Jay Leno whitewashes Halle Berry
“Here’s where I look like my Jewish cousin!”
In case you hadn’t already seen it, here’s Halle Berry’s dumb little joke mocking Jewish noses on the Jay Leno show last night…except you wouldn’t know she had made the “Jewish” jibe if not for the New York Post:
Halle Berry was apologizing last night after she’d made an apparent anti-Semitic joke while taping “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” Friday afternoon.
The Oscar-winning star, on the show to promote her movie “Things We Lost in the Fire,” was showing Leno and his audience images of herself on her computer using the Mac program Photo Booth, which distorts images like a carnival fun-house mirror.
According to one audience member, “She introduced the first photo by saying, ‘Here’s where I look like my Jewish cousin!’ – it was a picture of her with a huge, distorted nose. No one laughed, and Jay nervously said, ‘I’m glad you said that and not me.’ When the show aired, they cut out her ‘Jewish’ comment and added a laugh track to the bit.”
How fortunate to be a beautiful Hollywood starlet with sycophants like Jay Leno willing to help cover up your politically incorrect gaffes.
Debbie Schlussel lambastes the liberal double standard (see, for example, HuffPo):
Where are all the Ann Coulter critics who are so concerned with Anti-Semitism? I guess a bigoted, liberal (half)Black actress gets a pass where a conservative, blonde, white commentator does not. What was that which George Orwell said about all the animals in the barnyard being equal, but some being more equal than others?
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Hollyweird
Mudville Gazette
» The five-year plan
Pundit & Pundette
» Hiding the decline: Deniers made them do itPower Line
» More From the East Anglia ArchivesFounding Bloggers
» Did The New York Times Just Tell Glenn Reynolds To “STFU”?Doug Ross @ Journal
» 'Hope is fading fast' --- the T-ShirtDoug Ross @ Journal
» BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Boston Globe Climate Beclownment SpectacularRadio Equalizer
» Media Matters Admits Rush Didn't Make Key Racist Remarks
Whenever someone embararasses himself by desperately attempting to create an air of self-validing “truthiness” by rolling out the royal we, I’m sorely tempted to ask if he has intestinal parasites.
Ah, yes, thanks Vicki – “controversial” does have a good & fine different meaning just as it is, reading it sans any emotional context.
It’s somewhat related to Coulter’s remarks – it’s what people, from their experience, read into it. Apologetics is not Ann’s forte, I’m hoping she sticks more to her political commentary. (That’s controversial enough, lol.)
purplepeep, maybe I missed it in your pithy little comment, but was there anything in huggybear’s post that isn’t true?
BTW, the MSM is full of “Is Halle Berry Anti-Semitic” headlines now, so there you go.
#98
And you are consistently extremely rude to me. We disagree, a given. I, however, at least carry myself with the same dignity and discuss the issues in the same manner that I would were we face to face. You, most definitely not. You cower behind the anonimity of this board and spout rude and condescending comments, knowing you’re safe from any social reprisal. A proud example of the not so slow descent of public discourse.
The internet genius coward- a modern phenomenon. And such a sad one.
I recently revisited Redford’s “Quiz Show” and marveled at what a scandal it was in the 1950’s for an entertainment show to be something it really wasn’t.
Beyond cutting out the embarrassing (and possibly career-ending) Jewish comment, is anyone disturbed at the fact that a laugh track was added to an originally stunned audience silence..therefore misrepresenting the audience’s original reaction? Is this not misrepresenting the show to the home audience? How many other parts of the Leno show have dubbed audience reaction, and how often do they practice this little charade?
Don’t forget, the Weinstein’s (major supporters of Hillary Clinton) dubbed out the raucous “boo-bird” reception she got from the FDNY at the “Concert for NY” after 9/11, and replaced it with raucous cheers for the home DVD version…totally masking the contempt that the Firemen of NYC showed her.
dakine said:
You’re reaching on this one Michelle. Non story.
Then why are there over 103 posts? The common thread, whether they seem equal or not is that there exists a clear double standard when it comes to race and political leaning.
