I got some ‘splainin’ to do!

I gotta ‘splain why the dust-up over Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK, is silly at best and harmful at worst.

Many have claimed that it was racist when Coburn responded to Sonia Sotomayor’s hypothetical by quipping, “You have lots of ‘splainin’ to do.” Thom Hartmann said it was “very racist”. Marjorie Cohn (president of the National Lawyers Guild, a progressive counter to the American Bar Association) brought it up on the show yesterday, but fortunately guest host Nicole Sandler ended that by saying it was just a bad joke and Cohn didn’t press the point. Left-wing journalist David Corn brought it up on GRITtv yesterday and it’s been hotly debated across the blagojevich.

I say, “Come on.” Coburn made that joke at a time in the hearing when he, Judge Sotomayor and many people in the hearing room were laughing about a hypothetical that Sotomayor was using to explain a point in response to Coburn’s question about the right to self-defense. There wasn’t a hushed silence after Coburn made the joke. People, including Sotomayor and Coburn laughed.

If it could be shown that Coburn was mocking Sotomayor, the joke could be seen as racists, and I think some people think that is exactly what happened, but they can only back it up with opinion, not facts. I look at the joke in the context in which it was made and I say, “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”

“You got some ‘splainin’ to do” is a joke going back to the 1950s TV show “I Love Lucy”. My guess is that the line is used by many people every day of the year. Part of the reason people find it funny is that it’s so familiar, just like the line “where’s the beef”. It’s part of the American culture and sense of humor. I’ve heard people from all kinds of backgrounds use the line with no hint of racial animus.

If you want to criticize racial stereotyping or insensitivity, how about Judge Sotomayor offering a hypothetical, in which she (a Latina) goes home, gets a gun, comes back to the hearing room and shoots Coburn. But it would be just as silly to interpret her hypothetical in that way.

What was racist was the constant and repeated questioning of Sotomayor about her “wise Latina” remark. Even more racists was the way many Republican senators talked down to and lectured Judge Sotomayor about her “temperament” and the importance of her use of language, judgment and impartiality. They need that lecture far more than she does.

My first thought when I heard the claim that Coburn’s quip was racists was it’s another example of the left making itself look thin skinned and foolish and holding us up to ridicule. But then I thought that right wingers ridicule us even when they have to make things up (i.e., lie).

What really bothers me is that when opinion leaders go off half-cocked with opinions like this, it encourages us little people out here to engage in shallow simple minded thinking rather than really trying to understand situations. We don’t need to be encouraged to do that. You hear such ill considered opinions all the time from callers and even on blogs like this.

Thom justifies his constant debates with right-wingers by saying that he’s “modeling” proper political discussions. He’s giving us an example of how to do it right. Well this time, the model’s makeup is smeared, he put his clothes on backwards and he slipped and fell off the runway. It will show up in his blooper reel.

P.S.: I think it’s fair to point out, as I have many times before, that although Thom Hartmann is an advocate for diversity on the Supreme Court and in fire departments, “people of color” rarely are guests on his radio program. That’s no joke.

Bernie!

Can you give Senator Max Baucus (D-Health Insurance Industry) my thanks for squelching single-payer insurance cuz 62% of bankruptcies due to healthcare is not enough.

Remind Senator Mary L. Landrieu (D-Wal-Mart) that forcing people choosing to buy bread to attempt to culture penicillin to treat infections is an adequate healthcare plan.

And congratulate the entire Blue Dog Caucus for recognizing that a for-profit corporation denying my medically necessary procedures so the company can annually pay their corporate officers more than the GNP of 30% of the nations on the face of the planet, rather than just having the government pay for the procedure, is good for me and our nation.

NEW YORK – Goldman Sachs is emerging as the king of post-meltdown Wall Street.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090714/ap_on_bi_ge/us_earns_goldman_sachs

Gee, it makes one wonder if the meltdown wasn't planned in order to wipe out the competition.

Please tell Senator Sanders that even if the health care package is not the single-payer coverage we have all wanted and needed, his diligent, brave, hard work is still going to make sure that millions of Americans who couldn't afford to go to the doctor may soon be able to and that includes me! You have taught us over and over how important it is that we participate in our government and that our voice truly is heard. Together, with all of our voices joined, we are stronger than the corporations who wish to keep us unhealthy and weak in spirit so we can't make these changes!

Is Howard Dean the new Dick Clark?

