The Franken run for Senator from Minnesota has encountered major headwinds.  Franken is a Liberal legend in most of USA because he has authored several books that had beleaguered progressives cheering a champion who at least attempts to slay evil lairs like O’Reilly and Limbaugh.  Yet somehow this fighting-liberal qualification has not convinced Minnesotans that Al Franken is senatorial timber.

And for good reasons.  Franken grossly underestimated the political realities he faces and in the process has made near-catastrophic blunders.  In no particular order, they are:

1) He has no real political experience.  Being an author is not enough to get you elected Senator–ask Gore Vidal (and Vidal is a MUCH better writer.)  Minnesota is pretty tolerant about what qualifies someone for high office.  We elected Ventura, after all.  But even Ventura had won a couple of mayoral elections.  The DFL has elected such heavyweights as Eugene McCarthy and Paul Wellstone.  Taking a flyer on someone with fewer relevant qualifications than Ventura is chance many folks would rather not take.

2) Ventura demonstrated that Minnesotans hate being embarrassed.  Franken himself went on Letterman to make fun of Ventura’s famous quote in Playboy magazine that if reincarnation were true, he wanted to “come back as a 38DD bra.”  Yet Franken went on Prairie Home Companion and told an utterly filthy joke about a man with a penis growing out of his forehead.  PHC is the sort of thing you listen to with your church-lady grandmother.  If Ventura’s remarks were out of line for a governor, at least they were appropriate for the Playboy reader.  Franken’s “joke” was not only out of line for someone who wants to be a Senator, it was WILDLY inappropriate for the PHC audience.  The idea that someone could be even MORE embarrassing then Ventura is enough to sends shivers of worry throughout the saner parts of Minnesota.

3) Franken’s sense of humor is sure to get him into political trouble.  I happen to love comedians and think their work is important.  From Carlin to Kinnison to Pryor to Chris Rock to Stewart and Colbert and a whole lot more, I have enormous admiration for the folks who make us laugh by telling the unvarnished truth.  But Franken’s humor isn’t like that.  Take Stuart Smally–one of Franken’s enduring characters from SNL.  All of us know people who are just making it through life and have found some measure of hope from 12-step and other self-affirmation programs.  Most of us try to be kind to such people.  Franken made them an object of ridicule.  A career made up, in part, of making fun of the weak is not a big political plus in a nation where the vast majority feels weak to the point of helplessness.

But these are trivial concerns.  Franken’s biggest problem, by FAR, is his record on the Iraq invasion.  Minnesota Democrats have long memories and there are still party activists who remember the pain and anger a war debate caused the Party in 1968 when Eugene McCarty became the center of the movement to end the USA war against the Vietnamese, only to run against pro-war but otherwise Liberal saint Hubert Humphrey.  While it was a source of pride to have the two most important Democratic presidential candidates from little Minnesota, the wounds were so ugly, they were still visible 30 years later.  We take our debates about war and peace VERY seriously around here.

But there was almost no debate among Party regulars over Iraq.  Minnesota Democrats were largely aligned with global opinion on the invasion plans–Saddam Hussein was a tyrant, but a war would not solve anything.  In fact a war would be catastrophic for an already damaged culture.

In my little town, the regulars swung into action.  On my two-block street, six people erected anti-invasion signs at the maximum legal size.  There were SOME Liberate Iraq signs in town but they belonged to known Republicans. 

Since this town has a Lutheran liberal arts college, the Lutheran church was encouraged to take a stand.  They did.  The ELCA issued a strong and clear statement in opposition to an attack on the Iraqis.  The Lutes were not alone–with the notorious exception of the Southern Baptists, every strain of Christianity opposed the invasion (and there aren’t a lot of Southern Baptists in Minnesota).

