I missed the State of the Union Address. I missed National Sanctity of Life Day. I missed the Scooter Libby Trial (I think I can join in progress, though) - although I've read enough in the morning paper to wonder......

The New York Times not using faggot? The absence is worse than the use. Weird. But then the Times took years to actually use gay instead of homosexual. It is the intent of the word, not the word, that hurts. Where is Lenny Bruce when we need him?

His explanation is that when you say "the N-word", you thought "nigger". You meant "nigger". Everybody in your audience heard "nigger". But now you want credit for not actually saying "nigger".

So he proposes a test: take any racist statement, about any racial group, and rewrite it with "N-word" instead of the racial slur. The result is still racist and still offensive. Saying "the N-word" instead of "nigger" doesn't make your statements any less racist.

What needs work isn't using the word "nigger", but saying things that need to use the word "nigger". If you can't figure out how to say it without that word, just use the word! Playing games with it isn't going to improve things!

Same thing with "faggot". If you can't say what you need to say without saying "faggot", then what you are saying is inherently offensive to gays anyway. Just say "faggot". It can't make things worse.

What we need to do is rob these words of their power. The words "nigger" and "faggot" are already used within their respective communities as terms of endearment and respect. Their meanings can change and become less intolerant, simply by using them in less intolerant ways. When you refer to blacks as "niggers" and gays as "faggots", but you don't hate either group, you make one tiny little step toward divorcing these words from hatred.

In time, they'll just be words. Just like "mick" and "wop", formerly fighting words for Irish and Italian immigrants, they'll become quaint terms that don't really offend anyone. I suggest that this would be an advance.