Dr. Laura Schlessinger got caught up in a bad case of opening mouth before engaging brain a few weeks ago, not a good condition for a radio host to catch. Dr. Laura has a radio show where she takes calls and gives advice to people. It might be added here that Dr. Laura has only a therapist's license--her doctorate is not in Psychology or Counseling or anything else having to do with that field. No, her doctorate is in Physiology. Her thesis was over the effects of insulin upon lab rats.
But I digress as to the actual incident that has stirred up the hornet's nest. A caller was put on the air on Dr. Laura's show with a problem. The caller was a black woman married to a white man. The man's family and friends often make remarks that make her feel uncomfortable, and apparently the n-word has been said around her, which has upset her. Quite understandable. The woman wanted advice on how to handle the situation.
The issue of race in America is still a sensitive one. As recently as 50 years ago, there were White Only signs posted all over the United States. Lynchings were common occurances, only a tiny handful of the black population was able to even vote, nevermind run for office, and blacks faced violence from whites day and night.
Dr. Laura, according to Wikipedia, was born in 1947. She was old enough during the 50's and 60's to remember the terrible things that happened while blacks fought for equality. Having lived through that explosive period in history, you would think that Dr. Laura would have been especially delicate handling this question, and carefully considered her answer before spouting off.
Nope.
Most of the news organizations are blowing up about Dr. Laura using the n-word over and over and over. While that was tasteless and insensitive of her, ultimately, words only have the amount of power we give them. Frankly, dropping the n-bomb was not the most offensive thing Dr. Laura said. Not by a long shot. Her comment that "if you don't have a sense of humor, don't marry outside your race," was what blew my mind. "Don't marry outside your race?!" Really? In 2010, we still have a college educated person holding a therapist's license saying shit like that? Really?!
I feel like Dr. Laura missed the memo: It's 2010, not 1960. People marry whoever the hell they want to. (Well, not the gays, but we're working to correct that.) If people are sensitive about racial issues, then others should respect that.
And because she never answered the question that Jade asked, I will: No. It is not okay for white people to use the n-word. Why? Because historically speaking, the n-word was used to address slaves. It was used to de-humanize black people so that white people could justify denying them basic human rights and later basic rights as citizens. So, no, white people don't get to use that word anymore.
Period, end of story, roll credits.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Easy There, Rambo...
Republican politicians across the board have been swearing to overturn the big health care bill. Many are swearing to do so in its entirety. Although I'm not all that concerned about them getting the seats in the House and Senate to actually carry through on that threat, I would give them some cautionary advice:
1. Careful with that baby while you're trying to throw out the bathwater.
Saying that you're going to overturn this bill completely would probably be the equivalent of political suicide. The bill contains too many good things that too many Americans want (and want desperately, I might add) to throw it out completely. While there are things in it that many Americans aren't pleased with, far too many Americans are happy with the clause that prevents companies from rejecting them based on "pre-existing conditions." A great many are also pleased with the other clause that makes it illegal to deny coverage once the policy holder becomes ill with a major disease like cancer or something similar. The bill also removes the "lifetime limit" that many policies have that works like this: The policy will only pay, for example, 1 million in total benefits, so if you get cancer and then are in a terrible car wreck, well that's just too damn bad. You've maxed out your benefits. Good luck if your cancer comes back.
A lot of people were happy to see that in the bill. Especially people with expensive diseases that were in danger of maxing out their insurance and wouldn't have been able to get more anywhere else because of their illness.
2. Um...not to be critical of your paint job, but you're moving towards a corner instead of a door.
By completely demonizing this bill and absolutely refusing to compromise on any of it, not even the good points, Republicans have put themselves in a tight spot politically. Instead of dismissing the bill so completely and refusing to compromise, they should have supported the good points and worked the fix the things they didn't like. The Democrats were willing to compromise, they were so willing to compromise, in fact, that they got rid of the public option that most of the public wanted in an effort to gain some Republican votes. Well, we see how that worked out.
So Republican leaders, my cautionary advice is done. Not that I think any will heed it, but someone had to say it.
