You have defeated your on argument. In civil cases the only authority that can reward damages or assess punitive action is the courts. The courts are a part of the government last time I checked my high school civics textbook. Remember the three branches of government from high school civics? Legislative, Executive and Judicial.
It seems that circuitous logical path that one takes to argue that the courts are not bound by the Bill of Rights in civil cases is similar to those who argue that it is illegal for the government to levy taxes on income when there is a constitutional amendment that empowers it to do so. I know...
I am removing my dog from this fight too. Call your next case.
Are you serious?
Better go back to that high school civics class and pay attention this time.
"Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me..."
And, I do not believe that they really were "hurt". Good gawd! "I was called a nigger! I'm hurt!" No, you are not hurt unless you are physically damaged, or denied rights or access to things other Americans are allowed to take part in.
These people simply smell MONEY, and have a lawyer who has "taken up their cause" for her own filthy lucre. To sue for something as petty as this only indicates the lack of character that these "victims" have.
I was offered $250,000.00 after lawyers fees and taxes after having had a toxic reaction to diesel fuel on the last ship I ever worked on. I had broken out into a bad rash while I was cleaning some bearings in a pan of diesel, and my whole face, neck and chest turned bright red and blotchy from the diesel fumes as well as from the fact that I had my hands in it. A ship mate came along and noticed my color, and drew it to my attention. I went up topside for some air, and spent the rest of the day in the open air working on a lifeboat out in the sunshine. And when I was done with that voyage, back home when cleaning the diesel fuel strainer for my home's boiler, I broke out again. I mentioned this on the phone to a shipmate, who in turn called a maritime lawyer, who in turn, told me flat out that this was an "open and shut case" of company negligence which resulted in my toxic reaction, and that "I can get you a quarter of a million dollars after taxes and lawyers fees". And I knew that this guy could do it, because, he had procured $2.5 million for a shipmate who had had both his legs broken when a mooring line parted, and like a giant rubber band, snapped his legs in two.
I asked the lawyer what I had to do to get the money, and he told me that it was simple. All I needed to do was prove it by saying that my supervisors did not make protective gear available, nor teach me of the toxic capabilities of diesel fuel. Well, what this amounted to was telling him that my buddy Greg (the Ist Engineer), and my other buddy Pete (the Chief Engineer), had failed me, and that it was their fault that I had a reaction to the diesel fuel. But, I told him, that this wasn't true, that we were all aware of the hazards in the industry, and that gloves were available, and that I didn't want to accuse my shipmates. And he asked, well, do you want a $1/4 of a million or not? And naturally, I hesitated, but then I said; "Nope. And this conversation is over." And I hung up. Oh yeah, that money would have been real nice. That's a lotta money! But, I would have had to prostitute myself to get it. And so, I didn't want it at that price. Money isn't everything ya know...
Meebe the Times They Are A'Changin. Although there was *outrage expressed* back in 1993, I don't recall anyone threatening to sue.
<_<
Blacks fail to see humor in Ted Danson's blackface tribute to Whoopi Goldberg - Cover Story
Jet, Nov 1, 1993
Instead of cooling off, the controversy surrounding Ted Danson's blackface tribute to Whoopi Goldberg during the recent Friars Club roast has intensified as many Black individuals and organizations come foward to announce that they fail to see the humor in the racially-charged skit.
They have sent scathing letters to the Friars Club in New York blasting Danson's appearance in blackface and huge white lips. The actor's routine used the word "nigger" a number of times and made references to the sexual lives of Ms. Goldberg and him.
Radio talk shows have had their switchboards working overtime accommodating the comments about the routine. The L.A. Times ran an editorial criticizing the performance, pointing out that "race is no laughing, matter. "The |N' word, no matter the context or who speaks it, is not something to joke about."
A video store owner in South L.A. used a hammer to destroy all tapes featuring Ted Danson and Whoopi Goldberg individually and in the movie they made together, Made In America. He said he will not stock any more until a public apology is offered.
I not only paid attention in high school civics but one of my degrees is in political science.
