First off, I’m a Conservative — value-wise, opinions, beliefs, personal habits and behaviors — with a liberal sense of humor (“liberal” as in, generously applied) (that means, I still laugh at kindergarten-age jokes even when I realize intellectually they may be utterly foolish – and it also means, I enjoy laughing at silly jokes and other media but I don’t enjoy laughing at the silly or foolish themselves).
About that last part, I refer here to me self-identifying as a Conservative because I don’t regard the humiliation of people to be entertainment or consider it amusing when or if silly or foolish persons are or may be humiliated. However, I encounter that efforting-to-humiliate behavior by Liberals very often, if not nearly consistently: they (Liberals as in the socio-political sense of “progressives” and socialists) ridicule us, they ridicule what is Conservative and is enjoyed or associated with Conservatives. And they always ridicule Christians, but that’s another story in and of itself and not what I want to write about today.
But about the silly/foolish, except when they’re cruel — returning to the point here, which is Roger Friedman — then ridicule is sometimes appropriate from wherever on the socio-political scale you may be. And not about anyone’s religion, but about someone’s foolish stupidity such that it is based upon the humiliation of others.
And, more about the cruelly foolish, my response to them or that is usually intellectual displeasure but I never consider cruelty in and of itself to be entertaining and I accredit that to my own values: to withhold cruelty in-kind is noble but to withhold denigration of cruelty is to be reckless.
About cruelty as a singular issue, ridicule of cruelty or a cruel person is not out-of-line with what I consider to be reasonable punishment. Then you disassociate from cruelty and the cruel after they’ve been clearly identified as such.
Mere silliness or foolishness is yet another thing: it is someone doing what is in their nature to do when they aren’t operating with the same information some of the rest of us are. Like being naive and unaffected and sometimes foolish, like the basic chicken-crossing-the-road joke. Or maybe thinking it’s funny to be slimed with green goo — which would be cruel if someone was slimed with green goo when they were all dressed up for a Prom or their wedding (or any wedding) or otherwise taken unawares and caused pain and suffering by someone’s thoughtlessness, even when it was “merely” silly.
The foolish tag, I realize, goes ’round-and-’round, depending on one’s information. I may be regarded as foolish from a man’s perspective because I devote a lot of time in considering which piece of cloth to purchase (or anything else, most of us women tend to “harvest” by careful and time-consuming perusal as a manifestation of our very being — we devote time to look at everything and then to decide and we rely on these time-intensive decisions inorder to put ourselves and our environs together), and, I may be regarded as silly-foolish to value the unborn and reject the act of murder upon an unborn child by someone irreverant enough to not value the life of the unborn.
Like I said, it’s a case of information and what one is functioning with as to beliefs or lack of them. What’s silly-foolish isn’t always what is not intelligent or wise, what’s silly-foolish is often just what is seen done by others that they themselves will not do (wisdom, reservations brought about by values and beliefs, or learned experience having instructed otherwise).
And, it’s only funny or entertaining when the silly-foolish act is familiar, as in, what someone’s learned not to do or rejected as ever doing and thus, when seen in others, it can be amusing because of that. As long as there is absence of cruetly — even so much as a hint of the cruel — the arrogant, the unkind are not necessarily cruel, but are certainly foolish.
But ridicule as general behavior is just bad. When it bears no corrective message, it is the perspective of the crude and creepy, the untrustworthy who think a value other than theirs is not respectable. When something or someone is stoopid, by comparison, they’re just bumbling. When one is not respectable, they’re often cruel and they are not often — if ever — funny.
So, again, identify the cruel and their acts and then disassociate from them: my rule of behavior.
Here’s the latest fool engaged in foolery who is cruel and unusually not funny. As in, not to be respected. Someone I’d not throw a cabbage at if ever he were on stage because I wouldn’t waste the produce — it deserves a prized bit of corned beef on a Sunday table instead and should not be wasted on the likes of this guy, who lends weight to the very notion of “fool” and advances the offense of “cruel” to a place somewhere beneath muck:
Why FOX News employs this fool (appropriate term for Friedman) is beyond me — as in, what in the world is or has ever been the appeal of this cruel and cruelly stoopid, reckless and very often inane person to those who pay the expenses at FOX?
It can’t be ratings because after looking over the internet, I can’t find one person or site who respects Friedman, and, in fact, many appear to loathe and reject him outright — the appropriate response to cruelty, as I have explained here, to me and apparently to many others.
And many of those rejecting Friedman (appropriately) are not Conservatives but Liberals — who dislike FOX News accordingly (which I do not) and it can easily be assumed they’d be rejecting of Friedman because of his FOX News affiliation and not because of his cruelty (and many other negatives, withheld for now as to discussion because the key issue’s been identified, his cruelty) — but it appears after reading through a lot of sites that Friedman is often rejected by people throughout the spectrum of the political because Friedman is not respectable (in the cruelty-sense of the word) but because he’s generally and obviously a cad, an insensitive and reckless creep.
His latest column has Friedman squirting out green goo whether a reader would like to be goo’ed or not: his recurring, ongoing hear-me-roar-as-a-Jewish-man-who-sees-anti-semetics-everywhere-especially-if-they’re-a -Christian-in-entertainment.
Roger Friedman has many problems but his weird and fearfully weird projections onto the unfortunate or perhaps even the unbusy or preoccupied or retiring as being “rejected by Hollywood” or some blood-vengeance by his tribe upon anyone who may dare to act outside their tribal boundaries is cruel. It is also craziness. It is also an indication of bad taste, lack of maturity, imbalanced psyche, spiritual corruptness, immaturity, meanness, spitefulness, irrationality, selfishness, envy or worse, lust, call it all of that, but call it what it is and that is Roger Friedman’s irresponsible use of space among humanity.
