Groupon founder Andrew Mason takes responsibility for America's lack of a sense of humor and Christopher Guest can go search for a better place to ply his comic genius.
The Chicago Tribune, Groupon's hometown paper, quoted a New Yorker who said he felt like he'd been "punched in the face" when he saw the Tibet ad.
Ah! The power of comedy! How horrible to actually feel punched by a punchline.
AND: Here's the Tibet ad. Watch it before it disappears:
AND: I know I'm being played. Mason's statement is a well-done strategy to make the video viral in a new way. Notice that he doesn't really apologize. There's a sop to the people who were offended, but a cue to people who want to think we have a sense of humor to give it a cult following. We're the special people who get it and who respect Christopher Guest and laugh at the oversensitive twits, etc. etc. I know!
ALSO: At the Althouse Super Bowl party, we got the joke in real time.
"It’s unfortunate Mr. Morgan showed a lack of judgment on our air with his inappropriate comments. We apologize for any embarrassment or offense it may have caused," says TNT, apologizing in nonapology form — Sorry if you were offended — for what Tracy Morgan said on "Inside the NBA."
During yesterday’s live broadcast, co-hosts Kenny Smith and Charles Barkley handed 30 Rock‘s Morgan a microphone and asked him to settle a bet: Tina Fey or Sarah Palin? “Me and him have this argument all the time, ” crowed Smith, referring to Barkley. “[Morgan's] the only one who can settle it. Tina Fey or Sarah Palin?”
I'm going to defend Morgan. He did exactly what a great comedian should do. He called bullshit on Kenny Smith and Charles Barkley. They were doing their little show and keeping it light with fully deniable sexual innuendo. The question "Tina Fey or Sarah Palin?" implied sex. What Tracy Morgan did was not to bring sex up out of nowhere. It was seeing the sex that was already being talked about — in TV-friendly maybe-we're-not-really-talking-about-it style — and to surprise with a sudden jab of straight talk as if Kenny and Charles were already openly talking about masturbation. He called bullshit on their innuendo. Now, TNT prissily withdraws. Ha. I'm offended by their prissy withdrawal. They want the benefit of Smith and Barkley's roundabout references but they don't like the comedian undercutting the deniability.
It was all the rage just about exactly 6 years ago. Americans were apologizing to the world for reelecting George Bush. Remember these people, displaying their sweet faces in an adorable attempt to let the world know that lots of us Americans are so sorry.
That's my contribution to the new montage over at Bloggingheads. I'm just after the 4 minute mark if you're impatient. Here's the original context, where my remark appears just after the 1:40 mark.
Apologize? You can't just apologize unless Williams could just apologize. NPR CEO Vivian Schiller must resign.
Schiller spills 'er guts:
And don't you just love the notion that ordinary human feelings are mental disorders that should be kept hidden? In NPR's delightful vision of the future, no one will dare to speak about how they feel and every inappropriate twinge that breaks through your self-protective numbness will be medicalized and treated. Imagine a country that adopts a psychiatric treatment model for political dissent. It's easy if you try.
“I meant no disrespect to the LGBT community, and I apologize to any who have taken offense at my poor choice of words,” Jarrett said. “Sexual orientation and gender identity are not a choice, and anyone who knows me and my work over the years knows that I am a firm believer and supporter in the rights of LGBT Americans.”
I remember back in the 1980s, in the radical enclaves of the University of Wisconsin Law School and similar places, when it was heresy to say that sexual orientation was inborn. I remember getting snapped at by a very prominent left-wing lawprof for referring without scorn to research that showed some evidence that sexual orientation was innate. It was all about choice back then, and the choice model was deemed to be the framework upon which gay rights would be built.
(If it was inborn, I was told, then it will be perceived as a disease that might be cured, and therefore there can be no talk among decent people about the possibility that it is inborn. But what about science? What about discovering what is true? The official left-wing answer to that question, I learned, is: shut up.)
Un-apology for Non-apology Tips for Teens of All Ages:
1. Take responsibility for having non-apologized. 2. Acknowledge that, no, you really did mean to insult, hurt, damage the other person. 3. Determine the frivolousness of the offense for which you mistakenly non-apologized. 4. Decide the best time to un-apologize for your non-apology. 5. Choose a method of un-apology. 6. Equivocate with sincere insincerity. 7. Remember this un-apology is about you and your charming dysfunctional non-apology, not the other person. 8. Go beyond "I'm sorry if my non-apology failed to fully offend you," to make the un-apology as personal and humiliating as possible.
People have asked me about this woman Sarah Spitz, who's now "apologized," and they want my reaction to it. And this is another thing I'll react to it but I really don't want to. This bores me as well, this whole concept of forcing people to apologize for things they meant to say. Why is she gonna apologize? She meant to say it, she wrote it, stand by it. You want to watch me die, Sarah? Say it! Where are your guts? Well, she's "apologized."...
[It's] the latest trend in apologies, "That's not who I really am." You know, "That's not the person I am." Bull! It is who you are! You are a commie! You are a full-fledged Marxist liberal! You do wish I was dead. It is who you are.
I don't care whether it's Tiger Woods saying, "You know, that's really not who I am." It is. It is who you are! What, did somebody steal your personality for a day and grab hold of your hands and start typing on your keyboard and it wasn't you? "This is not who I am. I want everybody to know, as a publicist I understand and this is not who I am." It is who you are!
... at her law school, on the internet, and in the press. Grace's statement came in email sent to 2 friends, who'd had a private conversation about affirmative action. She felt a need to extend her remarks. And at some point the email got out on the internet, and all hell broke loose:
“Here at Harvard Law School, we are committed to preventing degradation of any individual or group, including race-based insensitivity or hostility,’’ [Martha Minow, dean of Harvard Law School] wrote in a message to Harvard’s law school community.
Minow said she had met with leaders of Harvard’s Black Law Students Association on Wednesday to discuss the hurt caused by Grace’s e-mail....
... Minow called the incident “sad and unfortunate’’ but said she was heartened by the student’s apology. She added: “We seek to encourage freedom of expression, but freedom of speech should be accompanied by responsibility.’’
Grace has apologized. Of course, she's sorry now. "I am heartbroken and devastated by the harm that has ensued. I would give anything to take it back." Note the passive voice: "the harm that ensued." A new way to say I'm sorry you were offended. She also says "I understand why my words expressing even a doubt [that African-Americans are genetically inferior] were and are offensive." She's learned something: This is a subject where you can't play with ideas and speculate. People get very angry, and the speaker had better be ready to deal with it. Did Dean Minow handle this the right way? One question is: Why does the dean even get involved with something one student said in private email? If the answer is because the Black Law Students Association came to her and demanded a response, then maybe the question should be why did the Black Law Students Association go to the dean for help? Why didn't the students all just argue and debate and express themselves to each other? These are Harvard students. Law students. Why not dig in and have it out and show your stuff? Why go to the nearest, biggest authority figure? Stephanie hurt me!
This sad and unfortunate incident prompts both reflection and reassertion of important community principles and ideals. We seek to encourage freedom of expression, but freedom of speech should be accompanied by responsibility. This is a community dedicated to intellectual pursuit and social justice....
Law school is a community with shared ideals. One of the ideals could be: When a student makes a point that contains what you think is an outrageous statement, unless she's been actively insulting to you, you should engage her in debate and not not expose her to a public trashing. And don't bring the dean into the fray as your champion. More from Minow:
As news of the email emerged yesterday, I met with leaders of our Black Law Students Association to discuss how to address the hurt that this has brought to this community. For BLSA, repercussions of the email have been compounded by false reports that BLSA made the email public and pressed the student’s future employer to rescind a job offer.
I was going to say that "the hurt" to Grace and her reputation was much greater than the hurt to those students who only read the email. It's not as if she shouted ugly words in their face. But now I see that the BLSA students had reason to worry that they were the ones who would look bad because they were believed to have overreacted and taken some nasty revenge. Minow may have been activated by the need to clear their reputation.