In that case, please explain to me how a court hearing a civil case with action brought by the plaintiff constitutes government action? What is the purpose of a court? Do courts ever initiate action on their own?
One could argue that freedom of speech exists outside the First Ammendment, if only as a concept, if not a legal or constitutional issue. True, only a governmental supression of speech is a First Ammendment issue, but it seems to me that freedom of speech and expression is assumed unless the courts rule that an exception is warranted.
True also is that there is no absolute freedom of speech. Really, its the marketplace that regulates "free speech" such as Richards'. He can say whatever he wants, but shouldn't be too surprised if he's not invited back and if he doesn't get much work in the future.
Shoot Cool Chef, I'm proud to know you, cuz you know what I'm talkin 'bout! We are on the same page bruh!
But ya know, I really was sorely tempted. I mean, I coulda used that money to pay off my mortgage, and developed my property, and developed a tourist business (Bed and Breakfast) that woulda given us an excellent "retirement business" in such a beautiful place as Haines, Alaska. But, it ain't right to be wrong, and, God will supply, and, "He owns the cattle on a thousand hills". So, I ain't worried...
And hey CC, you guys must have winter comin on, yes? We had 35 inches of snow last week, and then it turned clear and cold and it's been in the single digits above and below zero for a week now. Beautiful and the night skies with the Northern Lights have been spectacular! And you Mainers?
And ya know, I heard a month ago that Colorado Springs had some 21 inches of snow, and it was all over CNN and the mainstream media stations. But when we got the Big Snow? Not a peep was heard down South I'll bet ya. Is that the way they treat Maine also? I'll betcha that when there is tough weather in Maine, it doesn't make anything but the local news. Am I right?
And don't get me wrong. If I was a black dude in that crowd, I would have been sorely tempeted to kick that guy's a$$. No doubt about it. What Richards did was inexcusable. But, to sue? No way. That's only about money. The guy's career is most likely ruined, and he has been exposed as a racist bigot, and that is that on that. Those guys who were insulted should just be sitting back smiling knowing that "they have the last laugh...."
These people simply smell MONEY, and have a lawyer who has "taken up their cause" for her own filthy lucre. To sue for something as petty as this only indicates the lack of character that these "victims" have.
Ah, you don't know that Jonny. You're assuming that's what they want to do. They've got a high-profile lawyer who's going to get a sack of money for them and that's what they're in it for, right?
If those two kids were my boys or if my children had been treated in a comparable manner, I'd be coming down on Richards like an iceberg on the Titanic. He thinks he's funny? I'd love to explore the limits of that with him and come out the better for it hopefully. We'd find out, for sure. He can keep his money - we'd want to go deeper than that.
Racial hatred like Richards exhibited - whether part of an 'act', or a just a nutty temper gone out of control - is nasty stuff. And to me - the fact that others do similar things whether white, black or blue and 'get away with it', doesn't make it right. Feeding it contributes to it, keeps it alive. Humor is one way of bringing out things that are often too difficult to nail down openly. If it leads to discourse, debate, learning, improvement, it can be a good thing. Somewhere there's a balance and it's going to swing up and down.
You can always tell though when something's funny - people laugh.
And don't get me wrong. If I was a black dude in that crowd, I would have been sorely tempeted to kick that guy's a$$. No doubt about it. What Richards did was inexcusable. Like the woman in the audience sadi; "Oh my God......" But, to sue? No way. That's only about money. The guy's career is most likely ruined, and he has been exposed as a racist bigot, and that is that on that. Those guys who were insulted should just be sitting back smiling knowing that "they have the last laugh...."
Hey, what the guy did was inexcusable, and as OLM Tom Strange said, for this guy to have said what he said, "it was something from within him" (paraphrase). It is what this guy is and it is wrong. He can apologize all he wants, but from the depths of his heart, he "spoketh". He is a bigot racist. I actually heard Rush Limbaugh try to defend the guy. What a laugh. But to me there is no defense. He is a swine. But to sue for it is taking a step above the victim's dignity.
I think that their justified righteous indignation would have a lot more impact had they not jumped on the gravy train, that's all. Hell, they should laud this injustice to the skies, but just not ask for money. Had they made a big scene over it, but not asked for money, then I would see their indignation as a far bigger deal than "just money". But now, they have asked for cash, and I think that it has tainted their cause for racial equality in the eyes of those who are against racial equality.
Personally, I think we are all wonderful, and were made just the way God wanted us to be made... :)
I understand ya, Jonny. My take on you're phrasing that they were suing for "something as petty as this" doesn't stack up with how I view it, that's all. Petty maybe, compared to a comet hitting the earth tomorrow, or a 9.5 earthquake hitting the West Coast. Nuclear war. Compared to those things it's of lesser impact.
I suspect that any action these guys took against him would be subject to the same critique- unjustified to some degree over such a 'petty thing'. And I'd suspect if he'd taken a testorene shot and been a man about it instead of going on TV and whining how sorry he was to the world, there might not even be a suit. Come on - the guy called Jesse Jackson. What did he think that was going to do? Protect him? Absolve himself somehow? He had a good run on Seinfeld. He's not that funny outside of that, that I've seen. Doesn't mean he doesn't have talent, but the whole Seinfeld schtick was just a cultural riff wrapped around a demographic - baby boomers and their parents. It was an amplified version of "boy, ever wonder where that other sock goes in the drier? Man, that really BUGS me". Mad Magazine did it in the 50's and 60's. Steve Martin did the zen-state-of-nothing Chaos humor in the 70's. Blah blah blah. Zzzzzz.....
He's a dork. But - I digress from the original topic -
Anyway, now those guys can say - "tomorrow I'll wake up and I'll be black but dude...you'll still be Michael Richards".
This now reminds me of a parallel situation: Tim McCarver once embarrassed himself. It was spring training and a bunch of black kids tried to steal baseballs from the outfield of the facility and without thinking, McCarver yelled, "Hey, you bunch of N's stop that!" Next thing he saw was the stares of Bob Gibson, Lou Brock, and Curt Flood. Oops.
He must've learned his lesson though. Right about now he must be extremely thankful that he has been allowed to make the living he does.
...without thinking, McCarver yelled, "Hey, you bunch of N's
Without thinking. Ah, there's the rub. If that "N" word is in one's mental vocabulary, if not his publically spoken vocabulary, then I could see how it would slip out.
I think maybe that's the point Richards was trying to make when he said it alarmed him that that was even in him. (I forget his exact words, but that was the gist I got out of it).
I think what we witnessed in Richards's rant was some kind of mini-breakdown. I was embarrassed and ashamed for him. I don't think he was trying to be funny. I think he was in a maniacal rage. Scary to watch, especially from the close range of those who were actually there. Perhaps also scary to snap out of the rage and realize what the hell you've done. I don't mean in terms of consequences...I mean in terms of realizing you had anything like that kind of rage within.
Worth a lawsuit? I don't know. I can't judge the motives of those two guys.
I don't think he was trying to be funny. I think he was in a maniacal rage.
I don't think he he was trying to be funny at that point either. I think he was retaliating and the thinking that was in his heart came right out of his mouth. I don't think it was "shock humor" or whatever they call it. And, it was reprehensible. I am not sure that I can clarify myself any better. But, I still don't think that suing the perpetrator helps the cause of exposing and maybe curtailing racism.
I think that the victims, in their righteous indignation would have been way more effective if they had simply, held their heads high, and "walked on", placing themselves way above such an act of low life bigotry. Once again, I think that their effort at monetary compensation taints their character and their effort to expose.
And also, I am not really concerned about whether or not Mr. Richards absolves himself or not. But most likely, it's probably true that this incident has shaken him up and hopefully will cause him to think about what he harbors in his heart.
And, no doubt, Richards will be able to live off of "Seinfeld" very comfortably for the rest of his life. That is, if he is smart, which, he very well might not be...
I guess we agree to diagree, Jonny. Petty, inexcusable. I'm not sure where they match, but whatever.
The story does take on myth-like perspective even after this short a time -
"He used the "n" word so now he's getting sued".
