Clown Power!!!

Of all the counter-demonstrations, this has got to be the most ingenious and creative. Clown Power vs. White Power? Who do you think will win? Read the article to find out!

Photo and article courtesy of Asheville Indymedia.

Nazi's out of Knoxville!

Saturday May 26th the VNN Vanguard Nazi/KKK group attempted to host a hate rally to try to take advantage of the brutal murder of a white couple for media and recruitment purposes. http://www.volunteertv.com/special

Unfortunately for them the 100th ARA (Anti Racist Action) clown block came and handed them their asses by making them appear like the asses they were.

Alex Linder the founder of VNN and the lead organizer of the rally kicked off events by rushing the clowns in a fit of rage, and was promptly arrested by 4 Knoxville police officers who dropped him to the ground when he resisted and dragged him off past the red shiny shoes of the clowns. http://www.volunteertv.com/home/headlines/7704982.html

“White Power!” the Nazi’s shouted, “White Flour?” the clowns yelled back running in circles throwing flour in the air and raising separate letters which spelt “White Flour”.

“White Power!” the Nazi’s angrily shouted once more, “White flowers?” the clowns cheers and threw white flowers in the air and danced about merrily.

“White Power!” the Nazi’s tried once again in a doomed and somewhat funny attempt to clarify their message, “ohhhhhh!” the clowns yelled “Tight Shower!” and held a solar shower in the air and all tried to crowd under to get clean as per the Klan’s directions.

At this point several of the Nazi’s and Klan members began clutching their hearts as if they were about to have a heart attack. Their beady eyes bulged, and the veins in their tiny narrow foreheads beat in rage. One last time they screamed “White Power!”

The clown women thought they finally understood what the Klan was trying to say. “Ohhhhh…” the women clowns said. “Now we understand…”, “WIFE POWER!” they lifted the letters up in the air, grabbed the nearest male clowns and lifted them in their arms and ran about merrily chanting “WIFE POWER! WIFE POWER! WIFE POWER!”

It was at this point that several observers reported seeing several Klan members heads exploding in rage and they stopped trying to explain to the clowns what they wanted.

Apparently the clowns fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the rally, they believed it was a clown rally and came in force to support their pointy hated brethren. To their dismay, despite their best jokes and stunts and pratfalls the Nazis and Klan refused to laugh, and indeed became enraged at the clowns misunderstanding and constant attempts to interpret the clowns instruction.

The clowns on the other hand had a great time and thought the Nazis were the funniest thing they had ever seen and the loud laughter of over 100 counter protesters greeted every attempt of the Nazis and Klan to get their message out, whatever that was.

Many of the local Knoxvillians that came to counter demonstrate had no illusions about why these out of state bad clowns with swastikas were doing in their town.

“KKK YOU CAN’T HIDE, WE CHARGE YOU WITH GENOCIDE!”

“GAY, STRAIGHT, BLACK, WHITE ONE STRUGGLE ONE FIGHT!”

“U.G.L.Y. KLAN YOU AIN’T GOT NO ALIBI, YOU UGLY, YOU UGLY”

Were just a few of the chants that the non clown counter protesters rained down upon the Nazis. The clowns interacted with the non clown protesters with glee and even participated in a chant or two, though apparently with no idea that the Nazis were indeed not clowns thinking it was just part of the show.

In the end the 20 or so sad VNNers left with their tails between their legs. At this point over 150 counter demonstraters were present. The clowns seeing how dejected and sad the Nazi’s looked began singing to cheer them up.

“hey hey hey hey, ho ho ho ho—good bye, good bye” everyone sang waving their arms in the air in unison.

After the VNNers left in their shiny SUVs to go back to Alabama and all the other states that they were from the clowns and counter demonstrators began to march out of the area chanting ‘WHOSE STREETS? OUR STREETS!”

But the cops stopped the clowns and counter protestors. “Hey, do you want an escort” an African-American police officer on a motorcycle asked. “Yes” a clown replied. “We are walking to Market Square in the center of town to celebrate.”

The police officers got in front of the now anti racist parade and blocked the entire road for the march through the heart of Knoxville. An event called imagination station was taking place and over 15,000 thousand students and their parents were in town that weekend. Many of them cheered as the clowns, Knoxvillians and counter protestors marched through the heart of Knoxville singing and laughing at the end of the Nazi’s first attempt at having a rally in Knoxville.

On June 16th the Stormfront Nazis are trying to have a second rally in Knoxville. Clowns, anarchist, activist and others are all invited to come and creatively and nonviolently help us confront these Nazis and give them an even bigger counter rally than the first. If you can come, or can help email.

knoxvilleantiracistaction@yahoo.com

or join our myspace at:

http://www.myspace.com/knoxvilleantiracistaction

Thanks to Three Rivers Earth First!, Mountain Justice Summer, Katuah Earth First!, Knoxville Anti Racist Action, Katuah Anti Racist Action and the clown block for utterly wrecking the failed attempt of the Nazis to get a foothold in Knoxville. In one day Three Rivers Earth First!ers posted over 1000 anti racist fliers all over Knoxville recruiting people to come, this is just one example of all the work and effort that went in to creatively and nonviolently rejecting the VNNers out of Knoxville.

The Last Week

It's Monday. I'm doing my usual thing of dragging myself out of the house and working at a cafe. My favorite cafe has been either Murky Cafe or EuroMarket. I think both are Korean owned. Murky has the best coffee around, while EuroMarket has a bit of everything - food, desserts, wines, etc. Both, however, have free wi-fi access, and that is a big plus for me! Anyways, for the first time in a long while, I really don't have to worry about what to do for lecture this week. Other than exams and their final grades, I will be free (!) ... to continue finishing my dissertation.

*sighs*

It's almost over. Last week, my dissertation advisor sent me an email with the subject line "Hi" and a very concise message that read: "How are you doing?" In other words ... when am I going to be done?

I wrote back giving her a summation of my chapter, the argument that I was working on, and a projected date of completion with a reasonable deadline for my conclusion. At the end of this month is when I should be done with this chapter, and a month afterwards to finish my conclusion. And definitely some more time with edits and revisions. Nothing is ever that simple from a dissertation advisor.

Holy crap I only have 3 weeks left to finish this chapter!

Hate Crimes Bill (H.R. 1592) Passes ...

... in the House but the President has already signaled an intent to veto it before it even reaches his desk. There's a good synopsis on CNN.com about it. The bill would essentially expand federal powers in assisting state and local law enforcement in prosecuting hate crimes, and, add sexual orientation as a protected category.

Under the House bill, the definition of a hate crime would expand to include gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. Local law enforcement officials would be allowed to apply for federal grants to solve such crimes, and federal agents would be given broader authority to assist state and local police. Federal sentencing guidelines would also be stiffened.

This is why this bill has been lagging in Congress for over 6 years. A fairly strong coalition of evangelical, socially conservative, Christian fundamentalists, who form President Bush's political base, have been successful in preventing the passage of this bill from day one. And get this: they believe that such a bill would threaten their First Amendment rights to religious freedom and public expression -- that is, their right to publicly espouse their vitriolic attacks on gays, lesbians, and sexual minorities. Give me a break!!!

As the blog, Town Called Dobson, simply asks:

When did murdering gays become religious expression?

The Day After Imus

So now in the aftermath of Imus and his racially and sexually derogatory epithets, his subsequent firings from NBC and CBS, the Rutgers Women's Basketball team press conference, the fans, the outrage, the marvelous coalition of support for the students, the hope that this painful episode will set a new standard for media responsibility, we now turn our attention to ... RAP MUSIC?!?!?

Oh shit. I heard the report on CNN Headline News this morning that there's a greater concerted effort to now target rap/hip hop artists like 50 Cent, Snoop Dogg, and others. The argument, ironically, seemed to have come from Imus himself when he appeared on Al Sharpton's radio show. He commented that he did not get the phrase on his own. That it's origins are in the very worst of rap/hip hop. In other words, he wasn't saying anything new or different from what rappers were saying in the music. I know it's a cop out, and it doesn't hold water. I just can't believe that people are buying into that point. I know elder African American leaders like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and many others for different reasons, have always had a problem with rap and it's derogatory portrayals of black men and women. But this is a fairly reactionary and conservative critique about the politics of representation and culture -- that the causes of misoygny, homophobia, or racism, etc., can be traced to an offensive representation be it film, picture, television, or even words. The solution then is simple: remove the representation from our public sphere.

This is highly problematic on so many levels. There's no talk about culture in a substantive manner. There's nothing about patterns of economic inequality, or even a commentary about the state of our education. Or worse, once again, it's a "black problem" that they created, that they must now solve, but what's different this time is now it's a fairly diverse coalition of interests willing to go further than before. It's being framed as a personal moral issue and that is worrisome. But as a political logic, it certainly makes sense to a lot of people who work on a simple map of power relations: cause and effect.

But what bugs me the most about this development is the fact that Imus somehow was able to redirect the focus and energy from himself to rap and hip hop. Maybe not by himself solely, but this episode and the mess he created certainly facilitated it. In the end, I can't help but think that cowboy is going to have the last laugh.

Did I Read That Right? Imus is Gone?!

Wow he's really fired! I'd never thought it would go this far, but I guess, as one of my students remarked, this was a "perfect storm."

I'm still in a state of disbelief, surprise, and awe. Go figure.

From SFGate.com: "Don Imus Loses Job in Stunning Fall" (David Bauder)

Don Imus' racist remarks got him fired by CBS on Thursday, the finale to a stunning fall for one of the nation's most prominent broadcasters.

Imus was initially suspended for two weeks after he called the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos" on the air last week. But outrage kept growing and advertisers kept bolting from his CBS radio show and its MSNBC simulcast, which was canceled Wednesday.

"There has been much discussion of the effect language like this has on our young people, particularly young women of color trying to make their way in this society," CBS President and Chief Executive Officer Leslie Moonves said in announcing the decision. "That consideration has weighed most heavily on our minds as we made our decision."

Imus, 66, had a long history of inflammatory remarks. But something struck a raw nerve when he targeted the Rutgers team — which includes a class valedictorian, a future lawyer and a musical prodigy — after they lost in the NCAA championship game.

I also liked this article from the NY Times as a reminder of our political obligations: "Our Prejudices, Ourselves" (Harvey Fierstein)

AMERICA is watching Don Imus’s self-immolation in a state of shock and awe. And I’m watching America with wry amusement.

Since I’m a second-class citizen — a gay man — my seats for the ballgame of American discourse are way back in the bleachers. I don’t have to wait long for a shock jock or stand-up comedian to slip up with hateful epithets aimed at me and mine. Hate speak against homosexuals is as commonplace as spam. It’s daily traffic for those who profess themselves to be regular Joes, men of God, public servants who live off my tax dollars, as well as any number of celebrities.

In fact, I get a good chuckle whenever someone refers to “the media” as an agent of “the gay agenda.” There are entire channels, like Spike TV, that couldn’t fill an hour of programming if required to remove their sexist and homophobic content. We’ve got a president and a large part of Congress willing to change the Constitution so they can deprive of us our rights because they feel we are not “normal.”

So I’m used to catching foul balls up here in the cheap seats. What I am really enjoying is watching the rest of you act as if you had no idea that prejudice was alive and well in your hearts and minds.For the past two decades political correctness has been derided as a surrender to thin-skinned, humorless, uptight oversensitive sissies. Well, you anti-politically correct people have won the battle, and we’re all now feasting on the spoils of your victory. During the last few months alone we’ve had a few comedians spout racism, a basketball coach put forth anti-Semitism and several high-profile spoutings of anti-gay epithets.

What surprises me, I guess, is how choosy the anti-P.C. crowd is about which hate speech it will not tolerate. Sure, there were voices of protest when the TV actor Isaiah Washington called a gay colleague a “faggot.” But corporate America didn’t pull its advertising from “Grey’s Anatomy,” as it did with Mr. Imus, did it? And when Ann Coulter likewise tagged a presidential candidate last month, she paid no real price.

In fact, when Bill Maher discussed Ms. Coulter’s remarks on his HBO show, he repeated the slur no fewer than four times himself; each mention, I must note, solicited a laugh from his audience. No one called for any sort of apology from him. (Well, actually, I did, so the following week he only used it once.)

Face it, if a Pentagon general, his salary paid with my tax dollars, can label homosexual acts as “immoral” without a call for his dismissal, who are the moral high and mighty kidding?

Our nation, historically bursting with generosity toward strangers, remains remarkably unkind toward its own. Just under our gleaming patina of inclusiveness, we harbor corroding guts. America, I tell you that it doesn’t matter how many times you brush your teeth. If your insides are rotting your breath will stink. So, how do you people choose which hate to embrace, which to forgive with a wink and a week in rehab, and which to protest? Where’s my copy of that rule book?

Let me cite a non-volatile example of how prejudice can cohabit unchecked with good intentions. I am a huge fan of David Letterman’s. I watch the opening of his show a couple of times a week and have done so for decades. Without fail, in his opening monologue or skit Mr. Letterman makes a joke about someone being fat. I kid you not. Will that destroy our nation? Should he be fired or lose his sponsors? Obviously not.

But I think that there is something deeper going on at the Letterman studio than coincidence. And, as I’ve said, I cite this example simply to illustrate that all kinds of prejudice exist in the human heart. Some are harmless. Some not so harmless. But we need to understand who we are if we wish to change. (In the interest of full disclosure, I should confess to not only being a gay American, but also a fat one. Yes, I’m a double winner.)

I urge you to look around, or better yet, listen around and become aware of the prejudice in everyday life. We are so surrounded by expressions of intolerance that I am in shock and awe that anyone noticed all these recent high-profile instances. Still, I’m gladdened because our no longer being deaf to them may signal their eventual eradication.

The real point is that you cannot harbor malice toward others and then cry foul when someone displays intolerance against you. Prejudice tolerated is intolerance encouraged. Rise up in righteousness when you witness the words and deeds of hate, but only if you are willing to rise up against them all, including your own. Otherwise suffer the slings and arrows of disrespect silently.

Harvey Fierstein is an actor and playwright.

Imus Follow-Up

Media Matters, a non-profit progressive research and information center dedicated to monitoring and dispelling conservative misinformation in US media, came out with a really awesome timeline over the events leading up to NBC dropping him. Check it out and it's aptly titled "A Week in the Life of Imus in the Morning."

Excerpt:

In the wake of MSNBC's decision to drop its simulcast of the Imus in the Morning radio show, Media Matters for America has prepared the following timeline documenting events from Imus' slur of the Rutgers University women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos" on April 4 to MSNBC's announcement on April 11.

Wednesday, April 4

• On Imus in the Morning, host Don Imus referred to the Scarlet Knights, the Rutgers University women's basketball team -- which is made up of eight African-American and two white players -- as "nappy-headed hos" after executive producer Bernard McGuirk called the team "hard-core hos." Media Matters for America noted Imus' comments at the time.
• The New York Times later noted that "Imus's remarks were picked up ... by the Media Matters for America site," and Salon.com's Jonathan Miller similarly credited Media Matters for posting video of Imus' comments. In an article about MSNBC's decision to drop the show, the Los Angeles Times identified Media Matters as "the liberal media watchdog group that first spotlighted Imus' remark last week." USA Today also reported that Media Matters "originally called attention to Imus' remarks."

WHOA!

I knew the outpouring of support for the students and anger against Imus was tremendous, but I never thought I would see something like this!

NBC News Drops Imus Show Over Racial Remark

NBC News dropped Don Imus yesterday, canceling his talk show on its MSNBC cable news channel a week after he made a racially disparaging remark about the Rutgers University women’s basketball team.

I blinked several times just to make sure. CBS Radio is still maintaining their two week suspension, but this is really a major development. Come to think of it, I can't recall a major media personality losing his job in this manner (and thank goodness for that because if there were more I think I'd go nuts!). I'm not talking about Rush Limbaugh and his idiotic episode on ESPN awhile ago. He still has a job and he's still on the airwaves though on a limited degree. I'm talking about a clear cut, slam dunk, career-ending firing. I do remember ages ago about Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder losing his job as a television sports announcer for CBS in 1988 for saying racist remarks about the athletic ability of blacks as a product of selective breeding during slavery:

Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder is fired after 12 years as a CBS football analyst for remarks he makes to a Washington, D.C, television reporter about the physical abilities of black and white athletes. Among other things, Snyder, 70, says the black athlete is "bred to be the better athlete because, this goes all the way to the Civil War when ... the slave owner would breed his big woman so that he would have a big black kid." Snyder later apologizes for the comments but his career as a broadcaster is over.

NBC dropping Imus is an important political statement. That these kinds of remarks for radio and television will not be condoned, and more importantly, there will be real severe consequences. After all, if the average person uttering these remarks at the workplace will get fired, why not someone like Imus? There are professional standards of conduct that exist and there are limitations to what you can do.

So why am I still bothered by this? Something is troubling me and I can't exactly pinpoint it. I know I do consider this a powerful demonstration against this kind of patently offensive conduct. It was also an amazing national response against Imus, and it was a fairly diverse response even though all we see are Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. But there were whites, Latinos, Asians, women, parents, children, religious groups, and the like all speaking out against Imus. It was a broad and beautiful cross-section of America that came out. And I'm aware of the fact, and question, if the same thing would've happened if the players were not black, but white, or Latino, or Asian? It's a legitimate question, but it's not the one that's been bothering me.

And forget this nonsense about how this is a blow to free speech crap. It's beyond that now.

But something still does not sit well with me. It's that feeling I get when something that should be obvious to me but isn't. It's what cultural studies scholar, Stuart Hall, once described as "in plain view, but out of sight." And right now, I can't see it ... just yet.

Is He Gone Yet?

So while reading the news today I was overcome with dozens of posts and articles regarding radio newstalk host, Imus, and his obviously imbecilic and shallow characterization of the Rutgers Women's basketball team. Talk about serious trouble now that he's been suspended for two weeks, Al Sharpton is on his case, and the usual corporate pinch of withdrawing sponsorship of his show. Since then, he's apologized for his remarks ... profusely ... to the point that every other statement is an apology. It's as Eugene Robinson says in his op-ed piece from The Washington Post: "Imus is in full self-flagellation mode."

Self-flagellation: (noun) 1. The act of severely criticizing oneself. 2. The act of punishing oneself. 3. A form of punishment by a whip, strap, or rope.


Well, not fully. I haven't seen the whips, straps, or ropes yet. But I'm counting on something grander like his resignation or cancellation of his show. Of late, and thanks to internet sites like YouTube, no one can ever get away with uttering derogatory and offensive statements without being punished: Kenneth Eng's anti-black editorial, Tim Hardaway's anti-gay comment, Michael Richards' "n-word" outburst, and so on. No one can ever get away or claim a defense when the proof of their words is broadcast throughout cyberspace, and it's literally there in perpetuity for others to see. Because of the internet, no one will ever forget what happened. What also makes Imus's comments so out of line is that his target was the Rutgers women's basketball team. That seems to be a "disproportionate attack" (if such a thing exists) because they are simply students, playing on a title contending team, and representing their university on the national stage. You don't put students down or ridicule them for failure when they have been the most responsible and dedicated role models. You can tear apart students when they act stupidly by their own initiative. But when a nationally syndicated talk show host throws the first punch without provocation, then that is simply tasteless. I can also see how an event like this will bring the campus community like Rutgers closer together. I just wish it was under different circumstances than this.

Some articles of interest regarding the controversy. It's funny how "... in the morning" seems to be a popular title phrase for the articles:

SFGate.com: Editorial, "Aiming at Imus"I do agree in a sense about how this will simply blow over. But I'm reminded of Rush Limbaugh's explosive "social engineering" comment on ESPN regarding Donovan McNabb's performance for the Eagles. He was ousted rather quickly. I will point out though that it also depends who's being picked on and ridiculed. I still think it's easier to get away with anti-Asian, anti-Latino, and anti-gay commentary than anti-black. That's evidenced with the number of tv and radio personalities like Ann Coulter, for instance, with her lurid use of anti-gay epithets to describe Democratic politicians.

The only thing sorrier than this all-too-frequent cycle of public offense and recovery is the fact that Imus, who shouldn't be talking about anyone else's hair, won't really suffer for his foul mouth. His show is too popular with the right people -- namely highbrow-ish journalists and politicians, who wouldn't be able to expound at length about their wonkish positions to a mass audience in any other way -- for him to stay in trouble. This is rotten, because if he were a politician, he'd be out of a job. The best statement Imus' guests could make would be to avoid him.

Washington Post: Eugene Robinson, "Misogyny in the Morning"
I like Robinson's take on this issue and focusing on gender and race, which everyone seems to subtly acknowledge the gendered politics, but this piece is the first that I've read that makes it explicit. I also like how he analyzes Imus' show as trying to cater to low brow and high brow interests.

If anything, Imus is more substantive and less offensive than many of his competitors. In a sense, that's one reason for his current predicament. Prominent politicians and other notables regularly call in to his show, and sometimes actual news is made -- which brings him greater scrutiny. You can be a shock jock or you can be a respected interviewer, but you can't be both.

Matthew Yglesias: blogger, "Racism in the Morning"
I came across this blog awhile ago and there's some pretty good discussions. In this case, it's the usual example of fight hate speech with more speech which is plainly non-sensical to me.

Gone?

In plain words, he just needs to go.

Dissertating

So I was reading another law review yesterday about Virginia v. Black (2003). Of the several dozen or so articles there were only one or two that moderately favored the decision. The rest simply attacked the decision as an attack on First Amendment protections. I don't know why. Maybe I just happened to pick up the negative ones, but there's very little praise for this decision.

Most had their own reasons for it centered around the general anxiety of waning First Amendment protections, or circumventions of Brandenburg, etc. I read this particular one and it started off with the usual critiques of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion, the "puzzling" opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia in RAV which was revisited in Black.

On a side note, for some reason, and this one article was not the first, authors who wrote extensively about Black and RAV, talked about how the two statutes from Minnesota and Virginia were "nearly identical" or bore a "striking resemblance."

From St. Paul, MN, this is the city ordinance which was challenged in RAV v. St. Paul (1992):

Whoever places on public or private property a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

And here is the Virginia statute:

It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, to burn, or cause to be burned, a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place. Any person who shall violate any provision of this section shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

Any such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons.

Other than a cross burning as a common thread, and an effort to criminalize hate motivated expressive conduct, I don't see the "striking resemblance" or the "nearly identical" that I've been reading. If anything, there are substantial differences that sets the two apart in its content and application. I just couldn't help but think that these First Amendment purists were in a rush to substantiate their objections to Black and neglect the details. Anyways ...

So this one article was predictably arguing against Black and through it all I was trying to figure out where this author was going with her argument. Then it struck me near the very end about the "slippery slope" that the decision produced:

It is clear that the Nazi swastika is already the next form of symbolic expression on the chopping block. What about the use of confederate flags? What about shirts bearing only a picture of the confederate flag? Has the Court allowed states to restrict expression that society has come to regard with distaste?

Aha!

To answer the questions, I resoundingly say "Yes!" So start lining them up because it's clear minorities cannot always depend upon the good natures of people to know any better. If anything, state power has always been invoked to protect minorities and combat discrimination, and this is perfectly consonant with the history of civil rights.

The really sad irony is that oftentimes it was the state that had created these problems in the first place. And now the very instrument that perpetrated policies of segregation, colonization, race-based exclusion, and genocide, is also the same one that dismantles discrimination, and asserts justice and equality.

And on a final note, I'm getting sick and tired of reading so many First Amendment purists bemoaning the destruction of free speech, and therefore, the end of the so-called "free marketplace of ideas" and the vitality of democratic life and blah blah blah blah. Seriously, after reading the 16th article on the same theme and conclusion, but different method of course, it's like beating a dead horse ... like thousands of them!

*sighs*

Just When I Thought It Was Safe ...

... along comes this freak. I've been trying to avoid mentioning "he-who-really-must-not-be-named" as much as I could, but to no avail. "He" was on FOXNews awhile ago. "He" wrote an op-ed piece in AsianWeek, based in San Francisco, about why "he" hated African Americans. It's a vile piece of reading, and apparently, "he" also hates whites, but loves dragons with guns (don't ask me). Naturally, the community of SF was up in arms over what "he" wrote. But the controversy also caught the ears of FOXNews and of course aired "his" side of the story. And this interview just confirmed how much of a moron, and mental nutcase, "he" really is. Enjoy ... or not.

*raises fist at Kenneth Eng*

Huh? Wha'?

Yes it's been much too long since I've last posted here. That's actually a good thing because I've been productive and writing my chapter and reading more law reviews on Virginia v. Black. At least, I'm trying to fit that in whenever I can on top of teaching classes.

I've been following Tim Hardaway's anti-gay comments and the subsequent outcry which resulted in his banishment from the All-Star weekend in Las Vegas. One in particular, has Charles Barkley not only admonishing Hardaway's comment, but stating that he should've known better. That as an African American and a black man, the history of discrimination, negative stereotypes, and violence should've taught him better than to say something so ignorant and incendiary.

[UPDATE: Yet another video removed for TOS violations.]

I was watching it and to my surprise Barkley seemed like the elder statesman. Well, rough around the edges, but he got the gist of it. Anyways, I came across this clip and consider it as a "different" to the usual public condemnation and subsequent "apology" by Hardaway. It stars George Takei, first shown on the Jimmy Kimmel Show, and I love the fact that it throws the stereotypes back at Hardaway. I think it works quite well.

[UPDATE: Damn this was a good video clip too.]

WTF?

So apparently Michael Richards, the dude who played Kramer from Seinfeld, went on a venemous racist rampage Friday night when he performed at The Laugh Factory in Los Angeles. And don't give me this "he completely lost it" crap because he knew exactly what he was doing on stage. It started when Richards was heckled by an African American and several of his friends. That's the usual thing in comedy clubs as a form of linguistic sparring. Comedians are known to push the boundaries because that's the nature of the game, but Richards clearly escalated the situation when he dropped the nuclear bomb of all racial epithets. Whenever "the word" is used and you are not African American, then be prepared for some serious repercussions against you. It's completely offensive to African Americans, and to everyone's sensibilities. It's a word that no one else can use except African Americans, and even then it's quite limited.

WARNING: Do not watch if you're easily offended.

CNN follow up: