I know that they're not around… But, I must say that I'm a bit confused [View all]

[MrScorpio]

I'm speaking about the people who objected to the President's remark, about when he said that if he had a son, his son would look like Trayvon.

So, why is that so objectionable?

Do they think that any hypothetical son of our current president would look like Brad Pitt or even a young George Takai?

Or maybe they think that he should have said that his imaginary son would look like Robert Pattinson, or perhaps Daniel Dae Kim?

Maybe they're saying that a black president has no right to internalize the tragic death of a young, black man… A death that's on the minds of so many other Americans of every race, creed, gender and political stripe?

What are they really saying here?

I won't speculate on their behalf… But I will say that it would be refreshing for them to stop hiding behind fuzzy code words and implied prejudices and say in plain language, what and who they believe our president and Commander in Chief to be… Indeed, it would.

If they can imply various ideas to a public audience, then they can say it plainly for all to see. It helps no one to hide.

I classify instances like this as virtual Rorschach tests… Different people observe certain circumstances or other people and, based upon whatever beliefs that they hold, provide a description on what or who they think they're seeing.

The answers can be somewhat puzzling at times. But taking in considerations about conditioning, morals, beliefs, fears, likes and dislikes, et alii, the meaning of those answers can be diagnosed qualitatively and quantifiably.

If we're talking about politicians, it would pretty damn refreshing for one to actually say what they mean and mean what they say.

But then again, if their did that, they wouldn't be politicians, now would they?