Showing posts with label Lonnae O'Neal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lonnae O'Neal. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 29, 2015

Seeing black and white bookends 2015

At the end of any given year—or the beginning of the next—it is a common practice of many to soul-search and reflect on the past. In this preoccupation, Washington Post columnist Lonnae O'Neal is no exception. Her concession—obvious to anyone familiar with her relentless race-based scribbling—is still a real whopper. A person of rare moments of surprising clarity, Ms. O'Neal admits to seeing a world of gradation and layered human interactions in the unrealistic contours, literally and figuratively, of black and white. Therefore, as such, she is a self-confessed unreliable narrator with no business being employed as a de facto journalist in a major news-reporting organization.

As a typical, misguided liberal goody two-shoes, on the surface she seeks to “heal” the racial divide by constantly pointing it out. The disconnect is seen in how it is done: in the most divisive and polarizing manner possible. This creates a deep-seeded hypocrisy of philosophically claiming to “address” society's ills (a “good” deed) while simultaneously making her living sowing the seeds of racial discontent (seen like brush fires across the nation in places like Ferguson, MO, Chicago and Cleveland). Therefore, ironically she has a direct economic incentive not to solve anything, but to “keep the stirring the pot” with a steady stream of racially-charged propaganda.

This is the standard fare of the MSM: two-faced duplicity that parallels all Democrats' lies (à la Mr. Obama) and seeks not to cover them, but to minimize and/or change the subject entirely. It also mirrors both Hillary Clinton's style of falsehoods and her Sal Alinsky-inspired college thesis (“There is only the fight...”) in order to sell newspapers. Specifically, Ms. O'Neal's oversimplified “monotone” victim/victimizer formula usually fixates on some minor, unfortunate incident, for example, between the police and a black minority. Anytime the authority figure is white she promotes the racist “bogeyman:” a fantasy specter hiding around every corner that minorities should fear.

The fact that such an outrageous point of view is given credence in 21st century America is completely out of touch with the good faith of a country that has elected a black man to the presidency twice. Worse, it completely ignores generations of substantive civil rights gains made since the 1960s and is antithetical to MLK's admonishment to focus on the content of character rather than the superficial difference of skin color; a hang-up more than fifty years later Ms. O'Neal cannot seem to grasp or move beyond in 2015.

As a minister, MLK's advice is grounded in Biblical scripture: “Do not judge so that you will not be judged.” For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” (Matthew 7:1-3). Once again, true to form in her latest article, Ms. O'Neal claims victimization (this time for herself) due to unfortunate and vulgar comments she received as negative reactions to her year's labors in the shallow end of race relations. In any case, as a self-proclaimed 'race woman,' it is equally wrong when she has judged others with the broad brush of ethnicity as when she, in turn, has also been pigeonholed by readers for her biology. That is the only issue here that is truly “black and white.”

Collective societal harmony has not been in evidence since Mr. Obama assumed office in 2008. My New Year's resolution for America: a more tolerant, forgiving and constructive 2016 reflecting mutual respect and Dr. King's non-violent code of conduct on all sides. May we see brotherhood through the colors of red, white and blue before any other consideration.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Friday, November 20, 2015

Bodily harm greater than secret shame


According to Washington Post columnist Lonnae O'Neal, Charlie Sheen is a victim. Raised in Beverly Hills by the Hollywood set, sharing famous father Martin Sheen's movie star good looks, and success as an award winning actor with both a highly successful movie career (lead character in Best Picture “Platoon” (1986); opposite Michael Douglas's Oscar-winning performance in “Wall Street” (1987)) as well as being a one-time highest paid TV actor at $2 million per episode. Further, a previous marriage to fellow actress, former Bond girl bombshell Denise Richards wasn't half bad either. Indeed, by any rational standard, Mr. Sheen the younger, has led a very charmed life.


Yes, Charlie had the world on a string—and understandably millions would have traded places with him. Many brave souls among us probably still would despite Mr. Sheen's new public disclosure as HIV positive. After all, while not cured, there are effective treatments. Likewise, the very real terror of the disco era late 70's and early 80's and the stigma faced by Rock Hudson and Freddie Mercury is nothing compared to the educated and tolerant attitudes of today.


