Here's the "clarification," in all its hoary glory:
In an email correspondence with The CJN, [Trudeau's spokesmuppet Kate] Purchase sought to clarify the Liberal leader’s remarks.
“The Iranian regime represents a threat to Israel, the Middle East, and the world, and we continue to be seriously concerned by Iran’s nuclear ambitions,” Purchase said “As Mr. Trudeau has long stated, our objective remains a comprehensive agreement that ensures Iran cannot acquire a nuclear weapon.... Iran must be held to account for both its longstanding record of human rights abuses as well as its nuclear program,” she said
The current regime in Iran does not always represent or speak for the Iranian people, Purchase added, arguing that “Our presence would help Canadians in Iran and the Iranian people. It would not benefit the regime.”
Bollocks. Our presence would help bolster the regime. How could it not?
An L.A. fashion writer tells Ceeb radio host Shad that she has mixed feelings about the effort. Sure, it could help "normalize" the way non-Muslims view Muslims (although it's not clear how that would work exactly, given that we're talking about chicks' clothing and not about, say, doing away with the holy war). The drawback here, says the writer, is that commercializing Ramadan could potentially detract from the month's holiness. Shad can see where the fashionista is coming from since, as he tells listeners, he too is no fan of "market-driven" solutions. (The Ceeb ethos in brief: Why depend on the market when you can depend on the government?)
Someday soon some judge somewhere will rule in favor of polygamy, not because the left is especially invested in this particular "expansion" of rights but because of the opportunities it provides for further vandalism of what's left of the old order. That's what matters.
The staunchly-right wing leader of the Conservative Party invited Muslims families to break their fast at his official residence, 24 Sussex Drive in the capital Ottawa.
At Sussex Drive, Harper told a crowd of 40 people that “this house belongs ultimately to all Canadians.”
“And I hope all Canadians, especially our Muslim friends and neighbors, share in these blessings tonight,” he continued.
The move, however, surprised Canadian Muslims who grew accustomed to what they deem as Harper’s anti-Muslims diatribes, including the latest conservative bill to ban niqabs during citizenship ceremonies.
“This event certainly came as a surprise to many given the government’s record of action that has alienated, marginalized, many Canadian Muslim communities,” Ihsaan Gardee, executive director of the National Council of Canadian Muslims, told local news site iPolitics.
He added: “Given that it is election season, we hope that this event is not merely a vote-soliciting tactic but a real sign of change of tone and attitude.”...
A Walmart in Louisiana refused a request to make a cake with a Confederate flag on it while agreeing to create one with an icing ISIS flag. Of course, the requisite apologies have been extended ever since:
A man in Louisiana is asking for an explanation from Walmart after his request for a Confederate flag cake at one of its bakeries was rejected, but a design with the ISIS flag was accepted.
Chuck Netzhammer said he ordered the image of the Confederate flag on a cake with the words, "Heritage Not Hate," on Thursday at a Walmart in Slidell, Louisiana. But the bakery denied his request, he said. At some point later, he ordered the image of the ISIS flag that represents the terrorist group.
"I went back yesterday and managed to get an ISIS battleflag printed. ISIS happens to be somebody who we're fighting against right now who are killing our men and boys overseas and are beheading Christians," Netzhammer said.
A spokesman for Walmart told ABC News, "An associate in a local store did not know what the design meant and made a mistake. The cake should not have been made and we apologize."
No worries. It could happen to any local store associate who isn't up on his/her jihadi symbols. Why, I bet the same associate would have had no problem with, say, a cake with the flags of Al Qaeda or Hamas on it.
To those who don't want to acknowledge the siren call of jihad and its effect on young minds, the whole "radicalization" thingamajig remains a mystery wrapped in an enigma shrouded in fog.
Lot and lots of fog.
What is it, these intrepid investigators query, that drives so many young'uns to want to kill infidels and/or get in on the ground floor of the latest caliphate?
Now, a new federally-funded study seeks to solve that riddle. Researchers poured over the "chatter" of seven - count 'em, seven - young men as they sauntered or raced down the path towards hard-core jihadism. And, this being a Canadian study, the concept of "diversity" played a prominent - nay, a pre-eminent - role:
While all seven subjects shared a common background, it appeared from their online activities that their interests, views and approaches were highly varied.
Some were more focused on religion, while others were more into politics, the study says. Some immediately adopted a jihadist mindset and others took much longer to come to these views.
