Racism

Newsweek interviews a former Republican campaign operative who went to jail for stifling democracy. Democracy in Action: Not Always MoralHe dishes on the dirty tricks of campaigns, such as telephoning voters and pretending to represent liberal causes while using "the voice of a quote-unquote 'scary black man.'"

Says the former operative: "When I was working, the main thing was to win, not to be moral."

Trying to get elected: exactly like trying to pick up a one night stand!

Over at TNR, Jamie Kirchick (who also contributes to Jewcy) has a brutal piece on U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), the libertarian antiwar candidate seeking the GOP presidential nomination. Paul has raised a stunning amount of money from Americans with very different politics -- liberals and conservatives alike -- but Kirchick believes that Paul has hidden his true beliefs from the public, and presents evidence that Paul has a long history of bigotry and conspiracy-mongering. The Paul campaign claims that the congressman did not write the newsletters that Kirchick quotes.

(In all fairness, "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" would make good names for New York City.)

 Related: Ron Paul's Jewish Problem

Morrissey's in trouble over comments he made about immigrants in England:

"England is a memory now," he says, in an interview with the NME published yesterday. "The gates are flooded and anybody can have access to England and join in."

He goes on: "Although I don't have anything against people from other countries, the higher the influx into England the more the British identity disappears. So the price is enormous. Travel to England and you have no idea where you are. It matters because the British identity is very attractive. I grew up into it and I find it very quaint and amusing. Other countries have held on to their basic identity, yet it seems to me that England was thrown away.

"You can't say, 'Everybody come into my house, sit on the bed, have what you like, do what you like.' It wouldn't work."

Not quite Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech, but still breathtaking to behold from the man who calls George Bush and Tony Blair the inverted images of Osama bin Laden, and who thinks everyone in America is fat and stupid.

Mozzer's done this before with "National Front Disco," and I think in about a half decade there'll be a strong case for supposing him the strange, paradoxical standard-bearer of Larkinesque Little Englander sentiment. (Though the Pope of Mope has moved to Rome, so who knows?)

Larkin also didn't like the states: he'd never been here because he thought New York and L.A. were separated by "vast deserts of bigotry," which is an interesting turn of phrase from the great poet who was shabbily branded a racist when his correspondence and biography were published in the mid-90's. Terry Eagleton, lately the P.C. Torquemada lying and crying about Martin Amis, was at the fore of that thoroughly unenlightening and banal "row," too.

But Morrissey poses an interesting test for les bien-pensant. His politics is hardly right-wing in any definable way, and his tragically hip fans will go to any length to defend him. One of those fans -- and how's this for irony? -- is David Cameron, the leader of the Tory party, which has lately become green and multiculturalist to a cloying degree.

Still more irony? When I interviewed Billy Bragg a few summers ago he told me, in preparation for his book on English patriotism (!), that he'd amassed a new stable of favorite writers. They were: Peter Hitchens, Roger Scruton and Geoffrey Wheatcroft. (Now Bill's still more of a well-meaning socialist, and I'll love him forever for stumping for Oona King over George Galloway. But he's a socialist with a few warm beer-and-roast beef tendencies of cultural rootedness that "complicate" this image.)

There's a saying in my Eustonian part of the Anglo-American blogosphere apart from the one made famous by Nick Cohen's book title. "We are doomed."

Daniel Koffler recently wrote a couple of posts on this blog regarding the pseudo-debate on "racial IQ." (Here's whyit's pseudo-.) I can't say that the many comments in response to hispost have made me feel any easier about the vulgarization of science.Of course, society doesn't need most people to understand evolution (orany other scientific fact) very well or indeed at all to function -atleast, to function as it does now. I believe that we're indeed headedtowards a society where most people won't have even a very basicscientific literacy -take evolution, for example. While most of ourtop-notch researchers have more important things to do than educate themasses, the other side, fiercely representedin the popular media, has plenty of communicators whose entire time canbe devoted to finding more persuasive ways to convince the generalpublic of the untruth, since they don't need to waste any preciousmoment in doing, well, research.