Then we held our breath over Paul Wellstone.  We knew he was under intense pressure to vote for authorization because he was running for re-election and had been targeted by the Republicans for elimination.  And he HAD buckled and voted for the PATRIOT Act.  His campaign stalled.  The regulars fretted.  Then he voted against authorization.  His poll numbers soared.  The anti-war folks were happy that Senator Dayton and the twin cities congresspersons also voted against authorization, but we were ecstatic about Wellstone–our friend Paul had stood up when it counted!

We were crushed when Wellstone died.  We were outraged when the Republican slime machine trashed his funeral.  We wept when we lost a Senate seat we had already won.  But nothing matched the helpless fury when, against the advice of every sentient being on planet earth, the forces of the United States deliberately began to destroy an ancient civilization and ruin millions of lives. 

And where was our pal Al when my DFL friends were in a state of shocked disappointment and outrage?  Probably somewhere toasting the success of “shock and awe.”  Because Al Franken had somehow convinced himself that this invasion was a good idea.

When asked how he could have come to such an incredibly bad political position, Franken mentions that he was taken in by the persuasive arguments of Gen. Colin Powell at the UN.

Oh! My! Gawd!

Mr. Franken, are you serious?  I watched Powell at the UN.  I howled with laughter when he began to wave around a vial of white powder–claiming it was proof of an biological warfare program.  I called friends and asked, “Can anyone with a pulse believe such obvious bullshit?”  And it was clear that almost no one did.  The UN was NEVER going to authorize an attack on Iraq and Powell’s absurd presentation changed nothing–except apparently in Franken’s head.

Of course, the real reason Powell’s BS went nowhere at the UN is because anyone with even a minimal awareness of what warfare entails knew that an invasion was utterly insane even IF everything Powell said was true.  In order to have believed Powell, one would have to be one of those Americans who thinks war is just football on steroids.  The last sane persons who believed that war solved anything lost their faith because of the Battle of Verdun. 

But Franken probably doesn’t know that–by his own admission, he went to anti-war rallies in college to play with a Frisbee.  He has never been in a war.  He hasn’t even had to treat someone who has been launched through a windshield during a car crash, comforted a child who has watched parents die, or repaired major damage to a house–so he doesn’t even have relevant civilian experience.

But did that stop Al Franken from endorsing a major war crime?  No it did not.  In fact, I am almost certain that an overwhelming majority of the world’s citizens would consider Franken a war criminal when it was explained how he provided Liberal cover for this monstrous and unforgivable act.  If humanity survives that long, the crimes the USA has perpetrated against the people of Iraq will be used as an example of pure evil 1000 years from now.  And Mr. Franken, you are now part of the history of the destruction of a civilization.

So instead of taking responsibility for his actions, Franken would rather have us believe that it was the fault of Powell and PowerPoint.  Hey, I am just an innocent Harvard grad, he might argue.  Who knew wars and occupations can go bad?  Aren’t these things supposed to supervised by professionals?

I stopped listening to his dreary radio program when he claimed for about the 28th time that everything would have worked out splendidly if ONLY they had listened to guys like General Shinseki.

No Al.  That wouldn’t have made a bit of difference.  And you simply MUST understand that.

I am certain Franken’s ideas about Iraq have “evolved” since I turned him off but it was clear when he came to Drinking Liberally last summer, they have not yet “evolved” to the positions where mainstream DFL activists found themselves in 2002.

Exactly WHY would any DFL activist vote for a person who is either profoundly ignorant or grotesquely evil?  Or cowardly.  It was NEVER easier to oppose a war than in 2002.  Yes, there was a lot of the usual cheap propaganda that comes with war fever but it was lame beyond belief.  And even the most minimally aware knew that opposing the assault on Iraq meant that you were joining a huge global throng who agreed with you.

I am sure there are places in USA where Franken would be such an improvement over the local talent, it might forgivable to overlook his obvious foreign policy flaws.  Minnesota is not such a place.  His major competitor is the lawyer who was the first in USA to win big against Big Tobacco.  And he opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2002.

The big fear is that Al Franken will become a junior Joe Lieberman the day after he is elected.  And given his track record on war issues, this fear is probably justified.