"Given this diversity, it becomes obvious that any counter-radicalization needs to be tailored to the specifics of the case. Flexibility is the name of the game."...
Such "diversity." Why, it almost makes one's head spin!
I am reminded of the line uttered by an RCMP official upon the arrest of the jihadis who were called "The Toronto 18." It would be impossible to say what brought these lads together, observed the federal cop, since they came from such a "broad strata" of society. The Toronto Star, too, had a hard time figuring it out, given that there didn't appear to be an obvious "common denominator" (even though many of the young men attended the same mosque). (At the time, conservative writer Michelle Malkin had the best wrap up of the "broad strata" idiocy. These not-in-the-least diverse young men are like "a veritable Benetton ad," she quipped.)
That was ten years ago. Ten years and untold numbers of men, women and children dead at the hands of savage jihadis. Ten years, and our official understanding of the "root cause" of jihad has gone from "broad strata" to "diversity" - in other words, it has run the gamut from to A to, well, A. No wonder all those young lads are attracted to jihad (which, FYI, is an imperative embedded in Islam's core religious texts.) It is strong. It is resolute. It offers a great pay off, albeit one that can only be collected after death. We infidels, on the other hand, are squishy and weak. We offer tepid bromides about "diversity."
We can't even bring ourselves to identify the jihad as a holy war because that would be "mean" and "racist," and might hurt the feelings of Muslims who would be propelled into the arms of ISIS and other radical groups by our hurtfulness. (Isn't that Obama's rationale for wanting to close Gitmo - because its existence prompts the disgruntled to become radicalized?)
As Canada Day 2015 looms, it is obvious that we're as clueless as we were back in the "broad strata" days. As a result, the jihadis continue to run riot while screaming "Allahu Akbar!" as we, foolish infidels that we are, have trouble understanding what the lads could possibly mean by those words (could "Akbar" be Allah's last name?) and conduct yet another worthless "study" in a vain attempt to get to the bottom of it all.
The artist responsible for this creation could make it knowing full well that no one would get so upset by it that he would take it into his head to try to kill him and/or blow up the museum in which this piece is exhibited.
Try creating a portrait of Islam's founder out of rubbers and see where it gets you, pal.
I need nukes, nukes To kill the Jooos. I need to buy, buy some time to build mine, Khamenei says, You can't hurry talks, No, you just have to chill. He says talks don't come easy; They never have and never will. You can't hurry talks, No, you just have to chill. We're gonna jaw-jaw forever, So better take a chillin' pill.
But how many A-bombs Can I hide before I launch a few To help me show my pride? Right now the only thing That keeps 'em on the ground Is more uranium, Yeah, soon it will be found. No forgettin' Khamenei says You can't hurry talks, No, you just have to chill. He says talks don't come easy; They never have and never will...
Meaning that the teachings and deeds of Islam's founder, which Muslims are commanded to emulate, will continue to exist and inspire some to wage jihad even in the absence of these specific "extremist" texts.
Pope Francis, who recently "dropped" his quasi-Marxist eco-encyclical on the world, has a new recruit in his Manichean battle against Satanic carbon. It is Naomi Klein, who, when it comes to climate change and Capitalism, is truly in synch with the Pontiff.
Well, after all, the Church of Global Climate Change is the most popular religion around. And a la those old time "indulgences," one can now buy one's way out of purgatory via the purchase of "carbon credits."
The heavy rain turned yesterday's sparsely-attended Dyke Parade into a sodden mess. But that didn't stop the "proud" Zion-loathers from showing up with their zany signs about "apartheid" in Israel (despite the fact that such antics were supposed to be absent from this year's festivities).
Blogwrath was there to capture it all (h/t: MW), including the above-mentioned message which, I must admit, added some mirth to my morning. (Why stand only with Palestinian queers? Why not also stand with queers in, say, Saudi Arabia and Iran, who are just as imperiled--to be clear, by the draconian punishments of sharia law, not by "apartheid"-mongering Jews? Consider this, anti-"apartheid" dykes: your "standing" with only certain queers and not with others, and standing against Israel, where queers are not only not executed to forced to undergo unwanted sex change surgeries but are actually embraced, speaks volumes about your animus--and your cluelessness.)
Re: How Israel Fights, Irit Kohn, June 24.The honest version of how Israel fights is this: every few years, whenever an Israeli politician needs to win votes by demonstrating a capacity for ruthless cruelty, the Israeli Defense Force bombs people with no air defences, massacring at least a thousand. Ian Coleman, Edmonton.
Ian Coleman’s understanding of “how Israel fights” may be the most cynical analysis of the Israel-Palestinian situation I have ever read. One hesitates to assure him Israel fights back reluctantly, not ruthlessly, and doesn’t do [it] so those in power can endear themselves to Israel’s bloodthirsty populace.
One hesitates to tell him Israel has every right to defend itself against Hamas, a jihadi terrorist organization bent on its annihilation, when it fires missiles at Israel’s civilian populace, and which had constructed a network of underground tunnels through which it was planning to unleash a terrorist military initiative that would have killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Israeli civilians; these tunnels were only revealed once Israel went into Gaza. As well, Hamas, with the complicity of the UN Relief & Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, used Gazans as human shields by placing military hardware in schools, hospitals and private homes — a war crime in anyone’s books.
Unfortunately, my final paragraph, in which I wrapped things up in a neat bow, was omitted. Here's what I wrote:
One hesitates to say such things, knowing that Mr. Coleman and those like him have closed their minds to Israel's singular plight, and in the sad realization that, for certain people, Israel will always--always--be in the wrong.
In his new and controversial book, a devastating take-down of the Obama administration's betrayal of the Jewish State, Israel's former ambassador to the U.S. laments the way much of American Jewry has shunted Israel to the periphery of its identity, first via the Holocaust and then with "Tikkun Olam":
Yet the American Jewish community was evolving and in ways that often distanced it from Israel. In the seventies, American Jews answered Elie Wiesel's challenge to confront the Holocaust. Countless millions of dollars were donated to fund research on the Final Solution and to construct the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, astride the National Mall. Israel--its victories, its spirit--emboldened American Jews to embark on this introspective process, but for some of them, the Holocaust began replacing Israel as the centerpiece of Jewish identity.
A generation passed and new genocidal narratives--Cambodian, Serbian, Rwandan--emerged. No longer comfortable with defining themselves solely in tragic terms, younger Americans searched for a fresh source of self-affirmation. This was Tikkun Olam. Meaning, literally, "Repair the World," the concept derived from the medieval Kabbalistic idea of reconnecting with the divine light of Creation. But, in its twenty-first century American Jewish interpretation, Tikkun Olam became a call to rescue humanity. For liberal American Jews, especially, Tikkun Olam served as Judaism's most compelling commandment, almost a religion in itself. Addressing synagogues, non-Jewish politicians dependably mentioned the term and mangled it into Tekan Oleem and Tik Konolum. And like the Holocaust before it, Tikkun Olam tended to sideline Israel as the focal point of American Jewish purpose. How can we donate to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, liberal Jews increasingly asked, when children went hungry in Honduras?
Speaking personally, I know that hunger in Honduras has always been top of mind with me.
Well, maybe not with me, but in Canada the Tikkun Olam/hunger in Honduras trope certainly resonates with, say, this organization.
The fact is that, for certain Jews, saving the world in general makes one feel a whole lot better than embracing Israel in particular (because Israel has tanks, an army and an air force, and, generally speaking, people on the left don't much care for the military and its deployment, powerlessness and victimhood being emblematic of virtuousness for this crowd).
A report issued Thursday by the Department of State repeatedly refers to sex reassignment surgery in Iran as “gender-confirmation surgery.”
Speaking at the release of the State Department’s annual human rights report, Secretary of State John Kerry said of the designation that “There is nothing sanctimonious in this,” emphasizing the need for “humility” in the face of the U.S.’ own racial inequality...
John Kerry calling for "humility" is like Hugh Hefner calling for monogamy.
As for Foggy Bottom referring to it as "gender-confirmation surgery"--not even Caitlyn Jenner, a heroine to the "progressive" crowd, is willing to confirm her gender by going the whole nine yards, penisectomy-wise--and no one is going to force her to. But notice how willing John Kerry is to carry the ball for the crazed Khomeinists and their Mengele-like surgeries in order to help smooth the way for his boss's heinous nuke treaty. (Sadly for him, Kerry underwent his surgeries--the removal of his spine and testicles--some time ago.)
Fat chance, Barry. In the virtuousness utopia, everyone knows how it really works--the left pays lip service to freedom of religion and free speech, all the while demanding that others drop their criticism or face the wrath of society's virtue enforcers, the petty Robespierres of P.C.
