The Lonely Goatherd Blog And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats - Matthew 25:32
Up to the minute notes on the current state of free thinking and free living: Kentucky moonshine - original analysis and reporting from MoreThings, and all round pop culture museum of sight and sound - photo galleries, mp3 and video downloads.
Al Barger and MoreThings - getting people's goats since 1998.
Live free or die!
I wouldn't want to ask people to just give me money cause they like my website, but do please take a quick look at Barger's Boutique. You might find yourself a little something-something for 2 or 3 bucks that you just can't resist! Any of the round images you find around MoreThings will get you to an Amazon page to buy my stuff and help ol' Al keep the lights on.
To explicitly state the obvious, these external links go to interesting and provocative websites, but they speak for themselves. I don't necessarily agree with anything they say - especially that no-goodnik Richard Marcus.
All original content on MoreThings.com copyright 2008 Albert Barger or the respective authors
February 17, 2004
Mea Culpa: My un-hate crimes So I accidentally started the Bad Eagle anti-Massacre Movement, cheesing off a good many people. I apparently sinned fairly significantly by not being sufficiently offended by the childish racial jabs of this guy David Yeagley.
I apparently offended a good sized part of the Blogcritics community, which railed against me in colorful terms. Some opined that this situation proved that I am a "racist" or am racially insensitive, which is pretty much the same thing. "How could you?" and proclamations that my words could never be read the same way ever again greeted my crime.
All right, then. I'm a bad guy. Cool. I don't think you have the full picture of my badness. I've got other similar sins to confess, and offer myself up for the moral judgment of the community.
What exactly did I do bad in the "Should Janet Jackson Be Punished?" post? I quoted in a friendly manner something from David Yeagley's Bad Eagle website. I didn't agree with his ultimate judgment, but quoted him in a respectful manner to discuss his idea.
Other Blogcritics went to Yeagley's site and found some childish racial jabs, most notably another article about Janet Jackson illustrated with a picture of a gorilla. I was personally less than thrilled with his comments about the "Turd World."
I suggested that I found those comments hateful and inappropriate, but did not feel or display any particularly ANGRY reaction. Whereas on the other hand, a big chunk of the Blogcritics community went just batty against Yeagley, wishing him death and suffering, etc.
It was apparently considered requisite in order to mitigate the offense of having mentioned the name of such an evil person in a friendly manner that I must lead the group in some kind of Orwellian Two-Minute Hate against Yeagley in order to prove that I am not a racist. Refusing to join the verbal lynching of Bad Eagle meant that I myself am suspect of wicked racism.
Alright, if that is what you think. As Ayn Rand said, "Judge- and prepare to be judged." We could start with other Blogcritics' crimes against proper racial sensitivity, but let's put the judgment on me.
To that end, I think I've violated those standards of racial sensitivity on numerous occassions. I have repeatedly given at least limited friendly, civil discourse to several people with hostile, prejudiced racially based views- people FAR worse than Bad Eagle. I'd like to offer them for your consideration and judgement. Tell me which of these situations constitutes offensive racial behavior on my part:
OFFENDER #1: Mac Diva Despite the constant racial and just all round hostility, I've repeatedly praised different things she's said. I've tried, largely in vain, to make nice with her. Should I be condemned as implicitly supporting her bigotry by not denouncing her in the harshest terms, and wishing her suffering and death? She's a lot harsher in her bigotry than Yeagley.
OFFENDER #2: Al Sharpton The Rev is not just a crank venting his spleen, but a crafty demagogue manipulating the deepest racial anxieties of his people. People have absolutely died under the promptings of his demagoguery, but he doesn't much care. He's many bazillion times worse than Bad Eagle.
Yet I've several times written positive words about Sharpton. I praised his performance on SNL, and at least once or twice his performances during the presidential debates. The man's got skills.
I've never ever wished suffering or death on Sharpton, despite his bad behavior. Hell, I'm going to vote for him when the primaries roll through Indiana. I may yet contribute money. Am I a racist sympathizer or some bad sin like that?
