Trackbacks & Pings

1. 2006 November 24 Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 24 Nov 2006 at 12:38 pm

   [...] belledame222: >Lame. At least Gibson you feel sorry for with his lame-a… [...]

2. The Primary Contradiction » The Scourge of Whiteness on 27 Nov 2006 at 8:08 am

   [...] For over a week now, the sordid tale of Michael Richards has been in the news. Most of you know the details well by now: how the former Seinfeld cast member made violently racist threats to two African American men in the audience at a comedy club in Los Angeles. In those threats, Richards made explicit reference to lynching and rape in its old-school, Jim Crow-context. In the week and a half since, Richards has done the usual Hollywood damage control program: hiring PR reps and a “crisis management” expert, making a public non-apology on David Letterman, and meeting with Jesse Jackson on a radio show. All the while, Richards has shown the usual lack of self-awareness so typical of white people who have engaged in overtly racist behavior: “I don’t know what happened!” “I’ve never said anything racist before this!” “Where does all this hate come from?” and the classic “I’m not a racist!” Nothing that the good Mister Richards said was any surprise to this woman of color. I’ve heard it all before—many, many, MANY times. It’s an experience most people of color know well. [...]

3. Rosie O’Donnell’s publicist thinks Asians just don’t get the joke at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 11 Dec 2006 at 11:01 am

   [...] I guess Rosie O’Donnell, like Michael Richards, believes she’s not a racist. [...]

Comments

1. Marsha wrote:

   Letterman:

   “But Michael, let me interrupt here for a second and ask a question about had the people doing the heckling or the people who were not paying attention, had they been white or Caucasian or any other race, what would have been the nature of your response then?”

   Richards:

   “It may have happened. It may have happened. You know, I’m a performer. I push the envelope, I work in a very uncontrolled manner onstage. I do a lot of free association, it’s spontaneous, I go into character. I don’t know, in view of the situation and the act going where it was going, I don’t know, the rage did go all over the place.

   I saw that interview last night. Yeah, right Richards! I can just imagine him going off on white people who were heckling him… I just highly doubt it.

   I was also disturbed how Jerry Seinfeld was still standing by him. Maybe Jerry was trying to do some damage control since season 7 of Seinfeld was coming out. It is funny how money can trump common decency. See also Rupert Murdoch. Ick.

   Posted 21 Nov 2006 at 11:21 am ¶

2. Kai wrote:

   Yeah, the lengths to which the white mainstream goes to avoid saying “racism” (or even more directly honest, “white supremacy”) is pretty amazing. The cultural and historical denial just hangs in the air during episodes like this one; white folks intuitively know they implicitly partake in something vile (white supremacy and its privileges) but are uncomfortable probing the matter to honestly lest they discover what it is and how it directly benefits them every day. Thus, they’d rather not state point-blank that Richards approvingly invoked the white supremacist violence upon which this nation is founded; instead, he “hurled racial epithets”. It becomes all about the n-word, rather than our society’s history of white supremacy which Richards turned to with raging gusto at the slightest provocation.

   This lack of intellectual honesty leads to all sorts of foggy-minded confusion about just what we’re discussing. I’m blown away by the number of comments I’ve seen over the past day saying things like “Chris Rock uses the n-word, it’s racist that we can’t” or “get over it”. Richards himself seemed bewildered during his “apology” last night, saying that he has to explore his psyche in order to understand where “this hostility” comes from.

   I have a simple answer: it comes from growing up in a white supremacist society. But if you can’t say it, it’s going to be difficult to think, to grasp, to discuss, and to overcome.

   Peace.

   Posted 21 Nov 2006 at 11:47 am ¶

3. FrancesM wrote:

   At a point during Michael Richards racist rant on Friday he said “that’s what happens when you interrupt a white man!” That statement alone shows his attitude about white privilege and how it should be “obeyed.” I’d love to see more in the mass media on white entitlement and how it rears its head in moments like these.
   ~F

   Posted 21 Nov 2006 at 12:40 pm ¶

4. Vandia wrote:

   I agree with all of you. Somehow people tend to miss the point that this is much more than using the n-word. Richards is resurrecting old white supermacist ideas of lynching blacks and “interrupting the white man”. What makes this a very sad incident is that these things really happened: People have been hanged from trees, have been burned, have been hunted down and killed like mad dogs just for being black. Richards, by invoking those cruel deeds has explicitly identified himself with that culture and generation which brutalized and killed blacks and other minorities. These were no mere “racial epithets’” he used! He identifies with, approves and condones that monstrous past if it were to happen again?? It is sad.
   PS. The whole thing shows we need sites like this for many many more years to come.

