Assume you are responsible for choosing the quarterback of the Dalla Cowboys, either as part of a group with a "vote", or as coach. Assume that your choice is between a black quartrback and a w"white" quarterback. I put the word "white" in quotes, by the way, becaue there is really no such thing, as there is really no such thing as "black". I agree with the character in "To Kill a Mockingbird" (the book), who sugested that EVERYONE in the United States probably (really certianly--since the whole human race can be traced back to common ancestors) has a MIXED racial heritage. Yes, that makes a mockery of the racial prejudice that you can dEFINE people based on having a "drop" of African-American "blood" But it also makes a MOCKERY of the leftist (includng the leftist media0 idea that we skould give PREFERENCE to people with African-African-American " (or just plain "African", in Obama's case) "blood". Elizabeth, the Democratic candidate for the Seante agasint Scott Brown in Massachusetts, has highighted this by her previus claim (to take some advantage of these "preferences" for "minorities") that she has "a drop" of Native American blood (or maybe "felt" Native American that day). I digress, although not really. It is actually RACIST of us to try to DEFINE quarterbaqcks, or Presidents, as "black" or "white". Who says Barack Obama is "black"? By what definition? And who says Mitt Romney is "totally" "white". By what definition, and on how far back your "research" goes? Is Donovan McNab really "black", and is Tony Romo really "white"? I think that is a NONSENSE question, and should not matter for ANY purpose.
But let's get back to our hypothetical. You are faced with a choice between a "black" quarterbqack, and a "white" quarterback. Some people probably still think that "black" quarterbacks are "suspect"'. Other people probably still think that "black" quarterbacks should be ENCOURAGED, and that our "criticism" of balck quarterbacks should be muted, lest we hurt the "cause" of "black quarterbacks". Should you pay any attention to EITHE#R group, if you are CHOSING a quarterback? Of course not. You are trying to choose a quarterback that will help your team WIN. If you choose a balck quarterback, and ignore his faults, BECAUSE he is black, you will have BETRAYED your team (which is seruoius business if you are a Dallas Cowboys fan now, since they need all of the help they can get). If you choose AGAINST a black quarterback, BECAUSE he is black, you will again have BETRAYED yur team. What you want is the quarterback who will best help your team WIN. It should not matter to you whether some other people are willing to BETRAY their team because they have this obsession about race.
I think this i spretty much UNDERSTOOD in sports--although not necessarily by the sprots MEDIA. In sports, espeically nowm, it is PERFORMANCE that counts, nz ilidy uminc you pasxosm up to the level of your ability). It is simply absurd to suggest that you should be "careful" in your criticism of a black quarterback because he is black. It is equally absurd to be oeverly critical of a black quarterback because he is black. Either way, your team may LOSE because of such an attitude. It is actualy worse than either of these groups, however, for you to be in a group that CAN evaluate the quarterback based on who will be the best quarterback for the team, but chooses not to do so because you are "afraid" of being lumped with the peole who jut don't like black quarterbacks. Talk about BETRAYAL. Is it not a GROSS BETRAYAL to assert that the mere existence of a group that opposes black quarterbacks, or has some "secret" prejudice agaisnt them, shuld caues you to make your team a LOSSER jsut to avoid being on the "same side" with the "racist" group? That is exactly the absurd propaganda that the leftist media is putting out with regard to Presdient Obama. " We want to tak abut race, because that is our obsession, and the only way that you can hsow that racism is really being defeated in America is by again electing President Obama as resident--even if that means tthat the COUNTRY LOSES.'
