Random Thoughts

It's been a busy month with many things I've seen/heard but haven't had a chance to write on. Just a few quick hits to get me back in a rhythm, hopefully...

Though relatively tame, it's interesting to note how when Democrats offer racist commentary on non-white Republicans (why, yes, there are some!), there is little or no blowback. I certainly heard almost nothing on this incident involving Elaine Chao (the wife of Republican Mitch McConnell) from any major media outlet. In spite of the fact that they've confused Taiwanese with Chinese and their assertions that, as a "Chinese", she is working in some dark fashion to move US jobs overseas to China as if though she were some sort of modern day Fu Manchu character, I have not seen where the super PAC was punished or suffered any significant blowback as a result. On the flip side, though, when a Republican Alaska representative used the derogatory term "wetback" to refer to Mexican workers, it was plastered all over the mainstream media as another example of how Republicans are racist and even his own party, in their recent attempts to step away from being the party of racist rednecks, demanded (and received) an immediate apology. Both of the incidents were racist yet only one seems to have piqued any significant interest in the media because it fits a preconceived narrative. Yet, to listen to that narrative, racists only exist on one side of the political spectrum.

A friend of mine, some time back, tweaked me to Glenn Greenwald, a journalist with the British paper The Guardian. He is a bit on the left side of the political spectrum and I have found much of what he writes to be cogent and rational (compared to some). But I was super-impressed by his arguments when it came to Rand Paul and his filibuster when it concerned the rationale seemingly put forth by the Obama administration that it could order drone strikes against US citizens under certain circumstances. While the issue was highlighted by many in the media in terms of the radical right-wing legislator frothing against the popular Democratic president serving to valiantly defend his nation against the violent terrorists, Greenwald properly called out the supposedly liberal establishment for failing to stand up for one of its ideals and instead marching in lockstep with the administration simply to adhere to political convention. Whereas protesting against illegal drone strikes against US citizens would seem like something that would have been undertaken by a liberal lion such as Ted Kennedy, it was instead a libertarian (or so I took his approach) who picked up the standard and ran with it. It amazes me how little the Obama administration has continued policies that were originally put in place by his predecessor - who took amazing heat for it - and yet his party is now happily accepting of his actions and quietly acquiesce to those decisions. Of course, both Republicans and Democrats did the same things 12 years ago after September 11, 2001 and then Republicans openly supported while Democrats began to complain as his reign continued. Now, of course, the tables are turned and we see that the issue is not the issues themselves but instead who is in power when deciding those issues.

Finally, I can't say as though I am a big fan of Noam Chomsky but I found this to be an interesting interview. He actually addresses the concern of double-standards both in his views as well as how they are reported in the media. Of course, that does not stop him from continuing to offer very pointed, one-sided points in his critical commentary on US actions while remaining silent in the face of abuses or wrongs committed by those whom he sees as being on the right side of history (Hugo Chavez being one example). Further, the idea that 9/11 could have precipitated a military takeover of the US establishment makes him sound more like a conspiracy theorist than the noted and recognized academician that he is. He sees evil in everything the US does yet has no problem with staying in the US as it will offer him the opportunity to speak as he does - perhaps he realizes that the relative free speech that he enjoys in the US is something that will not be so easily granted in other parts of the world. This is not to suggest that the US does not have problems but he appears to only see problems in the US most of the time while ignoring the same (or worse) in other parts of the world. He admits in the interview that he will call out the power establishment on their wrongs while all but ignoring those committed by those who are in ideological agreement with him. Granted, this is not something that is limited to Mr. Chomsky but nor does it absolve him, either. Frankly, it smacks of the same double standards that seem to apply to almost anyone involved with politics and which renders it as unpalatable on many levels to so many. Even when Mr. Chomsky sees and recognizes it he still continues to act and speak with it in mind, absolving himself from responsibility with the idea that it serves the greater good. Does the end justify the means?

More gun-related thoughts

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote up a post on the raging debate on guns and gun control. Part of my diatribe at the time concerned how both sides of the debate stake out extreme positions and neither side is willing to listen to the other. Over the intervening few weeks, this has not changed. If anything, both sides have grown more vocal on the issue. And, as I have pointed out previously multiple times on this blog on another controversial issue - racism - neither side is immune to being guilty of arrogance, ignorance or outright stupidity in their handling of the issue.

