Why nobody gets that Sarah Silverman did (and said) the right thing at the TED convention this week

WWW--The reaction to this has been--well--retarded, and that's being far too kind to most who organized and attended TED. As the story goes, Sarah Silverman was invited and paid to do her stand-up routine at the TED convention in the ugly town of Long Beach, California that took place from February 9-13.

Silverman's appearance seems to have been on the last day. Most Americans don't even know what the fuck this convention is or even care (I'm in their ranks), but they made the news with Silverman's routine and are smarting over it for some reason. They're also trying to misrepresent what happened and show a great case of being unable to think laterally or outside of the box. In other words, the public doesn't know or care about TED for most of the right reasons.

This is what TED is: a lot of bullshit propped-up by money and more bullshit to recruit and to not listen to people with ideas, misuse and misapply them, piss the originators of said ideas off, and then watch them quit in disgust a few months later like most employer-employee relationships in the happy old US of A. But hey, when you have a dumbshow of already ossified bourgeois mummies you have to at least go through the motions:

TED is a small nonprofit devoted to Ideas Worth Spreading. It started out (in 1984) as a conference bringing together people from three worlds: Technology, Entertainment, Design. Since then its scope has become ever broader. Along with the annual TED Conference in Long Beach, California, and the TEDGlobal conference in Oxford UK, TED includes the award-winning TEDTalks video site, the Open Translation Program, the new TEDx community program, this year's TEDIndia Conference and the annual TED Prize. ... The annual conferences in Long Beach and Oxford bring together the world's most fascinating thinkers and doers, who are challenged to give the talk of their lives (in 18 minutes). (Ted.com, "About" page)

That's exactly what they got from Silverman, yet the organizer of the event, Chris Anderson, isn't exactly a genius, and that's why he's not showcased as a real thinker, slagged Silverman for her routine. This was the talk of Silverman's life and she felt very strongly to do what she did, think what you will. Did she take the TED engagement seriously? I believe so, this wasn't a "for the hell of it deal." You see...how soon we forget.

Silverman's repertoire and themes are always changing, just as they have with the great American stand-up comedians and social critics like Dick Gregory, Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Mort Sahl, and even Noam Chomsky (one of the most often-quoted intellectuals in Western history, yet apparently never invited to speak at TED in its 26 year history). For some reason, the onus is on Silverman for saying the word "retarded" at least ten times in her stand-up routine, and again, remember that she was invited, she didn't crash the event and run up onstage yelling the word without any logical context. That would be the job of another woman named Sarah, a goyische one, a WASP one. Besides, seeing things without any logical context--as we all know--is the job of CEOs, politicians and the public in these here United States. Context is everything, or nothing, if you find thinking painful.

But not more than two weeks ago we had a "controversy" about the word "retarded" and all of its many permutations (my favorite being "tard," mostly because it sounds funny and makes the person saying it look and sound funny), and it was trotted-out all over by a supplicant media and Internet by none other than failed VP candidate, Sarah Palin who has a child with Down syndrome. It should be mentioned here that most women approaching and past the age of forty years old are or should be informed by their personal physician or gynecologist that the risks of having a child with Down syndrome become considerably higher with a woman in this age range. But she had a child anyway, and drags the poor baby around the country while she's trying hard not to get elected. Never mind all this, it's just context, very inconvenient context, and it's all about that evil Sarah Silverman.

It gets better, and in case you've been in a coma, here's a little summary of the last couple weeks of political and cultural idiocy and general human folly:

The latest battle over the R-word kicked into high gear with a Jan. 26 Wall Street Journal report that last summer White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel blasted liberal activists unhappy with the pace of health-care reform, deriding their strategies as "[expletive] retarded." Palin, the mother of a special-needs child, quickly took to Facebook to demand Emanuel's firing, likening the offensiveness of the R-word to that of the N-word. Limbaugh seized the low ground, saying he found nothing wrong with "calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards," and Palin rushed to his defense, saying Limbaugh had used the word satirically. Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert took her up on it, calling Palin an "[expletive] retard" and adding, with a smile: "You see? It's satire!" ("The case against banning the word 'retard'," The Washington Post, 02.14.2010)

Yes, it's "satire," but only the elect (not elected, however) get to use the term, and in whatever context they feel they want to use it in. But not anyone else, and they'll use the word to suppress other words if they have their way. Players only, yo.