I can’t believe this issue had such long of legs.
#85 You are mistaken. Rosie caught flack on this issue, and even liberals felt bad for the ambush on Tom Selleck. It was an ambush, and Rosie had to give meal mouthed apologies afterward.
Dakine- Michael Richards, Isaiah Washington, Imus. You’re right.
You are welcome to feel offering up a dicto simpliciter logical fallacy (e.g. everybody knows) “makes something so”, but those who are not emtionally driven just aren’t moved much by Royal We’s.
For example, you can claim “we all know the sun sets in the east” but it’s another thing to demonstrate it as a fact. But as I said, you’re more than welcome to feel it does and offer your feelings as fact. Just don’t expect anyone else to validate your emotional conclusion without any objective proof of it.
Another hint – when someone makes a claim, it’s up to that person to prove it. The total dependence on the ‘psychic’ Criswell’s line from his epilogue in “Plan 9 From Outer Space” doesn’t tend to impress rational people -
Criswell: “Can you prove it DIDN’T happen?”
I agree totally.
What would Sarah Silverman do?
Oh, to be sure, sausage – in the grand scheme of things her joke isn’t a big deal. And she seemed to know the joke could be in bad taste right off the bat.
As Michelle and other folks are pointing out, it’s more the hypocrisy involved that’s being highlighted here as telling.
Hey, easy with the Sarah Silverman rhetoric. You know, like from her movie that only HBO plays…
Sarah Silverman: Mommy is one of the chosen people, and Daddy believes that Jesus is magic. Jesus is magic, because he turned water into wine. I think he made the statue of liberty disappear in the 80s or something.
Hey, come to think of it, Sarah Silverman makes Ann Coulter sound like
Elie Wiesel. How come Donny Deutsch never gets outraged at Sarah?
purplepeep, I’ll say again, what about Don Imus, Michael Richards and Isaiah Washington? How do they all fit in with this whole “double standard/hypocrisy” theory? BTW, c’mon, you know what’s up with Coulter…she’s not a serious person. An embarrassment to the conservative movement IMO.
BrianNY, hopefully you’re just being sarcastic and realize that Sarah Silverman is a comic who pushes the envelope about as far as it can be pushed. Ann Coulter purports to be a serious political commentator.
Have no idea what you’re going on about there. Has someone offered those celebs as examples of anything? (If so, ask that commenter about it.) Maybe you might want to respond to folks who did offer actual examples, such as
#87
Ranten.N.Raven said:
“They cover-up her goof, magnify those of conservatives, and in Limbaugh’s case, just make sh*t up! That is the story.”
Unless you’re more comfortable with this thing where you tackle only your own “examples”. I suppose it is much easier when a person supplies both the questions and the answers. ( and building strawmen can be fun!)
You obviously missed where I mentioned the whole “Royal We” bad logic argument family not working too well. “Everybody knows, you know, all my friends say” – it’s bad argument logic ad infinitum.
Your IMO/feelings are worth the same as the offered variations of the “Royal We” argument. Take the IMOs & the We’s along with about four or five bucks and you can buy a nice cuppa coffee at Starbucks.
But I’m moved by your deep concern. If it weren’t for all the leftwingers buying her books, Coulter wouldn’t be a consistent best-selling author. Not to mention what would happen if liberals stopped packing all the speeches and other appearances for which she’s in such high demand!!!
Ann Coulter inviting someone to Church is freedom of speech. I guess Berry does get a free pass. Alan Colmes, where o where are you?
I’ve always viewed Coulter as both. Like walking and chewing gum at the same time – in the same spirit as noted political satirists like Jonathon Swift. Satire can be obnoxious and pointed, but it extends beyond the average poo-poo joke because it is based in reality.
Coulter offends because she often gets her points across with, what I call, “goose and gander” satire. That is, she simply mimics the absurdity of her opponents’ rules of engagement to strengthen her argument. For example, her infamous quote:
I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word “f#gg#t”, so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.
