Speaking of Weis’s original lawsuit, I always wondered how it would turn out. It’s not like the guy had any lasting problems and it seems like the doctors responded when they became aware of the internal bleeding.
Frankly, I think Weis is a big fucking whiner. I imagine we will hear more whining from him this football season.
Good luck with the little one, I like your blog. I found you because I’m marketing these USC/ND game VIP Packages, and you definitely seem like you might know someone who wants tickets. If any of your friends are looking to make the trek back to South Bend, this is the way to go. Ok take care and get some rest before the baby comes out!!
For any true college football fan, a game at Notre Dame Stadium is an experience like no other, and the USC match-up is the absolute pinnacle. Every two seasons brings a visit from Pete Carroll’s powerhouse with their sterling tradition of national championships and Heisman Trophy winners like Reggie Bush, Matt Leinart, Carson Palmer, Marcus Allen, and Charles White. Watch Charlie Weis’ Fighting Irish battle their archrival on hallowed ground and bask in the glory of Notre Dame legends like Knute Rockne, Joe Montana, Tim Brown, and the Four Horsemen.
Your TBG Fan Experiences package features:
* Two-night deluxe accommodations at the four-diamond Chicago Hyatt Regency Oct. 19-20
* Exclusive welcome reception
* Official VIP pregame tailgate at the official Notre Dame hospitality villa
* Full breakfast buffet daily
* Premium gift bags
* Luxury motorcoach service
* Upper level end zone to corner game seats
* On-site management by TBG staff
* All taxes and gratuities included
Price per person: $1,524 (based on double occupancy).
Fuck you Charlie Weis. It’s rich fucktards like Weis who drive up health care costs for the rest of us with superfluous malpractice suits. If he went in for gastric bypass surgery and lost a testicle, that’s a malpractice suit. But no. He had a complication that he was informed about prior to the surgery and got pissy about it. Good for the judge for throwing that trash out of court and shame on Charlie Weis for being such a fucking tool. Say what you will about Pete Carroll but I know who I’d rather sit next to on an airplane.
Well, first of all, it wasn’t the judge who dismissed the case; the jury ruled against Weis, delivering a verdict for the defendants. (The linked article got the terminology wrong. The case wasn’t “thrown out” — Weis simply lost.) As for whether this was a frivolous suit, I don’t really know enough about it to say. If, as you say, this was a common complication about which Weis was duly notified and gave his informed consent for the procedure anyway, then yes, it would be frivolous … provided there wasn’t some additional negligence that made the complication worse than what Weis consented to. But having not paid much attention to the merits of the case, I don’t feel qualified to say one way or the other. I do sort of doubt, though, that Weis’s motivation was primarily monetary. The guy’s set for life with his massive ND contract. I tend to assume that he believed, wrong-headedly or not, that he was doing the right thing, standing up for victims of malpractice, etc. Maybe that’s hopelessly naive of me, but why else go to the trouble? Especially to try the case again after there was a mistrial the first time around? It just seems like a lot of trouble to go through, if he felt in his heart that it was frivolous and he was just hoping to con the doctors out of some money that he doesn’t actually need anyway.
P.S. Of course, just because he might not have believed it was frivolous, doesn’t necessarily mean that it wasn’t in fact frivolous. The two are separate inquiries. There are plenty of people who earnestly believe that they are entitled to recover for malpractice when, in reality, the doctors’ actions were well within the standard of care. People tend to expect and demand perfection, even where it’s unreasonable to do so. Hence my use of the phrase “wrong-headedly or not.”
Weis’s suit was based on the fact that the doctors didn’t discover (or failed to address) the fact that he was bleeding internally for several hours after his surgery. While internal bleeding is certainly a risk of this type of surgery, I believe Chuck’s stance was that the doctors didn’t follow generally accepted medical procedures after the surgery.
Oh, and as for being rich and not needing the money, Weis said that any recovery would have gone to charity (I believe Hannah & Friends). I do remember him saying something about “standing up and holding doctors accountable” or something similar.