Last week, I responded via Twitter to a comment made by a New York Times journalist who commented that "responsible" gun owners support new gun control legislation. My response was something along the lines of "it seems that 'responsible' is a subjective term when it comes to your views on gun control". The journalist did not respond back but a few of his other followers did. While I tried to rationally clarify my point on "responsible" gun owners, they spent their time stating that I was an idiot, a gun-lover, a redneck, a hillbilly and worse. (I will simply state here that I am none of those things.) In other words, I got "trolled".

Granted, trying to engage in a serious debate on Twitter probably isn't the smartest move because of the inherent limitations of that medium but I found it curious that people who are arguing for gun control should be so full of vitriol and, in hindsight, I hope that they are not gun owners themselves because they were terribly angry at me for what I felt were very reasonable comments. To me, it seems similar to my issues with Democrats when it comes to their claims about diversity and minorities - they believe in it so long as those diverse minorities support them, otherwise they are race traitors (for lack of a better general term). But there is a perception that those who support gun control are the more peaceful people but this seems to be a farce based on those comments.

This is not to say that the opposite does not occur with those who support the right to own guns trolling and antagonizing those who oppose them but they are rightly called out for it when it occurs. However, it seems that the criticism for such actions is one-sided. Just because gun control advocates are perpetrated as being more peaceful and reasonable does not hold it to be true. Now it is time to hold gun control advocates to the same level of criticism as proponents when they act like idiots.

I am ever the eternal optimist...

Random Thanksgiving Thoughts

Thanksgiving, that most American of holidays. And I had a very nice Thanksgiving for which I was thankful to see a cousin and uncle I had not seen in some time with the rest of my family (blood and otherwise). Hopefully will be able to continue to renew old family acquaintances in the near future. Ah, the joys of the internet making the world that much smaller...

Several things have been on my mind lately so I'll just skip over a few. First, in the interest of making sure everyone is treated fairly, what the heck was John Sununu and much of the Republican Party doing when they said that the only reason General Colin Powell, a staunch Republican who also happens to be black, chose to support President Obama's re-election (as well as the first time around in 2008) was because he is also black?! I've happily taken Democrats to task for such idiotic statements and will do the same here. Regardless of whether the Republican establishment liked the fact that Gen. Powell voted for Obama or agreed with his reasoning for doing so (and he clearly stated why he supported the president and it wasn't because he was black), to suggest he did so because they share a skin color is racist. The fact that no one prominent within the party rose up to disavow those comments is a major reason why there is a very real perception that the Republican Party is the party for racists (well, ok, white racists). Unless and until the party recognizes it cannot continue with the strategy it has employed for the last 40 years, it faces the very real possibility it will go the way of the Whigs.

Ok, it's been a while and I actually started another blog post on this but got sidetracked and not in the mood to finish that thought so I'll address it in short here. Thank goodness Lucas is no longer controlling the Star Wars empire! Don't get me wrong, I am most grateful for the empire (I know, an ironic word choice) he created back in 1977 and to suggest that I am an ardent devotee is a significant understatement. But over the course of the last 20 years, he has angered me far more than made me happy with the bastardization he has done to the franchise with continual technical upgrades to the original movies and the lousy prequels he did (well, ok, Episode III was watchable but still far lagged behind IV and V). Now, with someone else in charge, even if it is as part of Disney, I have a lot more hope for the future and am looking forward to seeing where the franchise goes from here. Somewhere in a galaxy far, far away, I'm sure better things await.

Recently, have come across several people who have become much more politicized. That is in contrast to myself as I have grown less so in my old age. What struck me, though, was how they view everything in their life through the very narrow lens of politics. One person made it clear that they were removing all of their social network friends who had differing political viewpoints. Another tried to argue with me that I was wrong for not being as strident in my political views and that I should be focusing my efforts on getting one of the candidates elected for the betterment of our country as the other candidate would destroy the nation. Trying to point out to this individual that I would vote (without disclosing to whom, they simply made an assumption) and that I had problems with all of candidates and their views a variety of issues was useless as they took the opportunity to point out how the opposing candidate (only the major party candidates mattered to this person) was wrong on EVERYTHING and ignored anything I tried to say. I guess it goes along with the tendency of these same people to only hear things that support their particular worldview and ignore anything else as irrelevant. So, if I don't listen to Fox News then I am getting a slanted viewpoint that only supports liberal weenies who want to burn the flag, get rid of English and turn the country into Northern Mexico (or choose your own country) or if I am listening to Fox News then they only offer "conservative" news and I am some back-woods redneck hillbilly who spends every Sunday in church listening to ignorant preachers who hate gays. Nope, thanks but I prefer to get my news from many sources and ignore the many talking-heads who somehow manage to get paid for saying stupid things for both extremes of the political spectrum while ignoring the needs of the nation as a whole. I now hope that the day comes where we can come back to some sort of middle ground that will allow collaboration on big issues for the nation instead of small-minded wedge issues designed to only garner votes from a small subset of the electorate - because we are now in election mode every day of the year. Politicians now view their job not as one of governance but of getting re-elected. Unless and until this changes, things will likely not improve significantly.