A troubling event and its reverberations can offer an opportunity to increase awareness, and to foster dialogue and understanding.
Minow tries to be even-handed and control the fallout. She frames it as a teaching moment. But what has everyone learned?
This is part of a discussion of the oral argument in the partial-birth abortion case, Gonzales v. Carhart. (I'm teaching the case this week in conlaw2.) What I'm worrying about when I misspeak there is the way one seems inhumane when framing a profound moral question in legal terms. I meant to say that legal analysis makes you seem, to laypersons, as though you are sacrificing your humanity. I hate to misspeak — especially when it comes, as it so often does, in the form of saying the opposite of what you meant. But misspeaking may reveal something you actually believe, even if you didn't want to say it. Perhaps, deep down, I think the structures imposed by legal analysis really are the best of humanity. And yet, I feel that for general audiences, I need to apologize for being a lawyer.
I'm only noticing this story because a "Human Garbage" listmate asked me what John Mayer was doing there with us. So, let's look at what Mayer said:
Mayer, 32, told [a Playboy] interviewer: "Someone asked me the other day, 'What does it feel like now to have a hood pass?' And by the way, it's sort of a contradiction in terms, because if you really had a hood pass, you could call it a n*gger pass."...
I think he's musing about whether it's fair for him to see himself as having earned credibility in the way that a black person would. That's deferential to black people. He's also using the N-word, which is never a good idea for a white person, but if really had a "hood pass," it might be an argument that he should be able to use the taboo word the way a black person can. By actually using the word, he's implicitly making that argument.
He goes on to say:
"What is being black?" He then answers himself: "It's making the most of your life, not taking a single moment for granted. Taking something that's seen as a struggle and making it work for you, or you'll die inside. Not to say that my struggle is like the collective struggle of black America. But maybe my struggle is similar to one black dude's."
That supports my interpretation of what he was trying to say. My point isn't that he should use the word, only that he didn't have a hateful reason for saying it. Substantively, he is sympathetic to black people and thoughtful. But form can eclipse substance. In short: Don't use the N-word, even to make an enlightened point about race. It's inflammatory, distracting, and likely to be taken the wrong way.
And then there's this:
When asked by the interviewer, "Do black women throw themselves at you?", Mayer responds: "I don't think I open myself to it. My dick is sort of like a white supremacist. I've got a Benetton heart and a fuckin' David Duke cock. I'm going to start dating separately from my dick."
He's being outrageous there, but read, people. He's insulting his own penis! He's saying his penis is a big racist. That is, he's always gone out with white women, because he's been following his cock. Now, he's saying, he'd like to be more open-minded and have his heart take over. Let the cock be the follower now. He's trying to entertain Playboy readers, and that actually is funny.
Why not read and think first before attacking this man? Let your mind go first, not your... whatever you have instead of a dick that gives you a stupid instinct for racial excitement.
Now, Mayer tweets that he was wrong — about the N-word:
"I am sorry that I used the word. And it's a shame that I did because the point I was trying to make was the exact opposite spirit of the word itself. It was arrogant of me to think I could intellectualise using it, because I realise there's no intellectualising a word that is so emotionally charged."
It was arrogant — he's saying — to think other people would be intellectually sharp and interested in ideas. It's a bit of a nonapology. He's pretty close to saying: I'm sorry people are stupid. But obviously he knows what is obvious: The word is what it is because it transcends thought and stimulates emotion. The decision to use it is a decision to go for emotion. You can't really complain that people got distracted by the distraction you created.
Now, if you're really smart and you do it right — or maybe only if you're Lenny Bruce — you might find a way to use the very emotional distraction to leverage your way to a brilliant, enlightened, substantive statement about race. But Lenny Bruce wouldn't have tweeted an apology if he were misunderstood. He'd have said something else smart, not whined about how other people aren't smart enough to get him.