PS - I hope your child’s first words aren’t “fucktard,” “fuck you,” or “fucking tool.”
I wasn’t trying to pick on Becky, or anyone else. I guess I was just trying to point out, in a somewhat roundabout way, that otherwise intelligent points of view are lost when one uses potty language. (See Mad Max, supra).
We should all be so “lucky” as to be in the public eye to have people point out each and every one of our perceived faults.
Toofer, you are aware that this is my blog, whereas the comment you’re criticizing is my wife’s comment (which I, too, criticized), and that my wife and I are not the same person… right? My wife doesn’t call herself “Irish,” as she never attended Notre Dame. I do, and did. Since you aren’t criticizing anything I’ve said, I fail to see how anything you’ve said suggests I should “[r]emove the Irish from [my] blog name.”
In any event, others coming here from ND Nation should be aware that: 1) personal attacks on my wife will obviously be deleted; 2) no, that isn’t hypocritical; I would expect Charlie Weis’s wife to delete attacks on him, too, if this was her blog (but it’s not); 3) as for what I posted, as opposed to what Becky commented, namely the headline from SportsPickle: I’m sorry, but if you don’t think that’s funny, you clearly have no sense of humor (or your sense of humor is so warped by your obsessive zeal for the Irish that you can’t appreciate funny jokes at their expense). I mean, c’mon, suing bacon cheeseburgers for being delicious? That’s comedy gold right there. Even Lisa, a double Domer, thought it was funny. I laugh at Pete Carroll all the time; you guys can laugh at Weis, too, and it won’t make you bad fans, I promise. Life is funny. Laugh it up.
P.S. to the ND Nation folks: You know how you feel increasingly justified in your asshole-ish behavior toward me and Becky whenever she or I say something that offends you? Well, it works both ways. Becky’s opinion of Notre Dame is lowered whenever some asshole comes in and starts acting all high-and-mighty (and humorless) about the Irish. So, every time you guys pull your typical nonsense, it only encourages her to make more of the anti-ND jokes and comments that you hate so much. She’s not the only one, either. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to explain to neutral non-Domers, who get a bad image of ND from your general humorless prickishness, that “those ND Nation assholes aren’t representative of Domers at large.” I’m constantly defending Notre Dame’s reputation from the damage that you jerks do to it. And you think I’m the embarrassment and disgrace. Ah, irony.
I won’t use an ad hominen attack here (though I find it humorous that we can use ad homninem attacks on public figures, as long as you are related to the blogger), but I will say that the above post not only lacks class, but it’s one that is ignorant. We can’t all watch Sicko and assume we are experts on the US medical system.
Lawsuits are a very small part of why medical expenses are through the roof. Furthermore, this was not a frivolous lawsuit. Yes, he lost, but from everything that has been released about the case, there was most definitely a valid claim, at least one that warranted a trial.
I find it humorous that we can use ad homninem attacks on public figures, as long as you are related to the blogger
You’re right about the first part, and wrong about the second part. Anyone can make ad hominem attacks on public figures; I don’t believe I’ve ever deleted a comment on that basis. I don’t encourage such attacks (though jokes are a different matter), but they’re allowed. From anyone.
What I don’t allow, from anyone, are vicious personal attacks on my wife. If you can’t understand why I might choose not to tolerate commenters on my blog attacking my wife, then you aren’t actually a human being.
(As I said, if Charlie Weis’s wife had a blog, I wouldn’t expect her to tolerate attacks on her husband there. That’s just basic common sense. Nobody should be expected to put up with people viciously bashing their loved ones in their own personal Internet space.)
Oh, and Becky hasn’t seen Sicko. (In fact, she and I both generally despise Michael Moore.) But she does have a father who was an excellent doctor until he was driven out of business in part by the obscene cost of malpractice insurance. That doesn’t mean Becky’s opinion is necessarily correct, but just to give you some idea where she’s actually coming from (as opposed to your cartoonish view).