But I cannot remain silent on some of the responses Daniel's post received. For I feel some of our readers' suffering,and I want to reassure them. To those of you who have made the highlyscientific and statistically accurate discovery from their passage inthe male changing rooms of the gym that "black people's pee-pees arelarger," and who thus had to deduce that this enlargement of the penileregion of the Black male necessitated, nay, demanded a compensation inthe same quantitative terms of their own (i.e., the small-dicked whiteman's) intelligence, here's a beacon of hope in your penis-pump filled night: Jewcy's fave Dr Ruth reassures you on the relative importance of your manhood's size and offers this important piece of advicefor all you out there who think Blacks are genetically determined to bestupid and have a big dick: "stop blaming your penis, and startsocializing and meeting young ladies."

Now I hope that you will see that, for metered intelligence or dick, it's not how much you have, it's how well you use it.

A recent report to the UN by Doudou Diène addressed the problem of the legitimization of racism at the highest intellectual and political levels in democratic societies. He cited French President Sarkozy’s Dakar speech, which stated that the African “man never launched himself towards the future. The idea never came to him to get out of this repetition and to invent his own destiny,” and the recent comments of James Watson, of stolen DNA fame, claiming that Africans are less intelligent than ‘us’, i.e. white males.

Sarkozy’s speech has been criticized in France, most notably by Bernard-Henri Lévy, whom nevertheless laid the blame squarely on the speech-writer’s shoulders (generating a mini-internet feud). The French diplomat at the UN, however, was shocked:

The representative of France said the Special Rapporteur had referred to his country twice in an unacceptable way.  Public statements by the highest authorities of France could be debated, of course, but it was unacceptable to say that they sought to legitimize racism.  President Sarkozy had reaffirmed several times that the fight against racism and xenophobia was among his priorities…

Notwithstanding the habitual racism of French presidents, it seems that France’s fascination with its own way of doing things does lead it to believe that xenophobia is fought off successfully in a very ‘Republican’ way, which can be summed up as the rejection of all differences in the public sphere. It seems the heirs of the Enlightenment -and of the Terror- have scarce asked themselves about the norm from which the different could be deduced. For all the acculturation talk, the norm is clear: if you’re not a visibly white, Catholic man, things are not so great.

Watson’s asininity, on the other hand, is nothing new. One can find it baffling that he got to direct Cold Spring Harbor lab for so long. But his cronies abound. A review of his latest book published last month in Nature demonstrates the ambient blindness:

We learn who and what has earned Watson's respect, affection and tenderness: his father, his wife Liz, the University of Chicago, former Chicago president Robert Hutchins, teaching, Harvard students, art, and those he injudiciously refers to as 'girls'.

Injudiciously? Girls? Wait one. Oh, yeah:

Watson is highly critical of science at Harvard, while expressing sympathy for the demise of former Harvard president Larry Summers. These events would seem to be largely irrelevant to the rest of the book, had Watson not been in hot water in the mid-1970s over 'girls' in science, and had he not been curious about the role of the genome in shaping human intellectual ability and in predisposing to such 'developmental failures' as autism, schizophrenia and Asperger's syndrome. He tellingly concludes: "If Summers' tactlessness does, in fact, have a genetic basis, much of the anger toward him should rightly yield to sympathy." In genome, veritas.

“Been in hot water in the mid-70’s” is what I call a sympathetic assessment of a deeply bigoted man. Discounting the obvious stupidity of assuming intelligence is somehow tied to the white man’s Y chromosome (and yes I do believe that any special case for “Jewish intelligence” would have to be exclusively cultural), would you not find it disturbing in the least that the claims of a supposed foremost scientist sound exactly like the centuries-old pseudo-science of racism?

The most fervent hope I have against all forms of xenophobia is in the increasing rate at which people of different backgrounds (ethnic, religious and atheistic, national) get together. This seems to happen everywhere, from the American continent to Old Europe, and with a bit of luck –and whatever the mechanism– it will spell the downfall of racism before we have time to get married with robots.

The attention to detail is extraordinary. "Good Night and Good Fuck," the naming of the production company "Absolutely Elegant," etc.

Hat tip: Will, after whom I'll name my first born son for this. 

As if the U.N. weren't ineffectual enough, Doudou Diene, U.N. expert on racism has recently blown minds the world 'round by noting that defaming religion can stir people up. Especially Islam. Leaving aside the question of why supposed progressives conflate race with religion time and again, who gave this guy a job? Most likely somebody who also isn't savvy enough to notice the difference between a race and a belief system. Guess we can't leave that aside. It turns out the problem with this "debate" is a lack of discrimination--not discrimination against people or beliefs, but good old fashioned discrimination, the kind whose antonym is 'indiscriminant.'

Since when has challenging deeply held notions about the nature of reality and morality not been a threat to peace? Given that said notions can be both erroneous and destructive, who thinks that we should refrain? Plenty of people it seems:

African and Islamic countries welcomed the assessment and called for moves to draft an international treaty that would compel states to act against any form of defamation of religion.

If the claims of religion hadn't ever been challenged, or at least put in a box, dulled-down, re-worked, or at times completely eschewed, the human race would likely be extinct. Germs instead of demons. Medicine and moxie instead of prayer. It's been working out splendidly for the materialists of the world who have been saving humanity ten times a year for the last century or so. After all that, you'd expect a little respect, but the faithful have been ungrateful; delighting in the advances of science, popping Penicillin, while simultaneously espousing some of our era's most destructive ideas (the afterlife still being near the top of that list). Do they deserve an audience, much less a law protecting them should they choose to behave badly?

Now would come the customary attack, industrialization having made killing en masse easier, the "secular" ideologies of Nazism and communism (which looked and behaved like ultimate psycho cult religions), chemical warfare, the atomic bomb, and global warming. But no matter how impressively horrendous sounding it all is, this laundry list never manages to make the point intended. It does not follow that faith is therefore good and the doctrines of the faithful deserve to be shielded from critique or the normal parameters of free speech. Does anybody find it odd that those devoted to Britney Spears aren't expected to respond to her public ridicule with pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails, while those devoted to Muhammad are? That expectation in itself--the expectation that undergirds this entire discussion--is profoundly disrespectful to Muslims.

Another bit of savvy could benefit this argument as well--distinguishing the faithful from a faith. It is for the law to protect people, not the worldview to which they subscribe. I might well get a royal head bashing if I were to walk into the wrong room full of football fans telling them that the MVP they all adore can't play ball. We negotiate these sorts of situations daily, but never do we decide that any one group or idea gets privilege under the law.

Continuing to bring this proposition up in the public sphere is only functioning as a daily reinforcement of an impoverished notion of responsibility. It is for critics to critique with respect for the person, even if not for the religion. It is for the criticized to respond in a civil manner. Neither is entitled, no matter what has been said or done, to threaten or inflict harm on the other. Last I checked, the saying doesn't go Sticks And Stones Will Break Your Bones If Your Words Happen to Hurt Me. Rather than just accepting that this is how certain offended religious people will act, has it occurred to anyone at the U.N. that perhaps a greater service to humanity might be a rejection of this sort of behavior in favor of re-asserting basic principles of civility and public discourse, regardless of which books inform your version of truth?

A Scottish friend once told me that as he mountain-biked up in the highlands, he was stopped by a young man telling him that “his Laird” said he couldn’t trespass on his lands (you can pretty much walk wherever you like in Scotland). My friend told the servant in his beautiful Scottish accent, “Tell your Laird: The revolution’s coming,” and biked on. This was in 2000. Welcome to mediaeval Britain, where the class distinction is still somehow accepted by the public, and where despite Michael Moore’s praise in Sicko, national healthcare is still not making everyone happy. (And I do mean mediaeval in the derogatory sense.)

So here’s a compilation of recent feasts of the the British elite.