Ok, ok, I've digressed so I'll stop ranting now.

Really, who is the racist?

As I have pointed out on this blog a few times before, I have a hard time understanding how it is that, in the political landscape, Republicans are racist and Democrats are the new party of Abraham Lincoln come to rescue the downtrodden blacks.

And apparently I'm not the only one is willing to point this out as this one gentleman did. And he did a good job in pointing out that he doesn't necessarily have to agree with her choice or her reasoning in making said choice (and he doesn't on both counts). But to suggest that she is a race traitor or worse because she is expressing her freedom to choose someone else and to stand outside the mainstream is not wrong but is a step that shows that the color of one's skin should not be the determining factor in one's political affiliation. After all, wasn't that the point of the Civil Rights Movement?

Unfortunately, I suspect that such a nuanced point of view will continue to be ignored because it's an uncomfortable thing to reflect upon contradictions in our views. Well, for most people, anyway...

Random Thoughts

Things noticed on a random basis. The last several times we've been on vacation to various areas, including NYC, Myrtle Beach, Toronto, Atlanta, and Virginia Beach among other places (this is over the last couple of years, mind you, so don't think I have the ability to spend all of my time on vacation), I've noticed a lot of mixed race couples and their children. Maybe I'm just a big ol' liberal in this line of thinking but I think that is the sort of diversity growth that makes the US such a great nation. Fifty years ago, miscegenation laws would have ensured that this would never have happened and now there are growing numbers and they all appear to be doing pretty well (as they appear to all be able to travel based on my own very unscientific notion as we were all doing touristy things in each of those areas). Maybe one day we can stop applying labels to people based solely on the color of their skin and just apply labels based on intelligence, speech, area of residence or any other number of equally prejudicial items...  *sigh*

I haven't seen as much of the Olympics as I would like but it's been a rather busy time (note to self - if I'm that "busy", then I need to learn how to reorganize my time and not be so damned busy!). Ok, so maybe I just haven't cared as much about the Olympics this time around. Or perhaps it's the fact that, in the US, the broadcaster (NBC) is almost entirely focused only on the US athletes and I like to hear the stories of the women from Saudi Arabia who were finally allowed to attend the games for the first time ever and other sundry, and equally interesting, stories. However, I have noticed the medal counts and that the US and China seem to be dominating them. So, it made me wonder about the approach of the two nations. China has specialized sports facilities (circa Soviet Union) where children are identified early and spend their entire lives doing only those sports with no other life - often even away from their families. Great sums are spent by the state and the children are failures if they do not achieve the highest honors. In the US, most athletes are either supported by their families or support themselves while doing their own training on their own time. For them, success is as much about getting medals as it is getting to the games themselves - and US fans take pleasure in learning those stories regardless of whatever medal success they may get. I have to admit that I prefer the US method but maybe that's just because I am steeped in that culture - does that mean the Chinese are wrong?

For the rest of this week, I will enjoy my vacation. I am finishing "The Game of Thrones" (by George R. R. Martin) and enjoying it. I just finished the entire Hunger Games series and found it interesting even if the ending of the last book threw me just a little bit - not sure I liked the evolution of the series. Probably write up some poetry and maybe even a short story (for the writer's group that a certain someone keeps hounding me about and I keep saying we need to start as I need that kick in the butt). And then I'll go back to work next week and die from the thousand or so emails I'm sure I've gotten this week... But that's next week so leave me alone for now...  :-)

WTF? Not thinking

While some of my friends pay attention to my blog (in much the same haphazard way that I may read theirs occasionally), I suspect that most people who read this have no idea who I am other than what little I may actually write about myself. So, before I go into details with this post, let it suffice to say that I consider myself an average guy who is just generic enough to fit in most places, depending upon how I look and carry myself at any given moment. And I've almost always been that way. I've been an outsider to most groups and yet just enough of an individual with knowledge and personality to be able to deal with people from almost any social/cultural/religious grouping. I've never been a close member of any of those groups but I have close friends who are from almost all of them. As a result, I like to think that I'm fairly diverse in my outlook, opinions and viewpoints.