There are indeed many fine doctors who have been driven out of business by sky-rocketing malpractice rates. The problem is partially due to the increasing number of law suits, but also for a host of other factors, many of which are the responsibility of hospitals, doctors, and the companies themselves. To simplify the issue down to a vitriolic statement about one isolated case is not only wrong, but childish.
And yes, you are right, I can understand why you make the decisions you do. That doesn’t mean I think they are reasonable. If you are going to honestly say you didn’t know the response you would get from a comment like that, then I think you are being disingenuous. The point is, it seems like a rather trivial thing to say “Hey, can you perhaps tone down your comment about XXX.” You do live in the same house, right? The point of this blog is ostensibly to be a source of information and rational debate, correct? Please tell me where that comment fits into the schema.
As an addendum, I will clarify that I believe you leave comments up like this because you enjoy the response that you get. But it’s like poking a dog with a stick–don’t come crying when you get bit.
Furthermore, using the “But they did it first!” argument is for kindergarten.
I don’t think that’s entirely accurate Brendan. I think my dad was both ready to retire and generally sick of watching his profit margin decrease because of rising overhead costs. It’s something that’s driven a lot of doctors to retirement or alternative employment.
And I don’t see how Weis’ suit had very much validity at all. He experienced post-operative bleeding after a major operation. The man weighed 350 pounds going into his surgery and he went against medical advice and didn’t follow a pre-surgery routine recommended by his physician. It’s not a surprise that he had complications or that the cause of those complications probably would have been easier to detect if he wasn’t more than 150 pounds overweight. And Weis could have scheduled the surgery for a time when the doctor who performed the initial procedure wasn’t going out of town during his post-operative period which most likely would have translated into better post-op care. That’s not always an option for emergency patients or childbirth, but it certainly was for Weis.
I’ve been following this case a bit because I remember that the first time it went to trial, one of the jurors had a heart attack or something and both of the surgeons went to help the guy.
It certainly sucks that Weis had complications from major elective surgery. But that’s not malpractice. It’s just unfortunate.
Please tell me where that comment fits into the schema.
Please tell me where I defended that comment! As I recall, I was the first one who criticized it. Admittedly, I did so gently, and on grounds other than its vulgarity, but at the same time, it’s not like I said, “Hey Becky, nice vulgar comment, way to go!” The bottom line is, you are continuing to fault me for her comment, which ignores the fact that we are separate, individual people. Yes, we live in the same house, but I’m her husband, not her mother, so it’s kind of ridiculous to think that I would say “Hey, can you perhaps tone down your comment” over something so trivial. What she wrote isn’t something that I would write, but it also isn’t beyond-the-pale for what’s relatively normal on this blog (from various quarters), nor is it so egregiously over-the-top offensive that I would feel the need to seriously crack down. Are you saying I should be more censorious vis a vis my wife than I am vis a vis other commenters on my blog? If so, why? I see no reason why I should. In any event, her comment was merely vulgar and crude and… blah. Whatever. Pretty typical for this blog, and blogs generally, and certainly not worth risking a domestic squabble over! I’m sorry, but I just don’t see how there’s anything “unreasonable” about me… um… what? Not censoring my wife’s comments? Huh? What exactly are you contending I did wrong again?
One thing I certainly did not do is “say [I] didnâ€™t know the response [I] would get from a comment like that.” I didn’t say that, and I wouldn’t say that, because I absolutely did know the response I (or rather she) would get. I fully expected an ND Nation link or reference, and that’s what happened. What’s your point? Just because I expected a bunch of humorless, self-righteous trolls* to come over here and start calling my wife names, doesn’t mean I can’t object to it when they do, and delete their comments when they cross the line. Frankly, I’m not sure what your point is here.
*To your credit, you’re far more tolerable than most of the folks from that crowd. You’re actually addressing the substance of the issue, which is nice (and rare).
It’s amazing that the previous comment not only explains a situation and viewpoint in a rational way, but does so without vulgarity and spite. If that was the first thing posted on the issue, this whole situation wouldn’t exist, am I correct?
