sniff this, you smelly racist!

woo!

i'm feeling a bit better. i don't want to jinx it, but i think i may be on that lovely road to wellness. the one paved with naps, and wet with the rain from tea-with-honey-and-lemon clouds.

therefore, on this tuesday, december 19th, i bring you the latest installment of tiny damaged notions!

so, remember the OJ book fiasco? remember how, as record-reed put it:

The great thing about the OJ book is it's something we can all get behind. Aside from maybe Club a Baby Seal day, I can't think of an idea that would be more universally reviled.

yeah, those were great times.

but then, as would be expected from any nation which does not promote murder, the book deal got canceled.

there were reports that judith regan, the publisher at harpercollins who thought up "if i did it," had only made the deal with OJ to get the confession out of him. this turned her from sleazeball to underhanded weirdo with an ok idea, but accomplished horribly wrong.

so we didn't hate her for a while. we just thought the whole thing was--how do you put this with an eloquence on par with that of "if i did it"--shady.

well, put back on those idiot-pointing-out gloves and get ready to extend a finger towards ms. regan! (finger can be chosen by the pointer):
anti-semitic remarks eh?

nothing like racism to add to your already brilliant track-record of attempting to publish a murderer's book on how he murdered his victims.

what were the racial remarks, you ask?

well, there were a couple. some are being contested by regan's "hollywood attorney." however, this one was rather ripe with ignorance:

Regan also complained, according to the account, that Friedman had not given her enough support during the recent controversy over the aborted O.J. Simpson book and TV deal she had promoted, saying: "Of all people, the Jews should know about ganging up, finding common enemies and telling the big lie."
(latimes.com, "http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-fi-regan19dec19,1,646399.story?coll=la-headlines-entnews&track=crosspromo")

now, this of course can be read two ways.

one way indicates that "the jews" should know about "ganging up, finding common enemies and telling the big lie" because they were the victims of just such an atrocity--of course, referring to the holocaust.

the other way in which ms. regan's quote can be read is by assuming jewish individuals should know about "ganging up, finding common enemies and telling the big lie" because they themselves had done just that--perhaps referring to that most ignorant of ideas that the holocaust was a "big lie."

i'm not sure why (perhaps because my mind was told her comments were anti-semitic), but i immediately read it the second way. perhaps i should give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she meant the first (although i don't know why i would do that--maybe the hope that she's just an ignorant moron, but not one of the world's top ignorant morons). either way though, there is a clear amount of generalization and bias in her statement.

her book deal didn't go through, and she made a generalization that it should have since the executive, friedman, is jewish, and given that, he should have been thinking a certain way which is typical or expected of jewish people.

her train of thought lead her to blurt out that statement--notifying anyone she was speaking to (and now anyone reading the news), that she feels the actions and thoughts of any jewish individual should be easy to determine given that they all think alike.

of course, using religion or ethnicity to determine the course of actions people either do or should take is very much not ignorant.

nothing's wrong with assuming that you should think a certain way, or that you are above or below another person due to the color of your skin, the country your ancestors hail from, or the religion and/or religious culture which you tie yourself to.

if we as human beings are expected to treat every person as a unique individual whose background and/or upbringing may have influenced their personality, but is not the end-all reason for every action they take or thought they have, how are we supposed to irrationally scapegoat a group of people in order to make ourselves feel better?

what's next, peace on earth?

come on now.

in news not related to someone's moronic racist outburst, forbes.com recently made note of this:

Lost in the dark, without sight, sound, or clue? Follow your nose.
(forbes.com, "http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2006/12/18/hscout600212.html")

the author of this articlewasn't referring to those delicious fruit loops, but rather to a new study which indicates "people can certainly sniff their way accurately around a spatial context."

apparently, everyone assumes that humans have a poor sense of smell--and this study aimed to disprove that myth.

how did they disprove it?

The subjects were first blindfolded and ear-plugged before being asked to follow a 10-meter trail scented with "chocolate essential oil." They followed the trial by moving close to the ground on their hands and knees and wearing thick gloves, with only their noses to guide them.
(forbes.com, "http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2006/12/18/hscout600212.html")

did anyone else picture this taking place in a dark, narrow basement?

i know i did. but maybe that's just because all of my "scientific experiments" that involve people being blindfolded and ear-plugged while moving "close to the ground on their hands and knees" take place in dark basements.

and are video taped.

and aren't so much "scientific experiments" as they are "bondage videos."

but, maybe that's just me.

for now, i'm off! all you reeds have a smelly tuesday. sniff all you can--prove those naysayers wrong!