   Posted 21 Nov 2006 at 1:29 pm ¶

5. t-hype wrote:

   The really sinister part is when he says, “See this shocks you–shocks you to see what’s buried beneath…” I’m like, “hell to the yeah!”

   This guy’s about the same age as my mom (57). Richards was a teenager during the Civil Rights Movement. I could totally see him standing outside of a school screaming and throwing rocks while they tried to “integrate. That’s the exact type of behavior that Freedom Riders and sit-in protestors had to endure.

   When I’d visit my grandmother in Savannah, Georgia, she was always scared for us to go out after dark. I’d never seen anybody behave like this guy did in real life but she, at 80-something, had seen it. I guess she figured, “I’m alive they’re still alive.” I always hated to believe it but I guess she’s right.

   If he had never said “nigger” but brought up lynching, wanton physical abuse and interrupting “a white man,” I would be no less offended. In fact, at least then he would have had to face the fact that he’s harboring some serious supremacy issues as opposed to playing like it was only the word “nigger” that got people upset.

   Posted 21 Nov 2006 at 1:53 pm ¶

6. Katie wrote:

   Once again the Washington Post gets a big fat ‘F’ for their coverage. The headline for the article on Richards’ “apology” is “‘Seinfeld’ Comic Richards Apologizes for Racial Rant.”

   What is their problem? “Racial” rant? That was textbook rac-ISM. White supremacy goes unchallenged yet again in the news.

   Posted 21 Nov 2006 at 2:15 pm ¶

7. tmk wrote:

   what an idiot.. everyone knows you’re not supposed to use the n-word if you are white. maybe he wanted the publicity…

   Posted 21 Nov 2006 at 2:41 pm ¶

8. s wrote:

   Dave’s audience laughed a few times while Richards was talking. I wonder if they thought he was joking or if they thought HE was a joke.

   “I’m not a racist”??? “Lost my temper”??? I doubt if he would have called them crackers and honkeys if they were white. Even if he did, it wouldn’t have much sting to it. There is no violent, monsterous history behind those words. No racial mass murders to reminisce on. No slavery. No lynchings, beatings, tortures, rapes, castrations, oppression, nothing.

   Posted 21 Nov 2006 at 2:45 pm ¶

9. Mrs. J wrote:

   Katie– Great point. It should have been “Racist Rant”. I worked at a relatively large newspaper fresh out of college and got a first-hand look at how those editors think. It wouldn’t surprise me if it originally was “Racist Rant” and some cowardly editor changed it at the last minute, afraid of stirring the pot.

   t-hype – I feel you. I’d be no less insulted had he not used the word, but let’s be glad he did because sadly its usage is now socially unacceptable enough to warrant national media coverage. The lynching parts, etc. as offensive as they were, might have gone over people’s (willfully oblivious) heads.

   This is the part I love:

   “It may have happened. It may have happened. You know, I’m a performer. I push the envelope, I work in a very uncontrolled manner onstage. I do a lot of free association, it’s spontaneous, I go into character….”

   “It may have happened” What may have happened? Nothing he could have said to couple of white hecklers would have nearly the same sting to it (good point, s). And I doubt he would have zeroed on their race first. Maybe their clothes or something…

   And please, does he think we’re foolish enough to believe he was channeling a “character”? I don’t ever remember Kramer going around saying that kind of crap.

   Posted 21 Nov 2006 at 4:02 pm ¶

10. Nina wrote:

    Huh? So you apologize on Letterman of all places at oh I don’t know 1:00 am . You’re all “busted up” about it. It being “this rage”, and “this crap” that you said. And the Letterman audience pretty much laughs at you until you tell them that this time you are actually not joking. But Richards, that kind of rant does not come out of nowhere. We will never know what he would have said if the hecklers were white so that point is moot. What we do know is what he did do because the hecklers were black. Letterman asks Richards if he regrets being on his show, but not if he regrets his racist words. As Kai said, call it what it is and then deal with it. That is the only way Richards’ “personal work” (whatever that means-rehab? anger management? hiring a p.r. person? ) will be remotely successful. Oh and for Richards to invoke Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq war was just plain ludicrous.