Me?  I just wish I would wake up some morning and find that Franken’s cheap publicity stunt has disappeared.  Senator Franken?  Indeed you jest!

Recently, I was accused by a blog commenter of using a racial slur. Due to a pattern of misstating my meaning, I had said that he, “may need more ESL classes”. Others pointed out that I might be unaware this can be a racial slur. Mr. Z felt I must be aware of his ethnic background due to his screen name.  His screen name could be of Cajun or other native born American, South or Central American, Mexican, Spanish, Italian, French, French Canadian, origin, or he may have picked it because he liked it. I didn’t consider it anything other than a pseudonym.  The result was that I was “taken to the woodshed”, the debate was derailed, and I was told I should educate myself about possible slurs against Hispanics. This diary is the result of my “continuing education.” Here are a couple of other situations involving slurs and cultures/races.

If I was sensitive about slurs, my Dutch wife and I might not be married now. Why? Early in our relationship, we were parting for a few hours and she said, “Bye bye, schat.” The Dutch pronunciation of the word “schat” sounds, to an American ear, very much like “slut.” Was her comment insensitive? Of course not, she had no reason to connect the words in two different languages. Could it be taken as a slur? Sure, though clearly not a racial or ethnic one.

And then there’s Bill O’Reilly’s recent venture to the opposite end of the “Slur Spectrum”.  By now, we all know about his comments on lunch at Sylvia’s in New York City and how amazed he was the black patrons weren’t yelling for more m-fing tea.  I must wonder whether his remarks were truly made in ignorance or if he was just doing what shock-jocks do.  For this discussion, let’s assume he’s ignorant (not hard to do).

These three examples illustrate medium, low and high on the “Slur Spectrum.” Each one is, at its root, caused by ignorance. For these purposes, there is little point in discussing intentional slurs. We all know those are hateful and there is little we can do about those who indulge in them. But, the examples do raise a few questions.

1. Is there a meaningful difference between a racial, an ethnic, and a personal slur?
2. When is ignorance of a slur acceptable, if ever?
3. How does one learn what potential slurs exist?

First, let’s be clear about the word “slur”. Any insult is a slur by definition. Webster’s definition of the word is, “a: an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo … b: a shaming or degrading effect”. In the best of worlds, such things would not be said. We all recognize that, but it happens in the heat of argument, and that fact is what we are discussing here. Just remember a slur is not necessarily racial or ethnic. Any disparaging remark is a slur.

Is there a meaningful difference between a racial, an ethnic and a personal slur?

Certainly. Mr. Z, from my first example, is a good case in point. The racial slur alleged was, “you may need more ESL classes”. The term “racial slur” is clearly negatively loaded, and effectively derailed the debate.  On the other hand, the innuendo relates to any non-native English speaker, even a Dutch woman. Therefore, it cannot be considered “racist”. As my white South African friend said to a black acquaintance, “I’m Afro-American too.” A better term for it, might be “ethnic slur”, except, the innuendo applies only to language skills. Ethnicity may or may not be an indicator of one’s native language. Since this incident, I have spent considerable time and effort on the subject. My unabashed opinion is that equal care must be taken to avoid racial/ethnic slurs and allegations that they have been made. The accusation of such a slur may be harmful to a well intentioned speaker as a slur is to its recipient.

When is ignorance of a slur acceptable, if ever?

Certainly, we all need to take care not to use racial slurs. It’s the right thing. Those that knowingly use racial slurs deserve scorn and ostracism. But what of those of us that use them unintentionally for lack of full knowledge of their existence or knowledge of the ethnic background of another (such as in blog comments)? Do we deserve scorn and ostracism? Where we have no knowledge, to what standard should we be held? Should our lack of knowledge be a source of blame? Should blame be dependant on the extent to which a term is commonly known to be a slur and the our knowledge (or lack) of the other’s ethnicity?

