Matt Margolis

Follow ups are not normally my thing. I originally intended the following post to be a response to the comments previously posted in “When Left Is Right and Right is Wrong.” However, I kept writing, and I figured I’d just post this as a new blog entry. So, if you’re following the punditry regarding the parallels I’ve made between Savage and Baker, check up on both entries…

In anycase, previous comments made in “When Left Is Right and Right is Wrong” prompted me to respond with this:

The medical findings that may support Dusty Baker’s comments are irrelevant. We can debate whether or not this is common knowledge or if Baker was in fact aware of the medical research when he made his comments – but it’s not relevant to the issue I have brought forth.

The issue at hand here is the differences in the way comments like Baker’s are treated vs. comments like Michael Savage’s – or any white man’s comments towards or regarding minorities.

The reaction – or lack of reaction towards Dusty Baker’s comments is a clear example of how blacks and other minorities can get away with things white people can’t.

It’s not enough that they have more rights in America than white people do; they also have a monopoly on the P.C. Police.

You can make an argument that there may be medical evidence to support Baker’s claims… but can you not find truth in Savage’s remarks as well? A sodomite is a person who engages in sodomy. Do homosexuals engage in sodomy? Is or has AIDS been considered either a “gay disease” or at least a problem within the gay community especially? Michael Savages comments may have crossed a certain line for most people, however he was responding to a personal attack, and he believed that he had been taken off the air at the time.

There is a major difference in the sensitivity people have when it comes to comments made by minorities vs. whites.

Let’s just say, for the sake of my forthcoming argument, that Baker’s comments were justified and not racist because his comments can be supported by medical fact. Okay, fine.

But what about when white people use a perfectly legitimate English word and get shunned and labeled a racist for it?

White people can’t even use the word “niggardly” without finding themselves amid controversy.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word as

1. Grudging and petty in giving or spending.
2. Meanly small; scanty or meager.

If you were David Howard, you’d know that already. For those of you who don’t remember who he is, or his story, I’ll refresh your memory. He was the white aide of Washington DC Mayor Anthony Williams, who is black. He used the perfectly good word in a meeting with two subordinates, (one white, and one black) when he said “I will have to be niggardly with this fund because it’s not going to be a lot of money,”

But that didn’t stop him from being accused of using a racial slur. It didn’t stop him from being forced to resign. This was a situation blow way out of proportion. Although Howard was eventually rehired after nearly a month of publicity and endless stupid controversy.

That’s what I’m talking about. Why does Dusty Baker get a pass for his remarks, but David Howard (temporarily) lost his job for using one particular English word?

If Baker’s words were innocent, that’s irrelevant. If he was white, he’d be out of a job right now.