Fakeroversy In The Governor's Race

It must be tough when you're running for governor and you have no idea what you're doing, so you figure that, since every candidate needs to start some sort of a scandal against their opponent, you'll just do that and see how it goes. While I don't recommend that approach, if you're going to take that route, might I suggest coming up with a scandal that people would give a fat rat's ass about? Acting all indignant because someone referred to you as a whore is really not going to do much to help you. It will be great fun for those who enjoy mocking you, however.

See, Meg Whitman is running for governor of California. For some reason, her being at the helm when eBay kind of rode itself to its own success is supposed to give her some sort of credibility as the Republican candidate. Well, that and the $140 million of her own money that she has poured into her campaign to get the nomination. (Apparently, she thinks the governor's seat is some sort of Buy It Now dealio.) And lately, she's been rocked by allegations of a former housekeeper that she...um...well....it's not real clear to me exactly what it is that she's being accused of doing. It might be that she didn't treat the hired help all that well, but I'm not totally sure about this. The fact that her ex-housekeeper was in this country illegally, used a fake Social Security number while Meg employed her and was then fired when Meg found out somehow plays a part in all of this, but again, I'm not quite sure how. It's definitely a fakeroversy (fake controversy), but I still have trouble grasping all of the straws that it contains.

Now, after that became the hooplah du jour (complete with Gloria Allred, the world's most awful human being, at the housekeeper's helm), Meg's campaign needed to have someone on her opponent, Jerry Brown. What did they come up with? I guess they had a hard time coming up with anything of substance because apparently, one of his staffers referred to her as a whore, so that's what they went with. Wait. What?

Yep. According to ABC News, Jerry Brown "...left a phone message in early September for a union official whose endorsement he was seeking, but apparently forgot to hang up...And either Brown or a staffer -- there is some dispute -- uses the word "whore" to describe his Republican rival Meg Whitman." Hmm. How about a little context to go with all of that nothing-ness there?

OK. The first part of the conversation that Brown has with one of his staffers after he thought that he had hung up goes something along the lines of Brown saying: "Do we want to put an ad out? … That I have been warned if I crack down on pensions, I will be – that they'll go to Whitman, and that's where they'll go because they know Whitman will give 'em, will cut them a deal, but I won't." So what he's saying (behind closed doors and totally off the record, as he didn't know that he didn't hang up) is that he's not going to cut a deal with the unions, but Whitman is, despite her saying publicly that she's not beholden to any group.

It's after that question that the staffer (or someone else) says, "What about saying she's a whore?" That's quite the idea. Call your opponent a whore in your ads. I don't know that I think it's the most politically savvy move, but Jerry Brown seemed to love it, as he responded, "Well, I'm going to use that...It proves you've cut a secret deal to protect the pensions." I don't know if calling her a whore would prove that, per se. But it would show that you're not afraid to call someone a whore!

Once Whitman's side became aware of this colorful depiction of her, they immediately issued a pansy-ass response. "The use of the term 'whore' is an insult to both Meg Whitman and to the women of California. This is an appalling and unforgivable smear against Meg Whitman. At the very least Mr. Brown tacitly approved this despicable slur and he himself may have used the term at least once on this recording,"

Really? It's an insult to the women of California? How is that? I'm a woman of California and I'm not insulted by Jerry Brown's staffers calling Meg Whitman a whore. It's hard to say if I'd be insulted if they called me a whore. Then again, I don't get insulted easily. That's a weak response. You know what would have been a better response? To DENY that you're acting like a whore by being in bed with the unions and promising them deals in exchange for their endorsements. Now THAT would have been something!

Did she dispute the essence of why they were calling her a whore? Not that I can find. No, she just decided to take the "You hurt my feelings" angle on it. And that seems to be how this is being reported. Why is it that we're focusing on the alleged name calling instead of the fact that she seems to be cutting back room deals with unions? Why aren't we focusing on the fact that Jerry Brown said in private (or what he thought was private) that he wasn't going to make deals with the unions? For him to have said that in private seems to lend credibility to him really meaning that. After all, why would you say something like that if you didn't mean it? It's not like you knew the whole world was going to hear you. It seems pretty credible to me.

But no. Instead, Meg Whitman wants to us to be all up in arms that Jerry Brown's staffer called her a whore. Well, I'm putting down my arms, as they are not up. This is ridiculous. Her allegedly cutting deals with the unions in order to win their support is the real story here. But she's not mentioning that. She's just whining about being called a whore. And by the way, if she is cutting back room deals with the unions in exchange for their support, then she absolutely is a whore. A big, big whore. Whore.

You know, if she can't handle being called a name, I'm not real confident in her ability to lead this ridiculously corrupt state out of the s***hole that it has been in for years. And if she's being a sneaky weasel and saying one thing to the public, but doing another thing in private, I'm absolutely positive that she won't be able to get anything done. Please don't take this as an endorsement for Jerry Brown, however. While the real story might be whether or not she is actually cutting deals, I think that the secondary story might be that Jerry Brown can't figure out how to hang up his phone after leaving a message. It doesn't do much to distract folks from the fact that he's a little old.

Another Cartoon Fakeroversy

I guess that whole deal that some Muslims do with freaking out over cartoons that they find offensive or blasphemous or whatever the heck they want to call it, must work for them. And it must have been noticed by other groups as well. Or at least some Mexicans who are flipping out over "An American cartoonist's rendition of the Mexican flag" which depicts a "...normally a regal-looking eagle at the center of Mexico's flag riddled with bullets and bleeding." Uh-huh. And they've got their tortillas in a wad because why? Because they claim "...it's offensive to taint their national symbol with images of drug violence." Wait. What now?

Correct. According to AOL News, a one Daryl Cagle, who is employed by MSNBC.com (I'm not sure why that's important, but AOL News included it, so I figured that I would, too), drew the cartoon of the flag with the gunned down eagle as a "...reference to the drug wars that have riled Mexico and left more than 28,000 people dead there in less than four years. " That seems like a pretty reasonable visual metaphor to depict. Oh, but not for everyone. No, there are plenty of asshats out there who think that because they don't like something that other people should give a crap. And a lot of people don't. Oh, and by the way, here is the cartoon drawing in question. Behold!

One reader of some sort of a Mexican newspaper called el Universal (I have no idea what that it. It could be like The National Enquirer for all I know. After all, in that picture over there on the left, they have prominently featured a one Rihanna. Who knows what that's all about?), wrote in to say "It is a shame that a patriotic symbol like our flag, which is so beautiful to me, can be mocked by a stupid cartoonist...I think there are many other ways to graphically protest what's happening in our country." Unfortunately, he did not give any suggestions as to what those other ways might perhaps be. And really, the guy shouldn't just single out "stupid cartoonists". It can be mocked by anyone, regardless of intelligence and/or the ability to draw, and it probably has been.

Cagle has a blog which I have perused and found to be most excellent. A sample of his work can be seen on the right. He has several of his political cartoons which feature Mexico and it's impact/relationship on/with the United States. He's definitely right on target. But the fact that he has a blog means that people have easy access to communicate with him. It goes along with the blogging. (You should see some of the emails that people write me. They're not always happy if you can imagine that!) And on this issue, they certainly did. A one Ramon De Leon wrote, "I think your idea of bringing the violence in Mexico to light is excellent. Too bad you butchered it along with the Mexican flag. Laws in Mexico with regards to the use and depiction of the flag are in place to prevent this sort of stuff. Please consider taking it down and issuing an apology to the Mexican American community." Um, are you kidding?

See, laws in Mexico are different than those in the United States. Take your immigration policy, for example. Much, MUCH different. We don't have laws against freedom of speech, even when in regard to the flag. And even if we did, I doubt that those laws would extend to the flags of other nations. I can only hope that Mr. Cagle will not issue an apology. I'm pretty sure he's the kind of guy who isn't going to take it down, but a lot of people find themselves with their back against the wall and are sort of "forced" into apologizing for something that isn't worthy of an apology in the first place.

So, they're upset because someone doesn't respect their flag? Tell you guys what. How about you start respecting anything having to do with America and then we'll talk about your flag? Or, perhaps, do something about your drug violence and then we'll talk about the cartoon. But with over 12 million of your countrymen living illegally in this country and having zero respect for our laws, I'm not going to feel all that bad that you folks are all bent out of shape about this flag cartoon. It didn't get the Muslims anywhere and it isn't going to get you anywhere, so just pipe down. Or draw a cartoon about the American flag if that makes you feel better. I really don't think I care what you do, just stop making it out to be a big deal because it might be a lot of things, but a big deal certainly isn't one of them.

It's Not Racist; It's A Fakeroversy

You know why no one watches CNN anymore? I'm guessing it's because they lead with ridiculous stories with descriptions such as "Radio talk-show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger engages in a racially charged discussion with a caller to her show" as well as "Dr. Laura's racist rant". Good Lord, people. Seriously?

For those of you who are unfamiliar with Dr. Laura, allow me. Dr. Laura is a somewhat sanctimonious radio talk show personality who takes calls from people who don't know what to do about some sort of problem that they're having in their life. Dr. Laura believes in not having sex before marriage (she tends to call woman who engage in such behaviors the lovely pet name of "whores"), not living together before marriage, stay at home moms, two parent families and stuff of that nature. Her message is wonderful. It's a little unrealistic on some fronts, but very few. There isn't a lot that people who don't like her can say in disagreement with the messages that she sends. Granted, she can be hard to take at times. But the things that she advocates are excellent messages to send to people.

You'd imagine that it would be unlikely for a person of that caliber to go on a "racist rant". Yeah, that's because she didn't. Here's what happened: A called phoned her show

"I'm having an issue with my husband where I'm starting to grow very resentful of him. I'm black and he's white. We've been around some of his friends and family members who start making racist comments as if I'm not there or if I'm not black. And my husband ignores those comments, and it hurts my feelings. And he acts like..." And here is where Dr. Laura jumps in with "Well, can you give me an example of a racist comment? 'Cause sometimes people are hypersensitive. So tell me what's...give me two good examples of racist comments." The woman continues, "OK. Last night, good example, we had a neighbor come over, and this neighbor, when every time he comes over, it's always a black comment." (Well, if he's commenting about her grammar skills, given that sentence right there, he might be right.) "It's 'Oh, well, how do you black people like doing this?' And, 'Do black people really like doing that?' And for a long time, I would ignore it. But last night I got to the point where it..." Fortunately, Dr. Laura broke in with exactly what I was thinking when she said, "I don't think that's racist." I don't either. Inquisitive, perhaps. Racist? Nah.

The caller tried to defend her position by saying, "Well, the stereotype..." And unfortunately, we didn't get to hear what stereotype she was referring to. Was it some sort of archaic watermelon or fried chicken stereotype? We'll never know. Dr. Laura responded by saying, "I don't think that's racist. No, I think that..." And the caller was a bit surprised by this and uttered a, "Seriously." (You know. Because if a black person says that something is racist, it is automatically, by definition, racist. That's why all us white folks are racist. Some black person said that we were and voila!) Dr. Laura was, apparently, serious as she explained, "No, no, no. I think that's...well, listen, without giving much thought, a lot of blacks voted for Obama simply because he was half-black. Didn't matter what he was gonna do in office, it was a black thing. You gotta know that. That's not a surprise. Not everything that somebody says...we had friends over the other day. We got about 35 people here...the guys who were gonna start playing basketball. I was going to go out and play basketball. My bodyguard and my dear friend is a black man. And I said, 'White men can't jump. I want you on my team.' That was racist? That was funny." Wow. That was quite a diversion. (She needs a bodyguard to play basketball at her house? Maybe she does, what do I know. It was just a little surprising, that's all.) Oh, boy. Here we go.

And we did go. Well, the caller went. The caller went to the place where if you're white, you're going to lose. That's right. She went to The N-word Land. She said, "How about the N-word? So, the N-word's been thrown around..." And here is where Dr. Laura took the opportunity to make a most excellent point. She said, "Black guys use it all the time. Turn on HBO, listen to a black comic, and all you hear is N-word, N-word, N-word." Only she didn't say "N-word". No, she said the word. And no, the caller didn't like it.

"That isn't..." But Dr. Laura wasn't going to stop making her point there (which seems like a good idea as I would imagine it would be hard for your point to stick if you ended your argument with the N-word). She continued, "I don't get it. If anybody without enough melanin says it, it's a horrible thing. But when black people say it, it's affectionate. It's very confusing. Don't hang up. I want to talk to you some more. Don't go away." And somewhat to my surprise, the caller didn't go away. And neither did the demonstrative spewing of epithets. Awesome!