The only difference between Presidents adnd quarterbacks is thatq it us usualy MORE OBVIUS who is the better quarterback (especailly if both men have had a chance to prove themselves). Not always, of course, but usually. With Presidens, it is not so bovius because there is no agreed upon way of "keeping score". Even with quarterbacks, you can BLAME others (such as your receiveers or blockers). It usually does not work. The bottom line is whether you are a WINNER, or a LOSER. That is why this blog has PREDICTED that President Obama will LOSE this electin, so long as the eocnmy stays in approximately its present shape (or worse). Presdient Obama has NOT PERFORMED. He has thrown too many interceptoins, and not shown an ability to lead his team. No, you can't expect every President to be Eli Manning, but you HAVE to expect a President not to be Jimmy Carter. I don't know of any present "black" challenger to Tony Romo, but if there were one I would give him a long look. Tony Romo has much better "statistics" than President Obama, but Romo has not shown a real ability to help the team IMPROVE. (in terms of progressing in the playoffs, or even consistently getting to the playoffs). No, Tony Romo is not responsible for everything that has gone wrong with the Dallas Cowboys, as Presdient Obama is nott responsible for everything that has gone wrong withth this country. There is actualllly a better case for Romo, since he does have those great statistics. President Obama really has NO "great" statistics. Al President Obama can say is that "it could have been worse." . But, whether you agree that President Obama has not moved the country forward, (or whether you agree with me that Tony Romo has not succeeded with the Dallas Cowboys, in terms of his primary test), the ISSUE is clear: Who will BEST lead the team to SUCCESS and WINNING. Race is irrelevant, as it is irrevelant whether SOME people on both sides let race influence the way in which they look at the only real issue.
Segue to Rush Limbaugh and Donavan McNab, if you can remember back to Limbaugh's brief experience on Monday Night Football. Limbaugh was trying to make the same pont that I just tired to make above, and that this blog has long tiried to make: The edia in thi scountry, including the sports media, is RACIST, and seem to want to DEFNE people based on their RACE, arather than as INDIVIDUALS. Thus, Rush Limbaugh did this "essay" talking aobut how the sports media "wanted" balck quarterbacks to succeed, and that influenced the way they evaluated black quarterbacks like Donovan McNab.
This blog criticized LIMBAUGH (not Donovan McNab), even though I agreed with Limmbaugh that there was a tendency for the media, including the sports media, to be obsessed with race, and the color of a person's skin. Why did I criticize Limbaugh? First, I think the time when balck quarterbacks were immune from "criticism" has passed, and had already passed by the time Limbaugh made his comment. The "regular" mainstream media is trying to render Obama IMMUNE from criticism because he is blakc (lalthugh they are such HYPOCRITEES that they would never apply this same standard to Herman Cain). Even with regard to Obama, I think the peole in general are more than willing to go BEYOND RACE. It is only our leftist media, and other leftists, who really want to keep DEFINING people ased on the color of their skin. But the evolution in SPORTS has been especiallyl rapid, probably paving the way for Obama in the first place, and I really think Limbaugh wa off base in trying to make it a major sports "issue" that black quarbacks were often "overrated" by the sports media.
But that is not the main problem with what Limbaugh said. The main problem was that Limbauh made the SAME mistake that the media makes: showing an OBSESSSION about RACE with regard to INDIIDUALS. Did Donovan McNab deserve to be lumped in with othe black quarterbacks as a "black quarterback" being given a "pass" by the leftist media? I don't hink so. Donavan McNab deserved to be treated as an INDIVIDUAL. That means IGNORING HIS RACE. Dionovan McNab's performance have aything to do with his race? Of course not. SHOULD evaluatin of Donovan McNab's performance have anything to do with his race? Of ocurse not. lMore subtly, should evaluatin of Donovan McNab's actual performance have anything to do with whether SOME people are "overrating" him because of his race? Again, of course not. The evalution of Donovan McNab's performance shuld have been based ON THAT PERFOMANCE. It is the PERFORMANCE upon which the focuse needed to be, an dNOT upon McNab's RACE (even vicariusly by suggesting that OTHER people's opininns on hi s performance are supsect because THEY are concentrating on his race). You will notice that this is EXACTLY what the racist media is trying to do with Barack Obama, from the opposite ideological point of view: They are trying to say that the CRITICISMS of Barack Obama are pretty much worthless, becauwe they comme from people influenced in those ciriticisms because of his race (even if they don't argue their positin on that basis). Liimbaugh was saying that the SUPPORTING arguments for Donovan McNab were pretty much worthless, because they were influenced by cNab's race. Both positions are WRONG. The focus should be on the PERFORMANCE, and NOT the "motivation" of the peole criticizing that performance. If the supporters of Donovan McNab were RIGHT n their evaluatin, does it matter twhether they had a "bias"? Of coures not. And it the CRITICS of Presdient Obama re RIGHT, does it matter that SOME of those critics might have a tendency to let his race influence those criticims". Of coures it does not matter. The ISSUE remains the PEROFRMANCE (and likely performance for the future) .