And correct, it wasn’t malpractice because the jury decided that the physicians acted within the standard of care. That doesn’t make the claim frivolous, and Weis isn’t somehow to be blamed for believing it was a reasonable claim to bring. They fact that he actually had complications is not a poitn of contention…they can, and do happen, and when you have been adequately warned you don’t have a leg to stand on. Weis, his lawyers, and medical experts didn’t believe the complications were a problem, rather the way in which they were detected and subsequently handled. This is something that, rightly, should be decided by a jury.
Also, to blame the scheduling of the surgery solely on Weis does not seem accurate. I don’t think Weis probed the physician for his detailed schedule when setting it up…most people don’t (or even have the option). When you are trying to schedule an elective surgery with a high powered surgeon, you bend to their will, not the other way around. Just as much blame can be put on the surgeon for scheduling a procedure right before he was supposed to be out of town. Of course, it could be no one’s fault, if he was called away on short notice.
It certainly sucks that Weis had complications from major elective surgery. But thatâ€™s not malpractice. Itâ€™s just unfortunate.
As a categorical statement, this is false. Just because a surgery is “elective,” it doesn’t therefore follow that complications are necessarily “just unfortunate” and not malpractice. If that were true, doctors would have carte blanche to commit malpractice with impunity whenever they’re performing elective surgeries. That obviously isn’t the case. Whether a given set of complications constitutes malpractice depends on whether the doctor’s actions comported with the standard of care for the procedure in question, not whether the surgery was “elective” or not. That said, the standard of care may be different in some elective surgeries than in some non-elective ones, but nevertheless, the term “elective” simply doesn’t have the categorical importance that you seem to attach to it.
I haven’t followed this case as closely as you have, but based on what I understand, it seems to me that Weis’s claims raised an issue of fact for the jury to decide. If Weis had a complication that occurs in 10% of surgeries, and the doctors didn’t detect it for 30 hours after it began, that suggests they were probably negligent, since they should obviously be testing for the common complications. The claim that they couldn’t test for internal bleeding because they were testing for other stuff for 30 hours is laughable; what battery of medical tests takes 30 hours? So if it were true that Weis’s internal bleeding went undetected for 30 hours, in a situation where the doctors should have been able to detect it, that certainly would have been malpractice. Apparently, the jury concluded that that didn’t happen, in which case, obviously, there wasn’t malpractice. The bottom line is, this is a factual dispute, so it was appropriate for the jury to decide it. That means you’re wrong to claim the lawsuit was “frivolous,” and the judge was right to let the case go to the jury instead of throwing it out early. The jury verdict for the defendants suggests that Weis failed to prove the facts he alleged; it does not suggest that those allegations, if proven, would have been insufficient to sustain a verdict (as would be the case in a “frivolous” lawsuit).
All these things you keep saying about how the surgery was elective, how he was overweight (do skinny people usually get gastric bypass surgeries?), etc., simply aren’t relevant, unless they somehow affect the core issue of whether the doctors breached their standard of care, and you haven’t suggested how they might affect it. You seem to think that unhealthy people undergoing elective surgeries are entitled to a lower standard of care than healthy people undergoing mandatory surgeries, but that simply isn’t so. The standard of care isn’t determined that way, nor should it be.
Now, Weis’s poor health certainly would have increased the likelihood of complications, but that doesn’t really matter, because so long as the doctor warned him adequately of the possible risks (so as to get informed consent), the mere fact that a complication occurred wouldn’t be enough to establish malpractice anyway! It’s the doctor’s negligence that determines whether there was malpractice, not the bare fact of a complication. Skinny or fat, healthy or unhealthy, elective or non-elective, the core issue remains the standard of care, and whether it was breached. Your arguments, by and large, don’t address that issue.
As for the claim that Weis failed to follow his pre-surgery regimen, that would be relevant to the issue of causation (were Weis’s injuries caused by the doctor’s alleged negligence, or by Weis’s own negligence in not following the regimen, or a combination of both?). But again, that’s a jury issue — a question of fact. The mere fact that Weis might have failed to follow the regimen doesn’t, by itself, make it impossible that the doctor was negligent. If he had failed to follow the regimen, and then the doctor had cut off his leg during the surgery, surely you’d agree that he could recover for malpractice even though he failed to follow the regimen. Similarly, if I’m speeding and I get hit by a drunk driver, I’m negligent because I was speeding, but I can still recover against the drunk driver (though my award will be reduced by the percentage of fault/damages that is attributed to my own negligence). So again, this is not a valid categorical distinction. The rules aren’t different for patients who follow their pre-surgery regimen, and patients who don’t. The basic rule remains the same: the doctor must meet his standard of care.
Believe me, I understand the nature of being separate people. I don’t blame you for the content of the original comment. My only point is that, by your own admission, you knew that it was going to be problematic. If you had this kind of knowledge about other posts, I have no doubt you would delete them. In this case, you didn’t have to delete it, you could have actually addressed the author and asked for a change.
And no, I don’t expect anyone to get into a domestic squabble over something so trivial. Yet the idea that asking for her to rephrase a comment would actually cause some kind of strife seems, to say the least, odd.
My point, essentially, is that you admit to knowing what would happen, but then complain about it happening (or at least use it as a springboard for further deriding a group of people you dislike), when there was a relatively easy way to prevent it.
Also, I agree completely with the above exposition of the situation. It was a dispute of fact, and it was decided by a jury. The system worked in this case. If only that happened more often, we would be a lot better off.
I will say, though, that I do think the jury’s decision may have been tainted by the status of the plaintiff. If I am using the term correctly, nullification seems highly likely. The defense pounded home the fact that not only was Weis ok now, but he is rich and “doesn’t need the money”. That may not be a reason to find no fault in the doctors, but it surely is the tactic of a good lawyer. It doesn’t matter how you get your client off, as long as you do so.
you knew that it was going to be problematic. If you had this kind of knowledge about other posts, I have no doubt you would delete them.
I’m not sure what you base your lack of doubt on. I am generally very averse to deleting comments, even if I know they’re going to cause furious reactions from certain quarters. I don’t like to censor people on my blog. I generally only do it in very limited circumstances, and Becky’s comment didn’t fall into any of those circumstances (nor would it have if the same comment had been made by someone else).
I think the rest of your logical train (that, instead of deleting it, I could have talked to her, asked her to change it, etc.) falls apart at that point, since your basic premise — that I would normally delete such a comment — is false. I would normally leave such a comment alone, and that’s exactly what I did.
you admit to knowing what would happen, but then complain about it happening (or at least use it as a springboard for further deriding a group of people you dislike), when there was a relatively easy way to prevent it.
I say again: Just because one expects others to behave in way that one disapproves of, doesn’t mean one can’t criticize the behavior when it happens. For instance, if I go to a game at the Big House wearing a Notre Dame shirt, I expect that Michigan fans might call me vile names, throw sh*t at me, physically assault me, etc. That doesn’t mean I can’t complain about it when they do, nor does it mean I am somehow obligated to stay away from the Big House (or to wear a neutral shirt) just because that would be “a relatively easy way to prevent it.” I am under no obligation to alter my behavior to suit the preferences of assholes. (It is, of course, sometimes wise to do so, just to avoid trouble. But a person’s failure to follow the arguably wise course of appeasing assholes doesn’t immunize the assholes from criticism by that person for their asshole-ish behavior. Each individual is still accountable for his/her own words and deeds, whether or not someone else could have prevented the situation from arising in which the words or deeds occurred.)
Oh, and one possibly unknown fact that may be relevant to your statement that I am “using” this situation “as a springboard for further deriding a group of people you dislike.” There actually have been several rather vile comments about Becky posted here tonight, which I of course deleted. It was, essentially, in response to those comments that I posted my initial note to “others coming here from ND Nation.” I wasn’t just picking a fight with them out of the blue; I was responding to comments that had already been posted (albeit ones that are now invisible to you because I deleted them). Just FYI.