...there has also been a sort of spiralling escalation of hostilities underway, fought mainly on the point of whether the legacy of the residential schools can be shoehorned into the category of “cultural genocide” (I think it can, and I’ve said so). Harsh words have been exchanged. It’s been a bit bruising. This is no longer the kind of discussion you will sensibly enter with your guard down.
Despite the squabbling that the "cultural genocide" claim has engendered, Glavin concludes that the report which has that toxic and highly loaded nugget as its core is worthy of our attention:
The “cultural genocide” claim is the central thesis of the commission’s “Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future” report. Its entire 388-page heft is devoted to proving that thesis and recommending a way forward from it. This is a good reason to read the report with a very critical eye.
But it should be read. Chelsea Vowel, Erica Violet Lee are quite right about that. And they have done a lot of people a great service by having people read it aloud, in sections, and uploading the whole project to Youtube. And no matter which side you end up on in the whole cultural genocide debate, or who you think should be held historically responsible, we all have some very serious work to do in healing these wounds, right now, and building a better country, for all of us.
Can this report, premised as it is on the "cultural genocide" claim, help us heal? I don't think it can. Here's the letter I wrote dispelling that fantasy:
While Terry Glavin admits to having some hesitations about calling what occurred at Canada's Residential Schools a "cultural genocide"--he says he requires a "shoehorn" to cram it into that designation--he encourages us to read and absorb the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report predicated on that exact charge.
The problem here is that such an incendiary charge, which, in essence, lumps us in with the Nazis and other historical genocidaires, is bound to be spurned by many Canadians; in particular, by those who do not situate themselves on the left end of the political spectrum and who don't embrace its victimhood ethos. So while the Report is intended to spark a conversation that will ultimately lead to a great national healing, it is the charge of "cultural genocide" itself that stands in the way of that happening. In fact, by pre-judging all non-indigenous Canadians, most of whom have their provenance in countries other than Canada, as bearing the blame for this so-called genocide, the document's premise and take-away (which may be summarized as "you're guilty; pay up") could well end up torpedoing the very conversation it had intended to launch.
Mark Steyn says it's high time for the stupid party to stand up for itself and throw off the "racism" noose with which angry leftists want it to hang itself. As Steyn observed re the Democrats on last night's Hannity show,
It's a party with an incredible century and a half history of institutional racism. There's nothing like it anywhere on the planet.
I mean that. The Anglo-Celts who settled America and elsewhere are not great slavers. No slavery in Canada, or Australia, or New Hampshire. In the anglosphere, slaveholding was an enthusiasm of the southern states of the US, and the biggest institutional supporter of slavery - in the entire English-speaking world - was the Democratic Party.
And, after slavery was abolished by Republicans, the Democrats created a century-long apparatus of enforced segregation and anti-miscegenation laws, again unique in the English-speaking world.
The only comparable movement was Afrikaaner nationaliism in South Africa...
Imad Hamato, whose broadcasts on religion are aired on official Palestinian Authority television, first explained that Israel’s “global media has expanded, and it has launched its war against the Arabs and the Muslims by spreading a sex-craze throughout the world.”
“We see ads for penis enlargement, and this and that, which are shameful and offensive to one’s modesty,” he went on. This is because Jews according to the Koran are a temporal people, lacking in spirituality or interest in the spiritual world, he claimed.
He said such materialism led Jews to adhere to life at all costs, even a “life of garbage or a life of cowardice.” “What has Israel offered the world except moral corruption and addiction to pills?” Hamato opines.
What has Israel offered the world? Here's a list to get you started, Prof. Mad Ham.
One might enquire what your people have given the world, aside from terrorism, Zionhass, the victimhood ethos and the semtex vest, that is?
You can always count on the New Israel Fund to embrace anything that puts Israel, which it purports to support, in the ghastliest light possible. In that respect at least, the NIF will never fail you:
Despite his light, jokey manner, Arab-Israeli writer Sayed Kashua conveyed deep cynicism at an event hosted by the New Israel Fund of Canada (NIFC) on June 14, about the policies of the Israeli government and the challenges of living as an Arab in Israel.
The talk, called “Laughing while Crying: A Conversation with Authors Sayed Kashua and Nancy Richler,” was held at the Al Green Theatre at the Miles Nadal Jewish Community Centre and drew about 300 people.
It featured Montreal Jewish novelist Richler interviewing Kashua, the author of three novels, a Haaretz columnist and the creator of popular Israeli television sitcom Arab Labour.
Richler asked Kashua about his background, his work and the ways his books and television show explore the difficulties seemingly inherent to the Arab-Israeli experience – of straddling two worlds and consistently being seen as an other within Israeli society.
Though Arab Labour is very much a comedy, of the show’s protagonist, Kashua said:
“He’s constantly trying to fit into Jewish society and he’s constantly rejected – every single episode.”
I'm sure it's difficult for him, a Muslim, to feel like he fits in. Heck, it's difficult for plenty of Jews to feel that way. Just try to imagine, though, how much more difficult it is for Jews to try to fit into Muslims societies. Now, that's no laughing matter (more a matter of hold-your-blasphemous-tongue-or we-keel-you-impudent-infidel).
“Fighting for/ag[ainst] #ISIS isn’t [the] only combat drawing youth to MidEast. Many more foreign recruits to #Israel, inc[luding] Cdn [Canadians]”
No surprise that the Ceeb ombudsman decided that a tweet equating young Jews, many of them fleeing Jew-hate in places like France and making Aliyah to Israel, with jihadis who engage in the most barbaric practices (beheadings, cage drownings, setting people on fire) "did not violate CBC/Radio-Canada’s Journalistic Standards and Practices."
Of course it didn't, since the Ceeb itself is a hotbed of Zionhass.
Ho hum, says the latest spokesmuppet, as if the fact that, in his words, "we've heard those chants before" somehow minimizes them/renders them meaningless. (Today's essay question: John Kirby is this administration's most blitheringly idiotic Foggy Bottom spokesmuppet. Discuss.)
Freedom Flotilla III has set sail for Gaza and on board is respected Queen's professor and Indigenous activist Robert "Bob" Lovelace.
The Flotilla is sailing to Gaza to deliver humanitarian aid and to collect artisanal goods made by Palestinians for sale.
"Every little bit of material aid helps," said Richard Day, spokesperson for Lovelace while he is travelling. "There's that first, very material, goal of bringing medical supplies, of bringing blankets and basic stuff that's next to impossible to get in there."
Lovelace, who is a member of the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, sees a parallel between the settler-colonial occupation of land in Canada and in Gaza. He has referred to Gaza as "the world's largest Indian reservation."
"Canada is a settler-colonial state on occupied Indigenous land and Israel is a settler-colonial state on occupied Indigenous land," said Day. "For Bob, that's a really big part of why he's going."...
Can't wait to try some of those "artisanal goods" they're bringing back. I hear the flavoured rubble is deelish.
Re the crimes it accuses Israel of: what would the UN have Israel do? Allow its people to be shelled indiscriminately by Hamas? Suck it up and accept massive casualties in Israel when Hamas's holy warriors pour through those no-longer-secret underground tunnels? Not hit back at Hamas in Gaza because Hamas purposefully uses civilians as human shields in order to ensure the maximum number of casualties so Israel will he accused of "war crimes" by the gullible and the Zion-loathing?
"Unprecedented." As in, never in the course of human history has one people suffered so much at the hands of another people.
Such a finding elevates Palestinians yet again to the pinnacle of the victimhood totem pole, and implicitly damns their "victimizers," those blustering, blood-thirsty Jews, for being the worst of the worst (worse than the Nazis, even).
Not surprisingly, that's exactly what the Koran, which is "extensively structured as a polemic against the Jews" (in the words of David Nirenberg), does--calumnize the Jews, those Mo balkers, and accuse them of being Satanic.
The report's hyperbole is yet another example of how, when it comes to Israel and its right to self-defense, the UN is in the grip of its largest voting bloc (57--count 'em, 57--countries), and is therefore incapable of the clear-sightedness that's required for rendering an honest evaluating.
It's, like, so unfair. From now on, for the sake redress, let's say that whatever "colour" they happen to be--and some of them are as pale as that mentally ill Charleston shooter--jihadis, who are called "militants" and/or "rebels" by much of the same "racist" media, are sick in the head.
Jerusalem Post opiner Isi Leibler blames the failure of America's Official Jews to condemn Obama's disgusting treatment of Israel on Americans' "galut (exile/disapora) mentality"; it's the same mentality that, in another era, resulted in American O.J.s not wanting to make waves (characterized as "sha shtil," literally, stay still/quiet in Yiddish) with FDR re the horror then engulfing the Jews of Europe. Today's "sha shtil" can be seen in American O.J.'s reaction--or, more accurately, non-reaction--to the spectacle of their beloved POTUS continually shafting Israel and embracing its enemies, an M.O. Michael Oren describes in his new book:
The failure of the Jewish leadership to cautiously condemn the flow of distorted and biased anti-Israeli statements by the president was heightened last week with the interviews and articles relating to former Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren’s forthcoming book Ally: My Journey Across the American Israeli Divide. They provide a chilling insight into the bullying and aggressive role Obama adopted against Israel and his championing of the Palestinian cause. Even the most hardened Obama supporters who retain any pro-Israel sentiments will be stunned to read of his calculated abandonment of the Jewish state on the political level “which would have put him at odds with any Israeli leader.”
