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

Popular posts from this blog

Dolls and Dolls

Dolls 1: There she is, smiling, sweet, happy, clutching her live cabbage patch doll to her graduation cap and gown. Bristol Palin has become the poster victim (or child, depending on your outlook) for a variety of strange-bedfellow policies and has been exploited by just about everyone who claims to love her. Her situation is an oxymoronic contradiction: the abstinence-only mentality colliding with “it doesn’t work;” teenagers needing real, solid and correct information on contraception colliding with “well, maybe we did it unprotected sometimes;” so-called “family values” colliding with a father from the wrong side of the tracks; the need for children to have both fathers and mothers in their lives colliding with the reality of a politician’s power to “negotiate” the rights of a father; and the sad reality of a teenager colliding with the perfect picture-bite on the cover of People magazine. So what is the message our teens are getting from this bizarre, contradictory media circus? Un...

Healing - midweek 2

Yeah, I know - pretty ridiculous posting this with my profile picture as it is - I just haven't had a chance to change the picture. One week and 4 days into "healing," and Stan and I saw the orthopedist this afternoon. Stan first: he is healing nicely (which, I have learned, is relative term - as in, "relative to not going off the bike..." or "relative to not having our insides ripped out ..." or relative to not getting on a motorcycle in the first place ...") and progressing exactly as the doctor wants. His knee, which had previously resembled something you'd see in one of the "Nightmare on Elm Street" or similar slice-and-dice movies, is actually looking much better. Prognosis is good - and he has about 4-6 weeks of absolutely NO weight-bearing on his left leg. The doctor says he can go back to work as long as he's comfortable and doesn't put any weight on the left leg. Stan's aiming for a shortened day on Monday so he ...

How Dare You Tell Me What To Do?????

No sooner had the weather turned decent than the local newspaper declared "Return of motorcycle season in Connecticut kickstarts old helmet law debate." And just as predictably, the online comments kickstarted the usual "evil nanny Government" responses. Here's how I responded: "You don't want to wear a helmet, jacket, whatever? Fine. But hear this: when you hit the road, your skin will be destroyed along with your limbs. Sound too dramatic? My husband and I were involved in an accident last week when a car turned left in front of us. My husband, the driver, "laid the bike down" and we - and the bike on top of us on its side - went skidding down the rode. My ankle is broken, his leg was badly broken (requiring surgery). The good news? Had we not been wearing helmets, reinforced jackets, heavy-weight pants and boots, there was no doubt in anyone's mind that we would have suffered much, much worse - trauma to our brains and internal organs, ...