Racism: Take your pick. Choice is aplenty between the results of the first inquest (one that is not aimed at evaluating the actions of the police officers that shot him multiple times in the head) into Jean-Charles de Menezes’s death, whom the police described as a “Pakistani” (he was Brazilian), and Gurkha veterans having to fight in court to gain the right to live in Britain -on an annual pension worth one quarter of the regular British army one.

Religious discrimination: Better not have any hereditary ambition if you happen to like a Catholic (practicing or not). “The 1701 Act of Settlement bars monarchs and their heirs from becoming or marrying Catholics;” I guess the fact that monarchy is kind of unfair and outdated in the first place cancels out the blatant bigotry. (While on the subject, why not mention free speech? I’m glad I’m not over there right now so I can at least talk about it…)

The original Big Brother: You thought the US was a surveillance state? Think again: the UK has the largest police database of DNA in the world, covering about 5% of the population, including mostly young Black men and an estimated one hundred thousand children. Of course, the bobbies think that’s not enough, and plan to get DNA for speeding offenses, and litterbugs.

Apropos to my last post (How a Southern Gentile Learned About Judaism from Sassy Magazine and Horny Teenage Boys), I'll also confess that I managed to get through an entire high school career of dating Jewish boys exclusively (to recap: I was an atheist in a town dominated by evangelical Christians) without realizing that "shiksa" was an offensive word.

From the soc.culture.jewish FAQ (I can't imagine much has changed since 1996):

Shiksa and Shaygetz are the Yiddish derivative of the respective feminine and masculine Hebrew words for something unclean, dirty. The appellations are customarily applied to gentiles who do things inimical to Jewish interests, such as vandalizing Jewish buildings, robbing Jewish kids of their lunch money, or becoming romantically involved with Jews :-). The root is "sheketz", which refers to house rodents and lizards. They impart ritual impurity, and therefore the term lends itself to the same kind of idea. Some have taken to using the term to refer to Christian women in general. If Christians were using the term against Jews in English, they would be saying "Filthy Jews" or "Dirty Jews", and we Jews would rightly be offended.

Is that not the most passive-aggressive happy face ever? Filthy bitch :-)

A quick Google search of this post's keyword brings up the blog of one Shiksa from Manila,

Continue reading...

Not long ago, the 75th anniversary of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study was commemorated. The story is more and more familiar to scientific researchers, who are now required to undergo ethics training whenever human participants are involved in an NIH-funded project. To sum it up, this nightmare out of the darkest medical mystery-cum-X-Files conspiracy consisted in conduct syphilis experiments on six hundred black men for over forty years—from 1932 to 1972—without their consent.

The patients were deprived of treatment, not offered access to penicillin when it started being used with the general population in the late 40’s, and were lied to about their diagnoses. The “study” took advantage of the underprivileged background of the participants by offering as “compensation” free medical exams, meals, and burials. To a Jew, this is eerily reminiscent of some of the so-called “experiments” that took place in the Nazi death camps: a difference being that pain and suffering were inflicted on the Tuskegee subjects by default rather than through more “pro-active” measures.

To the greater shame of the medical community, it took an exceedingly long time to realize how unethical the Tuskegee Study was: none of the reports was confidential, and in was not until 1972 that articles appeared in newspapers condemning the study. An official apology from the US government (the CDC had supported the study as late as 1969) had to wait until 1997.

How could it be worse? Through an article in this month’s issue of the American Journal of Public Health, I learned that the syphilis study wasn’t the only shameful story somehow connected to the name of Tuskegee. In “Race and the Politics of Polio,” Yale medical historian Naomi Rogers tells the story of the discrimination against blacks during the fight against Poliomyelitis.

In the 1920s, Roosevelt had bought a place called Warm Springs, which he converted into a polio rehab center. But the center accepted only white patients, and used only whites for the medical and administrative staff while employing blacks in menial jobs. In 1936, a controversy bubbled to the surface at Warm Springs, as it appeared that while black organizations had contributed financially to its upkeep, yet there was still no access to care for black patients.

