Antonio Gonzales?

Maybe Perez reports the wrong info on Castro, but I bet he knows Fidel's first name AND proofreads his statements before posting 'em.

Don't care about Horseface, but good story about water!

Its also of import to note that the more middle/upper class folks rely on bottled water, the less pressure there is on the local, state, and federal government to provide clean drinking water. As with the health/organic food craze, we are slowly abandoning the health of our poorest citizens--leaving them fat and cancerous.

a quick look at the Amazon description seems to conflict with the author's claim. She was engaged at the time to the father. It was a long distance relationsip. A drastically different scenario from the movie. Seth Rogan is Canadian, though, so maybe she can sue him for that. Although, if I were Canadian, I'd be suing my parents instead...no one should have to bear that burden.

While Sharpton deserves every bit of harrassment that he gets, I don't feel bad for the LDS, either.

Take JDavid's advice or, better yet, go to the LDS wiki...the Mormons are crazy! To elect a Mormon is to elect someone who's religion is so warped and strange that it could only be for perverts. And I know, kaybay, of which I speak...

True enough, JMC. And thanks for the clarification. Sarah Silverman, I guess, would be the missing example I'm looking for.

I can't speak for others--but when I make jokes involving race, they aren't dissing the Slavs who might be cooking my pizza (ironic or not) but making fun of myself and friends for assumptions we make about others, consciously or otherwise.

Sarah Silverman's jokes, when they work, expose her own stupidity/ignorance, etc. far more than they denigrate whomever she's speaking of. This is what I take to be 'ironic racism'.

The idea that somebody defends dropping n-bombs by saying its 'ironic' is pretty retarded and, also, incorrect. Its transgressive...big difference.

Oh yeah and, by all accounts, Scotty Harrel's a big d-bag.

Um, alright...thanks sirloyal, for making a lot of inaccurate assumptions about my life/habits/point. It is nice to know, however, that the PC police are back in full-force.

I'm not advocating ironic racism for the sake of it...I've never 'dropped the n-bomb' in my life (outside of contextual discussions). What your talking about, sirloyal--the 'ghetto fabulous' partys and Boho Brooklynites pretending to be 'down' by drinking 40s--thats just flat-out racism, there's nothing ironic about it.
The need to censor people on this issue of race makes a lot of people feel like they're setting standards and defending the "Other", which makes 'em feel better for not fighting for causes that could really up-end the oppressive social structure of our country. Fighting Don Imus doesn't fix our education, prison, justice or economic systems--it just helps to justify your own self-righteousness.

Sooo...because you don't know how to be funny, where race is concerned, and are feeling some liberal guilt about it, we all should?

There's a time/place for ironic, race-based humor (all though none for your stupid, racist t-shirt)...just maybe not for you.

We're all prejudice to one degree or another and ironic racism is better used to point this out and make fun of our own hidden prejudices. It works to both acknowlegde these prejudices exist and to point out how utterly idiotic they are.

I've always believed, on the other hand, that anyone who feels they have to point out they're not racist might, secretly, have some predjudices they're unwilling to acknowlegde...maybe this is the case with you, Mr. Harrell? Your talk about this issue is pretty close to the Richardson/Imus approach and maybe that's the real source of your guilt about this humor.

No doubt, no comment. It was a douche- question.

While I don't have the facts these other folks have, I can say that you write about politics like its fashion or gossip. Which doesn't work, exactly.

Iraq is the most complicated foreign policy situation that the US has faced since Vietnam, if not longer.

No one has a good position because there isn't one. And everyone's position keeps changing because the situation keeps changing. We don't even know if Iraq is going to be (more or less)over by the time a new President gets in. Every candidate's "most important" position might be irrelevant by the time they swear in. And won't you feel stupid, on that day, if you've criticised a better but losing candidate for such a position? Maybe you should start feeling that way right now...

Maybe Colbert just doesn't read Radar...but, of course, he should.

Your piece on Gore's weight's relation to weather he'll run for President was mentioned on Hardball last night. They didn't credit Radar, but they talked about the weight theory for quite a while...

To be sure this may be petty and anal to point out...but, in the poster, neither girl is sneering and the background isn't white, either.

Actually Common released his best selling album a year and a half ago and has another one coming in a couple months.

And why, prey tell, can't Common get some marketing love? Every other star on the plant (including all the hip, "no sell out" indie bands) has done a Gap commercial. Hell, Jack White just wrote a theme song for Coke. And we don't even need to bring up bling-y 50, Hova, Diddy, Kanye, etc...who got more sponsorships than NASCAR.

This same section just praised, a couple days ago, Flava Flav for getting all Sambo on national tv...yet Common's suppose to hide in his closet because he dares present a shade of blackness that is both sophisticated and intelligent?

Making a living as a conscious rapper in today's hiphop scene is prolly only slightly more profitable than writing for an online tabloid...I wonder if you'd be turning the movie roles and sponsorships down if you were offered 'em?

I always like Flava Flav in Public Enemy...his wakiness offset Chuck D's constant preaching.

But he and his show, in my opinion, aren't really "goofy, charming and...genuinely likable." Flavor of Love is an offensive minstrel show, a giant step below the gross Osborne Show. Watching a former crack addict with severe personal/familial/mental problems act like a total moron is nothing but exploitation. That Flava is black and a member of the most potently political black musical act of the last 25 years is just sad.

Next time you tune in to watch his antics, you could ask yourself, are you laughing from a place of respect for the entertainer? Or are you laughing because Flava embodies all the minstrel/black stereotypes that are deeply rooted in our racist culture and speak to your own buried predjudices?

That's totally retarded. While not the biggest Spielburg fan, it is obvious that Minority Report, War of the Worlds, and Munich are all indictments of the Bush administration's handling of the War on Terror and, concering the first two, the director and star have said as much, on multiple occasions.

Thank God for internet anonymity! It allows me to say, with real-life face in tact, that it was actually Buffy that first popularized the phrase, via its Jewish wiccan character Willow.

I just saw "What is it?" at a screening here in Portland over the weekend. I certainly understand Mr. Haber's queries as to whether Mr. Glover's subject matter remains taboo in the midst of our contemporary grossout culture.

In my opinion, "What is it?" very much inhabits the realm of the taboo because of its imagery's lack of context. Whereas, with Jackass or Fear Factor, where the context is clearly presented and understood (Jackass is meant to be gross and funny...Fear Factor just gross), the images of "What is it?" essentially lack context and, therefore, have to stand on their own. When Glover puts a character in blackface, for example, or presents himself being fawned over by cherubic teenagers with down syndrome, he's forcing us to think about what these images mean to us (the audience) without suggesting what they should mean.

Hearing Johnny Rebel's song or seeing the picture of Shirley Temple dressed as a Nazi may not, on the surface, seem to be much different than watching Michael "KKKramer" Richards spewing racist invective on youtube. That is, until you realize that Glover's intent is not to express racist view points. At that point, with the images stripped of their symbolic meaning, they can become much more dangerous as the audience is forced to question what, exactly, makes them so unnerving and how these symbols have become so powerful in our culture.

I do aggree with Mr. Haber in that Glover's film is a throwback to '90s culture, although I would argue that this is because pop culture now is so much less challenging than it was during that confrontational decade.

I can also see why Glover would like to control the film's distribution...if this stuff hit youtube, Glover would be painted with the same brush that has recently made things more difficult for Gibson, et al. While no one in the audience I screened the film with seemed to be offended (something that seemed to genuinely surprise Glover), the creator's avalability to answer questions about the content was a welcome surprise.

Whether or not one comes away thinking the film a bore, I would encourage anyone to go. In this era of blatant and superficial controversy it is a true rarity to find an artist willing to probe deeply with the audience into the meaning of art and obscenity, the sacred and the profane. Presented in this way, "What is it?" is elevated from merely a film screening into a practical public service.