George Lopez, racist? From an email we received last night:

At this years comic relief it was a leftwing garbage storm as pretty much anyone would have guessed. But when George Lopez came on stage and started his act with jokes about the latest Ecoli out break and how it was “they’re bad” (meaning mexican migrant workers) but that it was ok because “only white people got sick” “poor people just got the runs”.

I cannot help but wonder if Kyle Allgood’s parents were amused by his death from Ecoli after all he was white but after all he was only 2 years old….i wonder how the other people who got sick feel that its ok that they are sick “because they are white.”

Not to defend Michael Richards — at all — but why does Lopez get away with making this kind of joke? Especially at a relief concert? And why did Richards’ hecklers get away with calling him a “cracker?”

***

I missed Friday’s Battlestar Galactica. From the sound of this email, the show continues its slide into flaccid moral equivalency:

This time Adama is revealed to have been involved in a black ops mission over the armistice line before the Cylon Attack. He feels that he is responsible. The president suggest that he was not the only one, and that there must have been other provocations. His son says it is not his fault it was the admirals, he was following orders.

It seems from week to week the Cylons represent America, then the Islamists. What I find incredible is the “moral equivalency” of the Cylon’s attack. How can the leaders of the remaining 40,000 humans imagine they provoked a holocaust of 20 billion lives.

This is an important commentary. After 9/11, in the back of our minds is the feeling that a more deadly attack would wake up those who just don’t get it. How many would it take? – if not 3000, then 30,000, or 300,000, more?

This (the show’s take) is dumb for so many reasons, which Jonah Goldberg explains here. We in the West are, as Jonah says and I’ve said once or twice as well, incredibly narcissistic to assume that the enemy’s motivations always revolve around something we have done. It’s the “we had it coming” way of looking at the world, which ultimately puts the power for ending whatever conflict you’re talking about in your own hands. That would be comforting if it were true, since we could at any time just take this or that action and end the war. But it’s not true. The enemy, in this way of thinking, can be placated with a set of policy calibrations or incentives, or if we make nice with them somehow. That’s deadly foolish. And it reduces the humanity of the enemy, since it puts the moral responsibility of his choices onto us. He chooses to blow up a school bus, and it’s our fault. That kind of thinking absolves the enemy of culpability, and reduces his incentive to stop blowing up school buses.

If BSG keeps going along this path, it’ll lose me. I get enough of this moral equivalency from the media and the Democrats. Friday night sci-fi just isn’t the place for it.

As for the emailer’s last question, I wonder if any significant attack on us now won’t produce a schism from which we won’t recover. I don’t think it would unify us.

***
Yeah, banning Sager is dumb. I’d prefer it if the quality and unoriginality of his work took care of that on its own accord.

***

My last thought in this round-up: We’re not a serious nation. We’re at war and we’re not taking it seriously. We have been airing all of our dirty laundry on this war, even debating war strategy and tactics, on the blogs, cable nets and front pages. The enemy isn’t doing that. He’s keeping his strategies within his own council, until he chooses to act. But he’s paying attention to everything we’re willing to put out there. And he’ll adjust according to what we say. We’ve already seen it with Iran, which responded to our trial balloon from the Iraq Study Group to (incredibly and inadvisably) bring Syria and Iran into discussions to pacify Iraq, by holding its own summit with Syria and Iraq that freezes us out. Suppose the Iranians strike a grand bargain with the Syrians (who are already their lapdogs) and the Iraqis — and deliver peace to Iraq. The Iranians, as instigators of much of the Shia-led violence, have it in their power to curb much of that violence. Suppose they do it.

Where does that leave Iraq in the new Middle East? Where does it leave Syria and especially Iran? And where does it leave us?

Update: Heritage hasn’t banned Ryan Sager. It just didn’t invite him. They’re within their rights to do that.

Two things here: Don’t believe a word Andrew Sullivan says about conservatives (he seems to have raised this issue on the radar). The peddler of the politics of pout just isn’t a reliable source. For the purgemaster, Ryan Sager, to assume that a non-invitation is a ban is…humorous. If it were a ban, Sager’s just getting a taste of the very same medicine he has been prescribing for the GOP for several years now.