Three Blind Mice Should Make No Comment (Please)

There was certain inevitability to the dialogue in the wake of the Treyvon Martin case involving what has been termed 'white on black' murder (in spite of the fact that George Zimmerman might also be considered Hispanic, since one of his parents is).  In the weeks that have followed since Zimmerman was found innocent of the charge of second degree murder, we have unfortunately had instead a number of examples of 'black on white' murders brought to our attention, and a constant stream of vitriolic commentary wondering why 2013's Three Blind Mice of Bigotry have failed to find a voice with which to speak out with the same never-ending stream of divisiveness that they did since the tragedy of young Mr. Martin's death.

Fortunately or unfortunately for those focused on retribution in this country, and depending on which bit of nonsense you were intent on promoting, the nation (and the rest of the world) has continued on it merry and murderous path to provide all of the examples of Humanity's worst behavior that anyone could possibly need.  Just in the last week, two of these 'black on white' murders apparently occurred when an 88 year-old WWII veteran named Delbert Belton was beaten to death in Spokane, WA; and a college baseball player named Christopher Lane was shot to death while jogging in Oklahoma.  These are just two of far too many murders that occurred in the US during that period in various racial combinations.  There are unfortunately, hundreds of examples of such crimes every week and thousands of examples every year, with families left to mourn loved ones whose lives have been tragically cut short by the misdeeds of others.  There's no real surprise in these statistics, but there is a sadness in knowing that it's been going on since Cain killed Able.

Regardless of the sentimental pronouncements by the left and right however, these deaths are not a clarion call for gun control, a product of the relaxation of marijuana laws, or (as our three undiscerning agent provocateurs of race baiting would have us believe) a continuing acknowledgement of right wing racism in this country.  After all, hundreds of thousands are dying in Syria for reasons that have nothing to do with race, car bombs explode and suicide bombers continue to ply their trade in events that have nothing to do with the drug cartels, and new mass graves continued to be discovered around the world in places that these three sightless test lab animals of discrimination have never spoken of.  

There are some however, who hold these three in contempt for the dearth of public statement on some of these recent acts, but I'm not one of them.  Oh don't get me wrong, there are strong feelings of contempt stirring in my bosom; but they're reserved for most of the pronouncements these three make and the policies they espouse, not their silence.  In fact I welcome it.  

The Reverend Al Sharpton, in spite of having a MSNBC pulpit five days a week, has remained curiously (and blessedly) silent in recent days.  Then again, Mr. Sharpton is no longer a young man, and perhaps he's a bit worn out from carrying that racial chip on his shoulder for so long.  His reputation after all, has only suffered over the years by the verbal ejections from his pie hole, going back as far as 1987 and the spotlight he brought to the case of Tawana Brawley.  His random and unreliable recitations since may have gained him some questionable status within his community over the years, but they've left him today with nothing to show for his efforts but some shiny suits and the dubious reward of a prime time venue on a failing network.  I'm afraid that the best that can be said about the Reverend Al these days is that the factual basis of his offerings are as anorexic as his appearance  He helps his cause most by refusing to contribute to the discussion.

Now the other Reverend, Jesse Jackson, finally did get around to issuing a statement on the Oklahoma shooting, but it was one so anemic that we can only assume that the Reverend was off his game during a week that saw members of his immediate family packed off to serve in a way that many other recent Illinois office holders have before them ... in jail.  In such banal statements however, the Reverend Jackson may have shown far more wisdom than one would normally give him credit for.  I would never suggest that in light of this family situation, the Reverend's time and attention might better be focused on his own problems (and bookkeeping); and I'm sure that his lack of attention simply means he's far too explaining the facts of life (and law) to his grandkids.  Besides, unlike most of his causes, the current ones present no opportunity for the kind of camera time used for fund raising, nor a corporation that might be held hostage for a healthy 'donation'.  I suspect that the Reverend, far more savvy than his MSNBC religious counterpart, will see the value of discretion and continue to lay low while public opinion swings away from his cause.

As for the President, his spokesman evidently had not been watching the television news (where the White House evidently gets all its information), and therefore was unable comment when recently queried.  Having returned from vacation, the Commander-in-Chief himself was instead busy touring some of the nation's centers of higher education, subtly threatening those institutions with a form of government scrutiny normally only reserved for oil and pharmaceutical companies.  Hinting vaguely at price controls while promoting the value of borrowing money from the government to pay the inflated costs for a largely valueless education in a stagnant economy; he likewise had nothing to say on these recent events.  With luck and good advice, I suspect that such silence will largely continue.  

The President after all, is pretty darn busy these days.   After getting up, it's time to draw (or erase) another red line to lead from behind while watching the ongoing slaughter occurring in Syria; all while discussing which side of the Egyptian 'Arab Summer' he's going piss off next (or is it more?).  Then it's time to issue a morning statement blaming the Republicans for wasting the country's time with hearings over the phony scandals in the IRS, the NSA, and the DOJ whose revelations continue to make his Administration look as crooked as (if not more so) than the one in Chicago that his former adviser Rahm Emmanuel runs.  Later he can take a short break from cover ups and political castigation to circumvent Congress by issuing a few regulatory changes, unconstitutionally delay the implementation of a law or two, and encroach on the separation of powers; but before you know it, it's time for lunch.  Then it's back to a busy afternoon of insulting his political opponents by accusing them of things they might do (but haven't yet), followed by issuing another statement decrying their unwillingness to work with (give in to) the guy who just insulted them without a fight on any issue on which he expresses an opinion (not a plan, just an opinion).   The next thing you know, it's time for dinner.  If there's not a taxpayer-funded awards ceremony or concert going on that evening that sequestration hasn't interfered with, there might be time to squeeze in a hard-hitting interview on getting a new puppy with Jim Colbert or Jimmy Fallon (I sometimes get those two mixed up); or maybe with some luck, some 'night putting' before bed. 

But listen, we're far better off if these three carriers of racial 'hoof in mouth' disease steer clear of pronouncements on such events.  Let's be honest, their inability to cast an objective light on the subject would not add to anything meaningful to the national dialogue.  Their normal divisiveness might in fact further inflame already incendiary tempers, rather than quiet them.  As for what the two Reverends might want to believe about their so-called exalted standings in the community where such discussions are involved, the need for their proselytizing is dubious at best and toxic at worst.  And as for the President, he could stand to learn a lesson in the value of leaving local affairs to the local leaders and saving his Solomon-like wisdom for what appears to be a wholly inadequate foreign policy.  

Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) once said, "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."   My advice to our three rodent racial dividers would therefore be that when asked, they should stick to a consistent message:  

"No Comment!"

No We Can't Talk About Race

Update:

A modified version of this post (edited for length) has been picked up and reprinted in the August 1st edition of the:

It used to be that there were only two subjects that you were told you shouldn't discuss in public, politics and religion.  And while these two may yet remain on the forbidden list in polite society, we can certainly add a third ... race.   Today it seems, some aren't allowed to talk about race anywhere, while others can talk about nothing else. It has probably always been so, but it seems that while over the years the situation between races improves, the potential to hold a rational conversation on the subject gets no closer than it has on the other two banned subjects.  As someone fascinated with words however, it's interesting to note how much these three in particular have in common:

• Such 'discussions' these days are not so much about achieving consensus (or even hoping to) as much as they are contentious debates in which competing sides attempt to win debating points.
• Those who speak the loudest or interrupt the most are often held to be the most persuasive in such discussions, regardless of the truthfulness or effectiveness of their arguments.
• There are 'trigger words' that dare not be spoken in all three, lest any rational discussion break down (far earlier than would otherwise happen).  
• There are a far too people who appear to make their living off of one subject or the other (and in some cases, more than one).
• Facts and statistics are not as important as feelings and emotions in such discussions; and as such, the former are often subject to multiple interpretation through the window of the latter.

Politicians can't talk about race, but that's because they can't seem to talk about anything these days.  There's something about turning a camera or a microphone on in front of a politician today that creates an electronically generated field that disrupts rationality and enhances party politics instead.  Race, as a consequence, becomes little more than another partisan issue in which the other party's policies (past or present) become not only the issue, but the overriding cause.  And since today's politicians are always fundraising and running for office, any subject worthy of a recorded sound-bite must be one met with carefully prepared rhetoric designed to enhance the officeholder and his or her party, denigrate opponents, and encourage contributions regardless of its relevance.  (In other words, it has to be full of double-speak and bullshit.)

The Media can't talk about race because it's not a subject that lends itself to the six or twenty minute segment (six on TV, twenty on radio).  The current mainstream media is after all a business enterprise built around the interruptions of its commercials.  Any subject being covered by the media must therefore be capable of being diced up into convenient segments in order to accommodate this monetary necessity.  While this might work for a birth in the British Royal Family, the opening of the State Fair, or the latest Lindsay Lohan arrest, it's not a format that lends itself to anything resembling weighty discussion on so serious a subject.  Besides, most of what passes for punditry in the mainstream media has already divided itself into ideological or political camps that must be zealously promoted and defended in order to serve the true purpose of the medium ... ratings.

Churches can't talk about race because they have their own axes to grind.  Religion has enough a problem getting past the normal dichotomy between enforcing top-down 'Official Religious Doctrine' and the dealing with the local policy interpretations of its various ministries on a multi-national basis.  Throw in the flaws of human nature and personal idiosyncrasies of those standing behind what passes for a pulpit and you end up with a confusing inconsistency that most true believers find easier to ignore.  Besides, Churches survive through the willing contributions of their congregations.  Even with the ability to offer veiled threats of eternal damnation, they must at least to some extent follow the same rules used by politicians and the media, lest they risk the anger of their audience / contributors. 

The general public can't talk about race because they're scared to death of it.  In today's Twitter connected, Facebook addicted, politically correct society, an incorrect public pronouncement on such a subject could well make one an unemployable social pariah, soon abandoned by even friends and family electronically and otherwise.  (Who knows, writing this may have cooked my own goose.)  Life moves damned fast these days and there's little time (and often less interest) in doing proper research on anything that doesn't help you pay the bills every month.  Accepting this as the world we live in, grown lazy from a lack of exercise in free will, and unable to easily discover source material not already tainted with the prejudices of politics, media, and organized religion; far too many happily accept the instant gratification of the pre-packaged answers supplied without question.  

Besides, discussions of race are generational; and such conversations, like the species, continue to evolve (well, in most cases anyway).  Those old enough to remember real historic discrimination are fewer every day.  For the rest of us, the differences which one generation cannot get beyond are far less apparent to their offspring, and all but invisible (if not inconsequential) to succeeding ones.  Any multi-generational discussion therefore becomes difficult (if not impossible), since there is no singular frame of reference for them to use.

Oh I know that we would like to talk about race, that we should talk about it, and that somehow we have to keep on trying to do so; but it's unlikely today that any conversation that we begin will end up the one that we started with, the one that we want, or the one we should have.