what paulpsd7 said

And more:

As Jews is it not one of our religious duties to defend the falsely accused? Well, I'm sick and tired of seeing people falsely accused of antisemitism. Save it for the real antisemites.

I'm in the market for an anti-AIPAC PAC. I am tired enough that I'd be willing to donate to one.

Couldn't have been one of the most comfortable for you. You were tag-teamed, no doubt about it.

But a word of advice. You shouldn't have let them portray you as a defender of hiphop misogyny. Yeah, the "rap is just as bad if not worse thing" is a dodge of the right-wing and has been for years. It's not surprising that Scarborough would go there.

Ah, but the other half of the tag team? What were John Ridley's motives? I don't know this guy, never saw him before this week. But here is what I think.

First, let me digress a moment to Jesse Jackson. As soon as I saw his newspaper column on Tuesday, I knew where he was going. He was going to use the Imus thing as an opportunity to get some African-Americans on MSNBC. And I don't see anything wrong with that. He saw an opportunity to advance his cause and he's taking it. As a liberal and an MSNBC listener, I was ashamed to realize that until Jesse said it, it hadn't occurred to me that there were no blacks of any significance as hosts or even regular guests on MSNBC.

So, back to Ridley. As I said, I know nothing of the man. He may be an opportunist just trying to grub corporate bucks and say whatever is necessary to do so. But maybe he's a sincere opponent of misogynistic rap and sees here an opportunity, in the wake of Imus, to pursue a long-held goal that there wasn't the opportunity for before - to campaign publicly against it - as Jackson did. It seems to me we'll soon find out. Ridley seems to be under consideration as at least a regular guest on MSNBC, if not a host. What are they going to do with Imus' timeslot?

If it's the latter, and there is going to be in the wake of Imus, such a campaign from within the African-American community, then, Joan, you, as an opponent of the filth too, should be supporting it, and not just treating it as JUST a dodge to defend Imus. It's possible that it's both things, from different people.

Slippery ground indeed.

Joan, isn't it possible that John Ridley's motives are different from Joe Scarborough's?

While conservatives and Imus apologists will obviously want to make the "rap made me do it" excuse, I'm not sure it is fair to dump Ridley into that same bag.

You have said that YOU oppose rap's misogynistic excesses, as have Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. I'm sure you will admit that all of this opposition has been ineffectual in terms of results. If Ridley and others like him wish to take advantage of this moment to actually mount some possibly more effective opposition to the crap, why should you criticize him for trying?

By all means point out the lameness of the "rap made me do it" excuse. It's pathetic. Listening to rap hasn't made you talk about "nappy headed ho's" and it hasn't made most of us do it.

But if the Ridleys of this world want to make alliances with anyone who will oppose rap's misogyny, that's their right, and any attempt to invoke the right wing's long and shameful history of opposition to the civil rights movement is going to fall flatter than a pancake. Above all, you should not give the impression, which, although it was not your intention, you did, that you are defending misogynistic rap. You lend credence to charges of liberal paternalism when you seem to deny African Americans the right to make alliances based on their own agenda.

Thanks for responding to me, Joan.

I agree with you about the sexist angle too, and you sort of have to wonder why Mr. Ridley appeared every night on Scarborough Country last week. Perhaps a Black woman commentator would have been a good idea.

None of that invalidates my point that Ridley was within his rights to accept the invitation of Scarborough to turn his attention to the misogyny of rap, and that your anger at this was at least partially misplaced.

I have long believed there was a conspiracy to assassinate John F. Kennedy, but I've never been totally sold on the many conspiracy theories out there.

I'm still not sure I buy all the Camelot crap that had JFK a great liberal hero, and I'm not sure I believe he'd have got us out of Vietnam sooner, but that's not the issue either.

What sold me on the idea of a conspiracy is the same as was what you report as a key element in RFK's thinking - why did this mobster Jack Ruby kill Oswald and did someone let him in to do it, and if so, why?

All the rest has always left me cold, all this analysis of the "magic bullet" and the "grassy knoll" -- all this theorizing just to prove there had to be a second GUNMAN -- as if there couldn't be a conspiracy with only one gunman and many backers. It was almost as if someone was floating crazy conspiracy theories to hide the simple one that has been staring us in the face all along.

I'll certainly read the book.