Oh, really? Every example in the article above -- the section here, that is; since the only good reason not to post JWR it in its entirety is that the point is already made, I'll go on what's here -- is either black-on-black (which, like family, gets a pass), or white-on-black (which doesn't). If Seau isn't black, it's still friend-on-friend, which also gets a pass (except, perhaps, from the PC crowd, if it's white-on-black, but I digress).
Therefore, I'll stand by my analogy. If there had been mentioned a case of black-on-white which got a pass, you'd have a point. But, in regard to this article, it doesn't apply. Just like my analogy, there is no unacceptable double standard in the cases mentioned here.
Thus, if the author was trying to make a point of an unacceptable double standard with this article, he should have done so in the first few paragraphs and, in my opinion, he failed.
The article mentioned several instances of double standards, although the Sister Souljah incidents about wanting to kill whites aren't even mentioned (Sistah Souljah speech)
Here's some of the article that you didn't read (oh, BTW, your analogy is still wrong):
Gambler Jimmy " The Greek" said Blacks were better athletes because they were bred to be that way by their slave owners. He was promptly fired.
Trent Lott said the country would have been much better off if known segregationist Strom Thumond had been elected President in 1948. There was a national outcry and he was soon stripped of his Majority Chairmanship, lost a number of his other privileges, and, of course, was forced to make a public apology.
Yet Black Muslin leader Louis Farrakhan, calls Caucasian people the "White Devil". Throughout the world there are Muslims of all colors, as Malcolm X describes in the Alex Haley bio. But in America, we have a group called the "Black Muslims."
And when presidential candidate Howard Dean said he wanted to represent guys who drive pick-up trucks with Confederate flags on them, he was called arrogant and some have called him a racist.