Skip to main content

Michael Jackson, meet Richard Nixon

We now know that in 1973, the "private" Richard Nixon spewed racist and anti-Semitic garbage. I say "private" because we hear the pronouncements he made in the Oval Office thanks to the non-stop recording device in his office. Abortion is a good thing for interracial pregnancies (I assume he meant black men impregnating white women) and - oh, yeah - for rape. Nice. Should there be an increase in anti-Semitism, it would all be the Jews' own fault because they were complaining about the increase in evangelical missionary work in the US. Nice.

Apologists are minimizing his spouting filth - at least about Jews - by remarking his loyalty to the State of Israel, as though being an anti-Semite and being a supporter of Israel are mutually exclusive. I disagree. I believe that "Rev." John Hagee is an anti-Semite because he truly believes that we Jews only exist to provide for his desperately anticipated Armageddon - and I believe that he loves Israel for the same reason. I'm sure others can give the poli-sci viewpoint on Nixon's love affair with Eretz Yisraeil; all I can say is that it doesn't matter.

And now Michael Jackson. In a video for "They Don't Care About Us," Jacko - in his wisdom and depth of intellectual prowess - includes "Jew me, sue me" and "Kick me, Kike Me" (you can read the ADL's reaction here). Was Jackson an anti-Semite? Based on eight words, it's hard to tell. I don't believe there's anything else in his repertoire of lyrics that would suggest such a thing ... but I'm pretty sure that had a Jewish performer included racially inflammatory/bigoted crap in one of his/her songs/videos, the world would have been up in arms (so to speak).

But here's what I guaranted is going to happen. Apologists for Nixon will point to Jackson and do their best to make them equivalent in their bigotry. And that just won't fly. Michael Jackson was a pathetic creature, who - by the 1990's - had long seen his peak in creativity and success. Talented, yes. Brilliant dancer, yes. Brilliant in anything else? Please. Nixon, on the other hand, was a sitting president in 1973. Talented, yes. Brilliant, possibly. THE representative of the United States? Absolutely - and therein lies the difference. Any attempt to equate the two is absurd (but again - I guarantee it's going to happen).

Jackson should've stuck to doing the moon walk. Nixon should just have stuck to keeping his mouth shut. The only thing they had in common was a pathetic need to be in control and in the center of the universe

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Not My Job? Yom Kippur Mincha Devar Torah 2009

The words and concepts that we will read this afternoon are engrained in each Jew so deeply that they are the essence of Jewish DNA as it were. Known as the “Holiness Code,” the text is a to-do list of making ourselves holy, meaning to be special, unique, separate. Taken at face value, it would seem obvious that these are things we should do: revere your mother and father, keep Shabbat, stay away from idols, don’t steal, don’t lie, and don’t be deceitful … to be vulgar, this is a “no-brainer.” But clearly there is more to be gleaned, more to be learned; and we find our lesson in the first two verses of our parashah. Moses is speaking to the “whole Israelite community. We are all here – figuratively if not literally (as I look out into the congregation this afternoon) – and we are all included. These words, these chores, these admonishments are not meant for some of us. We are ALL involved: whether we consider our Jewish practice to be observant, secular, ethnic, cultural; whether we pr...
Post a Comment
Read more

Just wondering ...

I'm just wondering how some things - like language trends - work. 1. When did "pro-choice" become *not* pro-life and indeed, "pro-death?" Could it be said that Bristol Palin is pro-choice (meaning pro-death in some circles), having said, “It doesn’t matter what my mom’s views are on it. It was my decision.” 2. When did "pro-Israel" come to exclude people who have a different POV on the situation? 3. When did the charge of "treason" come to mean something to pin on people opposed to one president's policies, but not another's? 4. When did "wait and see" become wink-wink-nudge-nudge for "appeasement?" 5. When did "kol Yisraeil aravim zeh la-zeh" - all Israel is responsible for one another - become code word for racism? 6. When did being intelligent and having the ability to think something through become code word for elite, which has become code for evil? Just wondering. Thoughts are welcome.
Post a Comment
Read more

Living in a Bad Neighborhood

There are many news media, internet blog and Jewish leadership POV's on Israels "Operation Cast Lead" Gaza campaign. Although you periodically hear some voices from the lunatic fringes that appear to rejoice in or black-and-white condemn Israel's actions, most Jewish leadership take the position that, sadly enough, sometimes war is necessary to protect a nation's citizens. Other than jingoists and Marx Brothers comedies, no one initiates war gleefully. At some point a country must say enough is enough and must respond, especially when its people are being bombed each day. Some voices declare a moral relativism between Hamas' bombing incursions into Israel and Israel's response. Some have insisted that Israel should be delivering a "proportional response." Some imply that if only Israel were to do this or that, then Hamas, Hezbollah and her other avowed enemies would go away quietly. I disagree with all these positions. There is NO moral relativis...
1 comment
Read more