Has anyone seen him lately. He doesn't seem to be aging.

a peoples historyof the united states should be used in the public schools

Senator will claim he was clergyman to avoid ethics probe

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) will not cooperate with investigators who investigate Sen. John Ensign’s extramarital affair with the wife of a former top aide—even with the Senate’s own Ethics Committee.

Coburn told Roll Call: “I was counseling him as a physician and as an ordained deacon. That is a privileged communication that I will never reveal to anybody. Not to the (Senate) Ethics Committee, not to a court of law, not to anybody.”

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/17/senator-says-hell-claim-he-was-cl...

Grrr . . . I have changed my e-mail several times . . . Logged in and out BUT the old keeps coming back. Sigh.

Richard Adlof

I should have added that if that doesn't work, you might want to delete your cookies. If you do delete your cookies, any site that recognizes you won't, so you'll have to sign in to them again.

B Roll,

On the other hand, have you seen Bay Buchanan lately? She was on MSNBC this a.m. and neither her face lift nor her makeover could cover up her ugly, racist interior!

B Roll,

LOL...I think it's inescapable --- when you age, your true nature shows up on your face.

s.b.:

Here’s an interesting idea: online peer-to-peer lending, similar to how people on eBay connect and exchange goods/services for payment. The thinking behind this type of banking is that it cuts out the greedy financial industry and keeps middleman costs to a minimum:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/31963079#31963079

B Roll,

Either that, or you're a long-lost brother of Lela on "Futurama!"

Quark,

I think I'm better looking.

As for being a long lost relative, a guy on the message board got very upset with me when I asked him if he was my long lost cousin T Roll. Apparently he found a picture of me because he called me Butt Face.

AMA endorses House Democrats' health care bill
The American Medical Association on Thursday endorsed a liberal health overhaul bill that includes a public insurance option, a bold step for a traditionally conservative group with a checkered past on health reforms.

In its strongest action yet signaling support for President Barack Obama's vow to reform health care, the nation's largest doctors' group sent letters to three House committees behind the bill.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D99FR64O0.htm

Hmmmm, now why would the AMA endorse a liberal health bill? Could it be because it does nothing about the exorbitant price of health care?

Quark,

I understood exactly what you meant. There's nothing to forgive. Unfortunately the guy recognized almost nothing in himself, but he was constantly projecting his characteristics onto others. He accused people of acting exactly the way he acted.

Loretta,

Sorry for the slow response. I really wasn’t expecting your post. I hope you check back and see this.

I don’t think your comments are harsh at all and if I express my ideas in public I open myself to criticism. However, I don’t understand why you directed this comment to me. If you see this post, maybe you could explain.

Looking over the exchange between Quark and myself, I don’t see any instance when I commented on anyone’s physical appearance other than noting that Howard Dean seems not to be aging. I saw him on Democracy Now this morning. I think my post about my mouth changing from being horizontal to perpendicular in relations to my eyes is clearly not serious.

My comment about Bay Buchanan was a metaphorical reference that when she looks in the mirror, she’s sees her brother. Her brother is Pat Buchanan and both Bay and Pat Buchanan are right-wing ideologues and racists (among other things). I was referring to her character and ideology not her physical appearance. It’s like when on person accuses another of being arrogant and the other person say, “Take a look in the mirror.

You mentioned face lifts. That term doesn’t appear in my posts. I didn’t even allude to face lifts. My only mention of Bay Buchanan was is response to Quark’s post to me about Buchanan. The meaning of my reply was that when Bay Buchanan looks in the mirror she sees someone very much like her right-wing brother.

If you see this and feel I’m missing something, please let me know.

Thanks

you guys are right. I misunderstood your points and we're on the same side, here, but don't you think that it's true that when criticizing right wing women, the comments are much more often directed at her appearance in one way or another than they are at men who are right wing? And this effects young women both on the right and the left, in hugely negative, complicated ways that I really wish they didn't have to deal with.

Ageist, sexist comments were continually directed at Hillary Clinton for example along with Sarah Palin by both men and women and I don't think the folks doing it necessarily realized the effect this has on young girls and women who are creating identities for themselves about strengths, talents and attributes that should be emphasized and valued .

That's my larger point that I took out on you guys, sorry.

Loretta,

I guess I was thinking about something my mother always said, that true beauty comes from within and, that people one might think of as otherwise plain or even unattractive become beautiful to us when the beautiful PERSON that they are shines out from WITHIN. Then, what does it matter what the OUTSIDE looks like?