It’s clear that my wife is blameless for calling me something that sounds like “slut” in English. Funnily enough, the Dutch word “schat” means sweetheart. Bill O’Reilly’s surprise at the decorum of a black owned restaurant is equally clearly a slur on all blacks. My statement to Mr. Z seems to fall pretty nearly in the middle of the two on the “Slur Spectrum”. All three of us seem to have been unaware we may be insulting (giving Bill O. the benefit of the doubt). So how do I resolve whether or not I’m guilty of racial or ethnic slurring? I can only see one way to arrive at an answer. Bill O. is guilty of something my wife is clearly not. He has stepped over a boundary that the majority of society knows exists. Did I step over such a boundary? The answer seems to hinge on what one should be expected to know on the subject.

How does one learn what potential slurs exist?

The example of Mr. Z, involved someone of Hispanic ethnicity. I have examined 290 Google listings (24,495,598 hits), scanned 2,635 slurs in “The Racial Slur Database” and reviewed what Wikipedia says on the subject. Also, there is an entry in the Urban Dictionary, that says the English speaking community, generally, considers ESL to be derogatory. It does not suggest a racist nor ethnic tone. These are documented at the end of the diary. Every Google listing that showed promise of relevance was subjected to a “find” search on the terms “ESL”, “Insult” and “Slur”, probably a total of 40 to 50 documents, articles and comments. Please verify that I didn’t miss any of the “good stuff”. There’s enough information below to do that. The point of this search was to find information on “ESL” as a slur common to Hispanic culture. I found none and that is for only one ethnicity.

Wikipedia’s Listing of Ethnic Groups shows approximately 990 different groups. It is possible to unintentionally slur anyone of an ethnicity unfamiliar to you. If we are to be ostracized for unintended slurs, how are we to learn what they are? Assume, each ethnicity has 82 ethnic slurs as Hispanics do in “The Racial Slur Database”. 990 ethnicities times 82 slurs each. To avoid giving unintentional insult, that’s 81,180 terms we all must know. Of course, that’s the extreme case. More reasonably, suppose, in our normal lives, we interact with members of, say, 20 ethnic groups? 30? On this basis we only have to learn 1640 to 2460 terms and remember which ethnic group they apply to. Remember that the term “ESL” was not in the Slurs Database. So there are still more to learn, if you can find them. Of course, you also have to know them well enough and be mentally quick enough to apply that knowledge in normal conversation. When do you plan to begin your study?

Where does all this leave me? I’m sure there are some of you who never use even snide implications. There are also a number of us who, in the heat of debate and frustration, do use some unflattering implications. Some, have a tendency toward oversensitivity and may make unwarranted accusations of slurring which can also be hurtful. There are even a few who would use such an accusation as a debating ploy. They are in a class by themselves. As bloggers, our lack of knowledge of who is on “the other end of the line” increases the potential venom of our implications. I’ll be taking more care in the future.

Research

• Google Search = “ESL” – 23,300,000 hits – I checked the first 4 pages (40 hits) most all of which dealt with classes on the subject. The relevance began to wander (“Electronic system level”) after the first 35 or so hits. So I decided to look at only the first 40 in subsequent searches. No help there.
• Google Search = “ESL + Racism” – 782,000 hits – The first 40 of which deal with ESL as a way to combat racism.
• Google Search = “ESL + Racism + Hispanic” – 306,000 hits – The first 40 dealt with ESL as a way for Hispanics to combat racism by improving their language skills.
• Google Search = “racism + insult + esl” – 68,100 hits in the first 40, none refer to ESL as an insult
  • This hit returned a likely prospect which only referred to the word “garroberos” or “iguana eaters” as an insult between Salvadorans
  • This hit has 12 screen loads of insults with the only reference to ESL being as a method to prevent misunderstandings.
• Google Search = “racism + slur + esl” – 39,300 hits – In the first 50, none refer to ESL as an insult
  • This hit found that – “greenhorn” is a derogatory term for someone of Portuguese descent in New England Oddly interesting, huh?
  • A Deering High School publication “Student Focus Group on Harassment” said, “The ESL students feel defensive and then everyone else just feeds the fire and the language barriers and the cultural differences just reinforce it.” Close, but too general.
  • A stage gag by Shaija Patel: If you met George Bush Jr. (aka DUBYA) in person, what would you ask him? Answer: Dude, have you ever considered taking an ESL class? It would help you get ahead.
• Google Search = “(racism or racist) + (slur or insult) + (ESL or “English as a Second Language”)”- 198 hits – After the first 80 I was down to articles talking about “Mercedes Benz pimping pens” (??), but nothing relevant.
• Wikipedia has a list of racial slurs here. The term ESL doesn’t appear. The page is up for deletion.
• Wikipedia page on ESL lists 15 other uses of the acronym ESL
• Wikipedia page on “Eng lish Language, learning and teaching” does not contain the words “slur” or “insult”
• The Compendium of Diversity Terms and Concepts has one reference to ESL in it’s 109 pages. That refers to a McGraw Hill text on the subject.
• The Urban Dictionaryhas the following entry on ESL.
  

