Why Is Al Sharpton So Quiet?

I recently posted the following commentary on a debate web site, in response to the events seen in the video link below:

http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/video/youtube_fight_at_russ_carnahan_town_hall_event_raw/

For those who cannot view the link, it shows the brawl outside the Russ Carnahan town hall event last week, in Missouri, where a black conservative protester was verbally and physically assaulted (and battered) by Service Employees International Union (SEIU) members on scene.

While I agree that the president shouldn't personally be blamed for this isolated attack (that would be completely unfair), there is an issue that deserves more attention here.

President Obama is part of the Democratic Party, which fosters class warfare and race-baiting in order to win elections and monopolize votes (like many leftists accuse Republicans of doing with religious voters).

How does it work? Keep people assured that you'll (DNC) help them, and that others (GOP) don't care about them, and that they (victims/voters) cannot make it in this world without your help---because, after all, they're helpless, abused victims without your aid and oversight.

I've been convinced for years now that black conservatives face the worst kind of racism in this country today: intra-racism. Not only do they have to deal with common racism from non-blacks, but they also face widespread, manufactured alienation from their own culture.

This is fostered by a peddled Democratic Party mantra declaring that only their party truly represents black culture, and that blacks are oppressed without their assistance/intervention. Worst of all, this platform implicitly persuades minority supporters to feel "betrayed" by members of the same race who oppose that notion, and who support smaller government and merit-based achievement without excuses or abuses.

All this does is create a cycle of dependency, which essentially maintains the status quo and continually gives the DNC opportunity to keep having power over people who believe in their own powerlessness.

Do I blame all Democrats for this? No.

Do I believe all Democrats are like this? No.

Do I believe that all/most minority, Democratic voters are incapable of thinking for themselves enough avoid brainwashing? No.

But do I truly believe this problem exists, and that it is almost completely overshadowed by the same, recycled stories of racism that foster an "us-against-them" culture amongst many DNC constituents? Yes.

I'll post a link to another debate site (my first debate there, back when it was somewhat decent and uncorrupted), where I spoke on this issue. I no longer participate on this site, but it sums up my analysis. (The site had word limits for debate rounds, too, keep in mind.)

http://www.elephant-donkey.com...

Again, I don't hate Democrats, or all liberals (maybe "hate" is too strong a word even against some liberals). After all, I used to be one. And that experience helped me see this problem for what it really is, and it's partly why I became a political conservative as I got older.

And lastly, where is Al Sharpton on this matter? Jesse Jackson? Henry "Skip" Gates?

Did they not see that three of the SEIU members were white, and that the assaulted man was black?

Could it be that "racial activists" like Al Sharpton are conditional---and thus, part of the real problem---when it comes to legitimate race issues?

Yes.

Martin Luther King, Jr., famously once said, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God, Almighty, we are free at last!" regarding blacks in America; yet with today's conditional racial equality when it comes to black conservatives, I'm reminded more of British author George Orwell's famous passage:

"All . . . are equal, but some . . . are more equal than others."

Robots and Racism

I'm dusting off 16 months of inactivity here, so bear with me....

Since the last blog, many news-worthy events have taken place:

Tim Russert, who is mentioned/cited many times throughout this blog, passed away in June 2008; Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) was elected president in November 2008; Sarah Palin, 2008 GOP VP nominee, just resigned as Governor of Alaska; and the country is still going through the worst economic uppercut since the Great Depression (although the NYSE is, at least, back over 9,000).

Here are two articles to read as per another recent news story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090723/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_harvard_scholar

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8168313.stm


Here is my response to the situation, particularly to the second article (BBC) posted above. I originally posted these as comments on another web site.

Some observations in response to the BBC article:

1 - It's amusing how the "calibrat[ion]" comments haven't made much news, unlike the "stupid" comments. Granted, one was during a live national audience, and one was not; that said, where is the news coverage on this?


2 - Why is it that the BBC has to be the easiest source to find about this? Why not any American press? Hmmmm....


3 - Perhaps it's because the president didn't actually say anything of value here! Here's the direct quotation, as per the BBC News article:

"Because this has been ratcheting up and I obviously helped to contribute ratcheting it up, I wanted to make clear in my choice of words I think I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sgt Crowley specifically," Mr Obama said.

"I could have calibrated those words differently," he added.