Per 2012 World Health Organization (WHO) figures HIV is the 6th leading cause of deaths worldwide at 1.5 million. So, the threat—same as the stigma—has receded, but remains real. Yet, Charlie Sheen should not be portrayed as a victim due to his poor personal life choices. With this wrong-headed assertion, Ms. O'Neal has missed the mark: the true victims here are Mr. Sheen's sexual partners—who did not know about his status—and may have contracted the virus from him. In the final analysis public health trumps “sick” secret shame every time.


Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Monday, November 9, 2015

Race: from the eye of the beholder

Stop The Washington Post presses! One of their race-obsessed scribblers—their intrepid columnist Lonnae O'Neal—has begrudgingly admitted in print that she was wrong! She who previously has seen absolutely every black-white human interaction through that divisive prism—might have had a moment of clarity. A real rarity in political terms: a "come to Jesus" epiphany. Don't expect it to last as habitual race-baiting pays the bills. After all, unlike 93 million able-bodied Americans who can't find a job, Ms. O'Neal doesn't want to inadvertently find herself the latest casualty of Mr. Obama's “5%” unemployment rate.

Her new column, 'Why can’t we agree on what we see when we see race?' addresses her previous one: 'Was classroom arrest a case of excessive force? Just imagine it was a white girl.' Regarding the latter, the reader has not even gotten to body of the article (or the objective details of the situation) and Ms. O'Neal's bias is already in full flower in the title.

Fast-forward two weeks. Suddenly, that which she was so adamant about—that race was the causal factor—perhaps, after all, was incidental to the greater issue of a bullying cop wrongly manhandling an intransigent student. Although Ms. O'Neal is very late to the party of evolved and generally tolerant 21st century race relations, it is a real pleasure to extend a welcoming hand. If she lounges, she will find the waters more than fine.

Today, she sensibly sees video cop incidents, such as the above, as “'racial Rorschach test[s,]' [d]ifferent people seeing the same thing but drawing different conclusions.” In other words, scientifically, one's internal belief system automatically filters physical stimuli into a unique point of view. Therefore, by definition, a “racist” has nothing to do with skin color, but with a mindset that sees every societal ill as framed by a racial cause or consequence.

Is it any wonder 7 years into the most polarizing president in U.S. history who subverts the social order (“The cops acted stupidly”) and engages in race (“If I had a son he'd look like Trayvon”) and class warfare (“You didn't build that”) at every opportunity that attitudes would not be hardened? Indeed, how could they not be? Obama and the abetting MSM (which, of late, Ms. O'Neal has been an active participant) have spawned the Black Lives Matter Frankenstein monster.

Ms. O'Neal has finally seen the enemy that she acknowledges threatens to tear our divided republic asunder from within. Yet, same as our chronically responsibility-phobic president, she has still not realized she was looking in the mirror at the time.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Monday, November 2, 2015

Bad/good cops or unruly/innocent teenagers?

In the contest of the dueling Washington Post columnists Lonnae O'Neal and Petula Dvorak, both address competing viral police videos. In the first, Ms. O'Neal focuses on the negative view, highlighting the superficiality of ethnicity: a white officer inappropriately manhandles a seated black teen in a classroom. In Ms. Dvorak's, a white cop and a black teen have an impromptu dance-off which diffuses emotional tension, and causes spectator laughs and cheers. While O'Neal's subject is terrible and unfortunate, it thankfully is not Democrat Bull Connor's army of cops brandishing batons and attack dogs, barring the schoolhouse doors to minorities. On the other hand, Dvorak's “dancing” cop got her unexpected 15 minutes of internet fame while O'Neal's ill-tempered cop was fired.

In the final analysis which scenario truthfully depicts how 780,000 law enforcement officers generally interact with the public?

If we use MLK's enlightened standard of evaluating individuals by the content of their characters and not skin color, latitude should be given equally to cops and minorities. Indeed, demonizing either group compounds the disharmony MLK worked so diligently 60 years ago to overcome.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Monday, October 26, 2015

Interracial marriage: a big deal now?