As long as people judge each other by outside appearance (which goes back thru the eons to somehow guessing which person is genetically healthier and, therefore, a better mate, humans will always (subconsciously or not) look for the "most attractive" mate. I'm saying that true attractiveness shines through and that, no matter how much someone tries to hide that inner self, it also will eventually show.

I think that is a good message for young women --- AND for young men!

I notice women more because I am one.

Loretta,

Thanks so much for this conversation. I really value it.

B Roll,

Yes, I wondered about the same things, i.e., why YOU received the criticism when you didn't even say the things for which you were criticized. I felt bad about that. It makes me feel that I can't really "talk" on this blog. YOU knew what I meant, but apparently Loretta didn't (even tho my post was not addressed to Loretta.)

I don't know that just labelling my posts "To B Roll Only," would solve any problems. Besides, this is a public forum. Is there another place (blog, etc.) where we could "talk", seriously or not? Maybe I should try the message board...

Dear Quark and B-Roll,

I wish you could both have come over for a beer and the Fassbinder trilogy. Boy could we have had a discussion about this subject after watching the trilogy. But it is so very very good!

I want to deeply apologize for my criticisms. After I re-read your comment, after I had literally cooled down, I realized they had no basis in the comments you were making to each other, so B-RolI --challenging Thom's ideas is very very good, and being funny is very good too. It seems that he likes challenges. I think you both were making funny points about inner and outer beauty and how one reflects the other and what happens to our bodies. WHen you re-read the conversation, what I wrote was totally off-the-wall so don't think of it for another moment.

I am not supposed to be out in the hot sun for a long time because of this crazy medicine I take and I had been riding my bike around in 95 degree heat in high humidity and then I came back and wrote that goofy post. I am very sorry about that. It was Quark who made the comment about face-lifts not intending any of things I mentioned, so I didn't even read the posts properly enough to see who wrote what. .

This was my bad as they say, although I appreciate you separating out the reasonable points I made.

Would you be able to watch the Fassbinder trilogy? It would be fun to have a discussion about women, appearance and sexism after watching his trilogy because there is so much to talk about. I loved Lola which is the classic professional man rescuing the prostitute story but so amazing and subtle and tender. It's very beautiful. The marriage of Maria Braun is devastating too. Veronica Voss is a strange story about fame and addiction that is interesting.

Thank you too for the interesting discussion. I love this site so very much!

warm wishes,
Loretta

I just had a sign from God (or whoever), I turned on the Dodgers game. The Dodgers are leading 2-0 in the 1st inning with what looks like 2 men on base and 1 out. A Dodger batter fouled a ball off, He stepped out of the batter's box and when he turned around to step back in the name on the back of his jersey was Loretta. As far as I know, there's no Quark on either team.

The best thing about this is that the each of us cares enough about the discussion and the fact the we all do to keep coming back to see if anything new has been added.

I'm not upset or offended at all by anything that was said at all. People often misunderstand what they see, read and hear. I recall that I've been very upset by something I'd heard on a show. So I downloaded the show so I could have the exact words to point out to the host. When I listened to it a second time, I thought "what was I so upset about He/she didn't say what I thought I heard."

Different people are more interested and sensitive to different issues. Sometimes that causes them to misinterpret things because of their expectations.

As for Quark's joke about not wanting to talk to you, forget it. I missed you until you posted your first message. It was like I was at the park all alone waiting to see you come my way. It would be nice if there was more communication between members here. Now I have two friends to look forward to talking with.

re: the Fassbinder trillogy

I just looked it up... The three films are like over 5-and-a-half hours long. I rarely watch anything that long unless it has something to do with large men jumping over other large men to throw a brown ball through a rim or people in shorts hitting a small yellow ball over a net. Maybe if I could watch it in FassForward.

I rarely take the time to read or watch fiction. I love music and I rarely get a chance to listen to any. Are they still using guitars.

But I'm always willing give my uninformed opinions on a number of subjects.

Now I'm going to try to finish my comments about beauty and sexism in less than book form.

P.S.: Quark, feel free to add any punchline you wish as long as it has nothing to do with robotic pigeons,

I didn't watch them all in one sitting. They are three different movies. But it's neat to watch them close together. I'm a fiction writer finishing an MFA degree so I'm studying film to learn scene development and dialogue.

Instead of writing a book on sexism, you could both use your talents together to invent a robotic mocking bird!