This is what he wails as scribble from out from the depths of his misery, blood-lust and jealousy:
Mel Gibson is not losing his religion. He keeps investing his “Passion of the Christ” money into the church he built in Agoura Hills, Calif.
Last year, Gibson parked another $8.2 million in his AP Reilly Foundation, the tax-free entity that takes care of his Holy Family Catholic Church.
Gibson’s church is not recognized by the Roman Catholic Church because it does not acknowledge the authority of the pope or the Vatican or the doctrine known as Vatican II. Gibson and many of his fellow congregants are Holocaust deniers, as is Gibson’s father, who has been known to contribute to neo-Nazi publications.
Gibson, nevertheless, perseveres. According to a federal tax filing obtained exclusively by this column, the foundation now has $30 million in its coffers, up from $22 million last year.
The church sits on about 11 acres of land owned by the Foundation and worth around $3 million, according to public documents.
Let’s put this into perspective. Los Angeles Catholic Big Brothers and Big Sisters only has $1.6 million in its till. The Malibu Roman Catholic Church, which is recognized by the archdiocese, supports 600 families. It has a fraction of Holy Family’s budget. But Holy Family is said to accommodate about 70 families altogether. That’s quite a difference.
Thanks to “The Passion of the Christ” and his anti-Semitic rant last year when he was arrested in Malibu, Gibson is no longer a significant Hollywood player. But he obviously has money, and he is using it as he sees fit.
What makes his activities interesting for Hollywood is whether he will continue to play a part as client of Ed Limato, the ICM agent who recently lost his job.
Why does FOX even employ this creep? Why give him room to publish his garbage? And that rotten yuck above from Friedman is not the least of his depravity: he’s previously (on multiple occasions, in multiple columns) cast about his scalping rubrics wherein he rails about the “anti-semetic” and “neo-Nazi” just as he does again in this current throw-up.
To Friedman, one is “neo-Nazi” and “holocaust denier” when one isn’t Jewish — because I think that’s the extent of Friedman’s insights into others who aren’t practicing his “I’m Jewish, I don’t believe in anything other than my own ego and the denigration of others not like me” crud: to call others — who aren’t as “self involved” as is Friedman, for people such as himself to then paper-hang others with these hideous pejoratives even if they are irrevlevant and meaningless as to any specifics involved — is both cruel and stoopid. It’s not even approaching being entertainment; unless, of course, the target audience is also equally stoopidly cruel or Friedman assumes them to be (his “vision” limitations).
And since I consider myself a member of the FOX News audience — I tune in reguarly to various programs, I read their site for general and current news — the fact that Friedman’s stoopid cruelty is a part of that network upsets and offends me rigourously.
Does Friedman even have manners? Did he grow up in a pool of black ooze among subterranean biting monsters such that he has no ability to read a person’s character beyond what he insists upon them? What, exactly, did Roger Friedman grow up without that he is now able to wage his worst-best upon others without reprimand or even penalty?
What does Roger Friedman think about Jesus Christ? About Christians and Christianity? These are rhetorical questions I pose here because, obviously, these are problematic issues for him and because of that, he’s exuding psychological (and emotional) illness — and warped mentality if not spirituality — as to the beliefs of others, especially as to Christians. But why should any network give him (and his illness) so much as one dime or space to spill this rubbish all over the rest of us? It’s one thing to hold beliefs of one’s own, it’s another thing to apply dreadful overtones and outright lies upon others because you may despise what you wrongly assume they believe, as Friedman does about so many in his columns but he certainly has targered actor and producer (and Christian) Mel Gibson for his worst wrath, if not insanity.
Oh, but he’s Jewish! Did you know that? That Roger Friedman is Jewish?! He hasn’t reminded us of that for, probably, seven paragraphs in any of his columns.
I note how his slime continues:
Uncle Junior Sings
And everyone listens. Last night at Elaine’s, Dominic Chianese, aka Uncle Junior from “The Sopranos,” serenaded the restaurant not once but twice a cappella with an Italian song and an Irish one. (What, someone asked, no Yiddish?)
Dominic Chianese AND the character he played on THE SOPRANOS, as also that Series itself, are not about Jews, being Jewish nor about Yiddish otherwise. So what’s the blurb there supposed to mean except — oh, I get it, Friedman is Jewish. Friedman hasn’t heard himself being mentioned or referred to by strangers singing in a restaurant so Friedman found it necesssary to get that blurb in there about…himself (“someone asked,” he writes). What’s his point if it isn’t as I’ve described here? Or anyone’s? Context is irreverant, apparently.
I congratulate Rupert Murdoch on achieving his goal of purchasing control of the Wall Street Journal (pending but nearly completed by this date), but Murdoch might now turn his eye, ear, intellect and soul to the likes of this maligner using his FOX News site to plaster his screed and toss Roger Friedman on the dungheap he so merits.
Politics aside — but it’s a very safe guess at this stage of events to conclude that Friedman is a Liberal and a Democrat — his behavior (in print and otherwise, from what I’ve read) is deplorable and deplorably craven, as if he’s maintained in a dark mental and spiritual place by keepers of the doom and sent forth to do certain targeted bidding, like cutting-up a master work or spray painting the windows of the Louvre or hacking away with a sledge hammer upon THE PIETA.
Friedman is one person who has sunk to or never risen from some pit and pitiful place that is so substandard as to be not worthy of being taken seriously. He’s worthy of being ridiculed. Because he’s stupidly cruel — and he’s cruel. Stupid is too high a praise for him.
The actual “anti-semite” in Roger Friedman’s world is Roger Friedman. Because he gives his ethnicity — I don’t see any religious references anywhere so I gather Friedman’s references are as to his ethnicity — he gives his ethnicity a bad name, singing “Yiddish” or otherwise.