1. Careful with that baby while you're trying to throw out the bathwater.
Saying that you're going to overturn this bill completely would probably be the equivalent of political suicide. The bill contains too many good things that too many Americans want (and want desperately, I might add) to throw it out completely. While there are things in it that many Americans aren't pleased with, far too many Americans are happy with the clause that prevents companies from rejecting them based on "pre-existing conditions." A great many are also pleased with the other clause that makes it illegal to deny coverage once the policy holder becomes ill with a major disease like cancer or something similar. The bill also removes the "lifetime limit" that many policies have that works like this: The policy will only pay, for example, 1 million in total benefits, so if you get cancer and then are in a terrible car wreck, well that's just too damn bad. You've maxed out your benefits. Good luck if your cancer comes back.
A lot of people were happy to see that in the bill. Especially people with expensive diseases that were in danger of maxing out their insurance and wouldn't have been able to get more anywhere else because of their illness.
2. Um...not to be critical of your paint job, but you're moving towards a corner instead of a door.
By completely demonizing this bill and absolutely refusing to compromise on any of it, not even the good points, Republicans have put themselves in a tight spot politically. Instead of dismissing the bill so completely and refusing to compromise, they should have supported the good points and worked the fix the things they didn't like. The Democrats were willing to compromise, they were so willing to compromise, in fact, that they got rid of the public option that most of the public wanted in an effort to gain some Republican votes. Well, we see how that worked out.
So Republican leaders, my cautionary advice is done. Not that I think any will heed it, but someone had to say it.
Guns and Bricks
The far right conservative leaders need to tell the Tea Partiers and the rest of their clan who are in a hyped-up frenzy to scale it back by a couple of degrees.
If you don't already know by now, several members of congress have received threats, had their offices vandalized, and even been verbally assaulted while trying to walk into the Capitol building in D.C. One congressman was even reportedly spit upon.
Democrats finally came out and admitted to the public what was happening, security was beefed up at the Capitol, and the media has run with the story.
After all these embarrassing stories about threats and actual violence, you would think that conservative leaders would at least try to leash their dogs and calm down the people who are obviously so crazed that they are willing to do actual violence because of this bill, right? Nope. When asked to tone down the violent rhetoric in an effort to attempt to calm down these people who are one the verge of doing serious violence, big party leaders such as McCain and Palin merely said that words like "targeting a candidate" and other violent imagery were common in politics. In Palin's case, she said that, although actual violence was wrong, the images of Democratic districts with gun cross hairs will remain up on her facebook site. Her other language has been militant as well, urging people, "Don't retreat, instead RELOAD!" She also claimed that the violence was a "ginned up conspiracy" put forth by the media.
I'm sorry Ms. Palin, but in this, you're wrong. When a former civil rights leader gets called the N-word outside of the Capitol, and has a noose sent via fax to his office, and when people are having bricks thrown at their offices, and windows shot out, that is not a ginned up conspiracy, that is a prelude to actual violence! What will it take for you and yours to finally realize that the rhetoric that you, Eric Cantor, and John McCain are spouting isn't toning things down, like you should be and isn't encouraging political action and only political action, but instead, you and yours are lighting a match under a powder keg. A powder keg, I might add, that you created with your polarizing speeches. What will it take before the conservative right realizes that the imagery they utilize when talking about this bill is over the top? Will someone have to be hit by one of those bricks being thrown at a window? How about one of the bullets? Will you concede then, Ms. Palin, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Cantor, that the Dems might have a point in calling for a lower level of violent imagery in those speeches that you just love to give? Or, god forbid, will someone actually have to die before you realize that you're wrong on this point? Will you not concede even then?
I understand that words like "targeting" and other phrases have been used in campaigns with no negative consequences. But when the political tone over this issue is already at a fever pitch, and there are so many with so much vitriol that they are quite ready to do violence, it is your responsibility to calm them down Mr. McCain, Ms. Palin, and Mr. Cantor. They are your constituents and your supporters. They will listen to you, not Democrats, not moderates, and others who are already urging them to calm the fuck down, but you.
