Hooked on race
Every president has supporters and detractors. Every one. If criticism is only about race when the president is Black, then it will be only about gender when the president is female, should that ever occur.
Which is unacceptable. If you can’t criticise the president, at the least, you should be able to kick Rahm Emmanual around the Rose Garden.
The president has rejected the race baiters, but has complained about the tone of today’s rhetoric, as has speaker Nancy Pelosi. You would think most of us would agree that personal attacks and outrageous slurs deter open debate. Unfortunately, partisan Americans only object when the nastiness is on the other foot.
I’ve mentioned Glenn Beck before. I like Glenn Beck. He poses many excellent questions, for which he gets attacked because no one wants to give him a straight answer. Throwing around “racist,” “Hitleresque” and other barbs reflect a lack of ability to respond. To millions of viewers, he is a godsend. Finally, someone who looks at politics objectively. That’s probably why “Time” covered him. 
Still, you get wiseacres, like some Internet guy, who writes
| Isn’t Beck that homophobic racist creep that said that President Obama has a deep seeded hatred of white people? You found the common denominator between Glenn Beck fans and NASCAR fans. Both target audiences are comprised of Southern, white, racist, redneck, inbreds. |
Short answer, Question 1: No.
By the way, that’s the first time I’ve seen homosexuality mentioned. I guess Internet Guy just threw that in, maybe using slanderer’s license. Not to be picky, but shouldn’t that be “deep-seated”? I’m just saying. Also, no comma after redneck. Ah, American public education!
The web site from which that guy spreads his ignorance proclaims itself as, “A space for political comment and satire with a liberal slant.” Liberal — really? Is it satire defaming a huge group of people based on their television viewing practices?
Do I make fun of the ancestry of those who find SNL or NPR relevant? No. Do I suggest those who take Keith Olbermann seriously be put into mental institutions? Of course not, although it’s not a bad idea. Do I call football fans retarded? No. I’m far too tactful.
According to another young blogger, David Sirota, Glenn Beck is a “right-wing political terrorist,” while Van Jones is “a national hero,” who was “originally targeted because he’s an African-American man.” [You can view this blather at Breitbart.tv, if you dare.]
I watch Beck daily, where he has been studying the “czars” or advisers, as the administration likes to call them, for weeks. Most of them are not Black. Race is a diversion.
Sirota’s argument seems to be that Glenn Beck is a fanatic for believing in the Constitution, Van Jones “a national hero” for believing in communism and hating the rule of law.
I wonder if Ann Coulter is happy not to be the biggest target of liberal halfwits anymore. In fairness, Ann seems to work at being controversial; Beck is merely curious. He always points out that it’s not about him, only no ideologue worth his hypocrisy will challenge Beck on the issues he raises. Van Jones whined about being the victim of a smear campaign. Smeared with videos and tapes of his own words? That’s a neat trick.
Glenn Beck never demanded that Mr Jones be fired. All he wanted was a response from the White House as to whether they knew of his background, and whether Jones reflected their views. He just wanted answers. Liberals, even transparent liberals, hate answering questions, so Van Jones “resigned.” The incident is reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s mistreatment of Lani Guinier, except she wasn’t a convict and nut-job. Still, many of Obama’s closest advisors worked with Clinton.
In politics, the Democrats dominating the Massachusetts legislature voted to allow the governor to appoint a replacement for Senator Kennedy before the special election to fill the seat. Kennedy died recently. Why can’t politicians look forward. They could have solved this dilemma permanently with legislation specifying that the governor can appoint a replacement, but only if he or she is a Democrat. How difficult is that?
Meanwhile, in my state of birth, New York, David Paterson wants to run for reelection as governor, but Obama thinks he may lose, so he should step aside. Isn’t that what Hillary Clinton (or her people) told Obama during the presidential primary?
Yet, they are discouraging Paterson, who is Black. According to a White House spokesman and a senior Democratic strategist in New York, “The message was ‘Hey, we’re watching your race.’”
If he were of another race, presumably he could run. Now who’s the racist? 
How about this anti-gay marriage nuggett fro Beck on his radio show?
“I contend [marriage] is the building block of the entire universe. If the male and the female don’t get together, then the whole universe collapses,”
Or, how about this this diatribe by beck on how gay marriage will lead to incest?
“If you change the language and make it about love, that is, there is no answer to that. When it comes to incest the answer is well you couldn’t procreate. You would make mutants for children, so that’s where it gets bad, but if you take the children out and say you are only going to adopt, well then there is no, because you can’t procreate as two women, or procreation is not part of the marriage deal anymore. We have minimalized that, so if you got fixed and your sister got fixed, why couldn’t you get married?”
Oh, and by the way, in terms of the current ordinary-language meaning of the words involved, \deep-seeded ignorance\ makes sense, while \deep-seated ignorance\ doesn’t. Ignorance can be planted deep and thus have deep metaphorical roots, but deep-seated ignorance would have to be ignorance cut with a lot of room in the crotch, or maybe ignorance sitting in a badly-designed armchair.
Are you saying opposition to gay marriage is homophobia? If so, put President Obama at the top of the list. I have no problem with gay marriage or those who oppose it because of their beliefs.
English often makes no sense, although your explanation seems a stretch to me. I was just pointing out ignorance on the part of the writer. When you start nit-picking every word and nuance to turn your opponent into a racist or sexist or homophobe, you should choose your words with care, IMHO.