TORT REFORM DEBATE on PBS NEWSHOUR
I was watching the NEWSHOUR with Jim Lehrer on PBS, and during the tort reform debate, a woman opposed to reform said that a brain damaged child's award would be capped at $250,000. The man who supported tort reform corrected her misleading statement, saying that the child's medical and living expenses would be paid for life, but pain and suffering damages ABOVE that would be capped at $250,000. Quite a big misrepresentation by the anti-tort reform side, don't you think? Keep that in mind if you watch any people debate this, or even in the reporting about it! Half-truths are the bane of good journalism, tainting without technicaly "lying". Good thing that PBS had someone from the conservative side swift enough to catch the spin and hit it out of the ballpark. I'll have to look up the names, but it was fun to watch.
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Sunday, January 02, 2005
COMMENTS FROM BS (BARBARA STRIESAND!)
This section contains statements and speeches by Ms. Streisand.
The "So-Called" Liberal Media ...Barbra Streisand
Posted on December 10, 2004
The idea of a liberal media bias is simply a myth. If only it were true, we might have a more humane, open-minded, and ultimately effective public debate on the issues facing the country. We may actually embrace the principles of liberalism, instead of using it as a tool to divide the nation. Everything good that has happened in this country is founded on the ideology of liberalism. Liberals in the past were liberators who fought for a woman's right to vote, and fought to end segregation in the United States and then to end apartheid in South Africa. Thanks to liberals, today we have public education, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, environmental protection laws, a minimum wage law...among many other wonderful programs. Such a label should be worn with a badge of honor and defended by Democrats, not allowed to be used as slander by the Right Wing.
TRANSLATION: EVERYTHING GOOD COMES FROM LIBERALS, AND THEIR THOUGHT PROCESS! BELIEVING THAT IS NOT A BIAS!
Frankly, the idea that the media is sympathetic to conservative causes rather than liberal ones is obvious, for reasons of ownership, economics, and outside pressure. With the major networks being controlled by a small group of large corporations, the news reporting has become most often sympathetic to conservatives, for fear of losing advertising dollars and being reprimanded by the current administration.
TRANSLATION: CONSERVATIVES ARE BAD PEOPLE! THE ONES THAT OWN FOX NEWS AND OTHER MEDIA ARE CONTROLLING EVERYONE ELSE, EXCEPT THE LIBERALS! THIS IS EVIDENCE OF CONSERVATIVE BIAS!
Dan Rather was castigated by the media for airing the Bush National Guard story before completely verifying one document. As we have known for years, the details of Bush's service record offered in the story were true, as Killian's secretary even verified, although the document presented in the piece is in question. Men who served in Bush's unit for the year he claimed he was in the National Guard, have stated on record that they do not remember seeing him there. The LA times also reported the story and even printed that when asked to report to Vietnam, Bush checked the box stating "do not volunteer for overseas." Now, an award-winning respected journalist has decided to retire early with a black mark on his career. In sharp contrast, no such walking papers or even a slap on the wrist was given to those in the Bush Administration, who perpetuated false information to the public as a way to rally support for the Iraq war. Dan Rather's error didn't hold a candle to the seriousness of the lies and lives lost by entering into an unnecessary war. One's actions are a little sloppy - the other's actions are high crimes and misdemeanors. Among the litany of false claims by the Bush Administration were a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, the purchase of aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons by Iraq, the possibility of a "smoking gun" to become "a mushroom cloud," and Iraq's purchase of yellow cake from Niger. If the President, who has formed a habit of blaming others for the mistakes committed by his administration, thought that the intelligence, defense and security information he received was bad, then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, CIA Director, George Tenet, and National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice should have been fired immediately. Yet few in the media took aim at anyone in the Administration for their egregious errors and deceit. If Dan Rather was so excoriated for talking about a document that may not be real, the press should have pressured this administration to step down for their countless lies and irreparable mistakes - starting with the President. The Bush Administration's lies were far more serious and detrimental to the American public, in that it falsely represented the reasons to wage war and send American soldiers into battle. Thousands of young soldiers and a hundred thousand innocent Iraqis have died in vain, thousands have been wounded and more continue to die everyday as this war wages on. The hypocrisy would be laughable, if it wasn't so tragic. DAN RATHER'S LIE WAS NOT AS BAD AS BUSH AND THE REST OF THE WORLD SAYING SADDAM HAD WMD!
