Yet More Ado

Well, things are just getting silly now.

Take a look at this link.

Seems now, after a career suicide racist rant, Michael Richards' publicist says the comic is Jewish. It's a good thing he is, because . . .

Last week, crisis-management expert Howard Rubenstein acknowledged that Richards had shouted anti-Semitic remarks in an April standup comedy routine . . .

Before you start think there's a pattern in Richards' behavior developing here, you can rest easy knowing that Rubenstein . . .

. . . defended Richards' language about Jews, saying that the comic "is Jewish. He's not anti-Semitic at all. He was role-playing.

Whew! That was a close call for old Kramer, right?

But wait . . . Stop the presses!

Turns out, Richards wasn't born of Jewish blood. Not only that, but he has not converted to Judaism, and neither of his parents are Jewish.

So can he really be Jewish?

Apparently, Richards was raised by two mentors who had a big influence on his life, and they were Jewish. And he agrees with the doctrines of Judaism, so he considers himself Jewish.

Now, I personally have no problem with this version of conversion, or acceptance, or whatever you want to call it. If you go through an actual conversion, what are you really doing other than saying "I agree with the doctrines and beliefs" anyway. There's a just a formal ceremony and cake afterward. But what I find most interesting is this quote:

"You can't feel Jewish. It's not a matter of feeling. You can convert to Judaism. You can't not convert to Judaism and then be Jewish," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles.

So a little over a week ago, we had blacks, who were offended by Richards' racist remarks, wanting to start the healing by bridging the gap between races. And now we have Jews, who were offended by Richards' racist remarks, insisting on keeping Judaism an exclusive club.

Richards just can't win. And the philosophies of the leaders of the groups he offends are too scattered for us to take them seriously or even care.

Ah, the grand dance of life. Never a dull moment.

What to do about Ado

A recent incident has me somewhat puzzled.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "The swirling red and white striped pole outside a barber shop has you puzzled, Sam."

And yes, maybe I am fascinated by colorful barber poles and sundry other shiny things, but what puzzles me more --- what puzzles me in a 'we may very well be near the end of civilization' sense --- is the often bizarre behavior of my fellow human beings and the equally bizarre reactions to those behaviors.

The good news is, I think I have a simple solution.

Last week, Michael Richards lost his temper and flew into a racist and venom-filled rage while trying to deal with two African American hecklers on a comedy club stage in Los Angeles. Richards, whom we all know best as the spastic, hipster doofus, Kramer, on the 1990s sit-com Seinfeld is well known for being a free-form, physical comic performer when on stage. He often works without a net, as the saying goes in the business.

Now, I'm not going to make any excuses for what he did or what he said to the disruptive audience members. I don't really care that he said those things. If that shocks you, I apologize. But the world is full of stupid people, and if I concerned myself with all the things stupid people do, I would have no time left in the day for naps and Internet porn.

However, I saw the video --- in fact, I watched it several times (one of the great things about YouTube) --- and it appeared to me as though Richards, in his attempt to silence the hecklers, opted for an overtly over-the-top bit that went horribly wrong, terribly quickly. It seemed as though initially he was striving for a piece of material that is really not out of the ordinary for the type of bits that he does. He just simply picked the absolute wrong subject on which to build it, and he was in the absolute wrong frame of mind to carry it out with humor.

But in my opinion, the reaction to his idiocy is the most bizarre part of the whole story.

Suddenly, leaders in the black community were in a rage themselves, and shouts of a persistent racism in the US wafted through the rarefied media ether, like rings of smoke through the trees.

It's an outrage that we've made no progress in the decades and decades of the civil rights movement, they said, and we must make better strides to erase the racial divide in this country. And only then can we start the healing.

Start the healing?!?!

Come on. We're talking about one jerk in a night club; an idiot who lost his temper and just happened to have a microphone in his hand for chrissake. The only healing that needs to be done is the broken hearts and empty wallets of the patrons of the comedy club who had to pay 25 bucks apiece and 8 dollars for a beer to have the show cut short by two jack asses in the audience and a bigger jack ass on stage. How in the hell does this equate to a persistent country-wide racial divide? And more importantly, why is Jesse Jackson on my television because of this incident?

Blow things out of proportion much, do ya?

I'm not saying that ignoring racism will make it go away, but we can pick our fights a little bit better, can't we?

Don't forget, racism needs a victim to work. If you don't let the bullshit spewing from some asshole's mouth get to you, you have neutralized it. It's simply white noise coming from the mouth of a moron. But when Jesse Jackson comes on the television "to start the healing", you've validated it as newsworthy. A whole new set of people are bothered by the remarks, and you've actually indoctrinated millions more victims; when we should have simply shaken our heads briefly in disgust, said "What an idiot", and moved on.

But there's more . . .

While we're on the subject, there's another angle to the racism question that also reared its ugly head in the last few days.

ESPN's NFL analyst Michael Irvin was on Dan Patrick's radio program and the discussion turned to Dallas Cowboy's quarterback Tony Romo. This is part of what Irvin had to say:

He doesn't look like he's that type of an athlete, but he is. He is, man. I don't know if some brother down in that line somewhere, I don't know who saw what or where, his great-great-great-great-grandma ran over in the 'hood or something went down.

. . .

If great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandma pulled one of them studs up out of the barn, "Come on in here for a second," you know, and they go out and work in the yard. You know, back in the day.

Aside from being an affront to the most English-speaking people, Irvin's comments have been construed as racist as well.

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but it seems Irvin is essentially saying this:

• Tony Romo doesn't "look like" a great athlete (the assumption being because he's white).
• Tony Romo is a good athlete, so he must be at least part black.
• People who are 100% white are incapable of being good athletes.

And just for good measure, Irvin includes an extra racist/sexist stereotype by saying Romo's supposed "blackness" results from a pairing of one of his female ancestors having sex with a black man on the side. Assuming this garbage were true or even relevant to anything, couldn't one of Romo's male ancestors have voluntarily had sex with a black woman?

I don't know. I'm not a scientist so I'm sure how inter-racial breeding to create great athletes works.

But what has the reaction been to this incident, you ask.

Well, considering Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder was fired from his job as a football analyst at CBS for similar comments a few years ago, and Rush Limbaugh was forced to resign from his job at ESPN after making comments that some people interpreted as being racially insensitive, there's no doubt some walking papers being printed up for Irvin as we speak, right?

Wrong.

He's keeping his job at ESPN.

But since he's black and all the other guys who were fired for similar comments were white, the words "double standard" are buzzing around like flies at a summer picnic.

Sheesh! Much ado. Much ado. Much much ado.

The way I see it, though, the same thing should hold true for Michael Irvin that does for Michael Richards: These guys are simply two idiots we can safely ignore, leaving us free to take naps and look at Internet porn like we were meant to.