- No, he used the "n" word, told them they'd be lynched if this was 50 years ago, and carried on in anger with no break of character to indicate he was anything but dead-on serious and angry at the disruption to his "act". In my world, that qualifies as threatening, whether you're an "entertainer", whoever you are. Cross the line, it's crossed. I think those guys have a right to angry and to want resolution and are purusing the only way they'll probably ever get face-to-face with him and settle it, whatever that settlement is.
"He didn't do any damage, it was just words, those guys are okay".
- They're "black", Afro-American, whatever you want to call it, they were identified as an enemy, quite literally. He couched his comments with a reference to "words" we still can't use, but seemed to be using the words to reflect an honestly felt belief. It's easy to say they weren't damaged by mere words. If I acted towards the President the same way I'd be in jail right now being examined by psychiatrists. Laws.
It strikes me as a flash-point for other debate. It really isn't solely about the "n" word at all. It's about that incident between those people and what happened there. To say he called them a "bad" name and that's what it's all about isn't factually true IMO.
Buuuuuut, so it goes. It does make one think. I hope he gets it all worked out and is better for it.
Johniam, the incident you mentioned, if it did happen, happened in the 60's, when said personality was just another ball player on the team, not anybody with a microphone or an audience. I hardly see the parallel.
i haven't read "all" of this nor have i seen the video except for a really fast clip on entertainment tonight or something when changing the channel
but i have to thank socks for his input, i really really appreciate it. i haven't read everything you said either, except if it was your child.....
you know, the kids around here are VERY prejudiced against most blacks and indians (from india) and almost everyone. it really really stinks
i'm not saying i don't contribute in some unconscious way. i wouldn't swear that i don't. but i cannot stand people who blatantly teach and tell their kids this kind of stuff even if by way of a joke
again, i'm not lilly white at all well actually i am
but this life sucks and is very tough (no saint here whatsoever)
--
one more thing i watch "entertainment tonight" and other tabloids crapolas. i only happened to be changing the channel this one time
Damn, Socks. This is bad. I don't like to not agree with you! Cuz I love you man. I agree with everything you say on this, except I guess the law suit thing. I worked for years as a merchant seaman, for various American flagged shipping companies, and the sole reason for many American shipping companies re-flagging their ships under the flag of foreign nations is because of law suits by U.S. crew members. And this of course results in a loss of jobs for American Merchant Marines. The US has the smallest merchant fleet on the planet, with Liberia being the biggest. And the "Liberian Merchant Marine" is not really their countries merchant fleet, but rather a collection of American and other western nations' merchant ships flagged under Liberian registry. And I have seen people smell the money and go for it, even though their "damages" were not as they claimed. Law suits have their place, but I don't see it here.
I think that if they just let it run off of their backs like water off a ducks back, forgive Richards for his raging racist tirade and then drop it, the impact of their statement would be even greater than a law suit, for the news media would run that story to the max also. Kind of like the way those incredible Amish people did what I think would be the near impossible: Forgiving the murderer of those beautiful and brave little girls, and then reaching out to this twisted man's family with love and forgiveness. That statement was huge and it rocked our nation. I'm sorry man, but the lawsuit thing has, IMO, put a major hurt on our society, and our economy as well. And so for me, and I will repeat that the behavior of Richards was reprehensible, I think it was a mistake for the victims of the epithets to go for the money. But I guess as the say in Fronce; C'est la vie!
Kind of like the way those incredible Amish people did what I think would be the near impossible:
I'm not Amish either. And that is why I called it the "near impossible". I don't think I could do what they did either, were it my child or friend's child. But, I do believe that what happened to the fellas at the comedy club is a far cry from what happened to those Amish folks. And once again, the statement made by the Amish really did rock the Nation, with their unparalleled(sp?) forgiveness. Unparalleled amongst humans that is...
Geeze, jonny, so it ain't your thing. You don't have a dog in this fight, so why keep on? Why do your values have to be everybody elses?
If I was in the recipient of this kind of treatment, I guarandangtee ya, I wouldn't let go of it. Respect who these people are, and what they stand for. Please?
Aw, don't sweat it Jonny. And Excie, you're wunnderful, and I appreciate the words. Fondly, your pal. :)
I hesitate to keep going on with it because Sudo's original post dealt with a specific comment and question.
(deleted out all the incredibly insightful comments I'd made because ex10's right - it's their thing it'll work itself out and I'm way too gabby for anyone's good)
That's all. You wouldn't do that, maybe others wouldn't. Maybe I wouldn't. That they are isn't a bad thing. IMO. He was about as insulting and demeaning to them as a person can get. I think they have a right to try and make it happen. :) Maybe it will be meaningful to him. IMO, his Kramer character was the most valid thing on "Seinfeld" anyway, so I'll give him that, but that's a whole nother topic.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
8
16
9
Popular Days
Nov 25
32
Nov 24
19
Nov 28
15
Nov 23
12
Top Posters In This Topic
GT 9 posts
socks 8 posts
J0nny Ling0 16 posts
doojable 9 posts
Popular Days
Nov 25 2006
32 posts
Nov 24 2006
19 posts
Nov 28 2006
15 posts
Nov 23 2006
12 posts
GT
Are you serious?
Better go back to that high school civics class and pay attention this time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
"Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me..."
And, I do not believe that they really were "hurt". Good gawd! "I was called a nigger! I'm hurt!" No, you are not hurt unless you are physically damaged, or denied rights or access to things other Americans are allowed to take part in.
These people simply smell MONEY, and have a lawyer who has "taken up their cause" for her own filthy lucre. To sue for something as petty as this only indicates the lack of character that these "victims" have.
I was offered $250,000.00 after lawyers fees and taxes after having had a toxic reaction to diesel fuel on the last ship I ever worked on. I had broken out into a bad rash while I was cleaning some bearings in a pan of diesel, and my whole face, neck and chest turned bright red and blotchy from the diesel fumes as well as from the fact that I had my hands in it. A ship mate came along and noticed my color, and drew it to my attention. I went up topside for some air, and spent the rest of the day in the open air working on a lifeboat out in the sunshine. And when I was done with that voyage, back home when cleaning the diesel fuel strainer for my home's boiler, I broke out again. I mentioned this on the phone to a shipmate, who in turn called a maritime lawyer, who in turn, told me flat out that this was an "open and shut case" of company negligence which resulted in my toxic reaction, and that "I can get you a quarter of a million dollars after taxes and lawyers fees". And I knew that this guy could do it, because, he had procured $2.5 million for a shipmate who had had both his legs broken when a mooring line parted, and like a giant rubber band, snapped his legs in two.
I asked the lawyer what I had to do to get the money, and he told me that it was simple. All I needed to do was prove it by saying that my supervisors did not make protective gear available, nor teach me of the toxic capabilities of diesel fuel. Well, what this amounted to was telling him that my buddy Greg (the Ist Engineer), and my other buddy Pete (the Chief Engineer), had failed me, and that it was their fault that I had a reaction to the diesel fuel. But, I told him, that this wasn't true, that we were all aware of the hazards in the industry, and that gloves were available, and that I didn't want to accuse my shipmates. And he asked, well, do you want a $1/4 of a million or not? And naturally, I hesitated, but then I said; "Nope. And this conversation is over." And I hung up. Oh yeah, that money would have been real nice. That's a lotta money! But, I would have had to prostitute myself to get it. And so, I didn't want it at that price. Money isn't everything ya know...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Just one last thing.
I not only paid attention in high school civics but one of my degrees is in political science.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Meebe the Times They Are A'Changin. Although there was *outrage expressed* back in 1993, I don't recall anyone threatening to sue.
<_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
In that case, please explain to me how a court hearing a civil case with action brought by the plaintiff constitutes government action? What is the purpose of a court? Do courts ever initiate action on their own?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef
jonny lingo
you proove again you are the man you want to be and i am proud to know you!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
One could argue that freedom of speech exists outside the First Ammendment, if only as a concept, if not a legal or constitutional issue. True, only a governmental supression of speech is a First Ammendment issue, but it seems to me that freedom of speech and expression is assumed unless the courts rule that an exception is warranted.
