The House of David

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Blind Side'd

The critic Melissa Anderson is saying that the new Julia Roberts movie The Blind Side is racist.

Okay, it's a Sandra Bullock movie. It's a Julia Roberts movie in spirit. She'd pretty much cornered Saintly Meddling Liberal in that abomination Erin Brockovich. I guess Sandra Bullock wants her job.

I tend to agree that The Blind Side is racist (in the Liberal way of racism), but I'm not terribly concerned about that. My thought is that if you're a racist, your movie has a problem if its protagonist is helping a member of the race you despise. Other racists have to ask - why bother?

I gather the target demo is 40-something white females whose "best friends are black" as long as those friends don't live anywhere near them.

Labels: bullshit, critique, liberals, race

posted by Zimri on 17:05 | link |

Monday, November 16, 2009

On privilege, again

I read about the famous Columbia pimp slap last week. Camille Davis was the slappee, culminating a spirited debate over the topic of "white privilege".

Archi prof Lionel McIntyre was involved. Somehow. Or not. To hear him talk, Davis got her slapping from an transdimensional tentacle from Beyond. When "things explode" - rending the fabric of space, time, and the English language - squamous horrors just sort of find their way in. (h/t Scott Stein.)

There's nothing more I could say about the term privy-lege that I hadn't said five years ago. America has no "white privilege" any more than it has "Jewish privilege". There exist social networks and starting capital, if one happens to be born to that sort of family, but these don't apply to poor folks on a Tennessee hillside whatever their colour.

In fact if you're black and have an IQ of 125, you can do a lot better than a white person of that IQ. That's the whole point of federally-sponsored Diversity, to ensure that this happens. If anything this country sponsors privilege for blacks.

Meanwhile, I'm not impressed with the prevarications of (some of) the black blogosphere. University personnel like Lionel McIntyre, Cornel West, and Henry Gates know better than most how little they deserve their cushy jobs. That is why they are prone to tantrums. If academics like Boyce Watkins don't like being "thought of as second-class citizens", perhaps they shouldn't support policies which foist upon the academy men with second-class intellects and third-class temperaments. They can start with sincere apologies for the Hamilton Hall takeover in 1968.

Labels: enemies, race

posted by Zimri on 19:50 | link |

Thursday, November 05, 2009

Fort Hood

[started at 4 PM, bumped] ~~Several~~ people dressed as military have shot up troops at Fort Hood. Death toll is at 12 and rising.

This isn't a sniper up on a clock tower picking people off, or some grunt tossing a grenade into a tent (despicable as those actions are). This is a premeditated attack, ~~with several people involved,~~ and timed perfectly. In addition the perpetrators had to have had military training to get this close. MSNBC says it was a Major who was the ringleader. (h/t, Ace at first - then Drudge.)

This is designed to weaken trust between soldiers and their officers, and to discourage volunteers for the Armed Forces.

Is the date significant - the day of Guy Fawkes? Was it an anarchist? I don't know how much credence to put on the "Arabic sounding name". I think it bears waiting to see what happened. The story is "developing".

Whoever did it, and whyever, it was an act of war.

Pray for the victims.

Ensure it doesn't happen again.

UPDATE 4:13: Malik Hassan, a convert to Islam? Ugh. Jihad successful. I'm starting to get angry.

UPDATE 4:47: Yeah, there were a bunch of posts earlier which were more general and/or lighthearted. I'd written them earlier, before 4 PM. I'm bumping this one to the top of the queue.

UPDATE 5:02: No-one's walked back the name yet. It's distinctive. The name "Hassan" refers to 'Ali's son the Shi'a prince and in its natural habitat it is, still, Shi'ite. A name like "Malik", without the "Abdal" in front of it, implies kingship. Shi'ites until about 1979 or so didn't have a tradition of feeling powerful, and not really until very recently in Iraq; you wouldn't see these names Malik and Hassan together in the Near East. Add to that "Nidal" (Abu Nidal...?). I think we're dealing with a ~~Black Muslim~~ someone who has hated us for a long time, and ~~turned~~ Muslim ~~as a manifestation of that hate~~.

UPDATE 5:08: ~~If it sounds like I'm calling Charles Johnson a worthless pile of slime, that's because I am.~~

UPDATE 5:10: I see that the media is insulting Killeen and generally refusing to name the beast. Heckuva job, guys.

UPDATE 5:38: They released his picture... so the end of my 5:02 post was a jump-to-conclusions mat. Corrected. Sincere apologies. I'm leaving the thing up there as a monument to my carelessness.

UPDATE 6:57: My fallback idea was Baathist from Syria or Iraq. Turns out he was Syrian. Not a convert. Mind you THAT mistake wasn't my fault. I think whoever started the "convert" meme was thinking along the same lines I was - that pious Muslims don't prefer the name "Malik". Unless they become pious...

UPDATE 11/10: After this much time, no-one's found any other shooters, so I'm overdue for the correction.

I'm also trying to figure out if I owe Charles Johnson an apology for insulting him on account of his comment that the shooter's name might signify a non-Muslim black man. While totally bogus, and arguably racist; at the time I was thinking he might be a Muslim black man, which was about half as bogus but equally racist (c.f. my grovel at 5:38). Johnson has since corrected his stance to be more in line with the facts; although he's not come to full terms with those facts, that it was not just an Awlaki jihad but a victory for the Umma.

Labels: apology, enemies, islam, race

posted by Zimri on 17:10 | link |

Phantom voters

The Senate is saying that non-citizens count for apportioning Representative and Electoral-College slots, but are leaving alone whether the non-citizens ought to vote. If pressed the Democrats would have to admit that they can't let them vote.

We can't exactly say the Democrats are abandoning principle. I'm just surprised they're counting non-voters as a full spot and not as three-fifths of one.

We can say that the Democrats are, this time, scoring an own goal. They are allowing Texas to send a pile of extra Representatives and Electors to D.C. who will vote in the proportionate voting of the state's citizens - i.e., Republicans. To a lesser extent (due to the other party doing the gerrymandering) the same is true of California.

The Republicans would be foolish not to exploit this tactical mistake from the other party.

Labels: horserace, race

posted by Zimri on 16:43 | link |

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Joseph Cao needs our help

Another one of the moderates on the list: Joseph Cao (R, LA). He's the guy who beat the corrupt Jefferson last year - he didn't get the majority of the black vote, but enough blacks didn't vote against him that the rest of the district boosted him over.

I hold Cao to a different standard than I hold the despicable Kirk. Cao is genuinely vulnerable, in a district that is going away, and of an ethnicity (Vietnamese) which is not well represented in his own district (or any other). So when I hear the media courting Cao as another "moderate", I view Cao's response more as a cry for help than as a Kirk / Snowe bid for power.

When I come into contact with Louisianans, or read about the place, it usually involves something ugly like ruling against miscegenation. As a result I suspect that Louisianans put Cao alongside Jindal and slap the label "diversity quota" on that box. This frees them to ignore the weaker Cao over the prominent Jindal. This attitude is depressingly common. I expressed a "concern-troll", you might call it, over at Ace's; one "tmi3rd" helped me gain some perspective on the case. But he's one good guy in a state with a lot of bad guys.

It will be difficult to overcome some of the attitudes I've seen in that state. I think that Cao knows it, and that Cao is telling his Party not to take him for granted. He wants to be seen as someone who listens to his constituents (even if they're wrong). In short, he wants a career as a Louisiana Republican. I think he can help the Republicans, and the nation, in that capacity.

I hope that non-bigoted Louisianan conservatives are involved in their local precincts, or can at least write to someone, who can then get in contact with Cao and help him build a deeper foundation as a Louisiana conservative.

UPDATE 11/12: Okay, forget him.

Labels: conservatives, race, republicans

posted by Zimri on 17:10 | link |

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Click it or ticket!

Another signboard: On the left hand, a chalkboard with repeated lines, "I will fasten my seatbelt". On the right hand, a plain message: "OR GET A TICKET!"

It's the same mentality as the commercial featuring a flock of tickets, flying toward a car wherein is some hapless middle-aged white man who has not done his Civic Duty.

Or: the commercial wherein a longer-haired white man is stopped at a light, and slowly surrounded by cop cars. He tries quietly to put on his belt. At that point all five, or more, of the cops turn on their lights. He is caught!

This isn't even a public-safety message. This is just the State saying, do what I say or I will punish you. It's the message of the lord to his serfs.

Under Mayor Bill White, Houston doesn't care about fighting real crime. Houston cares only about fighting that perception.

