Now that I gave you your due as a comic can you explain this:

“She certainly was not undermining bigoted stereotypes the way Richard Pryor, Woody Allen, Lenny Bruce and any number of comedians and satirists have in the past.”

Funny (pun intended) you would name a racist, a pediphile and a drug addict bigot as your examples. Are these the types of people you align yourself with? And you talk about “our rhetoric.” Come on!

BTW Joe. I think zimzo is kinda sweet on you. And he likes Linda also. Watch out for the alluded to threesome.

“and your references to my being “in drag” and prefering “sissified metrosexuals” only reveals a strange obsession you seem to have with gender issues. If this is your way of trying to ask me out on a date, you should try a different tactic. Sending me flowers would be a good start.”

Now you have to give this one to zimzo. That was on par with what we do. Wish I could have thought of it first.

I did not see any humor in her employing anti-Semitic stereotypes in order to foment outrage. There was no hint of irony or subversion of stereotypes evident in her piece. In fact, she depended on these stereotypes to make her points and evoke an emotional response in her readers. She certainly was not undermining bigoted stereotypes the way Richard Pryor, Woody Allen, Lenny Bruce and any number of comedians and satirists have in the past. She was affirming them.

And again, I find it ironic that you seem to feel you can get on your soapbox and label Barack Obama a bigot (which is ridiculous, as few writers in America today have written with such insight about bigotry, though I doubt you have read his books) and yet when I lay out very clear arguments showing why a particular example of rhetoric demonstrates bigotry, your only response is to launch ad hominem attacks, a very poor form of argument.

And once again, I have never posted here under anything other than my adopted pseudonym, and your references to my being “in drag” and prefering “sissified metrosexuals” only reveals a strange obsession you seem to have with gender issues. If this is your way of trying to ask me out on a date, you should try a different tactic. Sending me flowers would be a good start.

BTW, where you in ‘drag’, playing the role of Kathy H. the last few days?

Nan’s piece, however, relied on an anti-Semitic stereotypes to foment outrage. She even admits in the first sentence of the piece that she is relying on sterotypes, referring to the “sterotypical drama” of a “a Protestant (mostly Lutheran) small town co-opted by Jewish business interests,” as if the idea that “Jewish business interests” would “co-opt” a Protestant town is just what you would expect. She re-emphasizes the contrast again when she refers to “mostly hard-working Lutheran residents of this small mid-western town” hoodwinked by “Hassidic ‘Flim-Flam’ artists” who “took control of the town, and now it’s a cross between Krakow, and Mexico.” The idea of innocent hard-working townspeople whose town is invaded by deceitful, greedy Jews and taken over by them is a staple of anti-Semitic literature. It is to prevent just such a circumstance that many Jews were put in ghettos. Finally, she describes a book by a “secular Jew” whom she dismisses as an “sympathetic apologist” and says that calling it a “clash of cultures is a bit too kind.” The reason he is referred to as a “secular Jew” in the book review is to distinguish him from this very particular sect of Jews, Lubavitchers, who have very little in common with other Jews. Nan, however, apparently doesn’t see the distinction, seeing them as all part of some amorphous category called “Jewish business interests.” She then, once again, reiterates her point by saying “they have sacrificed their lovely little mid-western rural American iconic town,” the word “sacrifice” echoing the anti-Semitic notion of the Blood Libel (there was a link for you here Jacob but it sent my comment into oblivion. You’ll just have to look it up.).

I’m not saying that Nan was always cognizant of what she was doing in her piece. That’s the nature of prejudice and stereotypes. They are easy to fall back on because they are ingrained in our culture.

I expected you to be a little more cognizant of what you were doing, Joe, when you tagged this piece “Den of Thieves,” because of your educational background (which by the way had a profound influence on my own educational pursuits), but apparently I gave you too much credit.

Nan’s piece, however, relied on an anti-Semitic stereotypes to foment outrage. She even admits in the first sentence of the piece that she is relying on sterotypes, referring to the “sterotypical drama” of a “a Protestant (mostly Lutheran) small town co-opted by Jewish business interests,” as if the idea that “Jewish business interests” would “co-opt” a Protestant town is just what you would expect. She re-emphasizes the contrast again when she refers to “mostly hard-working Lutheran residents of this small mid-western town” hoodwinked by “Hassidic ‘Flim-Flam’ artists” who “took control of the town, and now it’s a cross between Krakow, and Mexico.” The idea of innocent hard-working townspeople whose town is invaded by deceitful, greedy Jews and taken over by them is a staple of anti-Semitic literature. It is to prevent just such a circumstance that many Jews were put in ghettos. Finally, she describes a book by a “secular Jew” whom she dismisses as an “sympathetic apologist” and says that calling it a “clash of cultures is a bit too kind.” The reason he is referred to as a “secular Jew” in the book review is to distinguish him from this very particular sect of Jews, Lubavitchers, who have very little in common with other Jews. Nan, however, apparently doesn’t see the distinction, seeing them as all part of some amorphous category called “Jewish business interests.” She then, once again, reiterates her point by saying “they have sacrificed their lovely little mid-western rural American iconic town,” the word “sacrifice” echoing the anti-Semitic notion of the Blood Libel (here’s a link for you Jacob: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel).

I’m not saying that Nan was always cognizant of what she was doing in her piece. That’s the nature of prejudice and stereotypes. They are easy to fall back on because they are ingrained in our culture.

I expected you to be a little more cognizant of what you were doing, Joe, when you tagged this piece “Den of Thieves,” because of your educational background (which by the way had a profound influence on my own educational pursuits), but apparently I gave you too much credit.