From Debbie Schlussel:

They Have a Scheme: Kramer Meets Jesse & Al of Race Merchants, Inc.

So three racists walk into a bar. Unfortunately, there's no punchline.

What Michael Richards said about Blacks at an L.A. comedy club was racist. His career should be over.

But so should the careers of two other racists, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Instead, they're thriving.

While Richards made a gazillion phony apologies for uttering what he really thinks at age 57 (and blamed it on the War in Iraq--huh?), Jackson and Sharpton have never apologized even once for constantly telling us what they really think, over decades.

It's a little strange--no, make that, absurd--to see one racist groveling and apologizing to two other racists, especially when the latter two have made it a career. Even more ludicrous is the media's blindness to the thick irony of it all.

Take Jackson. Perhaps everyone forgot his comments that Jews are "Hymies" and New York is "Hymietown," for which he never apologized to America's or even New York's Jews. But check out these other Jackson utterances you probably don't even know about because they didn't get the "Kramer" treatment:

* He said he spit into White customers' food when he worked as a waiter because, "[It] gave me a psychological gratification."

* "You can't trust the Jews. I never have trusted those people."

* He claimed Nixon's policies were harsh on the poor because, of Nixon's top aides, "four out of five of them are German Jews." Someone forgot to tell him that Erlichman and Haldeman were not "Hymies."

* In working up a Black church about the Jews, he claimed Jews conspired to keep the Black man down (shown on PBS' McNeil-Lehrer Report).

* Jews are "not willing to share power."

* He told an Ohio County Commissioner, "You Jews are much too sensitive."

* He said the Democratic Party was "perverted by a reaction . . . to the Jewish element within the party," and that the relationship between Jews and Democrats was "a kind of glorified form of bribery. Financial bankrolling and moral bankruptcy."

* He claimed labor unions were insensitive to Blacks because "Jews dominate the leadership at the top."

* "I'm sick and tired of hearing about the Holocaust."

* "I have seen very few Jewish reporters who are objective about Arab affairs." Unfortunately, Jackson is right about this. Most Jewish reporters bend over backwards to portray the Arabist position positively and the Israeli position negatively.

* When discussing his media critics, he said they were few in number (unfortunately, true) and "all Jewish." (Not true).

Then, there's Sharpton. At least Richards' racist rant never resulted in murder. Al Sharpton's words led to at least two killing sprees:

* At a 1991 funeral of a Black child accidentally killed by an out-of-control car driven by a Jew, Sharpton delivered this eulogy:

Talk about how Oppenheimer in South Africa sends diamonds straight to Tel Aviv and deals with the diamond merchants right here in Crown Heights.

Oppenheimer is the Jewish family that is a big player in the diamond industry, and Crown Heights is a Chassidic Jewish community, some of whose residents are in the diamond industry. It was clear he was denouncing the Jews. Sharpton spoke of how these "diamond merchants" had "the blood of innocent babies" on their hands and exhorted the crowd to commit violence in the Crown Heights, Brooklyn Jewish community:

If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house.

Shouting, "No Justice, No Peace" with the funeral crowd, he incited riots in Crown Heights where a mob shouting, "Kill the Jews!" surrounded Jewish rabbinical student Yankel Rosenbaum and stabbed him to death.

* In 1995, Sharpton incited the shooting and arson murder of seven employees of Freddy's Fashion Mart. When the Black landlord raised the rent on Freddy's White (and Jewish) owner, he was forced to raise the rent on his Black subtenant. Sharpton organized a protest, at which he announced:

We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business. Sharpton stood by and nodded in agreement as speakers and the crowd shouted: "Burn down the Jew store!" and "We're going to see that this cracker suffers."

A protester shot four employees and set fire to Freddy's. It burnt to the ground and seven employees--all of them minorities--died.

Jackson and Sharpton. These are the new gods of race merchantry to which all others must apologize?

Next, the kettle will be apologizing to the pot. And the pot will say it's not enough.

************

For the record, Michael Richards--contrary to reports in the media and by his own misinformed publicist--is not Jewish. He is a lapsed Catholic of Italian descent (and neither of his parents are Jewish).