Put another way, I don't necessarily look Chinese but I speak the language and have lived there. I don't necessarily look Hispanic but I grew up in a largely Hispanic area and was fluent in Spanish at that time (nowadays, if I start a sentence in Spanish I invariable end up in Chinese because I forget the words in Spanish). I don't necessarily look Middle Eastern but have done a great deal of research on some of the cultural and religious customs of that area so I'm not completely ignorant - especially since 2001. (As an aside, it is interesting to note that I've been mistaken for all three of the above at different times.) I don't necessarily look black (or African-American if you prefer, though oddly enough, most of my friends can't stand the term) yet, again because I grew up in largely minority-populated areas, I can fit in well enough with my friends. And perhaps it is because I do have such a diverse background and it is natural for me to talk with anyone regardless of their social/cultural/religious background that I have some of the experiences I do. It has only been in recent years that I have started to realize that most people grow up in a very mono-ethnic area and never leave that area and thus my experiences tend to make me unique (at least with the majority of people with whom I deal). I don't pretend to be an expert, mind you, I just have grown to realize that my background and knowledge is a little different from a lot of other people...

So, that being said, it sometimes amazes me what people will say to someone based solely on their looks. I've worked for a boss who had the temerity to tell me one day that Blacks and Hispanics (I started to leave that word with a lower case "b" but figured if I was going to capitalize the "h" in Hispanic - because I've only ever seen it that way - I should probably do the same for "Blacks" though I've typically seen it in lower case. Is that a form of latent or institutionalized racism?) were genetically inferior to Whites and Asians (ok, see my aside above about blacks and consider I was going to do the same for whites. Does that make it ok?). I've had Black friends (well, now I'm just going to capitalize it for the rest of this post to prevent acrimony) tell me that all Asians looked alike. I've had Asian friends tell me that they don't like Blacks because they're dirty and criminals. I've listened to White people tell me - who didn't know me at all - about how all Arabs are terrorists and we should just nuke all of them back to the stone age. I've listened to some of my Indian and Pakistani friends complain about the hypocrisy of Americans (typically Whites) and their faux-religious foreign policy that discriminates against them - even if they're just as Christian as the Whites who would otherwise bomb their home countries back to the Stone Ages.

Yes, one would think that after hearing all of these things many times in my lifetime, I might become somewhat inured to these comments. However, that is apparently not the case. Recently, in my office, one lady with whom I work started making asinine, racist comments about Asians and then using her fingers to slant her eyes as a way to discern Japanese and Chinese (Japanese eyes slant upward while Chinese eyes slant downward, according to her). I rarely take anything personally in my office but I have to admit that this lady got to me and I had to walk away before I said something that would be totally right but also grounds for termination. Then, after doing it again yesterday (she's done it a few times over the last several weeks) while asking if I wanted to order Chinese food with her team, I politely (ok, well, as politely as I could manage) declined stating that I preferred my wife's cooking. One of her co-workers must have said something to her because when I came back by her desk later, she stopped to ask me if my wife was Chinese. I answered in the affirmative and walked on (because I was worried I would say more if she said something else). She has worked to avoid me since then - as best I can determine because she's embarrassed realizing the things she's said were totally wrong and she would not have said them to any Chinese person and I'm probably the closest she will ever get to that ("y'know, 'cuz ya can't understand anything they say 'cuz they got those ter'ble accents!"). So, in short, she knows she was wrong because she made comments that would be publicly unacceptable but were ok to someone whose background she assumed based on their appearance - though I've made no attempt to hide my family. Yep, that's what I refer to as "not thinking". Or stupid - take your choice.

What gets me is that they will make all of these comments to others who they believe are like them but won't try to address these issues publicly and try to resolve some of the underlying issues. Thus, they continue to perpetuate and fester because no one will deal with them. But, saying that, maybe I will take up the opportunity to discuss this lady's comments with her in the near future and see if maybe I can help to get one person to understand some of these differences. As the saying goes, think globally but act locally. And every change starts with one person.

Random Thoughts

Some interesting things have been happening lately both in my world personally as well as the world at large. Since I don't often comment on my own life here, we'll work on the world at large.

I found this story to be interesting along with some of the views of people who both supported and opposed Byron Thomas's view on hanging the Confederate flag from his dorm room at the University of South Carolina Beaufort. What truly piqued my interest was one quote from a story on CNN relating to this (can't find it right now or I'd post it here) that quoted an activist (who is black) saying that while he didn't support Mr. Thomas's views he did support his right to hang the flag if he felt so inclined (which Mr. Thomas now says he won't do). I wonder if that same activist would support whites who wanted to hang the flag from their dorm rooms at the university - or anywhere else, for that matter. If not, I then wonder if he (or anyone else, for that matter) would interpret that as being racist? Somehow, I doubt it. After all, hanging the flag (if you're white) is racist but opposing it is virtuous. And for the record, I'm not stating my views on his hanging the flag or not, merely pointing out both an irony and what I perceive as a hypocritical point of view by some on this issue.

