Andy Dick Forgot To Call For Howard Stern's Beheading And Tongue-Removal
There's a death threat out from the Muslim world against David Letterman, but here in civilization, upset assholes just spew anti-Semitic slurs -- they don't call for their Dark Ages brethren to go hack out the tongue of the person who's offended them.
Take Andy Dick. Jake Weinraub writes at The Wrap that Dick (aptly named!) called Howard Stern a "shallow, money-grubbing Jew," "a big fat hook nose," and "miserly":
Dick claims he still hasn't been paid for "The S*** Show," a program he has hosted for several years on Stern's Sirius Radio channel, Howard 101, starting in 2006"For two years I did the show and never got paid," the comedian complained.
Stern shot back after a caller informed him of Dick's rant, saying that Dick's career has been dotted with antisemitism.
"So good, Andy's true colors come out. I'm not surprised by it, I'm used to it. It's just typical," Stern said.
"Andy's run out of friends," Stern added. "You're not getting paid a dime because your show sucks, ass-wipe ... Stop blaming the world for your problems Make yourself valuable, stop looking for the handouts [instead of] waiting for the Jew to give [you] a job."
Dick is no stranger to prejudice -- the comedian was forced to apologize for using the N-word during a 2006 comedy show in Los Angeles.
James Hibberd writes on InsideTV/EW.com about the death threat against Letterman:
According to the SITE Intelligence Group, a private company that tracks extremist websites, a commenter called on Muslims to kill the CBS late-night host after taking offense at a joke made on the program. A poster calling himself Umar al-Basrawi wrote: "Is there not amongst you a Sayyid Nosair al-Masri (may Allah release him) to cut the tongue of this lowly Jew and shut it forever. Just as Sayyid (may Allah release him) did with the Jew Kahane."...Letterman (who, by the way, is not Jewish) apparently mocked the death of accused terrorist leader Ilyas Kashmiri, who was killed by a U.S. airstrike in Pakistan in June. The poster said Letterman put a hand to his neck and demonstrated the "way of slaughter." "He showed his evil nature and deep hatred for Islam and Muslims, and said that Ilyas Kashmiri was killed and he joined bin Laden," he wrote. "We ask Allah to paralyze his tongue and grant the sincere monotheists his neck."
Here's Letterman's Top 10: Signs Al Qaeda Is Running Out Of Money, like "4. Reducing afterlife payment to 71 virgins":
Richard Landes explains Islam's honor-shame culture in the Telegraph/UK:
In an honour culture, it is legitimate, expected, even required to shed blood for the sake of honour, to save face, to redeem the dishonoured face. Public criticism is an assault on the very "face" of the person criticised. Thus, people in such cultures are careful to be "polite"; and a genuinely free press is impossible, no matter what the laws proclaim.Modernity, however, is based on a free public discussion, on civility rather than politeness, but the benefits of this public self-criticism - sharp learning curves, advances in science and technology, economic development, democracy - make that pain worthwhile.
But such a system represents a crucible of humiliation for alpha males, especially those who believe that the social order depends on the honour of ruling elite, like the anti-Dreyfusards around 1900, ready to sacrifice a single man for the honour of Army and Church.
This is particularly true for Islamic religious culture. In Dar al Islam, a Muslim's contradiction/criticism of Islam was punishable by death, a fortiori did this hold true for infidels. Modernity has been a Nakba (psychological catastrophe) for Islam, and Islam in all its variegated currents has yet to successfully negotiate these demands of modernity.
On the contrary, the loudest voices in contemporary Islam reject vehemently the kind of self-criticism modernity requires. Criticism constitutes an unbearable assault on the manhood of Muslims.Indeed, global Jihad and the apocalyptic prophets who nourish it with genocidal rhetoric, represent a particularly virulent form of abreactive modernity, in which the powers of modern society (especially technology) are turned to the task of destroying a modern culture of public, free debate about what is fair.
Secularism demands more maturity, it requires that religions be civil, that they not use force (the state) to impose their beliefs on others. Religious communities have to give up their need to be visibly superior as a sign of being right/true. This involves high levels of both self-confidence and tolerance for public contradiction.
More on Landes' blog:
Contemporary manifestations of Islamic revival tend to handle the infidel "other" poorly. Whether religiously motivated (Islamist locales like Gaza), or culturally (tribal/religious locales like Iraq), minorities are physically imperiled throughout the world where Muslims are the majority. This includes expanding enclaves in Europe, the famous zones urbaines sensibles, where the state's writ no longer runs.Thus, Islam's - Muslims - relationship with the "other" (kufr, infidel, lit. one who covers [the truth]), is the great problem to resolve in this coming generation, and at the heart of that problem lies the ability of Muslims to tolerate criticism from outsiders.