True also is that there is no absolute freedom of speech. Really, its the marketplace that regulates "free speech" such as Richards'. He can say whatever he wants, but shouldn't be too surprised if he's not invited back and if he doesn't get much work in the future.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Shoot Cool Chef, I'm proud to know you, cuz you know what I'm talkin 'bout! We are on the same page bruh!
But ya know, I really was sorely tempted. I mean, I coulda used that money to pay off my mortgage, and developed my property, and developed a tourist business (Bed and Breakfast) that woulda given us an excellent "retirement business" in such a beautiful place as Haines, Alaska. But, it ain't right to be wrong, and, God will supply, and, "He owns the cattle on a thousand hills". So, I ain't worried...
And hey CC, you guys must have winter comin on, yes? We had 35 inches of snow last week, and then it turned clear and cold and it's been in the single digits above and below zero for a week now. Beautiful and the night skies with the Northern Lights have been spectacular! And you Mainers?
And ya know, I heard a month ago that Colorado Springs had some 21 inches of snow, and it was all over CNN and the mainstream media stations. But when we got the Big Snow? Not a peep was heard down South I'll bet ya. Is that the way they treat Maine also? I'll betcha that when there is tough weather in Maine, it doesn't make anything but the local news. Am I right?
Edited by Jonny LingoLink to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
And don't get me wrong. If I was a black dude in that crowd, I would have been sorely tempeted to kick that guy's a$$. No doubt about it. What Richards did was inexcusable. But, to sue? No way. That's only about money. The guy's career is most likely ruined, and he has been exposed as a racist bigot, and that is that on that. Those guys who were insulted should just be sitting back smiling knowing that "they have the last laugh...."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Ah, you don't know that Jonny. You're assuming that's what they want to do. They've got a high-profile lawyer who's going to get a sack of money for them and that's what they're in it for, right?
If those two kids were my boys or if my children had been treated in a comparable manner, I'd be coming down on Richards like an iceberg on the Titanic. He thinks he's funny? I'd love to explore the limits of that with him and come out the better for it hopefully. We'd find out, for sure. He can keep his money - we'd want to go deeper than that.
Racial hatred like Richards exhibited - whether part of an 'act', or a just a nutty temper gone out of control - is nasty stuff. And to me - the fact that others do similar things whether white, black or blue and 'get away with it', doesn't make it right. Feeding it contributes to it, keeps it alive. Humor is one way of bringing out things that are often too difficult to nail down openly. If it leads to discourse, debate, learning, improvement, it can be a good thing. Somewhere there's a balance and it's going to swing up and down.
You can always tell though when something's funny - people laugh.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
And Socks, maybe you posted before I posted this:
Hey, what the guy did was inexcusable, and as OLM Tom Strange said, for this guy to have said what he said, "it was something from within him" (paraphrase). It is what this guy is and it is wrong. He can apologize all he wants, but from the depths of his heart, he "spoketh". He is a bigot racist. I actually heard Rush Limbaugh try to defend the guy. What a laugh. But to me there is no defense. He is a swine. But to sue for it is taking a step above the victim's dignity.
I think that their justified righteous indignation would have a lot more impact had they not jumped on the gravy train, that's all. Hell, they should laud this injustice to the skies, but just not ask for money. Had they made a big scene over it, but not asked for money, then I would see their indignation as a far bigger deal than "just money". But now, they have asked for cash, and I think that it has tainted their cause for racial equality in the eyes of those who are against racial equality.
Personally, I think we are all wonderful, and were made just the way God wanted us to be made... :)
Edited by Jonny LingoLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I understand ya, Jonny. My take on you're phrasing that they were suing for "something as petty as this" doesn't stack up with how I view it, that's all. Petty maybe, compared to a comet hitting the earth tomorrow, or a 9.5 earthquake hitting the West Coast. Nuclear war. Compared to those things it's of lesser impact.