OFFENDER #3 RAY HANANIA Mr. Hanania gained a minute of reknown back in 2002 by getting bumped off the lineup for a 10 minute spot at a Chicago comedy club opening for Jackie Mason.
Investigating the story of the Hanania guy, I quickly found some really ugly stuff. Hanania is an American of Palestinian ancestry, who obviously identifies strongly with that side of things. To that end, he had published a letter of praise for the Palestinian intifada murderers, praising them to correct the original mistake of having allowed Israel to come into existence. [That particular letter has since been deleted from The Daily Star website- a Lebanese paper.]
Heaping praise and encouragement on people who are actually out killing people rates FAR worse in my ledger than a couple of South Park playground insults from Bad Eagle. Hanania was pushing some dangerous buttons in some dangerous people.
This dude was praising the sacrifices of murderers who massacre Jews. He's been extremely hateful to Jews. Am I commiting an un-hate crime by not denouncing Hanania to a special circle of hell with horrible suffering, etc?
OFFENDER #4 David Yeagley, aka Bad Eagle He has some hateful comments about black folk and third world countries. I quoted something innocuous from his site, and have not been inclined to lead an Orwellian Two-Minute Hate against him since then. Heck, I don't even feel bad about invoking him.
So there you have my top 4 obvious picks where I may have committed un-hate crimes by not expressing sufficient moral outrage. In which of these should I be considered bad? Or perhaps you can find some other bad things I have said that deserve rebuke.
Hanania watch Following the theme of childish Arab petulance brings us again to Ray Hanania. To review, Mr. Hanania is an American of Palestenian descent living in Chicago. Since he has already designated me personally as "a great voodoo doll representing hatred and bigotry" I might as well earn my title by using him as a further example of this analysis.
His claim to fame is that last August he got bumped from an opening slot for Jackie Mason's appearance at a local comedy club. Mr. Hanania (with only a couple of appearances as a stand-up to his credit) had a huge hissy fit over this everyday event, and went on a media blitz of indignance, charging Mason with racism.
Well, ok, you can understand Hanania being disappointed, and maybe even overreacting. However, he just will not let it go. Half a year later, he's still got attacks on Mason on the front page of his website. Nearly every entry in his blog to this day manages to shoehorn in a swipe at Mason.
For example, take his most recent entry. He's got actually a fairly funny bit about some geese apparently attempting to mate with his new SUV, and then a brief account of an appearance at U of Michigan. Then finally out of the blue, "Hey Jackie. You schlemeil! :)" Presumably putting a smiley face after the insult means it doesn't count.
The word seems precisely misapplied here, though. According to dictionary.com, a schlemiel is "a person who is gullible and easy to take advantage of." Jackie Mason is exactly NOT that. He wouldn't let himself be intimidated or co-erced into booking a guy he didn't want. That's the problem. That, and that Jackie is Jewish, of course.
Alright, quit whining- I'll give you some attention aka Hey! I'm a voodoo doll! Is that anything like a Voodoo Child? You may remember that back in August there was a Palestenian-American from Chicago name of Ray Hanania, among other things a fledgling stand up comic, who got about half a second of national attention for putting up a huge hissy fit after getting dumped from a scheduled 10 minute segment opening for Jackie Mason at a local show.
Many of us VRWC types here in blogland were pretty skeptical of Mr. Hanania, including me. However, I did go to the additional bother of writing to him personally, conscientiously printing his responses next to my criticism. The last time I wrote about him was September 4. [See links on the whole Mason dust-up.] I hadn't given him any thought recently.
Apparently I made a rather more lasting impression on Mr. Hanania. A Mr. Richard Fetter of Fort Lee, New Jersey wrote in to point out that he's repeatedly invoked my name out of the blue on his site as an object of hatred.
Guess I really got his goat when I detailed exactly which actions and statements of his were fulfilling the negative stereotypes of his ethnic group. However, pointing out his specific personal behavior very precisely does NOT constitute racism, but the exact opposite; it indicates individualism- being judged by your own behavior rather than presumptions based on group membership.
