So much for apology for using the N-word eleven times in order to make an “educational” point. She is ‘retiring’ so that she can preserve her first amendment rights. She wants to be able to say what she wants and what is in her heart. It appears to me she did exactly that through her repetitive racist rant. Given her statement, it is crystal clear that the only thing that was insincere was her apology.

She is going to turn up again like a bad penny. The question is when and where. Until then, the airwaves will be a bit more civil.

It has become increasingly clear that white women are becoming the mouthpiece for the conservative movement. Sarah Palin is their greatest cheerleader and fundraiser as she jets around the country raising money for organizations and candidates who have demonstrated racist values and beliefs. Dr. Laura Schlesssinger’s recent racist rant is indicative of just how easy it is for white women to get away with such ignorant statements and not think twice of the harm being inflicting. In her national radio address, she uses the N-word with such ease that it was repulsive to listen to. It is total BS that she tries to condone her ignorance by saying it was used merely as an example. Saying the N-word once would have been bad enough, but to say it repeatedly is unacceptable.

Let’s draw a parallel yet imperfect analogy. Think of the ramifications if a male radio host told a female caller she was over-reacting because she gets uncomfortable when her husband’s friends and family continually make sexist remarks or jokes and her husband doesn’t do anything. Then the male radio host repeatedly uses the term cunt during his conversation with such ease you would think he uses that term on a daily basis.  What his intention is in using this filthy and inflammatory word is irrelevant. What he needs to focus on is how is behavior may be impacting the female caller.

I say this is an imperfect analogy because the C-word does not have the historical significance and power as the N-word.

There were so many things Schlessinger said that indicates that she hasn’t any idea of the privilege she possesses.

Here are a few bits of advice I have for Dr. Laura and others who might support her. This is from another white woman who passionately disagrees with the vile comments which spewed from her mouth.

1. Why can black people use the N-word and it not be a big deal but when white people say it they are called racist? It is a question that many whites ask but do not take the time to really listen. So let’s make it simple. For those of you who have siblings, I trust there have been times when you have made fun of them or used derogatory language towards them. The thinking is because they are in your family you can get away with it. However, if someone outside your family uses those same words to describe your siblings you get upset and outraged at what they have said. Why? Because if you are not in the family then just don’t go there.
2. Telling someone they are being oversensitive means that you may not have an adequate grasp of the situation the other person is experiencing. Usually it is just not one thing that has a person “over-reacting” in your perspective; it is a buildup of experiences, sometimes over years. Being called derogatory racist things such as the words used by Schlessinger is somewhat common place unfortunately. It’s also the racist jokes that the caller, Jade, had described as being upsetting to her. It’s the everyday indignities and the lifetime of oppressive systems.
3. Some white people seem to believe that as long as they didn’t mean for their words or actions to be racist then people of color shouldn’t get upset. That’s white privilege. What we choose not to focus on is the constant impact that folks of color have to endure. If someone steps on your foot accidently but they didn’t mean to hurt you does that mean that your foot doesn’t hurt? Of course it hurts. Let’s say that four more times that day different people step on that same foot. By the end of the day you probably have little patience or compassion for the person who is causing you pain. That’s one day in your life. Now imagine a lifetime of being stepped on so to speak. A harmless joke, the use of a certain word, acts of exclusion, can cause people great harm. They are not overreacting rather they are tired of being hurt.
4. The predictable and pathetic apologies after the bad behavior is infuriating. Perhaps if she wasn’t as mean spirited as she demonstrated that day, an apology would feel more genuine. Part of the privilege of being white means that we can get away with a slap on the wrist and are permitted to continue on.

Dr. Laura, people call you to solicit your help and your knowledge. You could have gained insight and knowledge of the experience Jade was sharing but you just didn’t listen. Your actions demonstrated you still have a lot to learn.

For the first time in history there are three sitting female justices on the Supreme Court. The appointment of Elena Kagan makes her the fourth ever female justice. There was a barrage of criticism questioning her sexual orientation and the impact that would have on her objectivity. Two thoughts on this:

1. Kagan has never said that she is anything but heterosexual, but the short hair and air of confidence seems to confuse her critics. Their thinking is because she is not married at her age she must be lesbian. So much for not making assumptions..I don’t recall people accusing Justice David Souter of being gay even though he has been a lifelong bachelor.

2. So what if she is lesbian. The thinking is if she is lesbian then she could not be objective in her decisions. This is very scary to the conservative right now that Prop. 8 in California has been overturned regarding same sex marriage. It looks as though that case might be heading to the Supreme Court at some point. The real question that should be asked is regarding the sexual orientation of the remaining eight justices. As heterosexuals how can they be objective? How about their religious convictions, how could they be objective?

There is no thing as objectivity no matter what anyone says. Our experiences shape our lives and our values and the best we can hope for is that we are able to see things through others people’s eyes in order to make as fair decisions as possible.

Today was a good day if you are one the side of justice for all–including us gay folks. Prop 8, was overturned and will most likely be heading to the United States Supreme Court. As more and more countries legalize same-sex marriages, the US, the supposed leader of democracy and justice is being left in the dust. It’s the same route we took with inter-racial marriage–it was illegal and immoral and now it is legal and not an issue with most people. Let’s learn from history. This is a big step in the right direction.

The Huffington Post writes…

In a major victory for gay rights activists, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday that a voter initiative banning same-sex marriage in California violated the Constitution’s equal protection and due process rights clauses.

After a five-month wait, 9th Circuit District Court Judge Vaughn Walker offered a 136-page decision in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, firmly rejecting Proposition 8, which was passed by voters in November 2008.

“Although Proposition 8 fails to possess even a rational basis, the evidence presented at trial shows that gays and lesbians are the type of minority strict scrutiny was designed to protect,” Walker ruled.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has a lot of courage as demonstrated by blocking the most controversial part of the new law. The rest of the law will go into place tomorrow as plan but no asking about immigration status or papers. This is sure to remain a firestorm. Just goes to show you that making our voices heard does make a difference and that the federal government sometimes does the right thing which is not always the most popular thing. Mr. President has some courage as well.

Check out the quick video.

CNN Video

Do you support the recent Supreme Court ruling that public colleges and universities may require religious organizations seeking recognition or funds as a campus group to comply with anti-bias rules?

No longer will religious student groups found in our colleges and universities be able to discriminate against other students if they want money and official recognition from the school. This is long overdue and sends a clear message that bias will not be tolerated.

The one item that concerns me is the word “MAY” contained in the ruling. I’m not a lawyer but how I read this is that if a public institution wants to allow such bias it may. If I am correct, then it allows the opportunity for the status quo to continue. Two steps forward one step back…definitely progress.

Check out the story…

INSIDE HIGHER ED — Breaking News Alert — June 28, 2010
>
> On the Web: http://www.insidehighered.com
>
> ——————————-
>
> WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled today, 5-to-4, that public colleges
> and universities may require religious organizations seeking recognition
> or funds as campus groups to comply with anti-bias rules.
>
> The ruling came in a lawsuit by the Christian Legal Society, which
> challenged the anti-bias rules of the Hastings College of Law of the
> University of California. The Hastings policy bars discrimination based on
> sexual orientation and the Christian Legal Society bars gay people from
> becoming members. Hastings has argued – with backing from many in public
> higher education – that state universities have an obligation to adhere to
> strict anti-bias rules. But the Christian Legal Society – with backing
> from many religious groups – has argued that forcing it to comply with
> anti-bias rules amounts to infringing on its First Amendment right to
> freedom of religion.
>
> To read the full article, click here:
> http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/06/28/supreme