P.S. For what it’s worth, I would argue that certain ND Nation posters are “using” Becky’s comment “as a springboard for further deriding a pair of people they dislike.” I think, in fact, that that’s a much more true statement than yours. I generally try to ignore ND Nation, and I never would have said anything about them on this thread if they hadn’t come over here and gone after Becky — which, while admittedly predictable, was still their choice. The only choice I made was to respond after being directly provoked on my own blog. But for their part, they injected themselves into this thread without any direct provocation. Yes, Becky said something that predictably pissed them off, but she said it here, on a site that they know they hate (which raises the question of why they continue reading it, but that’s a whole ‘nother topic). It’s not like she or I went over to ND Nation and called Weis fat or something. So I’d say they’re doing a lot more “springboarding” than I am, if you will.
I donâ€™t think Weis probed the physician for his detailed schedule when setting it upâ€¦most people donâ€™t (or even have the option). When you are trying to schedule an elective surgery with a high powered surgeon, you bend to their will, not the other way around.
Except, IIRC thats exactly what DID happen. Weis wanted the surgery earlier so it wouldn’t affect HIS schedule.
This thread has been hilariously amusing. Thanks David for the comic, and thanks Becky for being positively assholish in your ragging of the Irish coach. I think Becky and I have a special kinship. :-)
I agree 100% with Brendan’s better half on this Charlie Weis thing. A certain percentage of people who get gastric bypass die. Weis knew this going in. Instead of being an asshole and suing the doctors, you would think he would be a little thankful they saved his fucking life. Instead, he tries to ruin them. He is a total ass.
As for the malpractice insurance thing driving doctors out of business, higher costs are putting pressure on doctors, but so is lower pay. Thanks to our private managed care system in this country, doctors get paid a fraction of what they did 20 years ago. HMOs pay doctors $50 for $200 worth of work. How is that free enterprise?
What an enjoyable thread! Becky, I don’t understand how someone with an upbringing and educational background like yours can come across so poorly. And no, not just because you think Weis shouldn’t have sued–I tend to agree with you, personally, but can also see how Weis felt wronged and wanted to dispell some of the stigma that comes with elective surgery.
The way you made your point, though, is quite familiar. You didn’t know what you were talking about (thinking the judge threw out the suit), you talked like a truck driver, and the hypocrisy of you calling someone else fat is astounding given your own issues with weight management. I’m glad to see you’re still hanging on to the bitterness and hatred for Notre Dame.
So Wobbly, since I’m skinny, does that mean I can’t poke fun at anorexic models?
Mad Max, I won’t disagree on your diss of HMOs, but Medicare also isn’t paying premiums that keep up with the cost of doing business in the healthcare industry. And you know who invented HMOs? Your good buddy Sen. Ted Kennedy!
HMOs suck, we need to move towards a true competitive healthcare industry that is consumer-driven.
Racist? Narcissistic? Care to present any evidence for those ad hominems? I mean, is there really anyone on this blog — or on this planet — who thinks I am obsessed with my own looks? Granted, I looked unbelievably dashing at my wedding — *ahem* — but really now, are you serious? And perhaps you ought to take a look at some of the pictures of my wedding party. Do you really think a racist’s wedding party would look like that? With a black Domer, four Jews, a Persian, four Colombians, and a half-Mexican?? I probably had more black Domers in my wedding party than you ever met on the Notre Dame campus not on scholarship for a sport.
At least you got the prick part right, but then when dealing with lowlifes like you, I take that as a compliment.
Even your post contains a racial stereotype, namely that any black person I met at Notre Dame was on an athletic scholarship. Luckily, your black friend probably doesn’t read this blog, or else he (and many other people, myself included) would have found your past reference to black athletes behaving badly in the Miami-FIU game as acting like “n—–s.” I would imagine that my black friends wouldn’t approve of me using that term under any circumstances, but I’m not sure, I haven’t really ever felt the need to test those waters.
