Fake ad here. (YouTube)

Info about fake outrage viral marketing strategy here.

Spread the word... I guess that's what Anheuser Busch wants!

It's not exactly new news that White Republican Guys claim they didn't see 'nuttin racist about that ad. It might be useful, however, to submit your post as Exhibit A when the GOP gets around to having that confab about why its 21st Century initiative to win over the minority vote crashed and burned in '06 and what it's going to mean in '08 -- but hell, why bother? Harold Ford Jr. and Michael Steele paid the price, but Senators-elect Webb, Cardin and McCaiskell are probably immensely grateful. And so is Harry Reid.

My litmus test for whether something is truly racist is whether a child could learn racism from the words or images. A child viewing the RNC would have no idea what was going on. He or she would not pick up any taboos on interracial couples nor learn anything about the history of lynchings and prosecutions of black men. The viewer has to already be cognizant of racial tensions to understand the "call me" message. If the viewer is a racist, he or she would react negatively to Ford. If not, he or she might react negatively to Corker for trying to appeal to racists. Others might see it as sexist or as an attack on Ford's character. That much is in the eye of the beholder.

Likewise, with the Rolling Rock ads or the Geico ads, some might just see it as funny, others might see it as a crass appeal to bigots. Rush Limbaugh uses racially charged language frequently, and it's clearly his way of letting his listeners know he shares their bigotry and approves of it. His raison d'etre is to make uninformed idiots feel empowered and enlightened.

The question with the ads is whether Geico and Rolling Rock are trying to dissect stereotypes with humor or appeal to people who feel persecuted for their bigoted views. I'm not sure the answer is the same for both ad campaigns.

I tend to think it's a good thing when groups who suffer discrimination embrace the language of their detractors as gays have done with "queer" and blacks with "nigger." Censorship empowers the words and gives them greater importance than ideas. Co-opting the words forces a deeper look into the ideas and history that made the word so powerful.

It is quite possible to express bigoted ideas without using a forbidden word, and if we think banning a word will bring an end to the thoughts behind the words, we are mistaken.

I appreciate your (spintrep's) feedback, as well as rikki's. Yes, I'm trying to be sincere and - being fairly naive and inclusive by nature - have experienced some pretty traumatic events involving issues of race (both racism and reversed racism)on a professional level and have become very jaded by it. In fact, I'm still trying to find my equilibrium again...a "happy medium" if you will. Yes, my dreamland is a happy place!

Perhaps the "talking points" issue goes back to my own personal (and negative) involvement on the political fringe. Because the experience is so fresh, I tend to be pretty passionate when one of those raw buttons is pushed. If it helps, I admit that I have a multiple-personality disorder when it comes to politics - social democrat/fiscal conservative. I know, I know...I'm the worst of the worst. Is it any wonder I can't find a happy resting place???

Anyway, thanks again for the feedback and the benefit of the doubt. There are obviously some very intellectual and intelligent people in this blog, which is what attracted me to it to begin with. I guess I'll just have to get a thicker skin and overlook what I perceive as the crusty, crabby ones!