I need a break today to take care of some pressing matters, so I am reprinting a post from Happening Here. Jan Adams (as many elderbloggers are) is doing excellent work at her blog about the election campaign, ruminating on it, reporting her efforts to get out the vote and passing on good stuff she finds.
Several recent polls suggest that racial prejudice will play a good-sized roll in the results of the November election. That's undoubtedly not news to anyone and although it is hard to gauge responses to survey questions about race, they offer some numbers. CNN has an overview.
And here is Jan’s post on the subtlety of racism in the campaign which she titled, "How Racism Works (campaign edition)":
Someone I don't know named Kelvin LaFond has written a letter to the editor of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that describes how racism works in the Presidential election with admirable brevity. I don't know whether that newspaper will/did print it, but I can reproduce it here [minor edits for clarity].
What if John McCain were a former president of the Harvard Law Review? What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class?
What if McCain were still married to the first woman he said "I do" to?
What if Obama were the candidate who left his first wife after she no longer measured up to his standards?
What if Michelle Obama were a wife who not only became addicted to pain killers, but acquired them illegally through her charitable organization?
What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard?
What if Obama were a member of the "Keating 5"?
What if McCain was a charismatic, eloquent speaker?
If these questions reflected reality, do you really believe the election numbers would be as close as they are?
This is what racism does.
It covers up, rationalizes and minimizes positive qualities in one candidate and emphasizes negative qualities in another when there is a color difference.
Quickie From Ronni on a Different Topic: At the Senate Banking Committee bailout hearings yesterday, Treasury chief Henry Paulson said the reason he objects to including a provision to limit executive compensation and golden parachutes is that it "would discourage corporations from participating."
If that's all it would take to prevent them from accepting taxpayer money for their bailout, doesn’t it mean they don’t need the money? Just asking...
[At The Elder Storytelling Place today, Nancy Leitz recounts an embarrassing moment in Clang, Clang, Clang Went the Trolley.]