Category Archives: The Zeitgeist

Enough of the No-Fault Forgiveness Already

Hollywood, Psychology & Pop-Psychology, Race, Racism, The Zeitgeist

I’ve never been able to watch an entire episode of “Seinfeld,” an insipid and dull skit, with annoying, utterly contrived characters. By contrast, I’m quite capable of enjoying the odd “Everyone Loves Raymond” episode (Doris Roberts as Marie Barone is marvelous). But Seinfeld, including the apparition that went by the name Kramer, was crappy TV.

Now it transpires that actor Michael Richards is every bit as grob as Kramer, the creep he played. (Grob means “coarse, crude, profane, rough, rude� in Yiddish.)

TMZ.com reported that, after being heckled mildly:

“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… 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!'”

To his credit, the man Richards assailed responded in a rather muted manner: “You’re not funny. That’s That’s un-f***ing called for, ain’t necessary.”

Later, the apology factory went into action, and Richards, who should have been banished forthwith from polite company (that doesn’t include mass media), was beamed via satellite into David Letterman’s “Late Show,” where he gruffly proclaimed: “For me to be at a comedy club and flip out and say this crap, I’m deeply, deeply sorry…I’m not a racist. That’s what’s so insane about this.”

No, what’s “so insane” about these episodes is the apology ritual that follows, and the notion that saying sorry is somehow redemptive; what’s “so insane” about these regular installments of pigs behaving badly is the readiness to believe the bifurcation the scumbag will offer up—that somehow an entity other than himself possessed him for the duration of the tirade. Why would the “black community” even want to engage with this sewer rat?

As I see it, the hatred and unwarranted verbal aggression Richards displayed were far less disturbing than his gutter manners and lack of inhibitions in expressing his foul repertoire.

If the pack of pigmies in the press and TV simply shunned Richards, he’d retreat into the septic tank whence he came.

O.J.'s Manual For Murder

Crime, Criminal Injustice, Media, The Zeitgeist

What a performative contradiction: cable’s point men and women have been contorting like Cirque du Soleil contortionists because of the despicable antics of HarperCollins publisher, Judith Regan, in publishing the sociopathic rants of the killer, O.J. Simpson. Yet they’re all giving this uninteresting, idiotic development time—almost as much time as they devote to the bubblehead with the double chin and chubby cheeks, Britney Spears.

From an impassioned interview Mark Fuhrman gave Hannity & Comles, it transpired that Allan Colmes is a pretty weird gnome; he believes O.J. is innocent, and has written as much in his “book.” On the program, Colmes attacked Fuhrman furiously.

I admire Fuhrman. He did his job and was slimed for it. He then bootstrapped his way back into so-called polite company. There is something utterly revolting about a liberal who, bereft of an argument, reaches for his standard stock-in-trade: accusations of racism. Colmes threw everything but the kitchen sink at a guest who’d come on to speak about this latest low in the American publishing world—a How-To instructional by a murderer—because he had investigated the case.

Fuhrman told the two talking heads, whose books Regan has published, that he would no longer be dealing with said publisher. Needless to say, the two hosts did not join Fuhrman in a show of principle.

What was also of interest was Hannity’s contaminated perspective. Conservatives have absorbed the therapeutic idiom completely. Hannity expressed the view that O.J. was consumed by guilt—could no longer contain the remorse, and was using a book as a confessional. He, Hannity, wanted closure too.

My God. I don’t know if there’s anything that disgusts me more than this meaningless, immoral mumbo-jumbo. Fuhrman, far more intelligent than his hosts, tried to explain to both about the nature of evil. There are people in this world, O.J. being one such specimen, who can kill another human being (or a couple), and then pop into KFC for some chicken, he said. Murder is nothing to them. (At this stage, Rumpelstiltskin intensified the racism accusations, because of the mention of KFC. Don’t ask me why.)

Neither one of these gents got it. The root-causes rot runs too deep in both. As for publisher Regan, she says, “What I wanted was closure, not money.” Since when is every self-appointed proxy of pain in a position to seek closure (whatever that means) for pain she has not sustained?

The only two people who have the moral authority to forgive this monster have been dead for a decade, their throats slit from ear to ear. (There’s more here. Send these on to Judith Regan so she can have “closure.”)