  Short for “English as Second Language”, the term actually refers to *people* who use english as their second language. These people are often falsely thought of as morons, or generally a person of lower degree/intelligence. … Between the english-speaking community, however, it has a derogatory meaning.

  (h/t On The Bus) Nothing is said about racism nor ethnicity.

• Finally, a clincher. The Racial Slur Database has no entry for the term “ESL” though it includes the term “7-11” as a slur against arabs. There are 82 slurs for Hispanics out of 2,635 total entries.

This is a companion to the companion of Nightprowlkitty’s MANIFESTO! essay.  It’s an idea of how to reach out to our progressive allies and minority bloggers.

Have you ever heard of a Progressive Dinner Party?  It’s a party where each course of a meal is served at a different person’s house or apartment.  You begin at one house for cocktails and appetizers, go to the next place for salad, then another for the main course and coffee/dessert at the final destination. 

So how about a Progressive Blog Party (PBP)? We could organize these for any given night so that a group of us could make 3 or 4 planned stops at other blogs and engage in conversations there. It would be like we are all in the same room at the same time having a discussion. Hopefully we could give the host enough advanced notice so they could be there to talk with us too.  Otherwise, we can still talk about the selected post and leave comments or questions for the author.  After half hour we go to the next site.  And we always leave our mark…”Progressive Blog Party was here”…with an invitation to join us next time. 

I’m just going to throw out some ideas on how this would work. More thoughts and suggestions are welcome. 

The process of picking the PBP route would go something like…

Say we have a party on Saturday night 10-12 PM Eastern / 7-9 PM Pacific.
Saturday morning the party organizer posts an essay with a call for links to blog posts.  Anyone can reply with links to stories they nominate, preferably on the lesser known or minority blogs. It would have to be something fairly recent,  within the past day or two.  Then we all start rating the posts we most want to visit & discuss that evening.  At 6 PM Eastern the voting is closed.  The top 4 ratings getters are then scheduled in 1/2 hour slots.  Any ties are broken at the preference of the organizer.  The essay gets updated with that evening’s schedule. At that point the organizer could email the blog hosts and let them know the posse is showing up later.  Everyone can decide if they want to show up for all four “courses” or can only make it to one or two.  Having the schedule posted you can pick which discussions you really want to go to.  Read the article/post and register ahead of time (if thats required for making comments).  Grab your favorite drink and munchies and join the party at the scheduled time.  It could be a lot of fun!

This could be a way to form coalitions or at least socialize with people outside our white-blogosphere.  It’s a chance to be good netizens.  Visiting and linking fellow bloggers is community spirited.  I think the site host will be flattered to have people register at their site and take an interest in them.  And vice-versa, we get them interested in attending our ‘parties’ and joining the coalition and/or to help with our Manifesto. 

We can hang out here and talk at each other, or we can go out into the world and expand our horizons, make new friends, and still talk at each other.