Because People with Glasses are Scary

Mike Plaisted is calling out several conservative talk show hosts and bloggers, wondering why they don't condemn Judge Mike Gableman's new TV ad.

Plaisted says the ad is "racist" because it highlights an old case in which Gableman's opponent Louis Butler, when he was a public defender, got a child molester released (at least temporarily) and, according to the ad, subsequently molested another child.

And the guy is black.

Of course, the ad also shows pictures of nine other child molesters, eight of whom were white. Plaisted ignored that, so I guess I will, too. The ad's main example is a black guy: thus, the ad is "racist."

Question: does Plaisted wear glasses? Because I notice the guy in the commercial wears glasses. Could this not be an example of sightism, rather than racism? The two-eyed trying to keep the four-eyed down?

Let's recap:

• Gableman's campaign is manned (sorry, that's sexist: I mean staffed) by racists;
• Gableman himself is racist for allowing the ad;
• Several unaffiliated radio types and bloggers are racist for not condemning the ad;
• The general public is racist if the ad affects their vote in Gableman's favor.

I reject that. Nearly everyone who sees that commercial will be shocked – if they're shocked at all – by the thought of a child molester on the streets. The specific race of said child molester is irrelevant: when it comes to child molesters, nobody cares. They care about the crime, and how to prevent it.

The real question is whether the case is even relevant in a Supreme Court election, but since he can score more political points with the race issue, Plaisted goes with that.

Plaisted will, I predict, say I'm just willing to ignore the racism in this case because I'm protecting "my guy," or "my side." Or, he'll say I'm part of the problem because I can't see the racism.

I say he's the problem, because all he sees is racism. Or because he's willing to find racism, because it helps his side, and his guy.