The arguments opposing integration rested for a good part on faulty statistical data (and faulty interpretation) regarding the distribution of the polio epidemic: whites were supposedly much more susceptible to the disease than blacks.

In 1937, the black support for Roosevelt had not been vindicated at Warm Springs. Faced with mounting criticism and pressure, Roosevelt finally gave his public support to a treatment center at Tuskegee, which opened in 1941. This was still some sort of decoy, and black polio patients were only admitted to Warm Springs at the end of 1945. The Tuskegee polio center had contributed to the progressive acknowledgment by the medical community of the indiscriminate nature of the disease. However, as late as 1954, black children still were still waiting outside white public schools to receive their polio vaccine shots.

Rogers notes how, as compared to the syphilis study case, discrimination with respect to polio treatment was “a more palatable issue for civil rights activism.” Syphilis, a sexually transmitted disease, evoked much stronger “racist connotations” than polio, which furthermore hit mostly children.

What should we learn from two shames of Tuskegee? Much is made of the syphilis study in manuals of medical “cultural competency:” it is said that the memory of it in the black community leads to a persistent distrust of health care institutions. Obviously, the discrimination in the treatment of polio should also be counted. How is it possible to “repair” the damage so that blacks in the U.S. do not have to undergo such undue hardships again?

Disparity in health care is still, unfortunately, prevalent. As a counterpart to Joey’s call for financial generosity, I would like to encourage as many of you as possible to volunteer in health care or social services for under-served populations. Although there has been an increase in the number of health care volunteers in the U.S. lately, the system has also been increasingly dependent on the generosity of people giving their time in order to provide free care for the impoverished. This means that we need more volunteers to sustain the effort, and particularly more highly trained volunteers, preferably professionals in their fields.

It is only through giving back to the community that we will be able to erase the scars of the past.

My favorite bit: "Ms. Carson said the meeting would be private and 'at an undisclosed location.'”

At a news conference at Rutgers University’s Piscataway campus, the 10 members of the Scarlett Knights said they had agreed to meet privately with Mr. Imus, who is suspended from his show for two weeks beginning next Monday. He has said he wanted to personally apologize for his comments on the air that the women described today as disparaging and hurtful.

RELATED: Imus To Call Howard Stern "Articulate"

These race rows are par for the course, aren't they? I don't doubt that Don Imus has less than a sloppy tongue to answer for with his comment about "nappy-headed hos," but to see anyone reduced to the show trial of having to answer for it to Al Sharpton is cruel and unusual punishment.

You can write the rest of the script in your sleep. During his two-week suspension there will come archconservatives defending Imus, arguing that he hadn't said anything worse than what you'll hear on the latest Jay-Z album. Imus will mutter some network-mandated "official" apology when he returns on the air, on his own show. This episode will sink before the new wave of grim headlines out of Baghdad. Then some other "personality" will open his mouth and talk with his spleen, and the whole pathetic thing will repeat itself.

Why the same displays of bigotry and the same unseemly mea culpas, that often do more damage than the original offense? Rather than ask the hard questions of why it is that a comedic nonentity suddenly turns dire and Jim Crowish on stage in Los Angeles, or a scorched-larynx shock jock coopts an inner-city patois for outer-city racism, we have moments of "healing" and "dialogue." As if the knife had even begun to make an incision; as if any meaningful conversation ever got started.

There was one notable exception to these yawning round-robins of condescension and cant. In the mid to late 90's a play was staged in New York called "Spinning Into Butter." It was about a right-thinking college professor (we're talking "Think Globally, Act Locally" bumper stickers here) who lapses into a way beyond the melting pot tirade about blacks. Why is it, she thunders, that at this late stage in social advancement, the sight of young black men riding the subway give her the creeps and have her clutching her handbag? (This was the most charitable part of her spiel.)

You can imagine the mortified looks from white people in the audience. What made the play undeserving of the adjective "forgettable," however, was the reaction of black people in the audience. They sat there nodding, some even smiling as if to say, "Finally. A white person tells it like she really means it."