Oren wrote that from his first inauguration, “Obama put daylight between Israel and America,” publicly disagreeing with and condemning the Jewish state. Oren added that “by endorsing the Palestinian position on the 1967 lines, the White House overnight altered more than 40 years of American policy.” Repeatedly, the administration accused Israel of lack of progress on the peace process “while making no substantive demands of the Palestinians.”
Oren, certainly not a political right-winger, even makes analogies (especially in relation to the Iranian nuclear threat) between American Jewish leaders today and their counterparts in 1944, headed by Rabbi Stephen Wise. He states: “Remember that American Jewry once had a chance to save 6 million Jews. And there are 6 million today [in Israel]. So think very hard and understand that this is about our survival as a people. It’s about our children and grandchildren.”
Jewish leaders defend their position by arguing that silent diplomacy is more effective than pouring oil on the fire by publicly condemning the president. They also claim that the policy of bipartisanship will backfire if they criticize Obama. They conveniently ignore that if such a policy becomes an end goal in itself, the Jewish community, in order not to ruffle feathers, will become politically impotent and will simply cease to speak out on central issues.
The Obama administration is considering appointing a “czar”-like official to oversee the enforcement of a nuclear deal with Iran, one of several options it is weighing to ensure the still-unfinished accord doesn’t unravel, according to sources familiar with the discussions.
It’s an idea that some argue is smart — even crucial — because of the multiple agencies, countries and international bodies that will be involved in the deal. People familiar with an earlier nuclear agreement with North Korea say having had such a position then would have helped, at least for a while, keep that doomed deal on track.
“It’s a sensible idea,” said Robert Einhorn, who served as assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation during the Clinton administration. “Call it a czar, call it a special representative, whatever it is. Call it coordinator for implementation or something like that.”
Call it blatantly idiotic and incredibly deranged, more like.
To his credit, Seinfeld isn’t backing down. In fact—and, perhaps this, too, speaks to his sense of invulnerability—he seems more eager than ever to engage the issue, as was clear on the Seth Meyers program. The host is straightforwardly liberal; the other guest that evening, New Yorker editor David Remnick, is that and more—a man ever vigilant, lest an errant thought slip into his magazine.
“There’s a creeping p.c. thing out there that really bothers me,” Seinfeld opined of the troubling audience’s reaction at his recent performance, and Meyers and Remnick readily professed to agree.
“But you can also screw up,” said Remnick, noting that thanks to the web, he instantly hears about it whenever he does.
When that happens, asked Meyers, “Do you look back on the work and say ‘Wait, did we make a mistake?’”
“Of course,” said Remnick. “If you have half a brain you give it a second look.”
“When was that?” challenged Seinfeld, from down the couch. “Tell us about that?”
Remnick replied that one of the magazine’s recent covers had so offended “a guy on CNN” that the guy told him, on the air, that it “could have been a cover on a Nazi magazine.”
Seinfeld wasn’t buying. “Explain and defend, not apologize. Did you apologize? . . . Have you ever done that?”
No, Remnick said, but added that some cover sketches do go over the line, and sometimes there’s “a misfire—I got a misfire today.”
“What does that mean, you got a misfire?” Seinfeld asked.
“It was a sketch about a possible cover about the Vanity Fair cover recently,” Remnick said, referring to Vanity Fair’s Caitlyn Jenner cover. “But it didn’t work.”
“I would like to know what it was,” pressed Seinfeld.
“You’re not gonna get it.”
The audience laughed and applauded, as if it was all in good fun, but Seinfeld was clearly in earnest. A moment later, he turned to the other media heavy, Meyers. “I saw on Instagram where you said, ‘I’m not going to make any jokes about Caitlyn Jenner.’”
Meyers looked momentarily abashed, before replying, lamely, “I said ‘that day.’ I sort’ve thought that was a wonderful moment, so it wasn’t a good time to make jokes.”
“Oh, good,” allowed Seinfeld drily. “I feel better about it.”