As a matter of fact, the herding instinct has already set in and very naive and pathetic people are taking pledges like it's go time at Masada. In that same Jewish tradition, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel fell on his sword, but probably not without a lot of prodding from his ostensible boss, the president, a man who seems intent on fucking-up and showing no vision or leadership skills unless he's left with no other alternatives. Hey, it's America.

But what did Silverman say exactly? This is where things get kind of sketchy since we're not seeing any footage with audio yet, but I would imagine we will eventually. Tech Crunch.com seems to have the most cogent version so far from a female attendee in the audience:

“I want to adopt a special needs child (to which one person applauded), because adopting a special needs child, who would do that? Only an awesome person, right?” I looked around the room and I knew exactly what was coming next. She was going to say retarded and not only was she going to say it, she was going to drop it like 10 times. I knew it wouldn’t be ok, but I was excited about it.

Words are powerful. They are mightier than the sword and all of that, but if you let them have too much power, you can create what I feel is evil. You create a society of people who are so concerned about what they say and what is PC and you destroy creative expression. ...

She went on to say:

“The only problem with adopting a retarded child is that the retarded child, when you are 80 is well, still retarded and that she wouldn’t enjoy the freedoms of setting them free at age 18, so she was only going to adopt a retarded child with a terminal illness so it has an expiration date, because who would adopt a retarded child with a terminal illness? Well, someone who was awesome like her”.

The room went silent and she went on with her show and sang a song about how all of the penises in the world couldn’t fill your heart holes. ... ("TED Organizer Trashes Speaker [Silverman], Fails Social IQ Test, Tech Crunch.com, 02.14.2010)

According to the attendee, roughly half of the audience applauded, and out of those, half appeared to have "gotten" the real message. We're a slow culture, so bear with me, please, since the future hinges on it. Apparently they, and a few others in attendance, have a clue where Silverman and the nation have been and what actual stand-up looks and sounds like. It's no secret that she's a shock comedienne, she's even on Comedy Central with her own show, and has been around for over twenty years. It seems TED is as ignorant about Silverman as the public is about them.

Certainly the well-heeled puds that were populating some of the ranks of the audience that received her well-aimed cultural assault on the suppression of words had little idea of who she is and what kind of a comedienne she represents. Silverman is a social critic and a satirist. She is brave, and she's cut through the bullshit of our culture...if only we had eyes to see it and ears to hear it. At least some of us do. Sarah Silverman just did America a very big favor and she's a hero, you betcha!

"Is Sarah Silverman Retarded, posted 10.13.2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRegd02Qiew

"TED Organizer Trashes Speaker [Silverman], Fails Social IQ Test, Tech Crunch.com, 02.14.2010: http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/14/ted-organizer-trashes-speaker-fails-social-iq-test/

TED (not your uncle): http://www.ted.com/pages/view/id/7

THE LONG BEACH HATE CRIMES: THE DEAFENING SILENCE OF BLACK LEADERSHIP, THE PRESS, AND THE LEFT

Long Beach, California--I'm pleased with the convictions of the nine defendants, with eight getting the "enhanced" charges for hate crimes. When you attack people unprovoked, hurling such racial-epithets as: "white bitches," "we hate white people," "I hate f*cking white people," and more, you're targeting someone because they are different. Regardless of their color, they are being treated as they should be--as profoundly disturbed criminals who should be jailed until they can prove they're normal:

All 10 minors, nine girls and one boy ages 12 to 18, were charged with felony assault for the beating, which took place around 9 p.m. in the 3800 block of Linden Avenue, an affluent section of Bixby Knolls popular with trick-or-treaters for its lavish displays. A hate crime enhancement was added to eight minors' charges, stemming from victim and witness statements that several youths within a crowd of 20 to 40 people yelled racial slurs as the victims were pelted with newspapers, fruit and pumpkins, then beat to the ground with fists, feet, a skateboard and tree branches. (Free Republic, 01.26.2007)

It took the L.A. Times over a month to publish the epithets in-full, particularly the "white bitches" comment. There's no excuse for their behavior, yet the mainstream media has shown a strange reluctance early-on in the story to classify the vicious attacks as "hate crimes," yet that's exactly what they were.

While the Black communities in California seem divided on the event, prominent Black leaders in southern California have called them that with some minor-exceptions. So what gives? These defendants are not "victims" in the incident, and there is even evidence that a few of them are in gangs and have possibly been protected by others through witness intimidation (of another Black teen whose car was totaled in the alleged incident--they declined to testify afterward).