O.J.’s Manual For Murder

Crime, Criminal Injustice, Media, The Zeitgeist

What a performative contradiction: cable’s point men and women have been contorting like Cirque du Soleil contortionists because of the despicable antics of HarperCollins publisher, Judith Regan, in publishing the sociopathic rants of the killer, O.J. Simpson. Yet they’re all giving this uninteresting, idiotic development time—almost as much time as they devote to the bubblehead with the double chin and chubby cheeks, Britney Spears.

From an impassioned interview Mark Fuhrman gave Hannity & Comles, it transpired that Allan Colmes is a pretty weird gnome; he believes O.J. is innocent, and has written as much in his “book.” On the program, Colmes attacked Fuhrman furiously.

I admire Fuhrman. He did his job and was slimed for it. He then bootstrapped his way back into so-called polite company. There is something utterly revolting about a liberal who, bereft of an argument, reaches for his standard stock-in-trade: accusations of racism. Colmes threw everything but the kitchen sink at a guest who’d come on to speak about this latest low in the American publishing world—a How-To instructional by a murderer—because he had investigated the case.

Fuhrman told the two talking heads, whose books Regan has published, that he would no longer be dealing with said publisher. Needless to say, the two hosts did not join Fuhrman in a show of principle.

What was also of interest was Hannity’s contaminated perspective. Conservatives have absorbed the therapeutic idiom completely. Hannity expressed the view that O.J. was consumed by guilt—could no longer contain the remorse, and was using a book as a confessional. He, Hannity, wanted closure too.

My God. I don’t know if there’s anything that disgusts me more than this meaningless, immoral mumbo-jumbo. Fuhrman, far more intelligent than his hosts, tried to explain to both about the nature of evil. There are people in this world, O.J. being one such specimen, who can kill another human being (or a couple), and then pop into KFC for some chicken, he said. Murder is nothing to them. (At this stage, Rumpelstiltskin intensified the racism accusations, because of the mention of KFC. Don’t ask me why.)

Neither one of these gents got it. The root-causes rot runs too deep in both. As for publisher Regan, she says, “What I wanted was closure, not money.” Since when is every self-appointed proxy of pain in a position to seek closure (whatever that means) for pain she has not sustained?

The only two people who have the moral authority to forgive this monster have been dead for a decade, their throats slit from ear to ear. (There’s more here. Send these on to Judith Regan so she can have “closure.”)

Robert Bidinotto Gives Rush the Bum's Rush

Media, The Zeitgeist

Objectivist Robert Bidinotto has an interesting analysis of the aftermath of “Limbaugh’s self-indulgent, mocking tirades against actor Michael J. Fox on the issue of federally-funded embryonic stem cell research.”

He agrees with my “It’s About Federalism, Stupid,” writing, in his signature style that:

“Not only was Limbaugh’s mockery of a sick man disgusting, it was incredibly stupid. Rather than focus the debate on the narrower question of whether such research should be government-funded, he and other conservative Republicans chose instead to mock Fox, and to hinge their case on faith-based ‘right to life’ premises that every poll shows that most voters reject. As columnist Ilana Mercer points out today in a scathing column:

Limbaugh needed only to remind Fox (and his own soon-to-be-dethroned party) of a thing called the Constitution. He needed to berate Fox not for his spasticity, but for using his celebrity to petition Congress for money not his. Limbaugh ought to have suggested Fox refrain from pickpocketing the taxpayer, and raise money for private research among his stinking rich pals. Instead—and in character—Limbaugh beat up on a cripple.

“There is an irony here,” Bidinotto continues, “one that I hope conveys a lesson for ‘conservatives.’

Rush Limbaugh’s influence was widely credited with inspiring the ‘Republican Revolution’ of 1994, leading to the GOP takeover of Congress. But at that time his message — and that of the GOP conservative candidates — had focused on limiting government intervention into our lives.

By abandoning its core principles of individualism and limited government in the decade since, the Republicans in Congress have been fired by American voters. Likewise, by focusing stupidly on the alleged ‘rights’ of embryos rather than the actual rights of living citizens — and by substituting cruel personal attacks for principled arguments — Rush Limbaugh has now helped engineer his party’s crushing defeat.”

Read the post in its entirety here.