Next, while listening to NPR (National Public Radio) the other morning and they were discussing the Arab Spring  that has spread across several nations in the Middle East, I started to wonder about the impact of GW Bush's presidency and the impact of his actions in Iraq, in particular, and whether there was some relation to the Arab Spring. Seeing as how US combat troops (you'll note that many news media will omit the term "combat" and simply imply all US troops) will be removed from Iraq by the end of the year and people have seen how Iraq went through a very rough time but is progressing along the front of independence, sovereignty and nascent forms of democracy - not to mention the fact that it has all been broadcast in bright, vivid colors by Al-Jazeera - did those activists who stood up and overthrew several regimes feel that the time for change had come now that the US had precipitated it in Iraq with their 2003 invasion? Was there any inspiration by US actions that spurred young people (who make up a large majority of those countries where the Arab Spring occurred) to take to the streets and overthrow dictators who, in some cases, dominated their countries for much of my own lifetime? Did they take heart in the fact once the first one fell, the others could be similarly dislodged as a sort of domino effect (ah, the old domino effect from the halcyon days of the Cold War)? For that matter, if the US had not gone into Iraq to "establish" democracy, would the uprisings still have occurred? Yes, I know that this is pure conjecture and mostly useless in the real world, but it is still interesting to ponder for those who have the time to do so.

And speaking of uprisings, what about the situation in Wukan (in Guangdong, China)? It has been ongoing for a little while, though the West only recently caught wind of it and started reporting upon the situation. Unlike some who feel this may be a turning point in China that could lead to a greater uprising with those unhappy with the government, rampant corruption and growing economic and social inequality, I do not feel this is the likely outcome. Instead, I think that pressure will slowly be pushed until the people are left with no food or medicine and will likely surrender. Then, the government will quickly round up the leaders, punish them severely and put their followers into a situation that will appease their most immediate concerns for the time being until they can be dealt with later (after the Western media has gone onto the next story elsewhere). Local government officials will suffer no more than a wrist slap - if that - and any news relating to it will continue to be kept away from the rest of China. The one curious thing that I wonder is whether the people will follow that same script. Thus far, they have held together and stood firm in the face of the local government (not to mention they have barred the local government from the area - something that I do not immediately recall occurring in similar situations) pressure, mainly because they hope for a reprieve from the national authorities. While this is a misplaced hope (see the stories of those who have suffered in black jails after attempting to petition the federal government), could it spur the people to realize that they cannot afford to be split apart because they know that, once divided, they will all fail? And if so, will it result in a situation similar to the spring of 1989 in Tiananmen Square and a massacre that could truly explode nationwide? Again, I do not think so but the thing about the future is that people and situations evolve and only time will truly tell. Heroes and villians are never apparent at the outset and a bad ending today can result in a good ending tomorrow. I only hope that the situation is resolved in the most positive manner possible. An impossible hope, I know, but still...

Ignorance is taught

I do not normally post things that happen to me on this blog because I like my privacy. However, I encountered a situation recently that made me step back and wonder just what is happening to the world today and whether I am missing something or perhaps there is more I should do to prevent such situations in the future. So, first, a little background. I have a wonderful wife who means the world to me and a son who is no less important. My wife is not of the same ethnicity nor language and, while it has sometimes given itself over to troubles in our life together, it has also forced us to work harder to overcome those differences. As anyone in a multi-cultural relationship can attest, there are difficulties that are not always obvious nor easily resolved - beyond the means of a monocultural relationship. However, I support my wife completely and she the same. So, enough background and onto the situation.

While with my son and several other boys his age, some of whom I was not immediately familiar with (and who were not familiar with us), one of the boys kept referring to me as "Don's" dad. After it was pointed out to him that I was not Don's dad but my son's dad on several occasions, he finally looked at me and my son and stated, "I see 'Mike' (my son) has darker skin but you have really white skin. How can you be 'Mike's' dad?"

Ok, I think to myself, I can see past this as an innocent mistake, though not one that we've encountered in his near 12 years. "'Mike's' mom is from China. He has his mom's skin."

"Oh, is she black?"

