Saturday, March 14, 2009

The Loving Husband, or is it Murderer?, of Anna Nicole Smith: Howard K. Stern

[Above: Howard K. Stern and Anna Nicole Smith; Below: "the mug shot" of Howard K. Stern]

When men's love kills women it's not pretty. But it is normal, and will be entertainment (aka "Dish") for days to come. For more on this story, click here.
END OF POST.

Kyle Payne is Back to Blogging: But Where in the World is He?


To Kyle D. Payne,

I was surprised to find out you were back online, blogging at "The Road Less Traveled". I realise that most of your posts in 2009 have been reprints, so to speak, of earlier writings you have done, going back to 2006.

But my surprise stems in part from there being no public statement on your blog about your release from jail and what has happened to you in the last several months, taking us through your decision to blog again. Can you understand why that might concern some of those you have been linked to in the blogosphere?

This raises a few other questions, which I hope you will take time to answer as soon as time permits.

What can you tell those of us you have known online, even if only as a fellow profeminist blogger, about how and to what extent you believe yourself to be of less danger to women than you were about one year ago?

What do you think would be appropriate, in terms of accountability to Womanist and Feminist bloggers, for you to do to attempt to rebuild trust, to demonstrate that sufficient systems of accountability are in place now that weren't in 2007 and 2008?

What have you learned about yourself and how it is that you violated that young woman who you had a position of authority over, not just as a man, but also as her Resident Assistant?

Why are your name and photograph not visible on your blog as they were before your time in jail? If both are there, please post the link to that information here.

Do you think it would be appropriate and responsible to post current photographs of yourself on your blog? If so, would you please post a current, well-lit photograph of yourself here and on your own blog that shows visitors what you look like currently, in 2009. If not, please explain why.

How might anyone not closely in your life know if and when you change your hairstyle, hair color, amount of facial hair change, clothing style, or weight to a significant degree, and in what town or city you live and study? If your appearance changes, who should be made aware of that, in your view?

I'd appreciate having a response to all the above questions, concerns, and requests in the comments section of this post at A.R.P.

Thanks.

Julian
END OF POST.

Friday, March 13, 2009

Aboriginal Self-Rule: An Example of How the White Australian Media is Racist and Sexist



I've been aware, in the white, white West, the way white male supremacist media is presenting "the problem of child abuse in Aboriginal communities" (in ALL of them??!) which is reportedly happening among some Aboriginal people in Australia. (How the hell would I know what's going on Down Under, particularly in communities I have no access to--and shouldn't have any access to? But I'm a white U.S.er, so I get to sound off about everything, right? What?! You mean we're not experts on child abuse EVERYWHERE just because we're white and Western? Hmmm. What a concept.)

And let's please divert our eyes and media from the problem of child abuse among whites in Australia! As if we whites are the care-takers of those poor, poor people of color who don't know how to deal with big important matters like child abuse! As if Christian whites haven't been grotesquely abusing Aboriginal and other Indigenous children, globally, for a very long time, with little to no intervention by other whites.

This is EXACTLY the kind of condescending, patronising egregiously racist-misogynist bullshit that I think white/U.S. bloggers and other media dispensers ought to not be involved in, unless it's to support Aboriginal and other Indigenous self-governance and stand against any white intervention into the actions happening in places where we don't belong.

But the point is made better below by Amy McQuire. For the whole story, click here or go to the National Indigenous Times linked to on my blog roll.
_______________________

What follows was written by Amy McQuire and was published on March 8, 2009 ECD:

They see the words “child abuse” and they think the type of solutions involved can’t be debated between Aboriginal leaders. And they won’t accept that the media’s darlings, the ones who get to air their frequent quotation, are not always the Aboriginal leaders accepted in Aboriginal communities nation-wide.

It seems a simple concept, but obviously it is not one that is easily understood by the media.

The radio presenter further goes on to question Kim Hill over whether Sue Gordon has the “right to speak”. That misses the point so much that it’s unbelievable.

No one is denying these leaders the right to speak. But they are asking for a format to air differing opinions. The media does not grant this right. If anything, I would like to ask most of the media, whether other Indigenous leaders, like Kim Hill, have the right to speak? Because so often their opinions are undermined, and so often they are silenced in the barrage of copy that only uses a few synonymous Indigenous voices.
END OF POST.

We Interrupt this Commercial Message... A Few Questions for Television News Anchors

To see this up close and personal, click on the image to enlarge it and also visit this website: http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtml

An open letter to the anchors of corporate U.S. TV news shows:

So when does identifying rape as a form of terrorism and war against women become more important than letting the viewer know who made the greatest fashion faux pas at this year's Oscar Awards show?

When do starving children and adults--disproportionately female, often taken out with lower respiratory infections, HIV/AIDS, malaria, diarrhea, tuberculosis, measles, and whooping cough, get identified, by name--one by one, as also dying directly from U.S. bombings, white Western genocidal policies, Western cultural imperialism, corporate greed and poisoning of the Earth, and military actions we control or condone?

As but one of many among the demographic groups so important to your corporate statisticians who work to sell me your unsustainable, slavery-requiring shit, can you explain to me, exactly, in language I can understand, how the World Bank is NOT, in fact, "Working for a World Free of Poverty"?

When might I program my DVR to tape the series of reports on how the IMF's leaders are lying through their sharpened teeth to announce this bunk about what they really do for a living: "The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is an organization of 185 countries, working to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty around the world." Why don't you TV morning news show hosts have a really good laugh over that one?

What time may I set my clock alarm to note you permanently halting the gross misuse of graphics and other images portraying men of color as THE MOST DANGEROUS MEN IN THE WORLD and as a category of people who, you remind me constantly, are the most threatening people on Earth to the well-being of white folks? When will you release the reports on the number of men (and women) of color white men have killed, or slaughtered, or taken out through genocide, institutionalised poverty, and other forms of organised mass murder? Could you please compare that figure to the number of white men killed by Black and Latino and Asian men (and women) over the same period of time?

How long will it take for your columnists and correspondents to stop blaming feminism for patriarchal harm? To stop blaming feminism for white middle class women having to both work outside and inside the home when women of color have always been doing this, well before what you call feminism came on the scene? When will you stop blaming feminism for making women feel bad about themselves and for putting too much pressure on women to "do it all"?

In what time period will you welcome radical feminists of any color on the air without interruption, and without presenting five well-paid, corporate pimp-owned people "to balance out her point of view"?

When will you stop being utterly obsessed with heterosexual celebrity relationships, marriages, affairs, divorces, baby bumps and births? When does the Nadya Suleman saga stop taking up more time in the media than the forced sterilisation and rape of American Indian women by white men?

In what year might we expect you to announce that a woman of color is now the head of any of the top U.S. news networks or conglomerates, and also stop your whining and complaining about how the days of white men being in charge are over because we currently have one Black man as president, following 43 white guys, and no women of any race?

When will you stop equating "America" with "The United States of America"? Venezuela and Canada, Mexico and Brazil, Newfoundland and Nicaragua are also part of "America".

When does around-the-clock coverage begin showing and accurately interpreting what people of conscience among the Indigenous Nations of the Americas have to say out about the on-going genocides against Indigenous Americans from the Inuit of Canada's tundra to the Yamana of Tierra del Fuego--if the Yamana have not already been completely wiped off the Earth? Is Michael Phelps' pot-smoking really more important a news story than that?

When will you call plastic surgeons who do routine breast enlargements, tummy tucks, face and butt lifts, what they actually are: serial butchers who profit from women's poor self-esteem and self-image that is entirely manufactured by your ads and racist/woman-hating industries?

When will you report on the devastating effects to nonhuman life of biocidal practices that comprise the foundation of Western Civilisation? Or is the story of the man who wrestled with a shark for two hours (and won) more important?

When, in other words, will you start telling us the truths that your corporate boards of trustees won't allow you to tell us without firing you?

When will you grow a spine and a conscience, or leave your post out of shame? Or, when will allow people with a conscience and a spine to take over those boardrooms and displace, by any means necessary, the trustees who care more about how many millions they'll make this year than about human and nonhuman life and the health of the planet?

I won't bother asking Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly as I already know they are so damned heartless that I can't expect a readable pulse from either one of them.

So, I'm waiting for your answers Matt Lauer, John Stossel, and Scott Pelley; Leslie Stahl, Stone Phillips, and Katie Couric; Charles Gibson, Keith Olbermann, and Anderson Cooper. Post your replies here, unless your bosses will fire you for doing so--no, post them even IF your bosses will fire you for doing so; surely you've all raked in enough money and property by now to live out the rest of your very privileged lives.

To the readers here, if you care to see the official "Top 25 Censored News Stories of 2009" (so far), go here.
END OF POST.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

"Fighting Back Against the Theft of Homes by the Big Banks"

I found this post on this topic at The Primary Contradiction blog and wanted to link to it here.
END OF POST.

Economic Stimulus Packages and Corporate Bailouts? 25 Random Things about Corruption vs. Community

[To know the story behind the above image, click here.]

The following list (or stream) of semi-random thoughts is intended to open discussion here about how to support one another in this global economic crisis, and how to understand and survive it from a humane point of view not a corporate one, from a view that respects people of color, from a pro-Indigenist view, from view that respects women as full human beings not as servants or care-givers of men, and from the view that the Earth is a giant complex of ecosystems, being thrown out of balance by industrial societies.

1. Are people who have been laid off (along with those of us who were never employed before this version of "economic failure") getting together in order to know one another better as friends, as community members? Are we getting together and offering to share material, financial, and emotional resources? If not, why not?

2. In any given community, might there be sufficient skill-sets among the unique population to create an alternate economy, one which doesn't require corporations and tax dollars to work?

3. I am aware of the increase in community vegetable gardens; cooperatively run child-care groups; cooperative grocery stores and other businesses; barter economies, including bartering for health care; cooperative economies among women; and businesses working to make communities more sustainable, which small or larger groups can create as an alternative to being insecure and trapped by "The Global Corporate Economy".

4. "The Global Corporate Economy" in its current version of crisis may be signaling that it doesn't work for people with some wealth. But it has never worked for the poor, it has put many nations into great debt, it has forced cultures around the world to collapse, all-the-while operating out of greed, deep-rooted corruption, and and other forms of gross inhumanity. That is certainly the conclusion I have come to. Am I alone in this assessment?

5. All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community, an excellent book by Carol B. Stack, is about creative economic and emotional support within communities that do not have great financial resources.

6. Several thousand years ago, communities across the globe have lived sustainably--without harming the Earth. Since then civilisation has "progressed" to the point where civilisation itself, particularly and most offensively Western Civilisation, is killing the planet; a corporate economy requires the murder of the Earth and its inhabitants. For more, read The Secret History of the American Empire.

7. Some of these Indigenous societies are struggling to do so to this day. Many have been already been destroyed by Western corporate economies.

8. I gained a great deal of awareness about this matter from watching these three films: "Darwin's Nightmare", "Life and Debt", and "The Corporation". All three are available to be seen for free, if not online, then through a library system's interlibrary loan service. If you know of other excellent films like these, please post them here in the comments section.

7. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are killing whole cultures and communities, with criminal recklessness and grotesquely anti-humane intention.

8. Why do we need money economies? Are we more secure with them that societies were before them? Are you feeling secure? Would you feel more secure if you knew you and your neighbors were capable of caring for one another? Would you feel more at peace if the only "work" you had to do was to contribute to your community's sustainability, including its emotional well-being?

9. What can you do? What are your strengths? How to they mesh with the skills and strengths of all of your neighbors? Do some of you know how to help with health issues, keeping water clean, planting seeds for later food harvesting, repair of shelters, organising community members, doing specific tasks well?

10. If you are "out of work" might now be a good time to create, with all the other people around you who are "out of work", more local economies that care about you as a person, that care about your culture, that are secure in ways that giant global economies cannot be?

11. If corporate capitalism's goal is to make a profit at people's expense, why keep buying into the idea that we need it to survive?

12. If socialism and "Communism" have traditionally ignored the needs of the Earth, and therefore our own sustainability, why can't we create something else instead?

13. From local community groups, to faith groups, to networks of friends, people have been surviving and thriving. Paying taxes and purchasing corporate junk doesn't help us survive.

14. Now that we know that the major auto industries and major banking corporations are not accountable when we give them billions of our hard-earned money, why don't we stop giving it to them, and instead share it locally, without our own communities, and assist other communities that are struggling when able to do so?

15. Would you rather grow up believing "a pay job" is what you need to survive, or knowing "a close community" is what you need to survive?

16. What if you couldn't lose your home? Are you aware that cooperative housing was developed in urban areas and other places that made it impossible for you to lose your home even if you didn't have any money? Here's one site with more information on creating this for yourself.

17. Are you aware there are ways to live that don't require paying utility bills? Here's a site with more information on how to do that.

18. Ought Indigenous cultures thrive, without U.S. and other governmental corruption?

19. How might non-Indigenous peoples work to support Indigenous people thriving? See here for more.

20. Isn't it the humane thing to do, to make sure that non-Indigenous communities take into consideration how they negatively impact (or facilitate the destruction of) Indigenous societies?

21. What if white people's goal was not to "take what we can" from Indigenous ways of doing and being, but rather supported Indigenous people living well? And what if "living well" was not determined by white middle class values, but rather than by Indigenous people not coerced into believing they'd better live like the white man or die?

22. Many poor and working communities have been suffering an economic crisis for decades, if not longer. How can wealthier communities work with those communities to make all of us more secure, sustainable, and healthy?

23. Do you feel isolated, alone, threatened, frightened, insecure, anxious, depressed, and hopeless?

24. Would it help to know that most other people around you feel that way too?

25. Would it help you to get to know one another, and find ways to relieve each other's suffering?

I am quite aware that there are likely ten thousand or more discussions about this very topic happening on- and off-line, but I have been alarmed that every time I ask social activist friends about a particular aspect of this issue, about how individuals-in-communities are helping each other out, without corporate or tax dollars--the answer is: "I haven't heard anything about that." So, readers, please send me links if you are aware of what I'm talking about here, so the pro-humanity wheel doesn't have to be continually reinvented.

I believe it is possible for us to collectively live well, but not "well" in the corporate sense, not "well" in the Hollywood sense, not "well" in the suburban sense, not in an exploitative sense.

I believe it is possible to live well while appropriately living with and being caring of the Earth.

I hope that those of us who are overpopulating the Earth can practice self-regulated, socially responsible birth control. At the same time I hope that those of us who are part of Indigenous societies and cultures that are being starved to death, forcibly sterilised, and otherwise manipulated or mandated into extinction by a global economy are not forced by anyone else to practice birth control in ways we do not choose to; I hope that our babies', children's, and adults' health is seen as precious and necessary, not only to those of us who are part of an Indigenous culture, but for the well-being of the Earth. When white people speak about the need for population control, let that practice begin at home and in white communities that exist because of colonialism and genocide.

I support removing people from society who threaten our safety and survival, such as corporate thieves who colonise land and impoverish millions; corporate-owned, corrupt politicians, self-serving business men; racist police officers and police departments; exploiters, traffickers, and enslavers of women and girls; batterers, rapists and child molesters; and those who seek to poison and otherwise destroy the Earth and its many sustainably-living inhabitants.

I believe that we, the human and nonhuman collective, can live well on Earth, but in a way that may not be familiar to most of us, given how much corporate capitalism has convinced us we need it to survive and be well.

I believe corporate capitalism and the government officials who value and support it, are condemning us all to insecurity, illness, and death.
END OF POST.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Seinfeld: A Television Show About Something Really Dangerous


Seinfeld: A Television Show About Something Really Dangerous
by Julian Real, December 18, 2006.

Copyright 2006, 2009 by Julian Real. All Rights Reserved.
NOTE: I wish to thank Yolanda Carrington for her on-going friendship, and specifically here for her thorough research and elegant editorial work without which this piece would be a long, confusing mess. — Julian, 12/26/06

I grew up a Jewish white guy in the United States of America. I remember, after enjoying The Cosby Show, Cheers, and Roseanne, also watching Seinfeld from time to time the first few years it was on. Once it became really popular, I started watching it more regularly. I saw many of the last few seasons’ episodes through to the final show, which was watched by 76 million other U.S. viewers. I enjoyed aspects of it, and was also simultaneously irritated with it. There were some clever and hilarious plot lines, like the classic show about masturbation. And there was also the white self-absorption and anti-humanitarianism of the main characters, some of which manifested in the show’s unrelenting racism. Unlike the other very popular “Must See TV” show of that era, Friends, which almost completely ignored the reality of race, Seinfeld had many minor roles played by people of color. But I always wondered as I saw POC-stereotype after stereotype on Jerry’s show: “What decade is this: The 1950s?”

Given recent media events, it is becoming increasingly clear to me that no, it is not the 1950s all over again. This is the newest media manifestation of something that has been around for well over a dozen decades. I am thinking now of Mel Gibson’s anti-Jewish film, The Passion Of The Christ[Subtitle: Psssst--The Jews Did It], his subsequent anti-Semitic remarks to a Jewish male cop, and his misogynistic remarks to a female cop. I am also thinking of Rosie O’Donnell’s most recent racist remarks on The View, making fun of how people from China allegedly speak by employing an old anti-Asian slur. And, of course, we have the footage of Michael Richards’ white male supremacist tirade against two African-American men:

Was I surprised by Richards’ tirade? By Rosie’s comments? By Mel’s anti-Jewish film and his conduct when arrested? The honest answer is yes and no. I never cease to be stunned, infuriated, despairing, all at the same time, and left saying “Of course this is happening (again).”

White Male Supremacy, or WMS, is firmly in place, his-terical male supremacists’ comments about “feminazis” notwithstanding. It has found different ways of expressing itself over decades, often with little imagination or innovation. Old-fashioned white lynching doesn’t happen quite so much any more, but Michael Richards conjured up that period of horrific U.S. history in an effort to verbally threaten and oppressively silence two African-American men in 2006. His own closing words to the men: “That’s what happens when you interrupt the white man.”

This essay examines one tiny dangerous thread in this tapestry of human oppression: Seinfeld’s show, Richard’s tirade, and how both are products of the same system in which Jerry and Michael have been “politically active” for some time. [I had a link here, originally, noting other racist acts Jerry and Michael have created; that link has since been taken down by the user at YouTube.]

Jerry, like other Ashkenazic Jews in anti-Semitic AmeriKKKa, learned that making white(r) people laugh was a good way to earn a living. He also learned that selling out your Jewishness was a good way to gain status in a competitive white Gentile-dominated market. He let go of his Jewishness when he became a white supremacist, in my view, as have Israeli government officials who maintain a racist-imperialist campaign called “protecting nationhood” in West Asia.

To me, when being Jewish means systematically mocking or mass-murdering people of color, one has cut out of oneself the heart of what it means to be a Jew, which is to say, a humane being. Jews are among the many peoples in the world who have visceral access to a history that includes slavery, pogroms, and genocide. In this we (ought to) stand close by those of African descent, who are also a Diasporic People, and with Indigenous Peoples around the world, who fight genocidal campaigns, including in the United States of America and Canada, to this day. Jews, of whatever race, ought to stand with any oppressed group, opposing white male supremacy in any form.This casting off of regional culture and (non-white) ethnic history (read: obstacles to power and status) is not unique to Jews in the U.S. It is what is required of all people who desire to be white in America, regardless of racial or regional ancestry. Being white currently means having no visceral history while having a corporate-owned culture. Once we have “achieved” in this “American Way”, we are instructed to fill our desperate and lonely lives with the struggle to climb the white male supremacist ladder, acquiring mostly unneeded crap as we ascend towards a higher form of hell. Those who achieve white status, if male, are well rewarded, and the rest of us are left yearning and hurting, dying or dead.

In this context, a simple show reportedly “about nothing” was born and after a shaky start, found an audience. “New York Jewishness” became synonymous, in this series, with being socially-politically-spiritually oblivious and deeply neurotic; this meant that anyone of any abandoned ethnicity could, inside a white supremacist system, potentially “relate.” But it was predominantly white people who related to that particular program, in part because it was so routinely hostile to people of Color. You had to be a white supremacist to like and be part of Jerry’s show, regardless of what your assigned race or actual heritage was.

In my memory, there are two racist caricatures from the show that I remember most clearly. One was Phil Morris, who was featured in seven episodes, cast as the African-American attorney Jackie Chiles, a racist parody of O.J. Simpson’s trial lawyer, Johnnie Cochran. The other caricature is the infamous Soup Nazi, played by character actor Larry Thomas (originally Tomashoff). This sloppy use of the term “Nazi” by people who are part of dominant America speaks to an internalized anti-Semitism on the part of the show’s Jewish writers and producers, and a larger, more dominant histeria among white men about anyone else who might take some power away from us. Let’s be clear: hatred of one’s ethnicity of origin is usually required to become white, unless one’s “ethnicity” was already white.

Larry Thomas was interviewed about his experience after appearing on Seinfeld. This snippet demonstrates the ethical oblivion, the racial confusion or unconsciousness common to those who strive to be white capitalists:
INTERVIEWER: Okay: Soup Nazi: Best thing ever, or bane of your existence?

THOMAS: A little of both. Playing the Soup Nazi brought me things I really love: Being well known, getting stopped for autographs and the biggest thrill was being caricatured in Mad Magazine. Oh, and an Emmy nomination - almost forgot that.

But of course, I’ve been typecast as a character that speaks foreign dialects and some directors in Hollywood won’t use me because that’s politically incorrect. But being associated with probably the greatest show of our generation, Seinfeld, is a really terrific thing for anyone.

Seinfeld was, in fact, considered “the best show in television history” by TV Guide, a magazine once owned and operated by a white Republican Jewish philanthropist named Walter Annenberg, son of the more ruthless publishing baron, Moses Annenberg. The magazine was sold in 1988, however, to Gentile white Aussie publishing tycoon, Rupert Murdoch, under whose reign the Seinfeld show was so mightily ranked.

Danny Hoch, a white Jewish hip-hop performance artist, was interviewed about his decision to not be on Seinfeld, when given the opportunity. This portion of the interview from the Revolutionary Worker fills out a portrait of Jerry as a white male supremacist. Danny expresses far more political insight on the matter of racism in America:
RW: There’s this tightrope that artist walk to keep their principles and get their art out in the mass media to the people that they made it for. In your latest show you talk about being invited to be in a Seinfeld episode.

HOCH: To put the story in a nutshell, I had just gotten back from Cuba…and they asked me to be in this Seinfeld episode and I had to decide in an hour whether I was going to get on a plane the next morning. I read the script and my instinct said, I got a bad feeling about this.

When I got there Jerry Seinfeld wanted me to do this stereotypical funny Spanish-speaking pool caretaker who collects towels and is just like funny and psychotic, and that was the extent of the character…My instinct knew that that was going to happen but I didn’t listen to it because I thought maybe I could just go out and fucking do Seinfeld, and more young people will come to my shows because I will be the guy that was on Seinfeld

So I had this argument with Jerry Seinfeld and the director. You know I wasn’t condescending at all, I was very apologetic but I said, “Look, I can’t do this,” when they asked me to do it in a Spanish accent. They confronted me with something that I really wasn’t expecting. It was very manipulative and it was very sort of pulling their power. And it was this question, “Aren’t you an actor? Isn’t that what you do? Don’t you do accents, don’t you play different characters?” And for a second they had me asking myself that question.

But then I was like, no, wait a second, I know where I come from, I know where I’ve been. And that’s when I started looking down at my shoes. I was like, my shoes have been to Rikers, my shoes have been to Bronx Detention, my shoes have been to India and Cambodia, and my shoes have been all over Brooklyn…. If I participate in this I will be participating in something which is not only against my values, but against my people.

Of course, I didn’t say that to him at the time. But I told him the reason why…. And they flew me back, first-class, and didn’t pay me….

Jerry Seinfeld and his show demonstrated that WMS is normal in the U.S. It is so unremarkable that his show was seen as being “about nothing”. What does it take for white America to register WMS as such? The answer is: a well-publicized outburst of the ugliness that is invisible as both systemic and ubiquitous.

What does white America want from those individuals who expose the ugliness of the system, by revealing it, unabashedly, in themselves? Often, just a simple apology, as if an individual’s apology has much to do with the system as a whole. It is also helpful to have an excuse, such as having had too much to drink, in the Gibson case. But what excuse does Richards offer us?

Jerry happened to soon be on David Letterman’s show and made space not to declare an end to his personal and professional relationship with his White Brother, but rather to allow him that small requisite apology.

Fellow stand-up comedian Sinbad, who was in the audience when Richards went on his racist rampage, was later interviewed by CNN about the “apology.” Sinbad exposes what most of us already know—but he was honest and truthful enough to say it out loud, in clear language: we are a sexist and racist country. In other words, WMS is always here, occasionally erupting in ways that garner unusual attention.

Not so coincidentally, the Season 7 DVD series of Seinfeld was advertised for sale to the viewing audience, the very season that contains some of the most racist material in the series’ nine years on the air. It is clear that the connections between Jerry’s own racism, the racist stereotypes in his shows, and racist vitriol that Richards can’t seem to understand, are not being made in WMS corporate media discourse. For anyone who daily experiences racism, these allegedly separate phenomena are clearly “part of a whole.” But for this whole to be seen as such by anyone white, we would have to come to terms with who we are, and the systems of domination and subordination that, together with our own actions, make us who we are. Sinbad sets an example of the kind of reckoning that is necessary for us to know ourselves at all.

Danny Hoch more thoroughly exposes Jerry and Michael’s WMS off-stage, in this monologue from his 2002 film Jails, Hospitals, and Hip-Hop, where he tells the real history of the “Pool Guy” episode. For me it is refreshing to see two men, Sinbad and Danny, with fame—and ethics—on their minds, speak about the social pressure to be part of the WMS system of dehumanization and destruction. But what about the two men most directly targeted by Richards’ remarks?

On this clip of the Today Show, Frank McBride and Kyle Doss share their own experiences of what happened. Host Matt Lauer engages them and the feminist attorney Gloria Allred, in a discussion of possible remedies for Richards’ public harassment. Note especially Kyle’s apolitical critique of “free speech.” If what has been termed by the courts to be “hate speech” is indeed free speech (and it is free for the powerful and costly to the oppressed), that means that those of us who are white male supremacists are free to say what we want, no matter who is harmed by such speech. White male pornographers use this entitlement to free speech as a weapon, a bludgeoning tool, of dehumanization and destruction against women of all ethnicities and men of color. Hate speech is clearly one weapon, among many, in our corporate racist patriarchy.

Let’s hope more women and men speak out about the willfully inhumane nation called the United States of America, which sells racist and sexist violence to its own citizens while also marketing that violence around the world, through military, religious, economic, and cultural propaganda.