Randy Cassingham's Blog

I was floored this week by a note from Ken in New Jersey: "I find the publication (and your comments) MAGNIFICENT; can't say better than that. Your stuff is very thought provoking, your logic consistent (and, in my opinion, 'right on'), your writing impeccable, and your humor is a delightful extravaganza. I read every issue more than once, and set aside time just for that reading. It is a great relaxation and recreation to explore, think, shake my head in disbelief, laugh, sometimes pause to re-read the closing comments, and just simply enjoy. I also enjoy the controversies you occasionally provoke; what fun!!!"

Incredibly nice, but I got a lot more anger after last week's issue than praise due to this story:

Brad in Pennsylvania said last week's "issue was interesting to me in that your taglines included a biblical quote and a slam against a black Democrat. I know, more times than not, you are accused of being anti-Christian and very liberal (or anti-Bush or anti-Republican). I have to admit that, at times, I have wondered myself about that after reading some of your comments but I have never been able to come to that conclusion because you pretty much skewer anything stupid and because there is no way to understand someone's true beliefs because of a couple of comments made in reaction to a story. Regardless, you will, undoubtedly receive much mail now accusing you of being a Christian and a racist, Democrat hater. Can't win, huh?" Correct, Brad. Read on.

Paul in Maryland was the most articulate of the anti crowd: "Being a fairly new subscriber, I was disturbed by the ad hominem tag line at the end of the story 'Leading by Example'. You infer that Democrats are willing to excuse racism and insensitivity from those apparently aligned with us. We are not. But as much as I resent the antagonist's comments, I also resent your inference that I excuse them. As your publication gets bigger, there are more folks, opinions, and feelings that you'll have to account for. [I'm] one step closer to 'unsubscribe'."

No, Paul, I don't "have to account for" the "opinions and feelings" of 122,000 people -- or more, as True continues to grow. True isn't about making everyone agree with me, it's about two things: entertainment, and making people think. If I can do both in a single story, great! But that's not a requirement. Yes, the story was controversial; while it was meant to make people think, I also think it is, in its way, entertaining -- consider Ken's letter above: "I also enjoy the controversies you occasionally provoke; what fun!!!" As for my "inference that you excuse" Rep. Brown's outrageous remarks, you didn't do much to condemn her. Do you condemn her? Few in the media did, before me or after. But thoughtful subscribers did, after reading about it in True. Read on.

Tracy in Florida: "As a resident of Jacksonville, Florida, I was very appalled to read the comments made by Corrine Brown. Since Ms. Brown is supposed to be representing ALL of her constituents, I wonder if the white constituents all look the same to her as well? Had these remarks been made by a white politician, that politician would have been embroiled in a huge scandal which would have probably resulted in that politician's resignation. I am certain that the white constituents are angry over the comments, but I wonder what the minority constituents think about it. For anybody who truly believes in the concept of racial equality, the remarks made by Ms. Brown were an insult. I believe that Ms. Brown should step down and let someone who cares about the needs of all the constituents take the helm. The people of Florida need to show that racism is unacceptable from any politician, regardless of his or her race, and I just hope that Ms. Brown does not get away with her actions just because she is black."

Now that's taking a stand. Amber in Massachusetts: "Thank you for the insight into my own blindness. I'm afraid I have a tendency to angelicize all in my party, as I think many do, and it's good to be brought back to Earth sometimes that people, even Democrats, can be complete racist morons." And that's taking a stand.

Craig in Kentucky was one of several who anticipated Paul and others who wrote: "Thank you for having the courage to point out that racism is given a free pass when committed by some in our society. After all, Corrine Brown can say 'you all look alike' and Hillary Clinton can say that Ghandi owns a gas station in St. Louis, and no one in the media says a word. You had the courage to comment on the blatant hypocrisy. I feel sorry for the letters I assume are heading your way, calling you racist bigoted rich white Republican man."

Yes, I'm proud to be one of the few to take a stand, and I won't be backing down. You can say "it's different" when Rep. Brown shows herself as a "racist moron", to use Amber's phrase. But it's not different. Racism is wrong no matter who the racist is, and she should step down -- just like any white racist moron would be forced to do.