The press failed once again with regard to fellow Journalist Robert Novak, who stooped to a low in journalistic integrity by naming an undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame in his nationally syndicated column, thereby destroying her career and putting her life and her network of associates in danger. Novak was neither fired from CNN, where he is a commentator on Crossfire, or from his newspaper column. Nor was he even publicly reprimanded. The "liberally-biased" media failed to hold Robert Novak accountable for his highly partisan and destructive actions. BOB NOVAK SHOULD BE IN JAIL, NOT JUDY!
Remember back during the 2000 election when RNC employees posed as "irate local citizens" and stormed polling places in Florida in order to squelch the recount process. Where was the press coverage investigating the deception and informing Americans of the truth. Where was the press coverage of Florida's highly controversial felon list, which was produced by a private contractor and riddled with inaccuracies, denying tens of thousands of eligible voters the right to vote? When minority voters are being intimidated and disenfranchised by the thousands leading up to and during a close election race, the public relies on the press to bring the story to the forefront thereby prompting immediate action by our leaders. DEMOCRATS WERE THE THUGGISH ONES THIS YEAR, AND I SUPPORTED THEM!!
With the presence of Fox News, The O 'Reilly Factor, Rush Limbaugh, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post, no one can dispute the existence of a strong conservative media. However, where these news outlets feel free to proudly proclaim their "conservative bias" by sharing their unwanted opinions, prestigious TV network anchors like Walter Cronkite, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, Bill Moyers and Jim Lehrer carefully tow-the-line to present the news in a balanced manner. They are real journalists who objectively present the news in order to allow the audience to make up their own minds. But sadly, today some of these wannabe TV reporters make inappropriate and derogatory statements perhaps in an effort to make a name for themselves. I TRIED TO AVOID THE SPOTLIGHT, BUT I WAS EXPOSED AGAIN!!
Despite all the claims of pushing a biased liberal agenda by the press, the Republicans have managed to win five out of the last seven Presidential elections, and this year continue to strengthen their control of the congress. Their success undoubtedly is due in part to the fact that reporters on major networks have become so fearful of either losing their job or being deemed biased, they have relinquished their journalistic responsibility to hold our leaders accountable. I SUCK HARDER THAN ALL THE REST OF THE DEMOCRATS, WHO CLEAN THE CHROME OFF MY BUMBER!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "So-Called" Liberal Media ...Barbra Streisand
Posted on December 10, 2004
The idea of a liberal media bias is simply a myth. If only it were true, we might have a more humane, open-minded, and ultimately effective public debate on the issues facing the country. We may actually embrace the principles of liberalism, instead of using it as a tool to divide the nation. Everything good that has happened in this country is founded on the ideology of liberalism. Liberals in the past were liberators who fought for a woman's right to vote, and fought to end segregation in the United States and then to end apartheid in South Africa. Thanks to liberals, today we have public education, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, environmental protection laws, a minimum wage law...among many other wonderful programs. Such a label should be worn with a badge of honor and defended by Democrats, not allowed to be used as slander by the Right Wing.
TRANSLATION: EVERYTHING GOOD COMES FROM LIBERALS, AND THEIR THOUGHT PROCESS! BELIEVING THAT IS NOT A BIAS!
Frankly, the idea that the media is sympathetic to conservative causes rather than liberal ones is obvious, for reasons of ownership, economics, and outside pressure. With the major networks being controlled by a small group of large corporations, the news reporting has become most often sympathetic to conservatives, for fear of losing advertising dollars and being reprimanded by the current administration.
TRANSLATION: CONSERVATIVES ARE BAD PEOPLE! THE ONES THAT OWN FOX NEWS AND OTHER MEDIA ARE CONTROLLING EVERYONE ELSE, EXCEPT THE LIBERALS! THIS IS EVIDENCE OF CONSERVATIVE BIAS!
Dan Rather was castigated by the media for airing the Bush National Guard story before completely verifying one document. As we have known for years, the details of Bush's service record offered in the story were true, as Killian's secretary even verified, although the document presented in the piece is in question. Men who served in Bush's unit for the year he claimed he was in the National Guard, have stated on record that they do not remember seeing him there. The LA times also reported the story and even printed that when asked to report to Vietnam, Bush checked the box stating "do not volunteer for overseas." Now, an award-winning respected journalist has decided to retire early with a black mark on his career. In sharp contrast, no such walking papers or even a slap on the wrist was given to those in the Bush Administration, who perpetuated false information to the public as a way to rally support for the Iraq war. Dan Rather's error didn't hold a candle to the seriousness of the lies and lives lost by entering into an unnecessary war. One's actions are a little sloppy - the other's actions are high crimes and misdemeanors. Among the litany of false claims by the Bush Administration were a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, the purchase of aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons by Iraq, the possibility of a "smoking gun" to become "a mushroom cloud," and Iraq's purchase of yellow cake from Niger. If the President, who has formed a habit of blaming others for the mistakes committed by his administration, thought that the intelligence, defense and security information he received was bad, then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, CIA Director, George Tenet, and National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice should have been fired immediately. Yet few in the media took aim at anyone in the Administration for their egregious errors and deceit. If Dan Rather was so excoriated for talking about a document that may not be real, the press should have pressured this administration to step down for their countless lies and irreparable mistakes - starting with the President. The Bush Administration's lies were far more serious and detrimental to the American public, in that it falsely represented the reasons to wage war and send American soldiers into battle. Thousands of young soldiers and a hundred thousand innocent Iraqis have died in vain, thousands have been wounded and more continue to die everyday as this war wages on. The hypocrisy would be laughable, if it wasn't so tragic. DAN RATHER'S LIE WAS NOT AS BAD AS BUSH AND THE REST OF THE WORLD SAYING SADDAM HAD WMD!
The press failed once again with regard to fellow Journalist Robert Novak, who stooped to a low in journalistic integrity by naming an undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame in his nationally syndicated column, thereby destroying her career and putting her life and her network of associates in danger. Novak was neither fired from CNN, where he is a commentator on Crossfire, or from his newspaper column. Nor was he even publicly reprimanded. The "liberally-biased" media failed to hold Robert Novak accountable for his highly partisan and destructive actions. BOB NOVAK SHOULD BE IN JAIL, NOT JUDY!
Remember back during the 2000 election when RNC employees posed as "irate local citizens" and stormed polling places in Florida in order to squelch the recount process. Where was the press coverage investigating the deception and informing Americans of the truth. Where was the press coverage of Florida's highly controversial felon list, which was produced by a private contractor and riddled with inaccuracies, denying tens of thousands of eligible voters the right to vote? When minority voters are being intimidated and disenfranchised by the thousands leading up to and during a close election race, the public relies on the press to bring the story to the forefront thereby prompting immediate action by our leaders. DEMOCRATS WERE THE THUGGISH ONES THIS YEAR, AND I SUPPORTED THEM!!
With the presence of Fox News, The O 'Reilly Factor, Rush Limbaugh, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post, no one can dispute the existence of a strong conservative media. However, where these news outlets feel free to proudly proclaim their "conservative bias" by sharing their unwanted opinions, prestigious TV network anchors like Walter Cronkite, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, Bill Moyers and Jim Lehrer carefully tow-the-line to present the news in a balanced manner. They are real journalists who objectively present the news in order to allow the audience to make up their own minds. But sadly, today some of these wannabe TV reporters make inappropriate and derogatory statements perhaps in an effort to make a name for themselves. I TRIED TO AVOID THE SPOTLIGHT, BUT I WAS EXPOSED AGAIN!!
Despite all the claims of pushing a biased liberal agenda by the press, the Republicans have managed to win five out of the last seven Presidential elections, and this year continue to strengthen their control of the congress. Their success undoubtedly is due in part to the fact that reporters on major networks have become so fearful of either losing their job or being deemed biased, they have relinquished their journalistic responsibility to hold our leaders accountable. I SUCK HARDER THAN ALL THE REST OF THE DEMOCRATS, WHO CLEAN THE CHROME OFF MY BUMBER!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISTASTE FOR FANCE! (er, FRANCE)
UNDERSTANDING THE FRENCH is to know DISTASTE!
The bigger the picture one takes of the French, the worse they look. This policy they recently adopted, trying to make a "balance" against US power, looks to end badly, as most of their foreign schemes have. Having sided with Saddam in the recent conflict, they now have to be looked at as potentially collaborating with Iran, Syria, or even North Korea and China. One wonders how far will France go to "counter" what it perceives as US influence worldwide.