He made a similar rant against Jews, back in April, calling them "Christ-killers." But, unlike the two Black targets of Richards' latest tirade, Carol Oschin and J. P. Fillet, two Jews who were in the audience--and were the targets of those comments, did not hire a lawyer. They are not seeking money or any kind of redress.

Maybe they know that prostituting your dignity to seek money from a bigot only takes away your dignity even more. And maybe they know that desperate, insincere apologies won't change a thing. Richards' rants--just as Jackson's and Sharpton's and Mel Gibson's, too--are what he really thinks.

We should leave it at that. And all of their careers should be over forever.

Hat Tip -- Yaakov Lopin

Dennis Prager has written a column that tackles an issue I feared one day would come up. It seems that Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will take his oath of office on the the Koran, instead of the Bible.

Obviously, this raises a whole gamut of emotions. At first glance, before I read Mr. Prager's piece, my first reaction was "so what?" I realize we live in a post-9/11 world, but does it really matter? Do we really think that Ellison, although connected with the Nation of Islam - and noted anti-Semite - Louis Farrakhan through his involvement in organizing the "The Million Man March", is a terrorist- affiliate?

But upon reading the article, I began to understand a great deal more about the issue. On one hand, when we elect a politician to office, we expect him to carry out his duties in good faith of the laws of the land. Furthermore, being a free country, one does not have to be of any religion, or can be of any religion, in order to serve. In this light, perhaps even the oath of office, with the traditional "hand on the Bible" act is unconstitutional.

However, it is still the act required to prove loyalty to the country, whether you are becoming a citizen, a witness in court or an elected official. Therefore, it is that very act of Americana, as opposed to religious belief, that symbolizes that loyalty.

In demanding that his oath be made on a Koran, as opposed to a Bible, Ellison is doing exactly what most Americans have been overly concerned with every time a Jew or a Catholic politician is elected - that their loyalties will be split between their faith and their country. It dogged Joe Lieberman and it certainly cost JFK a tremendous amount of votes. The question as to what influence the Church would have over Kennedy's decisions came very close to costing him the election. Even in 2000, many people wondered whether Joe Lieberman's Judaism would conflict with American policy in the Middle East.

Now, unlike before, we have a reason to be concerned. Neither Lieberman, nor Kennedy, put anything above their loyalty to the United States. Although, to be fair, neither of them had any concern about using a Bible either.

But Prager makes an interesting point. If it's the Americana that binds us to the oath, no other book can be used for the oath anyway. In other words, whose to say that if Tom Cruise becomes an elected official, he won't demand to use the book, Dyanetics, to make the oath on. And what about an Atheist? Can they use Horton Hears A Hoo?

Prager also asks what of the non-Religious politicians? Maybe they aren't to be trusted because they don't believe in the strength of the Bible?

No, the only conclusion must be that the Bible that is used in the swearing in ceremony is there not for it's religious application, but for it's Americana. It's the one book, or item, that Americans trust for the purpose of just this task. Putting your hand on a Bible and swearing, or affirming an action is tantamount to when someone tells you something that's hard to believe and when you question it, that person looks you right in the eyes and says, "honest to G-d." It's that we are using G-d as a witness. It's that we are being very truthful. In light of the amount of lies people get away with, it's still the closest thing to be able to trust.

Putting a hand on a Koran, a Talmud, the Book of Mormon or just about any other book, is simply not enough to make us trust the person who swears by it. And in light of 9/11, regardless of there being "good" Muslims or "bad" Muslims, to Americans - who are fighting a war against Muslim fanatics, it's simply insulting.

You can read Dennis Prager's excellent article here.

What a great week for the Cowboys. A huge win over the previously unbeaten Colts, followed by an impressive blowout over the Bucs and combine that with a Giants' meltdown against the Texans, and the 'Boys are sitting atop the NFC East. Plus, should they continue to play as well as they have, they have a legitimate chance to at least be the number 2 seed in the playoffs.

Not bad. Not bad at all.

Not to sound overly confident, but the Giants are a team in distress, the Bears have discovered there's more to winning than just a great defense, Seattle scares no one, and he Saints?

Pul-eeze!