Update: More Letters

Michael in California: "Before I give you my two cents worth, let me say this: I'm trying to identify myself, but don't know if I'm Black, African-American (Charlize Theron is African-American too, as is my Jewish neighbor) or a Negro. I've been called all of those and other things, and I'm not sure which is politically correct this week. Living in southern California my entire life just makes me American, as far as I'm concerned. It's nice to know that your readers are intelligent enough to recognize racism in whatever form it appears and idiots in whatever forms they appear. Ms. Brown is an idiot, and doesn't even speak for her constituents, let alone the Black population. No one is totally useless; anyone can serve as a bad example."

You know what I like best about your attitude, Michael? You don't identify yourself as "Black", "African-American", or whatever other hyphenate, but rather simply as "American". That's what I call myself; I also can choose from Irish-American (my paternal grandmother's side), English-American (paternal grandfather), Danish-American (maternal grandfather) or Norweigan-American (maternal grandmother). My genetic background is mildly interesting -- but only to me -- so when forced to apply a label other than "person" I choose to simply call myself what I really feel I am: American, plain and simple. My guess is that this country will never be truly color-blind as long as "minorities" are still working to set themselves apart as different!

Shane in Australia: I'd suggest Paul from Maryland crawl back under his rock! If you don't condemn racism, then you support it. Politicians of any colour, faith or following are supposed to be role models to their own society. Might explain why the world is going down the toilet."

Andy in South Carolina: "Heaven help us if Paul in Maryland was the 'most articulate' of the bunch opposing your comments. First, he says he was disturbed by your 'ad hominem tag line,' but apparently doesn't know what the term means. Your tag line read 'Racism: an appalling slur on humanity, unless committed by a black Democratic politician.' Rather than accuse her of being a racist, you stated that what she said was an example of racism. Such is not ad hominem, not name calling. The only name calling you engaged in was to call her black, Democratic, and a politician. Hmmm, maybe an apology is in order, Randy. I would never let someone get away with calling me either Democratic or a politician. Also, the guy needs to learn the difference between inference and implication. 'You infer that Democrats are willing to excuse racism...,' followed by 'I also resent your inference that I excuse them.' Good Lord! Is this gentleman the best that the Dems have to offer?"

Quite a few people wrote about him missing the difference between infer and imply. But yes: he was indeed the most articulate of the several complainers at that time. A more articulate one is below.

Michael in MSNland: "Can I use your tagline 'Racism: an appalling slur on humanity, unless committed by a black Democratic politician.' on a bumper sticker?

Yes, if you send me a couple!

Jess in North Carolina: After reading several opinions from your subscribers on Ms Brown's remark (as asinine as it was), I pose a question to you: is she not entitled to her own opinion, or has free speech been abolished??"

I consider this a silly question, but I'll answer it anyway. No one is arguing that she shouldn't be able to say what she thinks. That, indeed, is a right. It is also a right for others to react to her opinion; even you call it "asinine", which is your opinion of her remark. If Ms Brown were a grocery clerk, this would not be international news; rather, she is an elected representative of the people; her job is to (key word here!) represent the people of her district and, to a lesser extent, the people of this country. Does her "asinine" remark represent your opinion? Or does it offend your sensibility and beliefs? If the latter, it's not just a right but many would consider it a responsibility to speak out against her blatant racism and ensure that others know you repudiate the remarks she made in the name of the people of the United States. That's why the only honorable thing for her to do is resign.

Melanie in Oregon: "Like so many others, I enjoy your stories each week, and always know they will give me a different perspective to think about. The comments that you published concerning the Corrine Brown story gave me pause. It seems that many people were upset at the verbiage she used, but no one seemed to mind that Assistant Secretary of State Roger Noriega 'deeply resented being called a racist and branded a white man.' I can see why he would resent being called a racist (I don't know what policies he supports, so therefore have no clue as to whether he could be considered racist in that regard or not), but the term 'branded' a white man doesn't exactly speak equality to me either. It's OK to be sensitive to every ethnic background in the U.S., but not Caucasian?? If we're all to be equal, then that should also include 'white' men and women. There can be as much discrimination toward people of Caucasian descent, but no one seems to mind the slurs that can be thrown their way. It's time, in my opinion, that slurs against any ethnic group be [considered] unacceptable. Perhaps Assistant Secretary of State Noriega needs to check his own feelings on the subject. They might not be as righteous and pure as he has always believed."

Good point. If a white or (say) Latino was outraged at being "branded a Black man," surely he would be hounded with questions like "What's wrong with being black, dude?!" Shame on Mr. Noriega!