What does that first paragraph even mean? What was "ratchet[ed]" up? Doesn't that expression usually refer to something being FIXED, and not further complicated/damaged? Maybe he was regarding his phone call to the officer? I don't know.


4 - And really --- I could have calibrated those words differently ? Is the president a cyborg? Obama Five is alive! (Fellow children of the 1980s will likely get that movie reference.) Did reporters next ask the president if John Connors was safe from harm?

All kidding aside, is that really supposed to be an apology? If I shoot someone dead, then say the next day that I probably should have used a water gun instead of a semi-automatic firearm, should the victim's family accept that as compunction/recompense?

Sorry, Mr. President, but your "apology" DOES NOT COMPUTE.


5 - "...I think I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sgt Crowley specifically."

Well, decide for yourself. These were Obama's exact words from Wednesday night:

"This still haunts us. Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof he was in own home. What I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact."
(source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090723/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_harvard_scholar)

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, when asked if the president wished to revise those comments, said this on Thursday:

"Let me be clear. [President Obama] was not calling the officers stupid, okay? He was ensuring – I think, again, denoting that at a certain point the situation got far out of hand, and I think all sides understand that."
(source: http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/07/24/does-obama-regret-saying-the-police-acted-stupidly-nope/)

So he wasn't calling the officer stupid, just racist? Or, more like it, he wasn't apologizing at all.

Sure, the president allegedly had a conversation with the officer, and even said some kind things about the man, after the fact. But what's still missing is a public apology.

I understand it must be difficult for a president to do this publicly (when not for political gain/posturing/pandering; e.g., like "apologizing" for slavery through Congress, though not in the form of legislation). But what separates this incident is that Obama did indeed directly antagonize specific individuals (the Cambridge PD, particularly those involved with the Gates arrest) publicly—before the appropriate facts were even released.

He knowingly and willingly---and publicly---damaged the character of specific individuals without merit. This, I believe, merits a public apology.

If he felt it appropriate to slander them before the press, he should have the backbone to apologize in similar fashion. Even if he had said he "should have calibrated" his words, instead of just that he "could have"—that would have been basic acknowledgment.

To me, this sounds like another classic case of "I'm not sorry, I'm just sorry I got caught."

Obama, the humanity!

The most recent crisis facing Barack Obama centers on his longtime/former pastor of Trinity United Church in Illinois, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr.

The man who married Barry Dunham and his wife, and who baptized their children, was recently caught on tape blaming America for 9/11; condemning America for supporting Israel; and (my personal favorite) that the American government created/invented Acquired Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) just to punish "people of color."

Wright had been Obama's pastor for approximately twenty years.  Recently, the presidential candidate went on record to say that his former pastor was not overly controversial.

Just last month, Michelle Obama told a crowd of her husband's supporters that "for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country...[because] America is downright mean."  These words struck a nerve in many Americans at the time.

However, after hearing typical sermons and messages from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, one can hardly blame her for feeling disgraced by the United States.  When one is brainwashed week after week from a trusted authority, she is liable to make occasional ignorant statements.

Barack Obama today released two statements, including a Live interview with Fox News within the past hour.

Reporter Major Garrett, of Fox News Channel, asked the presidential candidate if he would have quit the controversial church had he attended any of the sermons where Pastor Wright was documented making inflamatory remarks.  After some hemming and hawing, Obama finally answered, "Had he continued to make [such statements], yes, I would have quit."

Obama's first statement from earlier today was even less direct.

"I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies," said Obama.

If that is true, how long before a reporter asks if he now denounces his wife's comments from last month?

Or even more important, how long before Hillary Clinton and John McCain are asked whether or not they support thegovernment's manufacturing of AIDS for minorities?

In all seriousness, this is a big issue for Obama because he's now balancing on thin ice with not only white voters who have so far supported his campaign in droves during primary season; Obama is also walking on thin ice with the portion of the black community that agrees wholeheartedly with Reverend Wright.

Obama cannot afford to let Hillary Clinton take some of Obama's disaffected black electorate.  And Hillary cannot afford to get too involved in this controversy, either.  She needs to play the high road--but then again, that's never been a Clintonian staple.

The juciest irony of this whole situation is that Rev. Wright's documented sermons basically validate Geraldine Ferraro's recent controversial statement that Obama is a leading candidate because he is black.  After all, Reverend Wright endorsed Obama from the pulpit by repeatedly and deliberately pointing out Barack's black experience.