We in the modern (and post-modern) West, who first forged these remarkable rules of self-restraint and created so rich, so variegated, so tolerant a culture, have a right to demand that Islam renounce these principles of coercion, certainly those who live in and benefit from the civil polities we have created. Indeed, if we treasure these values of tolerance, and freedom, and generosity towards the "other," we owe it to ourselves and to the Muslims in our midst, to make this demand. Anything else, including the fantasy that this is not a problem, is cultural suicide.
And yet, so far, we are doing very badly. The West has not figured out how to deal with this problem. In part this is because we avoid it. The proverbial "thin skin" of Muslims to any kind of criticism is proverbial - especially Arab Muslims, to whom modernity has dealt the most painful Nakba, that of Zionism. Much diplomacy, and much public and even academic discourse tacitly acknowledges and tries to find ways to accommodate that cultural reality, to avoid confrontation. When Western positive-sum principles meets Arab zero-sum principles - we do everything we can to "get to yes," win-win, while they have no problem playing by rules in which they can only win, if we lose - we most often lose (Oslo "Peace" Process).
In the last decade (the aughts, '00s) this has gotten much worse: the Muslim public voice has become far more, indeed aggressively, demanding in ways that even in the '90s would have been considered unthinkable; and the Western response has become increasingly dedicated to placating these demands for "respect." In the bruising encounter of Islam with modern demands for public tolerance and public self-criticism, the behavior of the self-identified "progressive" "left" - traditionally the bastion of stinging public criticism of abuse of power, misogyny and belligerence - has been overwhelmingly placatory. Repeatedly they step in - sometimes very aggressively - to prevent anyone (fellow infidels) from saying something that might bruise Muslims feelings. Indeed, they seem more worried about "us" provoking Muslim violence than about exploring the sources Muslim violence. And often they attack those defending democratic principles with a shrill and contemptuous tone that they would never dream of using with Muslims.
Money quote:
PC multiculturalism = putting your head on the chopping block.
Zero accommodation and repeated ridicule should be our declared policy.
Call it "The Napier Strategy" - as in:
Ben David at August 18, 2011 1:30 AM
> The proverbial "thin skin" of Muslims to any kind of criticism is proverbial
Umm...yes, that follows.
TJIC at August 18, 2011 7:13 AM
...and the Western response has become increasingly dedicated to placating these demands for "respect."
I'll respect them when they respect eveyone else's right to live in peace. Until then, all bets are off.
Flynne at August 18, 2011 7:36 AM
not sure how this morphed from andy dick into a muslim diatribe, but for my two cents: Both andy dick and howard stern are tremendous assholes. Humanity would be better off without either one.
ronc at August 18, 2011 10:40 AM
Oh, I totally agree with you, ronc. Although Stern is a little bit less of a dick than Andy. not much, mind you, but yeah, a little bit less.
Flynne at August 18, 2011 10:58 AM
I love Howard Stern. People get distracted because he talks about sex and farts but he's actually a smart guy and from everything I've heard about him as a person, he's a pretty decent guy who takes care of those around him.
Andy Dick has been having problems for years. I wonder sometimes if he believes the ridiculous things he says or if he thinks it will bring him publicity. Either way, I don't care for him. I do feel sorry for him though because he sabotaged what could have been a successful career.
Kristen at August 18, 2011 11:17 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/08/18/letterman.html#comment-2427697">comment from KristenKristin is right. I started listening to Howard Stern probably 27 years ago, when he was at WWWW in Detroit. He's really smart, and the thing I regret about his show is all the porn star talk, because he'd do a great political show or show on issues in general. I also think he's a pretty decent guy.
As for Andy Dick, how long do you have to go on before you take your problems in hand and do what takes to get them solved?
Amy Alkon
at August 18, 2011 11:21 AM
As for Andy Dick, how many chances do you give him before you turn out? He has exhausted my limit, as have many others.
MarkD at August 18, 2011 1:12 PM
tune out, not turn out. I don't multitask as well as I should.
MarkD at August 18, 2011 1:13 PM
I really think we need to play a game or two of Cowboys and Muslims.
Jim P. at August 18, 2011 4:22 PM
Leave a comment