SWEET GINGER BROWN

Sorry to start off with some homework but you have to read the article for any of my stuff to work.

http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard_pitts/
story/274100.html

For the record, I am Jewish by ancestry, culture and self-identification, atheist by religion. For now, though, I'd like to address Mr Pitts' column.

At first blush, it all made a certain sense to me. Sure, Ann Coulter's a bigot.

Big deal, though. We didn't know that 8 months ago? She finally got around to Jews. No problem. I despise her views but I'm hardly surprised by them. Really, what took her so long? I wasn't offended because she didn't say anything THAT terrible. She expressed a G-rated version of a kind of anti-semitism that's all over the place. I am a free speech absolutist. She has every right to say and pen whatever she likes. It's great she opened up the topic for discussion. Unfortunately, there hasn't BEEN that kind of discussion because everybody's so sensitive and paranoid. That's not free speech. That's self-censorship. Writing as a Jew, I want to know what Fundamentalists think. I want to know what all Gentiles think. Is there a consensus in the wide Gentile community about "our" prospects for heaven or hell? At least here on a progressive blog there should be open dialogue. Tell me what you think of Jewish people and PLEASE LEAVE JERRY SEINFELD OUT OF IT. Physically big African-Americans and Gentiles realize only too late that despite our relatively small size we are very, very tough people. Man, we fought off the mightly German army for a long while with bottles and bricks in Lodz and Warsaw. We KILLED a lot of Nazis with bottles and bricks. Ann Coulter doesn't scare me. I don't rat and I don't need to run to the government to protect me from Nazi bullshit like what Coulter slings. I've written this again and again, we don't need Hate Speech Laws because we can always give it back as hard as it comes in. There are only two Jewish curse words: "Cancer" and "Hitler". The rest we employ all the time.

And I'm sorry if this isn't PC, but while Coulter's either sociopathic or just pathetic, some of the stereotypes DO very much apply. Jewish people do tend to be more overtly sexual than the average American. We tend to be more driven. We tend to be more scholarly. We tend to have monstrous egos. We are also hopeless at fixing stuff that isn't related to computers or electronics. We look back at our history and find a natural and reflexive tolerance of all sorts of people. We can't build shit. I have heard, though, Jewish men may be hopeless around the house but we turn into MacGyver when drugs enter into the picture. [I'm being silly here but I have a point because Pitts brought this up in the column and I'm calling it fair game.] We don't drink all that much but we do love our shit, meaning opiates not feces! And we do tend on average to be more tribal and seek each other out. That's not racism, nor sexism. That's how it is.

But we Jews sure ain't adverse to mixing in with anyone. David Horowitz enjoys the company of White Fundamentalist Christians? Fine. I enjoy the company of Panamanian Muslims. Horowitz feels a kinship with his surprising "bedfellows". I find a kinship with mine. He has a problem with folks I think are cool and vice versa. That's why they play the ballgames. Why am I feeling like I could get a legit argument with Horowitz who's my opponent but not with this Leonard Pitts, Jr., guy who's notionally my ally? The answer is easy. It's on every T-shirt. It's a Jewish thing; you wouldn't understand. [NB: DEAR NSA, DHS, CIA, FBI, DOJ, DOD, INS, and the rest of the alphabet soup -- IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH FOMENTING TERRORISM. IT'S ALL ABOUT 100-100 NL OMAHA AND PARTYING, MMMKAY?]

Let's have a look at the Jewish folks Mr. Pitts likes: Jerry Seinfeld and Steve Spielberg. No problem. Cool. I like the former very much and other than Jaws and Jurassic Park I don't care for the latter's stuff. His favorite African-Americans on this topic are J.C. Watts and Colin Powell. His choice for UBER-MENSCH WHO MUSES ABOUT "TIME": Martin Luther King, Jr.

"...But time, Martin Luther King once observed, is neutral. Time alone changes nothing. It is people who make change in time. Or not. So you have to wonder if this determined sanguinity in the face of intolerance is not ultimately an act of monumental self-delusion...."