He just conveniently left out the fact that Obama was raised by a white woman named "mom."

Lord, hear our prayer.

Hillary-ous!

It's 2008... do you know what your Democratic presidential candidates are doing?

First of all, watching the Clinton campaign fight tooth and nail for the nomination has been incredibly amusing.  What's even more amusing is imagining Hillary losing most states; popular votes; polls; and delegates--yet still becoming the nominee. 

That won't cause any riots!

Another fiasco is Florida and Michigan.  Leave it to the Democratic Party to find a way to pussyfoot around the rules to which they themselves agreed.  That Clinton even brags about winning the Michigan primary, a ballot on which she was the only nominee, is a joke.  (But a funny one.)

Equally hilarious is the Clinton campaign's justification for having new elections in FL and MI simply because Hillary won the battleground states like TX, OH, MI, FL, and other big electoral college states like NY and CA.

The major flaw of that thinking, of course, is that those "victories" (FL and MI aside), came against another Democrat.  Implying, as Governor (PA) Ed Rendell did this past week on "Meet the Press," that Clinton is a better candidate because she carried the big states in the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES--is laughable.

Unless the Clinton camp says they're implying that McCain isn't very conservative, this strategy makes little sense.  But to say McCain isn't conservative doesn't make much sense, either; plus, it would contradict her other mantra, which is that McCain is just another George W. Bush.

How well a candidate does in a primary is not exactly indicative of how the candidate will do in that same state come general election -- especially when many voters throw their votes during primaries, as was the case in OH and TX recently, where many GOP voters voted for Hillary, just to keep the Dem candidates bloodthirsty for a few more months.

Lastly, another great irony is how Hillary Clinton said Barack Obama would make a great VP candidate -- despite all of the negative things she has to say about him not being ready to serve "on day one."

Apparently, if he'd have to take over as president, it'd at least be on day two.

Keep up the good work!  I'll get the popcorn.

 

Harry Potter and the Misplaced Political Agenda

Author J.K. Rowling recently stated that a primary character from her popular Harry Potter series, Albus Dumbledore, was gay.

Uh, no.

When I finished reading the series, Dumbledore was not gay.  When I read the series again, he will not be gay.  Homosexuality was never a central storyline, plot point, main idea, tone, or anything of the novels--let alone anything involving a central character.

It is tacky to create a groundbreaking literary series, like Rowling did, then to go back after they're finished and essentially say, "Oh, by the way, this is an important point I left out of the books...." 

If it was important, it should have been in the stories themselves.  What Rowling did was bleed her own emotional politics into her work post-facto, which was not only tasteless, but damaging to potential fans and readers across the world.

Forever.

Now there will be scores of children (and adults) who won't read the books because one of the characters is allegedly gay.  There will be many parents who won't permit their children to read the series because of its new (and ridiculous) ties to homosexuality.

Rowling and supporters may argue that this hype is good because it teaches tolerance; but they would completely miss the point: If people won't read the books now, because of its new homosexual undertones, they won't learn the alleged lessons of tolerance espoused within the pages.

DUH-UHHH!

Having read the series, I can attest to the fact that tolerance is an issue throughout--but on a reasonable, non-ideological basis.  The general concepts of tolerance, open-mindedness, and consideration for others, are decent morals and lessons promoted through various actions in the stories.

However, this newly tacked-on, forced, desperate attempt to be more tolerant (I guess) was unnecessary in order to teach the values of behaving and thinking respectfully toward others.

Perhaps Rowling's intentions were good, but her idea for expressing those intentions was horrible.

Again, it is absurd that Rowling retroactively changed a key character because it now associates the series with the issue of homosexuality, which has NOTHING to do with any of the stories in the series.  She has thus alienated a potential audience and used "tolerance" as the shield from attacks. 

Her books have enough about tolerance already.  She didn't have to desperately reach back and change characters to say, "Now I'm more tolerant."

Where will it stop?  Who's next to change?

Perhaps Harry actually had a drug addiction, and he secretly entered a rehabilitation program that cured his "illness" rather than just keeping him behind bars for years.

Maybe Hermione Granger became a prostitute to help feed her secret illegitimate children, before she adopted orphans from Africa and Asia who were dying of AIDS and SARS, respectively.  Thanks to compassion from society and tolerance for her "life choices" she was able to get back on the straight and narrow and marry Ron, have two legitimate children, and live happily ever after. 