"Not everyone is as hateful as "al barger" who has become a great voodoo doll representing hatred and bigotry. If you can put a needle in the doll and make the hateful thoughts of all the al bargers of the world go away, this would be a better place. Israelis and Palestinians would be back at the peace table hugging rather than trying to kill each other." This was dated December 19- two and half months after last I mentioned his name. Apparently the problem is that the likes of ol' Al down on the farm in Indiana are goading the Israelis into making the Palestenians come murder them.
I am proud to merit the spot of being the "great voodoo doll" over perhaps more obvious blog figures such as Charles at Little Green Footballs, say. Indeed "al barger, al Qaeda, what's the difference except a few letters?"
Mr. Hanania is a native born American living in Chicago. Yet, his writing clearly indicates that he identifies himself much more as a a poor victimized Palestenian than as a free American- which would much better describe his existential circumstances. He could choose to think of himself whichever way he likes, yet he prefers to consider himself a victim. Criminy, Jackie Mason didn't want this unknown, non-professional comic opening his set in Chicago, and the guy's carrying on like he's been hearded into a refugee camp. Damn it man, you're a rich American with a house and a garage with two cars to put in it, so quit your whining.
Damn, but there are not very many things more disgusting than a 49 year old man pouting and complaining like a little girl over a little criticism. Show some pride- get a slight grip on your emotions, at least enough to TRY to have rational conversation.
Thank you Ray for the recognition. The only thing though is that if you're going to declare me to be "one of the biggest haters using a blog to spew inaccurate information and racist attacks" you would increase your credibility by quoting and linking to and correcting some of my specifically inaccurate and racist attacks. Please show me one factual inaccuracy in anything I've ever written about you, or Arabs and Muslims ever. Thanks.
More dialogue with Hanania At the risk of blogging a dead horse [could I possibly be the first person to come up with this turn of phrase?], here is some more email between myself and Palestenian-American activist Ray Hanania in response to my "stereotypes" essay. 9-4-2002:
Dear Mr. Hanania,
I've just published a second column about you and Jackie Mason on my Culpepper Log. It is, if I may be blunt, pretty critical of you.
In the interest of fair play though, I would be happy to print any response you care to make. Or of course you could always respond on your own site if you wish.
You'll also notice that I have posted our email correspondence from last week - again in the interest of putting out your side of the story.
Also, there is a bibliography with links to most of the stuff I could find about you, Mason, Zanie's controversy, etc. Any other suggested links to add to this would be appreciated, such as columns written in your defense in various papers. I already have at least a couple. I'd be glad to add more.
Al ---------------------------------------------------- You're entitled to your opinion,a lthough you have it all wrong. But, the reference to George Bush and "hebrew" translation is less about so-called ZOGs as it is a reference to getting his marching orders from a foreign head of state, Ariel Sharon. But, maybe it makes better copy to promote hatred and bigotry. I noticed you also didn't mention any of Jackie Mason's objectionable comments nor commented on them. Again, it reflects on your personal biases which, thankfully in America, we Americans are allowed to express our opinions.
regards Ray Hanania -------------------------------------------------- Dear Mr. Hanania,
First thanks for your prompt reply to my email. You have repeatedly given me timely responses. You definitely get points with me for that.
However, you are wrong in saying that I promote hate. I certainly do not hate you personally. As I said, you'd probably be ok to be buddies with. Perhaps next time I get to Chicago I'll get the chance to buy you a beer.
I'm not saying these things in anger, or just to be mean. I intend to be treating you with respect as an equal, having an adult conversation. That means holding you to the same standards of civil discourse as the cracker next door. That also means holding you to the same standards to which I would hold Mr. Mason. That also means being as specific as possible about EXACTLY which statements I find objectionable and why.
For example, do you realize how inflammatory your business about Bush translating his speeches from Hebrew is? You say this is "less about so-called ZOGs as it is a reference to getting his marching orders from a foreign head of state, Ariel Sharon."