Too soon? Maybe. Which is why instead we get "you people."

Commedianne Jen Dziura has a blog, Jenisfamous, which is often a fount of hilarity.  Today's hilarity is actually Jewcy relevent, and ends with this Martin Luther King like comment...

Can we all please just hate each other as individuals? If she had called him a "fucking dick" and he had called her a "dumb cunt," this blog post never would have happened.

 Words to live by.

KISS frontman and Reality TV star Gene Simmons on Celebrity Big Brother's Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty's encounters with racial intolerance while filming the show:

What’s the big deal? Some people are racist and some are not. Either you show reality, or you don’t.

Yeah. Like suck it up Shilpa. No really. Please do. And while you're at it, SHOW reality man.

Virginia State Legislator Frank D. Hargrove is in the hotseat for comments he made in response to a public apology the State of Virgina is proposing to make to the descendents of slaves. In his inflammatory remarks, Hargrove said that slavery ended with Civil War 140 years ago and that, "I personally think that our black citizens should get over it."

Later on, when he was called out by a Jewish delegate for his "Are we going to force the Jews to apologize for killing Christ." Hargrove went on to say of the Jewish lawmaker that his "skin was too thin."

"When somebody tells me I should just get over slavery, I can only express my emotion by projecting that I am appalled, absolutely appalled," said Delegate Dwight C. Jones, head of the Legislative Black Caucus.

Delegate David L. Englin, a Democrat, seated next to Hargrove, spoke passionately about his grandparents leaving Poland "where they were driven from their homes by people who believed that as Jews, we killed Christ."

When Englin sat, Hargrove reached over and softly patted Englin on the arm. Then, Hargrove rose to speak and, looking down at his seatmate, said, "I didn't even know you were Jewish, I had no idea of what your religion, (and) I don't care what your religion is. I don't care."

This is the second major racial slur incident to hit Virginia state politics in a short period. While on the campaign trail, former Senator Allen called out a man of Indian descent at his opponent's rally and called him a "macaca."

As an Atlantan and a Jew, I’ve heard a lot over the last few years about Jewish involvement in the Civil Rights Movement. In particular, here in Georgia, Jews are very much aware of how the bombing of Atlanta’s oldest Jewish community became a turning point in the integration of our city. A really amazing story and saga that you’d all do well to read up on, though I knew nothing about it when I moved here from Iowa.

Today, in honor of Dr. King and my fair city, I want to suggest we consider the relationship between Jews and blacks through the past few decades. Although we’d like to imagine that as minorities and oppressed populations, we’ve always supported each other, that’s (of course) not true. But it is true that there have been stretches of time and movements that have brought our communities together, forced us to look past our bigotry and made us stronger communities.

However, there’s a trick to this kind of work… often it becomes interfaith work, and often black communities are deeply spiritual communities, rooted in evangelical Christianity, which makes Jews feel uncomfortable.

Yesterday, I decided to honor Dr. King by going to hear the Ebeneezer Church Choir… and I was struck by how, even for me, a girl with a Catholic mom, who has worked on interfaith and ecumenical councils, the name “Jesus” is awkward. Words like “salvation” still give me the heebie jeebies.

So I’m thinking today about how we can balance our own natural feelings with the desire to work alongside other religious communities. Because we must. Because there will always be a need for social justice (whether it is the soul of Judaism or not) , and that takes leaving the safety of our own backyards.

Have you ever worked in community with devout Christians? Would you?

The Christian Party .. Father's .. Manifesto (or something), a wholesome, Christian, God-fearing organization, has been hard at work organizing the cold hard facts to finally show the world an unbiased, fair, statistics-oriented view of reality through the eyes of troglodytic white men.

I was linked to it through this groundbreaking article which explains why women (specifically black, but they'll take what they can get) drivers need to be taken off the road. Its irrefutable evidence is backed by witty, eye-opening headlines such as "AMERICAN NIGGERS TRIPLE OUR FATAL ACCIDENT RATE"

Other highlights include scientific proof that Jews are stupider than everyone else (...which just goes to show you don't have to be smart to control the media!). Here's a sampling: "How can we possibly explain the LOW low test scores of New Jersey when blacks make up only 14% to 18% of the students there? What other than jews can explain the difference?"

