Friday, August 13, 2010

Dr. Laura, Racist D---

Today is Friday, 13 August 2010.

A Black woman is married to a white male. Yesterday, she called a radio talk show, objecting that the husband’s family and white friends make racist remarks freely in her presence.

If the host of the talk show is the physiologist, homophobe, and sometime-adulterer Laura Schlessinger, the host says, of the “n-word”, “Black guys use it all the time. Turn on HBO, listen to a black comic, and all you hear is nigger, nigger, nigger," and uses the word eight more times during the conversation.

The Black woman objects to use of the race-hate word. If you’re Schlessinger, you say, "If you're that hypersensitive about color and don't have a sense of humor, don't marry out of your race".

(Should the Black woman have replied, “If you’re hypersensitive about being a c—t, you c—t, and don’t have a sense of humor, you should get an operation and become a d—k instead of a c—t, you c—t”. If she had, would/should Schlessinger have been offended?)

Schlessinger is such a typical white racist. She easily could have used a euphemism, such as “n- word”, but, imagining herself to being better than everyone not white, she believes all is permitted to her, including equating race-hate with a sense of humour.

(Ironically, Schlessinger is not, in the eyes of an authentic white racist, a white, since her father was Jewish.)

“White” or not, Schlessinger is definitely a “d—k”.

Note to “Anonymous”, on your comment on “Three Easy Pieces”:

I was apparently unclear: only the privileged (such as Buddy Holly, semi-professional sports teams, etc.) regularly commute via small plane. Given the fact that small planes and helicopters have higher accident and fatality rates than commercial airliners, the choice to use them, particularly on a regular basis for something as trivial as catching fish, is a very poor choice.

Stevens and the communications executive are particularly reprehensible for endangering the life of the executive’s child, and, indeed, killing her. Ditto in the case of the pilot. It is one thing to fly in such hazardous conditions on a critical errand of mercy; quite another to hire someone to do it for entertainment’s sake. Freedom isn’t about satisfying all of one’s appetites, but about responsibility.


Anonymous rtr said...

Way off base here HH. Like the result or not, Modern Alaska was built on aviation. True story; students in King Salmon commute to school daily via airplane. King Salmon and Naknek are separated by a small river that hasn't been bridged (to nowhere I suppose). The King Salmon students are flown across the river daily. All of bush Alaska is now entirely dependent on small planes. Cessna 172, 206, 207, Piper Navajo, DeHavilland Beaver, Otter and Twin Otter, Piper 208 (Caravan). High School sports teams in every village of the state travel to varsity athletic competition via small planes. Subsistence hunting activities may require small planes. With the enormous distances and hostile terrain that is Alaska, small aircraft are critically important to the health and well being of this state. All of the citizens her accept that fact as the price of admission as it were. The late Sen. Stevens was hugely influential in making great strides in air safety for Alaska. I didn't care for his politics but was a giant when it came to building Alaska infrastructure. My correspondence to you and other friends just a short time before his death when I was writing from Ketchikan found me flying round trip from Ketchikan to Craig on exactly the same model of plane that Senator Stevens and four others perished in. It is a great plane. Exceptionally powerful turbocharged engine and rock solid taking off and landing on water (with pontoons obviously).

1:00 AM  
Anonymous Hari said...

When will Dr. Laura get her well-deserved page in the Dickipedia?

4:49 AM  
Blogger fubarbeliever said...


I have read your post respecting HH's reply to the comment made by "Anonymous" regarding Three Easy Pieces, and couldn't agree more. Although HH asserts that "only the privileged" regularly commute via small plane, it is clear that he is woefully misinformed. Furthermore, in a tragedy where innocent people (they're ALL innocent unless their immediate ultimate goal was mischief) have lost their lives, his comments are not only ill-founded, but insensitive and hateful as well.

I understand from your post that you are a friend and correspondent of HH. Given HH's recent comments (see 6 July "On Terror and Intentions") respecting his "moral universe" and his firm belief in the Law of Unintended Consequences, the admissions contained in your post were presumably difficult for you to make. By engaging in an activity (routinely flying in a small plane) which, I believe, we can all agree is inherently dangerous, it is clear that you "intend" whatever might result from that choice, from an uneventful flight to your destination, to a plane crash and injury or death. In HH's opinion and, in his view, the opinion of each and every "reasonable" person, your choice is merely foolhardy. Of course, it rises to the level of "reprehensible" should you endanger the lives of others. You "intend" all the consequences which flow from your foolish decision, "particularly when they are, in fact, foreseeable and therefore intended." Thus, you intend injury and/or death. Woe to you.

I am assuming that you do not share with HH your participation in any other activities which may involve risk of injury or death - such as water skiing, snow skiing, riding Amtrak trains, swimming, sailing, riding horses, driving, etc. (really anything other than sitting safely on the sofa in your home). Unless you are on a "critical errand of mercy." No satisfying all one's appetites for diversion or entertainment. Or having anything that looks like fun. Freedom is about responsibility.

My grandmother was afraid of swimming and highways, or going over 45 mph in a horseless carriage. But she was an old woman...

12:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks to “rtr” and “fubarbeliever” for your comments regarding my recent post. Your comments are well-taken. I believe that HH has overstepped the bounds of civility here, in many respects, and is seriously ill-informed regarding other matters about which he speaks with misplaced authority. His statements accusing innocent victims of a tragedy of “reprehensible” conduct … well, they speak for themselves.

Every thinking, rational person realizes, of course, that EVERY activity is inherently “dangerous” to some degree, more or less. Going to university seems safe enough - wait a minute, there’s the sniper in the tower at University of Texas, and the deranged murderer at Virginia Tech. Going to hospital - well, hold on there - there’s staph infections, improper medications dispensed, communicable diseases present. And HH’s example of “safe” commercial air travel - goodness knows, there are no instances of failure there. (No need for those seatbelts and air cushions provided, I suppose.) And whether one is on a critical mission of mercy or otherwise… Good intentions or frivolous entertainments notwithstanding, if disaster strikes, one is just as dead, right?!

Seems blaming the unfortunate victims (be they rich or poor, righteous or evil) of random, unexpected accidents (in the truest sense of that word), is unjust and indecent.

3:12 PM  
Anonymous rtr said...

FU and Anon.

I have known HH for a great number of years and I have observed that a fundamental difference in our world views is the difference between raging against the dying of the light and Thanatopsis. Neither of us can abide a taking however.

I do find a bit of incongruity in HH claim to existential personal responsibility when he fails to permit that same existential personal responsibility of others (the personal responsibility of the parent of a 16 year old girl as well as that of the young lady herself).

While we are old comrades and share similar world views, I am not a pacifist although I continually seek peace of mind and harmony (or at least dissonance with appreciative audiences - cf Arnold Schoenberg and admittedly acquired taste). Nonetheless, I have no moral qualms about picking up a piece of stove wood and giving reign to my amygdala as the occasion warrants.

11:33 PM  
Anonymous HH said...

I'm confused, rtr. Who is Dylan Thomas and who is William Cullen Bryant?

8:06 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home