Do the peole in the media knw that they are asserting the SAME osition that Rush Limbaugh asserted with regard to Donovan McNab, but simply from the opposite side? I doubt it. Does Rush Limbaugh realize that he once asserted the SAME position, jsut from the opposite ideological side, as the media is now asserting to PROTECT Barack Obama? I doubt it . Note that Limbaugh COULD make theSAME argument against Barack Obama NOW (and may have--actually certainly has); You can't turst SUPPORTERS of Barack Obama when they argue on hi sbehalf, because they are sayyng he is IMMUNE from criticism becasue of his race. Notice how this does not meet the actual ARGUMENTS in favor of Obama, jstu as attempts to paint criticims of Obama as "racist" do not meet the actual ARGUMENTS against Obama. Both assertions really represent attacks on the PEOLE either suporting or opposing Obama, and real engagement on the issues. If Obama realy should be elected agian, then his supporters should be willing to ENGAGE on tghe ISSUE of who will be the best President (IGNROING RACE). I oponents of Brack Obama can really show that Obama should not be elected Presdient again, then they should be happy to ENGAGE the ISSUE of how should be the next President (ignoring race). For the most part, I think opponents of Obama do this. That is why I ooposed Rush Limbaugh's defelctin away from PEROFRMANCE in the case of Donovan McNab, ecause it UNDRMINED this correct way of approaching evaluation of INIDIVIDUALS> What Limbaugh SHOULD havve doe is simply evaluate McNab's performance ON ITS MERITS, wihtuot mentioning race at all. It is ONLY if OTHERS brought up race a a "defense" of criticism of McNba, that Limbaugh shuld have "engaged" on that issue (which had nothing to do iwth the MERITS of McNab's performance).
"But, Skip, you are becoming obsessed with race yourself: maknig the same mistake that Limbaugh and the media have made." Not ture. As stated in the last sentence of the previuos paragraph, if the "defenders" of Donovan McNab had RAISED RACE as a "defense" to criticism against MNba, rather than defending him on the merists, THEN they deserve to have been CNDEMNED. If you review the article sposted on this blog carefully, I never say that supporters of Obama have no credibiity because they are giving him a lpass BECAUSE of his race. I am eprfectly willin gt engage any supporter of Obama ON THE INDIVIDUL MERITS--or lack of same--of Obama as Persdient. What I am NOT willin gto do is accept this PROPAGANDA that "critics" of Obama shuild be IGNORED because they are "secret racists" (see the previus article poseted o this blog). That is an ATTACK ON ME, and I resent it. I am not a Christian. I do not "turn the other cheek."
More importantly--more important than ridiculous and unfair attacks on anyone who dares to critixize, or pan to vote against, Obama--there is only ONE way to get BEYOND RACE in this country. We have to start IGNORING RACE, and evaluating individuals ON THEIR INDIVIDUAL MERITS. No, that does not mean that we must ignore actual discriminatin agaisnt individuals, or actual expressions of racism (as I do not ignore the media's racism). But we jsut have to get beyond the leftist media idea that this is a RACIST country, and that most of the opposiion to President Obama is based on "secret racism"--even if expressed in terms of non-racist argument on the issues. If I say that President Obama is ruining the ecoomy, or that his approach is socialistic (as I would say abuot anyone with Obama's ideology), is it an ANSWER t o thlat to say that I am realy a "secret racist" who should be ignored? Of coure not, although ur leftist media seems to think it is an answer.
No. I think MOST of the peole in this country are ready to get BEYOND RACE, and simply treat everyoine as if they are the same color. If you cal ed President Bush a "fascist", you may be subject to criticism for being disrespectuful and "name calling". You are NOT "racist". The same alies if ou call Presddient Obama a "fascist", a "socialist",or a communis. You may be subject to criticism for your language, but NOT because you are a "secret aracist". That i why I say it is the LEFTIST MEDIA, and other lftist, who are the PRIMARY racists left in this country. It is THEY who want to DEFINE almost everything, includng rights and responsibilities, in this country as beng based on race (or ethnicit;, or sex, or whether you are a homosexual, or whaever). It is the ordinary people, including the "rednecks", who are READY to get BEYOND RACE. Too bad our media is so adamant about refusing to let us ordinary people go in that directino.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight) . No revisions or editing, eihter, since I can't see well enough to do it Thus, you get no "cutting " and "honing". What you do get is correct analysis.