    Posted 21 Nov 2006 at 5:37 pm ¶

11. Vandia wrote:

    I heard this on the NPR. It is interesting though……
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6520719

    Posted 21 Nov 2006 at 6:01 pm ¶

12. HighJive wrote:

    letterman should have let biff henderson interview richards. then biff should have kicked his ass.

    Posted 21 Nov 2006 at 6:21 pm ¶

13. Y. Carrington wrote:

    Fucking Jerry Seinfeld, and goddamn David Letterman. A white man fucks up in the worst way imaginable, and white men are ready to take care of him, as if he’s the injured party. Excuse me—did he not verbally abuse two men of color with a reference to LYNCHING? But of course, billions of DVD and syndication dollars are at stake here, as someone astutely pointed out yesterday. Letterman made that perfectly clear by waving around the DVD case from Season #7.

    And bloody Michael Richards—piece de resistance. It was so obvious to anyone watching that he didn’t know shit from Shinola. All I could do while watching that non-apology was scream at the TV.

    “That’s what happens when you interrupt the white man!” Speaks for itself, folks.

    Posted 21 Nov 2006 at 11:29 pm ¶

14. Dag Nasty wrote:

    Richards just told them what he thought of them. No getting into character, no forcefields of hostility(huh?), just his thoughts about black people. If it wasn’t in him, then it never would have came out of him. I came across the interview with the ‘real’ Kramer on http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html, and of course, he says that 1. the two audience members were heckling him, and 2. Richards wasn’t a seasoned stand-up comedian, so he didn’t know how to handle it. The real Kramer sounded just about as bad as Richards did. I mean he admitted that what was said was bad, but he still defended Richards pretty heavy…

    Posted 22 Nov 2006 at 12:29 am ¶

15. cw wrote:

    Many good points here. There is no excuse or explanation for those horrible remarks, and I doubt that I can ever enjoy the Seinfeld show again. And it was one of my favorite shows — something I could watch with my 12-year-old son. I bet many others feel the same way.

    I thought it was odd that he and Jerry chose the Letterman show to apologize on–it was the wrong place, and the set up was very much like the one Dave uses when setting up gags. No wonder people laughed. (I also read that some people in the audience didn’t know of the incident.) Very wierd. He should have gone on a morning news show (as stupid as those are–they have the pretense of seriousness) or held a press conference.

    For starters, I think Richards should have apologized profusely and responsibly, and then pledged to donate 100 percent of his income for the next few years to an organization like http://www.Tolerance.org.

    Posted 22 Nov 2006 at 4:04 am ¶

16. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    Isn’t it possible that he was just willing to use a racial dynamic in a pretty immoral way to say hurtful things whose content he doesn’t actually agree with? People do often say hurtful things they don’t agree with when they’re mad at someone and want the person to feel hurt. I’m not sure how you can rule out that possibility here by assuming that he really does long for the days of segregation. Maybe he does, but the fact that he said these things doesn’t show that he does. It just shows that he’s willing to act as if he does to achieve a hurtful effect in others by relying on a racial power dynamic. It still makes what he did pretty evil, but it makes a lot more sense of his apology than your interpretation, and it would mean he’s not being as dishonest with himself as you make him out to be.

    Posted 22 Nov 2006 at 8:56 am ¶

17. merq wrote:

    Ah, Jeremy Pierce!

    How we’ve missed your disturbing views!

    Posted 22 Nov 2006 at 9:05 am ¶

18. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    It is pretty disturbing that someone could rely on racial power differentials to achieve a hurtful effect. It’s less disturbing but still disturbing that you might deny that someone could do such a thing but then later on consider it to have been pretty despicable behavior. I’m not going to make such an assumption.

    Posted 22 Nov 2006 at 9:38 am ¶

19. Lyonside wrote:

    >Isn’t it possible that he was just willing to use a racial dynamic in a pretty immoral way to say hurtful things whose content he doesn’t actually agree with? People do often say hurtful things they don’t agree with when they’re mad at someone and want the person to feel hurt.

