[racism] cussing your brother then apologizing

Michael Richards said Monday he spewed racial epithets during a stand-up comedy routine because he lost his cool while being heckled and not because he's a bigot. “For me to be at a comedy club and flip out and say this crap, I'm deeply, deeply sorry,” the former Seinfeld co-star said during a satellite appearance for David Letterman's Late Show in New York.

Oh really? Calling two hecklers ‘nigger’ appears to me to be a little racist. Uttering profanities [I think they call it ‘cussing’] would seem to support the contention. But this post is not about racism – it’s about weakness. The Pope made comments about Mohammed. All right, so be it. Certain young gentlemen in Lewisham who’d watched too many 90s movies called me ‘white honky’. And what? At least they didn’t apologize for it afterwards.

What’s with all this apologizing, as I plaintively asked some time ago? Look, if you think the guys are ‘niggers’, then either say it or shut up about it. Personally, I think you’re a pratt for even concerning yourself in that stuff. But don’t call them things and then try to squirm out of it later.

That’s just weak.

[oj squeezed] we’ll never know how he would have done it

It’s been dropped – the plan to publish the book and do a string of interviews with O.J. Simpson.

As the International Herald Tribune said: The decision to cancel the twin Simpson projects was greeted with widespread expressions of relief. Michael Angelos, a vice president of Pappas Telecasting Companies, which told the network Friday that its four Fox-affiliated stations did not intend to broadcast the interview, released a statement calling the network's decision "a victory for the people who spoke out." The statement concluded, "This special would have benefited only O. J. Simpson, who deserves nothing but contempt, and certainly no benefit."

Right. Yes. It would have benefited only him and maybe he was a bit cash-strapped and maybe his taste is kinda low. But … but … isn’t that what anyone would do if he had a story, an angle, which would sell? Wouldn’t anyone sell his memoirs if they’d make a killing? Imagine the T-shirts you'd sell. You'd be famous again. And as someone once said, 'I don't care what you say about me as long as you spell my name right.'

[congress] conscription is back on the discussion board

There’s a current congressional discussion of the reintroduction of conscription. It matters not that the Democrats have decided not to at this point – all that matters is that the issue has been re-introduced into people’s minds for them to mull over for a while. And the men and women of the state who introduce these things – they meet barriers from the populace and drop it, only to reintroduce it later in another form. They must do so because there’s a very patient agenda that is being worked towards.

This blog has recently expended energy on what some would see as spurious activity – pinning the root cause of the current troubles to the 4th player, which those who know know and those who don’t reject. The High Finance, in other words. And the Finance is linked to the global strategy of the UN and is funding all the strife, as it always has, as well as fomenting more. It’s good business.

It is not a club, any more than the blogosphere is a club. After all, business is business and knows no true friends. It’s just that once you rise to a certain position, you slip quite easily into a new, more comfortable lifestyle, a certain ‘clubbable’ atmosphere and a growing feeling of exclusivity. You have a financial buffer now and people begin to defer to you. You sit in first class lounges. All very flattering. And like minded people surround you.

Certain people from above deign to address you and even suggest you can be included and you’re even more flattered. I’ve seen that in the last few days where certain bloggers, full of invective against the establishment, allow themselves to be drawn into that establishment when it smiles upon them.

That’s how it starts. Oh yes, and it’s very difficult to extract yourself and when you do, there’s a certain tolerance from them at first, then annoyance, then they just abandon you. It’s like your father rejecting you. Rather than that, some get deeper and deeper into this exclusivity thing.

Even in the tone of this post you can sense my own overweening attitude which, of course, is essentially unfounded. Exclusivity and influence are the two tenets of this non-club and they’re enormously seductive. Even now I don’t know how to deal with this thing.

There are things which go with it in the macro sphere which don’t immediately meet the eye: militarized atmosphere in society, colour coding, redrawing of artificial geographical boundaries, hierarchical structures and managerialism, restriction of movement and database tracking of people, destruction of trees for goodness sake [don’t know why – it’s the Joni Mitchell syndrome], the locking in of all people from a young age into a debt economy – the bank as mother pig and we the little piglets, globalized agenda and so on.

Bloggers will blog, millions of words will be uttered, congress will gradually be won over, as will parliament and gradually it will be forced through, along with ID cards and summary detention. I would say it’s relatively easy to track the agenda of the last 16 years. There’s plenty on record. And it’s equally easy to track the next 16.

[wren chapel] now they've put it under lock and key

The 2nd most nauseating thing to me was the smug banality of the administrator's explanation that they were trying to make the Wren Chapel "less of a faith-specific space, and to make it more welcoming to students, faculty, staff and visitors of all faiths. " What drivel, what a gross insult to the intellect of the university community.

The most nauseating is that the video reveals they didn't just put the cross in a cupboard - they locked it away. Locked it. Now I can only think of two explanations for this 1] in it's old position it was guarded and in it's new, it's at more risk of thievery 2] there is real mania at work here.

Also interesting is the way the secular blogosphere has got into this. Michelle Malkin, bless her little cotton socks, got into it and today the Tin Drummer said:

I have come across this unwillingness to allow symbols of non-atheism in public spaces many times recently, but I just can't work it out. Why do atheists need to protected from symbols of faith, even in chapels? Are they really so chippy and insecure that this is necessary? My experience of atheists suggests that most don't give a damn.

One major blogger today said he felt it was a storm in a teacup. Hardly that - the locking away would seem to have put paid to that notion. This blog believes there is truly mania at work here and a cynical, banal disrespect fuelling it. Believe me, if it was a Wiccan Chapel in a Wiccan College and the Wiccan Star had been removed and locked away, I'd be equally up in arms about it. Perhaps the final word should come from Mr. Eugenides, in his comment at Gates of Vienna:

It's a disgrace.

[the hobbit] greed blights middle-earth

Sad, sad and sad. Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh are in a legal battle with New Line over the profits from Lord of the Rings. As the Chicago Tribune says:

So naturally New Line is looking for someone else to direct [the new Hobbit film]. At least that’s what Jackson and producing/writing partner Fran Walsh say in a long letter posted Sunday night on TheOneRing.net, a Tolkien fan site. They contend that New Line insisted on linking a "Hobbit" deal-which might involve two movies-with the settlement of a lawsuit by the filmmakers’ production company over "LOTR" profits. Jackson and Walsh write that their position has remained that they wouldn’t enter business with New Line again until the suit was resolved-and they didn’t want a "Hobbit" agreement to be tied to working out legal issues.

And there it is. Due to greed over profits, the public will miss out on what was a winning combination.

[new blogroll] actually raises some issues

All right - that's done but the way I've done it might raise some questions.

The issue with those on the 2nd list is e-mailing and comments. Either they provide no e-mail, which cuts out one of the fun aspects of blogging or they provide no comments, which cuts out one of the fun aspects of blogging. Or else it takes two years to load on a dial up.

Everyone to his own, of course but I like to access the people I read and feedback instantly, which I can't if I have to log in to my e-mail each time. Also, sometimes it's appropriate as a comment but sometimes one wishes to say something more personally [not in front of everyone, as it were].

Tomorrow's Blogfocus has 14, not 17, as three I had earmarked are currently inactive - which is another issue. and yet you'll see some new faces in those 14 so it might be worth your while.