MoDo is Right
She may not have even been serious here but she's dead right, even if she thinks she's being ironic.

Mason's Folly
Jackie Mason made a bad decision here but not nearly as bad a decision as Ali Alarabi, president of the United Arab American League, as quoted in the story.

"It is an act of hate and racism against Palestinians, and we demand an apology."

There are few things in sociocolitical discourse that I hate more than apology demands, forced remorse, basically anything that uses honor or "face" for a dog-and-pony show. (If you screw up, do feel obligated to apologize genuinely and set things straight, but the impetus has to come from within.) That said... this guy has nerve! (Would he be offended if I said "chutzpah"?)

Three thousand Americans are dead because of what one of this guy's kinsmen did. Has he ever apologized for that? (I honesty don't know.) He of all people is one of the last people who should ever demand an apology from somebody else. How these Arab victim league people even dare show their faces is astouding: They should be groveling.

Dan and Ann, sitting in a tree...

(Really I have no axe to grind here -- I far prefer him to her -- but it just deeply amuses me.)

By the way, are you still boycotting certain designer labels?
In addition to O&A (who don't offend me), Lileks mentions A&F (who, on multiple occasions, have offended me).

There, what offends me even more than the offensive items in the first place, is the fact that this particular marketing strategy succeeds so wildly. Credit them for knowing how to market, knowing what works, but a pox on all the people whose reactions allow it to work so well.

Best political flamewar ever...
On a baseball website, of all places. The usual crap most of the way through but gets much much better at the end.

(For the humor-impaired: Lots of Baseball Primer posters will use the "From" line itself to make a joke/point. You'll see what I mean.)

Ralph Wiley on O&A
Well, this column isn't actually about shock jocks or Catholic church scandals but there's a parallel.

On the straight-up baseball angle, Wiley's right on many levels here. This most certainly does include (I'm deeply ashamed to admit) a lot of racism in baseball even to this day.
More to the point, he's exactly right about how "to answer something that happens on the field that you don't like" -- Make a play.

That is, let your actions speak for themselves. The analogue outside baseball would be to carry yourself with dignity, treat people with respect, and so on. Or, going back to the post immediately below this one, don't let other people's attacks on you become the story. Do your own thing and let those good works be the story.

I don't want to hear about how violated the people at the Cathedral feel. I want to hear about the good things they've been doing. (Also, as into Good Works as devoted Catholics are, I honestly think that some of that work is the only useful way to bounce back, PR-wise, from the abuse scandal. Granted, the obvious problem here is that the best of these works are usually done anonymously; still, no matter how quietly you go about it, the more good things you do, the more likely someone will notice.)

Lileks on O&A
(Abbreviating their names isn't a Statement so much as my being too lazy to type.)

He's deeply offended. Can't blame him. I bet I know plenty of people who are offended but who'd prefer not to talk about it. I happen not to be offended but the more I think about it the more empathy I feel. That is to say, my initial reaction to this whole story showed way too little consideration for the people who were at that mass.

In any case, I stand by what I said (come to think of it this was on the main blog) about how giving them more attention only helps their careers. Anyone who's railed against them specifically needs to realize this. I suppose Lileks is actually railing against their apologists, which is a whole 'nother issue.

I've noticed something, and I'm not sure yet where I come down on it other than seeing it. (Perception here rather than judgment.) When it comes to offending people, there are artists who actually have talent at it. These are the ones who will have staying power -- Emimem is one. O & A are two more. By contrast, have you heard anything from 2 Live Crew lately? They were in the right place at the right time for people to be offended by them, and yet they didn't have any actual talent, either as artists in their own right or as performance artists seeking to give offense.

Eminem is famous because, among other things, he knows exactly which buttons to push. Both times that O&A have gotten in deep trouble, they too managed to find just the right buttons to push. They're offensive, yes, but my point is that they're uniquely offensive. Pure Evil, as it were, with no margarine-like evil by-product.

(By the way, just to be clear: They weren't the ones actually having the sex. It's one thing for a DJ to make a suggestive comment, quite another for somebody to actually do something that stupid. Pass out responsibility where it's due. Had to say this, wasn't sure where to fit it in.)

Cutting to the chase: I assume the ideal outcome (for the people who are offended) is for things like this not to happen again. Part of achieving this outcome probably involves finding some way to avoid awarding provocateurs like O&A. But the more publicity you give them, the more you reward them. Sure, they were fired. They've been fired before and will be fired again. The April Fool's prank was their ticket out of Worcester and into NYC (and eventually nationwide). Perhaps this thing will be their ticket out of radio and into TV, who knows.

So instead, if you don't want them to succeed, ignore them. Don't dignify them by noticing them. Instead, keep your own dignity.

(I'd say throw the book at the couple themselves, but that'd just make them a cause celebre. Poseurs would compare them to Mumia and all that.)