I agree with most of what you’ve said, but if you want someone to hear you, it might be better if you sent a letter or an email to Pags himself. As mentioned in the follow-up post to this one, I don’t get much traffic, so you may not be read here.

Your comment seems a bit more like a blog post–you should post it somewhere. Most people don’t take time to read long comments, so make your own way, and continue the fight against ignorance!!!

To the rest: It is not (at all) difficult to see Pagliarulo’s contrast of Obama to Robinson, as being illogical, irrational and hopelessly flawed at the very least. Pagliarulo falls into the same pit that most racist do (at least when they have the guts to speak out in public about their own internal illness). Here’s why: He (Pagliarulo) initiates a false first cause (false first premise) and then stands on that weak baseline as the genesis for the effect of a ‘racist’ (how funny) not being able to bring him/her self to vote for Obama. Well, this is beyond silly. Why? Because he never defines/measures his first false cause which he states as: “exemplary.” Since the magnitude of exemplary was never defined by Pagliarulo, and since the term exemplary itself is a declarative subjective, it becomes crystal clear (to anyone with an education in English grammar) that Pagliarulo had to be using the term as a declarative pejorative; which by definition makes his statement not merely third-party (outside) observation of what a ‘racist’ would or would not do, but as a primary party making a subjective pejorative comment. One can only guess as to why Pagliarulo would feel the need to make such prime comments. Thus, Pagliarulo would do well to educate himself on the proper use of the predicate following a clause inside a declarative subject (statement). It is clues like these, that set the verbal trap for racist hiding under the vale of ‘openness’ and being (so-called) above board. Mr. Pagliarulo, your racism is palatable sir and can be detected through the use of your prose as compared to well spoken English.

Furthermore, it is ludicrous for Pagliarulo to conclude that Obama is not worthy of a vote from a racist (as if). That statement (all by itself) becomes a hollow and worthless waste of air-time. Of course, a “racist” is not going to vote for one he/she feels does not meet the racial qualifications held in their small brain decision tree. So, why state the obvious? Racists are not smart, sane, stable minded people, so what on earth could they possibly have in common with things “exemplary?” A genuine racist would not know the differential between “exemplary” and exempt. Why? Because real racist individuals have incredibly small brains, narrow minds and are typically not very intelligent, smart and/or coherent in thought. They lack the ability to reason well and thus don’t typically have the capacity to filter their restricted world through various progressions of things “exemplary.” Thus, the point was moot long before Mr. Pagliarulo discovered it as being worthy of dialectic suggestion. The fact that Mr. Pagliarulo would insert the obvious does raise more questions about WHY Pagliarulo would find such a statement relevant, when it is so clearly irrationally originated. Given the title of the show that day, he (Mr. Pagliarulo) would have been better off actually describing the elements of “exemplary” and how/why a “racist” would go about establishing such a filter as their dominant method for determining whether or not Obama met their requirements for President. But, of course, this never crossed Mr. Pagliarulo’s mind, no doubt.

I would love the opportunity to debate Mr. Pagliarulo live (on-air) regarding his comments about Barack Obama not being exemplary enough for the self-proclaimed racist. People like Pagliarulo (who I believe to be a racist in hiding), are easily trapped by their own ignorance. You can easily fly a Boeing 757-200 through their commentary, while exposing their rhetoric to the light of day as being precisely racist in nature. Mr. Pagliarulo may not understand how this is easily done, but that does not remove the fact that it is easily done.

Mr. Pagliarulo, does not like Obama personally – that much can be seen through his illogical and irrational rants about Ayers, Wright, etc., (radio and television) that he offers up as ‘intelligent rebuttal’ to Obama’s campaign for the Presidency. He fails discuss the McCain/Keating, McCain/Gram, McCain/Hagee, McCain/Annenberg, etc., connections when irrationally blasting Obama about his so-called relationships. Mr. Pagliarulo, went on to flat out LIE when he said that Obama and Ayers were “close friends” on CNN (Friday, October 10th, 2008). What Mr. Pagliarulo fails to understand, is exactly what the McCain camp fails to understand about the election of 2008. The election of the President has nothing to do with ‘six hundred’ degrees of separation highlighting so-called ‘relationships’ that don’t exist. No, those are nothing more than red herring/strawman/distractions at best. This election also has nothing to do with so-called “experience,” as neither of the candidates ever spent single night in the White House previously. No one could possibly know what being the President or Vice President is actually like, until they’ve become the President or Vice President – so attempting to ‘qualify’ a candidate based on their “experience” is likewise a moot exercise at best.

Instead, the election of the President (and Vice President) has everything to do with Competence and THAT measure is a composite of the candidates Capacity, Aptitude and Appropriateness for the role they seek. Barack Obama has a greater degree of Competence as demonstrated through Capacity, Aptitude and Appropriateness, than does John McCain.

I would LOVE the opportunity to debate Mr. Pagliarulo on this model of Competency, as it goes to the heart of exposing his racist attitudes towards Barack Obama – if he dares.

(Do the math before you accept the debate challenge – it puts you in a no win scenario, obviously.)

Dork!

j