I have not been a reader of Slate for very long, and full disclosure I'm a registered Libertarian. And for the record, not that it should matter, I'm half Canadian and half Mexican and a second generation American, thus the avatar. Somehow feeling I may be labeled as a white separatist because I think differently than Mr. Noah compels me to provide that information. (and no for the record I'm not a registered 9/12er and I read cnn, msnbc, foxnews, Democratic Underground, American Thinker, National Review, Huffington Post, and Slate; what can I say I'm a political junkie and like to understand how political thinkers think.)

I frequently read Timothy Noah's articles as a way to try and understand how people who think differently than I do on political issues. I frequently learn something from him and he has written good articles in the past expressing his political thought processes, as well as often times just general information. This article is misleading and demagogery from the start. "Diversity is a Disease" in quotes followed by stating what the 9/12 project is about is clearly listed in such a manner to imply that this is actually what Glenn Beck said, which you don't find out is not the case till later in the article. The great Fox News strategy of leading with misleading headlines. Whoever this idiot is clearly has issues, but to take one man holding a sign that the author has claimed to see and then claiming that the thousands of people who were at DC are just like him is clearly demonstrative of said author having an agenda.

Most importantly this article does nothing to discuss or debate the issues that people who think differently than how the author thinks. This is clearly purely an attempt at rabblerousing, and adds nothing to the political discourse in America. I encourage everyone to read both sides of any argument and try and see if they have something to learn from people who think differently than they do.

Usually when I read articles by Mr Noah I gain some understanding with regards to a differing point of view than my own. In my opinion, this article is merely a reflection of Timothy Noah's character and journalistic integrity. I have to say, that picture isn't very pretty, in fact not really any better than the man that was holding that sign, as Mr. Noah has no interest in diversity of points of view.

Noah's piece is an opinion piece... BTW Slate Editors choose the title, not the authors. So you can't blame Noah for the "come on" title (which worked right? it got you to read the article after all).

But that aside - what Noah was pointing out was that he has TRIED to understand the other side from a logical, fact based and political perspective and gotten no-where UNTIL he saw the sign "Diversity is a Disease". After all, what is there in common among:

• Those who disbelieve Obama's birth certificates
• Those who believe Obama is a "marxist" (with a Harvard law degree?? and over $1mil in assets??)
• Those who claim that the constitution is being eviscerated (sorry no, it isn't and I can prove it logically and factually)
• Those who want to "restore" the nation (to when? the riots of the 1960s? I suspect not. I strongly suspect it is the 1950s or even better the Roaring 20s - when minorities and women had no rights)

And the common theme running through here, is what? Very little logically. Not even 'christianity'.

What IS common is a visceral and IRRATIONAL opposition to a minority as POTUS. THAT is the only common thread.

And THAT is consistent with the "Diversity Is a Disease" sign.

Then why did the Republicans support Clarence Thomas for SCOTUS, Condoleeza Rice for Sec. State, Alberto Gonzalez for Attorney General.

Note I"m not stating they were qualified for their posts especially the latter.

Obama could be named John Smith and have graduated from the Citadel and the current people protesting would still have issues. Of course if Hillary were elected Noah would say that it was because she was a woman, and if Bill Richardson was elected Noah would say it was because he's Hispanic, and if John Edwards were elected it would becuase the right is using it's moral code and that are complaint is that he has affaris on his wife dying with cancer and father's children out of wedlock.

The fact that the only answer that Noah can come up with is "racism" is more reflective of his lack of objectivity and inability to see that people may think differently than himself when it comes to political issues. Mr. Noah would do a much better job debating his political views through the facts and his knowledge of the issues than following the tired diatribe of racist astroturf Nazi argument. When he actually does this his articles are worth reading.

PS. Noah is a senior editor of Slate so it is actually his fault with regards to the silly way that Slate titles it's written pieces.

Then why did the Republicans support Clarence Thomas for SCOTUS, Condoleeza Rice for Sec. State, Alberto Gonzalez for Attorney General.

Because Bush nominated them and whatever his other faults he wasn't a racist and was certainly determined to 'diversify' the Republican party. The Republicans are not the same as the teabaggers, just like the Democrats are not the same as Cindy Sheehan and other lefties.

However the Republicans are currently playing to the teabaggers (Joe Wilson yelling "You lie!") while the Democrats have generally avoided the left like the plague and a lot of times they are even petrified of little old liberals like me.

But Democrats are hated because they are seen as on the side of blacks (and hispanics and Jews as well). The whole thing with many Republicans is welfare, seen as giving 'our' money to undeserving, shiftless, lazy people (read: blacks and spics). So Clinton got a lot of what Obama is getting now. In fact, he was actually called the first black president.

But what Obama is getting is even crazier than what happened to Clinton. The right had a lot of stupid phoney 'scandals' about Clinton, but at least the scandals were kind of elliptical and hazy, just mostly vague accusations that 'something' was done wrong by Bill and Hillary. But with Obama, people are openly calling him a socialist or a nazi or a racist any other crazy thing. And this is without any kind of foundation at all. The simple fact is that Obama is a conservative Democrat who is constantly trying to reach to Republicans and not go 'too left.'