Under White, Houston is all about criminalising the violation of ordinances. They want the cash from "violators". They want the appearance of being strict. Most of all they want to run up the stats for Group A so it doesn't look so bad when, or I should say if, they should arrest a member of Group B who is committing (say) a mugging.

I've already dealt with this. But it's getting worse.

Labels: bullshit, crime, propaganda, race

posted by Zimri on 16:37 | link |

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Former market-dominants

GNXP, and now Van der Byl in UR, have commented that the Mesticos in Angola - a mixed-race bunch - are now the overclass in an ostensibly Marxist nation.

This is notable because before that the Mesticos started out as the most pro-Portuguese bunch in the colony. They remind me of the mixed-race people in Haiti. In Haiti, famously, the Whites wanted what we might call a unilateral declaration of independence and a slave state; the Blacks wanted blood. Mixed-race people are a natural middle group - they know they don't stand a chance without help. In Haiti this group supported France.

What pushed the Angolan Mesticos to Marxism was Salazar the dictator, in the mid twentieth-century. Salazar had exported a lot of Portuguese trash to this colony. There they predictably set to discriminating against the locals. The former elite resented that.

Mestico Marxism followed the Russian "socialist worker" model and not the Chinese peasants'-party model. They knew that a peasant-party would be indigenous and, if the worst happened, Haitian. In effect the Mesticos found new colonial masters, in Moscow.

Labels: misanthropy, progressives, race

posted by Zimri on 22:05 | link |

Monday, October 26, 2009

Mithridates in Burma

China supports the SLORC in Burma. Much of that is because China is protecting its citizens, now the effective elite in Burma. The role of the Chinese goes beyond a simple market-dominant minority. It's more like the position of Italians in Asia just prior to Mithridates. If the SLORC were to disappear then things would go badly for the itinerant Chinese. This has always been the case.

The SLORC right now seem to be letting their subjects vent their frustrations upon the Kokang. I'd not heard of the Kokang before now. They are a different sort of Chinese. They came originally from Yunnan province, whence they'd moved into Burma centuries before. They're not political adventurers like the SLORC-supported Chinese.

China's lack of support is strange to me. It seems natural that a non-democratic, proud nation with a sense of grievance should step in on their co-ethnics' side. This is what Germany did to then-Czechoslovakia, 1938.

I'm guessing that China sees the Kokang like the English see the Ulstermen today. The English and Irish have been doing okay together over the past two decades, and the English don't need the headache of yet another Orange march. Second, the people over there are throwbacks: Ulstermen are Scots who were ported over in the late 1600s, and the ancestral Kokang are apparently the losers of a Ming-era power-struggle.

Labels: race

posted by Zimri on 16:31 | link |

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

I Gots A Peace Prize: A Review

I'm hearing a lot of Steve Crowder out in the right-wing circuit. I first heard of him from a shambolic "We Didn't Start The Fire" parody (at FrontPageMag.com, although I don't see it there now). Then I caught him right here at the 3 July Tea Party (his wit n' wisdom - "Obama looks like a photo negative of Alfred E Newman"). Now I find that Mr Crowder has "dropped", as they say, a new video: the rap I Gots A Peace Prize.

It's instructive to compare Crowder's parodies with those of Weird Al Yankovic. Weird Al's "Germs" derived from several Nine Inch Nails songs. One does a style parody of a charged genre for one reason - to compare an example of misbehaviour (in the new lyrics) to the pathologies underlying the original (in the shared tune). When Weird Al did "Germs", he was mocking paranoia in the style of frequently-paranoid Trent Reznor. With "Trigger Happy", he was mocking careless gun owners to the tune of a carefree surfer melody.

Crowder's video was gangsta rap. Weird Al has done gangsta rap too: in all cases, to compare his real target to the urban underclass. "All About The Pentiums" and then "White & Nerdy" both lampooned computer-nerd braggarts. Crowder, then, is saying that Obama's Nobel is ghetto. His video is a similitude like Limbaugh's.

Crowder's video is more violent than Yankovic's nerd parodies. Crowder waves a pistol around; Yankovic, as far as I remember, didn't. This brings up primal emotions of rage and terror in Crowder's audience. Crowder also chooses to rap in a Black rapper cadence; and not in the conversational tones of Vanilla Ice and the Bloodhound Gang, nor in the street-brawler snaps of Eminem and the Beastie Boys.