Wobbly, it is not a stereotype but a sad and veritable fact that with the vast majority of diversity-minded elite academic institutions (such as Notre Dame and USC), were it not for athletic scholarships, the matriculation rate of African-Americans would be well below what would be considered normal based purely on demographics. Acknowledging this fact hardly makes one racist, and is indeed is more of a commentary on the pathetic state of our inner-city schools and the overall public education system. I referenced this only to point out that given the obvious paucity of African-Americans at Notre Dame, and given the challenge Notre Dame has attracting academically meritorious African-Americans to a school that comes off culturally as very “white” (or Euro-centric, if you will), it is somewhat ironic to be labeled a racist by a (presumably white) Domer when I probably am closer to any non-athlete black Domers than you are (going purely by odds).
Regarding my previous reference of the n word in the Miami-FIU brawl discussion, if you want to posit that the word “nigger” should never, ever, ever be used in any circumstance because of moral reasons, the way some religious figures would posit that “Goddamn”, “fuck”, and other superlatives should never, ever, ever be used because of moral reasons, fine. I however am of a different camp that believes no specific word or term is 100% off limits and that every word or term has its proper place.
For example, to me, the word “fuck” is potentially appropriate just after severely and accidentally striking your finger with a hammer; it’s the liberal overuse of the word as adjective, verb, and noun in everyday speech hat I find crude and inappropriate.
So with the word “nigger”, one must consider when such a word might be appropriate. In my ancient comment which you are referring to, I was contending that the boorish, thuggish, violent, degrading behavior being committed by the black players involved in the melee (I do not recall there being other races involved in the fight) “deserved the n word description as much as anything else I’ve ever seen” — IOW, if “nigger” ever has an appropriate context, the Miami-FIU brawl is a very eligible example.
Now, if you disagree and think that “nigger” is 100% always wrong and should never be used for moral reasons, that’s certainly a respectable position, but I just cannot accept that any word is totally off limits, and so our disagreement is truly over philosophy of diction and language — not one of racism. On the other hand, if you believe that every word has a potentially fitting use, I request you tell me in what context not encompassing the above Miami-FIU scenario that may be so.
As for my black friend (if you bothered to look at the wedding pictures, you would have seen that I was referring to a female), no, I highly doubt she approves of me or anyone else ever using that term — she probably believes (like many people do) that it is 100% wrong all the time. I’ve never asked her if that’s her position, I’ve just assumed that and never felt the need to go out of my way to offend her by using the n word in her home or presence. OTOH, I very well could be wrong, as her parents are Belizean, and it is potentially the case that her cultural roots as an African-American are not the same as most blacks whose families have been here since slavery or Jim Crow, with whom the word more directly reverberates. In addition, even if she disapproves of my use of the n word in describing the Miami-FIU brawl, she would almost certainly not come to the conclusion that I am racist: Camille, like most of my friends, is well aware that I am an equal opportunity offender and am likely to say or do things that would piss off sensitive people of just about every race, religion, and nationality. Thus, she may very well agree with you that I can be an insensitive, offensive “little prick”, but she knows well enough that that’s not racism and is just a part of my style of humor.
Anyway, I don’t much care whether this makes you dislike me less or more than you aready do. I would, however, appreciate if you could acknowledge that my positions aren’t based on shallow, knee-jerk stereotypes. Unlike you apparently, I am quite used to and comfortable with being part of a minority (or at least no better than a plurality), as growing up in Southern California has afforded me the opportunity to live, learn, and play in perhaps the most ethnically and religiously diverse environment anywhere in the world. I just don’t subscribe to the simplistic, shallow racial analysis adhered to by so many of the cultural left in this country. Human genetics, psychology, and sociology are just too damn complicated for that kind of overly sensitive and simplistic liberal moralizing about race. To me, the Jesse Jacksons, Al Sharptons, and apparently the Wobbly H’s of the world who see racism behind every everything are just as retarded as the moronic redneck white supremacists who invaded this blog recently to bash the relationship of Ian and Chrissy Johnson.
Umm, fuck is a verb… what are you talking about not a verb? And is this your black friend like Steven Colbert has a black friend? Sorry, just had to take the couple of easy shots made available… Moving on now.
This is an archived post. Comments are closed.
To leave a comment on a newer post, please visit the homepage.