It is a good rule in life never to apologize. The right sort of people do not want apologies, and the wrong sort take a mean advantage of them ~ P.G. Wodehouse (10/15/1881 to 2/14/1975) an English humorist whose body of work includes novels, short stories, plays, poems, song lyrics and numerous pieces of journalism.
A couple of days ago I received the following news (and suggestion) from a regular (and loyal) reader of my blog, Rusty Shackelford...
|Rusty Shackelford: Hey Col. Sanders, yesterday a federal judge dismissed all race based discrimination charges against Paula Deen. will you write one of your 40,000 words posts apologizing to her? (8/13/2013 AT 8:31am).|
OK, so I looked into it and it turns out Rusty is right, According to the Chicago Tribune "the U.S. District Judge William Moore ruled on Monday that Jackson had no grounds to sue on the basis of racial discrimination because she is white".
So Paula Deen didn't allow any racial discrimination in any of her Savannah Georgia restaurants? Paula Deen's brother Bubba Hiers never told an employee to keep the front "light" when hiring, nor referred to any of the people working in the back as coons? Paula herself never said (in her deposition for the Lisa Jackson lawsuit) that racial jokes aren't a problem, so long as they are not mean, or that the use of the N-word in a joke might OK depending on context? And, of course, Paula absolutely never said she wanted "a bunch of little ni**ers... to tap dance around" at her brother's wedding?
The judge's ruling means none of that happened, right? Even though a few of those accusations Paula Deen flat out admitted. She probably just misremembered. You might reach this conclusion if you have a reading comprehension problem like Rusty apparently does. Or maybe Rusty just read the headline and didn't bother looking into it further? Who knows, and more importantly, who cares? The important thing to note here is that Rusty is wrong (as well as an idiot).
Rusty is wrong because the judge's decision was based on the legal concept know as "standing"... For those who don't know what "standing" is (Rusty), I have excerpted a portion of the definition from the legal dictionary website as follows...
|Standing, sometimes referred to as standing to sue, is the name of the federal law doctrine that focuses on whether a prospective plaintiff can show that some personal legal interest has been invaded by the defendant. It is not enough that a person is merely interested as a member of the general public in the resolution of the dispute. The person must have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.|
So the ruling had absolutely nothing to due with Paula Deen being "not guilty" of any of the racial-bias-related charges contained in Lisa Jackson's lawsuit. Regarding their validity (or lack of validity) the judge made no determination at all. He only said Lisa Jackson lacked standing to sue for racial discrimination because she isn't Black... even though she was offended by the racial discrimination that took place in Paula Deen's eateries. Also despite the fact that there was PLENTY of evidence to back up the racial discrimination/harassment claims.
Adding a Black co-plaintiff would have been a sure way to head off this issue (the White Lisa Jackson filing a lawsuit that contained charges of racial discrimination/harassment). Whether or not she attempted to find a co-plaintiff I do not know, but am sure it likely that she would (or did) have a difficult (or impossible) time finding someone willing to step forward... because anyone who did would lose their job and could find it hard to get another one (who wants to hire someone who sued a former employer?). People are usually not eager to risk their ability to earn a living and possibly lose everything - even if they know they are in the right (any Black employee of Paula Deen who was racially discriminated against or harassed).
In any case, the bottom line is that the judge did NOT say there was no racial discrimination (one way or the other), only that Lisa Jackson lacks standing to sue Paula Deen for it. However, the lawsuit will be moving forward in regards to the sexual discrimination/harassment also alleged by Ms. Jackson. This ruling HARDLY vindicates Deen... even if the pea-brained Rusty thinks it does...
|Rusty Shackelford: The moron Col Sanders had Zimmerman guilty of first degree murder and Paula Deen in prison for racial hate crimes. duh, dead wrong on both counts. the twit see's a racist behind every tree. (8/13/2013 AT 11:13am).|
Actually, Rusty, I did not "have" Zimmerman guilty of first degree murder. I wrote a post in which I presented a theory concerning the possibility that Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin in cold blood - but I was very clear about my musings being nothing more than speculation (another demonstration of Rusty's reading comprehension problem). In regards to me having "Paula Deen in prison for racial hate crimes"... she's being sued in civil court, moron. She can only lose money, not her freedom. There never was any chance that Paula Deen could have been sent to prison.