The EU is another bad idea that the French think will ressurect their glory days, this time lording over the new Eastern European democracies. The problem here is that the new Europe has low tax rates, and bursting economies. France, Germany, among others are welfare states with economies approaching the state of the old Eastern European nations under communism. One senses that the "new" Europeans might not enjoy exchanging one yoke for another, once the chafing starts again. (as in soon)
France has been a "has-been" on the world stage for the better part of the last century. Now, they constitute a new threat: Millions of "unassimilated" Muslims from various nations living in housing projects outside of the cities all over France. When the French economy collapses, will there be an Islamist, or Communist uprising, even as democracy takes root in Iraq, and Eastern Europe? If either of these groups take over France, they will have access to nuclear arms. This could be the outcome of their Socialized economy, if they aren't allowed to suck the life out of the booming EastEU countries.
France and Germany are like the canaries in the coal mine of unbridled Socialism, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The amount of EU regulation of enterprise probably exceeds the centralized bureaucracy of the USSR in its heyday. France's Socialist economy won't even qualify for membership in it's own little EU club. One hopes they don't take all of Europe down with them again, with their crazy schemes.
This is all just speculation. But one can agree on a few things, no?
F#*K FRANCE!
BOYCOTT FRANCE!
TELL EVERY FRENCH PERSON YOU MEET HOW STUPID THEIR PRESIDENT IS, AND THAT THE U.S. WILL GET ALONG WITH FRANCE SO MUCH BETTER ONCE THEY REPLACE THAT JERK JAQUES CHIRAC!
Chris Leavitt 07/01/04
The bigger the picture one takes of the French, the worse they look. This policy they recently adopted, trying to make a "balance" against US power, looks to end badly, as most of their foreign schemes have. Having sided with Saddam in the recent conflict, they now have to be looked at as potentially collaborating with Iran, Syria, or even North Korea and China. One wonders how far will France go to "counter" what it perceives as US influence worldwide.
The EU is another bad idea that the French think will ressurect their glory days, this time lording over the new Eastern European democracies. The problem here is that the new Europe has low tax rates, and bursting economies. France, Germany, among others are welfare states with economies approaching the state of the old Eastern European nations under communism. One senses that the "new" Europeans might not enjoy exchanging one yoke for another, once the chafing starts again. (as in soon)
France has been a "has-been" on the world stage for the better part of the last century. Now, they constitute a new threat: Millions of "unassimilated" Muslims from various nations living in housing projects outside of the cities all over France. When the French economy collapses, will there be an Islamist, or Communist uprising, even as democracy takes root in Iraq, and Eastern Europe? If either of these groups take over France, they will have access to nuclear arms. This could be the outcome of their Socialized economy, if they aren't allowed to suck the life out of the booming EastEU countries.
France and Germany are like the canaries in the coal mine of unbridled Socialism, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The amount of EU regulation of enterprise probably exceeds the centralized bureaucracy of the USSR in its heyday. France's Socialist economy won't even qualify for membership in it's own little EU club. One hopes they don't take all of Europe down with them again, with their crazy schemes.
This is all just speculation. But one can agree on a few things, no?
F#*K FRANCE!
BOYCOTT FRANCE!
TELL EVERY FRENCH PERSON YOU MEET HOW STUPID THEIR PRESIDENT IS, AND THAT THE U.S. WILL GET ALONG WITH FRANCE SO MUCH BETTER ONCE THEY REPLACE THAT JERK JAQUES CHIRAC!
Chris Leavitt 07/01/04
BOB ALLEN ON 9/11
I woke up this morning in my 17th floor apartment in Brooklyn Heights and
watched the sun come up over lower Manhattan, something I have done every
morning for the six years I have been living here.
The skyline across the East River looked miraculously untouched, and I might
have believed that the horror I had witnessed from my window yesterday was
only a plot for one of my novels, except the two towers, which had been the
centerpiece of my view, were gone, replaced by a pillar of smoke still
billowing from a spot where I had stood only a week ago.
But the rising sun still glinted off the other skyscrapers, and the smell of
smoke was dissipating from my apartment. I turned on the TV to hear my
mayor
say we New Yorkers had too much spirit to have it extinguished by an act of
terror. And he's right. Live goes on.
Out my window, people are opening their businesses, including an Arab-run
news stand across the street. The man, who listens to music I find strange
and speaks in a language I cannot understand, works hard many hours every
day. I have seen fear in his eyes late at night when he wonders if the next
customer will add a few pennies to his daily earnings or come to steal from
him. He may look and speak different, but he's just like all of us in this
vast melting pot of American with the sames dreams and fears.
