Apparently people have for some time been accusing Brooks (the columnist) of the specific sin of going through life with blinders firmly in place. Is there room on the bandwagon for one more?
In his latest, Brooks describes jogging in Washington, DC, between the September 12 "tea party" protests (his quotes) and the Black Family Reunion Celebration. He apparently caught on to the difference by noting "mostly white" at one, and "mostly black" at the other.
When he stopped at the, uh, black end, there were some white people (to him, obvious tea party protesters, since they couldn't possibly have black relatives) buying lunch from the food stands and listening to a rap concert. He took note of the lack of tension. Based on his own media immersion, I suppose he expected some. But he missed the point. Let me sum it up: food and entertainment.
Teabaggers are fine with black folk providing food and entertainment. The people running the food stands were fine with money coming in for church coffers and non-profits (might I add, especially considering the source?). I will go out on a limb here and suggest the same teabaggers would not have been fine with the same black folk in a counter-protest, just as they are apparently not fine with a black President.