See, this is just the kind of thing I'm talking about. That's exactly the point of the ZOG [Zionist Occupation Government] nonsense; claiming that American politicians are just stooges or Manchurian candidates for Jews and Israel. With these comments you are, for starters, essentially accusing President Bush of treason- allegiance to a foreign power rather than protecting the US and our interests.
I'm not sure how to express to you what a deadly serious charge you are making against the president- YOUR president. One should not make such accusations unless they are true, and you can present some evidence. That he tends to see the Israeli point of view as superior to the Palestinians does not mean he has sold out.
Nor does this "joke" about Bush getting marching orders from Israel jibe with the observable facts. Was Dubya's call for a Palestenian state a Sharon trick? Are the tens of billions of American tax dollars sent to the Palestenian authority and various Arab governments a Jewish backed plot? Words have meaning, brother. You should be careful.
By the way, if I were going to "hate" you, it would be for making me defend Bush. I didn't vote for him, and he cheeses me off real regularly. Yet even I have to defend him against charges of treason.
The thing about Jackie Mason's comments is that I couldn't find anything particularly obnoxious or hateful. I went through numerous searches on combinations suggested by you in our earlier correspondence, through numerous search engines. I did not find ANY egregious statements. There just doesn't seem to be anything there analagous to your more fringe statements. If you can come up with some specific columns or news stories where Mason has crossed the line, I will be all ears.
Probably the most controversial thing I could find was his suggestion that Arafat be tried in court as a murderer. This is certainly controversial, but he wrote this after documents surfaced showing Arafat personally signing off on the expense vouchers to buy the materials to make the suicide belts being used to kill innocent Israelis. You might disagree with Mr. Mason's analysis of what to do about this discovery, but you cannot reasonably claim that it is beyond the pale of reasonable discourse under these circumstances.
Moreover, "Jackie Mason says bad things too" does not relieve you of the responsibility for the things that YOU say- even if he had said bad things. This is just the kind of response that I had in mind when I accused you of childish behavior.
In short, I'm trying to do my bit to raise the bar in our civil discourse. You seem like an ok fellow, but you have a couple of wires crossed. I intend my comments to be a brotherly rebuke- not hateful, but instructive.
Thanks again for your input.
Al ---------------------------------------------- More to come?...
Ray Hanania, Walking bundle of stereotypes Ray Hanania, now famous for not getting a ten minute opening shot for Jackie Mason, gives a good example of the problem with stereotypes. The problem is that stereotypes are often largely based on truth. It's not nice to pre-judge somebody you don't know on the basis of their race or culture, yet the stereotyped expectations are often based on observable behavior patterns. It is prejudiced and bad to blanketly judge someone based on their race, but it is not racist pre-judging to notice that the Rev. Al Sharpton actively personally embodies the worst stereotypes of his race. Geez, you'd have to poke your eyes out not to see it.
Let's examine some stereotypes: Palestenians and Arabs often seem to have characteristics of being petulant and childish, with eternal martyr complexes and anxious to scapegoat anyone else, usually Jews, for their problems. They're given to perpetual childish lying, insisting the very most opposite of any real truth- and get righteously double and triple indignant when anyone doubts their arbitrary and hallucinatory claims. They like to arbitrarily make the most assinine accusations, accusing Jews of THEIR own worst crimes [such as calling Jews "nazis" even while THEY are sucking up umpteen copies of Mein Kampf - and acting on them]. They tend to "act out," like spiteful children lashing out- throwing embarassing public tantrums, or much worse. They'll make wildly paranoid accusations against everyone else, but have huge tantrums when their own real, true documented words and deeds are presented. Most of all, they will never accept responsibility for their own problems, no matter what they've done.
The problem is that these "stereotypes" tend to conform to fact, but that it's still not right to just ASSUME these characteristics will be true of any given person, because not everyone conforms to the stereotypes.
Ray Hanania, however, goes a long way toward personally fulfilling all these worst stereotypes- starting with his constant indignant objection to stereotyping. He said in one interview, for example, that he likes to open a comedy show with a line about seeing the crowd as "potential hostages" because he's Palestenian. Ha, ha. See how foolish you are to be having those kind of thoughts about this Yakov Smirnov aw shucks kind of loveable dude? Unless you realize that Mr. Cuddly here also said, "These are events we could never have hoped for. It proves that by standing up to Israel�s brutality, and even in the face of losing so many innocent Palestinian lives either to Israeli Army murder or suicide bombings, the Palestinians will defeat Israel. Now is not the time to surrender to Israel and accept compromise." Yes, how wrong we would have been to assume that he was a crazy, violent Palestenian.
But it's not fair to judge him based on this one statement, when after all that was just one statement, and he's been so reasonable the rest of the time. Hanania says this. He also says elsewhere as part of a supposedly comic definition of the word "politician": ""Poli" -- means multiple. "tic-ians" means a lot of people who bug you and get under your skin. "Bugs that lie" would be a better name for that. But, we'd have to checkw ith the Israelis before making any changes. Afterall. Congress is Israeli Occupied Territory."
Did I mention wildly paranoid accusations? Listed on his website as one of his favorite jokes: "President Bush will no longer hold impromptu press conferences. His staff says the President needs at least three days to translate the documents from Hebrew into English before he will read them to the press." This is his idea of humor? You are poopie-head, ha ha! Except that he's more specifically slandering the president and re-hashing some of the most hateful and destructive cheap "ZOG" anti-semitism.
Did I mention arbitrarily insisting the opposite of any real truth? "Sharon doesn't want peace with the Palestinians. He wants peace without them." Palestenians, remember, are the ones drawing maps with no Israel. It is he who thinks the time is right to think about "correcting the original injustice of 1948 and restoring Palestinian control over all of Palestine."
Note that these quotes are not all from the supposed one time he was ever unreasonable, as he keeps insisting.
Note also the stereotypically childish way that he refuses to take responsibility on the basis of feeling. He shouldn't be held accountable for things that he wrote when he was mad. No sir, you are not given license to have a temper tantrum. You are a 49 year old man, not an eight year old girl. Also, the classmates you are egging on are not going to respond by putting a tack on teacher's chair; they're going to respond by killing people. When some jackass who's on the edge of reality to start with sees this column and decides to act on it, it will not do one bit of good for you to tell the victims parents that they should just understand that you were really mad you wrote that, but you didn't REALLY mean it. OK?
Throwing together the aforementioned attributes of having a martyr complex, and childishly insisting on the breathtakingly backwards statements about reality, "Hi. Does anyone know Jackie Mason? I have a bill I'd like to give him for all the publicity and PR I got him ..." He says this after he has drug Mason's good and internationally known name through the mud for cheap publicity for his unknown self. It wasn't Jackie Mason or Zanie's management calling the press in and throwing around hateful accusations. This is just perverse.
He says whatever kind of hateful, slanderous stuff he wants, but expects childish indulgence as a voice of "moderation." The bar has been set so low that he does indeed qualify as a "moderate." That is, Ray Hanania has not personally gone out killing any Jews (so far as I know). That he sometimes rhetorically supports those who do should just be ignored, because most of the time he doesn't.
Finally, Mr. Hanania's personal slurs against Mr. Mason. He accuses Mason of living in a "glass house intifada" when complaining of anyone else's racism. Says Hanania of Mason, "Being called a racist by him is like being called ugly by a pig." I did numerous types of searches looking for Mason's bigotry, but there was very scarce to be found. Here's the worst thing I could find on Mason: He was apparently caught on tape in some private convesation ten years ago using an insulting Yiddish word to describe David Dinkins. Shocking! [Actually, the worst thing I found on Mason was Sally Jesse Raphael's accusation that Mason felt her up. That's just nasty. I'd slap him myself for that one - if I thought it were true. I know Jews are supposed to be cheap, but under those circumstances I think he'd come across with $50 for a hooker. Or so I'd hope. But I digress.]
Now in fairness, Ray Hanania is not Hitler. He's not Yasser Arafat. He hasn't killed anyone. He's just an American running his fool mouth. You're allowed to do that here. He was also courteous and prompt in responding to my inquiries, and does often make nice concilliatory gestures. He'd probably be ok to make friends with; you could reason with him most of the time. Not being violent, when he starts getting all crazy you can just call it a night and leave.
Just hope he doesn't make you come see his lame "comedy" show. I'm sorry, but Arabs don't know from funny.
Looking for his side of the story, I wrote Mr. Hanania directly. For starters, I rush to give him credit for his prompt and courteous reply. He responded to my initial query within an hour. I'll write up a final report as a separate entry, but here is the whole of our correspondence. Following is our exchange of emails: ------------------------------ Dear Mr. Hanania,
Following up on your current controversy regarding the Jackie Mason slot, I wanted to ask a couple of questions for clarification.
You have presented yourself as being just a genteel guy trying to be understanding of all sides. From your webpage "I have tried to keep my public comments consistent. It is not easy with the pressures and emotions of the Middle East violence. I oppose violence and have consistently advocated for peace in the Middle East that includes the recognition of Israel and the Palestinian rights."
Or does this column you wrote for a Lebanese paper reflect your real views? Remember, you wrote here among other things "The dream of compromise with Israel is over, today, and it is clear to nearly everyone that Sharon has opened the door to the new possibility of correcting the original injustice of 1948 and restoring Palestinian control over all of Palestine, an action that the pro-Israel American apologists have dubbed as the �destruction� of the state of Israel."
Further in this same article, you write "These are events we could never have hoped for. It proves that by standing up to Israel�s brutality, and even in the face of losing so many innocent Palestinian lives either to Israeli Army murder or suicide bombings, the Palestinians will defeat Israel. Now is not the time to surrender to Israel and accept compromise. Now is the time to forge ahead and demand even more."
In short, how does any of this jibe with the "recognition of Israel" that you have claimed, or your general claim of being just a friendly humorist?
It seems that the whole tone of your public presentation is a harsh anti-Israeli harangue. In light of this all-but-endorsement of suicide bombings, do you still insist that you are a victim of racism from Mr. Mason?
Quoting from the bio on your own website, "Hanania is an outspoken advocate for peaceful compromise between Arabs and Israelis and has dedicated his life to bringing Arabs and Jews together. He has consistently opposed violence."
Please help me reconcile these seemingly widely divergent statements.
I will be publishing a follow-up on this within a few hours at the Culpepper Log, and I want to get the facts straight. To that end, I would very much appreciate your input.
Al Barger ------------------------ The comments in that column were a reflectioin of the harsh realities of the moment ... it was an attempt by me to convey where we could be headed if Israel's government continues with its current practices ... it certainly was forceful, but it does not reflect my views ... it did reflect my emotions ...
And that is the problemw ith the Middle East conflict ... it impacts ALL of us ... we all live in glass houses and we all are victims to being drawn into the emotional fight, no matter how hard we resist ... we are all human ...
For all that Ihave said, no one has once pointed out the things that Mason has said about Arabs and Palestinians ... the emotional battle keeps our two sides apart ... and does not want moderates on either side to come together ...
Thanks for your comments Ray Hanania ------------------------ Dear Mr. Hanania,
Any other criticisms aside, thank you for your very prompt and courteous response. I appreciate that.
What can you give me about Mason's comments on Arabs? Any news stories, web links, etc? I would certainly be interested in that. I would be perfectly willing to take him to task if he has any really egregious statements.
Still, it seems a bit much to dismiss your column as "emotions" rather than "views." If we were having a couple of drinks and you spouted off a sentence or two that came out harsh, hey maybe that was the booze talking.
It's a lot harder to slough off a whole column like this, though, saying it doesn't represent your REAL views. You must have spent at least a couple of hours composing this, editing it. If they aren't YOUR views, then whose views are they? The words didn't just jump up there on their own. Does being angry relieve you of responsibility for your words and deeds?
Again, thank you for your input, and I would appreciate any critical material on Mr. Mason that you can supply.
Al Barger ------------------------ Al, I understand your feelings ... but the Middle East is like no other conflict in the world ... no other conflict has the emotion levels that have been ingrained in our two communities for more than 100 years ... we come close and fall back ... two years ago we were hugging, kissing and shaking hands after years of killing each other and calling each other names ... and then we are back at the battlefield doing worse things to each other ... this cycle continues and I am confident we will be back together shaking hands again ...
Search google for jackie Mason and Meir Kahane or KACH Party and also David DInkins ... I am not one to do what he is doing and slander him, but he has no right to throw stones from his Glass House Intifadah ...
Thanks Ray Hanania ------------------------ Thanks, I'll look for Mason, and with combos of the other names you gave.
It definitely does NOT constitute slander to quote someone's own words back to them.
Al ----------------------- It is slander to state that a woman who is married to me is a self-hating Jew ... or to say that I am a Nazi, anti-Semite, Jew-hater, because I expressed one bad opinion about a political situation, against more than 100 good opinions in the middle of a political conflict ..
Jackie Mason's illegal occupation Apparently Jackie Mason should now be considered a racist pig. He's on the bad end of a racial incident. Seems that maybe -at worst- he or more likely his manager expressed some passing qualms about a possible Palestenian-American opening act they'd never seen. Maybe not even that. This resulted in one Ray Hanania not getting to open for Jackie Mason in Chicago at Zanie's Comedy Club.
It also resulted in Jackie Mason being attacked as a "racist." Fox News chose to cover this, as if perhaps there was something amiss. This comes even from some supposed "libertarians" who would physically tolerate Mr. Mason's supposed ill-behavior, but feel the need to speak out against his "bigotry."
Then, of course, come the usual suspects. Al Alarabi, president of the United Arab American League, said, "I'm outraged. It is an act of hate and racism against Palestenians." They will no doubt have to send out a couple of suicide bombers now. Hey, the Jew pushed them into it by illegally occupying the stage at Zanie's.
The extraordinary gaping double-triple-quadruple standards of expected racial sensitivity continually flabbergast me. Arabs/Muslims/Palestenians have more than filled their minimum expectations of reason and civility if they are not absolutely personally killing random Jews. Merely advocating it, or defending those who do it falls well within the parameters of acceptable social behavior.
Yet Arab and Muslim sensitivity meters are set at not even "11" on the 1 to 10 scale, but are somewhere around "1200." If a Jew or an American looks at a Muslim crossways, then he's an evil oppressor sonofabitch. Mr. Mason being both Jewish and American, he might as well just paint a stupid Hitler moustache on himself and start goose stepping, cause he will certainly be rebuked as a Nazi.
These people need to be slapped. Jackie Mason marched with MLK. He marched for civil rights down south back when it wasn't a nice photo op for your publicist; he was there before that, back when it was a good way to get your ass kicked and/or get on some list of J Edgar Hoover's.
Perhaps a Jew might not rate censure if they were somewhat less than eager to pal up with Muslims, especially Palestenians. You don't want to go around beating up poor innocent Arabs [as if], but might a Hebrew gentleman rate a small bit of understanding if he was just the least wee bit standoffish? As you can see from this story, getting anywhere near Muslims/Arabs will likely cause you great headache. Would a Jew be outside the realm of civil society if they just maybe have, uh, some issues with Arabs?
For someone who comes on so meek and innocent for the press, Mr. Hanania certainly jumped on the chance to make a racial publicity stunt out of a common act of losing a booking. The general manager of Zanie's said that the cancellation was because he was an unknown, not race. He has been a comedian less than a year apparently, with less than two dozen performances ever. Heck, I've got more experience than that just yucking it up at my family reunions.
Yet this nobody has climbed on Jackie Mason's back, his years of hard work, and consciously manufactured unwarranted resentment against the Jew to generate publicity for his would-be career. Hey, he's not actually physically assaulting him, so we can't demand any higher standard.
Wait, now let me get this straight, it's Jackie Mason who is a racist?