(Then she cured her babies and, in her spare time, fixed New Orleans's levee system.)

It's possible that Ron Weasley headed the U.N. and stopped feuding in Darfur, Sudan, and ended AIDS with a magic spell.  After that, he single-handedly paid African Reparations for America's history of slavery and allowed marijuana use for all citizens because, hey man, it's the earth. 

(Then he did something that Africa actually needs, and helped limit the spread of malaria, a much larger epidemic than AIDS in that continent.)

Or maybe Draco Malfoy actually headed a rock band that led the revolution to control global warmng--by ingeniously holding concerts around the world that consumed tons of energy and required thousands of people to loiter and litter on grass fields and stadiums in support for the clean earth movement.

Finally, perhaps Professor McGonegal, the new Hogwarts Headmistress, banned organized religion and any association and reference thereof, except for Islam, because it was too often misunderstood as not being peaceful.  No more Christmas trees, references to God, Christian symbols.  No more yamicas for Jewish wizards, either.

All in the name of tolerance.

(Except tolerance for the intolerant, of course.)

Long story short, I have nothing personal against homosexuals in general; and neither tolerance nor prejudice toward homosexuality is the basis for my opinion.

I know the series was Rowling's creation, and she's allowed to say what she wants about it.  But it's not that she shouldn't be allowed to say things like "Dumbledore was gay" -- it's that she shouldn't say it.  In the best interest of her fans and potential future fans, it's desperate and alienating.  She should write another book about gay people if there's a related message she wants to deliver.

And for those who think I'm just a bigoted, closed-minded individual--first, get a clue.  Second, I promise not to change anyone else's histories or private lives either, when I again read the series.

For example, I won't pretend that the evil wizards with whom Harry, as an auror, combats are all radical Islamo-Facists.  Nor will I have Hermione grow up to run a corporate empire that benefits the economy AND employs elves.

But did I mention they'd be homosexual, migrant-worker elves from Darfur?

Say It Ain't So, Do (...novan)

 

Donovan McNabb, quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles (a storied National Football League franchise), recently said in a televised interview that he is unfairly scrutinized by media and fans because he is black.  He defended his comments a few days after the interview aired on HBO.

 

McNabb claimed that “there [are] not that many African-American quarterbacks, so we have to do a little bit extra” and that white quarterbacks like Carson Palmer and Peyton Manning “don’t get criticized as much as we [black QBs] do.”

 

 

Somewhere, Rush Limbaugh is smiling.

 

McNabb is the same quarterback to whom conservative radio show host Limbaugh referred when he said (in 2003) that the media want him to succeed, in part, because he is black.  Limbaugh resigned from ESPN within a week of making that statement due to the delayed media firestorm that erupted in the following days.  In fact, these were Limbaugh’s exact words:

 

"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.  There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

 

Here is an excerpt from anOctober 2, 2003, story posted on ESPN’s web site:

 

Negative reaction did not come immediately. But on Tuesday, McNabb told the Philadelphia Daily News: "It's sad that you've got to go to skin color. I thought we were through with that whole deal."

 

From there, the firestorm spread quickly. Democratic presidential candidates Wesley Clark, Howard Dean and Rev. Al Sharpton called for ESPN to fire Limbaugh. Others in both political and athletic circles also lashed out at Limbaugh's comments.

 

The National Association of Black Journalists also called for ESPN to "separate itself" from Limbaugh.

 

"ESPN's credibility as a journalism entity is at stake," NABJ president Herbert Lowe said in a news release." It needs to send a clear signal that the subjects of race and equal opportunity are taken seriously at its news outlets."

 

McNabb also provided more reaction on Wednesday.

 

"It's somewhat shocking to hear that on national TV from him," McNabb said. "It's not something that I can sit here and say won't bother me."

 

To be specific, Wesley Clark accused Limbaugh’s opinion as being “hateful and ignorant speech.” Howard Dean, now Democratic National Committee chair, said, "To imply that the success of an African-American is an undeserved gift from a biased media is absurd and offensive.”  Then NAACP-president Kweisi Mfume said the following: "If this is the future of ESPN, I think fair-minded fans, who tune in for sports news coverage, and not for racist views, should get their sports on other networks. It is appalling that ESPN has to go to this extent to try to increase viewership."

 

And, of course, Al Sharpton called for a boycott of ESPN and said, "We cannot sit back in silence. That would be consent and we would have lost self-respect."

 

Some popular sports critics also contributed to the debate.  One of ESPN’s highest-rated shows, Pardon the Interruption (PTI), a "Crossfire"-type sports talk show starring two Washington Post columnists (Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon), played a large role in spreading both the story and the controversy.

 

Kornheiser, who now co-hosts Monday Night Football on ESPN, and who is white, saidin January of 2005, "What Limbaugh did was race baiting in its purest form. He went out there to be controversial. He knew he could be controversial about race, and he picked on this guy [McNabb]."

 

Wilbon, who is black, said in January 2005, "I know black and white guys root for [McNabb]. I root for Donovan McNabb and if Rush Limbaugh doesn't like it, I mean, that's tough. I root for him.  I think Donovan McNabb should do what he's always done, which is ignore Rush Limbaugh."

 

On January 27, 2005, Limbaugh responded to these comments on his radio show:

 

I said [the media] 'had a social agenda.'  I said you guys can't let go.  By the way, you're still doing stories on black quarterbacks.  We've had Doug Williams.  We've had Steve McNair.  Now we're going to have McNabb.  You're still doing stories on how 'Isn't it wonderful black quarterbacks are getting in the Super Bowl?'  I mean, you're still doing the stories, and there's no question you feel good about it.  So what?  That's fine and dandy.  All I'm saying is, that that led you to overlook what I thought were some performance deficiencies in McNabb at that time.  Of course he's better!  The statistics indicate that.  It doesn't even need to be substantiated that he's better [than in- and before 2003, when Rush's controversial comments were first made]."

 

So now that Donovan McNabb, the media’s unequivocally-declared victim of 2003, has made “racially charged” (euphemistic for racist) comments, where are the same media who attacked Limbaugh for his comments in 2003?  How did the mass media, whom McNabb had just accused of being racist, react?

 

So far, Howard Dean hasn’t accused McNabb’s comments of being “absurd and offensive.”  Wesley Clark hasn’t classified McNabb’s assessment of media scrutiny as “ignorant and hateful.”  The NAACP has been uncharacteristically silent on the matter thus far.  Al Sharpton has not demanded that McNabb be fired from the Philadelphia Eagles, or that fans boycott the team.

 

Jason Whitlock, who is black, of FOXSports.com said in a recent online column:

 

“Donovan Mcnabb is right, black NFL quarterbacks face more pressure, scrutiny and criticism than their white counterparts.  The assertion is neither debatable nor controversial.  In fact, when [HBO’s] James Brown’s sit-down interview with the star quarterback was over, I wondered how McNabb’s comments had caused so much of a stir.  He’d simply stated the obvious in the most inoffensive way possible.  McNabb’s comments were not angry, defiant, or whiny.  They were matter of fact.  They were also incomplete and, therefore, out of context.”

 

Were Rush Limbaugh's comments "angry, defiant, and whiny"?  Remember, there was no backlash until McNabb responded to Limbaugh's Sunday comments the following Tuesday.

 

Popular ESPN.com blogger Matt Mosley, who is white, concluded that “…upon further review, I don't think it's really my place to beat up McNabb for his comments. We [the media, not regular fans/people] sit around and complain that players aren't candid enough, but then we immediately condemn them when they say something that might be deemed unpopular.  McNabb couldn't help the timing of that interview. He didn't know he was going to stagger around the field and play poorly two nights before it aired. It's what the guy felt at the time, so I don't have a problem with it.”

 

So his comments were controversial only because he played poorly two nights before the interview aired?  Interesting.

 

In fact, the most noticeable refutation of McNabb’s comments so far has come from other black NFL quarterbacks, namely Vince Young of the Tennessee Titans and Jason Campbell of the Washington Redskins.

 

Said Campbell:

 

“That's [McNabb's] opinion, and as an African-American quarterback, I have to support other African-American quarterbacks.  But it's something I can't get caught up in.  I look at all quarterbacks as the same.  I support every guy who's playing the position.  It's the hardest position to play in professional sports, and you get graded differently than any other position on the field.  Nine timesout of 10 the ball is in your hands, so everybody is watching you.  Since you're in the spotlight, the mistakes get recognized.  You need thick skin and a short memory.”