Interracial marriage was indeed a hot-button issue in America—in 1958. With the aptly named Lovings—a white man, Richard, married Mildred Jeter, a black woman—in violation of Virginia state statutes against miscegenation. Undoubtedly 57 years ago racial tension was a seemingly insurmountable issue reflected by novels like To Kill a Mockingbird (1960) and in film with “Guess Whose Coming to Dinner” (1967). Contrast that to 2013 when a record-high 12% of newlyweds married someone of a different race, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of census data. So, in light of a factually-supported more open cultural dynamic why is Washington Post columnist Lonnae O'Neal—apparently stuck in a time warp—writing about it in now?

As Bob Dylan prophetically sang of social mores in 1964, “The Times They Are A-Changin.'” And they have to an amazing degree with a black man cooling his heels in the Oval Office for 7 years and minorities at all levels of American society. Today, for example, it would be unconscionable for public opinion to condemn interracial marriage or children of mixed parentage (who tend genetically to embody the best of both). And while there will always be unfortunate, isolated circumstances to this obvious societal trend (as the divided family Ms. O'Neal highlights) one must recall that gay marriage has recently been embraced in all 50 states. In any case, however one evaluates others' marriage choices, to be black in America—compared to past generations long gone—is beautiful.

Naturally, per First Amendment guarantees of free speech (which in particular protects unpopular views), differences of opinion are healthy in a democracy and all should be respected. Therefore, individual bigotry is to be pitied as a throwback exception to our society's 21st century rules of widespread tolerance. Ms. O'Neal's bumbling attempt to trumpet the rare exception as more than it is is nothing but the vain creation of a tempest in a teapot.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Friday, May 1, 2015

Baltimore mom: momma bear not abuser

As a helicopter mom who frets over the risks of her own son playing football, Lonnae O'Neal, of all people, should understand—and appreciate—Toya Graham's righteous effort to rein in her son from the potential dangers of his own actions.  The Mother Graham of Baltimore did not, per Ms. O'Neal's skewed language, "beatdown" her son which implies the intention of abuse, domination and humiliation.  

Though I gather that Ms. O'Neal is not a regular church-goer, her historically rich column neglects to reference Proverbs 13:24 ('Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them') to glean the actual meaning and value of Ms. Graham's "moma bear" behavior.  To clarify, Ms. Graham's slaps were not borne out of repression, fear or violence, but out of a loving desire to literally "wake him up" to poor choices that the boy intuitively knew were wrong.  Why else would her son wear a hoodie and face mask to obscure his identity?

Beyond the standard things that every child needs like a loving family, a home, and a fully belly, every child needs to learn the boundaries of appropriate and safe behavior.  Indeed, that is one of the fundamental responsibilities of being a parent.  In psychological terms, children lack a development called the "internal parent," an invisible mechanism of the psyche that governs a mature adult's actions and ideally curbs his wilder or darker impulses.

Walking in Ms. Graham's shoes, in search of her wayward child among a potentially violent street crowd, this mother's act was wholly appropriate—even instinctual—to "slap some sense into him."  It was because she cares and never about causing pain or doing bodily harm.  This is the confusion that causes the columnist O'Neal her ambivalent stance on the matter.  In any case, the column concludes correctly that Toya Graham should not be demonized for what we can all agree was, in a moment of extreme stress, a very human reaction.

Re. "The Baltimore mom slaps her son for the ages," Lonnae O'Neal's Column, The Washington Post

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Monday, February 23, 2015

Playing football: a boy thing

Lonnae O’Neal’s column about her reservations regarding her 12 year old son’s desire to play football is an insightful character study into the recent phenomenon of the “helicopter parent” syndrome.  What is it today with this overprotective impulse?  Indeed, should all of our “little snowflakes” be covered metaphorically in bubble wrap and kept in the basement for safety until their eighteenth birthday or beyond?  As boys naturally and rightly model their fathers, it is no surprise that a joy of playing football would be passed by osmosis from one generation to the next.  Given the advancement of modern athletic equipment and training techniques as well as medical science, Ms. O’Neal should take great comfort and allow her child to follow his passion.  While keeping the body safe is necessary, the development of character and the expression of youthful exuberance are even more important.  The gridiron is her boy’s chosen playground where I have no doubt her crossed fingers and scrutinizing eyes will be on the sidelines.

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
Re: "Should I let my young son play football," Lonnae O'Neal's column, Washington Post