She comes back after the commercial and says, "I'm Dr. Laura Schlessinger, talking to Jade. What did you think about during the break, by the way?" That's a nice way to ease into it. But I don't think that Jade was quite on the same page as Dr. Laura was. "I was a little caught back by the N-word that you spewed out. I have to be honest with you. But my point is, race relations..." Oh, OK. So, during the break, you thought about the ways in which you were just wronged by the white woman. Grand. But Dr. Laura stayed on her toes and said, "Oh, then I guess you don't watch HBO or listen to any black comedians." (I don't know what the stretch is there that implies that everyone on the planet has HBO. I get the part about the comedians, but HBO? I find that odd. But, go on...) The woman responds, "But that doesn't make it right." Good Lord....

I wasn't the only one thinking that. "I think you have too much sensitivity..." Dr. Laura said to Jade. Jade, completely missing the point, said, "So, it's OK to say N-word?" No, you twit. That's not what she said.

Dr. Laura: "...and not enough sense of humor."

Jade: "It's OK to say that word?"

Dr. Laura: "It depends how it's said." (She's right, by the way. Jade, it won't likely surprise you, doesn't really agree.)

Jade: "Is it OK to say that word? Is it ever OK to say that word?"

Dr. Laura: "It's...it depends how it's said. Black guys talking to each other seem to think it's OK." (They do seem to. I get that impression and I don't even have the HBO.)

Jade: "But you're not black. They're not black. My husband is white."

Dr. Laura: "Oh, I see. So a word is restricted to race. Got it. Can't do much about that." (And here is where Jade becomes completely irrational. She also starts making stuff up.)

Jade: "I can't believe someone like you is on the radio spewing out the N-word, and I hope everybody heard it." (She has over nine million listeners. I'm going to bet that at least one of them heard it. Now if only Jade could have heard her point.)

Dr. Laura: "I didn't spew out the N-word."

Jade: "You said, 'N-word, N-word, N-word." (She heard that, but not much else.)

Dr. Laura: "Right. I said that's what you hear."

Jade: "Everybody heard it." (Ahh. So she's well versed on the concept of the radio. That's good.)

Dr. Laura: "Yes, they did."

Jade: "I hope everybody heard it." (I take back what I said about being well versed on the concept of the radio.)

Dr. Laura: "They did...and I'll say it again..."

Jade: "So, what makes it OK for you to say that word?"

Dr. Laura: "N-word, N-word, N-word is what you hear on HB..."

Jade: "So what makes it..."

Dr. Laura: "Why don't you let me finish a sentence?"

Jade: "OK."

Dr. Laura: "Don't take things out of context. Don't double N...NAACP me...didn't call anybody a n---er. Nice try, Jade. Actually sucky try. You need a sense of humor."

I still don't see anything wrong with what she said or how she handled it. But someone must have. Someone with power over her (ie, advertisers, syndicators, radio gods, etc.) must have seen something wrong with it because she ended up apologizing. I found it odd. Apologizing when you've done nothing wrong. This is what she said:

"I talk every day about doing the right thing. And yesterday, I did the wrong thing. I didn't intend to hurt people, but I did. And that makes it the wrong thing to have done. I was attempting to make a philosophical point, and I articulated the N-word all the way out, more than one time. And that was wrong. I'll say it again. That was wrong."

Is that how it works for reals? Even if you didn't intend to hurt people, if it does, then it's wrong? I'm not so sure that's true when it comes to pointing out factual instances. Just because someone isn't good at dealing with reality, does that mean that when people point out reality to them and it hurts them that it's wrong? I don't think that it does. What about her apology? What if her apology hurts people who believed that what she was saying at first was right? Does that make her apology wrong? I don't think that it does. It's strange. It's all very strange.

This is so not a "racist rant". It's also so not a controversy. It's nothing more than a few folks trying to stir up a fakeroversy (fake controversy). Granted, Dr. Laura's apology makes it sound like more of a real controversy, but don't be fooled! There is absolutely nothing to this. NOTHING. And anyone who tries to make something of it is a complete moron.

I am disappointed that Jade wasn't able to explain why it is OK for black people to say it to each other. I understand that it's a slur for white people to say it. That doesn't need to be explained to me. But how come a slur isn't always a slur? Why is this word allowed contextual acceptance? I don't get it.

But to end things on a more amusing note, here is a snippet from an episode of South Park that kind of deals with just this very issue. Enjoy!