 

Vince Young was more concise, having said, “That is [McNabb’s] opinion.  I really feel that myself, black or white quarterbacks, we all go through something because that is the life of a quarterback.”

 

Kornheiser and Wilbon reacted this way on the September 20th edition of PTI:

 

WILBON: “I’m glad.  Grateful.  That Donovan Mcnabb had the guts to stand by his statement.  To back it up and say, ‘Here’s what I think.’  Because these other two kids [Young and Campbell] are in their early 20s, okay?  And we know what happens with youngsters of that age now, regardless of whether they play sports or not.  Theyknow what happened today.  And apparently, Vince Young, who also said that “this is not my fight to fight” –really now?  No, it isn’t your fight to fight.  Because guys like James Harris, and Marlon Brisco, and Joe Gillam, and Doug Williams, and Warren Moon—they fought the fight so that you—you self-absorbed, young punk—don’t have to fight the fight.  So even if you have to say, ‘You know what, I haven’t had this treatment, but I acknowledge what came before me—I want to hear that from the young quarterbacks.  And they’re great players, they’re great talents.  I want to hear a fuller conversation, and thankfully, Donovan Mcnabb started it.”

 

KORNHEISER: “Yeah….  Operative word, young quarterbacks.  Theymay not know all these things; Donovan Mcnabb, in his early 30s now, knows all these things.  I agree with Donovan Mcnabb about a higher level of scrutiny, but not in all cases. . . .”

 

WILBON: “But here’s what I’m more concerned about: I want the young quarterbacks, because they’re the future of this league, black or white, black specifically—they have an obligation, okay, not to anyone else but the people who came before them, Tony.  So I don’t want to hear Vince Young say ‘It’s not my fight to fight.’ ”

 

KORNHEISER: “Here’s what I suspect: That by tonight, somebody will help them with that education.  And by tomorrow, they’ll be a little bit more appreciative of the people who went down that road before.”

 

WILBON: “Good, because that’s all, I think, that Donovan Mcnabb wants.  And by the way, I’m glad there’s so much progress that they haven’t faced it.  But know what came before you.  That’s my real issue with this.”

 

Maybe I’m not old enough to understand, but where in that entire exchange did either Kornheiser or Wilbon address McNabb’s accusation that modern-day media criticize black quarterbacks more than white ones? How was he trying to pay respect to oppressed black QBs from decades past by accusing the current media of being racist?

 

The rationale behind this defense of McNabb’s comments is perplexing.  It would be like defending a Jewish person’s accusations of mass media being anti-Semitic—mostly to honor the memory of any Jews who were unfairly treated in the past.  There is no logical connection, and it is wrong to assume so much on such little evidence.

 

Long story short: Kornheiser, Wilbon, Mosley, Whitlock, and most other mass media so far—are McNabb apologists.  There exists a double-standard here, and the media cannot bring themselves to admit it, or else they’re blind to it.  I’m not suggesting Donovan McNabb is a racist, but his comments were just as racist—if not more so—than Rush Limbaugh’s comments in 2003, but with not even a speck of the same media outrage.

 

Let’s be clear.  McNabb may not have directly called the mass media racist, but the actions he accused them of utilizing are racist in nature, and therefore the connection is implicit, but unambiguous.  Yet the National Association of Black Journalists, who represents those whom McNabb charged with racism, are conveniently silent on this matter.

 

Rush Limbaugh’s January 2005 comments were accurate, as evidenced by the fact that just last year, the biggest story of the Super Bowl was that it was head-coached by two black men.

 

(In fact, somewhat ironically, both Carson Palmer and Peyton Manning have black head coaches.)

 

By McNabb’s rationale, white NFL running backs (Mike Alstott and...?) face the most pressure and scrutiny because there are only a few of them.

 

No celebrities face more scrutiny than black, conservative political figures.  There needs to be more attention paid to this overt racism than to McNabb or Limbaugh.  But if you are going to hold one person accountable for something, hold the other one accountable for the same--if not a worse--offense.

 

I lost some respect for the Eagles QB with these latest comments because he revealed himself a hypocrite.  Remember, McNabb was the one who said back in 2003, “It's sad that you've got to go to skin color. I thought we were through with that whole deal.”

 

It’s still sad, #5.

God Bless

Forever in our hearts and prayers.