State-Controlled AP: "Obama Backs Down After Anti-Vegas Remarks." By the way, I'm just saying, just a little side note here, but gambling is forbidden in the Koran. Just a little aside. Just saying. President Barack Obama known for having a way with words but some lawmakers from Nevada wish he would pipe down about trips to the city after sparking a firestorm of criticism from Nevada's elected officials for suggesting that people saving money for college shouldn't blow it in Vegas. Obama told US Senate majority leader Dingy Harry in a letter he wasn't saying anything negative about Las Vegas. I was making the simple point that families use vacation dollars, not college tuition money to have fun. And no place better to have fun than Vegas, one of our country's great destinations. Obama says he always enjoys his visits to Vegas. He's going out there this month or later this month. White House spokesman referred to Obama's letter to Reid, said the administration had no further comment. And again the Koran prohibits -- gambling is forbidden in the Koran, I'm just saying.
Now, I listen to the show enough to know this is the sort of thing Rush would — especially if challenged — call a "media tweak" — perhaps even his "Media Tweak of the Day" (though there was some big competition in yesterday's show):
You know, what we do here on this program is, purposely, play the media like violin, like a Stradivarius. And I love tweaking them. I love irritating them, and I love upsetting them and all you do is take words uttered by liberals and apply them to current events. It was Harry Reid who looked at Obama and said he's a "light-skinned" guy that "doesn't speak in a Negro dialect."...
Before I said all of this I made a prediction, because this was my Media Tweak of the Day -- and it's getting too easy. I mean, you're illustrating how easy it is to outrage these people. I enjoy it. This is a great success. When people start squealing like pigs is when I know I've hit a home run. This is what I said yesterday...
The people that listen to this program laugh and chuckle every day at this stuff, because we're just needling the media. They talk about me all the time and I can create it any time I want. It's made you mad, and you believe things they take out of context that don't completely say what I fully said, and you get mad.
That gambling/Koran remark — used twice — was clearly designed to stoke the notion that Obama is a Muslim. And obviously, Rush never said that, so there's really nothing to deny. He can say he's "just" throwing something out there to bait his haters in the media, who will rip his remarks from context. But he really is responsible for stirring things up. He knows — and must intend — that his remarks will fuel the Obama-is-a-Muslim theory.
And his repeated use of the inane non-qualifier "just sayin'" makes me... makes me want to show you that time Jon Stewart did that "Just Sayin'" routine, which — like Rush — took a shot at mainstream media:
By the way, the competition for yesterday's "Media Tweak of the Day" was the Rahm Emanuel monologue, a tweak that peaked with:
Normally if you call somebody a retard, you apologize to them for calling them a retard. But he has apologized to the retarded people for daring to lump them with Democrats. It's hilarious. So in an effort, ladies and gentlemen, to quell rising questions about the endless apologies necessary from Democrats, Obama is taking a short bus, little yellow bus full of "retards" -- "F-ing retards" -- to Las Vegas for the weekend. Senator Harry Reid expressed appreciation for the gesture and hoped that none of the "F-ing retards" spoke with a Negro dialect. Arne Duncan, the secretary of education, will also be with the delegation in Las Vegas, bringing some undereducated children from Katrina-ravaged New Orleans. The goal is to teach them not to gamble with their college fund. I mean that's what we have learned from what is happening with this administration. If this were Republicans making these statements, there wouldn't be any forgiveness. There would be calls for resignation. There would be calls for public humiliation. There would be calls for fines.
He later took a call from a woman who complained about the use of the term "retarded," and his explanation went like this:
But the point I was making was that Emanuel compares Democrats to retarded people and then apologized to the retarded people, which, in turn is not a complimentary thing to say about the Democrats, either. It's sort of like if I would compare Obama to a rat and somebody said, "Don't do that, you're insulting rats." This is the same thing. Rahm Emanuel is comparing Democrats to retarded people. People say, "Don't insult retarded people that way." That's my take on it....