You bring up a good point ... to consider payback. Republicans just took 8 years of liberals bashing Bush while he tried to defend the country. Even though Bush signed every spending bill put in front of him, it bought him no mercy from the left.

Perhaps all these "teabaggers" (a typically vile lefty slur) are really just out for revenge, and poking at anything that makes a liberal squirm.

Of course that's it. You don't honestly think people like posters in the political forums have any real interest in solving problems, having dialog, or exchanging ideas do you? There's no altruism here, move along, move along...

You're right; I shouldn't have used the word "just" ... "just out for revenge" ... Beck & Co. have principles they think are getting squashed (meritocratic aspects of the country are getting ruined by the pluralism and universalism big government tries to mandate) ... but I think what gets folks with those views riled up and willing to go protest somewhere has something to do with payback.

Obama wants everyone to get along, but he made his name by being first to stab Bush in the back as he led the country in the war on terror.

nerdnam:

Because Bush nominated them and whatever his other faults he wasn't a racist and was certainly determined to 'diversify' the Republican party. The Republicans are not the same as the teabaggers, just like the Democrats are not the same as Cindy Sheehan and other lefties.

Exactly, and not everyone who opposes Obama's political ideas is a white separatist that thinks diversity is a disease, which is exacly what Noah is arguing.

Tracker, please. From the moment Clinton was elected there were "Impeach Clinton" bumper stickers sprouting everywhere. Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travelgate, dress stains, Monica and impeachment. You think the Repubs were the victims of partisan behaviour? From the gitgo Clinton was in the Repub crosshairs. After having been in the White House for 12 yrs, they couldn't stand the thought of losing to Clinton. And how dare he have a wife who wouldn't stay in the kitchen and bake cookies. Downright un-american.

Even though Clinton was the most conservative democrat to be elected, it still wasn't enough. His attempts to fight terrorism were dismissed as "wag the dog" tactics, trying to divert attention from his impeachment.

Question,--- where were all the current outraged conservatives and repubs who think Obama is spending us into oblivion, when Georgie Boy signed every spending bill put in front of him? Spending bills from a republican controlled congress for 6 yrs.

You forgot about lying under oath. It's not like the Dem's don't argue that Gore really won the election in 2000 to this day, or the 8 years of the Bush presidency where there was nothing but unabashed assault against Republicans. The Republican part paid it's political dues for straying from fiscal conservative principles when they lost the Congressional elections in 2006 and 2008 (among other reasons like the Iraq war which was obviosusly a mistake). In the eyes of democrats Obama can do no wrong, yet the Dem's control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency and your response is that Obama can't pass healthcare reform because of white separatist diversity is a disease racists.

In retrospect I have mischaracterized Mr. Noah. Everyone continues to point fingers at Bush/Cheney and calling Obama a socialist instead of actually talking about the issues. Congratulations your fighting over two parties who both want to take your money and control people's lives (albeit in different ways and with different idealogical ideas) and you aren't paying attention to the bigger picture. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are treating people like sheep, and you are demonstrating the very reason that they do.

"Perhaps all these "teabaggers" (a typically vile lefty slur) are really just out for revenge, and poking at anything that makes a liberal squirm."

Well, sort of. I bet a good chunk of the said "teabaggers" were Ron Paul voters, not McCain voters. I doubt they've liked GWB that much either. Saying that its the rights' revenge on what the left did is only partially true.

Politics are vile and vitriolic, and in general it doesn't seem as if Obama is getting it any worse than Bush. However, I don't remember Bush having his life threatened publicly (A woman with a sign that says, "I didn't bring a gun...this time." Or a man that DID bring a gun to an anti-Obama rally carrying a sign that says, "The tree of democracy must be watered..."). Perhaps there were examples of Bush being threatened in this way, and I just don't remember. Regardless, this kind of rhetoric is dangerous and frightening (and isn't it illegal to threaten the president's life?). I wish someone would put their foot down. These kind of thinly veiled threats seem at least as dangerous as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Any thoughts?

Actually the "tea-baggers" originally called themselves that- being clueless about its other impied meanings.

Then why did the Republicans support Clarence Thomas for SCOTUS, Condoleeza Rice for Sec. State, Alberto Gonzalez for Attorney General.

There is a long history of "Uncle Tomism" in American history but the highlighting of an Uncle Tom is hardly a refutation of racism. Notice that when challenged if Thomas was the best possible candidate for the Office (during the nomination process this was asked and the GOP refused to answer it directly). Notice that Rice has not been welcomed into the GOP establishment now that the Bush admin is gone. Notice that Gonzalez was passed over for SCOTUS nomination in favor of Alito.

Obama could be named John Smith and have graduated from the Citadel and the current people protesting would still have issues.

But the issues would be DIFFERENT. There would be

• NO Birthers
• NO "anti-Marxists"
• NO Diversity is a Disease protestors.
• NO calls of "liar" on the floor of the House.
• NO claims of "terrorist"
• NO claims of "angry radical" (in association with Rev. Wright

THOSE all require the incarnations of racism - the sense of personal superiority, the sense of otherness of Obama, the irrational dissassociation of Obama from the Office of POTUS.

As I pointed out, there is no common theme amongst the protestors - except racial undercurrents. Yes it IS possible to criticize Obama on issues other than race. And NO, these protestors are not doing that.