Altered mural fuels racial debate in Prescott, Arizona

Just when you thought the folks in Arizona couldn't get any nuttier, something new comes along. This time some people are offended because a group of kids painted on a local mural are "too dark."

The debate to remove the mural was spearheaded by, you guessed it, a local politician.

On his talk show on KYCA-AM (1490) in Prescott, City Councilman Steve Blair complained because he thought the the most prominent child in the painting was African-American.

"To depict the biggest picture on the building as a Black person," says Blair. "I would have to ask the question: Why?"

Umm, why not? Something wrong with dark-skinned black kids?

Blair has since lost his radio gig. But not before he digs an even bigger grave, blaming the artists themselves for creating racial controversy where none existed before.

"Personally, I think it's pathetic," Blair whines. "You have changed the ambiance of that building to excite some kind of diversity power struggle that doesn't exist in Prescott, Arizona. And I'm ashamed of that."

Really now? Somehow Blair would have us think that painting a dark-skin child on an Arizona mural so insults his sensibilities that it destroys the "ambiance" of his community? How dare be reminded that people come in a wealth of colors, shapes and sizes?

The faces are drawn from photos of actual students in a local elementary school. The child in question is Mexican American.

What is it, exactly, about skin color that makes some people so bananas? I remember not to long ago the Sphinx was being discussed on a popular blog. A forensic scientist was analyzing the jut of the jaw line and some other features of that famous treasure and claimed it likely depicted someone of Sub-Saharan African decent. From the hateful comments that followed his observations, you would have thought he was hurling epitaphs, instead of making a scientific observation.

At least the school board has come to its senses. It now admits making a mistake, and wants the artist to continue with his original vision, without "lightening" the skin color of the child in the picture.

While they're at it, someone should tell Mario, child on the mural whose dark skin first sparked the controversy, that he's a beautiful child -- the stuff great paintings are made of.

Miller Valley School District officials admit their mistake.

ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnO6DJ8RqIE


Here's More:

From the Arizona Central:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/06/04/20100604arizona-mural-sparks-racial-debate.html

Altered mural fuels racial debate in Prescott



From AOL News: http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/principal-asks-artists-to-lighten-faces-of-children-in-arizona-school-mural/19504774

Principal Asks Artists to Lighten Faces of Children in Arizona School Mural

Reflections on Michael Steele's Press Conference

See: Steele says time to focus on future. From the Boston Globe

Today, while talking on the phone to a friend, I stumbled on Michael Steele's press conference as it aired on CNN. I was infuriated, as so often the far right-winged Republican rhetoric tends to send me these days.

Sadly Michael use to be his own person. But after his oh-so-public Rush Limbaugh smack-down, he has lost his own voice. And today, it was even more obvious that Rush, the newly throned party King as annointed by Dick Cheney, has Steele on a very short lead. No wonder rational Republicans, like Arlen Specter, (and Colin Powell, according to Cheney) are fleeing the party.

First let me say I am so very disappointed that the far-right-winged arm of Republican party continues to pit one person of color against another. Next, we can be sure to look for Bobby Jindal --coming soon to a press conference near you. Their tactics are so transparent, and I like most Americans feel it's really getting old.

Getting back to Steele's press conference. In it he claims: "the era of apology for Republican mistakes of the past is officially over." How convenient. Let's just forget about an illegal war and war crimes seemingly commited by the Bush administration along with it. Let's forget about the multi-billion dollar deficit.

How about this: the next time a criminal goes on a robbery spree, selling all the loot and covering up his tracks, he just washes his hands, sits back and decides to be done with the past and simply move forward. He can indeed move forward, but not before paying for the crimes of the past.

Steele then dares call the Obama first 100 days a reigh of "error." As if launching an entire war search for non-existant 'weapons of mass destruction' and even more non-existant links to al-Queda -- making the entire world less safe in the process -- wasn't enough.

"American needs us now more than ever," he quips. Why?