In fact, Ms. Palin, you should be wary of all this violence against the Democrats, because the last thing your party would want for the Healthcare movement is a martyr. Not that this movement doesn't already have a hundred thousand martyrs in all the people who died and continue to die from not being insured, but if this movement garnered a political martyr, that would be a death knell for your party ever getting to overturn or change this bill. So, not out of the humane interest of preserving the health, property, and perhaps even lives of your opposition, but out of mere political interest, perhaps you should calm your constituents down. Put in those terms, can you now see a reason to bring the rhetoric level down a bit?
I would never seek to deny anyone their personal political views. I have my own, and I would consider it the height of hypocrisy to deny someone else such a freedom that I enjoy. However, your rights end where another person's rights begin. The Tea Baggers can hold all the protests and rallies they want. That's fine. They have the right to do that just like I have the right to think they're crazy and snicker at their ridiculous name like a six year old.
But when they start spitting on Congressmen and hurling racial and gender epithets, that's where their rights stop. That crosses the line of political action and wanders towards the territory of disturbing the peace and even flirts with assault.
If you don't already know by now, several members of congress have received threats, had their offices vandalized, and even been verbally assaulted while trying to walk into the Capitol building in D.C. One congressman was even reportedly spit upon.
Democrats finally came out and admitted to the public what was happening, security was beefed up at the Capitol, and the media has run with the story.
After all these embarrassing stories about threats and actual violence, you would think that conservative leaders would at least try to leash their dogs and calm down the people who are obviously so crazed that they are willing to do actual violence because of this bill, right? Nope. When asked to tone down the violent rhetoric in an effort to attempt to calm down these people who are one the verge of doing serious violence, big party leaders such as McCain and Palin merely said that words like "targeting a candidate" and other violent imagery were common in politics. In Palin's case, she said that, although actual violence was wrong, the images of Democratic districts with gun cross hairs will remain up on her facebook site. Her other language has been militant as well, urging people, "Don't retreat, instead RELOAD!" She also claimed that the violence was a "ginned up conspiracy" put forth by the media.
I'm sorry Ms. Palin, but in this, you're wrong. When a former civil rights leader gets called the N-word outside of the Capitol, and has a noose sent via fax to his office, and when people are having bricks thrown at their offices, and windows shot out, that is not a ginned up conspiracy, that is a prelude to actual violence! What will it take for you and yours to finally realize that the rhetoric that you, Eric Cantor, and John McCain are spouting isn't toning things down, like you should be and isn't encouraging political action and only political action, but instead, you and yours are lighting a match under a powder keg. A powder keg, I might add, that you created with your polarizing speeches. What will it take before the conservative right realizes that the imagery they utilize when talking about this bill is over the top? Will someone have to be hit by one of those bricks being thrown at a window? How about one of the bullets? Will you concede then, Ms. Palin, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Cantor, that the Dems might have a point in calling for a lower level of violent imagery in those speeches that you just love to give? Or, god forbid, will someone actually have to die before you realize that you're wrong on this point? Will you not concede even then?
I understand that words like "targeting" and other phrases have been used in campaigns with no negative consequences. But when the political tone over this issue is already at a fever pitch, and there are so many with so much vitriol that they are quite ready to do violence, it is your responsibility to calm them down Mr. McCain, Ms. Palin, and Mr. Cantor. They are your constituents and your supporters. They will listen to you, not Democrats, not moderates, and others who are already urging them to calm the fuck down, but you.
In fact, Ms. Palin, you should be wary of all this violence against the Democrats, because the last thing your party would want for the Healthcare movement is a martyr. Not that this movement doesn't already have a hundred thousand martyrs in all the people who died and continue to die from not being insured, but if this movement garnered a political martyr, that would be a death knell for your party ever getting to overturn or change this bill. So, not out of the humane interest of preserving the health, property, and perhaps even lives of your opposition, but out of mere political interest, perhaps you should calm your constituents down. Put in those terms, can you now see a reason to bring the rhetoric level down a bit?