Alison in Australia: "I do not think you are anti-anything other than stupidity and possibly hypocrisy. It seems that there are certain keywords you are never supposed to mention, for example 'black' or 'Christian', in anything other than a totally positive light or some people will immediately and without any real thought accuse you of being racist or anti-religion. I always thought that black people and Christian people were prone to stupidity and hypocrisy just like white non-Christian people. Yet when you write about white non-religious people doing ridiculous things you don't seem to come under attack for doing so."

Another good point. And yes, I've had my share of people upset for calling for true religious freedom, too.

Luis in B.C., Canada: "We can infer from [your complaint letters] that there is a sizeable portion of the population that chooses not to read anything not in accord with their beliefs. Everything they read is geared towards reinforcing what they already know or believe! Sounds to me like a population ripe for manipulation. Or, another way to look at this is: how is this any different from the way true believers from other cultures think? I'm sure Islamic terrorists choose not to read anything that might make them think, either. It's funny how those who had been oppressed can continue to apply a different standard in their behavior despite the overwhelming equalization measures permeating society that would appear to have addressed the issue, or at least shown good faith in attempting to. Corrine Brown can whine about white men in all good conscience; women can continue to engage jokingly in male bashing, yet both are likely strong proponents of political correctness, which, if applied equally, would discourage such behavior. In an industry such as yours that depends on dumb people doing stupid things, you certainly need not worry about job security. Thanks for the entertainment and the things to think about. I'll continue reading even if I find something I disagree with you about."

Steven in Australia: "I can't believe that you, and so many of your readers, are taking Rep. Brown as racist for these comments. Are people incapable of recognising metaphoric speech when they hear or read it? Personally, I think Brown has hit the nail right on the head. Powell and Rice might have brown skin, but they have well and truly signed up on the side of conservative white men from the East coast. That is their right, of course. Just because Powell and Rice are members of an oppressed minority doesn't make them nice people, and it certainly doesn't mean they have to work towards political policies that are good for that oppressed minority. But when you work for a government that makes political decisions that are for the benefit of conservative whites and does little or nothing for blacks, then you have to expect to be called racist, and shame on you for suggesting that Powell and Rice's brown skins mean that they could not possibly enact policies that hurt blacks. Whites have almost all the power in the Western world, and so being 'white' is more a matter of being one of the powerful who act against the powerless than skin colour. American blacks understand this: you might remember the term of abuse 'oreo' for a person who is black on the outside but white on the inside."

Finally, someone with an "anti" position more articulate than Paul! But I've seen no evidence that Ms Brown was speaking metaphorically; I sure didn't take it that way, and neither do the vast majority of my readers -- of any race. Surely if the situation were reversed, a white politican who said something like that wouldn't be excused as "speaking metaphorically". But that aside, you seem to be saying that one cannot both be black and work in the system. Please! You mean only whites can work toward making a color-blind society? Blacks can only be black if they only work for the improvement of black people, ignoring everyone else? Rev. King had an honorable "dream" -- that all people are created equal, that his children will be judged by their character, not the color of their skin. That's a job for everyone, not just white people -- or just black people.

To say that the government works only for white people is ridiculous -- and ignores massive strides away from our country's institutionalized racism of the past. Clearly (obviously, considering the story that started this!) we are not 100% of the way toward equality yet, but one has to remember that the key word in "reverse racism" is not "reverse", it's "racism". I think all racism is repugnant, and the sooner we get that through everyone's head, the sooner we get to a truly equal society. Ms Brown's attitude pushes that day further away.

C.A. in South Africa: "With interest I read all the comments about racism in America. I can not believe that a country that is 'supposed' to be the super power, that stands for global justice and equality, free and fair political tolerance, and yet can still be so ignorant. Shame on them who cries wolf whilst profiteering on the spoils of the wolf. How many years has it been that 'segregation' has been abolished in USA in comparison to South Africa? I live in South Africa. I can still hold my head up high and say 'I am proud to be a South African'. We have achieved what a lot of other countries could not do. I have no disillusion of where I came from, our history or our future, and I have one thing to say to all of the men and woman who still live in the draconian era: You are all hypocrites. Shame on them who shouts 'RACIST' whilst sitting in the seats of directorships of companies whom practices affirmative action. Before you shout 'RACIST', look at yourself!"