We have entered the Theater of The Absurd.

“Welcome, Sir, would you prefer seating on the right or left?”

What’s the difference?

On the left you can view our play through a prism that brings clarity to the absurdity.”

And on the right?

“There, Sir, you are provided blinders so that you view the play solely through the cacophony emanating from the stage and cannot see the truth.”

Well, what’s the play about?

“Sir, it is a dialogue about racism.”

Is it for or against?

“Oh, everyone is completely against racism, Sir.”

Then where is the conflict?

“Respectfully, Sir, some of the players, called Republicans here, are  utterly opposed to racism and are thankful that it was totally abolished in the United States solely by the will of God…….and the Republican Party…and has not existed since.”

That’s pretty silly, Mr. Usher, I think the families of Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin and Eric Golden might disagree with that. And so would the long time voters now denied that right due to these draconian voter ID laws.

“Oh, but Sir, those players deny there is any racial motivation in those acts.”

But what about the protests about those deaths and laws and all the statistical evidence that puts numbers to how disproportionately blacks and other minorities are affected by these measure?

“Sir, the other group of players, known as liberals,  makes that same argument…and more.”

How does the first group of players respond to those arguments?

“Oh, Sir, they call out the second group of players for their blatant racism.”

How can that be? I assume the second group includes blacks who have been discriminated against.

“Oh, it does, Sir, but when they complain about that the first group calls them racists.”

Now I am confused.

“You see, Sir, they are racist because they complain about white police killing young black men, when it is a well known fact that young black men kill a lot more young black men.”

I guess that is bad but what about the voters?

“In that case, Sir, it is the fault of those who cannot get the proper ID because they chose to be born black or poor or both and simply have no ambition to become a Koch brother.”

Why on earth would anyone wish to be a Koch brother?

“So you can buy your own country, Sir.”

I suppose there are advantages to that. But since Republicans ended slavery why do these Republicans act in what many could interpret to be a racist manner?

Don’t forget, Sir, that the parties switched identities sometime in the 1960’s. The Democrats then who opposed the Civil Rights Act are now Republicans. The Republicans of Lincoln and even Teddy Roosevelt were more like the Democrats/liberals of today.”

Oh, now I get it, sort of like the old Cleveland Browns of Jim Brown now being the Baltimore Ravens with a completely new Browns team that has adopted the records of the old Browns. Just as the Ravens officially do not have claim to the old Browns records, the GOP of today should have no claim to the records of the much more liberal old Republicans who accomplished them.

“That is what our second group of players maintains, Sir”

Do these Republicans in the play make any other assertions?

Yes, Sir, they state very clearly that the American Civil War had absolutely nothing to do with slavery.”

Why that is utterly absurd!

“Precisely, Sir”

Excuse me, I’m going to ask for my money back. If I watch this play I am sure to be sick.


Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • Devildog  On November 13, 2014 at 11:01 PM


    • umoc193  On November 14, 2014 at 8:51 AM

      It is pathetic that conservatives try to accuse people defending civil rights of racism and still claim the Civil War wasn’t about slavery.

      I’m glad we finally totally agree on something.

  • Little_Minx  On November 14, 2014 at 3:36 PM

    Don’t forget back when Phyllis Schlafly and her ilk were trying to get textbooks to start calling the American Revolution a war for independence, because they didn’t want children to think that the word “revolution” could have a favorable connotation.

    • Devildog  On November 14, 2014 at 4:31 PM

      Thanks Minx for the reminder. I had “almost” forgotten. Well, actually, I don’t remember if I had almost forgotten or never heard it. Getting old!

      • Little_Minx  On November 14, 2014 at 11:39 PM

        There are other historical events that have similar euphemisms — “The War Between the States” (US Civil War), “The Troubles” re Northern Ireland. The Turks have a different name for what I was taught was their genocide against the Armenians a century ago. Anyone remember any other common euphemisms for historical events?

    • umoc193  On November 15, 2014 at 3:20 AM

      Minx, like DD I don’t recall Schlafly advocating for renaming the Revolution in textbooks or really anyone else either. But she is a member of the DAR so I have my doubts.

      But I understand your point whether I can agree with the specifics or not.

      I’m also doubtful Na Tribloidi, The Troubles, fits this category as a misleading euphemism. I think even the Irish view it as a shorthand description of a very complicated situation with many components.

      But this is minor quibbling

Please give me your thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: