I know that they're not around… But, I must say that I'm a bit confused

[MrScorpio]

I'm speaking about the people who objected to the President's remark, about when he said that if he had a son, his son would look like Trayvon.

So, why is that so objectionable?

Do they think that any hypothetical son of our current president would look like Brad Pitt or even a young George Takai?

Or maybe they think that he should have said that his imaginary son would look like Robert Pattinson, or perhaps Daniel Dae Kim?

Maybe they're saying that a black president has no right to internalize the tragic death of a young, black man… A death that's on the minds of so many other Americans of every race, creed, gender and political stripe?

What are they really saying here?

I won't speculate on their behalf… But I will say that it would be refreshing for them to stop hiding behind fuzzy code words and implied prejudices and say in plain language, what and who they believe our president and Commander in Chief to be… Indeed, it would.

If they can imply various ideas to a public audience, then they can say it plainly for all to see. It helps no one to hide.

I classify instances like this as virtual Rorschach tests… Different people observe certain circumstances or other people and, based upon whatever beliefs that they hold, provide a description on what or who they think they're seeing.

The answers can be somewhat puzzling at times. But taking in considerations about conditioning, morals, beliefs, fears, likes and dislikes, et alii, the meaning of those answers can be diagnosed qualitatively and quantifiably.

If we're talking about politicians, it would pretty damn refreshing for one to actually say what they mean and mean what they say.

But then again, if their did that, they wouldn't be politicians, now would they?

[Chorophyll]

1. I'm really puzzled by that reaction too.

I think the president's reaction was sincere, emotional, and entirely appropriate.

[zipplewrath]

2. Who objected?

Guess I missed that. Some group around here? A presidential candidate? Beck/Rush and the gang?

[GeorgeGist]

3. What they're saying, I think,

is that black men aren't allowed to stand their ground.

[NYC_SKP]

4. Anything out of our president's mouth is objectionable to them, and they look to feel insulted.

I have a dear friend who cracks me up because she can turn anything I say including a compliment into an insult, and she does this jokingly.

On Saturday, she had makeup on and I remarked that she looked marvelous.

And she replied "so you're sayin I look like hell without makeup?"



Can't win! Similarly, Newt saw an opportunity to piss on the president when he said what he said.

Newt:

Gingrich told Sean Hannity on Fox News, "What the president said, in a sense, is disgraceful...Is the president suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot, that would be OK, because it didn't look like him? Trying to turn it into a racial issue is fundamentally wrong."

Can't win with assholes like them.

[JHB]

5. It was something with which to put the racial element onto the president...

...because it looms so large here. They're basically feeding their meme about "making it about race" or "playing the race card", and just generally throwing up their usual steam-rising-off-of-elephant-dung fogbank to protect (1) their "that's all behind us" line about racism, and (2) deflect attention from the paranoid environment the gun lobby has promoted.

[Kalidurga]

6. It is totally true...

if President Obama had a son, he would look a lot like Treyvon. I think that is what stings the RWers so much. That the words are true. That even the son of a President if he was black, would be in danger of vigilantes, wannabee executioners, if he happened to be wearing a hoodie in a gated community.

[Bluerthanblue]

7. some people respond to uncomfortable truths with anger

denial and disgust.

That doesn't change the truth though.



We can't fix what we refuse to face.

[Zenlitened]

8. I'm certain their "objections" are not genuine at all.

I'm certain that this all a tactic they deploy: Phony Outrage.

Newt Gingrich built his whole career on this kind of shit back in the 1990s.

Screeching and squawking, boo hoo hoo-ing over every little thing.

Blowing even the most minor comment massively out of proportion.

Squealing "it's reprehensible!!!" and demanding constant apologies.

The goal: Knock your opponent back on his heels, get him reacting to nonsense instead of pressing his own attack.

Sidetrack the conversation, get people all riled-up and arguing over anything but the hard truths we as a people have to face, the important decisions we need to make.

Gingrich injected this toxic technique into our national discourse decades ago. And he's still at it now.

I'm convinced there's no "why" to this latest criticism of Pres. Obama, because there's no sincerity to it at all.

It's just intended to fuck things up. That's what they do.

[saras]

9. +(10^100)^(10^100)

You said it. If the noises their mouths make get results, they make more of them. "Meaning" in the intelligent adult sense of the word is simply irrelevant - it's more like trying to make a shriek sound threatening instead of fearful.