We cannot hate people for the color of their skin or their place of origin;
that's not the American way. We hate people for their actions, and we will
make those who caused this horrendous act pay for their crime. But if we
follow the advice of those who have let hate cloud their judgment at this
time of terror, then we will be as bad as those who perpetrated this crime.
The terror is real. Just now I hear the roar of jet engines outside my
window, and a shudder runs up my spine. I realize that's how the people of
London must have felt during the blitz, but this time I know it's an
American
fighter jet flying precautionary cover over my City. But the thought that
such an action has become necessary makes me shudder, too. My country has
changed. Life will never be the same again. But if we let these terrorists
steal freedom and decency from us, they will have won. These gutless
wonders
can defeat us only if we let them. These terrorists have no arsenal to use
against us. They were able to attack America only by using our own peaceful
tools --our passenger airliners -- as weapons against us. If they cause us
to hate senselessly, they will use our own emotions against us, too.
--Bob Allen
Wednesday, September 19, 2001 12:19:49 AM
watched the sun come up over lower Manhattan, something I have done every
morning for the six years I have been living here.
The skyline across the East River looked miraculously untouched, and I might
have believed that the horror I had witnessed from my window yesterday was
only a plot for one of my novels, except the two towers, which had been the
centerpiece of my view, were gone, replaced by a pillar of smoke still
billowing from a spot where I had stood only a week ago.
But the rising sun still glinted off the other skyscrapers, and the smell of
smoke was dissipating from my apartment. I turned on the TV to hear my
mayor
say we New Yorkers had too much spirit to have it extinguished by an act of
terror. And he's right. Live goes on.
Out my window, people are opening their businesses, including an Arab-run
news stand across the street. The man, who listens to music I find strange
and speaks in a language I cannot understand, works hard many hours every
day. I have seen fear in his eyes late at night when he wonders if the next
customer will add a few pennies to his daily earnings or come to steal from
him. He may look and speak different, but he's just like all of us in this
vast melting pot of American with the sames dreams and fears.
We cannot hate people for the color of their skin or their place of origin;
that's not the American way. We hate people for their actions, and we will
make those who caused this horrendous act pay for their crime. But if we
follow the advice of those who have let hate cloud their judgment at this
time of terror, then we will be as bad as those who perpetrated this crime.
The terror is real. Just now I hear the roar of jet engines outside my
window, and a shudder runs up my spine. I realize that's how the people of
London must have felt during the blitz, but this time I know it's an
American
fighter jet flying precautionary cover over my City. But the thought that
such an action has become necessary makes me shudder, too. My country has
changed. Life will never be the same again. But if we let these terrorists
steal freedom and decency from us, they will have won. These gutless
wonders
can defeat us only if we let them. These terrorists have no arsenal to use
against us. They were able to attack America only by using our own peaceful
tools --our passenger airliners -- as weapons against us. If they cause us
to hate senselessly, they will use our own emotions against us, too.
--Bob Allen
Wednesday, September 19, 2001 12:19:49 AM
Sunday, December 19, 2004
BULIMIC GROUP PROTESTS ANTI-WAR PUKERS
BULIMIC GROUP PROTESTS ANTI-WAR PUKERS Christopher K. Leavitt www.leavworld.com 03/30/03
A nationwide coalition of bulimia support groups held a protest today at a private clinic in an undisclosed location against the anti-war protesters who "self-purged" on the steps of the Federal building in San Francisco. "There are better ways to protest the war than by promoting unhealthy psychological conditions" said patient X, who said stress over the first Gulf war led to her condition as a child. "Seeing those people throw up just makes me sick, and that's a problem for me", she said, adding "We don't need to see the use of self-induced vomiting shown in such a positive light as an anti-war protest". When asked if anything Saddam Hussein did ever made her sick or caused her to "self purge", she replied "Who is Saddam Hussein?"
A nationwide coalition of bulimia support groups held a protest today at a private clinic in an undisclosed location against the anti-war protesters who "self-purged" on the steps of the Federal building in San Francisco. "There are better ways to protest the war than by promoting unhealthy psychological conditions" said patient X, who said stress over the first Gulf war led to her condition as a child. "Seeing those people throw up just makes me sick, and that's a problem for me", she said, adding "We don't need to see the use of self-induced vomiting shown in such a positive light as an anti-war protest". When asked if anything Saddam Hussein did ever made her sick or caused her to "self purge", she replied "Who is Saddam Hussein?"
