" No, Karl -- it was in general. I have had close relations live through the experience of being branded racist and watched what it did to their lives, and how it adversely affected my own as well, including pushing them to embracing the name, just as African-Americans sometimes call themselves by the "N-word" or gays sometimes call themselves "faggots." An unfair accusation repeated often enough can push a person to decide, fine, if you are going to call me that, then that is what I am.

One has to be careful with labels in case they stick, even if they weren't deserved at the start. You can find yourself contributing to the very thing you mean to fight.

Sure, there are insidious little strains of racism -- and sexism -- in our culture. Some are not so little. And they can be pretty pervasive. But when someone is trying to make sense of his world, and comment on what he is seeing, from the place where he currently is, a kind and logical counterargument is more likely to get his attention and have him listen than accusations. Accusations automatically put a person on the defensive, and your chance at making a bridge and starting a dialogue has just ended.

I didn't even plan to go there with the agribusiness thing, but then this other person brought up regulations, and off I went -- I did take pains to bring it back to the topic at hand.... "

" "" A person does walk a minefield anytime s/he brings up a subject anywhere even on the fringes of race -- someone will squawk and point a finger and accuse "Racism!" Racism does really exist, of course, but the ACCUSATION of racism, even where it does NOT exist, is often used as a stick to beat down other opinions and also to distract from the issues at hand."
FG, I genuinely hope that that critique is not aimed at me.
If you really understand the subtlety and insidious way that certain people and organizations have finely honed and crafted the Art of subtle racist remarks which play almost subconsciously upon very old prejudices, then you would understand why I have been so adamant at bringing up the issue when I see it--and it has been used indiscreetly and ad nauseum in the last campaign season--both blatantly, and subliminally.
I find the cynical manipulation of certain "code words", phrases, and images to be just as disgusting as the use of "the N word" itself. These people aren't stupid--they know EXACTLY what they're trying to say, and to instill in the minds of their viewers/listeners.
The "old America" is being remade, and its dying last breaths seem to be filled with sniping vitriol against minorities--whether Black, Gay, Godless--and personally, I think that its time that people DO beat that element of Society down, as they only serve to further divide, distract, and embitter us ALL, as they have done for the last eight years.
Pretty amazing segue, by the way, into your "pet peeve" there, about farming, LOL! "

" A person does walk a minefield anytime s/he brings up a subject anywhere even on the fringes of race -- someone will squawk and point a finger and accuse "Racism!" Racism does really exist, of course, but the ACCUSATION of racism, even where it does NOT exist, is often used as a stick to beat down other opinions and also to distract from the issues at hand.

I know that similar rhetoric is used by racists, but that doesn't make the above view racist in itself.

So, to respond to Paul's clarification of his meaning:

Yes, race is a factor still in this country, but in this historic contest, race was not the deciding factor. That in itself represents progress, though the process is not perfected.

think, I like your points -- about wealth being redistributed UPWARDS and about the idiocy of expecting greed to regulate itself. The problem with government regulations up to now is not that they restrict business, but rather that they add a layer of bureaucracy without actually doing much (or at least not enough) to regulate the things which need regulating.

Mostly, regulations are twisted by high-powered corporate lawyers to allow industries to do whatever they please, hiding behind the supposed "human rights" of corporations, while funneling those of us who are victims of industrial greed into a narrow chute of what we are allowed to protest.

What I mean is this: Regulation is what allows industry to pollute -- it just says, ah, gee, you just have to pollute at a slightly reduced rate, within these rather generous parameters -- so the person who wishes to protect himself against pollution in his environment affecting his health has already lost before he has begun.

Concrete example: No sane, healthy person would think it should be OK to spread human waste along with everything else that goes down the drains in homes and businesses to be spread on fields where food is grown, neither food for us, nor food for animals we will be eating. But government regulations allow it. Government regulations only require that the waste be checked for a tiny handful of contaminants, mostly heavy metals -- they do not require that it be checked for pharmaceuticals, disease, hormones, carcinogens or many other dangerous things which exist in plenty in sewage waste. The government allows those things.

The answer is not to make a longer list of things to check, but to disallow the spreading of human waste on farm fields all together. However, if you tried to stop it, the law would not back you up -- the regulations serve only to restrict YOUR ability to protect yourself, your health and the environment and to allow industry to go right on destroying in their pursuit of profit.

Oh, and the government also has a pretty poor track record at bothering to check or to enforce the pathetic few regulations they have regarding sewage sludge or as they euphemistically call it, "biosolids."

Add to that the so-called "right to farm" laws, and it is almost impossible to do anything about the toxins being dumped in our local environment as part of the destruction of our rural areas. It's not farming -- that's gone on here for generations without the destruction which has come along in the past 20-30 years with the rise of corporate agribusiness.

So I will be interested to see where this new government goes with "regulations" -- which have very little to do with race. It is an issue in this country, but it was not the deciding factor in this recent election. "

" Ryan, opinions like your drive me positively BONKERS!
First of all, Obama IS NOT, HAS NOT "tried to hide" his relationship with Bill Ayres--he has explained it on NUMEROUS OCCASIONS--in one of the debates on national TV, and in interviews on Larry King, for two legitimate sources.
Honestly, I cannot for the life of me fathom why people like you see any value whatsoever in perpetuating this completely BOGUS fallacy that he has tried IN ANY WAY to obfuscate his relationship with Ayres! Except that perhaps the explanation is not one which you would have liked, because it effectively negates any significance which you might like to attach to it?
And "...videotape of him at the retirement party for a PLO spokesperson?"--WHO THE HELL CARES? So he was at a party--SO WHAT. The fact is that Obama knew many people of Arab and Black descent in his youth, and for him to know these people socially does NOTHING to impugn his character.
John McCain knew and associated VERY CLOSELY with the Keating Five--even went so far as to lobby Congress to extend leniency to these criminals who caused the failure of the S&L, which led directly to an economic recession and ruined the livelihoods of millions--you wanna talk about THAT?
I didn't think so! "

" First off I'm pretty sure that the economic patterns that led to the disenfranchisement of African-Americans started well before the current incarnation of the Republican Party was even in existence. Second it takes a big person to post anonymously and call another person racist. Third, I believe it was fear of such libel that kept the national media in a "kid's glove" approach to Mr. Obama. Mr. karl is ready to believe Mr. Obama has the highest character, yet there are legitimate questions to that effect. Why won't the L.A. Times release the videotape of him at the retirement party for a PLO spokesperson? Why is he trying to hide his longtime friendship with William Ayers, a man who dedicates his books to Sirhan Sirhan and convicted cop killers? I pray these concerns will have no effect on our nation or it's policies, but until someone presses him for some answers we will never know. Maybe because any attempt at creating questioning dialogue will be answered with slanders of "racist". "

" I'll accept your explanation, Paul, but did you ever think that maybe Black people voted so overwhelmingly for Barack because it has been the Republican economic policies which have so hurt and disenfranchised the minority communities?
That would seem to be more of a compelling reason to vote for a real change from previous policies--and it wouldn't matter what the skin color was? "

" In 2004 John Kerry received 88% of the votes of African-Americans. It's certainly possible that since the last election another 8% of black voters decided that voting Republican was NOT in their interest. It seems also plausible that somewhere around 8% of white voters might not pull the lever for Barack Obama because of race. Considering these points renders Paul's MLK argument much less potent.

What I am waiting to hear from someone on the right is the possibility that people are looking for something different because the policies of deregulation and trickle down economics have failed. Maybe people feel that it's time for some judicious government oversight. Since 1980 we've been through the Savings and Loan disaster, other bailouts, the subprime mortgage crisis, and now our most serious economic situation since the Great Depression. While some recently have made the specious accusations of "spreading the wealth" against Barack Obama, one need only look to the Reagan administration for the beginning of some actual redistribution of wealth -- UPWARD. These policies have continued in one form or another since then. Even Bill Clinton was enough of a deregulator to be a big friend of Wall Street, especially in his second term.

It seems clear now that deregulation for deregulation's sake is failing or has failed. Trust greed to monitor and regulate itself? Come on. It also seems clear that the tax cuts for business and the wealthy which were supposed to "trickle down" to the rest of us never quite made it.

The economics of the "Reagan Revolution" have turned out to be the "Voodoo Economics" George H. W. Bush said they were all those years ago, and the middle and working classes have been paying for it ever since.