~~As a result I'm not sure who is Crowder's target.~~Crowder is going after the Black community as a whole. If the attempt was to attack Obama as a poser, then he would have done better to rap like a white guy (or to choose another genre entirely). ~~If the attempt was to go after the Obama supporters in the Black community, then the attempt was misguided~~ - surfing around turns up that most Black Obamists on the internet are NOT jumping up and down with pride, but mildly embarrassed by the Prize. But Blacks on blogs are not a representative sample of the average Black person; three quarters of Black population believe that Obama deserved this prize. (h/t, JammieWearingFool.)

Crowder has talent as a satirist and is technically skilled as a musician~~; but his method is distracting~~. Rating: ~~2/5~~4/5

UPDATE 10/27: Having done the research, I find that Crowder had the correct intuition about Black psychology - and I didn't. I apologise to him. I have boosted his video's rating accordingly. Crowder is, like Rush, raising an impolite truth. Satire is not supposed to be polite; it's just supposed to be accurate. That is what Crowder has accomplished here.

Labels: apology, conservatives, race

posted by Zimri on 20:27 | link |

A defence of Limbaugh

I believe that I've amply outlined my stance as a Limbaugh detractor who believes that Limbaugh plays to racial stereotypes.

I'm going to defend him anyway.

The analogy between any given group of minorities, and the underclass control-group of their coracial brethren, is valid when the former does in fact behave like the latter. If it offends the athletes to be so compared, perhaps the athletes should not then have so behaved. My advice to the black community: use that embarrassment, and shun those making you look bad.

People not in the offending group, who nod along to this comparison, have no need to be offended on anyone's behalf. We white people have our own embarrassments amongst us, including Rush Limbaugh on occasion - just not over this issue. When "one of us" screws up, believe me, I'll be here to point it out. (Among those screw-up upon whom we'll need to apply the cluebat-smite will be those who harass innocent black bystanders with invalid racial associations.)

People not in the offending group, who are ostentatiously shying away in horror, are phonies. They're not outraged, and I would even assert that they know Rush is right. They see a conservative making a racial remark and in that, they see a weapon.

UPDATE 10/24/2009: linked back to a similar thought.

Labels: conservatives, liberals, race, trolls

posted by Zimri on 16:35 | link |

Pandering to racial stereotypes

I learn from Media Matters (h/t, Village Voice) that Limbaugh hadn't quit the pandering to racial stereotypes as recently as 2007. There, Limbaugh was making a larger point about unsportsmanship conduct in the National Football League. In the course of it he likened the athletics to the underclass gangs, Crips and Bloods.

It's not "out of context". This is the context - he's making it mainstream conservatism to relate this behaviour to underclass thuggery. His closing "there, I said it" comment reveals the process. He had that analogy in the back of his mind all along, and then worked himself up to the point when he could throw it out there. At that point he heard himself say it on the air and, I presume, watched Snerdly's reaction. He rethought his comment, wondered if it needed to be retracted, and when no reason comes immediately to mind he put his stamp on it.

He could just as easily have compared the athletes to any other group of criminals, but he chose the group who just happened to be caste minorities. THAT, dear readers, is what pandering to racial stereotypes looks like. It is time to quit arguing that Limbaugh didn't mean to evoke race.

Labels: conservatives, race

posted by Zimri on 16:17 | link |

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Conservatives and history

Among the "Conservative library" - and not just the Politically Incorrect Guides - there are books on slavery and on American history. (Some of this is being hashed out at the blogmocracy.) Since we've established that the PIGs are works of propaganda, we should look for what the PIGs are squealing about with respect to the Southern Question.

The PIGs (i.e., Conservatives) don't have much of a theme here; but in general, are arguing "we're not as bad as you think".

One point they raise is that slavery didn't start out because of racism. It's often pointed out that slavery was about profit. It isn't as often pointed out (on any side of the debate); but I think it's relevant - in the 1620s while slavery was growing in the American South, it was also growing in Barbados. Labourers had a price tag in the Caribbean - might it not be profitable to carry them further north? So at the root of slavery in Virginia, we might blame greed and bad decisions by courts (like Johnson vs Parker, 1654). The racism came later, to justify what was being done; there was already a racist literature, Goldenberg has shown, from the Arabs, and this could be and, so, was imported.