Well, the last 10 years have proven that when it comes to finishing strong, they have no idea how to. But this team is different. The talent is there and Tony Romo is proving every week that he is the real deal (and the #1 rated QB in the league).

Niii-iiii-cceee.

Happy Thanksgiving!

After almost not making it for my 4oth one in 2002, I find each next one to be even better than the last. So in honor of my favorite holiday of the year (I mean, football and turkey, what a deal!), I present my 2006 Top Ten Things I'm Thankful For:

10. My Blog
After 32 months of blogging, I have now achieved 10,000 hits. Since I'm not so vain to admit that I do not include my own log ins, I'd personally like to thank #10,000 for being the ONE. I have only an IP address to go by, but I know it came from someone logged on through the State University of New York at Binghamton.

Mr. or Ms. SUNY, I salute you!

9. Dr. Allen Anderson
He may just be my cardiologist, but he is the one who has saved my life (maybe more than once). Since I can't go see Dr. House, Dr. Anderson is the best out there. He's calm when I'm a wreck and thorough when I'm in trouble. He never gets my appreciation enough.

8. Jewel-Osco and the people I work with
Yes, the supermarket. They had the foresight to enter the kosher market at the right time and had the additional guts to give me a job, when no one else would. While I only work part-time, they have made those hours worth coming for.

7. Tony Romo
He has given hope to every Dallas Cowboys out there. While most of the city was busting Bill Parcell's chops, he quitly groomed the new "QB of the future" in Dallas. While legend recalls how the Cowboys lucked out with getting Don Meredith in 1960 (thanks to Papa Bear Halas), Roger Staubach (after 4 years in the Service), Troy Aikman (okay, that wasn't luck, they deserved the #1 pick that year), another chapter may be written about the undrafted free-agent steal from Eastern Illinois.

6. Hugh Laurie, Patricia Arquette, Gary Sinise, Joel McHale and Simon Cowell
The only five reasons to watch anything but sports, news and weather on television.

5. Jason Lee, Ethan Suplee, Jaime Pressly and Eddie Steeples
Four other other reasons I forgot to mention.

4. The United States of America
We may have our differences now and then, but this is still the greatest country on G-d's green earth.

3. The State of Israel
Who else would stand up for the little guy. This tiny sliver of land is all that keeps world Jewry from falling victim to another Holocaust. Believe it.

2. My children
They drive me nuts. They're loud, they're hyper, they're needy and they're the best thing that ever happened to me.

1, My best friend
You know who you are, so I don't have to say your name. But even when we're not communicating, I can hear you loud and clear.

BTW, my pick for the game today is Dallas 34 Tampa Bay 13.

I'm not gloating and I'm not trying to be hyperbolic. But I have yet to see Mr. Tony Romo perform poorly in any professional game he has played. Coming into today's game against the undefeated Indianapolis Colts, Romo would have had the perfect excuse to have a clunker of a game. And while Peyton Manning may be headed for the Hall of Fame one day, on this day, Mr. Manning was only the second best QB in the game today.

Dallas has Tampa Bay at home this Thursday. If the 'Boys continue to play as well as they have been the last couple of games, this will be a season worth watching.

Nice pickup today by the Texas Rangers, signing former-Ranger Frank Catalanotto to replace Mark DeRosa on the team. Cat was a favorite and I was sorry to see him go when he left for Toronto a few years ago. He's a career .297 hitter and a nice lefty off the bench.

Now if they can ever get some damn pitching...

Good call by Henry Kissinger in saying an Iraq military victory is impossible. If anybody should know what it takes to lose a war, good old Henry should!

Very, very busy the last few days and it leaves me no time to ridicule Nancy Pelosi on her first defeat as House Speaker. But I didn't want to let you go without my latest prediction on the Cowboys-Colts game Sunday. My heart (and not just the new one) thinks Dallas will win 27-24.

But my brain, which does have a poorer track record, believes it will be the Colts over Dallas 38-24.

It's hard to pick against the 'Boys, but since I have Peyton Manning on my fantasy team, all may not be lost this weekend.

Oh, and Go Wolverines!

I'm only pretty sure,
That I can't take anymore,
Before you take a swing
I wonder,
What are we fighting for,
When I say out loud,
I wanna get out of this,
I wonder,
Is there anything I'm going to miss

How's it going to be,
When you don't know me,
How's it going to be,
When you're sure I'm not there,
How's it going to be
When there is no one there to talk about,
How's it going to be
'Cause I don't care
How's it going to be

Where we used to laugh,
There's a shouting match
Sharp as a thumbnail scratch
A silence I can't ignore,
Like...
The hammocks and the doorways we spent time in,
Swing empty,
Don't see lighting like last fall when it was always about to hit me,

I wonder how's it gonna be,
When you don't know me,
How's it gonna be
When you're not around
How's it gonna be
When you'll found out there was nothing
Between you and me
How's it gonna be

How's it gonna be
When you don't know me anymore

I guess that's how's it gonna be
Want to get back in again
The soft dive of oblivion
I wanna taste the salt of your skin
The soft dive of obivion
How's it gonna be
When you don't know me anymore
How's it gonna be

How's it gonna be.

Random Musings

Why is it that liberals get mad when they're called liberals?

I read a letter in Newsweek from a reader who claims that Borat cost him his job.

Apparently, he was fooled by Sacha Baron Cohen's character when he was booked to be interviewed at a Mississippi TV news station. "Because my handlers told him he was Borat Sagdiyev, 'a TV journalist from Kazakhstan,' I booked him for a live studio interview on our morning news show in Jackson, Miss., thinking he was a legitimate reporter doing a documentary to be shown in his home country," D. A. Arthur recalled.

He continued, "I checked out his public-relations company's Web site and even met one of the publicists in person. They seemed genuine. But once the camera was on him, this man destroyed our credibility in very short order. Because of him, my boss lost faith in my abilities and second-guessed everything I did thereafter. I spiraled into depression, and before I could recover I was released from my contract early. It took me three months to find another job and now I'm thousands of dollars in debt and struggling to keep my house out of foreclosure."

I'm not sure who I'm more upset at - the actor or this guy's boss. How sad.

Once again, I'm picking the Cowboys to win this Sunday. My pick if for Dallas to knock off the Arizona Cardinals 31-20. There's an old saying in the NFL that on any given Sunday, any team can beat any other. That is really true for this season, isn't it?

There is anger at Israeli Rabbi's who have forced the cancellation of a conference on the issue of agunah. This describes a woman whose husband refuses to grant her a get (Jewish divorce). The law states that in order for a woman to be divorced, her husband must give her a documented agreement of divorce and without it, she's out of luck (to put it mildly).

Over the last few years, more and more cases of men refusing for reasons ranging from spite to anger to just being a$$holes has caused more and more outrage, especially from woman's rights groups.

Personally, I find the law to be at best, questionable. At worst, criminal. While I have to say I have been pleased that more and more Rabbis are questioning the this law and are coming forward with their own condemnations (even to the point of allowing for physical coercion of the husband in order to force him), I am also saddened that a few Rabbinical leaders in Israel have basically shut down the conference.

What got me was the given reason the conference was shut down - that it would cause the Rabbis to look as if they were bowing to pressure from feminists.

Ridiculous. If that were the case, how come they haven't shut down the Gay parade taking place in Jerusalem. Although many of them are trying, far too few are trying hard enough. Now I really have no problem with anybody marching, as long as it doesn't promote racism, anti-Semitism or anything else morally repugnant. However, where I do have a problem is when it's done in order to shame others.

Clearly, the goal of the marchers is to parade in front and flaunt their homosexuality in what is considered to be the holiest place in both Judaism and Christianity. Of all the places they could march - even in Israel - this group could have chosen a more equitible location - perhaps the liberal bastion of Tel-Aviv.

But no. Instead, they chose the one place that would garner the most headlines and cause the most discomfort to the local populace. In a recent survey, over 90% of the citizens of Jerusalem want the march not to happen. This is vaguelly reminiscent of the Nazi march in Skokie back in the late 70's. However, though it was a horrible slap in the face to most of us, Skokie is not the biblical center of an entire religion.

Additionally, it is also a matter of security. There is no question as to why Islamofacists hate the West. It is partly due to the western influences of tolerance, sexuality and equality. Although I am against censorship in the name of Jihad, I also recognize that there is a very large Muslim population (along with a larger orthodox Jewish community) in Jerusalem. Therefore, I would think it not unlikely for security issues to be a huge concern.

To those who are marching, I ask you one question - is you burning need to expose your sexuality to the masses worth the turmoil it will and is causing everyone else?

Maybe we are tallking about acceptance and maybe we are talking about sex. Either way, Jerusalem is NOT the place to make your point. I find it incredibly selfish of he organizers and remarkably short-sighted of the Israeli government to allow such a slap in the face of so many to take place.

Well, I haven't much to say about the election that hasn't already been said. I'm not surprised that the radio jockey's are trying to spin the Democrat victory as something that may turn out for the greater good. While I don' t agree, it's certainly better than how the Dems acted following their last few losses. I especially loved Howard Dean's comment that with this victory, he hopes we can all just get along.

Very funny, Howie. If memory serves, it wasn't the Republicans who were equating Bush to Hitler. It wasn't the conservatives who cozied up to Nancy Sheehan, while she embraced Al Sharpton and Hugo Chavez. It was a GOP senator who called the troops in Iraq stupid.

Of course in the last example, we must consider the source.

No, I'm not lashing out bitterly. I believe as Don Henley once wrote, "we get the government we deserve."

If the majority of those who voted want the Democrats in charge, then that's just te way it is. Personally, I believe it to be a foolish mistake, but I also believe it's the GOP's own damn fault.

This election was theirs to lose, and they lost it. How did they lose it? Well, it certainly wasn't because of any great plans or ideas from the Dems.

No, they made sure they stayed on the same message over and over again - "Bush is bad". Not "we can do better". Not "here is a new idea". Not even "we have a plan." No, that failed them 2 years earlier when it turned out that their plan was "get elected at all cost."

But the Republicans? This should have been easy. Just two short years ago, President Bush was talking about his "political capital" and how much better it would be now that he was more legitimized. How could he lose that?

I'll tell you how, and it has nothing to do with historical data that often shows us how often an incumbent in his second term loses control of the Congress. It's obviously no longer "the economy, stupid," as James Carville so refinely put it. It's no longer about being a war-time President - because even though our troops are at war in Iraq, Americans are not at war anywhere (except the troops).

And therein lies the biggest flaw in the election campaign. In battles between going to war and not going to war, the Republicans hold a huge lead - this was again proven by Senator Joe Lieberman, who was shunned from his Party just 6 years after being their VP candidate. Democrats moved left and wanted someone was was against the war. But Lieberman showed his former Party up and ran as an Independent - and winning.

So, no - the war wasn't the issue.

The issue was the aftermath. Look, you and I both know that war is hell and that human suffering is a major cause for avoiding it. We also know that compared to those we are fighting, we are at a clear moral advantage - much like Israel has over the thugs that rule in the PA and Hezbollah (you know, the one's who shoot from behind the children).

The problem was that the Republicans seemed to run scared from what was being accomplished overseas. I liken it to the relationship between an older bully and a schoolboy. The bully is mean, condescending and strong. The schoolboy has been taught that he should love his neighbor and treat everyone equally. So what happens? The schoolboy gets picked on by the bully and out of fear and also because he was taught to turn the other cheek, he constantly swallows the abuse - hoping that rational reasoning will eventually work. He begins to try and engage with the bully by either laughing at his jokes, or even acting as if he approves of the bullies behavior.

But eventually, one of two things can happen. Either the bully once again turns on him, or he gets pulled into the muck also. When the boy gets in trouble to, the principal doesn't care who started it, or why. He also didn't really make friends with bully and because of his new alliance with the bully, is left unpopular as well. In the meantime, the bully is still the bully.

The way I see it, the GOP started to fear the big, bad Democrats (who weren't really that big). But instead of following their teachings, they decided to make nice to the bully in the hopes of avoiding a beating. What eventually happened was that in appeasing the bully, they were brought down into the muck with them. But the bully was still the bully and he stayed true to himself. The GOP is left standing in the muck, unpopular.

