Re: Michael Richard's apologies ignored - Libs blame him for murder,
others want money, boycott
Abe Slaney 8 December 2006 18:06:37
Dale Houstman wrote:
It's just that- for> some reason - Michael harbored such ideas, and made the mistake of > casting off into open waters.>
I don't know if the guy is a racist or not. He was at that moment, but I got the feeling watching the clip that he was just freaking out and saying the worst thing he could think of, like a child screaming "I hate you!" at their parents. They don't really mean it, they're just being "bad." He lost his temper, and anger is not rational and doesn't usually line up with who we think we are. A guy who sits calmly and espouses racism is one thing; this is a lot more complicated than that. I think it's simplistic to say "oh, he used *the* word, he must be a racist."
Tazmanian Devil 30 November 2006 23:41:14 [ permanent link ]
"Wiggum" <wiggum@nospam.com> wrote in message news:es9om298qig799tohbivu0e8jkruk8qiig@4ax.com...> Michael Richards has apologized on the David Letterman Show, and Al> Sharpton's and Jesse Jackson's radio shows, but it appears to have> been a bad move on his part, as now the 'victims' are suggesting he> pay 4-5 million, for everyone to boycott the new Seinfeld DVD and even> have blamed him for the murder of a black by the NYC Police!>
Read on:>
------------------->
This Liberal at the Huffington Post says "Richards' racist tirade> created an instant atmosphere of hate" that lead to an unprovoked> death of a black man by the NYC Police!>
Fifty shots were fired. Fifty shots were fired by NYC police upon a> vehicle of unarmed, African American men leaving a bachelor party in> Queens this past weekend. The man who was killed was to be married the> following day.>
This horrific incident happened within days of Michael Richards'> racist taunts. There is a historical relationship between the rages of> racism that leads to unprovoked death for black men.>
Richards' chilling provocation brought the past present in> resurrecting the image of lynching. Hate speech disguised as> improvisational comedy readily accessed a threatening white supremacy> to provoke fear for the hecklers. If it wasn't the hecklers what else> could have easily set Richards' off? Richards' racist tirade created> an instant atmosphere of hate, the same hate of 50 years ago that> Richards' referenced in order to position his rage towards African> American men. America has a history of applying senseless accusations> to justify lynching black men from "looking" at white women to any> type of behavior that made white men feel impotent. Black men were> punished and routinely made entertainment faire by public torture and> hanging. The white audience witnessing the neighborhood lynching would> be jovial and purchase pictures of the terrorized bodies to send as> postcards, a souvenir.>
------------------->
Jamie Masada wants Richards to 'donate' roughly 4-5 million dollars ->
Jamie Masada, Laugh Factory owner suggests that Richards should> compensate organizations to help underprivileged children a half a> million dollars for each time he used the 'N' word that night.>
Apologies don't help. You have to put your money where your mouth is.> We are going to contact all the music companies," said Masada.>
--------------->
After apologizing on Jesse Jackson's radio show, Jackson has the gall> to ask for a boycott of the new Seinfeld DVD ->
Black leaders on Monday challenged the entertainment industry,> including rappers, to stop use of the racial slur that Michael> Richards uttered in his tirade.>
Jackson also asked the public not to buy a DVD box set of the seventh> season of the TV show Seinfeld that was released last week.>
------------->
The two hecklers at the club, who called Richards a "Cracker> motherf-cker" and "F-cking whiteboy" want an apology and 'maybe' some> money ->
Two men who say they were insulted by actor-comedian Michael Richards> during his racist rant at a comedy club want a personal apology and> maybe some money, one of the men and their lawyer said Friday.>
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.>
She did not mention a specific figure, but pitched the idea as a way> for the comic to avoid a lawsuit.>
"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.">
------------>
Meanwhile, this reporter wonders why racist comments by> African-American Michael Irvin have been largely ingonored by the> press ->
If you haven't heard, you're not alone. Many in my business, people> who pride themselves on knowing all and being, you know, know-it-alls,> still haven't heard.>
So let me bring you up to speed.>
Eight days ago - yes, eight days - Michael Irvin joined fellow ESPN> employee Dan Patrick on Patrick's national radio show.>
Irvin is supposed to be ESPN's version of a football analyst, but he> is really a lit match they hold in their hand, waiting to see how low> he can go before burning their fingers.>
On Patrick's radio show, the topic turned to Dallas Cowboys> quarterback Tony Romo, and Irvin, a former Cowboy star, offered the> type of racially incendiary remarks you'd think would start a> firestorm of outrage.>
They didn't.>
Opining on Romo's athleticism and how he outplayed Indianapolis Colts> quarterback Peyton Manning the previous day, Irvin said this:>
"He doesn't look like he's that type of an athlete, but he is. He is,> man.">
And here's why.>
"Somewhere, there are some brothers in that line," Irvin said. "I> don't know who saw what, where. His great, great, great, great grandma> ran over in the hood, or something went down.">
Through all this, while saying that the reason behind Romo's> athleticism is because there must be African blood in his lineage,> Irvin is laughing. He thinks this is funny.>
Patrick cut in: "That's the only way to be a great athlete?">
"No," Irvin replied, "that's not the only way. But it's certainly one> way. Great, great, great, great grandma pulled one of them studs up> outta the barn. 'Come here for a second.' You know, they go out and> work in the yard. You know, back in the day. Something like that.">
Eight days ago.>
On a national radio show.>
Raise your hand if this is the first you've heard of it.>
Raise your hand even higher if you think there's a double-standard> here.>
If a white analyst had uttered this kind of racial rubbish, it goes> without saying that he'd be fired by now.>
So why is Michael Irvin still employed?>
The social landscape is littered with white commentators who have been> handed pink slips for what they've said regarding race. But how many> blacks?>
You might be thinking about one white analyst in particular: Jimmy> "The Greek" Snyder. It was almost 19 years ago that CBS fired "The> Greek" for offering the opinion that black athleticism is a byproduct> of selective slave breeding.>
Sound familiar? Sound a little like Michael Irvin? So where's the> outrage now?>
And while we're at it, where is ESPN when it's time to report on> itself? Isn't this the type of junk food its TV shows like "Around The> Horn" and "Pardon The Interruption" feed off?>
Good luck trying to find the story about Irvin's remarks on any of> ESPN's various networks, or on its Web site. Its national online> columnists have yet to weigh in, and it's doubtful they ever will.> After all, didn't ESPN sack columnist Jason Whitlock earlier this year> after he was critical in an interview of another ESPN employee, Mike> Lupica?>
Little by little, ESPN has cherry-picked our newspapers and cornered> the market on some of sports journalism's best and brightest voices.>
Eight days later, those voices remain mute.>
And what of the rest of the country, and the mainstream media? Well,> they've obviously been infatuated with another Michael - Michael> Richards - and the comic's recent racially charged rant at a comedy> club. Richards, who played Jerry's neighbor Kramer on "Seinfeld," is> white. Thus, he's been busy making the mea culpa rounds with all sorts> of news outlets, including Sunday on Jesse Jackson's syndicated radio> show.>
Jackson called Richards' rant "hate speech," while Al Sharpton> clamored on various news shows and demanded an apology.>
Eight days later, neither Jackson nor Sharpton has said a peep about> what Irvin insinuated.>
As for Richards, he is beginning psychiatric counseling.>
Meanwhile, Irvin is still performing his normal analyst duties for> ESPN, pausing just long enough Sunday to offer a half-baked apology> via USA TODAY.>
"It's clear I was joking around," Irvin said. "I need to learn how to> better draw the line between bringing people into the locker room and> the boundaries I should not go past as a broadcaster.">
In other words, he needs to learn better how to edit and mute how he> really feels about race. And, by implying that this is locker-room> talk, he is saying that he isn't the only black person who harbors> these views.>
ESPN had to know this is what it was getting when it hired Irvin> despite a spotty past.>
And we're surprised at the outcome?>
ESPN likes the edge Michael Irvin brings, even when he goes over the> edge. He is the class clown, court jester, village idiot, moron with a> microphone.>
And, like it or not, he is still employed.
Your off-topic post is as incongruous to rmb as an arch-conservative is to the Beatles. The "Libs" (plural), are actually Karen Finley (singular) and she is not blaming Richards for murder (at least you admit it's murder), she is stating the irony of his comments (which weren't restricted to merely using the n-word, which was bad enough, but also aggregiously glorified racial lynching) and the number 50. She's saying that nothing has changed in 50 years. It's not the first time an article's nuance has been lost on a conservative.
By the way, the fact that I am a liberal comes from, among other things, the Beatles' influence. How can you be such a fan yet miss their message? How can you not get it? Kindasleazy Rice is a big fan too, but couldn't secure a few minutes with Sir Paul on her last visit to the UK. Wonder why?
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:27:19 -0800, "terra" <smokerdude66@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Bernie Woodham" <birnhamwood@insightbb.com> wrote in message >news:VNadnTn9yuzoLPHYnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@insightbb.com...>>
"terra" <smokerdude66@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:456c7f35$0$21213$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...>>>
"Bernie Woodham" <birnhamwood@insightbb.com> wrote in message >>> news:RJWdnQWQLthBGfHYnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@insightbb.com...>>>>
"terra" <smokerdude66@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>> news:456c66b2$0$21159$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...>>>>>
What are you talking about? You're not making any sense.>>>>>
WTF are YOU talking about?>>>>>
The OP made a point to start his rant about liberals.>>>>>
How hard is that to get?>>>>>>
I don't get it at all. I've re-read his post and I don't see him making >>>> a rant about liberals. I think you're reading way too much into this. >>>> Or perhaps you know more about Wiggum than I do. But, I dont see any >>>> rant in this post.>>>
Read the whole subject line. And all the crossposted groups.>>>>
Okay. I can see how you say he is taking a side in the issue, but the fact >> is HuffingtonPost is known as a liberal blog and that particular writer is >> making a (very stretched) connection to Richard's performance and the >> recent killing by cops.>
I am a liberal and Adrianna Huffington does not represent me. When she ran >for Governor here in California I certainly did not vote for her. One >person's article is no indictment of an entire political movement nor should >it be.
Good for you, shine boy, but you can't have it both ways. Libs cite that lib rag site all the time when it comes to Bush-bashing. No one has ever voted for Michael Moore for anything, either, but he sure is a hero in your world.
Obviously the article was ok'ed by other libs on that site or else it would have never been posted.
Sean Carroll 1 December 2006 08:40:53 [ permanent link ]
Wiggum wrote:
Yep, she's not Blaming Richards for murder just like people don't> blame Hitler for the murder of millions of Jews.
*whistle* Judgment call! Does this count as a Godwin's violation?
-- --Sean http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/ 'Oh, come on. Do I have to spell it out for you? Pheochromocytoma. ... Actually, I'm not sure *how* you spell it.' --Dr Gregory House
Wiggum <wiggum@nospam.com> wrote in news:l98vm29bagfffg3ob13p5rf9lmslsss1v3@4ax.com:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:27:19 -0800, "terra" <smokerdude66@yahoo.com>> wrote:>
"Bernie Woodham" <birnhamwood@insightbb.com> wrote in message >>news:VNadnTn9yuzoLPHYnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@insightbb.com...>>>
"terra" <smokerdude66@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:456c7f35$0$21213$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...>>>>
"Bernie Woodham" <birnhamwood@insightbb.com> wrote in message >>>> news:RJWdnQWQLthBGfHYnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@insightbb.com...>>>>>
"terra" <smokerdude66@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:456c66b2$0$21159$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...>>>>>>
What are you talking about? You're not making any sense.>>>>>>
WTF are YOU talking about?>>>>>>
The OP made a point to start his rant about liberals.>>>>>>
How hard is that to get?>>>>>>>
I don't get it at all. I've re-read his post and I don't see him>>>>> making a rant about liberals. I think you're reading way too much>>>>> into this. Or perhaps you know more about Wiggum than I do. But,>>>>> I dont see any rant in this post.>>>>
Read the whole subject line. And all the crossposted groups.>>>>>
Okay. I can see how you say he is taking a side in the issue, but>>> the fact is HuffingtonPost is known as a liberal blog and that>>> particular writer is making a (very stretched) connection to>>> Richard's performance and the recent killing by cops.>>
I am a liberal and Adrianna Huffington does not represent me. When>>she ran for Governor here in California I certainly did not vote for>>her. One person's article is no indictment of an entire political>>movement nor should it be.>
Good for you, shine boy, but you can't have it both ways. Libs cite> that lib rag site all the time when it comes to Bush-bashing. No one> has ever voted for Michael Moore for anything, either, but he sure is> a hero in your world.>
Obviously the article was ok'ed by other libs on that site or else it> would have never been posted.>
On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 06:02:54 GMT, terra <smokerdude66@myway.com> wrote:
Wiggum <wiggum@nospam.com> wrote in>news:l98vm29bagfffg3ob13p5rf9lmslsss1v3@4ax.com: >
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:27:19 -0800, "terra" <smokerdude66@yahoo.com>>> wrote:>>
"Bernie Woodham" <birnhamwood@insightbb.com> wrote in message >>>news:VNadnTn9yuzoLPHYnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@insightbb.com...>>>>
"terra" <smokerdude66@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>> news:456c7f35$0$21213$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...>>>>>
"Bernie Woodham" <birnhamwood@insightbb.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:RJWdnQWQLthBGfHYnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@insightbb.com...>>>>>>
"terra" <smokerdude66@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:456c66b2$0$21159$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...>>>>>>>
What are you talking about? You're not making any sense.>>>>>>>
WTF are YOU talking about?>>>>>>>
The OP made a point to start his rant about liberals.>>>>>>>
How hard is that to get?>>>>>>>>
I don't get it at all. I've re-read his post and I don't see him>>>>>> making a rant about liberals. I think you're reading way too much>>>>>> into this. Or perhaps you know more about Wiggum than I do. But,>>>>>> I dont see any rant in this post.>>>>>
Read the whole subject line. And all the crossposted groups.>>>>>>
Okay. I can see how you say he is taking a side in the issue, but>>>> the fact is HuffingtonPost is known as a liberal blog and that>>>> particular writer is making a (very stretched) connection to>>>> Richard's performance and the recent killing by cops.>>>
I am a liberal and Adrianna Huffington does not represent me. When>>>she ran for Governor here in California I certainly did not vote for>>>her. One person's article is no indictment of an entire political>>>movement nor should it be.>>
Good for you, shine boy, but you can't have it both ways. Libs cite>> that lib rag site all the time when it comes to Bush-bashing. No one>> has ever voted for Michael Moore for anything, either, but he sure is>> a hero in your world.>>
Obviously the article was ok'ed by other libs on that site or else it>> would have never been posted.>>
"Bernie Woodham" <birnhamwood@insightbb.com> wrote in message news:WP6dnVYhgZX89_HYnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@insightbb.com...>
Richards was certainly out of line. But a lot of comedy club entertainers > exhibit behavior that would be out of line anywhere but on a comedy club > stage. The use of the N-word has been used very liberally by black > comedians.
Dale Houstman <dmh7@skypoint.com> wrote in news:45720E82.4060409@skypoint.com:
BlackMonk wrote:>> "Bernie Woodham" <birnhamwood@insightbb.com> wrote in message >> news:WP6dnVYhgZX89_HYnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@insightbb.com...>>
Richards was certainly out of line. But a lot of comedy club>>>entertainers exhibit behavior that would be out of line anywhere but>>>on a comedy club stage. The use of the N-word has been used very>>>liberally by black comedians.>>
Michael Richards isn't black. >>
Moreover, he's barely a standup comedian, and his reaction shows that.> I have seen a lot of standup, and it's a grueling artform by any> standard. Most people are only passably good at it. But the point> needs to be made again and again: Richards' actions cannot - in any> way - be equated with how most professional comics handle often> salacious or offensive matter: they contextualize it, so that the> audience does not feel victimized. I have seen plenty of comics use> "the N-word" and many other potentially offensive words and phrase,> yet they don't offend the audience. Richards' tirade was NOT a piece> of social comedy, it was invective driven by dysfunctional rage. And> it is silly to keep claiming that Richards' use of "the N-word" (which> is the least of what he actually said) is somehow ameliorated by black> comics' use of the word, and not lnly for the reason you have given.> Truth is, MANY comics (black, white, and oleander) use potentially> offensive words, and most of them are equally apalled by this> incident, because it wasn't comedy. >
Correct. It wasn't comedy, it was a tanrtum.
However, he has apologized profusely, is going out of his way to make amends, and as he had no real career per se to save I think it's because he truly was horrified at what he did in such a public way.
Sean Carroll 3 December 2006 04:39:18 [ permanent link ]
terra wrote:
Correct. It wasn't comedy, it was a tanrtum.
However, he has apologized profusely, is going out of his way to make > amends, and as he had no real career per se to save I think it's because > he truly was horrified at what he did in such a public way.
I agree. I watched the full recordings of what he did on stage, his apology on Letterman, and his victims' statements on CNN or wherever it was, with Gloria Allred. Three conclusions seem unavoidable to me.
1 There was no excuse for what he did. It was not comedy, it was just hatred. The people in his audience definitely deserve an apology.
2 When he was on Letterman, he was obviously truly upset. It was not sufficient to apologise on TV like that -- certainly they deserve a face-to-face apology -- but he was obviously in severe distress. He could barely string two words together. He looked like a ruined man in the middle of the worst moment of his life. He was going off on bizarre tangents, finding himself at a loss for words ... you could almost see his brain just swimming around in circles in horror, not knowing what to do.
3 His victims are right to demand a face-to-face apology. But they are not right to question the sincerity of his appearance on Letterman. He was not 'smirking', and I am almost certain he was not making a fake apology for the sake of his career. For him to be doing that he would have to be a FANTASTICALLY skilled actor, as every part of his body language and everything that came out of his mouth seemed to come from a place of misery and defeat. *I* looked less shattered and ashamed of myself than that the first time I was ever arrested, at the age of 18. If he were *that* good, he most definitely would have continued to have a successful career after Seinfeld.
-- --Sean http://spclsd223.livejournal.com/ 'Oh, come on. Do I have to spell it out for you? Pheochromocytoma. ... Actually, I'm not sure *how* you spell it.' --Dr Gregory House
Dale Houstman 3 December 2006 07:59:34 [ permanent link ]
terra wrote:> Dale Houstman <dmh7@skypoint.com> wrote in> news:45720E82.4060409@skypoint.com: >
BlackMonk wrote:>>
"Bernie Woodham" <birnhamwood@insightbb.com> wrote in message >>>news:WP6dnVYhgZX89_HYnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@insightbb.com...>>>
Richards was certainly out of line. But a lot of comedy club>>>>entertainers exhibit behavior that would be out of line anywhere but>>>>on a comedy club stage. The use of the N-word has been used very>>>>liberally by black comedians.>>>
Michael Richards isn't black. >>>
Moreover, he's barely a standup comedian, and his reaction shows that.>>I have seen a lot of standup, and it's a grueling artform by any>>standard. Most people are only passably good at it. But the point>>needs to be made again and again: Richards' actions cannot - in any>>way - be equated with how most professional comics handle often>>salacious or offensive matter: they contextualize it, so that the>>audience does not feel victimized. I have seen plenty of comics use>>"the N-word" and many other potentially offensive words and phrase,>>yet they don't offend the audience. Richards' tirade was NOT a piece>>of social comedy, it was invective driven by dysfunctional rage. And>>it is silly to keep claiming that Richards' use of "the N-word" (which>>is the least of what he actually said) is somehow ameliorated by black>>comics' use of the word, and not lnly for the reason you have given.>>Truth is, MANY comics (black, white, and oleander) use potentially>>offensive words, and most of them are equally apalled by this>>incident, because it wasn't comedy. >>
Correct. It wasn't comedy, it was a tanrtum.>
However, he has apologized profusely, is going out of his way to make > amends, and as he had no real career per se to save I think it's because > he truly was horrified at what he did in such a public way.
That seems to be true. But it really doesn't change the substance of the "bad feelings" it has caused for some people, black and white, show biz, and non-show bix, etc. I actually found his apologies quite good compared to many which try to shift the blame to others, or to substance abuse, or whatever. He was as honest as he probably could be, given that prejudice (as a pervasive concern) is not easily spoken of in a country that thinks it solved that problem over 40 years ago, and by people who like to think they are "color-blind" when that is an impossible state to achieve. If one merely considers the chance this event has given more overt racists to - once more with feeling - express their rancid little opinions (and I hear far far too much of this at my job), that in itself is enough reason to linger upon the occurence. Honestly, it doesn't mean all that much to me, and I don't really think Richards is a racist (or more so than most in this racist society), and I am always more concerned with the actions rather than the words (putting aside the fact that some words ARE actions: Richards were particularly vivid in this regard). I do feel for the guy (and those he offended), but I think he is going to have to live with it for quite some time, living off his residuals: the business doesn't want him back. The mere act of apologizing is rarely enough, and even penance may not do it - whatever form that might take. Perhaps some term of ostracism? At any rate, he isn't in the worst shape possible, given his financial security, and there are far larger problems in this world. Not for him probably, but for almost everyone else.
Dale Houstman <dmh7@skypoint.com> wrote in news:457259B6.6090300@skypoint.com:
terra wrote:>> Dale Houstman <dmh7@skypoint.com> wrote in>> news:45720E82.4060409@skypoint.com: >>
BlackMonk wrote:>>>
"Bernie Woodham" <birnhamwood@insightbb.com> wrote in message >>>>news:WP6dnVYhgZX89_HYnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@insightbb.com...>>>>
Richards was certainly out of line. But a lot of comedy club>>>>>entertainers exhibit behavior that would be out of line anywhere>>>>>but on a comedy club stage. The use of the N-word has been used>>>>>very liberally by black comedians.>>>>
Michael Richards isn't black. >>>>
Moreover, he's barely a standup comedian, and his reaction shows>>>that. I have seen a lot of standup, and it's a grueling artform by>>>any standard. Most people are only passably good at it. But the point>>>needs to be made again and again: Richards' actions cannot - in any>>>way - be equated with how most professional comics handle often>>>salacious or offensive matter: they contextualize it, so that the>>>audience does not feel victimized. I have seen plenty of comics use>>>"the N-word" and many other potentially offensive words and phrase,>>>yet they don't offend the audience. Richards' tirade was NOT a piece>>>of social comedy, it was invective driven by dysfunctional rage. And>>>it is silly to keep claiming that Richards' use of "the N-word">>>(which is the least of what he actually said) is somehow ameliorated>>>by black comics' use of the word, and not lnly for the reason you>>>have given. Truth is, MANY comics (black, white, and oleander) use>>>potentially offensive words, and most of them are equally apalled by>>>this incident, because it wasn't comedy. >>>
Correct. It wasn't comedy, it was a tanrtum.>>
However, he has apologized profusely, is going out of his way to make>> amends, and as he had no real career per se to save I think it's>> because he truly was horrified at what he did in such a public way.>
That seems to be true. But it really doesn't change the substance of> the "bad feelings" it has caused for some people, black and white,> show biz, and non-show bix, etc.
No, but then that's bigger than Richards. No one can claim to lay all of racism at his feet.
I actually found his apologies quite> good compared to many which try to shift the blame to others, or to> substance abuse, or whatever. He was as honest as he probably could> be, given that prejudice (as a pervasive concern) is not easily spoken> of in a country that thinks it solved that problem over 40 years ago,> and by people who like to think they are "color-blind" when that is an> impossible state to achieve. If one merely considers the chance this> event has given more overt racists to - once more with feeling -> express their rancid little opinions (and I hear far far too much of> this at my job), that in itself is enough reason to linger upon the> occurence. Honestly, it doesn't mean all that much to me, and I don't> really think Richards is a racist (or more so than most in this racist> society), and I am always more concerned with the actions rather than> the words (putting aside the fact that some words ARE actions:> Richards were particularly vivid in this regard).
C;ear;y he was saying what he thought would 'hurt' them most of all. Almost like a little kid lashing out...it probably displays his lack of general racism than any proof of it.
I do feel for the> guy (and those he offended), but I think he is going to have to live> with it for quite some time, living off his residuals: the business> doesn't want him back.
Yeah. If he'd just started an illegal war in some faraway country for little reason he'd have been alright, but these words....tsk.
The mere act of apologizing is rarely enough,> and even penance may not do it - whatever form that might take.> Perhaps some term of ostracism? At any rate, he isn't in the worst> shape possible, given his financial security, and there are far larger> problems in this world. Not for him probably, but for almost everyone> else.
For sure. He blew it, publicly, apologized, and now should just disappear until some new horror catches everyone's attention.
C;ear;y he was saying what he thought would 'hurt' them most of all.> Almost like a little kid lashing out...it probably displays his lack of> general racism than any proof of it.
Yeah, I think you're right. In that case, he might have said anything that he felt would have hurt a heckler, no matter what the person looked like. It does seem like he was just trying to cause emotional pain to someone who caused him emotional pain.
TAR <tom.rach@ix.netcom.com> wrote in news:45730EA6.2708@ix.netcom.com:
terra wrote:>>
C;ear;y he was saying what he thought would 'hurt' them most of all.>> Almost like a little kid lashing out...it probably displays his lack
general racism than any proof of it.>
Yeah, I think you're right. In that case, he might have said anything> that he felt would have hurt a heckler, no matter what the person
looked> like. It does seem like he was just trying to cause emotional pain to> someone who caused him emotional pain.>
- Donna>
Exactly. Which isn't excusable nor is it necessarily racist.
Either way, he acted stupid, apologized, there's nothing much left to say. He needs to just disappear for awhile. He was already rich and typecast from Seinfeld, so he can afford to lay back awhile (worked for Paul Pee Wee Reubens). I think if he were racist he would not be so obviously upset.
Poisoned Rose 4 December 2006 00:54:16 [ permanent link ]
Sean Carroll <seanc130@hotmail.com> wrote:
he was obviously in severe distress. He > could barely string two words together. He looked like a ruined man in > the middle of the worst moment of his life.
Yup. He reminded me of someone who had accidentally run over/killed a child with his car. He was positively "post-traumatic."
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:50:44 -0600, Dale Houstman <dmh7@skypoint.com> wrote:
Naw: hecklers of all races have a bit of a leeway in comedy clubs; it is >partly expected. And - as I said - these folks (at least according the >the comedians present and the club manager) were not really out of line >at all.>
dmh
Well, I wasn't there (and you weren't either) so we can not really speak to the point of whether the hecklers were out of line or not. It was my impression that they were, and that is what I based my comments on. If they were not out of line, then Richards is just a racist, pure and simple.
Yes, a certain level of heckling is tolerated. It all depends on how much and how bad it was.
I may be able to hear what went on leading up to the name calling. If I do get to hear it, I will report back to you on that.
Mr Wonderful 8 December 2006 16:15:33 [ permanent link ]
Meet me in Box Cyn, CA January 16, 2007. I'll be in CA for visit. It will be a good time to give you a beatdown. Are you still making your weekly trips to Van Nuys, CA. Do you still stay at the Airtel Hotel and get butt fucked by your rump buddy? "Steve Cipoletti" <SteveCipoletti@politicallyincorrect.com> wrote in message news:mappm21u7rrbjl4kuc1mhflq0kcn9dr6ra@4ax.com...> On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 04:15:25 -0800, Wiggum <wiggum@nospam.com> wrote:>
as now the 'victims' are suggesting he>>pay 4-5 million, for everyone to boycott the new Seinfeld DVD>
I bought two copies, one for each "victim". Beings I'm in the> Christmas spirit, I'll be including a picture of James Earl Ray as an> added bonus.>