Say what?! This is an 11-year old boy and he's just been told that someone is from China and his first question is whether she is black?! Frankly, my nerves were beginning to be plucked at that point but I persevered with patient responses. After all, he's only 11 and I don't know if perhaps he has some issues with his intellect. Though, it would be very hard to imagine my son as having any black ancestry from his appearance. Frankly, most people have assumed he is white though they have wondered about perhaps some Hispanic or Asian roots in his background based on his appearance. So, again, I respond, "No, she is Chinese."

That was not enough for him. "Oh. Does she have a green card?"

Taken as a single statement, this would probably not have been too bad. On top of the already ignorant questions this child had asked, I could only wonder if he was not either deliberately obtuse or profoundly mentally deficient. Mentally, my first response was, "Oh, so all Chinese must be immigrants and therefore need a green card?! Only white people are able to be native-born Americans?! Seriously?!" Instead, I answered with as much patience as I could muster, "No, she is a US citizen." I could have gone further and pointed out that she is a first-generation immigrant who came to a brand-new country, has worked hard to learn its language and its customs and has tried very hard to fit in to what, at times, has been a very alien culture to her, but it would have been wasted effort on my part. In the end, it was just as well I didn't for this boy's final statement answered the questions that had been building up in my own mind about his mental acuity.

"Oh, so she's like President Obama. He was born in Africa, y'know."

This boy was simply parroting what he had heard at home. At that moment, I almost felt sorry for him. Almost... He is a product of his environment - and his environment is his home. But this child will likely grow up to be as ignorant as I feel his parents to be. To him and them, non-whites are all foreigners (and apparently all black) and America's first black president is illegitimate despite significant evidence to the contrary. (I do not intend to argue for or against the "birther" discussion, I simply state that there is significant evidence that the president is a native-born American from Hawaii.) It is an attitude from an uglier time in America and one that I had hoped had faded to the background - I am not so naive as to believe that racism has been erased. But I had hope that it had receded and was less acceptable. Instead, it seems that it has been thrust into a new paradigm using code words and phrases to delegitimize people based on something they cannot control - the color of their skin. I only hope that the recent situation described here is the aberration.

No double standards here...

Nope, the Democratic Party and its supporters - particularly African-Americans - are all lining up in support of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid after comments he made about then-candidate Obama were printed in a new book about the 2008 campaign. Specifically, his comments were that Obama was:

a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one

[sarcasm]Yep, nothing racist or even stereotypical in those comments. I can see why no African-Americans would be offended by something so trivial. Heck, I can't see why I, or anyone else for that matter, should be offended by such commentary. [/sarcasm]

I think the problem here is that this exposes the political hypocrisy to which race and racism has devolved. Without defending the idiocy that has been perpetrated by Republicans in equal measure, the refusal of Democrats and leading African-Americans to condemn either the comments or the speaker lend a great deal of credence to the belief that racism has become nothing more than a political tool for Democrats to abuse Republicans. George Allen in Virginia during the 2006 Senate campaign with his "macaca" comment and Trent Lott's commentary on Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday celebration in 2002 are two of the more egregious examples by the Republicans in recent memory and both were pilloried by their Democratic opponents and subsequently lost their positions of authority. Indeed, there was no shortage of commentators, leaders and supporters from the left of the political spectrum who rose up indignantly and shouted for some form of punishment to be inflicted upon the two of them.

And that is all reasonable when the same standards are applied to the idiots on the left who make similarly embarrassing gaffes. The problem that arises here are the double standards that are clearly evident. The racist card is to be applied to your political opponents to ensure that they are labeled as such and to establish the moral high ground for your own side of any debate. But when your side makes comments that are clearly racist, then it is best to find some other way of deflecting attention away or defending them in the hope of "the greater good". The problem is that, by doing so, you then minimize the injustice of the racism that clearly does exist (except within the Democratic Party, obviously). So what is the greater good?

There has been commentary from Democratic apologists that Sen. Reid's comments do not compare with the comments of some of his Republican predecessors. That is a subjective (and specious) argument. According to those apologists, Republicans are all racist by nature so the intent of racial commentary is obviously racist by design whereas similar comments by Democrats are not intended to be racist because they are more enlightened on the subject of race. Therefore, the arguments do not compare. The problem with such an argument is that they are arguing intent and motive which can never actually be known by anyone other than the offender. Furthermore, if Democrats are so "enlightened", how can they possibly countenance such comments in the first place, let alone utter them aloud?

In a further galling move, Senator Reid apologized on the Sunday morning talk shows and then has followed up by calling every African-American leader that he can find to beg their forgiveness. And while this is obviously a necessity to help deflect attention away from his mistake, it seems that no one is questioning the fact that his mea culpa comes more than a year after the comments were made and only after it was published in an upcoming book. So, would he have apologized for his comments if someone had not outed them in the first place? Not likely. Additionally, the president, in a move clearly intended (and hoped) to defuse the situation, dismissed it with clear political motivations. If the Senate Majority Leader becomes embroiled in a distraction such as racist comments, it can only serve to detract from his goal of passing healthcare legislation - and those distractions must be avoided at all costs. There can be no clearer sign of the political machinations that have now superseded the issue of racism.

And in a country with as many open wounds relating to racism, this clearly is a problem.

Who's the racist?

Like more than a few other politicians and Hollywood celebrities before him, former President Jimmy Carter has alleged that those who oppose President Obama (or, in this case, his desired policies on health care) oppose him on the basis of race. And, as is to be expected, the breakdown of how his comments were interpreted depends upon to whom you listen. Liberal interpretations suggested that there was truth behind his statement while conservative readings implied that it was an outrage to suggest that any opposition to the president was based solely on racism. Rational discussion with nuance, context and perspective seems to be out the window - as it so often does when the conversation turns to race in America.

President Carter, who has never been hesitant to speak his mind on any subject since losing his re-election bid in 1980, has done a disservice to the increasingly heated political debate in the US. His criticism was relating to the actions of US Representative Joe Wilson during President Obama's speech to Congress the previous week but the implication was that a lot of the criticism of President Obama is based on his ethnicity. Frankly, while people will choose to believe or disregard based upon their own world-view, his assertion is impossible to prove one way or another. Essentially, he is assigning motive to action - it is a logical fallacy. To put it another way, it would be the same as arguing that because we see the sun go over us each day, from the eastern to the western horizon, it is therefore true that the sun must revolve around the earth. Needless to say, that was a belief several hundred years ago that has been subsequently disproven. But how to disprove Carter's assertion? Or, for that matter, is it possible that his assertion may actually be true? The answer, as usual, lies somewhere in between.

Is there racism in America? Certainly! And that racism is not limited to white racism against blacks but extends from each racial group to other ethnicities. It is both subtle and overt. And it is typically based on stereotypes that are difficult to break when there is limited exposure to others different from oneself. But the racism that exists today in America is not the overt racism of 50 years earlier when specific laws were in place that prevented any sort of true integration and there was nowhere near the cultural and ethnic diversity - let alone the opportunities to travel and learn - that are available today. The generations that have grown up since the 1960's are not always familiar with the struggles of the earlier generations that fought for the rights that they often take for granted. Indeed, there is a generational struggle that is taking place between those who fought for equality in their youths and those who are able to take advantage of that growing equality today. But it is the younger generation who helped to elect the first black president in US history and can see it as the next progression in a much larger struggle for self-determination that is not based upon the color of one's skin.

But therein lies part of the issue with Carter's comments. As people rightly condemn whites (or others, for that matter) who perpetrate negative stereotypes about blacks, there is little outcry regarding Carter's harsh stereotyping of those who oppose President Obama - mainly whites according to Carter. If you oppose the president, it is because he is black. Yet there are a large number of people who oppose the president and his policies for a great many reasons other than the fact that he is black. It is not unreasonable to argue that many of his opponents are such not because of the color of his skin but because of the political party that he represents or the policies he hopes to put in place. But, by using a wide brush to paint the president's opponents as racist, Carter has only exacerbated the issue. The discussion can no longer be a rational conversation on the issues at hand but about how white Americans are racist against a black president. And it is a rational conversation that is needed between people, both individually and in large groups, that is needed in order to begin to address the specter of racism in America. Adding to that the fact that few Democrats are disputing Carter's comments only lends credence to a belief that the comments are simply a political ploy to be used against the opposition. And, to be fair, the Republican silence and support of Representative Wilson following his egregious breach of protocol during President Obama's speech to the Congress is another example of political play. (Of course, when Republicans are correctly lambasted for pandering to Southern whites during the Civil Rights era, they are racist. But when Democrats ridicule and demonize conservative blacks for being conservative - code word for Republican - no one speaks of the hypocrisy or double standard.)

Racism is still an issue in the US and will likely continue to be so for a while. It is not an easy subject to resolve, particularly given its rough history in the country. But when it is used as a political tool to further one's agenda or to damage one's opponent, then it will only further exacerbate the problem because both sides will feel demonized and neither will feel particularly inclined to rationally discuss the issues. Instead, it will be left to ferment just under the surface of daily life until another event sparks the raw emotions that remain unhealed.

Race Today

In the last year, America has experienced almost a revolution in terms of race, ethnicity and how the two interact within society. The election of the first black president, Barack Obama, showed just how far America has come in terms of the overcoming the stigma of race. Or perhaps it showed how much race is still a factor within American society. It depends upon one's point of view. This was followed by the much ballyhooed case that went before the Supreme Court on the issue of white firefighters being denied promotion due to an insufficient number of minorities passing a promotion exam in New Haven, Connecticut - and the role played by the all-but-confirmed Sonia Sotomayor who will likely be the first Hispanic on the US Supreme Court. And the most recent example of race relations in the US is the case involving a white police officer arresting Henry Louis "Skip" Gates, a black Harvard professor which, on its own was newsworthy but escalated with the additional (and some might feel inflammatory) comments by President Obama on the case.

Certainly the election of the first black president is a sign of tremendous progress on the issue of race in America. It could be argued that it is a tremendous sign of progress in almost any Western nation - most of which have not equaled the feat. At the time of his election, it was being hailed as the "post-racial" era. Presumably, this meant that the era of racism was quickly reaching its denouement. However, and this is something that I pointed out at the time privately, racism is still a relevant issue in the United States and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Indeed, the election of a black man (or woman, for that matter) did not signal an end to the path started generations earlier. Frankly, the beginning of the end for that issue will occur when a white man (or woman) can freely criticize that elected official for whatever reason and not be immediately labeled a racist. And it is clear from the reactions that have been shown toward those with the temerity to criticize the current president that the nation is still not approaching that point.

The white firefighters filed suit to claim their promotions shortly after the city of New Haven declared the results to be invalid and that there would be no promotions at that time due to the lack of minority candidates passing the exam. Their case was pursued all the way to the Supreme Court - along the way being denied by current Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor - where it was awarded its final merit and declared that the city did not have the right to deny them a promotion based on the lack of a higher number of qualified minority candidates. Some felt this signaled the end of race-based quotas while others felt this was clearly a strike against Ms. Sotomayor being elevated to the Supreme Court as her earlier decision in the case was overruled. But the decision did not resolve the underlying issues concerning race-based quotas and that will continue to be an issue for the immediate future. But this can be seen as part of a backlash against the race-based quota system under the larger aegis of affirmative action. Is affirmative action something that is no longer needed? Certainly it is debatable and there is merit on both sides of the argument. Certainly everyone should be given the same opportunities to succeed - after all, that is the founding promise of America. But are quotas the best way to even the playing field? Would not equal opportunities to education be an equal solution, if not better? And while it can be argued that educational opportunities for minorities are certainly better than they were 40 years ago, that does not mean that they are equal. Perhaps if affirmative action were aimed more toward education, then it would not be so polarizing for adults.

The case of racial profiling looms large when discussing Professor Gates. Was his a case of racial profiling? There is not enough public information to say for certain. But Colin Powell put it well. There was probably an over-reaction on both the part of Prof. Gates as well as Sgt. Crowley. Prof. Gates was likely tired and did not like being challenged in his own home and felt that race was the leading factor in him being questioned. Sgt. Crowley probably did not like being challenged for questioning Prof. Gates and, after a short time of listening to the professor, subsequently arrested and charged him with disorderly conduct - a charge that was soon dismissed. But it does beg the question of whether the perception by blacks is that, even when innocent, are they being challenged because of their race or because of other issues? And do the police profile potential suspects? Absolutely! Just as everyone does profiling of one sort or another. An older black man wearing a suit may not attract the attention of the police as quickly as a black youth wearing a bandanna. A young white man in shorts and sandals may not get a job as easily as a black youth wearing a shirt and tie. Everyone judges others by what they see immediately and color is one of those things that is immediately visible to everyone. But to argue that the profiling takes place only because of color is to suggest that we can know the motivations of others - something that simply is not possible. We know only what we see, hear and touch. We cannot prove what someone else is thinking. Indeed, everything else is subjective. But perhaps some good will come of this as it may be an opportunity for others to talk and be heard and to communicate and learn from others.

Institutionalized racism is no longer acceptable but that does not mean that racism is gone, only that it is not so overt as it was in earlier generations. It is unlikely that it will ever truly go away unless we all go blind and color no longer holds any meaning. But it does not mean that we should hold judgment based only on one's color nor necessarily withhold judgment solely for the same reason. Perhaps, with time and patience, we can learn that the definition of people is, and should be, based on the person themselves and not what is seen at first glance.