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
SOLOMON'S WISDOM ON ABORTION
Splitting the difference on abortion: A prescription for criticism!
1ST trimester: no restriction
2ND trimester: only if the life OR health of mother is threatened.
3RD trimester: only if the life of the mother is threatened
Any law regulating abortion would need the cooperation of doctors, so that is who the law must apply to. They should be responsible for enforcing the guidelines. Pregnant women would be subject to no criminal penalty for late term abortion.
OTHER OPTIONS ON ABORTION: Why can't we start out with a law against killing a fetus that has any part of it's body outside the womb, and work back from there? I don't want to ban all abortions, but decent human beings can not tolerate state sanctioned "aborting" of the weakest, most innocent human beings; the subject of the decision. I differ with most of the "religious right" in that I think a woman should be able to "abort" a child before the second trimester. There isn't much of this "gray area" in most reporting I have read. I supported the use of the "morning after" pill, though wider use of it may show deadly side effects from abuse, specifically overdosing. I'm not so sure any more. I expect to get criticized from all sides. Let's hear it!
1ST trimester: no restriction
2ND trimester: only if the life OR health of mother is threatened.
3RD trimester: only if the life of the mother is threatened
Any law regulating abortion would need the cooperation of doctors, so that is who the law must apply to. They should be responsible for enforcing the guidelines. Pregnant women would be subject to no criminal penalty for late term abortion.
OTHER OPTIONS ON ABORTION: Why can't we start out with a law against killing a fetus that has any part of it's body outside the womb, and work back from there? I don't want to ban all abortions, but decent human beings can not tolerate state sanctioned "aborting" of the weakest, most innocent human beings; the subject of the decision. I differ with most of the "religious right" in that I think a woman should be able to "abort" a child before the second trimester. There isn't much of this "gray area" in most reporting I have read. I supported the use of the "morning after" pill, though wider use of it may show deadly side effects from abuse, specifically overdosing. I'm not so sure any more. I expect to get criticized from all sides. Let's hear it!
ABOUT HATE SPEECH 06/26/03
ON RACE: ARE BAD WORDS REALLY HATEFUL? 06/26/03
I've been thinking about "hate" crimes and "hate" speech lately, and I'm reminded of two episodes from my childhood. The first one was when I was in sixth grade at St. Paul the Apostle school in Manhattan. Most of my friends lived in the Amsterdam housing projects, right behind Lincoln Center. Most days, after school, we would go to the Lincoln Center Library and do childish things, like sliding down the escalators, or scratch up the great Motown records (after listening to them, of course). Across the street was the Julliard school, where we would sneak in and try to get a peek at the aspiring ballerinas practicing. They were like creatures from another planet, all of them so pale and skinny, with their hair pulled up in a little bun on top of their heads. One day we stayed outside, and taunted them as they left the school, saying "HON-KEY, HON-KEY, HON-KEY!" This was great fun for an hour or so, after which we went back over to Lincoln Center to hang out. I finally got around to asking one of my friends what a "honky" was. After he told me, I said "but wait, I'M WHITE!". One of my friends said "You're not Puerto Rican?", to which I replied "I've got blond hair and freckles!". He replied, "Chris, YOU A HONKY!". We all laughed, and no friendships were ended that day, though we didn't "honky-bait" the Julliard girls again.
The second episode was maybe a year or so later, when I was spending weekends in Freeport with my father. I met a whole new bunch of kids from south Freeport (all white), and quite a different culture. I was talking with a girl from this crowd, when I said to her "nigger, you're crazy". OH BOY. The resulting commotion could be called "culture shock", but I was lucky the whole crowd didn't kick my ass! I tried to explain that where I was from, that expression was no more offensive than saying "Man, you're crazy" or "Dude, you're crazy". I can still remember her screaming "He called me a nigger!", over and over as my brother helped smooth things out with the crowd. I still wonder if she would've had as bad a reaction if I had said "Bitch, you're crazy". However, I'm proud to say that I watched many people from that crowd overcome their racism in the following years, especially during high school.