Also, I only see possible racial biases motivating people's actions where they may actually exist. Facts exist that point to Zimmerman's actions being racially motivated. The (disputed) racial epithet on the call to the police and the accompanying "they always get away" remark ("they" being Black thugs). In addition there was a witness (who didn't testify during the trial) that said "Zimmerman and his family were racists who disliked blacks". And then there is the racist friend of Zimmerman who made the rounds defending him on various media programs. According to Frank Taafee (the friend) whites and blacks have no business mingling. Appearing on the podcaset "The White Voice" Taaffe said, "they don't want to be with us and we don't want to be with them". Obviously he considered George to be one of "us".
The only way you could say that I'm the kind of person who sees a racist behind every tree would be to be willfully ignorant of these facts... as many Conservatives are. When the topic of Frank Taafee came up a commenter on my blog (an Anon calling himself "Food4Thought) said, "who Gives A Shit About Frank Taaffe? I don't even know who the hell he is and furthermore I don't care". Of course you don't care. Any evidence that points to Zimmerman possibly being racist has to be ignored because it doesn't fit your (racist) "Black thug" narrative.
And now that the judge has thrown out the judge has "ruled that Jackson had no grounds to sue on the basis of racial discrimination because she is white" Conservatives (like Rusty) will continue to ignore the abundant evidence that says Paula Deen was guilty anyway. In their minds Paula Deen has been vindicated. Paula only used the N-word 30 years ago and none of the other stuff ever happened (the examples I gave at the top of the post nor anything else referenced in the lawsuit or deposition).
Obviously ignorance is bliss (or dissonance reduction is bliss). With that in mind, time for my apology...
|My apology to Paula Deen: Mrs. Deen, I am terribly sorry you got lucky and won't be held accountable for the racial discrimination you've tolerated at your eateries for so long... you needed a wake up call and now (due to this ruling) you will wrongly feel you have been vindicated. Here is hoping you'll at least be punished for the sexual discrimination you permitted against Lisa Jackson by your racist misogynist lout of a brother (the primary perpetrator) and that will finally get you to acknowledge that no discrimination (of any kind) should be tolerated in your businesses. Maybe then you'll actually do something to put an end to it? No employee of yours should be subjected to the hostile and discriminatory workplace that you have allowed for far too long.|
Whatever happens I hope the lawsuit against you results in a big judgment (dollar figure-wise) against you and in favor of Mrs. Jackson. Then, at the very least, Lisa Jackson will be vindicated and compensated for the harm you visited upon her due to the hostile work environment and resulting job loss. Even if the rest of your employees will continue to be harassed and discriminated against, at least one of your victims will attain some justice.
And that is the best apology I can muster up. Whether or not it's good enough for Rusty and other like-minded conservatives remains to be seen (I'm guessing no).
Finally, in regards to Rusty's 40 thousand-word remark... I have never authored a post of that length. For example, the post "Severe Conservative Delusions: MLK Quote-Off Edition" consists of 1350 words (or 6634 characters not including spaces). As you can see this post falls FAR short of 40 thousand words Rusty implies is my average (number of words determined via the use of the Microsoft Word Word count tool).
There was, however, one really long post (and this is the one Rusty is probably thinking of) titled "Severe Moderate Delusions: GZ Tripping Straw Man Edition (Volume 2)". Is this post anywhere near 40 thousand words? No, Microsoft Word says it contains 6905 words... although it comes close if characters (including spaces) are counted. The number of characters is 39,139. But this post was several times longer than normal (the 1350 word post is about average). I doubt I'll be authoring a post of that length again anytime soon (if ever).
So, big fail in regards to the 40k-word post mega-exaggeration, Rusty. I've never written a post anywhere near that length.