3/18/2008

Because I said so

I figure that what I'm about to say will automatically be construed as being racist, so I may as well make it easier for my accusers and include a picture of a black guy. After all, that's apparently all it takes.

The Gableman ad isn't racist. And I don't care how many times Mike Plaisted says it is.

Of course, there's no way in the world this will ever get resolved, because the Mike Plaisteds out there are hell-bent on claiming the ad is racist (without actually saying why, so we're left to assume the racism results merely from showing pictures of black people), and if you disagree with that then you must be a racist as well.

Oh...and a wing-nut. Can't forget the wing-nut part.

4 comments:

John Foust said...

OK, forget the racist charge. (Even though even Owen thought it had a hint of racism, like a marinade contains garlic.) Do you think Butler is flawed for having done his job as a defense attorney?

David Casper said...

Well, I'm not Owen. Nor do I get my marching orders from him, or even from the same place he does. So if he believes there's a hint of racism to the ad, I think he's just as wrong about it as anyone else. But I spoke to that charge because it's been the most vocal, and I think ridiculous, complaint about the ad.

As for doing his job as a defense attorney, no, I in no way think this is a flaw when considering him for Supreme Court. That's the failure of the ad.

John Foust said...

There are plenty of lefties who shout "racism" when they see ads that seem to be pressing the "white folks are scared by scary-looking black folks" button. I'm intrigued by the use of the word "shadowy."

Anonymous said...

Foust,

Please don't lie about my position. I explicitly said that the ad is not racist. You can ridicule my positions all you want, but at least have the integrity to get them right.

- Owen