Steele says that Republican ideas are "being delivered to Washington in a tea bag." Ideas like having Texas succeed from the union? Like pitting Steele, a black man, against the President, another black man, while reducing Steele to simply becoming the public mouthpiece of Rush Limbaugh?

"We continue to borrow money we do not have," he ascerts. You mean like the 720 billion spent waging the Iraq war? Or like squandering the budget surpus left to us by the Clinton administration?

But most appalling was Steele's use of the phrase speaking truth to power. Exactly where was the truth in Steele's speech?

Let's face it. If there was any truth to Steele's ascertions, he would have preferenced his analogies this way:

Because of the Republicans we have: "spen(t) our country into the abyss,"

Because of the Republicans we have: "borrow(ed) money we don't have"

Because of the Republicans we were: forced to "usher in the most massive expansion of federal government control in the history of our Republic."

How about this, Steele. Let's stop this revisionist history once and for all. Go back to navel gazing. That was far more productive and much less scary.

The Politics of Race

I was watching Chris Mathews last night on CNN's Hardball. Chris was expressing his relief that neither Barack Obama nor John McCain have brought race into the election. According to Matthews, the fact that John McCain refuses to use Reverend Wright as part of his smear campaign against Obama, Mathews believes race hasn't been a factor. He's wrong.

When a recent New York Times editorial accused the McCain camp of racism, Mathews scoffed. But the fact is, racism has run ramphant in this election. It was apparent during the debates. It's a prominent thread running through many of McCain's ads. It has even played a role in, how news coverage is interpreted and disseminated.

Take the issue of experience. McCain's attacks against Obama challenge his alleged "inexperience." Obama served in the Illinois senate for eight years (1996-2004) before becoming a U.S. senator in 2005. That's twelve years....which is more actual legislative experience than Hillary Clinton, who became a U.S senator in 2001, but had no legislative experience before that. How much more experience does he need?

Bush only served eight years, or two terms as Governor before becoming president. Was he called "naive" when he first ran for president? Labeled "inexperienced?"

And what exactly are we talking about? Experience with what? Foreign policy? If that's the gauge then no first-term U.S. president for the past 32 years, save one, has had "experience" before they were elected.

Yet in debate after debate McCain looked down his nose at Obama's lack of "experience." Time and time again he rolled his eyes with disdain at what he called Barack's naiveté. The charge has nary been challenged by the press, who repeat the ridiculous assertion as if it were a given.

More scary is the number of people who actually buy the charge that Obama, a magna cum laude graduate from Harvard, is somehow lacking in reasoning capacity. Question is: How many similarly educated Harvard graduates finishing at the top of their class would be branded as "naive?"

In fact the converse is true. As Robert Silvers recently observed in the Huffington Post: "...if you run a tally, Obama's record over the last year shows a remarkable degree of foresight, even-tempered judgment, and a real willingness to make hard calls that aren't the politically popular flavor of the week. Indeed, almost every one of Obama's foreign policy positions has been vindicated."

Here's a recent New York Times article that explores this issue.

It fascinates me that so many McCain supporters claim that Obama doesn't have a plan for the country, or they don't know what his plan is. How could that be after, in debate after debate, Obama was the person focused on actual policy issues while McCain kept repeating old sound bytes?

If they didn't hear Obama's proposed policies, what on earth were they listening to? In one debate McCain repeatedly ask Obama "how much is fee you'll charge small businesses for health care," even after Obama stressed repeatedly stressed that there was no fee.

Some questions for McCain:
What's all the fuss about Bill Ayers or Rev. Jeremiah Wright? One of McCain's chief political advisors is Richard Quinn, editor of the racist Southern Partisan Review.

Wright was Obama's former pastor. Obama was eight years old when Ayers was involved with the Weather Underground.

But Quinn advises McCain NOW. To get a clearer picture, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) describes the Southern Partisan as "a publication that defends slavery, white separatism, apartheid and David Duke.'' Quinn, himself has supported Duke as a "political maverick." Say what???

Judging from McCain's track record on issues effecting people of color, maybe that's one association worth learning more about.