Most major media outlets try to cover up their ideology.  They still push it in articles, but they like to beat around the bush, speaking indirectly and acting a bit timid about pushing their real agenda because of its radical nature.

But you don't see that kind of rhetorical hesitancy at the Huffington Post.  Their forces of radical progressivism are always the first to charge over the top of Brokeback Mountain, championing communism and the destruction of our culture and our nation-state, and always with a strong emphasis on sexual deviancy, as befitting a publication named after Arianna Huffington's gay ex-husband.  They are so extremely left, and so open about their extremism, that their articles frequently are rich in self-parody.

So, for the first time in a very long while, I found myself surprised by an article in HuffPo talking about an older cartoon drawn by Theodor Geisel, known as "Dr. Seuss," that was racist.  And by "racist" I mean, really, really, really racist, in extreme bad taste.  The cartoon in question refers to blacks by the n-word, and they are drawn with monkey-like facial features.

So I figured that a radical left publication like HuffPo would be very strong in its criticism of Geisel.  But the article actually tried to excuse his behavior, saying:

Filmmaker Ron Lamothe, the man behind "The Political Dr. Seuss," expressed in an interview that biographers deemed Seuss "regretful about some of his cartoons" from the earlier period.

(By the way, isn't it great that we can talk about a controversial cartoon without fear of being beheaded?)

I was even more shocked when I read the comments, which mostly seemed supportive of Geisel:

A sampling:

Nonetheless, it's certainly disheartening and disturbing to see this bigoted side of a cultural hero." I find it to be quite the opposite. Here we see an admitted bigot changing his mind over time as he became more informed.

Oh, for pete's sake..."Ni**er in the wood pile" was a popular and excepted expression when he drew the cartoon. Times changed.

I think this shows one of his best characteristics. The ability to recognize error within ones self, and change is a great thing.

Not excusing this but EVERYONE was horribly racist back then, almost without exception.

You see, liberals like Doctor Seuss.  And if liberals like someone, any kind of behavior is acceptable.

If a politician was a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, it's okay...if he was a liberal.  See Robert Byrd.

If another politician says Obama can be successful because he's a light-skinned black and doesn't speak with a "negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one," that's okay...if it's a liberal like Harry Reid.

If someone says that Obama is the first Black candidate who is "bright and clean-cut," that is okay...as long as he's a liberal like Joe Biden.

So in answer to the question posed at the beginning of this piece, "When is it okay to say the 'N' word if you're white?," the answer is "Any time and all the time, if you're a liberal."  But if you're a conservative, any time you're not talking about race, your comments will be construed as secretly talking about race, in a derogatory way.

Exit questions:

1) This cartoon is slated to sell at auction for at least $20,000.  Who would pay a penny for such a thing?

2) What if someone makes a racist comment before we know whether he's a liberal?  How are we supposed to react?

This article was produced by NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.