However Conservatives are still stuck with the racism from 1700 to, well, now. Virginians (and white Bajans) had the opportunity not to indulge in outright Zanji slave-taking. They failed. Going on a nitpicking tear is fun and educational. It doesn't absolve the Colonies, or their State successors, of a damned thing.

Conservatives get themselves in more serious trouble over Abraham Lincoln, who they claim was (among other faults) racist. That's not true; for a start Lincoln is documented as becoming personally more well-disposed to blacks' rights over the 1860s. As a rule if it cites DiLorenzo with a straight face, it's propaganda.

Conservatives have cognitive dissonance over Lincoln. On the one hand he's the one who won the first election for the Republicans, today a generally Conservative party; and he united the nation (although that's arguably more a fascist notion than a Conservative one). On the other hand Lincoln interfered in local governance; which then led to Reconstruction.

Conservatives tarring Lincoln as racist is a mere tactic (tu quoque specifically). Conservatives don't believe it themselves. Liberals and "neo-con" Republicans have always claimed Lincoln's values as their own. Conservatives by contrast want Lincoln to be a "complex" character, which their opponents can't use against them.

What we're dealing with, in both the case of slavery's origins and that of Lincoln's motives, is myth. Conservatives love their country; they want to keep loving her, and they want to defend her against those who don't. They also define "their country" in terms of family and local community; to which country, Lincoln delivered its greatest defeat.

Labels: conservatives, propaganda, race

posted by Zimri on 17:49 | link |

Sunday, October 11, 2009

"Affirmative action", in Norwegian

Some are calling Obama's Nobel Peace Prize "affirmative action" - RedState and Sailer come to mind. Over at the blogmocracy I had tried to debunk that, and concluded that this canard was an expression of racial resentment.

I'd forgotten about Rigoberta Menchú.

The Prize committee has, in several occasions, (quoting Sailer) "demonstrate[d] how much white people long to give money, fame, and power to a black guy who meets minimum standards of presentability, regardless of his lack of accomplishments." For Europe, read "someone reminding them of the post-colonial Third World" instead of "black guy"; if Obama was actually Black, like Harold Ford Jr, I doubt he'd have won anything in Norway. But the impulse behind the Nobel here is analogous to American affirmative-action, and I can't rule out that it contributed.

So, belated apologies to Erickson and Sailer.

Labels: apology, obama, race, sailersphere

posted by Zimri on 19:48 | link |

Can Blacks be conservative?

It may happen that someone from an otherwise-Liberal ethnos will cross over to join a party filled with Conservatives. I have in mind here Blacks but this can equally apply to central Mexicans, Guatemalans, Somalis etc.

Some Conservatives on the Internet treat minority Republican-voters as movement leaders. Other Internet Conservatives, like Steve Sailer, don't talk about "black conservatives" much beyond a few references to Booker T. Washington. Conservatives off the Internet barely know that they exist.

Some Black conversions to the Right side are attributable to Christianity. Others are attributable to idealism. Since these converts will not get much support from their friends and family, they hook into the Conservative movement on the Internet where there is a community.

The idealist is a conservative of the mind, not of the heart. It's questionable as to how far they can speak for the Black community. This contributor to Black & Right grew up in a White neighbourhood in Massachusetts. He might have more in common with me. As such, he is not Conservative in the Romantic, "RS McCain" sense; I would argue, not a Conservative at all, but a Burkean ally to Conservatives at most.

Afrocity strikes me as a true Conservative. She grew up in a community of people like her and, so, has roots. In her case, she is, or was, a voter for Democrats like Hillary Clinton. Voting Republican would be more difficult for her than for intellectuals like Sowell or B&R.

Blacks can certainly be Conservative, but Black Conservatives will probably not vote Republican. The more Afrocity (say) tilts to the Republicans, the less rooted she will become to her own kind; she will become more ideological, and so less Conservative.

Labels: conservatives, race, sailersphere

posted by Zimri on 19:14 | link |

Wednesday, October 01, 2003

Night of the long knives

I emerge from hiatus to read on Drudge:

BLITZ ON RUSH LIMBAUGH TO INTENSIFY ON THURSDAY WITH CHARGES OF DRUG ABUSE...

AFTER DAY OF INTENSE MEDIA BASHING ON LIMBAUGH SPORTS QUOTES /// NATIONAL ENQUIRER TO ALLEGE IN BOMBSHELL REPORT: 'RUSH LIMBAUGH IN DRUG RING'... HOUSEKEEPER WORE WIRE IN SET-UP, SUPPLIED PAIN PILLS TO DEAF TALKSHOW HOST... ENQUIRER ALLEGES ABUSE OF TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PILLS...

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS SET TO SPLASH PAGE ONE THURSDAY, NEWSROOM SOURCES TELL DRUDGE.

As of now (9:30 pm) this is the only story on Drudge.

I am truly, deeply saddened to read this.

I am an ex-Rush fan. I used to listen to his radio show every day and watch his TV show every night, exactly a decade ago. His show had an immense effect on me at the time, which co-incided with and perhaps co-induced my nervous breakdown that winter. Perhaps one day I will get up the courage to post that story on the blog. For now, I will only say that even after that breakdown I still tuned my radio to his show, off and on, until about 1995 or so.

In '93, I had been moving from vague libertarianism to Horowitzian conservatism. PJ O'Rourke had a hand in pushing me on my way, but it was Limbaugh's radio and TV spots that guided me from there. Limbaugh taught me that I could be a conservative and still not a racist.

This was important to me. I had come from a British boarding school where racism was overt. Being libertarian ("Liberal", as it was then and there called) was the way you could remain anti-communist without buying into the anti-immigrant right wing. Over in the States, there is no party-label option for the old-school Liberal. That forces non-partisans into alternate means of politics. I was alone; the Internet was still a couple of years away; that forced me to the radio. And on the radio was Limbaugh.

Limbaugh - then - was keen to showcase political conservatives of any race, including Blacks. He had the Black conservative group "Project 21" on his TV spot, counteracting the standard line on Rodney King, and also counteracting Ben Chavis's hideous "gang summit". And Limbaugh was right: the Republicans cannot keep their majority or their very souls without appealing to Black support, and Blacks are not going to do well if they do not have a political alternative (even Al Sharpton agrees with this!).

Even after '94 I used to turn to Limbaugh on the radio, just to keep tabs on him. Limbaugh didn't let me down. In '96 Limbaugh commented on Colin Powell's maybe-run for the Republican nomination for President. Limbaugh said he was GLAD that Powell was running, even though they disagreed, because it would add "competition" to the Republican field: "competition is always good!", I distinctly remember.

I stopped listening to Limbaugh in '97. One day I was driving through Kirby and Westheimer, I flipped to his channel - he was commenting on a study on the Southern "honour culture", wherein a couple of academics ~~(whose last names happened to sound Jewish - there was a "-stein" suffix on one of them)~~ had pointed out that crime rates were higher down here, and that much of this was due to an "honour culture" which requires that insults be avenged. Instead of defending the honour culture, or else suggesting how it might be channelled away from fellow Americans, he played it up as an anti-South bias among academics. He lingered on the academics' names a few times, presumably because they sounded liberal or something. And at the end, he asked what might happen if the same study were performed on the "Bronx".

I read this as bordering too close to the ~~anti-Semitic and~~ racist fringe. And I never listened to him again. And, yes, there is a pattern: a look at Google will point out Rush spinning for Trent Lott last year, and that infamous "take that bone out of your nose and call me back" quip from years before.

I kept enough distance not to trash Limbaugh's name when he underwent that ear surgery. Now of course he's gone further than that, sliming a quarterback as some kind of affirmative-action legacy.

To paraphrase Hershel Shanks on John Strugnell, disgraced anti-semitic Dead Sea scholar - one can feel pity for Limbaugh's fall from grace, and for any mental anguish that has brought him to this pass. But for Limbaugh's racism - only he can shoulder the shame.

UPDATE 10/18/2009: I believe the book in question would be Culture of Honor: The Psychology of Violence in the South by Nisbett and Cohen. The year is pretty much right: the book came out in 1996. But it wasn't "Epstein" he would have cited; it was "Cohen". Six years later and I missed a bit so, sorry.

UPDATE 10/20/2009: This article could be taken as to impute antiSemitism to Limbaugh. Since I didn't get Cohen's name right I probably got Limbaugh's tone of voice wrong too. I can't claim Limbaugh set special emphasis on his Jewishness. He did however put down the Bronx and I still think that's racial code, so I'm not backing off that one.