Now, if you read the whole thing — and especially if you listen to the whole thing — you can tell that Rush is taking devilish delight in saying "retard" and "retarded" over and over again. He was a bit undone by the female caller, who — like Sarah Palin — has "a son with developmental disabilities." He tried to cover it up with bluster, but I think I could tell that he knew he'd gone too far, had too much fun in a way that really did hurt people like her.
I asked Palin spokesperson Meghan Stapleton for comment on Rush’s rant, and she emailed me this:
“Governor Palin believes crude and demeaning name calling at the expense of others is disrespectful.”
That's too generic to answer the question, and I don't accept the title of the blog post I'm linking to: "Palin Camp Rips Limbaugh, Hits His 'Retard' Comment As 'Crude And Demeaning.'"
Meanwhile, Limbaugh crowed about the media taking his bait... and claims Sarah Palin as a fan:
[O]ne of the years I'm out at the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic a guy comes up to me and says, "My daughter is a huge fan, would you sign a book for me?" and it was a copy of my book and it was to Sarah Palin, long before she was governor of Alaska. I've had a couple chats with her... So they're trying to goad her into denouncing me like they did Emanuel, but she knows that all I'm doing is quoting Emanuel and highlighting that it's these people who say this kind of stuff.
Ablanedo had pulled over Powell's girlfriend, Sheila Meinert, near downtown Austin for not having a rear license tag. Powell, who was wanted at the time for misdemeanor theft and for passing more than 100 bad checks in Austin, was riding in the car.
Evidence showed Ablanedo was walking toward the vehicle when he was shot through the back window with the AK-47 in semiautomatic mode. The fallen officer tried to get up and Powell opened fire again, switching the weapon to full automatic mode.
Powell and Meinert were arrested at a nearby apartment complex parking lot following a shootout with other officers. Meinert later testified that Powell gave her a grenade and told her to remove tape from it. She said she became hysterical and shoved it back to him. Officers testified that Powell threw it and started running away. The grenade was found about 10 feet from a police car but failed to explode because a safety clip hadn't been removed.
How can it take so long to carry out the death penalty? Powell has been tried — and sentenced to death — 3 times. He recently failed in an attempt to get a 4th trial. (You can read the case here: PDF.)
There's this story acting like it's a big deal, and I've been avoiding it. Why? Because after watching the video twice, I can't tell what really happened. Witness accounts vary. Apparently, there was a bustle in a tight space, with the reporter — John McCormack — trying to get at the candidate — Marsha Coakley — and the Democratic staffer — Michael Meehan — doing something — maybe just trying to protect her and create space around her, maybe deliberately shoving McCormack, or maybe something in between. So, I guess I'm not avoiding it anymore. I just want to say I think it's a distraction. (And I hate the tendency to call things a distraction!) I don't think it has any value in helping Massachusetts voters decide whether to vote for Coakley.
ADDED: I'm getting comments and email about Meehan's "apology." Shouldn't that change my view? Absolutely not! I can read:
Last evening I was a little too aggressive in trying to help the Attorney General get to her car and catch a flight.
I clearly did not intend to cause John McCormack to trip and fall over that low fence. As the video shows and he confirms in his blog, I stopped to help him up and make sure he was OK.
I talked with Mr. McCormack this afternoon and apologized for my part.
He does not admit to shoving McCormack here. He apologized the way we all apologize when we bump into somebody. Saying you're sorry they got shoved is no admission that you hurt them on purpose. There's nothing in Meehan's statement that is inconsistent with the original post.
MORE: An emailer writes:
But the word was not "careless", it was not "clumsy", it was "aggressive".
Even the rest of the disclaimer supports my interpretation. He does not deny shoving, or intending to shove. He only denies intending to cause a fall:
"I clearly did not intend to cause John McCormack to trip and fall over that low fence."
So, we have video which you find inconclusive but which seems at least to indicate contact. We have the reporter saying the contact was a shove. We have the Coakley campaign first saying the fall was a stunt -- not that it was an accident. And then we have have the man accused of shoving saying he was "too aggressive" and carefully not denying it was a shove.
ADDED: This video does, in fact, make Meehan (and Coakley) look very bad.