The good news is that the GOP continues to hold the office of the President and it's not to late to rise up out of the sewer. But to do that, they must understand where they failed and reassure the average American that although they got too far away from what led them to win before, they will re-emerge stronger and more trustworthy.

I'm not overly worried about this country just yet. Perhaps Nancy Pelosi will do a good job. Or perhaps, she will get just enough rope to politically hang herself. I hope it's the former. For this country's sake, we need the games to stop. This is a very serious time in the world and and it really is time to put-up or shut-up.

Speechless.

That's what I am. I'm just speechless.

Wait, I do have something to say...

I am going to refrain from any knee-jerk reaction to today's Cowboy-Redskin game by simply stating the facts as I see them.

The Cowboys were beaten by their own stupidity and their own coach.

That's right. You heard me. I said they were stupid and that Bill Parcells was responsible for this one.

Oh, I can throw Terrell Owens under the bus for his - once again - timely drop. Let's see, that's three games in a row where the $999 kazillion man has dropped a key pass. This one, a perfecly thrown bomb from Tony "Roger who?" Romo that would have given the Cowboys a seemingly assured victory.

But there were really only two reasons they lost. Stupidity and Parcells.

First the stupidity - how in the name of the wide world of sports do you give up 11 penalties for 163 yards? Who are they? The Raiders? On top of that, how do you not block a guy who was clearly attempting to block a field goal? Plus, I don't think Anthony Fasano had been onside all day!

Then, after the blocked field goal, the referees gave the Redskins an additional 15 yards when Kyle Kosier decided that the he would pull Troy Vincent down by the head. Clearly, the penalty should only have been of the 5-yard "incidental" kind, but I'm sure after watching the Cowboys break every rule in the book, they just assumed it was intentional (thus a 15-yarder).

Next, Parcells.

Now, don't get me wrong. I like Big Bill. Parcells has brought this franchise back from the dead. But he clearly was either watching a different game, or he was having a very senior moment. I mean, with the 2-minute warning approaching and the 'Skins in field goal range to tie, he allows the clock to run, leaving precious little time for his offense to attempt a comeback, should Washington score. As it was, Redskins missed the field goal, but regardless, instead of taking his time-outs to try and get the ball back with more time remaining, he just sits back and let's the Redskin offence control the clock.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

And that may not even have even been his biggest mistake.

The end-around to Glenn, when the team was in field goal range was pretty bad as well. But nothing can top going for a two-pointer after they scored their first touchdown. I mean, it was just the first quarter!!! You can say that everything looks great in hindsight, but that stunk from every angle. In the short-term, it killed the momentum of the touchdown and in the long-term, it cost them the game.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

So now, the Cowboys are a very mediocre 4-4 at the halfway point. They are really looking no different than the team that went 9-7 a year ago. But if nothing else comes from this season, at least one thing has been discovered - and that's that the team has finally found a quarterback. Tony Romo played exceptionally as always and deserved to walk away with the win. It may just be his second start, but Romo is proving to be the real deal.

And that's a good thing. Too bad I can't say the same for the rest of them. Coach included.

It has been a very busy week and I haven't had time to write my usual pearls of wisdom that I've never been known for. But I did want to post something before the week ended so here I am writing.

I have not commented on the upcoming mid-term elections for a reason. Everyone who reads this blog knows my political leanings and truthfully, I don't think there is any more I can say that hasn't already been said. Also, since all of the elections are local for where each of us live, I couldn't hope to know a lot about candidates from various other states.

However, I must add that even after the elections in 2000, 2002 and 2004, I am shocked by this year's ad campaigns. It's one thing to run an and or two critical of one's opponent - that's just politics. But I have never witnessed a year that was void of any information as to why we should vote for someone. Every single commercial I have seen is just a hatchet job showing us why we shouldn't vote for so-and-so.

Not a single one.

One race actually has the two candidates accusing each other of one being "not Church-going" enough. It's clear that the Democrats would use this tactic because they have no new ideas and, being the underdog, need to knock the GOP down. But the Republicans? Are they that afraid to run on what put them in office in the first place?

Well, that's my rant for today. The Cowboys will beat the Redskins 24-14 on Sunday.