A good question! While you're there, be sure to take their quick, five-minute poll on exiling the blacks. Now that's classy.

BURN THIS BOOK!I thought I’d take a minute today to mention one of the worst things that ever happened to Judaism (and Israel)—the publication of the disgusting  book EXODUS, by Leon Uris.  

Despite being horrendously offensive on a million levels (including a pretty ugly depiction of diaspora Jews), it found most of us when we were young enough (and uneducated enough, and indoctrinated enough)… to slip under our radar as a sexist/racist tome.  It caught me, and I even realized it was sexist and racist in high school, and I still liked it.  Because I was all het up about Israel. 

But guess what?  It’s still in print, still selling like hotcakes, and when I asked a group of my Hillel students  (at the University of Iowa) what their favorite Jewish book was, they all said, unanimously, EXODUS!  Sweet smart girls, and they thought  EXODUS was the best Jewish literature our tribe has produced.  (sorry Roth, Bellow, Singer...) 

So today, I thought I’d use this little soapbox to suggest you all go find the worn paperback on your shelf somewhere, or your mom’s shelf, (or even  buy one at a used bookstore—though for God’s sake don’t order a new one!) and re-read it. But this time, as you read, substitute “Black” or “Mexican” or “Chinese” or “Jewish” each time you run across the word “Arab.”   And see what you think.  Revisit your old favorite and get brutal about what it really is. 

What do I think?  Nostalgia+racism=racism.  Nationalistic pride+racism=racism. Bad writing+racism=racism.   EXODUS is just racist propaganda, with a little sexist softcore porn thrown in for good measure.    Made hugely dangerous by its ridiculous popularity.  It's insane that  a lot of us got our first Israeli history lesson from this book.

So go re-read the bad boy, and when you realize I’m right, that  Uris is a fascist, BURN that fucking book.  And remember that you should, each time you encounter anything (new or old), approach it with fresh eyes... as much as you possibly can.

Second only to the macabre spectacle of seeing a celebrity lose his shit in high style is watching him apologize for it from way down low. I've now rewound and reviewed Michael Richards' simpering and dithering mea culpa on Letterman more times than I watched him counter-heckle out the playbook of Jim Crow. Jerry Seinfeld might have better helped his friend and former cast-mate by getting him into therapy before allowing him to expound, on prime time television, on everything from the "black-white conflict" that has to be "confronted," to the psychic ravages of Hurricane Katrina. (Who knew Mother Nature offered such convenient synecdoches for the American race divide?)

Kramer made hapless stream-of-consciousness into a minor art; Michael Richards brought it back down to the level of "healing" and "closure" and -- though he might now have troubling booking the show -- Oprah-ish apologetics.

The TMZ reel was creepy. This is creepier.

Which two of these cast members are glad The Michael Richards Show was cancelled?Yeah, so that happened:

Michael Richards exploded in anger as he performed at a famous L.A. comedy club last Friday, hurling racial epithets that left the crowd gasping, and TMZ has obtained exclusive video of the ugly incident.

Richards, who played the wacky Cosmo Kramer on the hit TV show "Seinfeld," appeared onstage at the Laugh Factory in West Hollywood. Kyle Doss, an African-American, told TMZ he and some friends were in the cheap seats and he was playfully heckling Richards when suddenly, the comedian lost it.

The camera started rolling just as Richards began his attack, screaming at one of the men, "Fifty years ago we'd have you upside down with a f***ing fork up your ass."

Richards continued, "You can talk, you can talk, you're brave now motherf**ker. Throw his ass out. He's a nigger! He's a nigger! He's a nigger! A nigger, look, there's a nigger!"

Hey, remember the episode where Elaine couldn't figure out whether or not the guy she was dating was black? He wasn't. Good thing for him, too.