion of a permanent electoral shift to the left, of the post-partisan myth, of the "cult of personality" around Obama, that they simply cannot accept the possibility that a majority of Americans may really disagree with this administration's policies. Obviously, the only explanation is racism.

The deep never-ending need for true-believer partisans to de-legitimatize a president of the opposite party is all that is needed to explain the birthers. The same phenomena was seen with Bush - Dems claimed (still claim!) he was not a legitimate president because of Florida in '00, because of Ohio in '04 - An if you marry that to the emotional BDS hatred of the Truthers (same percentage of Dems as there are GOP birthers), and add a generous dash of Democratic Diebold paranoia thrown in - you've got the same pathology as the birthers. Is there some racism in there for birthers? Probably, but you sure don't need it to get to the same effect.

Anonymous said...

The Supreme Court effectively decided the 2000 election in Bush v. Gore. Studies have indicated that Gore would have won had the recount been allowed to proceed. These points about the Florida election debacle are nowhere near the same ballpark as "birther" or "death panel" claims.

Also, the 9/11 Truthers were never really aligned with the Democratic party in the way that the Birthers are aligned with the Republican party. In fact the Birthers and Truthers probably overlap. I have a friend who's just inclined to believe paranoid stuff in general. He thought that the Truthers had a point and now he's inclined to believe paranoid claims about Obama.

To see why there's no symmetry, just look at the fact that Democratic party affiliation strongly correlates with education. All the Republicans can do is try and capitalize on ignorance, racism, paranoia, anti-urbanism, and resentment.

mw said...

The facts speak otherwise: The percentage of Democrats who were Truthers under Bush is virtually identical to the percentage of Republicans who are birthers under Obama.

But, thank you anon #4. This is an excellent example of the always winning (not to mention brilliant and insightful) argument: "Democrats are good, smart,always right and on the side of angels while Republicans are evil, ignorant, always wrong and the spawn of satan." It is shocking to me that this does not convince more people. What else needs to be said? It speaks volumes on the clarity of your vision and the depth of your intellect.

repsac3 said...

I don't know, mw...

As far as the birthers=truthers theory, I have problems with both the question--There's a difference between believing that the Bush administration had prior warning about the fact that AQ was likely to try something sometime soon that they should've paid more attention to, and believing that Bush left DC on 9/11/01 because he knew the planes were coming. I have a feeling that there's a whole lot more of the former than the latter, although both qualify as "Bush knew...".--and the fact that Rassmussen tends to skew conservative (almost as bad as Luntz, these days.) All one need do is compare Rassmussen results with the results of other polls on the same subject to see that Rassmussen tends to lean right a bit more than the others. ((Yeah, I know you didn't cite the rassmussen poll, but there aren't that many selling that 1/3 of democrats = truthers result.)

Second, even accepting that one third of each party is extreme enough to accept one or the other of these theories, there is also the amount of positive attention that the elected officials of each party are willing to bestow on each theory. How many elected "truther" Democrats can one name? (The only elected "truther" I can find is Ron Paul, and he never said/suggested they were right, just that investigations in the name of truth were a good thing. And of course, he's a registered Republican.) How about elected "birther" Republicans? (How many Republicans signed onto that unnecessary bill saying that candidates must show their birth certificates--like the one Obama released, one assumes? 12, is it? How many more have made statements questioning Obama's birth?)

As for Bush 2000, all one need do is read the consortium report, and skip all the scenarios--(Bush wanted only these counties recounted, Gore wanted only those counties recounted, only over-votes, only two or fewer-corner chads)--except the most important one; when all the votes in which voter intent could be discerned were counted (the standard under law, at the time) in each precinct, who won?
Gore won, but shit happens... At this point, it's old news.

Anyway... Carter & whoever else is making the argument--(Is there much of anyone else?)--is wrong. There's some racism out there among those who don't like/agree with Obama, but most of it is about policy (or partisan political, at least) disagreement. (Personally, I'm more worried about those who echo their political "teammates" rather than thinkin' for themselves... ...and yes, that happens left and right, & probably in about the same proportion...)

David Casper said...

"if mc cain would have won, does any one believe the dems would have made a big deal out of him being born in panama ?"



Without a doubt.


Because someone I know was not only prepared to make that an issue but was gathering all she could to serve as ammunition. And this is a person who has a tremendous amount of influence within the Democratic Party.

That isn't to say that the Birthers are in any way right, just that nobody should think for one moment that it would be any different were the tables turned.

repsac3 said...

With all due respect, David, your anecdote is pretty far removed from proof, and actual history goes against your claims.

During the campaign (when a challenge to a candidate's eligibility would do the most good, I might add... -- And you might want to ask your nameless friend with all the influence why she would choose to wait until AFTER McCain would be elected to challenge his right to run... After all, Republicans clearly didn't wait to challenge Senator (now President) Obama, did they...? So why the delay?): McCain's Panama birth prompts eligibility probe by his campaign - Times Online:

"At present, it appears Democrats have little interest in pursuing the matter.

Yesterday, Claire McCaskill, a senator from Missouri and a prominent backer of Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama, introduced legislation that would define a “natural-born citizen; as anyone born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces."

So, not only didn't any elected Democrats challenge McCain based on his birth, a Democratic senator introduced legislation removing any doubt that McCain was a natural born citizen...

This link goes on to say that then Senator Obama backed McCaskill's bill too, and provides further info.: Lawyers on McCain birth question - John McCain News-

And this site lists prominent conservatives & Republicans in the media and in elected office who are birthers:
Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With all respect due your anonymous "friend," I can't find ANY similarly prominent Democrats or liberals who questioned McCain's eligibility to run for the presidency. (In fact, the only folks I saw really questioning the issue were McCain's own campaign, and a Republican lawyer who filed a suit against him.)

Maybe I didn't search hard enough, and there is one prominent Dem somewhere who thought McCain was ineligible to run... There's always one or two nuts in the bunch, and perhaps your anecdotal friend is one of 'em. But I don't believe that there ever was or would be the same number or ferocity of Dems hounding McCain as there was or is Republicans hounding Obama, birth certificate-wise... Not when it was a Democrat leading the charge against it being an issue...

Anonymous said...

You write:

"President Obama's job approval number has dropped from 70% to 50%. This means the percentage of racists in this country has risen from 30% to 50% - a 67% increase in only eight months!"

This is a non-sequitir. I agree racism is vile, appalling, and shameful, but disapproval of one's performance in office does NOT equate to a proportionate increase in racism. YOU KNOW better.

mw said...

Yes I do know better.

You might want to read this a bit more carefully.

Beth said...

I don't care what color he is...I just don't like the job he's doing.

Moonage said...

Of course racism is alive and well. If every reaction has an equal and opposite action, then every accusation of racism in turn generates racism. Some call it self-fulfilling prophecies.It really is that simple.

Example, no one talks about racism in England. It just doesn't exist. They proved that by choosing their first Miss America contestant. Ever. And promptly booted her. The US has had 8. Canada, never. They do have a seperate but not equal pageant called the Miss Black Beauty.

You won't see that discussed on Oprah.

Anonymous said...

This post is full of stupidity. So if I don't agree with Obama's politics I am a racist?

mw said...

Anon the Last,
You kind of missed the whole point. Please refer to comment from Anon #2 or reread the entire post more slowly and carefully.