I suspect that any action these guys took against him would be subject to the same critique- unjustified to some degree over such a 'petty thing'. And I'd suspect if he'd taken a testorene shot and been a man about it instead of going on TV and whining how sorry he was to the world, there might not even be a suit. Come on - the guy called Jesse Jackson. What did he think that was going to do? Protect him? Absolve himself somehow? He had a good run on Seinfeld. He's not that funny outside of that, that I've seen. Doesn't mean he doesn't have talent, but the whole Seinfeld schtick was just a cultural riff wrapped around a demographic - baby boomers and their parents. It was an amplified version of "boy, ever wonder where that other sock goes in the drier? Man, that really BUGS me". Mad Magazine did it in the 50's and 60's. Steve Martin did the zen-state-of-nothing Chaos humor in the 70's. Blah blah blah. Zzzzzz.....
He's a dork. But - I digress from the original topic -
Anyway, now those guys can say - "tomorrow I'll wake up and I'll be black but dude...you'll still be Michael Richards".
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Perhaps one way Michael Richards might absolve himself -would be to play the lead in a future remake of "Black Like Me".
That would be kind of interesting to see.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
This now reminds me of a parallel situation: Tim McCarver once embarrassed himself. It was spring training and a bunch of black kids tried to steal baseballs from the outfield of the facility and without thinking, McCarver yelled, "Hey, you bunch of N's stop that!" Next thing he saw was the stares of Bob Gibson, Lou Brock, and Curt Flood. Oops.
He must've learned his lesson though. Right about now he must be extremely thankful that he has been allowed to make the living he does.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Without thinking. Ah, there's the rub. If that "N" word is in one's mental vocabulary, if not his publically spoken vocabulary, then I could see how it would slip out.
I think maybe that's the point Richards was trying to make when he said it alarmed him that that was even in him. (I forget his exact words, but that was the gist I got out of it).
I think what we witnessed in Richards's rant was some kind of mini-breakdown. I was embarrassed and ashamed for him. I don't think he was trying to be funny. I think he was in a maniacal rage. Scary to watch, especially from the close range of those who were actually there. Perhaps also scary to snap out of the rage and realize what the hell you've done. I don't mean in terms of consequences...I mean in terms of realizing you had anything like that kind of rage within.
Worth a lawsuit? I don't know. I can't judge the motives of those two guys.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
I don't think he he was trying to be funny at that point either. I think he was retaliating and the thinking that was in his heart came right out of his mouth. I don't think it was "shock humor" or whatever they call it. And, it was reprehensible. I am not sure that I can clarify myself any better. But, I still don't think that suing the perpetrator helps the cause of exposing and maybe curtailing racism.
I think that the victims, in their righteous indignation would have been way more effective if they had simply, held their heads high, and "walked on", placing themselves way above such an act of low life bigotry. Once again, I think that their effort at monetary compensation taints their character and their effort to expose.
And also, I am not really concerned about whether or not Mr. Richards absolves himself or not. But most likely, it's probably true that this incident has shaken him up and hopefully will cause him to think about what he harbors in his heart.
And, no doubt, Richards will be able to live off of "Seinfeld" very comfortably for the rest of his life. That is, if he is smart, which, he very well might not be...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I guess we agree to diagree, Jonny. Petty, inexcusable. I'm not sure where they match, but whatever.
The story does take on myth-like perspective even after this short a time -
"He used the "n" word so now he's getting sued".
- No, he used the "n" word, told them they'd be lynched if this was 50 years ago, and carried on in anger with no break of character to indicate he was anything but dead-on serious and angry at the disruption to his "act". In my world, that qualifies as threatening, whether you're an "entertainer", whoever you are. Cross the line, it's crossed. I think those guys have a right to angry and to want resolution and are purusing the only way they'll probably ever get face-to-face with him and settle it, whatever that settlement is.
"He didn't do any damage, it was just words, those guys are okay".
- They're "black", Afro-American, whatever you want to call it, they were identified as an enemy, quite literally. He couched his comments with a reference to "words" we still can't use, but seemed to be using the words to reflect an honestly felt belief. It's easy to say they weren't damaged by mere words. If I acted towards the President the same way I'd be in jail right now being examined by psychiatrists. Laws.