The point of these stories is that you can't judge what's in a person's heart or mind just by what they say on one occasion. You also can't guess at what another person might be over-sensitive to, or what they actually hear when you speak. I realize that I'm citing childhood anecdotes, showing me to be quite a naive child. As adults, more is expected of us. Therein lies my problem with "hate crime" laws. If I get into a fight with a black guy, and I call him "nigger" during the fight, is that a "hate crime"? Considering my above stories, couldn't I make a case that, in my formative years, I learned that word as being no more offensive than "man" or "dude"? Would a jury buy it? Or how about a customer at the motel, an old black man who said to me "they should ship you back to Ireland"? (I swear it's true, Anna was on the phone listening to the whole thing!) Should I have denied him a room, and sued him for "hate speech", or just laughed it off? I laughed it off, of course. However, I don't see a need to apologize for using "bad" words in my everyday speech (or my emails). I don't use racially polarizing words nearly as often as I use plain old profanity, which is supposed to be offensive to everyone. While society is getting more permissive of general profanity, more and more words are deemed "politically incorrect" due to racial over-sensitivity. Well, I'm not buying it. The only person I have to worry about offending is the man who looks back at me in the mirror; he's the most honest judge of my character.
We're all human, and quite fallible. Once we accept this, maybe we can work around all of our individual "quirks" and "biases". I may hate what someone else has to say, but I will defend their right to say it, unless it actually incites others to break the law.
CHRISTOPHER K. LEAVITT
I've been thinking about "hate" crimes and "hate" speech lately, and I'm reminded of two episodes from my childhood. The first one was when I was in sixth grade at St. Paul the Apostle school in Manhattan. Most of my friends lived in the Amsterdam housing projects, right behind Lincoln Center. Most days, after school, we would go to the Lincoln Center Library and do childish things, like sliding down the escalators, or scratch up the great Motown records (after listening to them, of course). Across the street was the Julliard school, where we would sneak in and try to get a peek at the aspiring ballerinas practicing. They were like creatures from another planet, all of them so pale and skinny, with their hair pulled up in a little bun on top of their heads. One day we stayed outside, and taunted them as they left the school, saying "HON-KEY, HON-KEY, HON-KEY!" This was great fun for an hour or so, after which we went back over to Lincoln Center to hang out. I finally got around to asking one of my friends what a "honky" was. After he told me, I said "but wait, I'M WHITE!". One of my friends said "You're not Puerto Rican?", to which I replied "I've got blond hair and freckles!". He replied, "Chris, YOU A HONKY!". We all laughed, and no friendships were ended that day, though we didn't "honky-bait" the Julliard girls again.
The second episode was maybe a year or so later, when I was spending weekends in Freeport with my father. I met a whole new bunch of kids from south Freeport (all white), and quite a different culture. I was talking with a girl from this crowd, when I said to her "nigger, you're crazy". OH BOY. The resulting commotion could be called "culture shock", but I was lucky the whole crowd didn't kick my ass! I tried to explain that where I was from, that expression was no more offensive than saying "Man, you're crazy" or "Dude, you're crazy". I can still remember her screaming "He called me a nigger!", over and over as my brother helped smooth things out with the crowd. I still wonder if she would've had as bad a reaction if I had said "Bitch, you're crazy". However, I'm proud to say that I watched many people from that crowd overcome their racism in the following years, especially during high school.
The point of these stories is that you can't judge what's in a person's heart or mind just by what they say on one occasion. You also can't guess at what another person might be over-sensitive to, or what they actually hear when you speak. I realize that I'm citing childhood anecdotes, showing me to be quite a naive child. As adults, more is expected of us. Therein lies my problem with "hate crime" laws. If I get into a fight with a black guy, and I call him "nigger" during the fight, is that a "hate crime"? Considering my above stories, couldn't I make a case that, in my formative years, I learned that word as being no more offensive than "man" or "dude"? Would a jury buy it? Or how about a customer at the motel, an old black man who said to me "they should ship you back to Ireland"? (I swear it's true, Anna was on the phone listening to the whole thing!) Should I have denied him a room, and sued him for "hate speech", or just laughed it off? I laughed it off, of course. However, I don't see a need to apologize for using "bad" words in my everyday speech (or my emails). I don't use racially polarizing words nearly as often as I use plain old profanity, which is supposed to be offensive to everyone. While society is getting more permissive of general profanity, more and more words are deemed "politically incorrect" due to racial over-sensitivity. Well, I'm not buying it. The only person I have to worry about offending is the man who looks back at me in the mirror; he's the most honest judge of my character.
We're all human, and quite fallible. Once we accept this, maybe we can work around all of our individual "quirks" and "biases". I may hate what someone else has to say, but I will defend their right to say it, unless it actually incites others to break the law.
CHRISTOPHER K. LEAVITT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)