I hate being a pessimist, but I’d rather be a realist than a fool. That being said, it’s time to learn about the Bradley Effect.

The Bradley Effect is where white voters poll as supporting a non-white candidate (or as undecided) all the way up to the election, but when it comes time to actually vote they go for the white guy. It’s a sociology thing; they want to be the progressive guy in public but when protected by anonymity the racism shows itself.

Make it part of your vocabulary; the Bradley Effect might just screw this country for another four years.

[ The Bradley Effect | wikipedia.org ]

If my name were Gerald instead of Geraldine I wouldn’t be here today (as candidate for VP) — Geraldine Ferarro

I can’t stand when people are too loose with the racism/sexism labels. So many seem to think that the prerequisites are as follows:

1. The comment is negative.
2. Race or sex is mentioned.

So if you happen to say anything negative about someone, and race is anywhere to be found in the content of the comment, the person who said it must be a racist. Bullshit. That’s exactly the type of overly sensitive stupidity that’s hurting this country.

Here’s what Geraldine Ferarro said about Obama:

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

All Ferarro is saying is that many in the country are very excited about the possibility of having a black man in the white house, and Obama is benefitting from that because he’s not actually qualified to be where he is. That’s her opinion, and it’s an opinion that I disagree with as an Obama supporter, but it’s not racist.

Let’s remember Ms. Ferarro has openly said on many occasions that she would not have been a vice presidential candidate were she not a woman.

Sexist, right? Oh, wait…she said it, and she’s damn sure not a sexist. She’s simply pointing out that there is a huge amount of emotional support for Obama based on race, just as there was for her based on her gender. That’s totally different from saying someone is or is not qualified BECAUSE of their race or gender.

Can’t you people see the difference?

Question for you: would Hillary Clinton be where she is today, competing for the White House, if she were not a woman? I’d say no. I’d say she’s far too blemished to have survived this far if she didn’t have that progressive, emotional movement behind her.

Ferarro would agree, I’m sure. And it’s not sexist, so stop applying a double standard. The people accusing Ferarro of racism should be ashamed of themselves, and they should be pressured to apologize.:

I’ve talked about this a number of times. Now here’s some support from Harvard.

IT HAS BECOME increasingly popular to speak of racial and ethnic diversity as a civic strength. From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger.

But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam — famous for “Bowling Alone,” his 2000 book on declining civic engagement — has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogeneous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings. — Boston Globe

Diversity should always be an element of any healthy society, but it should be considered a tool for strengthening the whole, not a goal in and of itself.

We have to start making decisions in this country that benefit it — as a unit — in the long-term. This means, first and foremost, cultivating a united and cohesive population. What we’re doing instead is creating a series of countries within our own.

This study reinforces the fact that the groups we’re allowing in tend not to like each other. It constitutes guaranteed failure. If we are to succeed in this country we have to flirt with the devil; nationalism is a necessary evil in any country that wishes to survive.

We have to regroup and become one again before it’s too late.:

Racism means many things to many people. Oxford says it’s “the belief that there are characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to each race”. That’s a pretty broad definition, and arguably isn’t negative in and of itself.

The common use of the word is far more malicious and, in my opinion, ill-informed. Most people use the word to mean “any sort of behavior or view that reflects negatively on a race other than their own.” Both of those definitions are incorrect, in my opinion. Here’s my view:

True racism is when a person has negative feelings toward someone based on race alone. When person A has all of the characteristics that person B normally accepts as constituting a “decent” person (education, dress, speech, attitude, etc.), but they reject them anyway because of their race, that makes them a racist.

Too often this is confused with behavior-based judgment, and this misunderstanding harms society greatly. When a group of 15 black men walk into a mall dressed as gangsta-rappers — shouting, laughing, and ogling every woman that passes by — the hate that is directed at them is based on their behavior, not their race.

This is in stark contrast to the stereotypical white father who won’t let his daughter marry a black guy from a great family who just got his MBA from Harvard. That’s racism. And until we as a society can openly acknowledge and discuss this distinction we’re doomed to continue in our fear-based silence that does nothing but harm us.: