What "Dr." Laura Did

As my Facebook friends know, I was... less than pleased to hear the following comments made by Dr. Laura Schlessinger on her radio show: 



Even more disconcerting, however, was her "apology" in which she made no attempt to walk back her blatant racism. I hope that I don't have to use scare quotes any more in this post, but I digress. Schlessinger apologized for saying an offensive word eleven times during an on air phone call. To be totally fair, it was the word itself that drew much of the criticism. But the focus on the N-word from the caller, the media and Schlessinger herself drew away from what to me seemed much, much more offensive.

Without going into the etymology and societal mores surrounding the history and use of the word 'nigger,' we can agree that it was at least insensitive, if not wrong for Schlessinger to use it eleven times during her conversation with an African American caller. The apology was justified, at the very least for her crassness but also because she did not offer any solutions to a person asking for her help. That said, she was right in the sense that she wasn't calling anyone a nigger, rather she was making a dubious point about who can and who can't use this particular word.

Hers was a tired, hackneyed complaint about moral equivalence. If a white person can't say, 'nigger,' why is it that a black person can? The answer has more to do with the nature of language and conversational convention than rights and equality. There is context and intention, understanding and uptake and so many factors that have absolutely nothing at all to do with racial worth. But as I've said before her focus, and the media's focus, on this word is at most ignorance.

At 3:48 Schlessinger says, "Don't take things out of context. Don't NAACP me." And that was the real beginning of her racist rant. About the only piece of advice she has for the caller is to not marry outside her race if she can't have a sense of humor. She goes on to say:

I really thought that once we had a black president, the attempt to demonize whites hating blacks would stop. But it seems to have grown, and I don't get it. Yes, I do. It's all about power.

Here Schlessinger is correct. It is all about power. It is about her disdain for African Americans declaring power over a derogatory word. The world makes better sense for her when only White people say 'nigger' pejoratively. There is something out of whack when a comedian uses it with humor or friends use it amicably. It's about the Grand Concession of electing a black president. With Obama in the White House racism, or at least sensitivity to racism, is over, right?

Schlessinger's entire attitude is one that embraces the marginalization of African Americans. Because she doesn't specifically hate or express superiority doesn't absolve her from her bigotry. She wholeheartedly accepts that Whites are "us" and Blacks are "them" and We Whites are put upon because Them Blacks are so dang sensitive. Them Blacks are always taking things out of context. Them Blacks are the real racists nowadays. No, no and no. Race relations is very much a hot button issue still in America. We should still be talking about our racist history and legacy. That conversation, however, has to be rooted in wisdom with the goals of healing and harmony. Schlessinger, with her marginalizing commentary, does not deserve to be the one to lead this conversation. She has a lot more to learn from it than contribute to it.

Faux Tolerance

Following a discussion on Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling against Prop. 8, I found a pastor who describes herself as "tolerant," saying she does not believe ALL gays are going to hell, however: 

Marriage by a pastor is completely different  [from marriage by a judge] and should be taken much more seriously then [sic] it is by people of God. Marriage is a covenant and you can't understand marriage if you don't truly know the meaning of covenant. Marriage by a pastor is a lifelong, unbreakable contract between 3 entities. A man, a woman, and God. [sic] So if the government is telling me I have to perform a marriage for people who don't understand this, then YES I am against that. 

Only one paragraph after averring a position of tolerance (at least one or two gays  might make it into Heaven) we have one of the most intolerant declarations possible, and ultimately my biggest criticism of modern American Christianity. Reading between the lines we see that 1) only marriage before God is lifelong and can be taken seriously and 2) the only marriage God will bless is one between a man and a woman, as done by a pastor.

As to matter one, we know that even marriage declared before God is no more lifelong than baby teeth. If books like Eat, Pray Love can be any kind of indicator, any marriage can only last as long as interest. Boredom, it would seem, is cause enough to leave behind the person to whom you've pledged your life and go on epic journeys of narcissism. But that's another story.

As to the second matter, having been amongst the ranks of militant evangelists, I fully understand the idea that my concept of what God will and won't do is the only correct one. I imagine telling the author that the Unitarian church in my town is led by a lesbian who would gladly perform ceremonies for same sex couples. Unfortunately, I already know the conclusion of that line of reasoning and I am aware that I cannot change her ideas on the matter. That is up to her conscience.