You can either take offense at the word “f#gg#t,” like most of the P.C. Police on the set of ‘Grey’s Anatomy’ did, or you can take offense at the fact that Coulter nailed two birds with one stone (making fun of the P.C. vs. free speech mess on a liberal Hollywood set, while poking fun at John Edwards’ “gurly-man” persona without actually calling him a “gurly-man,” but coyly implying that she “could have” if she wanted to.)
Either way, she didn’t have to make any of it up to make her points.
On the other hand, I doubt Sarah Silverman really knows the intricacies of constitutional law, or how many votes it takes to reach cloture.
Anyway, my original question still stands, why doesn’t Donny Deutsch get exercised about the things Miss Silverman says about things Jewish AND things Christian?
Not my fight, but I think I have some answers…
True, all three are examples of liberals who were summarily ushered out of the public arena by Messrs. Sharpton and the Velvet Mafia, under the strictest adherences to political correctness. But only because:
1. Don Imus isn’t Jewish and he isn’t Black.
2. Michael Richards is Jewish but he isn’t Black.
3. Isaiah Washington is Black, but he isn’t Jewish and he isn’t gay…and in Hollywood, gay trumps Black.
It would be much easier to hate them and to try to shut them up if they were all just conservatives, no?
Not my rules, but that’s what it seems to be…sort of the “rock, paper, scissors” of political correctness.
BrianNY said:
Near as I can tell dakine is fighting himself on his battling celebs, lol. Nobody else offered up them up. As I sez, manufacturing strawmen can be a fun pasttime.
I’m just wondering which side of his internal civil war is gonna win.
One of the things I love about liberals – they are so good at pulling things out of context, and/or speaking without much knowledge of the subject. They come down on Ann Coulter in the “fag” controversy is as follows – “if you say “a certain word”, you have to go to rehab”. Of course libs miss the complete second half of the sentence. What she said concerning Jews is exactly Christian doctrine. Those who are coming down on her for this “offensive” remark, are demonstrating themselves to be ignorant of both Jewish and Christian doctrine.
In one way I liken it to the LA governors race and the made up “controversy” there concerrning Protestants/Catholics. If Jindal had said – well I’m a Catholic but I think Protestants have it correct…that would be illogical. What he said was I’m a Catholic and I think we have it right. I’m a Protestant and even I got that. Of course, when you are a liberal, there are no absolutes (’cept your own view) and truth is whatever you want it to be at any point in time (whether or not it’s consistent with your truth of five minutes ago). To quote “…every man did that which was right in his own eyes…”
Conservative Russ:
” if you say a certain word you have to go to rehab”
Yeah, that was the 2nd sentence, but the whole point of the schtik was to call Edwards a homophobic slur
As even MM pointed out, this was ignorant and inappropriate for the COPAC conference.
Coulter likes to where the I’m a devout christian hat.
WWJD? I bet he wouldn’t make jokes about the only problem with Timothy Mcveigh is that he should have bombed the NY Times. I also bet he would call John Edwards a fagg*!
The number of comments on an individual topic have little to do with its newsworthiness around here. Seriously, compare topics over the last few weeks. You’ll find relatively inconsequential items with tons of comments, right next to very important topics with very few comments.
Saying Jews have big noses is anti-Semitic? Now if she had said that she is into money like her Jewish cousin–that could be anti-Semitic. Remarks are anti-Semitic when they imply negative character traits–not a big nose.
Michelle, this non-story is beneath you.
#119 Buck…sure glad you know how to read minds. Sadly an ability I don’t have. I choose to accept Ann’s words about what she meant.
I might be wrong – but I don’t think MM ever used the word ignorant – but again, maybe you know how to read her mind too.
As far as WWJD…last time I checked, he called a bunch of hypocrites “whitewashed tombs” and said stuff like “you are of your father the devil”. Sounds kinda harsh to me. He also said “blessed are the peacemakers”. So please don’t go taking one side of the Gospel without others. The Gospel addresses man’s absolute sinfulness, God’s absolute Holiness, God’s grace, and more. Can’t “cherry pick”
Who even watches Leno anymore? Late night TV is a wasteland.