I would never seek to deny anyone their personal political views. I have my own, and I would consider it the height of hypocrisy to deny someone else such a freedom that I enjoy. However, your rights end where another person's rights begin. The Tea Baggers can hold all the protests and rallies they want. That's fine. They have the right to do that just like I have the right to think they're crazy and snicker at their ridiculous name like a six year old.
But when they start spitting on Congressmen and hurling racial and gender epithets, that's where their rights stop. That crosses the line of political action and wanders towards the territory of disturbing the peace and even flirts with assault.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Contrary to Popular(ish) Belief...
President Barack Obama is not Hitler. Shocking announcement, I know. I've seen so many signs, posters, t-shirts, and Facebook posts somehow linking Obama to Hitler and I'm tired of it.
I've been to the National Holocaust Museum not once, but twice. Through that, I've been given a thorough explanation of exactly what the Holocaust was and who the man mostly responsible for it was. And I've got to tell you, our current President doesn't resemble him in the least.
Now, I'm not advocating blindly following our political leaders. If you disagree with policy decisions made by our President that's completely fine. It is your right to do so. In fact, disagreement can be positive because it can bring new ideas to the table. If no one had disagreed that the gas lamp was a crappy way to be able to see at night, then we may never have had the light bulb.
However, that being said, I cringe and feel bile start coming up my throat when I hear policy decisions being compared to the mass execution of over 6 million people. First of all, it's inaccurate and alarmist. Secondly, it demonizes someone to a degree that they don't deserve and haven't earned. And third, it minimizes the actual Holocaust, who Hitler really was, and what he really believed. The Holocaust and Hitler himself are so far beyond the realm of any immoral act committed by any of our American politicians that they don't deserve to ever be put in the same category, unless that politician can literally be blamed for ordering the death of millions upon millions of people in cold blood. And to my knowledge, although we have seen some extremely corrupt and truly awful charlatans in our American political system, I don't believe we have anyone that can be (truthfully) put on the same level as Hitler, if we're honest with ourselves.
I didn't agree when people portrayed George W. Bush as Hitler either, and I was and am no supporter of Bush. Long was his list of crimes, but mass genocide was not one of them, and he should not have been portrayed as such a character. Besides, he had so many other faults and mistakes that there was no need to go that far. What he actually did was bad enough. But not bad enough to be equated to Hitler.
My point is, don't compare someone who has made policy decisions that you disagree with to someone who murdered millions of people. It's unethical and extremely insensitive to the people who actually suffered through the Holocaust.
I've been to the National Holocaust Museum not once, but twice. Through that, I've been given a thorough explanation of exactly what the Holocaust was and who the man mostly responsible for it was. And I've got to tell you, our current President doesn't resemble him in the least.
Now, I'm not advocating blindly following our political leaders. If you disagree with policy decisions made by our President that's completely fine. It is your right to do so. In fact, disagreement can be positive because it can bring new ideas to the table. If no one had disagreed that the gas lamp was a crappy way to be able to see at night, then we may never have had the light bulb.
However, that being said, I cringe and feel bile start coming up my throat when I hear policy decisions being compared to the mass execution of over 6 million people. First of all, it's inaccurate and alarmist. Secondly, it demonizes someone to a degree that they don't deserve and haven't earned. And third, it minimizes the actual Holocaust, who Hitler really was, and what he really believed. The Holocaust and Hitler himself are so far beyond the realm of any immoral act committed by any of our American politicians that they don't deserve to ever be put in the same category, unless that politician can literally be blamed for ordering the death of millions upon millions of people in cold blood. And to my knowledge, although we have seen some extremely corrupt and truly awful charlatans in our American political system, I don't believe we have anyone that can be (truthfully) put on the same level as Hitler, if we're honest with ourselves.
I didn't agree when people portrayed George W. Bush as Hitler either, and I was and am no supporter of Bush. Long was his list of crimes, but mass genocide was not one of them, and he should not have been portrayed as such a character. Besides, he had so many other faults and mistakes that there was no need to go that far. What he actually did was bad enough. But not bad enough to be equated to Hitler.
My point is, don't compare someone who has made policy decisions that you disagree with to someone who murdered millions of people. It's unethical and extremely insensitive to the people who actually suffered through the Holocaust.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)