In that regard I'll allow that the author at least thinks she is tolerant, though clearly she is not. But it wasn't tolerant evangelicals who lobbied so vocally against same sex marriage. It wasn't tolerant evangelicals who screamed about how awful marriage equality was for children. And it certainly wasn't tolerant evangelicals who convinced her that she would be forced to perform same sex marriage ceremonies. That simply cannot be the case in this country. So by the author's utter complacence and willingness to be proselytized against a fundamental right of two loving adults, she is completely and utterly intolerant. I have said before that apathy is the worst enemy of equality because when people are on the wrong side of progress, they're just plain wrong. Apathy is much harder to combat because there is no passion to stir. It seems now that I have to update that statement. Lip service, or "faux tolerance," embraces ignorance and entails discrimination. Faux tolerance is far worse than apathy.

Tweet

Share

Yes We Can!

It has been an outstanding couple of days for progressives. Yesterday the Senate passed a jobs bill that will help over 250,000 public sector employees. That is teachers, firefighters, police officers etc. etc. will not be laid off due to budget cuts. The fact that this bill is deficit neutral, being paid for with budget cuts and corporate tax increases (closed loopholes?) did not sway Republican deficit hawks. Only Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine had the balls to stand for the American middle class. Now Nancy Pelosi has called an emergency session of the House in order to get this legislation on the President's desk by the end of next week.

Yesterday U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker decided that California's Proposition 8, the CA constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman, was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He also found that the law violated the LGBT community's right to due process. In his incredibly well written decision, Judge Walker considers any potential benefit such a law would provide the state to justify a civil transgression against gays and lesbians. He found none. The 138 page decision reflected everything fellow advocates of marriage equality have said over the last several years.

Today the full Senate voted 63 to 37 on the confirmation of Solicitor General Elena Kagan as the 112th member of the Supreme Court of the Unites States. Kagan becomes the fourth woman to be nominated and confirmed as an Associate Justice (that's just a tad under 4% for those keeping track) and there are now the most women ever seated at the same time on the SCOTUS bench... THREE! (also three Jews)

Finally, challenges to the proposed site of the Cordoba House, a Muslim cultural center and mosque were unanimously rejected. Vehement arguments from detractors were met with the calm resolve of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and an interfaith coalition of religious leaders. The Imam argued that the greatest way to fight extremism is to prove that they do not represent the majority. The freedom to build a church of any faith wherever the faithful want it was what was attacked on 9/11. Every American knows the pain that was caused that day, but to succumb to the noise the mosque opponents made would be a victory for the extremists.

Let me be 100%, unequivocally crystal clear...

... George Bush will raise your taxes in January 2011. 

"... It's idiotic."

This despite claims from nearly all Republican leadership and the half-term governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin. Palin went so far as to call Obama's plan to raise taxes 'idiotic.' Frankly, it's a lie. Republicans have forgotten their own recent history and thus, have no clue (really just choose to ignore) WHY the Bush tax cuts are set to expire in the first place. So now, a history lesson:


In 2001 and again in 2003 George Bush directed Congress to create legislation that would reduce taxes to all tax brackets, including a $300 tax refund for individuals, $600 for families. His reasoning? The budget surplus he inherited from his predecessor was due to government charging you, Joe Taxpayer, too much money. The problem was that even the Republican controlled Congress could see this was a bad idea. The immediate impact was to go from a $200 million surplus (swelling to $800B by 2009) into a $1.2 TRILLION deficit. Facing a Democratic filibuster on both occasions Dubya urged Congress to use Budget Reconciliation to pass the tax cuts. Budget Reconciliation is a set of rules by which legislation can defeat filibuster by a simple majority. Congress was able to pass the tax cuts, handshakes all around. HOWEVER, one of the rules for using Budget Reconciliation is that if the legislation increases the deficit it cannot do so interminably, but for a maximum of ten years. The thought was that so many jobs would be created and so much growth would occur that any future administration would have no choice but to make the cuts permanent.OR the thought was that by the end of ten years, should the Democrats be in charge (as they are) the tax cuts would be a great political chip for the Republican party. Either way history proved Bush and the Republicans wrong. 



The fact remains that from the outset there was a horizon on the Bush tax cuts. The horizon was there because the tax cuts were BAD NEWS for the budget. Extending them will not magically make them good news. In fact, we stand to go another $2.3 trillion in the hole in the next ten years alone. If we are truly concerned about the deficit, then in no way should we support extending the Bush tax cuts. Therefore, upon expiration, George Bush will have raised taxes two years after leaving office.