It strikes me as a flash-point for other debate. It really isn't solely about the "n" word at all. It's about that incident between those people and what happened there. To say he called them a "bad" name and that's what it's all about isn't factually true IMO.
Buuuuuut, so it goes. It does make one think. I hope he gets it all worked out and is better for it.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Johniam, the incident you mentioned, if it did happen, happened in the 60's, when said personality was just another ball player on the team, not anybody with a microphone or an audience. I hardly see the parallel.
Ok, resume talking amongst yourselves....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i haven't read "all" of this nor have i seen the video except for a really fast clip on entertainment tonight or something when changing the channel
but i have to thank socks for his input, i really really appreciate it. i haven't read everything you said either, except if it was your child.....
you know, the kids around here are VERY prejudiced against most blacks and indians (from india) and almost everyone. it really really stinks
i'm not saying i don't contribute in some unconscious way. i wouldn't swear that i don't. but i cannot stand people who blatantly teach and tell their kids this kind of stuff even if by way of a joke
again, i'm not lilly white at all well actually i am
but this life sucks and is very tough (no saint here whatsoever)
--
one more thing i watch "entertainment tonight" and other tabloids crapolas. i only happened to be changing the channel this one time
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Damn, Socks. This is bad. I don't like to not agree with you! Cuz I love you man. I agree with everything you say on this, except I guess the law suit thing. I worked for years as a merchant seaman, for various American flagged shipping companies, and the sole reason for many American shipping companies re-flagging their ships under the flag of foreign nations is because of law suits by U.S. crew members. And this of course results in a loss of jobs for American Merchant Marines. The US has the smallest merchant fleet on the planet, with Liberia being the biggest. And the "Liberian Merchant Marine" is not really their countries merchant fleet, but rather a collection of American and other western nations' merchant ships flagged under Liberian registry. And I have seen people smell the money and go for it, even though their "damages" were not as they claimed. Law suits have their place, but I don't see it here.
I think that if they just let it run off of their backs like water off a ducks back, forgive Richards for his raging racist tirade and then drop it, the impact of their statement would be even greater than a law suit, for the news media would run that story to the max also. Kind of like the way those incredible Amish people did what I think would be the near impossible: Forgiving the murderer of those beautiful and brave little girls, and then reaching out to this twisted man's family with love and forgiveness. That statement was huge and it rocked our nation. I'm sorry man, but the lawsuit thing has, IMO, put a major hurt on our society, and our economy as well. And so for me, and I will repeat that the behavior of Richards was reprehensible, I think it was a mistake for the victims of the epithets to go for the money. But I guess as the say in Fronce; C'est la vie!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i'm not amish
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
I'm not Amish either. And that is why I called it the "near impossible". I don't think I could do what they did either, were it my child or friend's child. But, I do believe that what happened to the fellas at the comedy club is a far cry from what happened to those Amish folks. And once again, the statement made by the Amish really did rock the Nation, with their unparalleled(sp?) forgiveness. Unparalleled amongst humans that is...
Edited by Jonny LingoLink to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Geeze, jonny, so it ain't your thing. You don't have a dog in this fight, so why keep on? Why do your values have to be everybody elses?
If I was in the recipient of this kind of treatment, I guarandangtee ya, I wouldn't let go of it. Respect who these people are, and what they stand for. Please?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Aw, don't sweat it Jonny. And Excie, you're wunnderful, and I appreciate the words. Fondly, your pal. :)
I hesitate to keep going on with it because Sudo's original post dealt with a specific comment and question.
(deleted out all the incredibly insightful comments I'd made because ex10's right - it's their thing it'll work itself out and I'm way too gabby for anyone's good)
That's all. You wouldn't do that, maybe others wouldn't. Maybe I wouldn't. That they are isn't a bad thing. IMO. He was about as insulting and demeaning to them as a person can get. I think they have a right to try and make it happen. :) Maybe it will be meaningful to him. IMO, his Kramer character was the most valid thing on "Seinfeld" anyway, so I'll give him that, but that's a whole nother topic.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.