Where's Jesse Jackson? Where's Al Sharpton, CORE, the NAACP, or the SCLC? Nowhere. Jesse Jackson ancient comments that "Black people cannot be racist" has never been taken-seriously, or his "hymietown" statements, but why the silence?

In fairness to Jesse Jackson, he's been ill since last week and had to cancel a visit to Ohio. But how would he and other Black "leaders" classify this incident? Their silence speaks volumes. We had an explosion of moralism over a comedian using the word "nigger" recently, and other comments directed at two Black hecklers in a club, but the sound of crickets over this story of a Black-on-White hate crime. The hypocrisy is obvious and pathetic. There is the possibility that because this crime plays-into Black racism, speaking-out against it by these leaders would be viewed as a betrayal--they don't see any material gain in condemning it. But this is just one incident of Black-on-White crime that got little notice or comment.

During the morning-hours of June 16th, 2002, a Black man whose wife had died and had recently learned he had contracted HIV (and a colorful criminal record stretching-back to 1985), shot three white people, and even terrorized a Japanese-American:

The gunman was identified as Steven Johnson, 34, a black man who has AIDS and who, the police said, told investigators he was bent on killing as many white people as he could. ...As this was happening, witnesses say Johnson was quoted ranting about white people and vowed revenge for thousands of years of suffering [?!]," Commissioner Kelly said. "He also mentioned that this was, quote, `fun,' and that a real man chooses when he dies. (NYT, 06.17.2002)

Read the article--nobody, and I mean nobody, wanted to assign the event the moniker of a "hate crime", and that's wrong. If a group of young White men had done this, it would have rocketed around the globe overnight in the world press. As a matter of fact, this was the case with Tawana Brawley, an ambulance Al Sharpton once chased over a cliff. Is it that this kind of story just doesn't sell? It's possible, but there is a definite reluctance here for fear of being labeled "racist." This writer has no-such fears in this area, and insists on a reasoned approach rather than a double-standard.

Perhaps the problem in the neighborhoods of Long Beach is one of poor role-models and poor models of manhood; but how often does anyone ask about environmental questions when Whites attack Blacks? We should, while still recognizing that there is no excuse based on the facts of the crime.

I grant the history of slavery has caused incredible damage to Black Americans, it is undeniable--but what does that have to do with the facts surrounding this case in Long Beach? Either you believe in justice, or you don't. It's like being pregnant. There are no half-way measures here when an unprovoked violent crime has occurred. I will also grant there have been stories that there might have (a big "might") been irregularities in the early identification of the suspects. That's what appeals are for, and not every single suspect was convicted on the hate crimes charges. On the other hand, the judge in the case barred significant DNA evidence of blood on one of the defendant's jeans from a victim. (LA Times, 12.14.2006) The excuse? "Too time-consuming." Jesus.

Justice Department statistics now state that Black-on-White hate crimes make up 20% of the 10,000 reported each year. This is an emergent phenomena, and a troubling one. Another troubling trend is the increase of Latino-on-Black crimes that are predominantly gang-related, something that has even had coverage right here in Michiana.

Standing-up for the guilty to serve an agenda--even a good one--only feeds the Right the ammunition they want. Because of the Left's tendency towards mythology, rationalization, and delusion (just like the Right's in many-respects), they're getting that ammunition. The most-pressing problem is Latino-on-Black (and vice-versa) hate crime, which increased in Long Beach in 2005 according to the LA Human Relations Commission that was founded in-the-wake of the 1965 Watts riots:

"This month, the authorities reported that crimes in the city motivated by racial, religious or sexual-orientation discrimination had increased 34 percent in 2005 over the previous year [Ed.--No final stats for 2006]." (IHT, 01.17.2007)

We are a silly species, and hell is other people.

Free Republic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1774400/posts

NYT, June 17th, 2002:
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/shootsthree.html

Earl Ofari Hutchinson at Alternet:
http://www.alternet.org/stories/45807/

LA Times on Barred Evidence in the Long Beach Trial:
http://www.topix.net/content/trb/0044260246419346595823647812750701184887

LA Human Relations Commission Report on Hate Crimes in 2005:
http://lahumanrelations.org/publications/docs/2005HCR.pdf