I can’t stay up that late anymore (1130 pm) to watch Leno. I will say this, if Patricia Heaton, a conservative had said this this would be front page news and the JDL would be all over this.
I’m half Jewish and I can tell you most of my female cousins have had their noses fixed because they all say “I don’t like this big nose!”. So, Dakine, this is a story.
The complete word is FAGGOT…not “fagg*”…Besides, WWJD…it is more like WJRS..What Jesus Really Said…Jesus stated that Homosexuals/gays/faggots (take your pick) would not inherit the Kindomg of God. He said it, but you won’t that because you are “cherry picking” for your own dihonest circular reasoning.
By the way, anyone rememebers the so called “Rev” Jackson’s term “Hymietown”?
“Hymietown”? Any liberal Jews out there demanding Jackson’s resignation?
“Hymietown” Any liberals listening?
Is Obama half black or is it half white?
Is he black enough to represent blacks is America? Is he white enough to represent white Amwerica, lke his MOTHER tht gave him birth?
“Hymietown”…where are you liberal Jews?
Hipocritas!!!!
Rio
Semper Fi!
Watershed
Now you are calling me a coward? Yet you claim to conduct yourself here with dignity and respect?
Tell you what, I guarantee you that is something you would not say to me if we were “face to face”.
You are indeed a snivelling little weasel who can dish it out but can’t take it. It is called “projection” – and by calling me out in that manner, you have revealed yourself as a tuck-tailed lowly coward who finds it amusing to spew half-witted bile here while maintaining refuge in some little dark corner of Colorado. And that is something I WOULD say to your face.
I have an idea.
Why don’t BOTH of you stop the name calling and be a bit less hateful.
To those who think this is a non-story and not newsworthy: I’d agree if it were not for the leftist cockroaches who world come screaming out of the woodwork had it been said by a known Republican. I’m sick of the selective outrage on the part of the PC crowd while those they admire get a free pass.
Buck I said:
It was not the “whole point.” Much like the “whole point” of Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” was not to actually boil impoverished, Irish babies for food. There is always a larger point to well constructed satire.
To repeat, Coulter satirically nailed two birds with one stone. 1) making fun of the confusing rules of political correctness vs. free speech mess on a liberal Hollywood set. 2) poking fun at John Edwards’ “gurly-man” persona without actually calling him a “gurly-man,” but coyly implying that she “could have” if she wanted to, had it not been for the new “Isaiah” rules.
By the way, Coulter stated that she treats the word “f#gg#t” as a playground slur indicating a “priss” or a “limp wrist.” That may describe some homosexuals, but certainly not all. It also describes some heterosexuals, but not all. Coulter laughed off the “homophobic” charge by stating that it is silly to imply that Edwards is not a heterosexual.
Russ-
If you think it takes supernatural abilities to see that Ann wanted to call John Edwards a slur, you underestimate the power of common sense.
Pixel-
Sorry to read about you serious issues with homosexuals.(classy people don’t say faggot) It kinda reminds me of Senator Craig, and the movie American Beauty. Oh well, it’s not my problem.
#127 Jim M.:
“It is called ‘projection’…”
Exactly!
(Sorry if I repeat too much.) Tends to go arm-in-arm with other assorted
“debate” tactics used by those of a particular political persuasion/holding a particular worldview, such as: topic-changing; ad hominem attacks; confusion; diversion; and focusing on irrelevant, obscure items.
As I’ve heard the lawyers’ rercommendation to be:
If you can’t argue the case;
argue the law;
if you can’t argue the law;
attck your opponent personally.
Ever notice that a debate with a leftist sort of resembles a witch trial; where the leftist is the boss Knight Templar, and the traditionalist/conservative is Rebecca (from “Ivanhoe”)?
No matter how one might respond to the leftist, words will be twisted, and rules of the game will be changed – midstream, as it were.
It’s sort of like expecting to have a fair shot at a coin-toss, where the other guy, tossing the coin, says,”OK. Call it. Heads I win – tails, you lose!”