I'm happy to use Pitts' template, Jewish "entertainers" and African-American "leaders." Was this intentionally ironic on his part? If so, he gets a lot of props from me. And I also get my choice of an UBER-MENSCH WHO MUSES ON "TIME," si o no? Cierto! For me, Larry David and David Mamet. Jews. U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.(D-IL). Blacks. Albert Fucking Einstein. UBER-MENSCH WHO MUSES ABOUT "TIME". That would be "gin rummy," Mr. Pitts. No? J.C. Watts, Colin Powell and M.L. King, Jr V Barbara Lee, Jesse Jackson, Jr., and Albert Einstein? Are you loco, Pitts? That's a lay-down hand for me. Puta, huevo! That's 43 loose points plus 25 for gin and two bonus boxes. Write it up on the scorecard, Pitts.

Lay-down gin hands are fun but I'm gunning for the 3x-schneid here. We press on. When anyone's using J.C. Watts -- bigot, homophobe, cheater, hypocrite, philanderer -- or Colin Powell -- liar, multiple war criminal, asshole -- as exemplars of anything, I start to feel that Obama thing coming on and Mr. Pitts does not disappoint. It took one google but here is Pitts "weighing in" on the tragic events of September....11th. On September 12th. The goof-ball factor is worth the price of admission. Enjoy.

By Leonard Pitts Jr.
Published Wednesday, September 12, 2001

We'll go forward from this moment
It's my job to have something to say. They pay me to provide words that help make sense of that which troubles the American soul. But in this moment of airless shock when hot tears sting disbelieving eyes, the only thing I can find to say, the only words that seem to fit, must be addressed to the unknown author of this suffering.

You monster. You beast. You unspeakable bastard.

What lesson did you hope to teach us by your coward's attack on our World Trade Center, our Pentagon, us? What was it you hoped we would learn? Whatever it was, please know that you failed.

Did you want us to respect your cause? You just damned your cause. Did you want to make us fear? You just steeled our resolve. Did you want to tear us apart? You just brought us together.

Let me tell you about my people. We are a vast and quarrelsome family, a family rent by racial, social, political and class division, but a family nonetheless. We're frivolous,

yes, capable of expending tremendous emotional energy on pop cultural minutiae -- a singer's revealing dress, a ball team's misfortune, a cartoon mouse. We're wealthy, too, spoiled by the ready availability of trinkets and material goods, and maybe because of that, we walk through life with a certain sense of blithe entitlement. We are fundamentally decent, though -- peace-loving and compassionate. We struggle to know the right thing and to do it. And we are, the overwhelming majority of us, people of faith, believers in a just and loving God.

Some people -- you, perhaps -- think that any or all of this makes us weak. You're mistaken. We are not weak. Indeed, we are strong in ways that cannot be measured by arsenals.

IN PAIN
Yes, we're in pain now. We are in mourning and we are in shock. We're still grappling with the unreality of the awful thing you did, still working to make ourselves understand that this isn't a special effect from some Hollywood blockbuster, isn't the plot development from a Tom Clancy novel. Both in terms of the awful scope of their ambition and the probable final death toll, your attacks are likely to go down as the worst acts of terrorism in the history of the United States and, probably, the history of the world. You've bloodied us as we have never been bloodied before.

But there's a gulf of difference between making us bloody and making us fall. This is the lesson Japan was taught to its bitter sorrow the last time anyone hit us this hard, the last time anyone brought us such abrupt and monumental pain. When roused, we are righteous in our outrage, terrible in our force. When provoked by this level of barbarism, we will bear any suffering, pay any cost, go to any length, in the pursuit of justice.

I tell you this without fear of contradiction. I know my people, as you, I think, do not. What I know reassures me. It also causes me to tremble with dread of the future.

In the days to come, there will be recrimination and accusation, fingers pointing to determine whose failure allowed this to happen and what can be done to prevent it from happening again. There will be heightened security, misguided talk of revoking basic freedoms. We'll go forward from this moment sobered, chastened, sad. But determined, too. Unimaginably determined.