    Posted 22 Nov 2006 at 11:14 am ¶

20. Stefanie wrote:

    I agree that “cracker” and other epithets directed at white people probably don’t carry the same sting. As a white person, those words just don’t hurt my feelings much. I don’t know if there is an equivilent derrogatory name for white people, due to the history of the various groups, as pointed out above.

    Also, I agree that having a bad day is no justification for racism. If I’m having a bad day, and interact with someone, I don’t take it to someone’s race right off the bat, like Richards did. I think that those sentiments have to be lying pretty close to the surface to be the first thing out of one’s mouth in a moment of anger.

    Posted 22 Nov 2006 at 11:20 am ¶

21. Lyonside wrote:

    OK, the rest of my post got eaten!!

    What I’d intended to say:

    The only way, Jeremy, that makes sense is IF and only IF, prior to the video, Richards had taken on the role of an improv-type character. I.e., an Archie Bunker or Klansman or some such. That would have been all over the news reports, if so.

    Instead, as people here have noted, we have a couple of people being rude audience members and not paying attn to the stage, and we have a performer who sees their color/ethnicity and berates them NOT for their behavior, per se, but on their race, referencing lynching, etc.

    There are a thousand better ways to insult someone, esp. when you are the performer and all eyes are on you. To focus immediately on race and to reference some pretty awful history means that it may very well be the first thing you think of when you see that ethnic group.

    If the chatty guys had been wearing yarmulke, and the comedian yelled at them that 50 years ago, they’d be smoke in his ashtray and he wouldn’t have to deal with them, would you still defend him? OR is that too subtle for you to get?

    I know theater people. I love improv. And I know that the best people are flexible and in the moment. But if being in the moment means that bigoted remarks are the only thing on your mind, then give me a script!

    I argue w/ people face to face constantly (no!) and to my knowledge, I have never thought, “Gee, I’m not a bigot, and this has nothing to do with the argument, but let me throw out some racist/sexist/religious slur to give me an edge!”

    Posted 22 Nov 2006 at 11:26 am ¶

22. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    Lyonside, you seem to be thinking that I’m saying it’s not racist. I’m not sure why you would assume that, but it’s not what I said. What I said is that he may not actually intend the statements he said literally. He may be invoking them as a power play over his audience, relying on racist linguistic power differentials to do so. It’s still a racist act, but it doesn’t mean he’s longing for the good old days when he could lynch black people and be cheered. It might just mean he’s willing to use racist rhetoric for effect, even if he doesn’t mean that content literally.

    The words are still despicable, but what Carmen and most of the commenters here seem to be assuming is that he actually meant his words literally, and I don’t know if we can conclude that. Just to be clear, I think it’s a racist action to do something like this, and I think such a racist action relies on an immoral view of how significant the words he was saying are. That goes to character. But it doesn’t mean he’s been secretly hoping to lynch black people all his life, as the conversation here has seemed to be taking it.

    Posted 22 Nov 2006 at 11:54 am ¶

23. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    If the chatty guys had been wearing yarmulke, and the comedian yelled at them that 50 years ago, they’d be smoke in his ashtray and he wouldn’t have to deal with them, would you still defend him? OR is that too subtle for you to get?

    Are you suggesting that I’m defending Richards? In my book, it counts as a pretty strong criticism of someone to describe their actions as evil, despicable, and hurtful.

    Posted 22 Nov 2006 at 12:00 pm ¶

24. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

    Jeremy,

    I don’t know that I believe Richards wants to literally go out and lynch people. What I do think (and that may not have been conveyed effectively in this post) is that he has absorbed this country’s white supremacist culture into his subconscience.

    I do think that he instinctively feels that whites are superior to blacks, that he probably goes around pretending that he believes in equality but given this provocation, he returned to his instinctive behavior, which was to remind the heckler about the imbalance in power and privilege.

    I think the way we act in situations like this – where you don’t have time to think and process, say a lot about what we truly believe, about the values we have internalized.

    Posted 22 Nov 2006 at 12:27 pm ¶

25. Lyonside wrote:

    Jeremy,

    You’re giving him a lot of intellectual cred – does that video really look like someone who thought out the repercussions of his statements and decided to use racist language to achieve an end (whatever that would be?)

    If it was in writing, MAYBE. After all, Johnathan Swift didn’t really intend to say that the Irish should resort to cannabalism and that the English should help (one of the greatest satirists ever).

    I really don’t think Richards meant it with the intent you’re willing to give him; if he did, I’m sure it would have made it into his non-apology.

    Posted 22 Nov 2006 at 12:32 pm ¶

26. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    Carmen:
    I do think that he instinctively feels that whites are superior to blacks, that he probably goes around pretending that he believes in equality but given this provocation, he returned to his instinctive behavior, which was to remind the heckler about the imbalance in power and privilege.

    Lyonside:
    You’re giving him a lot of intellectual cred – does that video really look like someone who thought out the repercussions of his statements and decided to use racist language to achieve an end (whatever that would be?)

    I’m not saying he was doing this in any careful way. It’s just that certain kinds of language take advantage of the ability of white people to gain rhetorical power over black people very easily, and he was angry enough to take advantage of that. It shows that he was willing to do such a thing in the heat of verbal nastiness, and the fact that he so quickly made it about race shows that he’s probably got some racial animosity.

    What I don’t think it shows is that he has the philosophical view that white people are superior or that he actually feels superior. In fact, he probably doesn’t, since those who do feel superior don’t usually need to go around affirming it to themselves and to everyone else.

    Posted 22 Nov 2006 at 12:47 pm ¶

27. Lyonside wrote:

    >What I don’t think it shows is that he has the philosophical view that white people are superior or that he actually feels superior

    Actually, I agree with you in one way: people who are this defensive and knee-jerk towards others who are different both tell themselves that they are superior, BUT ALSO may feel insecure/inferior/uncertain.

    I.e. the virulent closeted homophobe, or the bully who fears being picked on, or the racist with a rumored racial mix, or the anti-Semite with a Jewish grandparent.

    You still give him too much credit : “He’s PROBABLY got some racial animosity”??

    No, he HAS it, he FLAUNTS it, and it’s not racial, it’s racist. There is a difference.

    Posted 22 Nov 2006 at 12:58 pm ¶

28. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    I find it barely conceivable that this isn’t about racial animosity but is merely a way to get the one-up on people who happen to be black, in a way that doesn’t stem from any of his own animosity against black people in general. I don’t think that’s very likely. But I do think it’s barely conceivable. So I say probably, meaning that it’s something we can be pretty safe in assuming.

    I did call it racist. By calling it racial animosity, I did not mean to deny that. Racial animosity is animosity against a race. I’m not sure how that could fail to be racist.

    Posted 22 Nov 2006 at 1:23 pm ¶

29. kim wrote:

    I love reading the banter between everyone here, and think that if the exercise of parsing the expressed behavior of someone like Richards is merely that, an exercise in rhetoric and theory, then continue to stretch.

    If there is to be no censure, no rebuke, no loss of stature to Richards, and we seek to understand Why, Why, Why, until we find some nucleic explanation for this grown man’s express threatening, hateful speech, so that we can then beseech him to learn to understand him so that his apology is heartfelt and any atonement genuine, so that we can forgive ourselves for not wanting to turn away from some inane television show which celebrates the absence of the group he would publicly remind of its dispensability, then, WHY, WHY, WHY?

    Posted 22 Nov 2006 at 2:06 pm ¶

30. HighJive wrote:

    it’s always interesting to see the diveristy of reactions based on the blog environment. over at an advertising-related blog, there appear to be a lot of sympathetic souls. or maybe i’m just overrreacting.

    http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2006/11/whats_in_the_wa.html#comments

    Posted 22 Nov 2006 at 2:56 pm ¶

31. Kai wrote:

    Jeremy Pierce:

    certain kinds of language take advantage of the ability of white people to gain rhetorical power over black people very easily

    I see what you’re saying, but the difference between your view and mine is that I don’t separate “rhetorical power” from actual power in the real world, because actual behavior flows from thoughts that come from words, and the power of words comes from what actually happens in reality. The rhetorical power of white folks over black folks comes from a long history of very non-rhetorical genocidal white supremacy. So I don’t disconnect the two.

    In other words, even if Richards isn’t actually into the wanton murder of black folks, he’s using his megaphone to spread words and thoughts which have real relevance to actual events in US history and culture. So whether or not he actually deep-down believes what he’s saying doesn’t matter all that much to me. I’m offering critique of the content itself, not the inner soul of this particular individual.

    Moreover, when you do something in rage that goes against your innermost beliefs (if that’s possible), you remain solely responsible for that action. So I guess I think your disagreement with the philosophical nuance of a few points here isn’t particularly significant.

    Regards.

    Posted 22 Nov 2006 at 3:10 pm ¶

32. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    Kai, the only reason I’m mentioning this as rhetorical power is because it’s words that initiate the effect rather than a repetition of past events that contributed toward giving those words the power they now have. I’m not denying that social cause of the words’ power. But it’s the words in this case that activate that power.

    I don’t think we really disagree all that much. I don’t think my point here is all that significant in the end. What he did is pretty bad any way you slice it. I’m just not comfortable reading into his emotions and motivations with as strong a confidence as others here are, and I thought Carmen’s take on it was just one of several possible interpretations of what brought him to do this. It’s not as if he’s a much better person if I’m right or anything, and it’s not as if it changes anything about whether it’s racist. It’s just the particular manifestation and kind of racism that’s going on here that I’m less confident of. But I do agree that my point isn’t all that significant in the final analysis. What he did demonstrates some kind of racist disposition on his part. Otherwise his anger wouldn’t have manifested itself the way it did.

    Posted 22 Nov 2006 at 3:18 pm ¶

33. Kai wrote:

    Jeremy: Agreed. Nicely said.

    Posted 22 Nov 2006 at 3:25 pm ¶

34. HighJive wrote:

    the new york post published a story that paints richards as a potentially hate-filled person. racism is just a part of his repertoire…

    http://www.nypost.com/seven/11222006/news/nationalnews/art_drove_kramer_krazy_nationalnews_david_k__li_and_hasani_gittens.htm

    Posted 22 Nov 2006 at 3:46 pm ¶

35. makethelogobigger wrote:

    I’m seeing the view expressed that maybe although he isn’t a racist, he said it out of some sense of trying to hurt people/the audience.Yep. That’s what’s what you do to hecklers, but to go right for the nuclear option? Sorry, but if you know right from wrong, or more importantly, if you don’t wnat an ass-woopin, you still don’t say certain things.

    You don’t call women the C-word. You don’t go into FYE and ask the cashier loud enough for everyone to hear: “Hey, you got the new Barry Manilow Live CD?”

    And you don’t use the N-word, let alone call someone it.

    A grown man who’s been on countless live shows and in front of the camera can’t control himself from saying that? There’s absolutely no way I believe it.

    That he went there shows he grabbed the first thing based in anger that he had. That tells me all I need to know, not to mention his lame-ass rant right after saying it where he goes “it’s still still there under it all” like, he was immediately trying to cover his ass and justify his comments, as if some social experiment or commentary on how far we haven’t come in this country. It was a CYA move.

    Lame. At least Gibson you feel sorry for with his lame-ass “Booze did it” excuse, even if for two seconds. Even though, if ya said it when you were drunk, you thought it when you were sober. And thanks Michael for proving my point because that’s exactly what he did here.

    Especially with how he acts in past interviews I’ve seen. Totally standoffish, holier than thou, ‘I’m too good for this Kramer schtick’. Then he comes on Lettermen and responds in the same way? Came off TOTALLY insincere knowing his interview style because you’re waiting for the punchline. I almost expected Jerry to be in on it.

    I don’t know his PR people, but in this case, coming out like this in THAT areana was the last thing he shoulda done. As much as I hate him, Larry King woulda made him look more sincere. Doubt he has the guts to go on BET.

    Speaking of done, I’d say Gibson’s bs will be forgotten first as long as he has a hit while Richards is, well, done as far as I can tell.

    Unless Gibson needs a whacky tribal neighbor to enter on cue in his next flick.

    Posted 22 Nov 2006 at 5:44 pm ¶

36. makethelogobigger wrote:

    (Double typos abound, sorry. With K-Fed being kicked out and now this, I’ve had a rough few weeks.)

    Posted 22 Nov 2006 at 5:46 pm ¶

37. belledame222 wrote:

    god, what a dick. I guess that goes with the (racist) territory. but: damn, what a dick!

    Posted 22 Nov 2006 at 7:13 pm ¶

38. belledame222 wrote:

    >With K-Fed being kicked out and now this, I’ve had a rough few weeks

    it’s been a terrible shock to all of us. but we soldier on. we must.

    Posted 22 Nov 2006 at 7:14 pm ¶

39. nick j boragina wrote:

    I find it interesting how the video does not show the heckling.

    Posted 22 Nov 2006 at 11:49 pm ¶

40. belledame222 wrote:

    >Isn’t it possible that he was just willing to use a racial dynamic in a pretty immoral way to say hurtful things whose content he doesn’t actually agree with?>

    Who cares? The effect on the person it’s being hurled at (and all the innocent bystanders) is the same regardless. “I didn’t really hate him; I don’t know what came over me; he ran into my knife” is typically not a great defense if the dude’s still dead at the end of the day.

    Posted 24 Nov 2006 at 10:25 am ¶

41. belledame222 wrote:

    >I find it interesting how the video does not show the heckling.

    I don’t. What could anyone have possibly said that would understandably provoke such a response, in your mind? Yeah, heckling sucks. If he’d simply lost his shit in some other way (”fuck YOU, motherfucker! you wanna piece of me?! HUH? HUH??) then yeah, it might be more relevant. certainly it’d be a lot more entertaining, on the whole. there is no justification for this particular outburst. sorry. he broke it, he owns it.

    Posted 24 Nov 2006 at 10:28 am ¶

42. belledame222 wrote:

    >If the chatty guys had been wearing yarmulke, and the comedian yelled at them that 50 years ago, they’d be smoke in his ashtray and he wouldn’t have to deal with them, would you still defend him?>

    Actually, he did apparently scream something like “Christ-killing Jew” in a similar, previous incident, it comes out, now.

    he’s just…charming!

    Posted 24 Nov 2006 at 10:33 am ¶

43. belledame222 wrote:

    >You don’t call women the C-word.

    And he also did that, too, in yet another incident…

    Posted 24 Nov 2006 at 10:35 am ¶

44. belledame222 wrote:

    >Lame. At least Gibson you feel sorry for with his lame-ass “Booze did it” excuse, even if for two seconds. Even though, if ya said it when you were drunk, you thought it when you were sober. And thanks Michael for proving my point because that’s exactly what he did here.
    Especially with how he acts in past interviews I’ve seen. Totally standoffish, holier than thou, ‘I’m too good for this Kramer schtick’. Then he comes on Lettermen and responds in the same way? Came off TOTALLY insincere knowing his interview style because you’re waiting for the punchline. I almost expected Jerry to be in on it.>

    huh, i never thought of it that way, but then i never did really watch Seinfeld. i thought he came off as sincere…sincerely pathetic and deeply creepy. like any chronic abuser who’s been backed into a corner. i sort of felt sorry for him in a squirmy sort of way, but it definitely didn’t make me any more inclined to like the guy or give him a pass.

    Gibson i’ve no sympathy for at all, i’m afraid. anyway as you say, it’s quite likely he still has a career, especially if this next flick does well. this dude? -shrug- off to go play in the eternal card came with Norma Desmond and the rest of the waxworks. Hollywood Squares, maybe, if he’s lucky.

    Posted 24 Nov 2006 at 10:39 am ¶

45. coffee 2 wrote:

    Actually, I think we should be grateful to Richards. Not only did he ‘meltdown’, but along with him went any lingering doubt the cognitive world may have had about ‘white supremacy.’ 3 uninterrupted minutes of undiluted proof that he is a. inarticulate b. crass/vulgar c. threatened by any challenge to his fragile, blood-drenched , schizophrenic sense of ’superiority. ‘ What a fall from grace. C’mon, does Bush really seem ’superior’ to Condoleeza?’ All we really have to do is sit back and watch the show!! the ‘white man’ from laborer to Lord, is doing much better than we ever could have dared hope, at destroying his own myth. One who lives by the sword……………….

    Posted 01 Dec 2006 at 5:06 pm ¶

46. Gin wrote:

    Richards has a very vague sense of self-sacrifice. That’s what being a standup comedian is all about. There’s no script that the audience follows, so you are at their mercy. They say that you don’t know a person until you see them perform under pressure. Richards flaked out and is no exception.

    Posted 09 Dec 2006 at 5:55 am ¶

47. Neo wrote:

    I believe today there are plenty of people who hold views that can be seen as “racist” or offensive, but there is a global understanding that you keep these views to yourself. Unfortunately Mr Richards here has let it all out at the worst possible time and place… nice one Kramer.

    Posted 13 Dec 2006 at 3:26 am ¶