#131 Buck – yes it does take super(un)natural abilities to see what Ann did not say. What she meant, she explained, others have explained – but since that does not fit with what you want it to mean, you continue to choose to believe what you want. That’s one of the beauties of America – you can be wrong if you want to.
I guess we’ll ignore the Timothy Mcveigh stuff since it’s impossble to spin. Typical.
Okay where’s my blond wig, good, here we go:
“Well, um in conclusion, I’d like to say more about some of the other democratic candidates, but in the last couple of years I’ve learned that saying certain things would require me to subsequently apologize perfusely and enter rehab.”
Gee, funny how that can be pulled off like that or similarly w/o calling John Edwards a faggot. How on earth could I figure out how to do that. Maybe because I’m not some hackey, shamesless bigot, trying to sell more books.
Now I know if Ann Coulter ever started a cult, she’d have unchallenging followers read for the final sip.
Buck – i never said it was the most tactful thing to say, or couldn’t have been said differently. You seem to suffer the same issue as several other posters on this site – you seem to be reading comprehension challenged. But since you know better – even know what I’m thinking and what all of the rest of us are thinking, I’ll (not) apologize for what I (didn’t) say/mean.
and you choose to believe whatever spin Coulter gives. I don’t. Gee, there’s the difference. “Coulda been said better, or with more tact.” It’s comin out of your ears.
Since, I don’t give free passes or play games, I can say that if Michael Moore stepped into the Coulter role, and said all of the same things about Mitt Romney, my opinion on the issue would be the same. Funny how I can have independent thought, w/o having to resort to partisan role playing.
I don’t know whose in your pocket, with all “know what the rest of us are thinking” nonsense is. I just read what you type, and what you choose to believe, and what issues you refuse to address. It’s typical of(to borrow your words)several posters on this site.
It seems to me BrianNY explained it quite well. The concept doesn’t seem all that difficult to understand.
However, since you’ve made up your mind about what Ann didn’t say and no amount of logic or reasoning will change it, there really isn’t any point in discussing it further.
It’s amazing that you KNOW that I believe “whatever spin Coulter gives” and/or “partisan role play”. Your knowledge is limited.
If your opinions would be the same if the political parties and actors were reversed, you have a differing opinion, but some degree of character.
If not, you’re a joke.
Thank you. Guess I’m not a joke.
But that’s the thing with Coulter. She never “spins” her outrageous comments. Rather, she stubbornly defends them until the other side (Couric, Colmes, Lauer, Maher, Deutsch, etc.) just huffs in exasperation.
I’ve been searching, unsuccessfully, to find the context for which Coulter gave the NY Times/McVeigh comment. I imagine it had something to do with a liberal comment of equal proportion around that time (like Bill Maher wishing Cheney had originally died in a terrorist attack…or Tony Hendra’s Thanksgiving prayer for a Cheney heart attack to occur, etc.
BrianNY
“my only regret” I know, I know, it’s a joke.
Her private definition of faggot is weak, in light of her own reference to Isaiah Washington, which was about a gay slur, and subsequent rehab. Much condemnation came from right wingers after the incident. One can start calling Obama a nigger, and say, oh I didn’t mean it that way, I meant it a different way, blah, blah, blah.
I don’t believe her spin on the faggot comment, you do(and don’t think it’s spin), oh well who cares.
http://www.rightwingnews/interviews/anncoulter.php.
Buck,
As Andy Dufresne once said: “How can you be so obtuse? Is it deliberate?”
Millions of kids on playgrounds over a period of decades does not a private definition make. If Coulter (for some non-ironic reason) had called Edwards a p#ssy instead, would you believe she was playing up to his “prissy-boy” image, or literally calling him a certain part of the female anatomy?
Indeed. Isaiah was apparently being hurtful, and not ironic.
Indeed, mostly for the fact that such a statement was more suitable for the set of the Bill Maher Show, and not a conservative convention.
Maybe, but for the record, a quick google search shows Coulter never said such a thing. However, same search does show a liberal named “David Ehrenstein” did. Any condemnation there?