THE STEEL IN US (does he mean this to be a pun, "us" and "U.S."?)You see, the steel in us is not always readily apparent. That aspect of our character is seldom understood by people who don't know us well. On this day, the family's bickering is put on hold.

As Americans we will weep, as Americans we will mourn, and as Americans, we will rise in defense of all that we cherish.

So I ask again: What was it you hoped to teach us? It occurs to me that maybe you just wanted us to know the depths of your hatred. If that's the case, consider the message received. And take this message in exchange: You don't know my people. You don't know what we're capable of. You don't know what you just started.

But you're about to learn.

What hog-slop! He wasn't in New York when that happened. He's just another grave dancer getting all self-righteous about matters that don't concern him. So, fuck him very much. I suppose there's an outside chance he was talking about a Bush conspiracy cleverly by not mentioning Al-Qaida but I don't think he's that brazen or clever. Why? Because this (from above):

"...we walk through life with a certain sense of blithe entitlement. We are fundamentally decent, though -- peace-loving and compassionate. We struggle to know the right thing and to do it. And we are, the overwhelming majority of us, people of faith, believers in a just and loving God...." That was my empasis because, "that's gin." I win the first and second columns.


On to the treble-schneid. You scold and hector at will. Nobody's buying, boyo. Here's a cute one which brings one final hand. Another goodie. I am sorry, Mr. Pitts, I am not a believer in faith, nor any god at all. I'm going to let all that witchcraft be.

That will be read as criticism of conservatism, but I intend a larger point. After all, liberalism has had its own unfortunate extremes -- the drug use of the '60s, the Weather Underground, the Symbionese Liberation Army and the like. The difference is, say what you will about Michael Moore or Jesse Jackson, they are not pushing back toward that which has been discredited. Coulter is..

Let's pick up where it was. Pitts writes about the problem of drugs, but does he mean the scourge of shitty stuff and violent youth in Harlem or laundering money uptown upscale like. [Is he sneaking in another little Black v Jew dig in there?]
Nevertheless, with regard to the parenthetical question, I don't know. I do know that drugs cut across all political stripes and are as prevalent today as in the 1960s. Cigarettes, tobacco, and all the illegal ones are morally neutral. They are chemical coupounds that are psychoactive. And water's wet. Big deal. By the way, Pitts, do the worst two, cigarettes and alcohol count, well do they, Pitts? Speak up, man, what do you have to say for yourself? And where exactly in the 1960s liberal playbook do you find the Weathermen and the SLA? Sociopathic rich kids. Not liberals. And why the qualifier about Michael Moore and Jesse Jackson, Sr. They're both kind of hypocritical, I guess, but overall not terrible. Moore's made some good movies. Jackson's done yeoman work from time to time but crushing Al Gore, Jr., in 1988 when Gore was really a super, duper Neo-Con, is a decent life's work right there.

I do know that if the barricades go up and by some crazy fluke I'm forced to be like an Andy Goodman or Michael Schwerner and I'm looking for a James Chaney to help me navigate my way through unfamiliar waters, Leonard Pitts, Jr. is not even my 1000th choice. Dildo'd turn me over to J.C. Watts sure as look at my little kike face. That, children, would be the-name-of-the-game, as in gin-rummy. I blitz the last column for a triple-schneid. Cash or certified check, Pitts.

The best part about Pitts is that the google reveals him to be a pretty radical guy in his way and a real bete noire to the loonie Right who think he's anti-White. Yeah. Anti-White the way Watts and Colin Powell are. But if we don't like something we stagger 'em all here with no fear or favor.

Leonard Fucking Pitts, Jr., is defending my right to be Jewish from the likes of Ann Coulter? Wow. Quite frankly, I'd rather have Coulter next to me in a bar fight over Pitts despite how much I detest her politics. She's an out-and-out Nazi. He's kind of a sneaky, side-door fascist. But I'm flattered. I didn't earn it his "help" and I sure don't deserve it. Or maybe I do. As in Karmic payback to me for past sins.

Kelso's Nuts love you