The difficulty with the media addressing Wright's biological comments I think can be explained by this book I read many years ago on racism which listed the 'rules of racial standing' which said something to the effect that in America, if a black person criticizes another black person, the criticism is given an inordinate amount of credibility from the start, and similarly, if a black person defends another black person, the value of his defense is limited, especially in areas where there is a question of racism, the suggestion being that the defense must be based on solidarity rather than logic, but that the criticism must be made without prejeduce. I've seen this in practice, where someone will make a comment similar to what Wright said, and defend the statement by saying, "so and so agrees with me, and he's black', as though skin color rather than science qualifies someone to make a socio-biological assessment. I think that's why people don't want to touch the comment. I support my interpretation by pointing out that the media was all over James Watson for making statements based on a similar philosophy. What was disturbing then was how many people claimed that Watson's unscientific claims were scientific based on the fact that Watson said them - regardless of the fact that they were anecdotal, presumptive, irrelevant, and most importantly, devoid of any of the evidence for which Watson is an expert, namely direct observation of a genetic basis.

On the other hand, the amount of jujutzu that the Right would use if the media attacked or supported Wright makes it better that nobody is questioning those claims. I don't really think any good can come from focusing on statements like that. It just gives amplification to the worst elements of the commentary-o-sphere.

Dave: Possibly... though I'm not sure how helpful Rev. Wright will be in the short term, and right now I'm a little worried that in the short term Clinton might actually manage to steal the nomination. I'm more worried about the impact that the Wrights of America (and the Pat Buchanans, Bill O'Reillys, Sean Hannitys, Geraldine Ferraros... and so forth) will have on this greater national discussion of "race." Assuming that ever happens, anyway, since I don't think the people will be motivated enough to even bother with it unless Obama wins in November.

Dar: My problem isn't so much his "anti-American" comments -- which, while certainly unfortunately phrased, are mostly defensible -- but his more recent claims that numerous social and cultural differences are rooted in "racial" and biological variations. And I find the fact that hardly anyone in the media is jumping on those more dangerous comments disturbing, since it potentially suggests that they agree with them. Not to mention that I've seen numerous commenters on blogs and whatnot who agree with Wright's views on those issues.

It''s over-blown. It's one of those instances of conservative verbal patriot-baiting. They know what he really meant, but they're playing the outraged American patriot card.

It's like when attacked Kerry during the 2004 campaign when he said that the U.S. should be more sensitive in its foreigh policy approach. "Oh my God he wants to cuddle up to Bin laden!!!".

Rat bastards all of them.

Good post, Wes.