Seems like enough of a reason to vote for a change w/out bringing Martin Luther King's dream into it . . . "

" Sorry i accidently clicked submit before I was finished.
But mainly if almost every single member of a race votes for the candidate of that race, Whether the candidate be a white, or black, we still have a problem with race relation. although I did not vote for Obama I will support him. As I said in my letter, hatred for the president helped split this country, and if we support our president hopefully we can get back on track. I apologize for next making my point clearly in the artilce. "

" As the writer of this letter, I would like to apologize for people missunderstanding the point. The point was not that he was elected because he was black, because I am wellaware that people wanted change, and that he is in fact Bi-Racial. My point was that 96% of a race voted for the perceived candidate of that race. I am not saying all who voted for him for the lone reason he was black. But what I am saying is that it should be pointed out that race did play a part "

" Farmer's Gal, even if HE HIMSELF is not racist, he is obviously, OBVIOUSLY too-easily-led by the racist rhetoric on the right to believe that the only--THE ONLY--reason that Barack won was because of the preponderance of Black voters who--if the Right is to be believed--voted for Obama SOLELY because he's "Black"--WHICH HE'S NOT!
He is, in fact, bi-racial. HALF-white, and HALF-black!
For him to allege that Obama has no character is just an insult of the highest magnitude. There is no comparison to the phony "character" of John McCain, and the genuine character and integrity of Barack. "

" I say the young man is mistaken, not racist, with or without the rest of his family. A good argument should work better to convince him to reconsider than name-calling. "

" I made no accusations against his family. It does not take a family to make someone a racist. "

" Just for the record, though I disagree with Paul's diagnosis of the situation, I have known him and his family since he was a little boy - and they are most certainly not racist. They are good, kind, honest, hard-working people. I disagree with this member of the family, but it is not right to make accusations of racism when you don't know them. It just doesn't fly. "

" I dunno, Paul -- I voted for Obama because he wasn't McCain, a man I feel was so scared and messed in the head due to his sacrifices for country that he would be dangerous in a position of such power as the presidency. His volatile temper, his repeatedly showing of his nasty and disrespectful attitude towards women, his lack of tact when dealing with other politicians, his total lack of judgment in the selection of a running mate (putting her popularity factor ahead of qualifications or common sense) and his belligerent approach to delicate situations -- not to mention his reprehensible positions on issues of importance to me -- those are the reasons I voted against him. It had absolutely ZIP to do with race.

And that was the case for most people I know who voted for Obama -- I did not know one person personally who voted for him because of his racial background.

The angry and bitter hatred for our current president has to do with his rotten policies and bad decisions, not his race. You are still young -- 20 or 21, right? -- in time I hope you can see that there are almost no politicians, and certainly none at the national level, who honestly have the best interests of the people at heart, and none who have never associated with objectionable individuals. "

" Wow, where to begin? For starters, blacks comprise only 13% of the electorate, so even with 96% voting for Obama, he couldn't be elected without winning a huge percentage of white voters. And, like most of their black brother and sisters, these white voters judged the content of Obama's character to select him as the better candidate. (By the way, how many unenlightened and fearful whites voted against Obama just because he's black? Perhaps enough to counter the black vote for Obama? We'll never know for sure.) True, John McCain may be a veteran and a man of honor, but the very fact that he stood by Bush, the most corrupt and incompetent president this country has ever known, caused voters of every demographic (save the conservative base) to question his judgement and character. Add to that his poor choice of a running mate and the answer was obvious. "

" I agree, anonymous--what a tortured, twisted letter, huh?
ALL the cable news networks have been talking about how the "Bradley effect" did not matter--how even Whites voted for Obama by a majority.
Sadly, Palu Schidt's letter is symptomatic of the mental block suffered by racist people who can't see nor admit that McCain's campaign was probably the poorest in in history, and that he, as a man, never stuck to an issue, or to whatever principles people may have imagined that simply being a prisoner-of-war somehow automatically confers upon someone.
What is clear is that McCain very little integrity, and even less of a campaign. "

" Nice racist slap at the beginning of the letter.


Keep looking for excuses instead of looking for answers. Thats what was mR. McLame's downfall. "