That's a Bad Joke, Right?

Like Richards', but funnier? An apology is appropriate. But asking for money smacks of opportunism, unless it's a joke playing on all sorts of crass stereotypes.

[The "victims'" lawyer] Allred, speaking by phone from Colorado, said Richards should meet McBride and Doss in front of a retired judge to "acknowledge his behavior and to apologize to them" and allow the judge to decide on monetary compensation.

"It's not enough to say 'I'm sorry' on 'David Letterman,'" she said.

No argument, there, although one wonders: "not enough" what? "Not enough" for what? Sure, if he wants to restore his reputation, he needs to do something more than that, as Sharpton pointed out. I actually liked what I heard from Sharpton about this being an opportunity to open a dialogue about lingering and deep-seated racism in the US. But if we don't know the answer to "not enough what for what?", how do we decide what would be "enough"? What is the measure of "enough"?

She did not mention a specific figure, but pitched the idea as a way for the comic to avoid a lawsuit.

Ah, there we have it. "Not enough" means "not enough money for my clients." If you drop some cash on people, all is forgiven and you're not a racist, any more. Well, if that's not the logic, then what is? Here the "victims" essentially suggest that they will participate with Richards in a lie about how he's really not racist if he just pays them enough money. But if a public apology to Letterman, Jackson, and Sharpton isn't "enough" to make it plain that he understands the problem with what he did, or if those things are not enough to demonstrate that Richards is in some meaningful sense not racist, then neither is a million dollars. That would just make him a rich racist.

"Our clients were vulnerable," Allred said. "He went after them. He singled them out and he taunted them, and he did it in a closed room where they were captive."

"Captive"? They sure didn't seem like captives when they walked out. I hate to break it to you guys, but you went to a comedy club. Comedians often single out audience members and taunt them, especially when you heckle them. Richards' behavior was appalling, and I can imagine being disturbed and distressed by it, but anyone who says he was genuinely scared in that moment, as one of the guys claims he was, is completely detached from reality. What was going to happen? Richards was going to jump off the stage and lead a lynch mob? That's bullshit, and so is the hint of a lawsuit if Richards doesn't cough up some dough. The response to someone like Richards losing control and taking the low road is to take the high road, accept an apology, and suggest the guy get some help controlling himself, not ask for money like a cheap Sharpton knock-off.

Arabrein: The Flashback Solution to the Arab Question

Avigdor Lieberman has the "solution" to the Arab "problem": expulsion! Wait, maybe "forced migration" is a nicer way of putting that. He takes Cyprus, of all places, as a model for cultural non-co-existence. Interestingly enough, no one (including the Ha'aretz article, above, and an AP article I saw on Aljazeera.net) notes the parallel to the displacement of Palestinians at the establishment of Israel.

The whole article above is worth reading to see just how deep a hole Lieberman digs, but I want to call out a point about so-called "clashes of civilizations."

"The reason for the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict is not territory, not occupation, not settlers or settlements, rather friction between the two peoples and the two religions.

Why is it always right-wing religious nationalists (and mushy-headed liberals like Huntington, Harris, and Friedman) proclaiming that all political conflict is about religion? Many liberals, for their part, are prepared to ignore everything that comes out of the mouths of religious leaders except their proclamations that all politics -- particularly all political conflict -- is reducible to religion. They allow religious nationalists one true position presumably because those claims feed (neo-)liberal atheists' bizarre (and utterly unscientific and unmaterialist) prejudice that religion is the root of all evil, the only social force standing between modern humanity and utopia.

It boggles my mind, both strategically and ideologically/philosophically, that anyone concerned with social progress would so willingly play into the hands of the religious right-wing by assisting them in reducing all conflict to religion and all religion to fundamentalism.

"Everywhere, the world over, no matter if it's the former Yugoslavia or the Caucasus region in Russia, or Northern Ireland, wherever there are two peoples and two religions, there is friction."

He doesn't mention the US. I wonder why? And anyone who says the conflict in the north of Ireland, for example, is fundamentally about religion is only demonstrating their ignorance of the conflict and its history. Otherwise, see above.

According to Lieberman, Israel had no alternative but to move toward "exchanges of populations and territory, in order to create the most homogenously Jewish state."

"Homogenous" is here clearly a euphemism for "ethnically pure." Astonishingly, Lieberman goes on to turn the persecutor into the persecuted, conveniently eliding the history of his own state and its current conflict with the Palestinians by playing the Nazi card:

Referring to the Nazi-era term Judenrein, describing an area from which all Jews have been removed, Lieberman said:

"I don't understand why the Palestinians deserve a state which is 'Judenrein' - after all, we obligated ourselves to create a Palestinian state 'clean' of all Jews, to evacuate all settlements and all the Jews from there to create a homogenous state - while we turn into a bi-national country in which more than 20 percent of those within the state of Israel are minorities."

Lieberman disingenuously misstates the issue with settlements and outposts, which is not about ethnic purity but about establishment of government structures in occupied territories, and particularly about the commitment of the Israeli government to annexation. For him then to turn around and use this intellectually dishonest position as the basis of an argument for an ethnically pure -- excuse me, "homogenous" -- Jewish state is not only reprehensible, but also the worst kind of political opportunism.

In other news, Dick Cheney today suggested exchanging American Jews to Israel in the interest of creating a more homogenous United States. "I don't understand why we are obligated to create for them a homogenous Jewish state, but we have to have a multi-national country in which more than 33% of those within the United States are minorities," he said in a statement, adding, "Wouldn't they be happier with their own kind, anyway?"

Can you imagine?

Speaking of Unacceptable

Apparently, the Israeli ambassador to Australia, Naftali Tamir, recently told Ha'aretz that "[Israel and Australia] are white sisters amid the 'yellow race' of Asia."

"Israel and Australia are like sisters in Asia," Tamir said in an interview with Haaretz during a visit to Israel this week. "We are in Asia without the characteristics of Asians. We don't have yellow skin and slanted eyes. Asia is basically the yellow race. Australia and Israel are not - we are basically the white race. We are on the western side of Asia and they are on the southeastern side."

"Israel has not fully acknowledged the value of working together with Australia in Asia," Tamir said. "It's a way for us to cooperate with and enhance our position in the countries neighboring Australia."

In a meeting with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni this week, Tamir emphasized the potential for developing trade and other links in Asia via Australia and the "necessity" that she visit Australia. [ . . . ]

"Israel has a past and present in Europe, but no future," said Tamir. "Israel is a part of Asia."

Yeah, I wouldn't be so sure about being welcomed as part of Asia, at this point.

/update, Sat 10/14

Kevin grabbed the original Ha'aretz article